i immediately took it as him calling professional reviews 'whining' given that he brings it up in the straight up next sentence.
-
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.
Mike Ybarra, Corporate VP of Xbox, says critics of an Anthem area are “whining” and it is “embarrassing to review with such a lack of knowledge”
- Thread starter Proven
- Start date
i immediately took it as him calling professional reviews 'whining' given that he brings it up in the straight up next sentence.
It's making a massive assumption that big marketing pushes will overpower quality issues evident in the buildup to release. Prior games from the same dev-pub combos already had consumers wary of their output.
It's not a good a look. Regardless of whether he is right or wrong. There is nothing to be gained by making that tweet in public.
Jeff beat the story. He did not beat the game and more importantly did not try any of the high end stuff because he is not high enough level to do so yet.
Jeff beat the story. He did not beat the game and more importantly did not try any of the high end stuff because he is not high enough level to do so yet.
These deals are made many months if not years before there's any 'buildup to release'.
fair enough, but you'd think the story would properly prepare you for the end game grind if the combos are that important to it
It was something a lot of people have been harping about, from twitter to reddit... that dumby-quest left a bad taste in a lot of peoples mouths. I simply played through the game and used it as a time to get acquainted with stuff and level a bit others felt it was some kind of insurmountable task; I can't agree.
You can easily beat most looter shooters without engaging or grasping end game strategies. That is not to say that your understanding of combos will change your opinion of a game like this. Either way, this is just one complaint among a laundry list of stuff that is wrong with Anthem.
Is that you Mike?
There was no tutorial or anything showing you how to do combo. So how do you expect someone to learn a combo?
The next Fallout game from Bethesda Game Studios, a Destiny killer from Bioware, and the next entry in one of the biggest AAA franchises going (Battlefield).
Why would an MS Exec turn any of those down?
Yes, but would you have someone who knows absolutely nothing about cars review a car? Would you depend on Donald Trump, Mr. Mcdonalds himself, to review a top tier restaurant?
No and no. Reviewers should be experts in the field so they know what actually makes a good product. Without that expertise, the review can't be trusted and loses its significance and value.
User Warned: Hostility.
The same way everyone else who has half a brain figured it out?
Are you telling me some paid fucking reviewer gets a pass for that?
Is that you, Polygon?
He never said people shouldn't do reviews - he said HE doesn't do reviews...directly answering someone asking for his review of Anthem.
There's nothing at all controversial about saying that these days most people are looking at game footage or streaming, not reading reviews. I don't think there's anything controversial about saying a reviewer who doesn't know what a combo is might not have a perspective on the game that most people will share... I mean the game's opening starts you with gear that combos, tells you to use attacks in a fashion that'll cause combos, shows COMBO in big yellow letters when you do it, talks about it in gear menus...
A fan made a primer/detonator grid a full month ago - based on the info from the DEMO... Whether they liked the game or not, there's no excuse for a reviewer not knowing how to use a basic gameplay mechanic - especially one as important as combos. That's Takahashi 'didn't spend skill points in Mass Effect' level of being bad at the job.
There's nothing at all controversial about saying that these days most people are looking at game footage or streaming, not reading reviews. I don't think there's anything controversial about saying a reviewer who doesn't know what a combo is might not have a perspective on the game that most people will share... I mean the game's opening starts you with gear that combos, tells you to use attacks in a fashion that'll cause combos, shows COMBO in big yellow letters when you do it, talks about it in gear menus...
A fan made a primer/detonator grid a full month ago - based on the info from the DEMO... Whether they liked the game or not, there's no excuse for a reviewer not knowing how to use a basic gameplay mechanic - especially one as important as combos. That's Takahashi 'didn't spend skill points in Mass Effect' level of being bad at the job.
Counterpoint: how the hell is the games industry going to grow as an art form if we only accept the opinions of so-called genre experts? Put Anthem in the hands of a smart person who is *not* hooked on looter-shooters, and I promise you you're going to get a more interesting review than mine. Gaming is better when that entire spectrum of opinions and insights is available.
Exactly...they were almost guaranteed to be huge.
MS isn't from the future, they thought the deals were solid.
It is when the reviewer didn't say that in the first place. Have you read the thread? Have you read the review? Of course not, but that hasn't stopped you from commenting.
I don't think there is anything controversial in me telling you to do those things before agreeing with something you have obviously no clue about. See how that works?
It's funny bc if you go in a AAA reviews thread on here, people will shit on traditional reviews and scoring systems. But someone tells you to not go by these things and there's a big fake outrage on here.
Part of me wonders if since this forum skews older, a lot of us have fond memories of print reviews or established gaming sites being the only reliable source for accurate gameplay information before launch.
I personally checked out of reviews a while ago. Can't tell you who works for IGN now, I imagine Craig and Cassamassina are long gone. Those were two reviewers who I felt I understood their taste, and could trust them to an extent. Now? If dunkey doesn't like a game, chances are I won't be too big on it (splatoon being the largest exception), but I know this from watching him quite a bit and knowing he has similar taste
Pardon my lack of knowledge but are game reviewers evaluating a game based on its artistic merits, enjoyability or value to customers? I ask because people on forums use all sorts of analogies and standards but these things are not the same. My point being that an art critic might think a painting is a masterpiece and yet the public might not appreciate it. Same with a food critic reviewing expensive tasting menus vs say someone at a website reviewing a product such as blender or some other kitchen gadget.
Hmmm, yes, "modern reviews", streamers you can actually pay off. What a garbage way to shit on every video game journalist out there.
Mike Ybarra is just passionate about the horses he put bets on. Sometimes you lose a bet or two and end up salty. Most of us have been there, emotionally speaking. We all need a cat like this to stop us from typing dumb tweets in the moment:
Any good review sets that kind of context so that a reader knows what filter they're about to get into. "I haven't played a loot-driven game since Diablo II" versus "I can't wave a stick without hitting an online persistent-world shooter" versus "Anthem is a never-ending beautiful-scenery generator" etc. etc. At Ars Technica, I'm very careful to mind my expected audience of longtime PC gamers who seek customization and deep systems in their entertainment, as well, so I'm going to write reviews differently there than I might if I was writing for the arty-criticism wonks over at Unwinnable.
You cannot be so mind numbingly naive as not to know what a "conflict of interests" is?
It is bad luck. How would they possibly be able to predict that big new releases in prestige franchises, plus a Brand new IP from Bioware would flop critically?
They also have the rights to Metro and TD2 later in March. Basically everything else is Sony.
he doesn't have the power to take down reviews and in his twitter profile it says he works for xbox so people know who he is. i have no issues with it.
I think that's a fair point, but for this spectrum of reviews to be meaningful, there needs to be ways to distinguish the expert reviews from amateur reviews.
He's not entirely wrong. Watching a stream to see the gameplay loop and find out if it's something your interested in is a better way to tell if you'll like a game than reading the words of someone who potentially doesn't share your taste.
Unwarranted shit post. Cmon now
He doesn't specify it was the Ars review, at least anywhere that I've seen...but if it is, that reviewer does say they don't understand the combo system at all. I mean it's a system a fan did a full 'how this works' spreadsheet on a month ago based on limited time with the demo, but we know how this game and spreadsheets don't go together... This place routinely trashes reviews/reviewers who don't seem to know what they're doing. The RE2 one, quite recently. The Doom footage from Polygon springs to mind. Why is this different? Ybarra tweets something people read way too much into, and suddenly games journalists are delicate flowers we have to protect?
Hell, I write reviews and I still tell people that I can't honestly tell them if they'll like a game...only if I did, and they should check out gameplay on YouTube, streams, or - preferably - play a demo if it's available. Everyone's different, and we have more ways than ever to tell if YOU will like a game before YOU buy it.
That is debatable if the opinion is published as professional critique and is based upon a lack of understanding, and sometimes ignorance of games design, and the development process. Just creates misinformation which helps no one.
There's no guarantee the people you watch understand the combo system either.
There's separate arguments here but the one that I find holds the most merit is that the game fails to adequately tell the player (in this case the reviewer) about the combo system's mechanics. Having played, that's an entirely accurate assessment. The game shows you big yellow "COMBO" text when you make a combo, but it doesn't spare a moment to teach you about primers and detonators. There's no basic tutorial that covers that, or teaches the basic terminology of the gear modifiers (which is why you see such confusion about it in the OT). It just throws you in, presents you with a word salad of modifiers, and expects you to figure it out.
Last edited:
Brought to you by
Edit, why the HELL do comments not get removed!!! I have to continually remove them.
Holy Shit that is low. based on NPD, Xbox sales have collapsed by a lot so probably explains this.
That seems to be Era lately. Everything is a huge controversy and there is just so much hate being thrown out there.
The fact that the thread title hasn't been updated after all this when it totally doesn't match the tweets pretty much says it all.
That's not in the final game either? I haven't read reviews but I played the demo and they made it very clear in the demo that there was no tutorial—figured there would be one at launch
It's different because the person it is coming from is different. He's not some anonymous commenter on a message board, he's a VP for a platform holder with an economic interest on said game calling reviewers whiners and embarrassing on a climate where it is easy to weaponize fandoms. He is not you, anonymous nobody on Era from whom I shouldn't expect a modicum of civility or not to go for "git gud" level shitposting. Journalists are not delicate flowers we have to protect, but I'm not sure you've been paying attention here, that doesn't mean being unprofessional on a public platform and shitting on the press, empowering other shitheads to do the same should be acceptable either. Are VP execs suddenly more delicate flowers that you need to protect for some reason, especially as a reviewer yourself?
You say you write reviews, so presumably you understand that the idea that criticizing how combos are not explained at all in the game, how that information is not laid out or tutorialized is completely valid and not in fact "whining" or "embarrassing". It's clear that thre reviewer identified the system and its similarity to Andromeda. He's very aptly pointing out that as a testament to the rushed nature of the game, A LOT of that information is missing. His cricitism centers on combos, but extends to item descriptions, lack of stats pages and other issues. That is certainly valuable and valid criticism, and not in fact "embarrassing" because he's not a fanboy who identifies himself with a brand to the point of spending his day making detailed charts about how the systems work, which should come from the developer itself.
I have plenty of problems with reviews and sites. I don't put a lot of stock in them and certainly even less in review scores this site loves to weaponize for system wars, but I do see damage being done by people in his position trying to forego press and pointing at paid streamers with even less ethical responsibility to give you an informed, leveled opinion as damaging to the current environment, nevermind, like I said above, empowering shitheads with bones to pick about the ethics or validity of the work of the press for other reasons.
Last edited:
It's very rudimentary. The initial Destiny 2-ish Ghaul-esque intro mission teaches you basics like here's ability 1, here's ability 2, here's how to use your gun, and how to use your ultimate. It didn't go much deeper than that. Once through the intro, it has you pick your first Javelin and off you go. Not much more explained except for the occasional popup tool tip, which are also quite basic.
it's called the eyeball test. Consistency, clarity and transparency about where the writer is coming from are impossible to boil down to a rubric but also notably lacking if missed
lol
honestly given the state of the industry/broader social discourse these days circling the wagons is probably more effective and easier then making exciting content
Last edited:
Late to this thread. So I had to read a couple of pages. Yikes.
It's true. Mike Ybarra tweeted a lot of postive reviews before and had no issues with it. Now "all of a sudden" professional reviewers are bad. And really, we all know why.
Looks like that's their new strategy lately.
Damn ;D
It's true. Mike Ybarra tweeted a lot of postive reviews before and had no issues with it. Now "all of a sudden" professional reviewers are bad. And really, we all know why.
That's what it means. Sponsored stuff or reviews from some hardcore fanboys on twitter. And Aaron Greenberg did exactly that a few days ago.
Looks like that's their new strategy lately.
Damn ;D
Do you think the "gamechangers" work for free?
The idea of companies like Microsoft or Epic pointing audiences towards streamers (who live of sponsorships as much as the do from subs, and in Epic's case even get kickbacks for games sold) is transparent enough. The fact that he distinguishes "modern reviews" from the press he is shitting on in his previous tweets makes it that much more obvious. Please do pay attention to where the wind is blowing, next time. It's not coincidental or innocuous.