Reviews and Bethesda

[qaz156]

Okay, we've talked about Oblivion to the death here. But I'm referring specifically to the reviews. Why in the world are they able to secure such solid review across the board for such a crappy game? Are they paying the reviewers?

[Deadly_Nightshade]

Most likely it's pressure from above - id est if you write a good review we'll get more ads and thus more monies for you and me.

[lord of flies]

Are they paying the reviewers?

Yeah. They're called "ads," perhaps you've heard of them?

[Hell Kitty]

Out of all the colours of the rainbow, green is the bestest and red is the crappiest. Everyone who thinks otherwise is lying or they've been bribed. It's the only thing that makes sense.

[bhlaab]

-Good timing. Xbox 360 came out in Fall 2005. Oblivion came out in Spring 2006. People were done with their launch games and suddenly a game with incredibly impressive graphics and scope comes out. It's no surprise a lot of people are figuring out that Oblivion wasn't that hot only in retrospect after playing the marginally improved Fallout 3.

 

-Most people who played Oblivion haven't played Arena, Daggerfall, or even (albeit to a lesser extent) Morrowind. Or probably any crpg for that matter. As far as many people are concerned, the game is just called "Oblivion", not "Elder Scrolls 4"

 

-Reviews in this industry are very rarely based on the quality of design ideas and usually read like a checklist of "Good Graphics? Check. No bugs? Check." etc. Oblivion has so many inherent flaws that I couldn't possibly say that what was written in the design docs turned out good. But its broad ideas-- the ones carried over from Arena in 1994-- are so immediately impressive that reviewers cut it slack for failing misreably as soon as you scratch the surface away. And since it was the first of its kind for many people, Oblivion got a lot more credit than it deserved for "Legacy Ideas".

 

-Pre-Release hype (most of which were outright lies like Radiant AI) pegged it as a AAA game from the beginning. This is an industry where an 8/10 on the wrong game can get you crucified. Reviews aren't about telling consumers how to shop, or to create an intellectual dialogue about a games merits and demerits, it's about appeasing the zeitgeist... And no review source wants to be the ones pushing against a zeitgeist by giving Halo 3 a (gasp)... 7/10!

[lord of flies]

Look, it's simple. Here are nine reasons why a game reviewer may rate a game differently than its apparent quality, with no need for bribery or lying:

 

1. Subjectively likes/dislikes. Even though a game may have clear, even glaring flaws, it is still possible to enjoy it. Many game reviewers rate games based upon how much they like it.

 

2. Knows someone involved in the creation. Many game reviewers go to places like E3, where they meet and socially interact with various people involved in the process of game creation. This doubtlessly plays a role in how they rate the game.

 

3. He would rather be playing a different game. Suppose that a really hyped game has just come out, but the reviewer got stuck playing some other, minor game during that month, so the whole time he's playing it, he's thinking "Boy, I sure would like to be playing [Halo 3/God of War 2/GTA 4/Other Game Here].

 

4. He sucks at the game. Some people are just terrible at strategy games, or RPGs, or whatever else, and they blame it on the game rather than themselves. This is particularly true of very innovative games, where the problem of sucking may be ascribed as the fault of the game since the reviewer has no comparison.

 

5. He has been suckered in by hype of a game. The fact of the matter is that people react differently to things based upon their previous experience. If I've heard that a particular game is going to own so hard, I'm going into it with a different perspective than if I'm told it sucks.

 

6. He did not finish the game. To quote one review, "While I didn

[Maria Caliban]

Okay, we've talked about Oblivion to the death here. But I'm referring specifically to the reviews. Why in the world are they able to secure such solid review across the board for such a crappy game? Are they paying the reviewers?

 

Right. We've talked about Oblivion to death. We posters on a game developer's forum. A game developer whose RPG style is radically different from Bethesda

[Darth InSidious]

Their tendency to blacklist people who give negative reviews and rampant advertising machine might have something to do with it.

 

Why does the Fable series sell?

[Kaftan Barlast]

1) All major gaming sites and magazines like IGN, are given exclusives and adspace in exchange for positive reviews. Its not a conspiracy, its just how it works.

 

2) Some people are morons, thats why some really bad games sell remarkably well.

[Gorgon]

I wouldn't know, I haven't read any reviews on Oblivion. Shivering Isles was pretty good though. I had fun on my first play through of Oblivion as well. Not fantastic or anything, just adequate.

 

And yes of course, trusting game reviews made for commercial purposes is a mistake. Too much mutual dependence between publisher and game site. I take it most game purchasers have figured this out already and only read the reviews for the screen shots and gameplay descriptions.

Edited May 30, 2009 by Gorgon

[Slowtrain]

Okay, we've talked about Oblivion to the death here. But I'm referring specifically to the reviews. Why in the world are they able to secure such solid review across the board for such a crappy game? Are they paying the reviewers?

 

 

The amusing part is going to be when ES 5 starts to get hyped. Suddenlly all the game journo's are going to be talking about all the "flaws" in Oblivion, and how ES5 is going to fix all those flaws. OF course, none of them mentioned any of the flaws in their 10/10 reviews of Oblivion initially. DId these flaws suddenly appear out of nowehere? hmm?

 

lol.

 

 

Reviewers are average gamers...

 

 

Professional reviewers shoudl be more than average gamers. Just like a professional carpenter should be more than just some dude with a hammer.

Edited May 30, 2009 by CrashGirl

[Purkake]

Apparently there is a huge number of people who just can't get enough of stumbling around a huge map looking for horrible dungeons or some random quest. I don't understand them, but there's a whole bunch.

[Hurlshort]

I think you will be much happier if you just accept the fact you look for something different in your games then the majority of reviewers, and based on the sales numbers, a large number of gamers.

[Gorth]

Just a friendly reminder for newcomers as well as oldies (as some seems to forget as times goes by)...

 

Discussing review processes and possible shortcomings is fine, name calling of Obsidians colleagues in the game making business isn't:

 

Trolling: Trolling is also not allowed in regard to other gaming companies, their employees or moderators. We've worked and continue to work with various people at many game companies, and it is not within the spirit of our forums to allow disrespectful posts about other company's policies, employees, or moderators. It's OK to say you don't like a game, but referring to another company's employees or the company itself is simply not be tolerated here. Posts which intentionally attack another game company and/or it's employees will be deleted and the member censured accordingly

 

It doesn't really matter if it is Bethesda, Blizzard, Bioware, Square Enix or whoever else people have a beef with. It saves me a lot of work pruning threads and sending individual PM's with all kind of nastiness if people would just stick to constructive discussion

 

That being said, which reviewers get the best fringe benefits?

[Bos_hybrid]

I think you will be much happier if you just accept the fact you look for something different in your games then the majority of reviewers, and based on the sales numbers, a large number of gamers.

 

Don't try posting rationally, its of no use on a Beth bashing thread.

[Tigranes]

Whoa, my post never got posted? Thank chub jubb for the back button.

 

The Oblivion reviews, at least the first batch, were pretty damn consistent in how they described the game and what they praised - and removed from the history of RPG gaming, i.e. without having that framework of standards and expectations already set in place, Oblivion (for the first 5-10 hours) is an impressive experience. You get a nearly unrivalled accomplishment in expansive, lush environments (only marred by terrible long-distance textures), a relatively stable and very fast engine for such a large game/world, a visceral and immediately fun mix of sword/bow/stealth/magic (if completely abused in mid-late game), the fairly well implemented gimmick of horse riding, and of course a large and well built RPG structure with quests and NPCs. Flaws in the game that can be identified as flaws even without the aforementioned framework, such as the entropic implosion of game balance halfway through (combined with the idiotic level scaling), the terrible faces and stitched-together VO, nonsensical quest plots and ridiculous main story (which involved even more ridiculous Oblivion Gates) are more or less difficult to appreciate until much later on.

 

I sunk 60 hours into the first (and only) playthrough and thought, without passing judgment on whether reviews should judge Oblivion by past RPGs in the way fans of past RPGs do or not, or whether its realistic to expect them to play 20+ hours before reviewing, it's fair enough and honest enough of the reviewers to say what they did based on what they played and how they saw the game. Certainly no more conspiracy theory going on here than what is pretty standard in the vidgame industry these days.

[Jaesun]

Okay, we've talked about Oblivion to the death here. But I'm referring specifically to the reviews. Why in the world are they able to secure such solid review across the board for such a crappy game? Are they paying the reviewers?

 

An Inside Play To Sway Video Gamers

 

A long read but I think you can easily put 2 and 2 together.

[Kjarista]

Okay, we've talked about Oblivion to the death here. But I'm referring specifically to the reviews. Why in the world are they able to secure such solid review across the board for such a crappy game? Are they paying the reviewers?

 

Probably because they are not crappy games. Fallout 3 deserves great reviews. We all understand the problems the traditional franchise fans have with FO3, and I can certainly understand why many folks who post here have problems with the game, but it's still an excellent game.

[Niten_Ryu]

Oblivion (and Morrowind) are great games for those who enjoy sandboxy or singleplayer part of MMOGs. Those who dislike 'em by default, no so much. I didn't like either game but if I'd review game based on first 10 hours of gameplay, flaws of the game wouldn't be as obivious as they are after 50 hours.

[Killian Kalthorne]

I enjoyed Oblivion more than I did Neverwinter Nights 1 and Icewind Dale 2. I thought the game was better than any JRPGs that I played in the past. Its not a A+ game but it is in the B- to B range with me.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

...but it's still an excellent game.

 

No, it's not. It might be an "ok" game, it might even be a "good" game, but it is not an excellent game by any stretch of the imagination.

[Enoch]

Tig nailed it. ES games in general are really impressive for the first few hours after you bust out of prison. Underlying flaws and general shallow-ness take more time to figure out, and reviewers tend to rush and focus on first impressions.

[Kjarista]

Tig nailed it. ES games in general are really impressive for the first few hours after you bust out of prison. Underlying flaws and general shallow-ness take more time to figure out, and reviewers tend to rush and focus on first impressions.

 

There are plenty of us out there who really like these games, warts and all, and I'm sure that most folks are willing to overlook faults in their favorite games as well. I've put hundreds of hours into each of these games, and yes, there are faults...some substantial, but these are still great games.

[Slowtrain]

Tig nailed it. ES games in general are really impressive for the first few hours after you bust out of prison. Underlying flaws and general shallow-ness take more time to figure out, and reviewers tend to rush and focus on first impressions.

 

 

Aren't they supposed to be professional? I would expect a professional in any trade to understand the nuances of working in their chosen field. I expect a professional reviewer to be completely aware of and correct for the dangers of erroneous first impressions based on limited playing time.

 

edit: I should also point out that many of Oblvions huge flaws aren't hard to figure out. It was only hours after release that threads were up telling pople not to place most used skills in major slots because both the skill system and leveling speeds were broken.

Edited May 30, 2009 by CrashGirl

[Volourn]

"secure such solid review across the board for such a crappy game?"

 

Not everyone likes what you like or dislikes what you dislike. Perish the though.