Kantor said:
Kasz216 said:
Carl2291 said:
Even so, reviews are there to speak for whatever quality the game has.
If it can get an 83 despite having some large bugs... It definately has quality. |
That would be true if videogame critics had any sort of critical standard.
They don't however... reviews don't count for anything.
Videogame reviews have no credibility unlike reviewers of movies, cars, literature etc.
Additionally, videogame reviewers get their income from one source more or less. Videogame advertising. Which makes it even less credibile.
If you look at other critics, they are usually paid via advertising from things that are NOT movie advertisements primarly.
Videogame reveiwing is a sham.
|
EA bribed reviewers to give it an 83? Wow, they must have had a BAD quarter...
|
So, you didn't actually read my post then? It's a pretty simple thing to understand. Videogame companies aren't going to invest ad revenue in websites that give their games bad reviews.
Videogame advertising is what lets videogame websites run.
Ergo, reviewers aren't going to step on toes on big advertisers. There is no need for those advertisers to actually "bribe" anyone.
If EA were to pull advertising from a website... that could decrease their revenue by 50%.
It's called "Being nice to your boss/big client."
The Videogame comapnies are both their biggest and really... ONLY clients and the target of reviews.
I mean, have you forgotten the whole Kane & Lynch fiasco already?
