Quake3World

huh?

I second this notion

If I'm understanding this mess correctly, Memph is saying that game journalists are bought by the people they're supposed to critique objectively and that it's impossible to have objectivity from a journalist wearing a Halo 4 t-shirt.

It's the same problem with the annual "White House Correspondents Dinner" in that the journalists are supposed to keep a "professional distance" from the government...the people they're supposed to critique objectively...and yet they're all sucking each other's dicks.

These are just more reasons to laugh at the entire concept of "journalism"...because there pretty much isn't any.

Oh this shitstorm has been all over the news.

That entire post of full of contradictions dude...

GONNAFISTYA wrote:If I'm understanding this mess correctly, Memph is saying that game journalists are bought by the people they're supposed to critique objectively and that it's impossible to have objectivity from a journalist wearing a Halo 4 t-shirt.

what kind of moron buys a game based on a game journalist's review?

seremtan wrote:what kind of moron buys a game based on a game journalist's review?

Seriously...the ENTIRE industry is OBSESSED TO THE POINT OF RETARDATION with metascore...which is directly linked to journalist's reviews. It's all they care about. Seriously.

It's an ugly mess and every.single.time one of my managers or producers says to the team,"We expect at least an 85 score with this game" I point out that what they're saying is meaningless as every.single.game.on.the.fucking.planet expects to get high scores. Unfortunately I've been doing it more and more the last 5 years and every single manager or producer smiles and pivots to a new topic whenever I say it...even when I follow up.

We can't win.

Memphis wrote:How long can the lowest common denominator as-per capitalist bar-charts really run the show?

You'll get your answer when they stop making Paranormal Activity movies.

In short...they won't...until the fucking sheep stop buying it.

BTW...I just got home because I had to confirm it before I posted...but in my employment contract, the size of my bonus is directly tied to both sales and metacritic score of the game.

No bullshit.

I don't know if it's the same at the other big publishers but there really shouldn't be any doubt how seriously the industry both covets and jury-rigs review scores.

Objective journalism died long before I was born, if it ever existed, respect to the guy for trying to make everyone aware but I'm starting to think people like acting like a bunch of whores

Memphis wrote:

seremtan wrote:what kind of moron buys a game based on a game journalist's review?

Is all information in any game review worthless in your opinion? Not counting scores, any moron can stick a number on something.

yep, pretty much. i don't buy as many games these days as i used to, but my decision is generally based on whether or not i like the look of it on youtube "let's play" type videos. if there's some buzz around it coming from people who i consider to be non-morons, even better. word of mouth > game journalist endorsements

i usually only read pro reviews long after i've bought it, just for interest's sake and lulz, and to see how wrong they get it

losCHUNK wrote:Objective journalism died long before I was born, if it ever existed, respect to the guy for trying to make everyone aware but I'm starting to think people like acting like a bunch of whores

But some are willing to tread a fine line , little article from Erik Kain -

Gaming journalism finds itself in tricky predicament: it relies, quite sensibly, on the advertising dollars of the gaming industry itself. Unlike more mainstream news outlets which can pull in advertising dollars from a wide range of companies, the gaming press inhabits a very specific niche.

There is no way around this. It is a reality of gaming journalism that nobody will be able to change. And it leaves a bad taste in many peoples’ mouths, and that haunting question: if your website is funded by the very same companies you’re supposed to review, is there a conflict of interest that could compromise the integrity of the information you’re giving us?

Even if a gaming site and its writers are absolutely 100% above board and honest all the time, the presence of those ads leaves those questions hanging. And as I said, there’s nothing to be done about this.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/20 ... omplaints/

This ain't the 1st time either -

Jeff Gerstmann was terminated from his position as the Editorial Director of GameSpot on November 28, 2007.[10] Immediately after his termination, rumors began to circulate around the Internet that his dismissal was a result of external pressure from Eidos Interactive, the publisher behind the video game Kane & Lynch: Dead Men. Gerstmann had given the game a negative review[11] while Eidos had Kane & Lynch: Dead Men advertising on the website. Both GameSpot and their parent company CNET Networks stated that his dismissal was unrelated to the review.[11] In what was labelled as the 'GameSpot Exodus' by Joystiq, Alex Navarro, Ryan Davis, Brad Shoemaker and Vinny Caravella all left GameSpot. Davis announced his departure from GameSpot in February 2008, citing Gerstmann's firing as one of his reasons for leaving.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_Bomb

and EGM

Earlier this week we saw an editorial from Electronic Gaming Monthly Editor-in-chief Dan "Shoe" Hsu calling out Sony's sport division, the Mortal Kombat team and Ubisoft for purportedly blackballing the magazine. GameDaily's Media Coverage feature, written by Joystiq's Kyle Orland, talks with Hsu about the editorial to extract more insight into his decision to publish the editorial.

http://www.joystiq.com/2008/01/11/egm-e ... editorial/

Why I don't agree with Kain about this being a case of avoiding the chopping block in court, can find more examples like, and to be fair to the 2nd quote - I wouldn't throw money at someone slagging my work off either, but this (the sacking/quitting) would have happened if there was no law to fall back on (in a cuntry like the USA), the publishers would've just flexed some muscle.

Memphis wrote:

losCHUNK wrote:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/20 ... omplaints/

Nice linky. Yup, it goes deeper still, with regard to the alleged legal threat. Our libel laws are fucked enough that noone wants shoving into that particular vat of soupy buggering lubricant. When one journalist can't suggest misinterpretation of an already public quote from another, without the threat of being pulled up in front of grim-faced wig-wearing judge under a trumped-up deformation charge, there's an obvious problem.

Fully agree with that, not defending our laws or media, an opinion should essentially be just that and taken as such, the fact that you can face criminal charges over something that was argued over the internet is fucking retarded beyond anything America has produced. Would be funny if it did'nt also apply to our mainstream media, dunno how someone hasn't burnt the motherfuckers down.

Memphis wrote:...vat of soupy buggering lubricant.

isn't the technical term "santorum?"

Wait, how is all this exactly news? This kind of thing has been going on for ages and I thought it was considered common knowledge now. Besides, how can you expect a website yo run an unbiased review of the very game they're promoting through their ads at the same time?

sounds like Menfist wants a Leveson Inquiry for the game media

I got sent loads of stuff way back when when reviewing, but never stopped me from saying a certain game sucked. Nice t-shirt tho

srsly, this isn't news. what's new tho is that EG acted upon it and by doing that admitted guilt. that's what undermines the integrity, not the journalists accepting swag.

Eraser wrote: Besides, how can you expect a website yo run an unbiased review of the very game they're promoting through their ads at the same time?

management & marketing and sales are not responsible for the actual written content; that's how.
the whole Gamespot/Kane&Lynch thing was pretty bad though, but in the end made GS management look bad and not the reviewer.

Yeah right. But if things get down to it, and EA/Activision/Ubisoft stop paying for sponsored ads because of negative reviews, you can bet on it future reviews will be artificially positivized (if that's a word).

And even if not. It still gives the impression of the website being biased, even if they aren't. So how am I to know if site X is under the influence of a publisher and site Y isn't, if both are running the same ads?

Eraser is right, it is sort of none news in that it does happen all the time, but then it needs to be made more public as we are not getting the sort of reviews that help us to decide if we spunk up £40 on a game.

Game reviews are always a subjective matter anyway; some of my favourite games get mid 70s in the old metacritic scores but I think they are fantastic. The real issue is that games companies/developers are not taking feedback on board that a review can provide and making better games from it. It must be tough having something you have put your heart and soul into for 3 years dismissed by people who you have likely never met, but thats the same in any arts related industry. Learn from it, do better next time.

Not every game is going to be a 90+ score as some games will push boundries and create things that just make games better in general.

Basically what I am trying to say is that while I appreciate advertising pays wages etc of the reviewers, they should not have an allegence to these products. A review of a product should be made in an unbiased fashion

All the while I must say that I feel the power of reviews are vastly overrated. I doubt any casual gamer really goes out of his way to read reviews before buying a game and more hardcore gamers probably find that other hardcore gamer friends and community are a much greater influence.

And simply, in the end, people should always remember that a game being good or bad is more often a matter of personal taste rather than a case of tangible and quantifiable quality. Sure, there are low quality games out there, but when it comes to comparing the latest Call of Duty to the latest Battlefield, or the latest Tomb Raider to the latest Uncharted game, rarely ever is production quality a problem.

a true statement indeed. all you can get out of a review is if the game is for you, based on the written article. the arbitrary number at the end doesnt nor shouldnt matter at all.

The best way to see if you like a game is to try the demo. Fact.

actually, no.
if the publisher decides to release a demo (which is often not the case), the demo usually contains 1.2gb worth of intromovie and half of the first training mission of the game. all of which is an exact copy of the first 10 mins of the retail version.
that doesnt represent the game at all.

real demos like Starcraft or Serious Sam (demo only levels in which you get to taste all kinds of gameplay elements) don't get released that often anymore, sadly.