Lol same shit happens in OT whenever there is a new marvel movie. You can enjoy the movie and post some criticisms you had of it, but someone has to "marvel-splain" why you are wrong and it is the greatest film ever made by man
-
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
Games media has no credibility outside of a few journalists in my opinion. Part of it is that Their main revenue comes from clicks, and it all comes down to writing edgy contrarian pieces, low Scoring review, scandals, fake outrage, and shit just to create controversy.
Very well written thread, OP. T
I think you hit the nail in the coffin pretty good.
I was super disappointed reading that EDGE review thread because of the amount of people not even suggesting, saying as a fact that EDGE was biased towards Sea of Thieves because Rare is UK based.
And I was disappointed because I thought that we moved here on ResetERA to try to be a better gaming community than GAF was, and in part I think we are better, but only ever so slightly.
Making assumptions about not only videogames, but anything IRL is super dangerous. And people should really stop using reviews as a weapon to defend their favorite games/companies and instead use them to learn more about those games.
I think you hit the nail in the coffin pretty good.
I was super disappointed reading that EDGE review thread because of the amount of people not even suggesting, saying as a fact that EDGE was biased towards Sea of Thieves because Rare is UK based.
And I was disappointed because I thought that we moved here on ResetERA to try to be a better gaming community than GAF was, and in part I think we are better, but only ever so slightly.
Making assumptions about not only videogames, but anything IRL is super dangerous. And people should really stop using reviews as a weapon to defend their favorite games/companies and instead use them to learn more about those games.
Personally I think levelling unfounded accusations against game journos here (paid off, only giving a high score because x) should be a permanent ban. The types of people posting these things and getting bent out of shape over reviews are radicalized. The second it is a woman/poc/minority critiquing their game they almost almost always immediately act like a gamergater too. hmm, wonder why...
The GoW EDGE thread is a definite blemish for this community. But these things have happened before (look at that awful UC3 thread at the old place). Toxic people shouldn't be posting here, period. It really damages the wellbeing of other posters, the journalists, and casual browsers.
The GoW EDGE thread is a definite blemish for this community. But these things have happened before (look at that awful UC3 thread at the old place). Toxic people shouldn't be posting here, period. It really damages the wellbeing of other posters, the journalists, and casual browsers.
Just look what happens when Zelda fans or Halo fans argue about what entry is the best. Fanboys ruin everything. Even their own stuff.
While I agree that people shouldn't be screaming about scores, I don't think reading reviews is much of an answer. I used to read them and then I realized reviews are by-and-large useless to me as text. Reviewers don't come at games (for their review) from a deep, invested perspective. They give you a very surface and general audience view of a game and really the only value I got tended to be if they had a generally positive or generally negative opinion, which, taken in aggregate probably says something about the experience. As such I do look at MetaCritic averages. (I don't take them as gospel). And I don't read reviews anymore. But I also don't scream about scores.
This narrative is weird to me, what's the point of a review then? Anyone can do an objective review in like a paragraph or a few sentences.
It has 3D graphics - tell em technical details only
It has a soundtrack - tell them which instruments are used in making it
It has gameplay - describe the mechanics
It has a story - give them names of the main characters and the main objective
That's actually as objective as you can be. If you want to start talking about story themes you're injecting your own perspective in there, if you want to talk visuals beyond the technical such as artistic merit or design you're injecting your own bias in there. The game might look technically gorgeous but the aesthetic isn't to your liking or vice versa, game might not be a technical marvel but has an art style you think looks gorgeous. What are you supposed to do there as a reviewer? Say, it looks pretty because it features MSAA, high quality god rays and volumetric fog and lighting? Or are you gonna say something like, while the visuals are not technically impressive the over all artistic direction is so impressively beautiful that it elevates the experience to new heights. Objectivity has no place in a review, a review is best when the reviewer is telling the audiences about their experience with a game because that's where you can get something out of it. Reviews might note that "it's not a franchise they're familiar with" or "it's not the kind of game they usually play" or they might end a review thinking "the experience is probably aimed at a specific audience"
I dunno this might be a bit idealistic but I think that reviews are not meant to be report cards, no one is THAT qualified to be the voice for everyone's tastes right? Reviewers are supposed to give us a lens for which we can use to see if we might maybe want to participate in that experience. However that fails because no one actually reads reviews, they just scroll down and look for a number or skip their website all together and just look for the meta score.
I'm afraid nobody is without bias or agenda, conscious or otherwise. That's just how people work. Personal experience colours one's opinion of a media piece, and I'd argue that's a good thing.
What good are scores if the only time they are held accountable or questioned is if they differ from their peers' and are seen as outliers? They are nothing more than false hype generators, and in my opinion they don't serve as guides for consumers like in the old days.
The only way to clear out some of the toxicity in the community is to do away with them, and have journalists get back to what they were educated to do in the first place: inform and share their experiences through their words.
I see games journalists as just writers, their opinion on games means no more than any other opinion on the internet so I don't care if they give low scores or high scores it doesn't matter. Simply seeing the game in action is all I need to decide if I'm going to like a game. If people actually bother these writers then that's really sad.
Not really on topic of the thread but hey ho.
Not really on topic of the thread but hey ho.
I'm continually confounded at how much stock gamers put into reviews and review scores as a form of personal validation for what they already believe. I've been participating in discussions about games on the internet for two decades now and I still just shake my head when I see people in the GoW thread talking about how the Metacritic score was "safe" from some bad review or whatever. I mean, I love GoW. I've done basically nothing else in my free time for the past week other than play the game. But my identity is not threatened one iota if the MC score drops to a 94 from a 95. And people who care about that shit baffle me.
And yes, stuff like this absolutely does contribute to a toxic atmosphere in games as a whole, and especially when it comes to the perception of games coverage and journalism. For people that consume more media than ever before, the average gamer in 2018 has an incredibly poor level of media literacy. They don't understand how the press works, how games are made, and how to interact with the medium in a healthy way.
Of course there are bad moments and even bad actors when it comes to games coverage. I am probably more of an apologist for the gaming press than most, considering I have spent some time writing reviews for certain outlets and interacting with people in the industry, and even I can admit bad shit goes down occasionally. But I think as a whole it's just a group of people trying to do their jobs in the best way they know how given the resources they have. I could count on one hand the number of people in professional games media who I think are actively trying to stir up controversy on a daily basis. It's a shame that so few bad apples can spoil the whole bunch in people's eyes and give them some sick justification for blasting a whole industry over it.
Also, everyone needs to understand that fact that a review from a professional games writer is just an opinion and is no different than your opinion, except that they have an audience. I am honestly more disappointed that there aren't more outlier reviews from big outlets (which is a problem in itself and a discussion for another thread) and I don't care at all when I see someone give a "low score" to a game.
And yes, stuff like this absolutely does contribute to a toxic atmosphere in games as a whole, and especially when it comes to the perception of games coverage and journalism. For people that consume more media than ever before, the average gamer in 2018 has an incredibly poor level of media literacy. They don't understand how the press works, how games are made, and how to interact with the medium in a healthy way.
Of course there are bad moments and even bad actors when it comes to games coverage. I am probably more of an apologist for the gaming press than most, considering I have spent some time writing reviews for certain outlets and interacting with people in the industry, and even I can admit bad shit goes down occasionally. But I think as a whole it's just a group of people trying to do their jobs in the best way they know how given the resources they have. I could count on one hand the number of people in professional games media who I think are actively trying to stir up controversy on a daily basis. It's a shame that so few bad apples can spoil the whole bunch in people's eyes and give them some sick justification for blasting a whole industry over it.
Also, everyone needs to understand that fact that a review from a professional games writer is just an opinion and is no different than your opinion, except that they have an audience. I am honestly more disappointed that there aren't more outlier reviews from big outlets (which is a problem in itself and a discussion for another thread) and I don't care at all when I see someone give a "low score" to a game.
Agreed on all counts. I read through the whole OP and can't really disagree with anything. "We" are a big part of the problem.
It's nothing new, and it happened way before Metacritic - hell, even before the Internet was the thing it is today. Back in 1992, a prominent Italian gaming magazine gave Sonic 2 a 89%, while every other magazine under the sun wouldn't dare give the game less than 95% and crazy praise. The reviewer gave ample reason for that score in the review. Nevertheless, the magazine got a lot of angry phone calls.
But yeah, Metacritic amplified this phenomenon to idiotic proportions. Metacritic is bad for many reasons, one of those being that if you dare have an opinion on a game, someone will instantly pop up with "yeah riiiiight buddy, have you seen the Metacritic for the game? That means your opinion is shit". But more than that, Metacritic basically forces reviewers to fall in line with the scores everyone else is giving, because you don't really want to be the guy who ruined Zelda's MC score with your hot take. The mob is always ready, and always angry, and unlike the Hulk, they are real and may actually try and do their best to ruin your life over a video game score.
Pretty much my take of it. When reading the article, i couldn't help but feel personally affected by the many you's the OP is talking about. That when i am not one of those people he addresses to.
The bigger picture, i feel, the OP tries to paint is that in the gaming industry, we (The press, ERA users reacting, and so on) have a tendency to jump into these either black or white stigma's rather quickly. An 8/10 does not mean a game is shit, just that this reviewer gave it 8/10. If his reasons were sound, which you can find out by reading the article, then there is literally nothing you or anyone should get pissed out over in a reasonable fashion.
And reasonable is the keyword here, and it is not only limited to just the games industry, but in general. We live in times where we get raged over literally every little thing. Instead of weighing the issue accurately and responding to such in a reasonable manner, it feels like nowadays we only have a on/off switch to react with. Which is why you see people get offended so quickly over comparitively little things. Which is why people do insane bullshit like death threating developers, celebrities, directors and so on over it.
Getting back to the gamer's part, it is indeed why posters here are saying: gamers take gaming way, WAY too seriously. And i share that sentiment. Gaming is supposed to entertain, not a device to advocate for death or severe trauma's to be wished upon those people who either develop a game or write about a game. Its another sad byproduct of what i frequently tend to call Offensism - the idea that it is somehow socially accepted to get offended over every little thing and respond to such in completely unreasonable manners. Where are the times where you could deliver a critical line and people disagreeing with that would respond with an equally elaborated counter-argument instead of literally wishing people dead over it?
That being said, i do have to say that the way OP has written this actually incites frustration aswell by usage of the many you's. Perhaps that was the OP's intention, but poorly worded it is. I think there is an excellent case to discuss about however, which is what i hope i have commented on sufficiently.
Whilst toxic attitudes will stay in the gaming hemisphere for a long time to come, i do feel there is a chance to get being reasonable back in the industry. After all, games are made for entertainment, not as a device for harassment.
Unless you were born in a box and stayed there until now, having no contact with society, every thought or opinion or view you hold has a social and a political framing. Not caring about social context is a political and a social choice and it's also the manifestation of bias and an 'agenda', merely a different one from the ones you're criticizing. And all of these are highly subjective, just like reviews.
What you want is for these people to have the same biases that you have and only look at games the exact same way you do. Which is unreasonable, to say the least.
If you want an 'objective' review, check out any game's press release and the system requirements, because those are the only places you'll find such a thing.
The "best" part is that judging from the general discourse around Twilight Princess...most people would agree with the 8.8 now. Hell, it seems that most would rate it lower nowadays.
Oh look, someone didn't read the OP before running to the comments to spread fanboy wars, way to prove his point.
I don't think the review scores cause the toxicity. They are an occasion for it. But, yes, getting rid of them would cause less toxic conversation, and less conversation, period, around reviews, I think.
Personally though, I'd go from casually observing metacritic results to get a certain, fallible gauge on the game to not consuming their content at all. I don't think the text itself is particularly valuable for an enthusiast gamer with a lot of experience with specific genres and a lot of idiosyncratic tastes. Reviews are way too "general feel" and way too from a general consumer for them to be worth much to me.
It's almost all online media. Some outlets still produce good content, but all in some way or another are busy with finding ways to monetize. We've been working on how to prevent our affiliate links not get hidden by adblockers, because it looks like no user wants to pay for information (as they hate any kind of monetization) and even Patreon would be a small minority thing. People just don't bother "paying" for physical magazines or newspapers and don't even want to support websites. Our biggest competitor blocked adblockers and now it's being bashed to death. We currenly focus on good content and affiliations because we care about users more than we care about ads - but we're in a minority and we had to give up doing news and commentary about the industry. Because it does not pay at all.
Users don't get that journalism/writing is still a job that is hard, makes little money, and we have families too.
Sadly, this isn't confined to gaming only. I vaguely recall a negative review or something for The Dark Knight Rises and there were death threats even there.
As it has been mentioned before, zero accountability for this kind of stuff really makes it worse.
As it has been mentioned before, zero accountability for this kind of stuff really makes it worse.
I agree with your assessment. They shouldn't be held above everyone else as superior beings, but at the same time they don't deserve the sludge of vitriol thrown at them either. As in all things, balance is the key to neutrality.
I remember on the old site entering one Review Thread and deciding to never do it again.
Most people there are getting all excited about review scores is insane to me.
That's not to say review scores aren't important but what's worth way more is the opinions and information dispersed in the reviews.
Fuck that though. If the game I like scores lower than I want it to there'll be hell to pay.
The thread in question was the horizon thread where I talked about how surprised I was that it got the numbers it got.(I myself gave it an 8.5 instead of the 9's)
My main qualm was that from a gameplay standpoint the game brought nothing of its own to the table, no gameplay to specifically call "Horizon".
People seemed to have questions and interest in what I had to say up until that point where I feel like a lot of them just kinda turned(okay maybe not actually turned but it's the closest I can think of) on me.
That's not to say that that Gaming media are free of criticism because there are tons of examples out there that proves otherwise.
Most people there are getting all excited about review scores is insane to me.
That's not to say review scores aren't important but what's worth way more is the opinions and information dispersed in the reviews.
Fuck that though. If the game I like scores lower than I want it to there'll be hell to pay.
The thread in question was the horizon thread where I talked about how surprised I was that it got the numbers it got.(I myself gave it an 8.5 instead of the 9's)
My main qualm was that from a gameplay standpoint the game brought nothing of its own to the table, no gameplay to specifically call "Horizon".
People seemed to have questions and interest in what I had to say up until that point where I feel like a lot of them just kinda turned(okay maybe not actually turned but it's the closest I can think of) on me.
That's not to say that that Gaming media are free of criticism because there are tons of examples out there that proves otherwise.
I get you OP. There's still people discussing about God of War's metacritic dropping to 94 like it's the worst thing in the world. To think it got so bad the mods locked the Edge reviews thread because people can't be civil about it.
I don't know if rabid fanboyism would be as bad as it is nowadays if the review scale was properly utilized. I feel like Edge might be the only review outlet that even tries. There are so many average, or close to average games that belong in the 5 territory that are usually given an 8 because that's just how an 8 is seen now. Rabid fanboys are surely a problem, but I think this is a chicken and egg scenario. Would people be so ridiculous if the scale was used properly for the past 20 years or so? Reviewers normalized this poor system. Of course I'm not justifying the stupidity of people, don't get me wrong, anyone raging over a review is a moron.
I wish this would happen, but Metacritic is far too powerful.
Most sites get a significant bump in views when their reviews are featured on Metacritic.
Personally I'm not a fan of scores at all. I'd rather take the extra few minutes and read the text.
The only model I can think of that actually has its uses is Steam's "thumbs up/thumbs down" for user reviews. That thumb is the first thing anyone sees, so I as the reviewer can decide on where to go from there.
People who get mad about Edge scores and can't comprehend that scores of two different games by two different people aren't related to each other will just see "the problem is you" in the OP and get offended. They're literally too dumb to take in any ideas with nuance. But we have to be nice to them and engage them rationally or we are banned. So people fruitlessly engage them until the thread is locked, wash, rinse, repeat.
Indeed. I've made this point time and time again in regards to the arbitrary nature of these review scores and how absurd it is to be so invested into them. Watching review threads where people are watching the scores with excitement as it goes up or go into a fit of rage when it goes down is just hilariously bizarre to witness.
Use common sense, stopping caring about this nonsense, folks. Stop caring about how your favorite video game is perceived. It is a useless waste of energy.
User Banned (5 Days): Making light of death threats and toxic gender constructs
There are death threats voiced by people with severe mental health problems... and then there are death threats voiced by teenaged males who aren't mature enough to regulate their emotions.
I don't believe that all death threats should be taken seriously, and I think that some of these so-called 'celebrities' or high-profile people who discuss or write about gaming are being overly dramatic when they mention these threats against them. In high school, Bob Bukuowski, the high school bully, used to threaten me every single day. That's just what male teenagers do.
How many gaming journalists have been killed so far for writing about gaming? The answer is none.
I don't believe that all death threats should be taken seriously, and I think that some of these so-called 'celebrities' or high-profile people who discuss or write about gaming are being overly dramatic when they mention these threats against them. In high school, Bob Bukuowski, the high school bully, used to threaten me every single day. That's just what male teenagers do.
How many gaming journalists have been killed so far for writing about gaming? The answer is none.
Great thread, this is such a broad reaching issue with sooooooo much to talk about, affecting things all the way up to how games are designed now.... But you literally can't talk about it because of the force of the corporate worshippers.
It's moved beyond confirmation bias. It's literally become marketing confirmation. Does this review line up with what the pr and hype machine told us. Woe for you reviewer if it doesn't.
It's moved beyond confirmation bias. It's literally become marketing confirmation. Does this review line up with what the pr and hype machine told us. Woe for you reviewer if it doesn't.
Sorry but reviewers are not infallible. I don't condone death threats or the like, but c'mon. When Adam Sessler praised MS for all of their crap they tried to pull, he got called out for it and rightfully so. Then he had the nerve to condemn fans and say Sony would do it too. Where do you think the SonyToo meme came from? His kind should never be welcome in any industry where our consumer rights are trying to be changed from what we as consumers want.
If we let reviewers say whatever they like with no real proof or reason, the industry suffers. There are many reviewers out there who post crap articles and scores to drive more traffic and gain marketshare/money for their website/blog/youtube channel. It's not that hard to find the ones who do it. Many create controversy where there is none or they praise companies who try to move forward with anti-consumer motives. I'll call them out everytime I see it.
If we let reviewers say whatever they like with no real proof or reason, the industry suffers. There are many reviewers out there who post crap articles and scores to drive more traffic and gain marketshare/money for their website/blog/youtube channel. It's not that hard to find the ones who do it. Many create controversy where there is none or they praise companies who try to move forward with anti-consumer motives. I'll call them out everytime I see it.
Moderators are a community-sourced and 100% unpaid position. Working quality assurance here at the post factory is merely a condition of my parole.
My only "economic relationship" is how much money I owe the Boston Museum of Fine Arts for destroying that installation. Which, in my defense, was only like a 6 out of 10.
Ideally I'd like for people to stop being fanboys, but let's be real that will never happen.
I do like the idea of a like vs dislike system vs a number scale, as everyone interprets that differently. For example a 10/10 may be perfect to the reader, but not the reviewer.
Another solution I'd like to see but will never happen, is for the industry to take a stand against the toxicity and try and change the culture for the better.
I quite agree with the OP on most of his topics there. On mobile so really don't want to type up a novel but OP's premise can easily be seen in this forum whether in Xenoblade, Zelda, God of War or other popular game threads. Contrary opinions are taken as an offense. And this is a heavily moderated forum. Now think of Reddit or Gamefaqs.
So yeah, the "you" is very pertinent.
So yeah, the "you" is very pertinent.
The press is messed up because they are too close with the publishers and the fans. It's enthusiast press. Its practically a bridge between publishers and fans.
The op is overly fixated on just specific reviews and the assertion that the state of the games press is the fault of YOU is unsupported.
The op is overly fixated on just specific reviews and the assertion that the state of the games press is the fault of YOU is unsupported.
Review scores were a mistake. On Neogaf I would occasionally post a link back to a compilation post of people going completely fucking apeshit at Uncharted 3 getting a single 8/10 review (which was before release so none of the people going crazy had even played it) saying things like "That fat fuck isn't reviewing it thankfully," or "Euro(Trash)gamer being a bitch as usual. WTF at that review." This is what people were saying in public so I can't imagine what people say directly to the staff of publications in private.
I only watch reviews from Jim Sterling because he says "tripple A" in a funny voice. So I'm definitely not a part of the problem m'kay?
But I get what you want us to say OP and we had that topic once in a while from time to time. Mostly when shit got too crazy (again) over some dumb reasons. Maybe this hobby really has alot emotions attached to it or we don't deserve it better because we can't learn to seperate the fan from the fanyboy. Welp I'm guilty too like my post history shows for every MS thread. At least insight is the first way to recovery right? (pfft u wish)
But I get what you want us to say OP and we had that topic once in a while from time to time. Mostly when shit got too crazy (again) over some dumb reasons. Maybe this hobby really has alot emotions attached to it or we don't deserve it better because we can't learn to seperate the fan from the fanyboy. Welp I'm guilty too like my post history shows for every MS thread. At least insight is the first way to recovery right? (pfft u wish)
Maybe there is a reason why you're taking it so personally that you should reevaluate.
I wrote a review some years back, giving 7/10 to an exclusive game that was the supposed to be very much like the second coming of christ. 7 isn't bad, 7 is good. Not fantastc, but good.
It blew up. Longest artcle thread I've ever seen. People were furious. Then it broke internationally. Got it's own thread on gaf. People were angryz and ridiculing this stupid reviewer from some stupid site in a stupid country. Death threats started filling up my inbox.
But you know what actually pissed me off?
Some days later one of the national news papers had an interview with one of the devs of that game, and they mentioned all the noise about this review. The dev said something along the lines of "there will always be people who like you, and people who hate you. I think it's just best to focus on those that like you."
I gave it a 7. A bloody seven. It mans I like you, you stupid fucking asshole. But now I don't. You had a chance to say something to the vultures out there, but you chose to add to the pile. These devs are forever blacklisted for me. I'll never play another one of their games. Just seeing their log pisses me off.
And then you get tools like gamergate who whine about ethics in games journalism. Fuck them. They're the exact same assholes who send death threats when they don't like a review.
So in short. I completely agree with you OP. I've lived it.
TL;DR: I've had to deal with this exact thing. It sucks.
It blew up. Longest artcle thread I've ever seen. People were furious. Then it broke internationally. Got it's own thread on gaf. People were angryz and ridiculing this stupid reviewer from some stupid site in a stupid country. Death threats started filling up my inbox.
But you know what actually pissed me off?
Some days later one of the national news papers had an interview with one of the devs of that game, and they mentioned all the noise about this review. The dev said something along the lines of "there will always be people who like you, and people who hate you. I think it's just best to focus on those that like you."
I gave it a 7. A bloody seven. It mans I like you, you stupid fucking asshole. But now I don't. You had a chance to say something to the vultures out there, but you chose to add to the pile. These devs are forever blacklisted for me. I'll never play another one of their games. Just seeing their log pisses me off.
And then you get tools like gamergate who whine about ethics in games journalism. Fuck them. They're the exact same assholes who send death threats when they don't like a review.
So in short. I completely agree with you OP. I've lived it.
TL;DR: I've had to deal with this exact thing. It sucks.
But it's been shown time and time again that reviews without scores get less engagement (read: clicks). So how do they make money?
Related: people complain about "clickbait" titles all the time, but that's unfortunately how games press makes their money. They have no choice. They make shitty articles that get clicks so that they can also write the stuff they actually want to write. Hell, even when they report on news, companies will sometimes blueball 'em for sharing reliable rumors and shit. Inside information.
It's... really frustrating how much people try to discredit the games press. Journalists or enthusiasts. Doesn't matter. They're doing it because they want to (ostensibly), but they also have to make money. Often the latter requires... giving into the baser instincts of "the masses". (If it sounds like I'm being dismissive of "the masses", well, I am a little bit. But also, if that's the kind of shit they like, that's fine. The more... excitable minority is the real problem, in my opinion.)
I say this as a game developer. I respect the games press. I do not hold it against them when they shit on a game I've worked on. It... it sucks. But they're doing their job. As long as they're being honest, I see no reason why I should hate them. And I have no reason to believe they're being dishonest. Most of the time, anyway.
Good lord, back when my roommates and I saw Black Panther we all had a post-movie discussion that eventually led to us talking about DC and how awful of a movie Justice League was. One of the guys in the group, after about 5 minutes of us trashing the film, talking about stuff we didn't like, and me going into the production of the film since I followed it quite a bit, suddenly just exploded on us in a full on meltdown saying that it's one of the greatest films ever made and we are all just shallow and don't understand movies on a deeper level. It was very weird and uncomfortable and it ended the rest of the conversation for the night.
There is truth in here, but in the current environment, its really hard to talk about this without shit like gg type logic just coming in to flood stand for the status quo, publishers, and brands.
But not every reviewer is trying to boost visibility in those ways, and just because a reviewer is fallible and has screwed up, doesn't mean the entirety of the body of their output is some kind of purposeful scam.
I mean there is DEFINITELY a conversation to be had about the all too chummy relationships publishers seem to think they have with reviewers, and the leverage they weild over said relationships.
But there are also other reasons a reviewer might miss the mark one way or the other, not tied directly to trying to scheme for clicks, or the machinations of a man behind the curtains.
How many people here are aware of what the working conditions, what the review environment is like for these reviewers. They are not the same as you or me enjoying a game, or even themselves, when they play games for fun.
These environments are not very conducive to say, getting in depth with nuanced systems, especially systems the reviewer has not experienced much before. They also are not very good for distinguishing a deep and engaging system that holds up over time, and one that' a mile wide but only an inch deep, whims glamour wears off rather quickly, but not quickly enough for the limited amount of time a reviewer has to burn through it.
Every game now is 8 and 9 the numbers are meaningless.
No it's their damn fault. EDGE is the only outlet with a number system that make sense.
No it's their damn fault. EDGE is the only outlet with a number system that make sense.