-
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.
Everything wrong in the game press industry is your fault
- Thread starter Deleted member 2791
- Start date
Why take it so personally if you feel like you're not included? I certainly consider myself a more measured consumer of games criticism, but still recognize areas in which there could be improvement. I think it's also fair to argue that the games community doesn't really deserve the benefit of the doubt here, no matter how responsibly individual actors among them have behaved.
Whether it's Twitter, Facebook or this very forum, there's always poison spewing fanboys not only shouting down anyone saying anything remotely negative about their favourite game but also trying their very best to ruin games for others that they aren't interested in.
I basically want 3 things from games media.
1. Attempt to be objective where applicable. I get that this applies to news more than reviews, and that perfect objectivity isn't really a thing.
2. Attempt to be accurate. 90% of the time I have an issue with something someone wrote its because its woefully inaccurate and demontrably provably so, like "how did you get this wrong?" Hard to take any writing seriously if its not entirely clear that the writer actually played the game.
3. Be approachable. (yes I know some gamers have ruined this). Media types aren't some special breed to be idolized and placed on pedestals. They are gamers just like us who happened to land jobs writing about it. Too often I've seen media types approached respectfully about something they've written for the person approaching them to be simply blown off as a fanboy or gater or whatever. That type of behavior doesnt do anyone any favors.
1. Attempt to be objective where applicable. I get that this applies to news more than reviews, and that perfect objectivity isn't really a thing.
2. Attempt to be accurate. 90% of the time I have an issue with something someone wrote its because its woefully inaccurate and demontrably provably so, like "how did you get this wrong?" Hard to take any writing seriously if its not entirely clear that the writer actually played the game.
3. Be approachable. (yes I know some gamers have ruined this). Media types aren't some special breed to be idolized and placed on pedestals. They are gamers just like us who happened to land jobs writing about it. Too often I've seen media types approached respectfully about something they've written for the person approaching them to be simply blown off as a fanboy or gater or whatever. That type of behavior doesnt do anyone any favors.
How dare a consumer who paid for the game with his own hard earned money does , says or posts something that goes against my believes ...
Hard to demand a proper behavior when millions of people consume that same type of media. Chill
Hard to demand a proper behavior when millions of people consume that same type of media. Chill
I used to think that too, and it's a completely valid point of view. The problem is I don't think it's possible. Back in the day, like the 16bit era, I used to see more places use the scoring system correctly. 5 was truly average. But as time went on, there was "score creep". Over time, as more and more games got higher reviews, people's expectations started to shift. Increasingly, 5 went from average, to garbage. It would be great if we could simply standardize, and actually stick to it, but I don't think it would work. The reality is both readers and reviewers are human beings, and human beings are hyperbolic creatures. Eventually the scores would just drift again.
OP
OP
Okay so, some general answers before going into detail. I knew the way I wrote the OP was going to stir some harsh reactions (I did it on purpose). It seems a lot of you don't appreciate that I'm blaming a lot of people by referring to "you" without being more specific. It was on purpose, and of course, I can't possibly blame EVERYONE who read that post. Some of you don't give the slightest shit about review/the game press industry and are only here to comment the news and talk about the games you're playing. The issue is that if I was more specific as to which kind of people I'm talking about, a lot of you would have felt like they weren't targeted by what I said, like "that doesn't concern me, I'm never toxic against reviewers", when a lot of time it's done indirectly, like I explained. That's why I went as general as possible. So yeah, if after reading everything you still consider that none of what you're doing is toxic against the press, then either you're actually a good person we should all take inspiration of, or you just don't realize your own mindset.
That's very true and explained partly by how emotionally invested in their favourite video game company people are. This can partly be seen in the movie field too, with the DC vs Marvel constant fight. Ideally, people would just be less invested in stuff they can't control, but you can hardly change the entire lifestyle of a person.
How do you come to the conclusion that one has an agenda ? Usually, people saying that are using the fact that the outlet (even though sometimes it's not even the same reviewer) gave similar or different scores to other games, and are trying to make correlations. Of course, perfect neutrality is impossible to reach, and all reviewers are inherently biased to some degree, with some going to the extra mile. Arguing against a reviewer opinion can include challenging his skills or expertise on the subject. The issue is that, in years of reading review threads, I have never seen a single case of people arguing in good faith about the skills of a reviewer. When people use these arguments, it's because x reviewer gives bigger scores to Microsoft games than Sony games therefore he's biased and has an agenda.
I actually mentioned that in OP but you didn't read it.
You're exactly the kind of people I'm talking about.
Then you're both great people if you really feel that way. Going as general as possible doesn't mean that I am accusing every single person reading my post.
Care to elaborate ?
It's very true, reviewers are far from perfect themselves (and nobody should blame them for that, they're human beings just like we are) and are certainly worthy of criticism a lot of times. But I'm the opinion that changing the audience first will then help to change what the reviewers need to change.
Yeah, it would really solve everything if people would just stop being so invested, but I don't really see that ever happening, as it's the lifestyle of a lot of people. Reviews should be taken as they are, opinion pieces that may or not help you to make a choice about a purchase.
I initially wanted to talk about that controversy and how Bethesda didn't get much shit for that because of the people hating on the press to a point where they'd rather believe the publisher's PR, but my post was already way too long.
Sorry for not writing the exact same amount of words for every case I mentioned.
It could lead to that debate however, and it wouldn't be entirely unrelated. Is removing review scores enough of a change to make people act differently against the reviewers ? It's a question worth being explored, and if just doing that is really enough, then maybe it's reviewers who need to make the first step. I personally don't believe one second that it would be enough.
Oh yes, it happened. Everything I mentioned in OP happened. I didn't want to call out members but you can find the posts quite easily.
That's very true and explained partly by how emotionally invested in their favourite video game company people are. This can partly be seen in the movie field too, with the DC vs Marvel constant fight. Ideally, people would just be less invested in stuff they can't control, but you can hardly change the entire lifestyle of a person.
How do you come to the conclusion that one has an agenda ? Usually, people saying that are using the fact that the outlet (even though sometimes it's not even the same reviewer) gave similar or different scores to other games, and are trying to make correlations. Of course, perfect neutrality is impossible to reach, and all reviewers are inherently biased to some degree, with some going to the extra mile. Arguing against a reviewer opinion can include challenging his skills or expertise on the subject. The issue is that, in years of reading review threads, I have never seen a single case of people arguing in good faith about the skills of a reviewer. When people use these arguments, it's because x reviewer gives bigger scores to Microsoft games than Sony games therefore he's biased and has an agenda.
I actually mentioned that in OP but you didn't read it.
You're exactly the kind of people I'm talking about.
Then you're both great people if you really feel that way. Going as general as possible doesn't mean that I am accusing every single person reading my post.
Care to elaborate ?
It's very true, reviewers are far from perfect themselves (and nobody should blame them for that, they're human beings just like we are) and are certainly worthy of criticism a lot of times. But I'm the opinion that changing the audience first will then help to change what the reviewers need to change.
Yeah, it would really solve everything if people would just stop being so invested, but I don't really see that ever happening, as it's the lifestyle of a lot of people. Reviews should be taken as they are, opinion pieces that may or not help you to make a choice about a purchase.
I initially wanted to talk about that controversy and how Bethesda didn't get much shit for that because of the people hating on the press to a point where they'd rather believe the publisher's PR, but my post was already way too long.
Sorry for not writing the exact same amount of words for every case I mentioned.
It could lead to that debate however, and it wouldn't be entirely unrelated. Is removing review scores enough of a change to make people act differently against the reviewers ? It's a question worth being explored, and if just doing that is really enough, then maybe it's reviewers who need to make the first step. I personally don't believe one second that it would be enough.
Oh yes, it happened. Everything I mentioned in OP happened. I didn't want to call out members but you can find the posts quite easily.
Edge gives better scores to British games just because they're British is a thing that has been trotted out since before we all left neogaf.
It really needs to be something the mods stamp down on because it is obnoxious and fucking stupid.
OP
OP
I edited my post once, to add a word I missed in a sentence. I removed absolutely nothing.
They do. Mods warn and ban people for trotting out that conspiracy theory.
I don't, I questioned the practice of addressing it as broadly as that in such a way and included me as an example of people being very active on the internet and the gaming community but not partaking in any form whatsoever. And like I said in my first post, it's not wrong trying to reach other people who are like him to discuss some issues. It's just the way that everything is formulated that is weird to me (and off-putting), as a rather neutral observer.
Fair enough, I had two tabs open from two different times which showed different editing times for whatever reason (even though it should update normally).
Score aren't a problem. Books, movies, shows, music, hell even restaurants get scores and have for decades or more. The reactions to scores are the problem
While I do agree with you on some points I also must say that part of this problem is caused by the press itself :
- If a review uses a 0-10 scale then fucking use the whole scale. 5 should be something average in a 0-10 scale but the press uses a 0-10 where 7 is average, 6 is bad and 5 is trash.
- Create standards for your own site/blog/channel/outlet/magazine/whatever. Yeah its true that everyone is entitled to their opnion but a reviewer opnion represents a whole outlet opnion so when a reviewer go and give 6 to a game that has an 8ish metascore, while other give a 8 to a game that has a 6ish metascore and both use different aspects to justify their score something is wrong. A good way to avoid this is going Famitsu way and put more than one review to make a final score.
- Choose someone that makes sense to review a certain type of game. Again everyone is entitled to have their opnion but what is the point of putting someone that already has a negative pre concept on cinematic experiences to review a cinematic game? Again a good solution for this problem would be taking the Famitsu route and put different reviwers to make a final score.
And there are some other points.
What I mean in the end is : Yeah part of whats wrong in the gaming press is indeed caused by us gamers. But the press itself also is responsable for a lot of whats wrong.
What we need : a full "reeboot" on standards, concepts and aproach when it comes down to reviews. On both sides press and gamers.
- If a review uses a 0-10 scale then fucking use the whole scale. 5 should be something average in a 0-10 scale but the press uses a 0-10 where 7 is average, 6 is bad and 5 is trash.
- Create standards for your own site/blog/channel/outlet/magazine/whatever. Yeah its true that everyone is entitled to their opnion but a reviewer opnion represents a whole outlet opnion so when a reviewer go and give 6 to a game that has an 8ish metascore, while other give a 8 to a game that has a 6ish metascore and both use different aspects to justify their score something is wrong. A good way to avoid this is going Famitsu way and put more than one review to make a final score.
- Choose someone that makes sense to review a certain type of game. Again everyone is entitled to have their opnion but what is the point of putting someone that already has a negative pre concept on cinematic experiences to review a cinematic game? Again a good solution for this problem would be taking the Famitsu route and put different reviwers to make a final score.
And there are some other points.
What I mean in the end is : Yeah part of whats wrong in the gaming press is indeed caused by us gamers. But the press itself also is responsable for a lot of whats wrong.
What we need : a full "reeboot" on standards, concepts and aproach when it comes down to reviews. On both sides press and gamers.
Enough? No, not at all. But I do think it could help alleviate one aspect of the problem. People go nuts over an ultimately arbitrary number, because it attempts to assign an absolute value to something inherently nebulous: an opinion. It tries to quantify the value of an opinion, and from a certain point of view it isn't only scoring the game, but also the reviewer. Any number that appears to be outside the "norm" suddenly devalues that reviewers opinion, whether the score be higher or lower, or simply out of line with the readers own preconceived notions. Eliminating scoring would at least remove one trigger mechanism for some people's knee-jerk reactions and eliminate one avenue of attack, so to speak.
Obviously, the underlying problem is more systemic to the gaming culture as a whole, but forcing people to slow down and read, and think, about one reviewer's opinion before passing final judgement would at least be a start in many cases.
I've only been working in games for 5 years, but I want to echo this statement.
Edge's 8 was another embarrassing moment for this forum. The reddit thread I saw on it was much more civilized and mature, I thought this forum was meant to be better than reddit at least lmao.
I'm pretty much of the same mind. Just the reactions to this post are enough to show that this isn't really about the scores or the reviewers, but about ourselves and our community, and how, regardless of intent, we've created a groupthink that is extraordinarily difficult to penetrate. The only reason I think that talking about reviews in terms of whether grades are applicable, etc., is because I feel it distracts from the point, which is about how people react to them. Even if 5s or 6s were the average, or if there were no scores at all and just something like "recommend" or "don't recommend", etc., I don't think any of this behavior would cease. In fact when reviewers have tried to move to these systems they're then criticized for becoming irrelevant because they don't want to score "properly" as if that was actually the thrust of the problem.
In many ways I feel it just becomes a point of distraction whenever these discussions start, because ultimately the scores aren't the problem, how the community reacts is.
It's also about placing blame - if they can look at someone or something and say, "well that's where the problem REALLY is", there's little likelihood it will lead to introspection about their own shortcomings.
Very much this. It's true of enthusiasts for every hobby in every online community.
Bunch of loser, no lifers that are emotionally invested in hobbies as they have little to nothing meaningful in their lives.
What? That makes absolutely no sense. For one, Metacritic isn't some objective standardized metric on quality. Metacritic saying a game is an 8 means absolutely nothing, has absolutely zero bearing, in regards to what an individual person feels about a game.
User warned: Console warring, attempted thread derail.
Yup. This thing seems so one sided. If you want to talk about fanboyism dont try to direct the attention only one group. If you go to OP's post history you will get a hint.
Lol im out.
It's just the audience. You honestly can't expect better on a hobbie full of children or a bunch of inmature manchildren on this internet age where everyone think their opinion matters somehow.
I doubt it'll ever change.
I doubt it'll ever change.
This would make reviews from an outlet entirely useless. You're literally advocating for reviewers to lie in their reviews and make things up because they "think" it's better match the "Outlet"'s opinion. There's nothing wrong with your metascore example, different reviewers do and should find different aspects of a game more important to the overall result of it. Also reviewers should never consider Metascores when reviewing a product. EVER.
Again this helps nobody. If all the reviews for Spiderman are written by Spiderman fans, then where do those of us who don't really care about Spiderman go to get reviews that would help us decide whether to buy the new game or not? For times when it's clear the reviewer didn't give it a fair shake and either didn't even attempt to learn to play it (like that infamous IGN review of Football Manager) then an Editor should step in and go "Okay, this is trash" because at the end of the day reviewing games is a job and if you hand in shit work you're going to get less work.
I sure am afraid to give God of War a bad score even though 50% of people will be ok with it and are expecting it.
Only the worst of us thought this game was going to be good. These people absorb hope and marketing and brand loyalty for this very moment. No one is afraid of these people, and I think it typically their shit behavior might land a few 7s just to ruin the party.
I respect the fact that every professional reviewer could like something. No one felt the need to harp on some dumb shit. Games are too long these days, 7/10. That's probably because this game is better than nearly every other game of this type, which there are too many of these days. You know, zoomed in third person cutscene heavy...God of War, 7/10.
It easy for a game to score like this when it is just better than most every game out there and 90% of the movies you saw last year.
I'm an hour in and I don't like it. It must do something that is universally special. Good for this game. Don't do this ever again. No one will ever want to edit your work.
Only the worst of us thought this game was going to be good. These people absorb hope and marketing and brand loyalty for this very moment. No one is afraid of these people, and I think it typically their shit behavior might land a few 7s just to ruin the party.
I respect the fact that every professional reviewer could like something. No one felt the need to harp on some dumb shit. Games are too long these days, 7/10. That's probably because this game is better than nearly every other game of this type, which there are too many of these days. You know, zoomed in third person cutscene heavy...God of War, 7/10.
It easy for a game to score like this when it is just better than most every game out there and 90% of the movies you saw last year.
I'm an hour in and I don't like it. It must do something that is universally special. Good for this game. Don't do this ever again. No one will ever want to edit your work.
What on earth are you talking about? OP mentioned God of War because it was the most recently case of this and No Man's Sky because it has arguably been the most vindictive and disgusting.
Lets not try to inject system wars into this.
For a more specific example, reviews of remasters. Most every review of a remastered/rereleased game is from reviewers who have played the game before and thus usually has the template of "as good as you remember/feels dated but still holds up/etc"
Okay, but I never played that game before, isn't part of the point of such releases to bring the game to new audiences? Can we get some reviews from people who are playing those games for the first time? That's a very different perspective than reviews of someone revisiting a game from their past
My wild guess is he doesn't agree with the score. Cue that post from the GAF Uncharted 3 review thread...
I'm not even sure this is a huge issue that would need to be addressed if it proved true.
We have Japanese outlets that prefer Japanese games. We have RPG sites they prefer RPGs. We even have specific reviewers that might prefer one platform over another. You wont get rid of the bias, people are only human. Instead, know the bias.
Know that someone like Gies will be less critical of Xbox than others.
Know that someone like Miller will be less critical of Playstation than others.
I suppose you can hate on them for this, but it seems silly because its how they built their brands.
Reviews should have a good amount of objectivity though . I shouldn't be able to read a review and think "This reviewer doesn't like the genre" . Too many reviewers allow bias to effect score imo.
Also, you better put some time into a fucking game if you're gonna give a review and to others your opinion. If it's a a story driven game, beat the story. That's like leaving a movie half way through and writing a review on it.
Oh, it won't change. At a certain fundamental level you are totally correct. However, I don't think that means we shouldn't at least try to address it. Not discussing it is tantamount to ignoring the problem, saying "it's just the audience" almost sounds like "boys will be boys". which is to say it isn't a big deal, let it be. It should be discussed. Maybe some steps can be taken to at least make a small impact on the problem. Behavior can be changed, even if only on a small scale. Hell, maybe it will help change the behavior of even one single person out there, and that will have made it worthwhile. Even if it's a person who is dismissing this thread outright right now, but a year or two from now looks back on it and says "damn, Kano was right", then this discussion was worth it.
That's a much better example than mine, thank you.
I'm going to see Avengers in an hour so I just have Spider-Man on the brain!
I believe it comes down to one key point. There needs to be more diversity in the true sense of the word. We need diversity of sex, sexuality, race, class, political leanings, gaming preferences. For the most part the gaming press is a echo chamber and because of this they can do more harm than good. I honestly think they put back "walking simulators" years because of the overhype of the genre.
Accept besides that one place there does it to start shit, who are you to say their are doing it on purpose?
.
Frankly, I'd give GoW an 8, and Zelda a 7. Why? Because I just didn't like them that much. Does that make me an idiot because it's not inline with others OPINIONS? No, it just means they didn't resonate with me as much. But I guarantee if I possible a review with those scores I'd be attacked for it because my opinion differs from others, which what the OP means.
No media review is beyond question and I don't think it's wrong to criticize or question a review or reviewer you don't agree with. There is a huge difference between having semi-intelligent discussion about why you think X is better or worse than Y or why you think a particular reviewer might have missed, or didn't connect with something in their play-through; and spewing vitriol or "fanboyism". Have you never convinced a friend to go back and check out a game that you love that didn't quite work with them? People can change their minds, even media reviewers can change their views on games after conversation, playing through it again without rushing for a deadline, or just some time and perspective.
Toxic behaviour, comes from people who are emboldened by the anonymity of the internet and have an unhealthy relationship with their gaming hobby; fullstop. It's not going to be fixed by the rest of refusing to engage in conversation about the merits of lack thereof in a review. There is no "if everyone does this" it'll go away solution.
Instead of focusing on it, and defining "gamers" as some monolith that needs to be scolded, (especially since its a small portion of gamers with a large megaphone that are garbage) ignore the people who are not going to change and focus on fostering the conversation you want to see.
OP, it sounds like what you meant to say is that a very specific subset of problems with the video game press are the fault of a small minority of people.
The bigger issue the enthusiast press has is more intrinsically linked to a stagnant method of coverage. When 99% of your industry content is critiques and reporting on often official announcements, how is that the fault of the audience?
Its a method of coverage that hasn't evolved in 30 years, if anything its more closed off and pointless now than its ever been, especially in written form. The bread and butter of the content is writing the same reviews from too similar a perspective to everyone else, rewording official announcements to possibly to add a hot take too similar to everyone elses, and sometimes during press events posting interviews with the same set of safe questions and answers that every outlet gets that are carefully curated through a PR handler.
Everything wrong in "the game media industry" is the fault of the game media industry building its identity around being the same as everyone else in the industry, or with the understandably closed off nature of developers and publishers. I understand there are sometimes great articles from the likes of Polygon, Waypoint, Kotaku, etc but even then these are almost universaly retrospective rather than preemptive, because how can they be anything but that? No one can sneak in to a place of employment and get the hot scoop on X, Y and Z with the exception of those once in a blue moon events such as the Tomb Raider on a train situation or reporters burning bridges by confirming the likes of project scorpio.
The bigger issue the enthusiast press has is more intrinsically linked to a stagnant method of coverage. When 99% of your industry content is critiques and reporting on often official announcements, how is that the fault of the audience?
Its a method of coverage that hasn't evolved in 30 years, if anything its more closed off and pointless now than its ever been, especially in written form. The bread and butter of the content is writing the same reviews from too similar a perspective to everyone else, rewording official announcements to possibly to add a hot take too similar to everyone elses, and sometimes during press events posting interviews with the same set of safe questions and answers that every outlet gets that are carefully curated through a PR handler.
Everything wrong in "the game media industry" is the fault of the game media industry building its identity around being the same as everyone else in the industry, or with the understandably closed off nature of developers and publishers. I understand there are sometimes great articles from the likes of Polygon, Waypoint, Kotaku, etc but even then these are almost universaly retrospective rather than preemptive, because how can they be anything but that? No one can sneak in to a place of employment and get the hot scoop on X, Y and Z with the exception of those once in a blue moon events such as the Tomb Raider on a train situation or reporters burning bridges by confirming the likes of project scorpio.
I'd hate to be a reviewer. If the mob decides you scored a game too high your a shill and if it's too low it's for clicks(hilariously even if it's a print mag).
If there's anything wrong with reviews as a whole I'd say we need more diverse viewpoints which would probably result in a greater range of different scores but I see most gamers instead try to argue for less. Because the group decided this game is good/bad and you must not deviate from this.
If there's anything wrong with reviews as a whole I'd say we need more diverse viewpoints which would probably result in a greater range of different scores but I see most gamers instead try to argue for less. Because the group decided this game is good/bad and you must not deviate from this.
User Warned: Trolling with off-site baggage
No problem, I can understand you not wanting to draw too much attention to the Zelda fiasco considering your own behaviour after that Jim Sterling review landed back in the gaf days.
Maybe I wasnt clear on my point.
Im not trying to dismiss anyone opnion but the way I see things when it comes to outlet reviews they must have some standards.
I will use EZA as an example : I don't care who is writing a review for them because in the end the "outlet" follows the same standards on reviews so even if the game would get a 7 or a 9 from different reviewers they would still have points that are aligned into EZA's standards.
And I am not saying that a Spider Man game should be reviewd by a Spider Man fan. I am saying that it shouldnt be reviwed by someone that doesn't enjoy OW and super hero games ...alone.
In a perfect world a Spider Man review would be made by 3 or more people :
- An OW specialist
- A Spider Man fan
- Someone that dont give a fuck about super heroes.
Each one of them with their own score and the final score being them togheter.
And please Im not saying that reviewers should use MC as reference all Im saying is that you when you are an outlier for different games using different aspects to downplay one game and different aspects to up play other something is wrong. Even tho again people are entitled to have their opnion there should be cohesion in an outlet work. We are not talking here about 2 friends discussing if a game is good or nah. Suposedelly reviwers are professionals and for this they need to meet some requirements, standards and cohesion on their work.
With all that being said I still think that putting different reviews to make a final score is the way to go.
Yep. A few posters were saying that Edge had a UK dev bias but there was a post that showed that they gave UK developers similar scores as other reviewers and even gave Hellblade a 4/10.