I think some reviewers build up a predetermined opinion of a game before they have actually played it, what of it?
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Death Stranding review embargo will officially lift on November 1 at 12:01AM PDT
- Thread starter Extremely Solid
- Start date
- Status
honestly i mostly read unscored reviews
kotaku, eurogamer and waypoint are putting out the best reviews these days
kotaku, eurogamer and waypoint are putting out the best reviews these days
Nothing of that precisely, it's the part where you say that they won't change their review after playing the game even if the ended up liking it that is more problematic in my opinion. That's not very responsible (or logic) to do imo
Offtopic, but is your username by any chance a reference to James Booker? If not, please ignore me.
It is only logical that people can become so heavily invested in their opinion before actually experiencing something, that it therefor affects their ability to view something from an objective viewpoint.
I can also imagine reviewers who are seemingly narcissistic (not all or many by any means) and would refuse to budge on an agenda they have been pushing for months before a release.
Trying to throw consumers under the bus is not the right answer. Take off your numeric scores. If your advocating a qualitative first policy - than do it, but don't try and manufacture this burden of conscience about consumer reaction to scores.
Ok but then if they play the game and end up liking it, but insist on trashing it in their "review" because they won't change their mind publicly even though they have in reality/ are biased / pushing an agenda, then imo they don't deserve to be called reviewers and shouldn't receive review copies in the first place. Like, the bolded part of your post imo completely disqualifies someone from being called a journalist.
She's right though imo, scores are completely useless, no one uses the same metrics for scores, most don't really explain how they score, and even then , a damn score is worthless compared to an actual developed text or video explanation of the reviewers experience with the game and the technical aspects of it.
And I would agree.. I personally don't think it's a stretch to say there is a good possibility that happens.
If you have been trashing a game for months, and then seemingly realise that you were wrong, wouldn't that display somewhat of a lack of credibility in some people's eyes? That is not something that some reviewers would want to expose publicly.
I think it's unprofessional to be so vocal about a game before you have even played it. Especially something that has been presented in an ambiguous fashion before, and is created by someone who is known to be cryptic with information which will in no doubt be fleshed out once you play it.
But hey, that's just me!
I think a far greater portion of people on here build up a predetermined opinion of a game before they have actually played it.
Maybe so, but what's your point? The people here aren't paid to give a score to a game with the intention of letting the public know the quality of said product.
Yeah it's obvious, I don't know how people can try and deny it. When you see a 10/10 score in a sea of 10/10, 9/10 or even 8/10s you sort of smile/shrug and move along. When you see a 5 or 6/10 you're going to stop and react.
I also find it a touch hypocritical that someone would complain about Metacritic and how scores are received, when their publication pays to use Metacritic to give their said scores more exposure.
If you really feel that way about context, then get rid of scores like Eurogamer etc.
Than why is she assigning a score in the first place. You can't have it both ways. She's out here complaining about the culture of review scores while in the same breath going to assign one to a game next week. This ain't it chief.
Review scores in the modern era can make or break a game. Three tweets trying to cast judgment on Metacritic threads as some sort of tribal ritual is condescending and demeaning.
That's what I have been told.... If i'm wrong I will happily retract that information!
It makes sense though; these publications surely get way more traffic through Metacritic. I know there is a lot of advertisement on Metacritic that must go towards their funding, but I was told publications also pay to be able to get such exposure through the site.
But then they lose the click numbers which is all that matters to them when writing reviews.
I don't get it, the lack of credibility would be to keep the opinion you had before experiencing the game after you played it and ended up enjoying it. I don't see how keeping your initial uneducated opinion after you experienced the subject of your opinion and changed you mind help someone save face, quite the opposite actually ^^
Like, if I'm a reviewer and before playing it I'm very vocal about how my initial reaction to everything I've seen of the game is negative, but then I get my review copy, play for 60 hours end end up enjoying the game, keeping my credibility intact would be to say "I may have judged the game before trying it because X and Y reasons, but now that I played it I can say thaat I endud up enjoying it because of A and B reasons. How would that give a feeling of lack of credibility to my audience? (+ I would already have lost my credibility by judging a product before trying it, so it would actualy build up my credibility to say my opinion changed now that I played it)
But hey that's just me ;)
I'm sorry what? She posts this but still puts scores in her reviews? Talk about a lack of credibility , right Krangs_Uncle ? :)
I hate when journalists in tech/sports/gaming do this. (And they all do it.)
Like, this type of fanaticism is literally what puts food on your table. Casuals don't drive nearly enough traffic to websites to feed the size of the current games media.
How naive.
Criticizing a fanatic audience just because they sustain your business is neither unusual, nor should it be frowned upon. Passion for something is great, actually harassing and threatening people's lives/livelihoods over that passion, which fanaticism leads to, is unacceptable. The fact that there are actually people righteously defending that in this thread is sickening.
So it is ok to harrass a journalist because his/her score of a product doesn't match the head canon of a rabid fanbase?
Literally nowhere does Kat Bailey talk about harassment or threats. Instead she's complaining that everyone treats these scores as talley-points in a war to justify fans' alignments with certain companies and personalities.
Please read and respond to what people actually post, rather than creating strawmen.
Follow the context of the discussion. The context is fanatacism surrounding review scores. You don't need to be a Literature major to get the subtext.
So this discussion is really about harassment, even though nobody is actually saying that?
Wow, what a sophisticated bunch we are!
You don't need to be a genius to figure out that people harassing reviewers over scores is part of a discussion about fanaticism surrounding review scores. Those dots aren't hard to connect.
No, but I do know who he is. My username is from Chopin being my favorite composer/pianist, plus Lupin the Third. But regarding Booker, back when I was in college and started playing piano, I found out about him when I was researching and listening to lots of Chopin.
Ah I see. People sometimes called him the Black Chopin and his full name was James Carrol Booker III. So that was my line of thinking. But thanks for the clarification. Often wondered, never asked. Closure!
Was that even implied in her posts though? no offense but I think you guys are reaching here, she's talking about ppl just being obsessed with reviews in general and justifying their brands based off scores. I didn't get the fanatics angle from her tweets. Shes literally comparing it to Sports fans.
Didnt US Gamer give Horizon a 5/10 which cost them the 90 on metacritic?
I really dont like this new trend of critics being scared of backlash. you are being paid for your critique of the game and you are upset that others might critique your critique? what? be brave and trust your opinion. so many reviewers nowadays are so scared of getting criticized they dont bother with scores. so what they are essentially saying is that they are ok with giving great games like horizon failing scores but please dont come back and call us out for it.
In the last year alone, big AAA games like Anthem, Ghost Recon Breakpoint and Crackdown have received an average of around 50 on metacritic. no one cares. gamers understand that those games are flawed. its when you take great games and give them 5s do people really start to get angry. giving horizon a 5 is bs. gamespot giving days gone a 5 is bs. they can hide behind 'oh its my opinion' but you dont get to complain about the backlash either. if someone here called horizon a bad game, they would get quoted to oblivion.
I think they're more scared of an onslaught of death threats that have become the norm in the lives of a lot of games journalists. People get way too mad about video games.
Death Stranding has a more ironclad NDA than usual, for what it's worth.
I figure if it is in any way an indication about how you feel (good/bad), then no.
Like I said before, my theory is those leakers were too worried about completing the game to report back ASAP and missed that aspect of the game.
It takes more players and more time to start seeing changes in the landscape.
From what I'm hearing, Sony is being very strict with DS.
5/10? Damn I stopped playing it after 5 hours out of boredom but even then I would give it at least a 6 for the masterful techical achievement it is and the game is supposedly better later on.
Plenty of reviewers have said a lot of simple vague things like that on Twitter if you look for them.
Not worth talking about them since they can literally mean anything.
You know, I would say it is, but then I'm reminded I had a lot of fun playing through Crackdown 3 and came back for more but I quit Horizon ZD halfway through.
*Shrugs
- Status