Totally Not Corrupt Professional Objective Gaming Journalism DRAMA

[SuicideBunny]

hm, did rps put up any piece on gamergate?

 

[Lemming42]

 

[Angthoron]

Well, as you can see, the latter doesn't have gameplay, so it can't be judged as "frustrating" "inconsistent" and "awful".

 

[Blaine]

Seeing RPS' growing popularity, I bet this will be very profitable for them.

Oh, no, wait.

 

[Akratus]

I've always drank black tea with half and half and sugar. Only black tea though. With chamomile or green tea is just begging for an ass kicking.

I almost exclusively drink Lemon Green Tea. Come at me bro.

 

[Ninja Destroyer]

It would be more lulzy if both reviews were written by the same person.

Oh, and obligatory

 

[A user named cat]

Spoiler

The consistency is mindblowing, especially when phone versions receive more favorable scores. What a wonderfully reliable site, just like Gamespot. I'm so glad they get all that traffic and kids use them as a source before shopping. Great stuff, awesome for the gaming industry.

 

[SuicideBunny]

The consistency is mindblowing, especially when phone versions receive more favorable scores. What a wonderfully reliable site, just like Gamespot. I'm so glad they get all that traffic and kids use them as a source before shopping. Great stuff, awesome for the gaming industry.

it's almost like totally different people give totally different reviews and the site doesn't enforce their reviewers to give out a certain score. consistency across different platforms and people would be rather indicative of bought reviews.

 

[Cadmus]

The consistency is mindblowing, especially when phone versions receive more favorable scores. What a wonderfully reliable site, just like Gamespot. I'm so glad they get all that traffic and kids use them as a source before shopping. Great stuff, awesome for the gaming industry.

it's almost like totally different people give totally different reviews and the site doesn't enforce their reviewers to give out a certain score. consistency across different platforms and people would be rather indicative of bought reviews.

It's almost as if this makes it obvious that they have no internal standards for their scoring system but at the same time the scores represent the publication's view of the product instead of being attributed to the specific writers.
So fuck them, once again.

 

[A user named cat]

it's almost like totally different people give totally different reviews and the site doesn't enforce their reviewers to give out a certain score. consistency across different platforms and people would be rather indicative of bought reviews.

It's almost as if this makes it obvious that they have no internal standards for their scoring system but at the same time the scores represent the publication's view of the product instead of being attributed to the specific writers.
So fuck them, once again.

Yeah, this basically. The reviews are representitive of those sites, period. Doesn't matter if they hire a thousand schmucks to write them because every game has one official published review. Pretty much negates the entire purpose of those retarded sites attempting to be reliable resources for visitors to gauge a game's quality before purchasing and even featuring main reviews since there is zero fucking consistency. They need to permanently hire a few main reviewers who don't suck grandpa balls instead of a hundred hacks or just switch to user-only review sections, or just shut down altogether and fuck off for being terrible billboard sites.

 

[SuicideBunny]

reviewers having completely different opinions and tastes and this being reflected in their scores is absolutely nothing new. that's why any sane person gets multiple sources, finds a reviewer with similar taste, or uses aggregators like metacritic. no single site will ever be a reliable source in itself, even those that use multiple reviewers per title/platform combo to lessen the effect of a single person or those that allow multiple reviewers to review the same title independently, like the codex.

 

[Cadmus]

reviewers having completely different opinions and tastes and this being reflected in their scores is absolutely nothing new. that's why any sane person gets multiple sources, finds a reviewer with similar taste, or uses aggregators like metacritic. no single site will ever be a reliable source in itself, even those that use multiple reviewers per title/platform combo to lessen the effect of a single person or those that allow multiple reviewers to review the same title independently, like the codex.

Lolno. Reviewers might have different opinions and tastes but there are ways to deal with it. Look how codex does it. They only (to my knowledge) release long, well thought out and thorough reviews written by knowledgeable community members and they don't assign scores. It's pretty hard to argue with those reviews. Therefore, the codex's output is fairly consistent in what it does.

ShitMcFuck's website releases reviews written by random retards with no obligation to be factual, thorough and objective plus they get to assign a totally arbitrary score based on their "feelz" which then goes to Metacritic or a similar shitty website and is presented under the website's name. They don't finish the games, they take score points down for inane bullshit and they inflate scores based on doritos/the popularity of the title and they are affected by their insane lack of experience in most of the genres.

So the sane person you're talking about doesn't only have to find multiple sources, he must go and totally disregard 3/4 of the "profeshunul" reviews out there for being completely worthless and then look up the sites like codex and read the factual reviews there.

Don't go defending these fucking lazy, crooked and unskilled hacks just because you don't dare to hope for better standards. It's not that fucking hard to review a goddamn game.

 

[A user named cat]

We're talking about the Twitter generation now, come on, bunny. They see those Gspot and IGN scores then allow them to be deciding factors on their game purchases most of the time. Look at those sites on Alexa, most of their traffic is from teens and ADD consoletards who aren't going to go around researching various opinions. So as I said, they're a bane on the industry.

Hell, just look at Gspot's review for Scratches: https://archive.today/eaAqR

Do you know how many people probably wrote that game off entirely just seeing that score? If they had scored it justly with a deserved rating (legit 7 or 8/10 for an adventure game in atmosphere alone) and had someone reviewing it who knew his mouth from his asshole in the genre, who knows how many more sales it could have gotten.

 

[Average Manatee]

The only issue appears to be that the writer was bad at platformers and should not have been tasked with reviewing this genre of games in the first place. Assuming that the game isn't a complete steaming pile of unplayable crap, his three -'s all boil down to "I'm bad at platformers".

The idea that there should be "standards" or shit for scoring is the complete opposite of what is desired. That's what leads to the whole "gameplay is shit but it looks nice and I encountered no bugs, 8/10" joke. The only standards that need to be in place are for selecting who will do the review: To be at least moderately competent and interested in the genre.

We're talking about the Twitter generation now, come on, bunny. They see those Gspot and IGN scores then allow them to be deciding factors on their game purchases most of the time. Look at those sites on Alexa, most of their traffic is from teens and ADD consoletards who aren't going to go around researching various opinions. So as I said, they're a bane on the industry.

Hell, just look at Gspot's review for Scratches: https://archive.today/eaAqR

Do you know how many people probably wrote that game off entirely just seeing that score? If they had scored it justly with a deserved rating (legit 7 or 8/10 for an adventure game in atmosphere alone) and had someone reviewing it who knew his mouth from his asshole in the genre, who knows how many more sales it could have gotten.

The business of reviews are to tell people what the reviewer thinks about games, not to sell games. So dealwithit.jpg

 

[A user named cat]

The business of reviews are to tell people what the reviewer thinks about games, not to sell games. So dealwithit.jpg

Is this guy serious?

 

[DragoFireheart]

The business of reviews are to tell people what the reviewer thinks about games, not to sell games. So dealwithit.jpg

 

[SuicideBunny]

Lolno. Reviewers might have different opinions and tastes but there are ways to deal with it. Look how codex does it.

codex is not a good example of how to do things as it is no review site, our reviews don't need to be written under time constraints shortly before or after a game's release, our readers do not come to read reviews on freshly released games, and by the time codex reviews something, it's already been digested, analyzed, and well-discussed by the community as a whole, so codex reviews already are more of an aggregation of the consensus in the megathreads distilled by the given individuals subjective perspective. second, we are a subculture fan community. people don't get paid to do reviews, they do them because they feel the need to say something about the matter, and them being somewhat knowledgeable on the matter comes from us being a fan community, so you already have a fundamentally different relationship between the reviewer and the game itself. both of these are unfeasible ways to improve quality of reviews for a "pro" review site.

ShitMcFuck's website releases reviews written by random retards with no obligation to be factual, thorough and objective plus they get to assign a totally arbitrary score based on their "feelz" which then goes to Metacritic or a similar shitty website and is presented under the website's name. They don't finish the games, they take score points down for inane bullshit and they inflate scores based on doritos/the popularity of the title and they are affected by their insane lack of experience in most of the genres.

that's not so much the problem of those sites, as is the fact that they often have no or subpar editors who don't know shit about the games in question and just skim over the articles and that due to the increased amount of communication thanks to their internet nature, it's hard to call reviewers out on bullshit in a way that gets noticed. back in the day of paper magazines, people who really disagreed with a review would send a letter, which had a high chance of being published in the mag, or even leading to an editorial or republished updated review (because only people who really cared sent letters since it took effort). nowadays you have comment sections where every retard is free to voice his opinion requiring no effort at all, so people calling bullshit out on review takes quantity rather than quality, but it still happens.

So the sane person you're talking about doesn't only have to find multiple sources, he must go and totally disregard 3/4 of the "profeshunul" reviews out there for being completely worthless and then look up the sites like codex and read the factual reviews there.

i disagree on the disregard part, but other than that, making an informed decision always took a conscious effort to go out and seek the information.

Don't go defending these fucking lazy, crooked and unskilled hacks just because you don't dare to hope for better standards. It's not that fucking hard to review a goddamn game.

i am not so much defending them as i am pointing out that it's nothing new, inherent problem of the industry as a whole, with mechanics in place already to lessen the derpiness, like metacritic, and that singling anybody out is pretty derpy. also i am not sure you are aware what it would take to actually increase their standards. it's not just a matter of pointing fingers and saying "lol, shit" like you do. their miserable quality comes from something as fundamental as western society's bias against games as childish things, which results in less talented or passionate people trying their hand at game journalism, lowering the quality of both the articles and (really fucking important) editorial review. if you want matters to improve, start working towards reducing the bias rather than going "lol, hacks".

 

[Average Manatee]

The business of reviews are to tell people what the reviewer thinks about games, not to sell games. So dealwithit.jpg

So you're complaining about IGN review scores being too high then turning around and complaining when they give out a low score?

Please note that I'm not defending the IGN score, I'm defending them from your specific complaint about their process. The error was in the selection of who to review, which should have been someone more competent in the genre. Given the reviewer ANY score would be unworthy, as he should be judged and he should have judged himself incompetent to give out a score and a review in the first place. However, once the selection was made then there was no turning back and rightly so. Re-reviewing a game because you didn't like the score the first time around stinks of bias and unprofessionalism. These standards don't change because your readership is immature.

 

[Cadmus]

Lolno. Reviewers might have different opinions and tastes but there are ways to deal with it. Look how codex does it.

codex is not a good example of how to do things as it is no review site, our reviews don't need to be written under time constraints shortly before or after a game's release, our readers do not come to read reviews on freshly released games, and by the time codex reviews something, it's already been digested, analyzed, and well-discussed by the community as a whole, so codex reviews already are more of an aggregation of the consensus in the megathreads distilled by the given individuals subjective perspective. second, we are a subculture fan community. people don't get paid to do reviews, they do them because they feel the need to say something about the matter, and them being somewhat knowledgeable on the matter comes from us being a fan community, so you already have a fundamentally different relationship between the reviewer and the game itself. both of these are unfeasible ways to improve quality of reviews for a "pro" review site.

ShitMcFuck's website releases reviews written by random retards with no obligation to be factual, thorough and objective plus they get to assign a totally arbitrary score based on their "feelz" which then goes to Metacritic or a similar shitty website and is presented under the website's name. They don't finish the games, they take score points down for inane bullshit and they inflate scores based on doritos/the popularity of the title and they are affected by their insane lack of experience in most of the genres.

that's not so much the problem of those sites, as is the fact that they often have no or subpar editors who don't know shit about the games in question and just skim over the articles and that due to the increased amount of communication thanks to their internet nature, it's hard to call reviewers out on bullshit in a way that gets noticed. back in the day of paper magazines, people who really disagreed with a review would send a letter, which had a high chance of being published in the mag, or even leading to an editorial or republished updated review (because only people who really cared sent letters since it took effort). nowadays you have comment sections where every retard is free to voice his opinion requiring no effort at all, so people calling bullshit out on review takes quantity rather than quality, but it still happens.

So the sane person you're talking about doesn't only have to find multiple sources, he must go and totally disregard 3/4 of the "profeshunul" reviews out there for being completely worthless and then look up the sites like codex and read the factual reviews there.

i disagree on the disregard part, but other than that, making an informed decision always took a conscious effort to go out and seek the information.

Don't go defending these fucking lazy, crooked and unskilled hacks just because you don't dare to hope for better standards. It's not that fucking hard to review a goddamn game.

i am not so much defending them as i am pointing out that it's nothing new, inherent problem of the industry as a whole, with mechanics in place already to lessen the derpiness, like metacritic, and that singling anybody out is pretty derpy. also i am not sure you are aware what it would take to actually increase their standards. it's not just a matter of pointing fingers and saying "lol, shit" like you do. their miserable quality comes from something as fundamental as western society's bias against games as childish things, which results in less talented or passionate people trying their hand at game journalism, lowering the quality of both the articles and (really fucking important) editorial review. if you want matters to improve, start working towards reducing the bias rather than going "lol, hacks".

Sure, I'm doing my part. I'm giving them an actual, useful advice. Behold, here it comes: have the people with experience, integrity and journalistic degrees write about shit they actually understand, then I'll give a shit and come to your site to read your expert opinion. Because that what it should be - an expert opinion. Not a fucking reprinted press release or an opinion of a hack who has no idea what he's doing.

OH BUT MAN GAMES TAKE A LONG TIME TO PLAY, WE DONT GET PAID ENOUGH TO CARE

well fuck you then, I wont be reading your inane shit and you lose either way.
I also write my own reviews for the games I understand and I publish them on my useless fucking blog. I understand it takes an effort and experience and so if I were to do that fucking job, I'd sit in my basement all day and night long and play all the fucking Ultimas, M&Ms, pacmans and other shit I don't care about because that's the job. As I don't give enough of a shit, I only deem myself qualified to write about things that I understand. It's not that fucking hard.

Another advice, go read the fucking competently written reviews by the codex members.

BUT MAN THEY HAVE PLENTY OF TIME TO DO THEM

fuck you again, mr. jurnalist, either take them time, git gud or fuck off.

SuicideBunny what the fuck you think this is about? they can't inform the customers and review the games properly because they dont have enough time? who gives a shit, the end result is as useless or actually more damaging than if they had not done anything at all. They can take their time. They can specialize. They can hire competent people. They can git gud instead of spending times getting blowjobs from trannies at game conventions. Look how even fucking retards like TotalBiscuit do it. He takes his time (of course sucking at whatever he is trying to play) he is honest about it and it works. Nobody is giving him shit for what he's doing.

This idea that it's not their fault because it's hard to do their work properly is preposterous. Why should we care about that shit? They have plenty of ways to change their structure, specialize in what they can actually do or they can fuck off and go down because they are completely useless.

I seriously doubt your argument about the society being biased towards games has any merit. These idiots are wildly (or had been) glorified, they can easily make a name for themselves in the business. Look at the retards like Ben Kuchera. I have never even read a single article from him yet I know his name (and that he's a retard).

To your point about the editors - they are a part of that website. It's pretty simple, get a good staff or fuck off, I ain't reading that drivel. There's plenty of other sources I can actually get an expert opinion from on things I don't understand. Look at sirlin.net. I read that shit because he's an intelligent guy writing about interesting things and if he says something I pay attention as opposed to any gaming website.

To your point about making an informed decision being hard - yes, it is, that's why I'm saying these fucktards should go down because they are only making it harder to make an informed decision.

The business of reviews are to tell people what the reviewer thinks about games, not to sell games. So dealwithit.jpg

So you're complaining about IGN review scores being too high then turning around and complaining when they give out a low score?

Please note that I'm not defending the IGN score, I'm defending them from your specific complaint about their process. The error was in the selection of who to review, which should have been someone more competent in the genre. Once the selection was made then there was no turning back, and rightly so. Re-reviewing a game because you didn't like the score the first time around stinks of bias and unprofessionalism. These standards don't change because your readership is immature.

No, fuck that shit. They should go back, apologize and have the game be reviewed by someone who understands it. It's not the readership being immature, it's the readership rightly criticizing the retarded review for being useless as shit because they understand it better than the reviewer. At this point, they might as well stop reading the website. The reviewers should be glad someone even gave enough of a shit to point out the retardation.

 

[DragoFireheart]

So you're complaining about IGN review scores being too high then turning around and complaining when they give out a low score?

No, I'm just pointing out that IGN is a pile of shit that hasn't gone out of business due to the fact that the video game journalism industry has 0 integrity.

For every 1 honest and decent review, there's 50 that just act like an echo chamber of rotting fish cunt shit.

 

[groke]

HOLY FUCKING SHIT THAT ANOTHER WORLD REVIEW

 

[Drakron]

It's almost as if this makes it obvious that they have no internal standards for their scoring system but at the same time the scores represent the publication's view of the product instead of being attributed to the specific writers.
So fuck them, once again.

You mean like "At the Movies" were Ebert given it a thumbs up and Roeper give it a thumbs down?

 

[pippin]

If they say that about Another World, I don't really want to know what they could say about Heart of Darkness.

 

[Thane Solus]

Note that it doesn't even disable ads.

hahaha, oh wow, thats new way to milk your fanbase. They should making some mobile games next with IAP ))

 

[Taxnomore]

While Another World's review seems shocking, it IS a terrible game. The gameplay is abysmal die and retry only slightly above Dragon's Lair. It was an unbelievable technical achievement when it came out, but this will not help the game today. The only thing it has left is its very good atmosphere, and yet very good presentation/storytelling.

I insist : the gameplay of that game is awful. It's Shadow of the Beast bad.