An exclusive 100% honest interview about gearming journalizm with the former Gamespot editor who honestly bring light into how review scores are decided.

I always wondered how Skyward Sword got a 93 out of 100 myself or the 10/10 scores. That game wasn't all that good and the controls were even more divisive than something like The Order. I found Skyward Sword controls to be absolutely god awful and a real deterrant from me being able to continue playing the game, as did my mother and we have both been playing Zelda since the 80's. In fact, it's one of only franchises she plays other than Silent Hill. She has actually played and completed more Zelda titles than I have.

However no matter what the case, Zelda tends to always get HIGHLY favorable reviews, as if the series can never do anything wrong.

Lol. I saw some videos from the before. But gamespot is pretty reliable for last few years.

He should have used the Sony and Ratchet & Clank example.

What I find most puzzling about all this and this completely baffles me.

I would think that going to a site to read or watch a game review, that has ads plastered all over from the companies making the games that they review and even getting exclusive coverage for the games in question would serve as a poster child for a "conflict of interests"

Yet that NEVER gets brought up. Of course the game review system is broken to hell and back in every way imaginable, I mean what do people expect based on how the current system works.

So, Nintendo games get good reviews because Nintendo advertises so much..... then what is Sony's excuse exactly? They don't advertise their games? Really? I've seen about a billion 'The Order' ads.....

Makes sense. To avoid conflict of interest, gaming websites should advertise cosmetics, movie websites should advertise pet food, and fashion websites should in turn advertise toys. 

What baffles me is that people still find all reviews as either payola or clickbait if they disagree with them. Because, there still exists a great possibility that a game that you like just plain sucks, or that a game you dislike is actually really good.

Sigh...

You are over simplifying and twisting the argument to suit what is your interpretation  of what is actually being said here rather than actually looking at what is being said. Horrible way to have a discussion. 

Let's take the order, if you have the time to waste to filter through my post gistrory; you will find that I don't believe the game is worth $60, I haven't bought the game and I have openly said that RAD messed up. because I call out what I believe is a flawed review system all round, doesn't mean its cause they reviewed a game I like poorly. That's a preconception you are bringing into an argument that has nothing to do with that. Unless you can show me one place I said something that lends to that notion. If you are speaking generally, then you shouldn't address it to me.

And as for the ads? pls, don't be myopic. You trying to tell me that the only ads a site can show should be relayed to games cause they are a game site? Here's a suggestion, and I'm not even putting too much thought into it, say you are a games site, then rather than show ads for games, show ads for custom controllers, hard drives, head sets, gaming chairs, gaming monitors, TVs, phones, tablets, movies, comics, animations.... you know? things that people that buy games could also be interested in. See, that wasn't that hard. 

But why don't they do that? cause the easiest place to get ad revenue is from the game publishers, cause those guys have the most to gain which in turn puts the sites in a position where they have the most to lose if relations between them and said companies fall through. You don't bite the hand that feeds you. I don't even believe we are having this argument, I would have thought the issues presented by such a model was painfully obvious. Ah well.... different strokes I guess. 

And that is why you shouldn't blindly walk into conversations with preconceived notions.  Do you even know what the term "conflict of interest" means? Pls, do me and yourself a favor, look it up, then if you can find out how game journalism or gaming sites as they are today doesn't fall firmly into that phrase, you can cone talk to me. I would love nothing more than to be wrong about all this. 

Shots fired.

Most likely Sony doesn't pressure sites to give good scores.