-
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.
Everything wrong in the game press industry is your fault
- Thread starter Deleted member 2791
- Start date
Fanboyism doesnt just live in the realm of regular consumers for one. I was also taught to respect authority figures doing their job but not to believe everything an authority figure says and to make my own decisions. I agree some ppl take things to an extreme and sometimes see things that dont exist but just like any medium there are also agendas at play at times with some outlets and reviewers.
I mentioned this before also in another thread and this was moreso a few years ago but some reviewers (same reviewer, not just an outlet) for one game will have a rating metric and say "ok this doesnt have a fleshed out campaign so im going to dock points" but then would go on to rate another game and not dock points and say "this game was never known for its campaign and the mp is great". Things like that i dont agree with. Reviews are very opininated but if your going to have certain metrics use them for all games and dont discount them for others.
I mentioned this before also in another thread and this was moreso a few years ago but some reviewers (same reviewer, not just an outlet) for one game will have a rating metric and say "ok this doesnt have a fleshed out campaign so im going to dock points" but then would go on to rate another game and not dock points and say "this game was never known for its campaign and the mp is great". Things like that i dont agree with. Reviews are very opininated but if your going to have certain metrics use them for all games and dont discount them for others.
I just don't understand GAF/ERA's obsession with review scores/aggregates and reviewers in general. Or why moderation tolerates it so much. I've been a part of the community for 10 years and it's never been anything less than mephitic. It must be that the hype culture associated with reading these reviews before a game's release, which is often little more than extended press material, palliates the eagerness and anxiety of an anticipated release that is only days away. Mods and Admins get swept up in it too, I guess. Or maybe there's some economic relationship there.
I feel like people should take more stock in the opinions of people they interact with, regularly. I'd prefer to see threads dedicated to reviews from people within the community rather than propping up media outlets from the outside.
I feel like people should take more stock in the opinions of people they interact with, regularly. I'd prefer to see threads dedicated to reviews from people within the community rather than propping up media outlets from the outside.
Fullstop? Toxic behaviour happens IRL too and did before people had the Internet.
I think this is more about the obnoxious hype culture surrounding games. Reviews are used to validate your already high expectations, and if they do not carry the scores that you wish for they are treated as something hostile and personally offensive.
Looking at the God of War thread and seeing how obsessed some people are by metactritic scores, well it is really both fascinating and frightening. When EDGE published their 8/10 score it was not of interest what they actually had to say, but more of a concern how it would affect the overall metacritic score. People almost seemed to have diagrams on their screens comparing reviews and putting numbers together themselves in order to predict the perfect metacritic score that they so eagerly wished for. And there's always weird interpretations for scores based on what reviewers they come from, and their potential "risk" of giving low scores. So the 8/10 from EDGE was suddenly interpreted as a 9/10 or even 10/10 by some people. But by what standards exactly? It doesn't make any kind of sense to revaluate scores like this in order to fit them into some general category.
It is also funny that the first 10 reviews are always used as a great prediction of the quality of the game, even though they are usually websites that barely anyone has heard of. There are of course examples where these sites are called "clickbait", but when it comes to the bigger picture people do not seem to question them as much as long as they help create a good metacritic score.
This has always been a part of the community where I feel like I'm from a totally different planet.
Looking at the God of War thread and seeing how obsessed some people are by metactritic scores, well it is really both fascinating and frightening. When EDGE published their 8/10 score it was not of interest what they actually had to say, but more of a concern how it would affect the overall metacritic score. People almost seemed to have diagrams on their screens comparing reviews and putting numbers together themselves in order to predict the perfect metacritic score that they so eagerly wished for. And there's always weird interpretations for scores based on what reviewers they come from, and their potential "risk" of giving low scores. So the 8/10 from EDGE was suddenly interpreted as a 9/10 or even 10/10 by some people. But by what standards exactly? It doesn't make any kind of sense to revaluate scores like this in order to fit them into some general category.
It is also funny that the first 10 reviews are always used as a great prediction of the quality of the game, even though they are usually websites that barely anyone has heard of. There are of course examples where these sites are called "clickbait", but when it comes to the bigger picture people do not seem to question them as much as long as they help create a good metacritic score.
This has always been a part of the community where I feel like I'm from a totally different planet.
I would think I am in the silent majority of video game players (tm) who read the writings of the video game press industry and then go about our day not commenting or arguing or debating or spewing hate. I could be wrong but I don't think I am. What it generally boils down to is - humans suck. Hard. A collection of humans suck harder. Much harder. You'll find this suckage in any and all aspects of life. Everywhere. When the asteroid is due to wipe us out we'll have hate spewed at the people trying to save us. Humans suck.
I feel comfortable saying that Reset Era, just like NeoGAF before it, contains a ton of shitty people. It's not anyone's fault (I certainly think the mods do their best), but merely the basic reality of having a community of this size. People take this hobby far too seriously and they see any dissenting opinions as a personal threat or affront. When so many anonymous people come together, they tend to develop a deplorable mob mentality.
It's why I rarely post here now and realize that I'm not the target demographic for this place, despite loving video games as passionately as ever. There is zero accountability here.
Personally, I think the op is very well written.
It's why I rarely post here now and realize that I'm not the target demographic for this place, despite loving video games as passionately as ever. There is zero accountability here.
Personally, I think the op is very well written.
The most pathetic part of this whole thing is a few months later after the honey moon period ends I can promise you that you're gonna get articles or people making videos and forums posts titled "GAME EVERYONE THOUGHT WAS GOOD IS ACTUALLY JUST OK AT BEST" or something to that effect.
First it's a race to the hype train
Followed by a race to the contrarian airplane
Review "culture", for lack of a better term is ridiculously toxic. Which is a shame because reviews can be a really useful tool, but at this point I find the only reviews worth reading to be the ones like the edge review for GoW because at least it'll read like an article they wrote about their opinions, everyone else seems to just be writing what they expect the fans want to read.
First it's a race to the hype train
Followed by a race to the contrarian airplane
Review "culture", for lack of a better term is ridiculously toxic. Which is a shame because reviews can be a really useful tool, but at this point I find the only reviews worth reading to be the ones like the edge review for GoW because at least it'll read like an article they wrote about their opinions, everyone else seems to just be writing what they expect the fans want to read.
It's clearly a matter of degree. The lack of accountability on the internet doesn't provide the same social sanctions and empathic interactions.
So what happens when the numbers are no longer there to compare? Remove sales numbers, remove meta critic scores, now what? You have analysis like Michael Pachter who will predict how well a game will sell based on a number of factors and one main area is review scores. He knows they have an impact. Look around at the Switch and how momentum can create hype and demand. Now when you combine fanboys into the mix what do you think is going to occur? God of War gets great reviews and now the momentum builds, emotions go wild and you have a review site like Edge who has been known the past for being controversial, decides to once again go against the grain. If you remove the score you remove the controversy. So many just focus on the number and hardly read the full review anyways.
The problem is twofold. Some of the players are creating this atmosphere but a fair portion of the press revels in it for hits and even goes as far as inciting it at times. For one example in the OP, I don't think anyone familiar with Sterling's background should take his reviews seriously. It doesn't mean that what was done to his site was okay in the slightest, but you'd be naive to think he had good intentions to begin with.
I would definitely say that the Internet has encouraged these attitudes to sink to new lows, I just think the seeds were planted well before that.
You would think that gamers who follow this shit closely would know better by now. But I find that people are too often turning their fandom into performance art so the whole world can see how much they self-identify with their favorite corporate brands.
Nor do I think that getting rid of review scores will fix the issue. Carolyn Petit gave GTAV a 9, but was viciously attacked for simply bringing up gender in the review at all. People will find any excuse they have to witch-hunt.
Why on earth should journalists be exempt from scrutiny? The problem is when it turns nasty, but just because there are a few nutters who take it too far, does not mean we should all keep quiet about the quality of games journalism.
Everyone knows this. You're not providing any insight with your professed contradiction. Despite his hyperbolic "fullstop", his statement doesn't imply that toxicity is confined to the internet.
You're just not being charitable to that persons' actual sentiment, which is a problem, because it downplays how the internet has invaded every aspect of our lives in the modern world.
Yes it did, but the internet as a platform is way more accessible for way more people to have the courage to express unacceptable forms of human indecency that they wouldn't otherwise do IRL.
Threats, rage, hate, intolerance; all these behaviours that manifest from the vocal minority are what hold the gaming industry from moving forward, and actually has it take a step back.
Some people feel entitled to justify their poor behaviour because they paid for their product. So how about returning the game? How about not purchasing any more titles from that developer? How about taking the time to write critical but respectable counterpoints to the developer or game reviewer?
Reviewers, developers and peers should not be subject to all this nasty behaviour, and the few that spout it need to be held accountable.
What about fabricated scandals? Every time a big release is coming, there's a group of people clamouring for controversy. And as soon as a "below-the-average" score appears, they group together in that thread and start making noise, disturbing anyone who didn't think like themselves, waiting for an outrageous comment from a single user to brand a whole community as irrational or fanboyish.
That (supposedly infamous) EDGE thread is a clear example. For every person who said something ridiculous about the magazine, there were two or three people pointing fingers at them. It's not so much about those who can't stand diversity of judgment, but the multiplier effect added by users who feed on others' opinions and just want to provoke a virtual blood bath.
That (supposedly infamous) EDGE thread is a clear example. For every person who said something ridiculous about the magazine, there were two or three people pointing fingers at them. It's not so much about those who can't stand diversity of judgment, but the multiplier effect added by users who feed on others' opinions and just want to provoke a virtual blood bath.
The rage and hype surrounding scores really makes no sense, i do like reading other's opinions on a game at times but it isn't hard to find writers who are in the same range of taste as you are making said reviews actually become useful for you as a reader.
It's like when people spout nonsense that Jason Schreier "hates JRPG's" despite being one of the few very vocal advocates of series like the Trails one.
I avoid especially big gaming websites nowadays. There are a few trustworthy reporters doing good work, but mostly it's still just clickbait and thin veiled favouritism. Already wasting enough time in forums. When it comes to game purchase decisions, actual gameplay footage is far more helpful to me personally.
So what's really going to come out of all this? If Era wants change then stop posting Edge "reviews" which is nothing but numbers, with no context. You're feeding right into it.
Only reviews with links to the reviewers thoughts should be included from now on.
Only reviews with links to the reviewers thoughts should be included from now on.
Unfortunately thats the way of the world. Some people simply don't or haven't developed enough intrapersonal skills to deal with a conflicting opinion or rational justification. Its the same with Sports fan which extends to hooliganism. In all walks of society unfortunately this mindset is an inevitability which is amplified by the anonymity of the "internet". I do however wholeheartedly agree that faning the flames when this happens advertentely or inadvertentely is where people perhaps just need to check themselves. It can start with simply not "lol" ing something which you probably know is wrong.
Not a great strategy as a writer, to blame the reader, then proceed to list examples that do not apply to him/her.
I'd still prefer just getting rid of review scores, but that's never going to happen so good luck dealing with hordes of angry fanboys.
User Banned (Permanent) Apologism for a harassment and hate movement, history of similar behaviour.
Uck, what a bunch of drivel. Gamergate nonsense started because of actual corruption and horrible video game journalism, not because some scores weren't what people wanted...
The gaming journalism industry needs to stop pointing fingers and realize that is THEM that are the real problem. Always have been since the early 2000s. Look at how this horrible author fawns over review scores and metacritics but then blames the mobs for their angry responses. Look at how kotaku reviews games not by quality, but by agenda. And of course, the angry mobs are the problem as well, but your average reader is not. The average reader just wants to be informed, and it's not their fault that kotaku fails miserably at that...
The gaming journalism industry needs to stop pointing fingers and realize that is THEM that are the real problem. Always have been since the early 2000s. Look at how this horrible author fawns over review scores and metacritics but then blames the mobs for their angry responses. Look at how kotaku reviews games not by quality, but by agenda. And of course, the angry mobs are the problem as well, but your average reader is not. The average reader just wants to be informed, and it's not their fault that kotaku fails miserably at that...
Last edited:
That's not how it came off to me. Their wording clearly stated a view that the negative things OP mentioned in that comment are segregated to a specific group of people within the community and on the Internet. Maybe I have misread, but in context of their posts it seems they are trying to dismiss OP's concerns by placing blame on obvious bad actors so as to not examine their own behaviour.
I don't know how that downplays the role the Internet has had in influencing what we currently see, and if that's the point they were making we'd be having a different conversation right now.
Nah fuck this. Context is important and features have different weight in different games. This "one fits all" approach to critique is fucking dumb.
http://www.quartertothree.com/fp/2012/03/24/the-official-journey-review-faq/
Tom Chick's guide to commenting on reviews should be mandatory reading.
Tom Chick's guide to commenting on reviews should be mandatory reading.
Jim does not make ad revenue off his videos, and specifically designs them so that nobody else can either. His revenue comes from Patreon and other avenues. It's not a huge deal, but it gives him a little extra credibility in my eyes.
I for one typically just use reviews to help make purchase decisions. I didn't even GoW-ify my avitar until the reviews were bonkers and so I pre-ordered (no regrets). Sure, there are outlets whose opinions I hold in lower esteem. I'm not going to campaign against them, their voice just doesn't factor into my decision.
However, I think this toxic predetermined fanboyism exists in every fandom. It's just worse for gamers because they have a significant internet presence and tend to be more skilled with technology etc. If hicks were tech savvy, there would be more DDoSing and harrassment over reviews relating to trucks, liquor and guns. This of course is no justification or excuse, but it's a problem bigger then gaming. Gaming is just one of the worst offending fandoms (probably the single worst). This thread is going to rub a *lot* of people the wrong way, I imagine the toxicity and vitriol will lead to a swift closure..
Yeah, you can be positive in your review but at the same time give information to the players.
It happens a lot, but everytime a well received game like BotW or the recent GoW has a review that opens with something stupid like: "The best game on X platforme" or "Every person in earth needs to play the game", I lose a bit of faith in gaming journalism.
There is absolutely no evidence for what you're saying. GameGate started because a woman made some videos analysing video games form a feminist perspective, and a man went on a misogynist internet rant about his ex-GF. Video game journalism had literally nothing to do with it.
Wow, you edited your post and actually made it worse and even more right-wing.
What a load of shit. You talk like we are supposed to treat game reviewers as if they are God-almighty. We all know they are not innocent, or perfect without fault. I don't generally blame them for the corruption we see in this industry because they're just doing their jobs and as they are told. This industry lives and dies on the hype it generates, so telling fans of gaming that it only goes one way is some bully level bullshit.
EDIT: To clear up what I mean, I think the toxicity in this industry is terrible and I tend to avoid discussions about scores and think they should be replaced in favor of a better system. I also think that the industry hype machine has given rise to the toxicity in gaming communities and social media, and to blame regular consumers as being the problem is either self-serving or unwilling to see things from both sides. The machine gets people riled up through hype in order to bolster sales and interest through commercialism, uses journalists to accomplish this, and now people are blaming the products of their making. I don't think that's right or just.
EDIT: To clear up what I mean, I think the toxicity in this industry is terrible and I tend to avoid discussions about scores and think they should be replaced in favor of a better system. I also think that the industry hype machine has given rise to the toxicity in gaming communities and social media, and to blame regular consumers as being the problem is either self-serving or unwilling to see things from both sides. The machine gets people riled up through hype in order to bolster sales and interest through commercialism, uses journalists to accomplish this, and now people are blaming the products of their making. I don't think that's right or just.
Last edited:
That was a symptom of this, not a contemporary cause (the waning power of the game press as tastemakers and a publisher notorious for being controlfreaks doing so some more). It's the only part of the OP I disagree with.
The relative toxicity of people flipping their wigs over game scores was used as a trojan horse by the Alt-Right and their handlers to slip GG into the mainstream SPECIFICALLY because the questions surrounding gamescore/game press integrity was this unsolved problem, (both the subject itself AND the discussion around it) so it took a while to notice Cernovich and the rest pulling a Buffalo Bill on what had been for a few months Doritogate.
It's 2018 and it's still about ethics in games journalism apparently.
I'm too old for this shit. No review is going to change what I see with my eyes or what I can do with my fingers.
I won't lie that near universal acclaim will increase my interest but outside of that, whatever. Nobody likes everything.
I won't lie that near universal acclaim will increase my interest but outside of that, whatever. Nobody likes everything.
I started working online in the 90s. It was definitely a friendlier place back then. Got my first games journalism (and it was a journalism job, not a reviewing job) in 1999 and worked in games media (both print and online) until 2012. During that time I also worked within the industry occasionally as well as writing about it. It definitely got more toxic over the period I worked in and around games.
In 2010 I wrote a review of a game and N4G sent a possie at me for daring giving the game less than a glowing review. I had death threats. I had threats of violence against my young children.
Now it wasn't long after that I left the job and decided to stay home with my young family full time while my wife worked. And at first I missed my old career. But as time rolled on I could see how toxic the online environment was getting. It wasn't long before I decided that if I had the opportunity to back I wouldn't. In 2010 the vitriol that review received was unusual, but now I look online and see it's the norm. Reading comprehension seems at an all time low, and "being a dick" at an all time high. The games media has become more simplistic (despite some quality outlets still existing) and superficial - in part I think to cope with the hate.
Throughout the 2000s the only angry, violent hate-fueled emails I would get were from Jack Thompson, not our readership.
Or maybe I'm just an old man shouting at clouds.
In 2010 I wrote a review of a game and N4G sent a possie at me for daring giving the game less than a glowing review. I had death threats. I had threats of violence against my young children.
Now it wasn't long after that I left the job and decided to stay home with my young family full time while my wife worked. And at first I missed my old career. But as time rolled on I could see how toxic the online environment was getting. It wasn't long before I decided that if I had the opportunity to back I wouldn't. In 2010 the vitriol that review received was unusual, but now I look online and see it's the norm. Reading comprehension seems at an all time low, and "being a dick" at an all time high. The games media has become more simplistic (despite some quality outlets still existing) and superficial - in part I think to cope with the hate.
Throughout the 2000s the only angry, violent hate-fueled emails I would get were from Jack Thompson, not our readership.
Or maybe I'm just an old man shouting at clouds.
I haven't paid attention to reviews for about 20 years. People obviously shouldn't be going to such extremes when criticizing reviewers for "unfavorable" reviews. But the main reason I stopped caring about reviews was that reviewers were summarizing their review with a number. Numbers are objective and, as long as they have the same units, can be compared. Boiling down a subjective review into a single number (with no units) and then aggregating all reviews' numbers as if they were actually objective and comparable only fuels the toxicity by making it easy to ignore the analysis of the review. I don't think reviews should be summarized in any way that could be easily converted into numbers (positive/negative, yes/maybe/no, etc), because it's all the same obfuscation of subjectivity. Without such a summary, people who want to argue about the numbers will be forced to read the review and make up their own numbers for it, and if someone else disagrees with their numbers, they can then argue about the merits of the review and potentially come to an understanding that the numbers are really meaningless.
People act like this and then are surprised when they find out about outlets intentionally giving puff scores to games from big publishers.
When giving an anticipated game anything less than a 9 is seen as some attempt to garner instead of an honest opinion, that shows that the entire structure of gaming reviews is messed up.
When giving an anticipated game anything less than a 9 is seen as some attempt to garner instead of an honest opinion, that shows that the entire structure of gaming reviews is messed up.
I agree, but as Humans this will never change, all of us all the time look for things to confirm our bias, it's hardwired even when your aware of it, this will only change when we change our genetic code
I am denying that. Because I couldn't tell you between the four which one I like the most. I really can't. They all have their pros and cons but luckly we have choice.
Good OP. I've never understood the attachment that people get to developers and publishers. Sure, I love God of War (a LOT), but I know it's not for everyone and it has its faults as well.
I didn't read the Edge thread but I remember the Uncharted 3 thread on GAF. W O O F.
I didn't read the Edge thread but I remember the Uncharted 3 thread on GAF. W O O F.
User Banned (Permanent): Apologism for a harassment and hate movement.
Pretty much this. Lots of pandering to an audience with obvious social or political framing. Just tell me what you think of a gane in the most objective manner possible without bias or agenda
I've found so far that with very few exception, this gen, near universal acclaim = overhyped/overrated.
Example: MSGV. 10s all over the place for a game out of sheer Kojima worship and Spiting Konami, that launched incomplete w/o multiplayer.
Last edited:
I wish you could hear the rolling of my eyes from across the pond.