By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony - Sony Representative Contacted Vice After Critical Review of The Last of Us 2

The_Liquid_Laser on 02 July 2020

I decided to also look at user score at both Metacritic and gamefaqs to see if there was any difference there.  

Animal Crossing: New Horizons
Metascore: 90 (from 110 reviews)
Userscore, Metacritic: 5.3/10 (from 5162 reviews)
Userscore, Gamefaqs: 4.41/5 (from 1816 reviews)

Userscores on Metacritic and Gamefaqs ended up wildly different.  Looks like Animal Crossing's userscore was terrible on Metacritic, but fans gave it a good score on gamefaqs.  4.41/5 being equivalent to 8.82/10.  Looks like AC got review bombed on Metacritic and the radically different userscores provide the evidence.

Now let's look at TLOU2.

The Last of Us 2
Metascore: 94 (from 112 reviews)
Userscore, Metacritc: 5.0 (from 107,520 reviews)
Userscore, Gamefaqs: 2.56/5 (from 797 reviews)

Userscores on Metacritic and Gamefaqs are not that different.  2.56/5 is eqivalent to 5.12/10.  I don't think these scores are coming from jealous haters.  I think they are coming from fans.  These aren't review bombs.  These are pissed fans.  Some people really love the game, and some people really hate it.

The game is authentically divisive.  Not everyone is going to like it.  So the real question is why does the Metacritic review score come up as 94 which indicates "universal acclaim"?  TLOU2 is most definitely not univerally acclaimed.

I am pointing this out not to pick on TLOU2, but to point out there is a larger problem with game reviews.  If reviewers can fail us on this game, then they have certainly been failing us before this too.



curl-6 bet me that PS5 + X|S sales would reach 56m before year end 2023 and he was right.
My Bet With curl-6

My Threads:
Master Thread, Game of the Year/Decade
Switch Will Be #1 All Time
Zelda Will Outsell Mario (Achieved)
How Much Will MH Rise sell?
My Bet With Metallox

Around the Network
DonFerrari on 02 July 2020
sales2099 said:
Don: just pointing out you referring to libertarianism. That’s people that don’t want government intervention. Not exactly the same as being conservative though historically the compliment each other I’ll admit that.

I know the difference man.

But haven't seem republicans demanding increasing of government size, increase in government expending to regulate gaming. That is usually a flag brought by democrats.

padib said:
DonFerrari said:

Did he gone through until the end and understood the game?

Spoiler!
Because one of the biggest complain of some fans is that after you took all the road for vengeance you rethink it and don't kill Abby/Ellie. And there are several conversations along the game about it. So his bolded is just wrong.

When OP is inflammatory don't expect people to put a lot of time to investigate what is already obvious biased attack.

Don, you need to look beyond the console wars for a second. The OP points to two important sources, with years of objective content to back them up, which point to a problem in the industry: the freedom to write reviews without being bullied or bothered by the original creator. If you think the OP is purely inflammatory, not only did you miss the point in its entirety, but you also missed on a very fundamental point of something we should all be uniting on. Never should a company meddle in the individual reviews of games unless something is factually wrong, such as a blatant error on the reviewer's part regarding an aspect of the game (perhaps a feature they missed!). This is another animal, and you quickly need to understand that. Truly, you, me and others here shouldn't be colliding on this very clear and basic principle.

As for the narrative, I understand that there are redeeming aspects, but it doesn't remove the many cases where the complaint is valid.

I respect your pov Don, I know you're trying, but really this one has to be a lot easier to agree on for all of us. Not just you, but also VAMatt, xl-klaudill, ClassicGamingWizz, Nate4Drake, KratosLives, and all those that are honestly having a hard time putting their preference aside for just a moment to see the bigger picture for the industry, for all gamers. You guys should never tolerate that a company try to influence independent reviews with any pressure whatsoever.

That's the bottom line.

You are wrong on it Padib. It is standard in most industries to reach out to reviewers to understand or recommend correction. If there is no sign of bribe or intimidation, which there isn't, then it is perfectly normal.

Do you provide any service that get review? For example if you have your house on airbnb and someone leaves an unfavorable rating you can talk to airbnb to investigate and correct because that can very well cost you money. When you visit a hotel or eat in a restaurant and leave an unfavorable review on yelp for example they will most likely reach to you to understand what happened and try to offer ammendment. When you leave a complain on reclameaqui (a site for people to complain about unplesant experiences on a purchase) the company reaches to you to verify and correct when possible and you can then reply to that and inform if you were satisfied and would do business again.

Those are all legitimate check and balance.

And you know it was inflammatory, not even going on console war on this, when you look the original title and that a mod had to correct it. Actually let me correct that. It was a console war OP, the user is pro Xbox, anti PS, say he doesn't care about metacritic or reviewers in general, but enter the threads of Sony reviews to comment on the negative reviews. So are you really going to tell me his objectives weren't based on console war? On the bright side you won't see the "anti-console war" posters come here to antagonize the OP because they are only anti-console war when MS is being targeted.

konnichiwa said:

They were not allowed to talk about some parts if they wanted to publish the review a week before the release of the game, but if they waited for the day of release they could talk about those. Most of the reviewers prefered to do a early review. Digital Foundry and some others prefered to do two reviews, one where they obbeyed the holding of some points for early review and another where they didn't hold for the full review. And few reviewers opted for the full review at release date or later.

Well yeah that's the point, the ones who are pissed are exactly calling out that reason, I am glad others waited and gave it a fair review (whatever the score they gave).

They were forbidden from spoiling the game a week prior to the release, but could do their full review if releasing it after the game, what is the problem on that? Most games don't even allow reviewers to release reviews prior to the game launch. The reviews that were release in advance weren't unfair, they just couldn't talk about some aspects.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

DonFerrari on 02 July 2020
padib said:
DonFerrari said:

You are wrong on it Padib. It is standard in most industries to reach out to reviewers to understand or recommend correction. If there is no sign of bribe or intimidation, which there isn't, then it is perfectly normal.

Do you provide any service that get review? For example if you have your house on airbnb and someone leaves an unfavorable rating you can talk to airbnb to investigate and correct because that can very well cost you money. When you visit a hotel or eat in a restaurant and leave an unfavorable review on yelp for example they will most likely reach to you to understand what happened and try to offer ammendment. When you leave a complain on reclameaqui (a site for people to complain about unplesant experiences on a purchase) the company reaches to you to verify and correct when possible and you can then reply to that and inform if you were satisfied and would do business again.

Those are all legitimate check and balance.

And you know it was inflammatory, not even going on console war on this, when you look the original title and that a mod had to correct it. Actually let me correct that. It was a console war OP, the user is pro Xbox, anti PS, say he doesn't care about metacritic or reviewers in general, but enter the threads of Sony reviews to comment on the negative reviews. So are you really going to tell me his objectives weren't based on console war? On the bright side you won't see the "anti-console war" posters come here to antagonize the OP because they are only anti-console war when MS is being targeted.

I've done my homework. In this very thread, we have two cases from two different reviewers, as well as the journalist at polygon, explaining that these practices are not normal. You have to read my prior posts, they give all the info. It is crystal clear that this kind of behavior by Sony is not normal and even weird. Also, there was pressure on DCG, because of his 7/10 review, to not obtain a copy of GoTsushima.

Airbnb, restaurants, these are all different things. We're talking about a big entertainment company questioning professional journalists and reviewers. That is unheard of. It is compounded to their tasteless behavior on twitter towards other journalists, as well as Sony's overly strict rules about how the game can be reviewed. If you don't see that something is wrong, you need to check your perspective.

About the thread title changing, I respect the mod change, still it only shows one aspect of the thread, the other aspect is that DCG did not get a copy of GoTsushima, not even a courteous response, though Sony was very generous with it according to his sources. This is pressure that should not exist.

We don't know OP's intention, and we have no reason to make a process of intent.

What we do know are the facts, and they are all in the OP to see. If you don't like that we see the facts, then you are hindering. Ultimately, we need to know what's happening so we can be a factor for improvement in the industry. The same happened with MS's anti-consumerist policies in the past, same with EA, and people should continue to promote better integrity in the industry. Why would you stand against that?

If MS does something bad, you will see me there. If Nintendo does something bad, you will see me there. The point is that right now, Sony is doing something bad, and it's not because you're a fan of Sony that you can't acknowledge that.

It is kinda a reaching. He not receiving an answer or a copy doesn't prove he was coerced. Did other reviewers also were pressured and denied a copy?

We are going from "is it possible Sony crossed the line" to "Sony done something bad and is forcing devs to give good scores", when we see that over 10% of the reviews were sub 90. Accusations need to be done with hefty evidence and burden of proof.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

DonFerrari on 02 July 2020
padib said:
DonFerrari said:

It is kinda a reaching. He not receiving an answer or a copy doesn't prove he was coerced. Did other reviewers also were pressured and denied a copy?

We are going from "is it possible Sony crossed the line" to "Sony done something bad and is forcing devs to give good scores", when we see that over 10% of the reviews were sub 90. Accusations need to be done with hefty evidence and burden of proof.

His (DCG's) testimony is that his peers are freely receiving review copies of GoTsu, but he didn't even get a response, which is not their usual reaction. Other reviewers, as far as we know, did not get denied a copy. This is our only testimony, and enough to raise eyebrows.

When you compound it with what happened with Rob Zacny from verge, the overall climate, and Sony's reaction to Jason Schreier, Sony's stricut use of DMCA to control review content, as well as their past reactions in the movie business to criticism of Ghostbuster 2016, it doesn't take a lawyer to see that there's a problem.

That is why I'm saying it is ok to be concerned but not throwing accusations, which basically what OP wants.

Never heard of this professional reviewer before.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Torillian on 02 July 2020
zero129 said:
VAMatt said:
Companies shouldn't try to convince critics to change their opinion? Why not? That's a normal practice in just about every industry. You reach out to your critics to 1) learn from them, and 2) help them see your side, in hopes of moving their opinion in a more favorable direction. If Sony were saying "hey man, we'll give you $20k to change your opinion", or "if you don't give us a better score, you won't get an advance copy of our next game" that would be wrong. But, that's not alleged here.

As far as im aware Dreamcast guy hasnt been able to get an advanced review copy of ghost of tsushima after his Last of us 2 review.

Getting review copies can be pretty sporadic. Sometimes I'd get a review copy from a publisher but the next game from them I'd get ghosted. A single reviewer not getting a review copy of a single game is pretty weak as far as evidence goes. 



...

Around the Network
haxxiy on 02 July 2020

It has been known for a while that receiving free, early review copies come with a series of implicit conditions from the publishers. Very rarely any reviewer who wants these privileges to contiue will decide to deviate from the norm of high scores to generate hype.

This is why Metacritic, for instance, has always treated video game reviews as inflated compared to just about anything else with scores below 70 being considered below average (yellow). No surprises here.



 

 

 

 

 

The Fury on 02 July 2020

I legit thought the title meant 'Vice' as in the police unit.. :P



Hmm, pie.

kirby007 on 02 July 2020
Torillian said:
zero129 said:

As far as im aware Dreamcast guy hasnt been able to get an advanced review copy of ghost of tsushima after his Last of us 2 review.

Getting review copies can be pretty sporadic. Sometimes I'd get a review copy from a publisher but the next game from them I'd get ghosted. A single reviewer not getting a review copy of a single game is pretty weak as far as evidence goes. 

I'm not sure what to tell you, if this reviewer gets every game normally and suddenly... right after this review not, thats more then strange or bad luck



 "I think people should define the word crap" - Kirby007

Join the Prediction League http://www.vgchartz.com/predictions

Instead of seeking to convince others, we can be open to changing our own minds, and seek out information that contradicts our own steadfast point of view. Maybe it’ll turn out that those who disagree with you actually have a solid grasp of the facts. There’s a slight possibility that, after all, you’re the one who’s wrong.

LudicrousSpeed on 02 July 2020

Don you are wrong, it’s not “standard” in this industry for a publisher to contact you wondering why you arrived at a particular score for a game. As the articles point out, even reviewers at big popular sites are saying it’s not common. Acclaim is the only one that ever reached out to me or the website I wrote at and we have plenty of low scores. At times there can be expressed expectation of gratitude for review copies (now codes) in the form of good scores but it very rarely escalated beyond that publisher simply blacklisting you from receiving free games in the future.

And that’s where the “bribe” element comes into play. Like I said earlier I don’t have a problem with publishers doing that. If you spent years making a game and millions upon millions in budget, why would you send an early review copy to someone you think might give it a bad score? Of course you are going to hand pick who gets those copies/codes. In this case Sony is just playing the system given to them. You didn’t score LoU2 a 9/10 or better, well, no Ghosts code for you.

Obviously it’s going to result in higher review scores as journalists won’t want to be blacklisted but that’s why this meta score shit is pointless and always has been.



Torillian on 02 July 2020
kirby007 said:
Torillian said:

Getting review copies can be pretty sporadic. Sometimes I'd get a review copy from a publisher but the next game from them I'd get ghosted. A single reviewer not getting a review copy of a single game is pretty weak as far as evidence goes. 

I'm not sure what to tell you, if this reviewer gets every game normally and suddenly... right after this review not, thats more then strange or bad luck

I watched the video in question, I don't see him saying he normally gets every game and this is the one time he's been unable to get one. 



...