Quantcast
How Trustworthy Are Reviews?

Forums - Gaming Discussion - How Trustworthy Are Reviews?

ECC said:
Onyxmeth said:
ECC said:
oh and when it comes to the HD twins every game is over hyped. im a huge call of duty player and mw2 is the worst call of duty game ever made (not counting side crap). it has more flaws than positives. a real reviewer who actually played the franchise from the start would have gave it a score in the high 7's low 8's. i dont know how gamers will say that treyarch next is worst than mw2 with a straight face. they will own iw in every way. w@w is a better game for the simple fact it tried something new unlike this game. also 90% of the maps are horrible.

every day i npend with this game i almost cant believe IW made it.....really the guys who made 2 and 4????nah!!!

World at War tried something new? Wasn't that the game that reverted back to the same war as the first three after Infinity Ward had completely upended the series by bringing it into modern day warfare? Seems to me you have it backwards.

thats a real black and white way of looking at things. 

If you're calling me out for having a black and white stance, then why aren't you taking the grayed stance in between? Just taking the other side of the argument means you're behaving as black and white as I am. Do you understand the term you're using?

how about the fact that in w@w you can actually have a real part with no need to scream back out!!!

I've read this sentence back and forth and I just can't make any sense of it.

spec ops is a horrible excuse for co op when in w@w you can play the full story mode with 3 random people! not to mention its a better story mode than mw2.

This in no way proves that MW2 didn't try something new, which I thought was your argument. Spec Ops is brand new, and so is the story. Your personal opinion on either does not dictate whether they are a fresh experience or not. 

how about the fact that treyarch actually made maps that live up to the call of duty standard unlike the mazes that are the maps in mw2? i like maybe 4 maps out of the 16. oh and w@w werent nothing to right home about but damn atleast they were fun and you werent getting shot from random windows and ledges.

Yet again, this has nothing to do with MW2 not trying something new. In fact you just made a point of how different these new maps are than previous Call of Duties which would mean Infinity Ward tried something new. See how that works?

I don't really think you know what it is you're arguing about. I get that you're upset at this game, but if you want to make a point of stating that IW didn't try something new, at least back up your argument with something. Anything really.



Tag: Became a freaking mod and a complete douche, coincidentally, at the same time.



Around the Network

Reviews should be treated objectively. I like to use a more statistical method, 1st make sure you wait at least 30 days before reading reviews (people are not objective early on), then take 2 pro reviews and 8 mid score player reviews and make up you mind based on those.



^Problem is, reviews are subjective, and usually written by people who aren't objective at all, and even have animosity towards certain types of games, this is especially true with Wii game reviews



 

Predictions:Sales of Wii Fit will surpass the combined sales of the Grand Theft Auto franchiseLifetime sales of Wii will surpass the combined sales of the entire Playstation family of consoles by 12/31/2015 Wii hardware sales will surpass the total hardware sales of the PS2 by 12/31/2010 Wii will have 50% marketshare or more by the end of 2008 (I was wrong!!  It was a little over 48% only)Wii will surpass 45 Million in lifetime sales by the end of 2008 (I was wrong!!  Nintendo Financials showed it fell slightly short of 45 million shipped by end of 2008)Wii will surpass 80 Million in lifetime sales by the end of 2009 (I was wrong!! Wii didn't even get to 70 Million)

Onyxmeth said:
ECC said:
Onyxmeth said:
ECC said:
oh and when it comes to the HD twins every game is over hyped. im a huge call of duty player and mw2 is the worst call of duty game ever made (not counting side crap). it has more flaws than positives. a real reviewer who actually played the franchise from the start would have gave it a score in the high 7's low 8's. i dont know how gamers will say that treyarch next is worst than mw2 with a straight face. they will own iw in every way. w@w is a better game for the simple fact it tried something new unlike this game. also 90% of the maps are horrible.

every day i npend with this game i almost cant believe IW made it.....really the guys who made 2 and 4????nah!!!

World at War tried something new? Wasn't that the game that reverted back to the same war as the first three after Infinity Ward had completely upended the series by bringing it into modern day warfare? Seems to me you have it backwards.

thats a real black and white way of looking at things. 

If you're calling me out for having a black and white stance, then why aren't you taking the grayed stance in between? Just taking the other side of the argument means you're behaving as black and white as I am. Do you understand the term you're using?

how about the fact that in w@w you can actually have a real part with no need to scream back out!!!

I've read this sentence back and forth and I just can't make any sense of it.

spec ops is a horrible excuse for co op when in w@w you can play the full story mode with 3 random people! not to mention its a better story mode than mw2.

This in no way proves that MW2 didn't try something new, which I thought was your argument. Spec Ops is brand new, and so is the story. Your personal opinion on either does not dictate whether they are a fresh experience or not. 

how about the fact that treyarch actually made maps that live up to the call of duty standard unlike the mazes that are the maps in mw2? i like maybe 4 maps out of the 16. oh and w@w werent nothing to right home about but damn atleast they were fun and you werent getting shot from random windows and ledges.

Yet again, this has nothing to do with MW2 not trying something new. In fact you just made a point of how different these new maps are than previous Call of Duties which would mean Infinity Ward tried something new. See how that works?

I don't really think you know what it is you're arguing about. I get that you're upset at this game, but if you want to make a point of stating that IW didn't try something new, at least back up your argument with something. Anything really.

zombie mode..... if thats not enough i dont know what is. 

i dont know if your trying to be blind to the actual improvements that last years game made to the call of duty experience?

its fine if you just dont want to agree because you like the game and dont want to be told otherwise but come on everything above is fact and you cant go around it or try to dismiss it.

 



 

   
madskillz said:
.jayderyu said:
Reviewers get paid by advertisers. Big game companies are advertisers. Reviewers get free gamers from game companies. If advertising game companies don't like the reviews because, they put a strangle hold on the reviewer. I'm sure if you search around enough you can find enough cases of reviews being pulled because the company doesn't like the review.

Reviewers make good reviews by the companies that pay them. This is why some companies don't get as favorable reviews. They don't pay enough or/and the reviewer just doesn't spend as much time. There are of course where games are just bad and theirs little a reviewer can do about it.

Uh, no. I get paid by the Hearst Corporation not an advertiser. Where are you getting your information from? And free games? Not quite. You do realize the game is free, but the labor isn't? And if you can't write worth crap, you can ask all day and they'll never send you a game.

Reviewers have an obligation to report the truth. Sure, some reviewers overlook ethics, but a lot don't and just want to inform readers.

Reviewers make good reviews because they have literary skills. They have a very good command of their language and know how to make a story flow.


  Then explain why reviewers went to an acitivision showing of MW2 to do the review, all expenses paid.

 

Then notice that the user reviews of MW2 are far lower than the critics reviews of the game



 

Predictions:Sales of Wii Fit will surpass the combined sales of the Grand Theft Auto franchiseLifetime sales of Wii will surpass the combined sales of the entire Playstation family of consoles by 12/31/2015 Wii hardware sales will surpass the total hardware sales of the PS2 by 12/31/2010 Wii will have 50% marketshare or more by the end of 2008 (I was wrong!!  It was a little over 48% only)Wii will surpass 45 Million in lifetime sales by the end of 2008 (I was wrong!!  Nintendo Financials showed it fell slightly short of 45 million shipped by end of 2008)Wii will surpass 80 Million in lifetime sales by the end of 2009 (I was wrong!! Wii didn't even get to 70 Million)

Around the Network

If there are enough reviews then Metacritic is very reliable. You look at the worst, best and Median reviews and then also at the user reviews. You'll definitely smell it if the game is overhyped. You just have to know how to look.



Hes trying to get at you Madskillz, lol

 

 



You need to learn that reviews are taste. They really need to start adding a category of "WHO would like this game". a 9.0 for one person isn't a 9.0 for another. Likewise just because you do not like the game doesn't mean the reviewer is biased. It means his opinion differs from yours.



Reviews can be trustworthy, you just need to keep track on who writes them. When you always read reviews from the same people they can become trustworthy because you will know how their opinions compare to yours. That way you can put the review into perspective. It will not take long to find out witch reviewers are on the same line with your game taste. But also reading reviews from people you totally disagree with is helpful, you will know that if he doesn't like the game you probably will.

Being a (game)journalist myself for a couple of years, i can say that companies don't bribe reviewers to give good scores. However companies do make deals with magazines and websites for exclusivity. We had companies telling us that if you want to be the first to review their game, the score should be in line with what they have in mind. Specially for gamemagazines having a big game on the cover can lead to better sales, so in this way scores can be influenced from higher hands.
Although it can work the otherway around too, reviewers can press companies as well. One time a guy from the marketing department of a publisher told me that if i did not give their game the score in line with what they had in mind he would not send me copy for a early review. I told him that if it's going to work like that i would just buy the game myself at release and give it a low score on purpose. A few days later the game arrived with a note saying they hoped i would enjoy it.

But these situation are a rare and most companies are very friendly and easy going with sending review material, no matter what score you give it. Of course big publisher are smart, they invite you on luxury trips and send you the game with nice goodies, trying to influence you into liking their game more. But i honestly believe most reviewers are honest with their opinion, although it does seem that a few to many are going along with the hype around a game.

What also happens a lot, is that reviewers only review games in a gerne they like in the first place, and when they review a game of a gerne they don't like their objectivity goes down the drain pretty fast. At the magazines/websites i worked for i always tried to find a good mix in reviewing games that are to my liking and that are not. And if i have doubts about my judgement i let my colleagues with a different taste than my own look at it, and agree together on what score to give.

People complain a lot about that the review system is broken, that reviews are unreliable and reviewers are only going along with the hype, but readers themself are also to blame for this. First of all most readers seem to forget that a review is an opinion. Good reviewers base their opinion on facts and not on personal taste, but it's still an opinion. Second is how readers interpret scores. These days a game scoring under a 9 is "bad", which is total nonsense. But somehow i feel this does influence reviewers to give score that are a bit higher than they should be. Because how can a reviewer make clear that a game is good and above avarange, but not top of the bill? A normal score for such a game would be between 70 and 90, above 90 is really exceptional. But because of the Metacritic culture that is going on, a game that gets a 75 is looked at as it had received a 40. So it would not surprise me if reviewers up their scores a bit just to make clear to readers that a game is good and above avarage.

If readers start to accept again that scores between 70 and 80 are very respectable, then maybe the scoring system will adjust again and the truly high scores will only be given to the games who deserve it.



Collecting free bitcoin @ https://freebitco.in/?r=5970871

Avinash_Tyagi said:
madskillz said:
.jayderyu said:
Reviewers get paid by advertisers. Big game companies are advertisers. Reviewers get free gamers from game companies. If advertising game companies don't like the reviews because, they put a strangle hold on the reviewer. I'm sure if you search around enough you can find enough cases of reviews being pulled because the company doesn't like the review.

Reviewers make good reviews by the companies that pay them. This is why some companies don't get as favorable reviews. They don't pay enough or/and the reviewer just doesn't spend as much time. There are of course where games are just bad and theirs little a reviewer can do about it.

Uh, no. I get paid by the Hearst Corporation not an advertiser. Where are you getting your information from? And free games? Not quite. You do realize the game is free, but the labor isn't? And if you can't write worth crap, you can ask all day and they'll never send you a game.

Reviewers have an obligation to report the truth. Sure, some reviewers overlook ethics, but a lot don't and just want to inform readers.

Reviewers make good reviews because they have literary skills. They have a very good command of their language and know how to make a story flow.


  Then explain why reviewers went to an acitivision showing of MW2 to do the review, all expenses paid.

 

Then notice that the user reviews of MW2 are far lower than the critics reviews of the game

I got invited to the same event - it wasn't paid - and even if it was, I would refuse. That really, really blurs the ethics line.

If you are getting goods from a person/company and the like - and things with the person/said company go south, you'll have in the back of your mind that 'Hey, they hooked me up with a favor.' Accepting gifts is forbidden. A T-shirt? A pack of energy drinks? That's minute. However, an all-expense paid trip - if you are a journalist, you are on the company's dime to be fair and balanced.

As I stated, anyone with access to a blog can claim to be a journalist. However, unless you've had classes on libel, defamation, ethics and the like, you're just fooling yourself.

I have seen tons of instances where gifts/perks have more than swayed people's opinions on matters.