Malstrom: Game Industry tries to justify corruption

[vanatos]

cAPSLOCK said:

mirgro said:

cAPSLOCK said:

As if there was any question before this article that game journalism was a pathetic joke and review scores were bought and sold.

I remember back in the mid 1990s when 80% game score meant that the game was GOOD, and 90% or above meant it was a classic. Now we have like 10 all-time classic games a month according to review scores.

 

The media industry term for this is "payola" and it's seen as scandalous.

I agree with this. I remember when things got rated down heavily because they were just another "DOOM clone" or "Diablo clones" or "XXXXXX clone." Now it seems that you can release nearly the same game on the same engine with the same gameplay with a handful of new additions and still get perfect scores, when back in the day it would have been an automatic 7 and THEN they start taking off points for actual flaws.

Haha holy crap I was actually going to come back and post this exact thing! Remember when 70-79 meant it was a great game if you're a fan of that genre and 80s meant you had to innovate in that genre? 90+ was almost unheard of.  I hate to pick on MW2 because I haven't played it, but from everything I'm hearing the best score it would have gotten would have been a 79 back in those days.

I mean even looking back at PS1 scores, Silent Hill got a 86 overall score in 1999.

Here's a SH review blurb:

"No game will freak you as much as this game, and I truly believe you will enjoy it no matter what genre you're into most. If you don't have this game, buy it, and while you're there, pick up a set of briefs. You'll need em'!!"

Score: 80

Read that sentence and score again, and tell me what it would have gotten with that kind of reception today.

 

Damn thats exactly what i thought, i remember when i used to buy gaming mags and skim reviews except for the ones with 75+.

Now i can't trust any review, even games that get 10/10 usually aren't that great.