All Channels
Popular
80°

Game Reviewers Will Never Win

Gameumentary: Every few weeks there’s some new drama in the games industry, usually revolving around review scores. The latest centers around Dan Stapleton’s review of Prey; he gave the game a less than desirable four out of ten. His reason? Well, for him, the game was literally broken.

Read Full Story >>
gameumentary.com
VideoChums3298d ago

If you're a game reviewer but you can't handle people's criticisms of your reviews then you should do something else with your time.

Wingsfan243298d ago

Not what the article is about, at all. It's about people's unrealistic expectations of reviewers and how scores dilute what has been written.

Summons753298d ago

I agree. Which is why review scores need to go.

Imalwaysright3298d ago

@ Summons75

Why? Because people that are themselves biased can't stand that a reviewer gave game A or B a score they didn't like? People need to grow up. That's what needs to happen.

VideoChums3298d ago

Understandable although the title "Game Reviewers Will Never Win" and the examples presented in the article lead me to believe otherwise.

thorstein3298d ago

@Imalwayssomething

If you can give a definitive score for the Mona Lisa, The Scream, or The Starry Night then you have an argument for scores. Otherwise, scores are useless.

thorstein3298d ago (Edited 3298d ago )

@Pocky...

Poor critic can't take criticism? Poor, poor baby. Here's a tissue.

And here's two blogs that prove my point about critics:

http://n4g.com/user/blogpos...

http://n4g.com/user/blogpos...

And remember, "Those who can, DO. Those who CAN'T, criticize."

EDIT: I almost forgot: What are the criterion for becoming a critic? A) The ability to have bowel movements and B) The ability to think they smell better than anyone else's.

Imalwaysright3298d ago

@ thorstein

Definitive? Reviews aren't meant to be some sort of universal truth. They are nothing more than a personal opinion and if people can't respect someone else's opinion even if they don't agree, then they need to grow up.

Wingsfan243298d ago

@Thorstein

Really have no clue what you're going on about. Did you even read the article?

I criticized Stapleton's intentions of using a score to signal a technical issue with Prey, when their own breakdown of the number doesn't even align with what his review said about the game, which was also his defense of using the score. The article isn't about critics being criticized, like at all...I'm not even really defending critics with the piece, more pointing out that people want them to hold off on posting reviews for patches, worry about a developers pay with their scores..etc

You seem pretty cynical towards critics and have all the advice laid out in your blogposts to be a "better one". If you can do the job better, why not do it? The industry could sure use better, less biased, critics.

rainslacker3297d ago

Isn't that a problem for those who don't read the review though...and I guess those of us who have to listen to those people on forums.

If a reviewer can't accept that many people won't read their reviews, then that's on them. If people rely only on a score, as opposed what that score consists of, then realistically, they are only doing themselves a disservice, because how can one make an informed decision without being informed? Such things may be bad for the industry itself because of this, but it's the way it is. I doubt tons of people are going to start reading reviews if they didn't before. The reviews on N4G which don't have a score attached are pretty barren of comments, and almost never make it into the top of the lists. Kotaku reviews may be the only exception outside the stray review here or there.

Given that Kotaku's readership is down, it would appear that not attributing review scores isn't helping their readership. While there are other issues at play there, good reviews can bring clicks, and that click typically comes from the score and people wondering what it's about. While many may only focus on the score, and use it for any arguments pro or con they want to make....typically for agenda based discussion....there are those who may want to see the reasons behind the score. If a game is getting high scores all around, like 9-10, I may be more apt to read an 8 score to see what other reviews aren't telling me. But, I also generally won't go to a 6 or less review of that same game, because that just seems out of place, since most games tend to be pretty close in their review scores across sites.

The only problem with reviews scores is metacritic. If all these scores weren't compiled, and the games final quality being judged on a meta score, then it would pretty much mean that one would have to read the content to become informed. Meta allows for people to wait a bit and see the general vote on the game, and I find that 99% of the time, meta is within a point or two of how I would score a game. If I want to know specifics though, I read reviews.

Review scores have existed for decades now. They were never a problem. The actual problem is that we just have too many people who can't actually write a proper review, or there being so few sites which have review score criteria which is transparent and consistent.

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 3297d ago
picillopaige3298d ago

@ VideoChums

I took the title of the article to be more sarcastic than anything else.

Wingsfan243298d ago

That was my intention :)

AspiringProGenji3298d ago

Someone who can't beat the first boss in any game, more specifically Bloodborne in this case, is an instant blacklist to me.

Not sure why I see some IGN folks say they trus this guy, but that trust might as well gone to the drain by now. I mean they still said such thing after he gave it a 4 because of a bug, and now the guy has backtracked lol. Amusing

Yui_Suzumiya3298d ago

Well I hope he also back tracks the score once it's patched

lex-10203298d ago

Not everyone needs to like your same games to be a valid reviewer.

AspiringProGenji3298d ago

Not liking the same game as I is fine. Not being able to beat the first boss then writing an essay about how the "the game lost me" is not.

rainslacker3297d ago (Edited 3297d ago )

True, but they need to be able to at least try to remain objective, and present a review that explains what they didn't like, as well as what was good in a way that puts aside personal feelings in order to inform the reader.

Ultimately, a review is a service for the reader to become informed on the game itself, not a podium for people to express whether they liked a game or not. When the review itself becomes more about the reviewer not liking it, then it's a problem. But if that same review can be done to say how what they didn't like would affect those reading the review should they play it, then it's a proper review. There are other things in this same vein when it comes to good reviews, but essentially, a review is to say what works, what doesn't, and explain it in a way that lets the reader decide if it's an issue for them.

The scores themselves are just to give a quick and easy way to tell the overall quality of the game, and that can be subjective to the reviewer, or the review standards set by their publication(if they exist). But the content of that review has to back up that score, all while making it relevant to the reader.

Key word is....Reader. They are the audience of reviews. The reader is the most important person to consider when writing a review...not one's own ego or personal preferences.

For instance, if one is reviewing a niche Japanese fan service title, the reviewer has to be able to judge the game's worth on who the intended target audience is. If they just judge it based on their own preferences, and all they like is action adventure games in the vein of UC or GeOW with heavy western influences and lots of gunplay, then they do a disservice to the reader who is more likely to be the target audience of that game. This was a big thing last gen when lots of Japanese games started getting pigeonholed into the "too cute" or "too much fan service" category, and that was used to give it low scores...or in quite a few cases start tirades on the sexism that was running rampant in the industry....which would mean that in those reviews, they were more political agenda than actual reviews....but that's another topic IMO.

BlakHavoc3298d ago

Nope sure won't. Lets use Horizon as an example, if it scored a 10 fanboys would claim they were paid off. If it scored a 7 then ppl claimed they're trying to downplay an exclusive from a rival console. Either way no matter what u score a game ppl are going to be critical of your review, just part of the territory.

MetalNCarnet3298d ago

There are some games that certain reviewers should not review. If the reviewer mainly plays shooters and multi player games, he has no business giving an opinion (that's representing a publication) about a JRPG. The reviewer should have some good knowledge, interest, and skill in the game genre he is reviewing. Jeff Gertsmann of Giant Bomb hates Naruto games (and anime in general), should I listen to him about Ultimate Ninja Storm 4?

TheOttomatic913298d ago

I'm sorry but criticism comes with the territory of being a game reviewer if you can't handle perhaps you should find a new job.

Wingsfan243298d ago

Good thing the article isn't about that :) It's about people's unrealistic expectations of reviewers and how scores dilute what people write.

TheOttomatic913298d ago

There's nothing really "unrealistic" about our expectations it's just that reviewers need thicker skin and get used to criticism if they don't I can't see them lasting long in this business. I'm not referring to the article obviously just what needs to be done, stop bellyaching and get on with the job.

lex-10203298d ago

Pro tip. Stop defending your article. People are either going to read it or their not, but either way they're going to have an opinion on it. If you keep trying to defend it you just come off whiny.

Imagine everyone only has 5 seconds to read your article. Make your summary the point you want them to get in those 5 seconds. Right now your 5 seconds says nothing about "people's unrealistic expectations of reviewers and how scores dilute what people write."

Wingsfan243298d ago

How is it coming off as whiny that I'm asking people actually read the context of the article rather than just make an irrelevant statement off of the title?

The summary was used as an introduction to tell readers the relevance of the topic, as it should be, otherwise it might as well be a TL;DR and nobody would read it anyways.

lex-10203297d ago

PockyKing. Look man I get it. You wrote this great opinion piece and you want people to read it but that's not the way things work. People will read only what catches their interest. If they think they already know what your article is going to say then it doesn't matter what it does say. Perception is reality.

In my time in the military I wrote assessments and analysis for Generals, and currently I write analysis and assessments for CTOs of Fortune 500 companies. I have met very few that will actually read through an entire assessment. That's why we use a BLUF: Bottom Line Up Front. You need to treat your audiance like they're a General or a CEO. Give them the BLUF right at the beginning and if it's interesting enough they'll read the rest.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 3297d ago
Imalwaysright3298d ago

Reviews are someone else's opinion which means that they are subjective so what exactly would you be criticizing?

lex-10203297d ago

PockyKing. Look man I get it. You wrote this great opinion piece and you want people to read it but that's not the way things work. People will read only what catches their interest. If they think they already know what your article is going to say then it doesn't matter what it does say. Perception is reality.

In my time in the military I wrote assessments and analysis for Generals, and currently I write analysis and assessments for CTOs of Fortune 500 companies. I have met very few that will actually read through an entire assessment. That's why we use a BLUF: Bottom Line Up Front. You need to treat your audiance like they're a General or a CEO. Give them the BLUF right at the beginning and if it's interesting enough they'll read the rest.

Show all comments (39)
50°

Development Footage Of Canceled Prey Sequel Has Leaked Online

Development footage of the canceled sequel to Bethesda Softworks and Human Head Studios' Prey has leaked online.

Read Full Story >>
twistedvoxel.com
100°

Arkane Co-Founder Says Dishonored and Prey Fans 'Will Be Happy' With His Next Game

WolfEye Studios president and co-founder of Arkane Studios Raphaël Colantonio has said Dishonored and Prey fans “will be happy” with his new studio's next game.

Marcus Fenix654d ago

Can’t wait to see what they’re working on

Relientk77654d ago

If it's something like Dishonored, then I am totally here for it.

TheNamelessOne654d ago

Let's hope. Their first game, Weird West, really wasn't my thing.

Miacosa654d ago

Ouch, already placing a sales cap on this is potentially bad as these games never seem to sell all too well. Hopefully the budget is in check so no one gets laid off after launch.

Psychonaut85654d ago

Fuck yeah. Even if it’s just a spiritual successor I want more titles like Dishonored in terms of art style, design and gameplay

220°

All Hopes I Had For A Prey Sequel Have Been Crushed — Well Done, Microsoft

The magnificent Prey was once again abandoned as Microsoft disregarded Arkane Austin's achievements and crucified it just for Redfall.

RaidenBlack742d ago

well, not entirely ... the main Arkane studio i.e Arkane Lyon's still there ...
Its only that, the sequel will take more time now ... after Blade & Dishonored 3

MrBaskerville741d ago

But who knows, Dishonored 3 could have been Austins next project, so might be cancelled.

RaidenBlack740d ago

Dishonored is Lyon's flagship IP ... Austin only assisted in the first one, the sequel was wholly developed at Lyon whilst Austin developed Prey.
If Dishonored 3 was indeed greenlit ... rest assured, it would've been helmed primarily by the Lyon studio.

-Foxtrot742d ago (Edited 742d ago )

Not even this Prey

Still longing for a sequel to the original Prey with Tommy

The studio didn't even want to call this Prey, it was just Bethesda being dicks to them for some reason.

RaidenBlack742d ago

MS closed Roundhouse Studios (ex-Human Head Studios) as well

Yui_Suzumiya741d ago

Yeah, that's who was going to do the original sequel.

bunt-custardly741d ago

Don't worry there are some other games in development that might fill that void. Look up Vigilancer.

isarai742d ago

Came here to say this, my hooes for a Prey sequel died when this "Prey" came out

Profchaos741d ago

Prey 2017 still hurts to play because what could have been looked so incredible

Profchaos741d ago

Same Bethesda basically screwed over the original developer team human head back around 2011 so it was really never going to come despite a honestly amazing trailer. I liked prey 2017 but it always held a stink of disappointment due to what we never got

FinalFantasyFanatic741d ago

I really didn't like this game, tried it because of how loved the original Prey was, played the demo of this one and thought it was garbage, it didn't feel nice/fun to play.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 741d ago
LostPotato742d ago (Edited 742d ago )

Keep dreaming then as Prey and Dishonored 2 did not sell well enough to get sequels.

Hence we got Deathloop and Redfall instead.

RaidenBlack742d ago

lol, Deathloop came from Prey: Mooncrash idea

Unknown_Gamer5794741d ago

To everyone who cheered MS’s acquisitions, we told you so…

Inverno741d ago

Those people will just argue that Arkane Austin and Tango would've been shut down either way.

MrBaskerville741d ago

Zenimax allready put them in a tight spot by demanding them to do a multiplayer title. So it's not unlikely, considering how bad the game performed. They didn't stand a chance. MS had the money to save them and to correct Zenimax' mistakes.

Show all comments (25)