Something is going on with Fallout 3 reviews.

[Stevee Wonder]

Stevee, we could add numerous bad reviews to that list too. So who are we to believe?

You could, but I doubt you will find many. CanardPC? That your bad "review" of choice?

 

[Xi]

Again, read the thread. Per has posted some 200 of them over at NMA. Please, read the thread.

Well since I quoted the only post in the entire thread that talked about NMA's random listing of 200 quasi-reviews. That would imply that I read the post. I guess I just didn't think they'd go so far out of their way to find so many positive reviews. I kind of figured they would write their own review and leave it at that. Either way, your concept of Occam's Razor is just wrong, that's what i was debating and I think Hory pretty much applied it how you were trying too.(Only you failed)

 

[Stevee Wonder]

] I guess I just didn't think they'd go so far out of their way to find so many positive reviews.

Then you should probably just not think, you seem used to that.

Per has been posting every review he can find, not just positive ones. Given his opinion of the game I don't think he is doing it to sway others.

 

[Chefe]

Is Stevee arguing that Fallout 3 is a good game to everyone because it's gotten so many good reviews from big magazines?

 

[Stevee Wonder]

Is Stevee arguing that Fallout 3 is a good game to everyone because it's gotten so many good reviews from big magazines?

No, Stevee is arguing that it's more likely that so many reviewers actually like the game opposed to the theory they are all paid off.

To which I can only agree.

And big magazines were never used as a qualifier. In fact, Stevee said if only big mags liked it and all the little guys didn't then Stevee would be more apt to subscribe to the Conpsiracy Theory newsletter.

 

[Cimmerian Nights]

They weren't paid off, they're just tasteless troglodytes.

The fact that the frame of reference for how good FO3 is is Oblivion rather than FO1 or 2 should be a pretty clear indication of that,

 

[S_Verner]

It's not so much the gushing praise as it is the paint-by-numbers result they all come to. It's like they're all regurgitating the same talking points, beyond the point of coincidence. It almost seems like someone handed them a press kit and said "you have to fill these quotas - mention VATS (and explain the acronym), mention Beth are big fans, dark humor, mention disgruntled hardcore fans, etc.

It's kind of like one of those celebrity interviews on one of the Late Shows where the whole conversation has been sketched out in a pre-interview. It's so shallow and canned.

Actually, that's EXACTLY what happens.

I mean, this is the same country that invented the NDA.

and the EULA.

And the goddamn clauses that prevent a man from ever working in their life again if the contract is breached.

AND OUR COURTS UPHOLD THEM.

 

[Cimmerian Nights]

Speak No Evil or Be Banned
http://www.cvgames.com/?p=2722

Not only do the rules above apply to Previews but some Publishers are willing to extend this to include even Reviews. At times we have been told that we are not allowed to give a game a bad score. If we refused to take it down or revise the score, we had to have a second writer cover the game who had not been tainted by our previous coverage. If we refused, the company threatened to blacklist us.

 

[Chefe]

Is Stevee arguing that Fallout 3 is a good game to everyone because it's gotten so many good reviews from big magazines?

No, Stevee is arguing that it's more likely that so many reviewers actually like the game opposed to the theory they are all paid off.

To which I can only agree.

You're an idiot.

 

[S_Verner]

Just wait-soon they'll be pointing out the flaws when the next big thing comes around and FO3 is a few years old.

Actually, from what I have heard from a credible source, you do not need to sign a piece of paper or even be aware it exists to be bound legally by an insane NDA, merely opening the box the review copy is in counts as accepting the contract, even if the slip of paper is inside the box.

Of course, proving it WAS in the box could work with about five cameras and two expert witnesses, but that is beyond most people's financial capability.

By insane I mean one of those bullshit TRADE SECRET THEFT clauses that prevent you from working in 'the biz' for about five years.

 

[S_Verner]

Oh shit this is the wrong forum entirely

Still it's fairly relevant.

 

[Azrael the cat]

Just wait-soon they'll be pointing out the flaws when the next big thing comes around and FO3 is a few years old.

Actually, from what I have heard from a credible source, you do not need to sign a piece of paper or even be aware it exists to be bound legally by an insane NDA, merely opening the box the review copy is in counts as accepting the contract, even if the slip of paper is inside the box.

Of course, proving it WAS in the box could work with about five cameras and two expert witnesses, but that is beyond most people's financial capability.

By insane I mean one of those bullshit TRADE SECRET THEFT clauses that prevent you from working in 'the biz' for about five years.

Sorry, but I'm calling bullshit on this one. Ok, I've been a lawyer in Australia, not the US, but our fundamental laws governing contracts and other binding agreements are very similar (and pretty much identical to that in all common-law nations, i.e. UK, Canada, Singapore, India etc). EULAs aren't worth jacksquat - that's why companies are so reluctant to bring litigation enforcing them. Fundamentally, what you need for something to be binding is an actual agreement to the PRECISE terms of the contract. The written piece of paper is just evidence of that, though many countries have legislation requiring that such evidence exists for particular kinds of contracts (eg contracts for sale of land). What's more there is substantial case evidence in common law jurisdictions that the more onerous or unusual the terms of the contract, the more you need to do to ensure that the specific terms are brought to the parties' attention. Just telling them the gist of the agreement before they sign it is insufficient, and it certainly is insufficient to just have a contract inside the box - there's no basis for agreement at all in that situation.

There's also 4 qualities of EULAs thought to make them unenforceable that would also apply here:
- the fact that there is no way to be sure that someone has actually READ the exact terms (compare that to a mortgage document, where most banks and lawyers will insist that you not only sign at the end, but also put your signature on every page, and also get your own lawyer to sign saying that you've been given legal advice about the contract, so that it's absolutely certain that you've read and understood the whole thing);
- the fact that the very format encourages people to skip past;
- the fact that there is no room for direct negotiation over the terms of the agreement. Courts treat 'pre-fab' contracts different to negotiated ones, as there is far greater risk of misunderstanding and uncertainty. As such they are much more likely to require evidence that there have been clear and obvious steps taken to ensure that the parties are aware of the precise terms to which they are agreeing (as opposed to a traditional negotiated contract, in which case your signature is sufficient to create a presumption that you've read and understood it);
- and MOST importantly, you don't get to see the EULA (or the reviewer agreement in this case) until you've already got the copy, paid for it in the case of EULA, and opened the box. Hence no agreement - they can put whatever they like in the box, but it's the presence of an agreement that counts. There's no magical contract fairy that deems you bound to something you haven't actually consensually signed off on.

So why do all companies use these worthless agreements? Because they aren't worthless - they are only LEGALLY worthless. In fact they serve two very important purposes. Firstly (and less importantly) they discourage many lawsuits at the outset and bully naive gaming journalists and consumers into believing that they are bound to follow the terms of the non-existent agreement. Most journalists and consumers in general are frighteningly ignorant about their legal rights, and tend to believe anything the company tells them. But MUCH more importantly in the case of contracts with reviewers, these agreements can have great commercial wealth (I don't know this firsthand - I'm just making an estimate based on the fact that this is EXACTLY how it works in other commercial areas). The contracts might not be legally binding, but they do provide written evidence of a commercial arrangement. The courts might not give a crap, but other companies certainly will. So if you go ignoring the provisions that the publisher/developing company puts on you, sure there won't be any legal repercussions, but they've now got a piece of paper they can send to other companies showing that you're a lying rat (or more favourably, someone who will stand up to their demands) and you could quickly find yourself blacklisted by a whole lot of other companies as well.

Now, to avoid confusion, commercial confidentiality agreements are a whole different kettle of fish - those are serious business and very much enforceable. But confidentiality is waived as soon as the company wants you to publish something on it. They can't go 'this is confidential, but you can write on it, oh but now you've written something bad so it's confidential again'.

Finally, there are issues of illegality under trade practices legislation (in Australia that the misleading and deceptive conduct provisions in the Trade Practices Act - there's a US equivalent with the same wording, we copied it from you guys I think). It's unlawful to deliberately deceive (not even outright lie, but deceive) in a commercial context. Now no reviewer is ever going to get successfully sued for giving a biased review - the provision doesn't cover opinion, review commentary etc. But it very clearly confirms that a contract requiring one to give what is essentially an advertising piece, while pretending it is a bona fide review, is unlawful, and contracts that require party to commit an unlawful action are unenforceable (there was a series of radio cases in Australia few years back where advertisements were dressed up as commentary, and incurred media penalties for similar reasons, although under different legislation).

Again, not saying that these people couldn't screw you regardless, and frankly I doubt that they'd need a contract to shut you out of the industry, but just keep in mind that often these kind of clauses are there for commercial rather than legal enforceability.

 

[tunguska]

Occam's Razor applies to competing hypothesis with evidence that is almost equally compelling or that lack evidence entirely. And it is merely a rule of thumb, a heuristic, which doesn't actually add to any evidence for the truth of anything. It was never intended as such a device. And in any case I would argue that the conspiracy theory IS the simpler hypothesis to explain the similarity in both content and ratings on all the major sites. No game is THAT good. Even PS:T got some less than perfect reviews.

Still it's not a true conspiracy as such. It is just Adam Smith's Invisible Hand at work. Sites with honest reviewers tend to disappear over time unless they have an alternate source of funding. There is a huge, glaring, obvious, elephant in the room kind of conflict of interest at work with these game review sites. It is silly to take seriously anything positive they say about the guys who are paying the bills. Now if they say something negative that is a different story. But that rarely happens. Sorry, but that's just the nature of Capitalism. It aint a perfect system. The OP has an excellent, albeit obvious, point.

 

[S_Verner]

Well, my friend is afraid of absolutely nothing then, and is a fucking pansy.

Also, his writing slipped, so I will inform his boss of his willy-nilly discussion of things he claimed are protected by NDA.

 

[S_Verner]

Even PS:T got some less than perfect reviews.

If you can call THIS GAME IS ABOUT ZOMBIES HAVING SEX less than perfect, you suck many dicks.

 

[S_Verner]

The Law

Actually, can suit be brought up for intimidation?

Because the dude is a 'legal consultant'; which means he was a wikifag who argued about Fair Use before The Cabal decided that he had to go.[/quote]

 

[DemonKing]

Guys seriously flawed games have been getting OMFG! BEST GAME EVAH reviews from the big sites for ages now.

The worst was probably when Jade Empire got an :"Exclusive early review" from IGN which was, amazingly, 9.9/10! Now I played the game when it came out on PC and it was a solid game - but no way was it that good...

I'm still amazed Bioshock got rated so highly - it had decent art design but other than that it was a corridor shooter with repeitive enemies, annoying mingames, a storyline related through the plot device of everyone in Rapture recording their innermost thoughts on audio tapes set in an underwater world where you never have to swim or worry about drowning...yet somehow this seriously flawed game is a 10/10 masterpiece?

 

[Forest Dweller]

lol where did you get that Todd Howard pic?

 

[uhjghvt]

No, Stevee is arguing that it's more likely that so many reviewers actually like the game opposed to the theory they are all paid off.

To which I can only agree.

haha you forgot to log into your sockpuppet account, real smooth

 

[bonch]

Occam's Razor suggests that perhaps the game just is that good.

How so? It could just as easily mean they are full of bullshit if all the reviews are practically a copy/paste of one another.

Yes. That's correct. They all just fucking plagiarized each other. That's clearly the simple solution. Hundreds of people just risked their careers on stealing someone else's Fallout 3 review instead of playing it themselves.

Fuckin' a. This place is a gold mine.

GROUPTHINK NEVER HAPPENS, GUYS!

THIS GAME WHERE I CAN KILL BURKE BEFORE HE SHOOTS SIMMS, BUT SIMMS MAGICALLY DISAPPEARS AND IS TREATED AS DEAD, IS OBVIOUSLY JUST THAT GOOD!

10/10 LIFE-CHANGING EXPERIENCE A+++!

 

[Darth Roxor]

The reviewers may not be 'paid' for the reviews in a direct manner, as in 'give this 10/10 plz *hands a huge bag of jewish $$$* ', but they know that by giving these games 10/10, they get 'credit' at the devs, and may be hopeful for an "EXCLUSIVE, FIRST IN THE WORLD REVIEW OF THE BESTEST NEW TITLE EVAR!" somewhere in the future or something like that.

 

[bylam]

Whether paid or not, I find that most of the reviews that I have read have a smug "we were right!" attitude when they mention "hardcore fans".

It's as if the gaming journalists are so insecure that they have to make themselves feel better by pretending "we were right". And, of course, the fact that many of us don't like the game is only proof that we never would have.

 

[Ismaul]

Yes. That's correct. They all just fucking plagiarized each other. That's clearly the simple solution. Hundreds of people just risked their careers on stealing someone else's Fallout 3 review instead of playing it themselves.

Actually, there is next to no risk if they're all agreeing with each other. They're gonna be covering each other's asses in fear of their own ass being discovered. They've become accomplices by default, like a big mafia family.

by giving these games 10/10, they get 'credit' at the devs, and may be hopeful for an "EXCLUSIVE, FIRST IN THE WORLD REVIEW OF THE BESTEST NEW TITLE EVAR!" somewhere in the future or something like that.

Since everyone's been giving those 10/10 like hot cakes, they're going to have to up the ante and start sucking harder on that cock. Them 10/10 favors are coming way to easy, and since there can only be one exclusive feature of a kind, it's the favors on top of that score that are going to count. Expect game journalists to become even dirtier whores than they are now. Those who survive anyways.

 

[Fenril]

I usually read the reviews in gamepsy, IGN and gamespot. For me these are the well...the higher godfathers.


Ive read quite a few. Naturally this leads to some easy comparisons.

The conclusion is I dont know if they were paid off in cash or check, if they were paid dinners, paid whores, promised a better job, invited to cool parties, given exclusive interviews or features or wtf ever. They do BENEFIT in SOME WAY by giving some companies titles a positive treatment. Its just how it is.

Their reviews are biased to favor some studios over others. Period. This is not debatable its painfully clear and also applies to other entertainment types review sites/magazines as a bunch of other shit based on "critic" opinions.

Its just the way it is and it doesnt take any conspiracy theories, all you need to do is remember that a reviewer or "critic" is just ANOTHER part of the game industry and the way it works JUST like mr. lead designer, artist or coder or PR manager etc. None are independant in practice so none are fully trustworthy. Simple.


Still theres not much of a point in arguing this unless you want to keep reminding people to not be fucking naive.

The only point is spotting reviews that really go over the top in lack of neutrality, at least those ones should be pointed out, even if you already know every review of a said high profile title its going to have to be positive in general.

 

[Claw]

FYI, Gerstmann's review of Fallout 3. There's irony to be found here.

So, somebody can be not a hardcore Codex crazy, and yet not enough of a corporate shill to be tolerable for true profeshunals like gamespot. Now, I don't know how "big" Giantbomb is, but I never heard of hit before.
I don't know if that's irony. Even thought he gave it a 4/5 rating, the review was (mostly)appropriately critical, and that matters more than a stupid score. Even VD thinks the game is good. That's probably more ironic, although I don't think the term is appropriate.