Alpha Protocol preview at Eurogamer

[Nepenthe]

I believe it is the second. And now I go sip some english tea and look reeaaally intellectual.

 

I believe that all the tea in England is imported.

[Oner]

Having a good PR team and bribing journalists are two different things (although sometimes the line between the two can be blurred). I agree with you that journalists are more inclined to score up games with big marketing campaigns and the like. But to say they are paid to do it by developers is 100% wrong.

So wrong in fact, that Gamestop never fired any of their reviewers for dissing Kane&Lynch. And some publisher never threatened to sue some gaming sites for unfavorable reviews for it's new top game with the excuse that they revealed those reviews days before the allowed date. Even though they made them public 2-3 days after it. (This may have been The Witcher, but I can't recall.)

 

I never played Witcher (why did they cancel the console version?! ) but if I played it and thought Oblivion was better, would I be 'wrong'? No. Because it's an opinion and it doesn't have to tally with yours.

Acknowledging flaws but saying they don't have a negative effect on gameplay/experience is opinion. Deliberately overlooking them (bribery or not) isn't.

 

That aside, hype, how picky you are and the games you know can affect the review you write.

Regarding hype read this.

Picky-ness: Of course you won't give more than 6/10 if the AI doesn't use cover. Unfortunately, other reviewers may not be so strict.

Or depending on the case, intelligent. : x

 

Games you know: If best game you ever played was Doom 1, it's only natural that Gears of War's cover seeking AI will seem brilliant.

Yes, that last one was a pretty extreme example, but you get the idea.

 

Gosh, look at what you've done. I wanted to keep away from this discussion.

[coomber]

Having a good PR team and bribing journalists are two different things (although sometimes the line between the two can be blurred). I agree with you that journalists are more inclined to score up games with big marketing campaigns and the like. But to say they are paid to do it by developers is 100% wrong.

So wrong in fact, that Gamestop never fired any of their reviewers for dissing Kane&Lynch. And some publisher never threatened to sue some gaming sites for unfavorable reviews for it's new top game with the excuse that they revealed those reviews days before the allowed date. Even though they made them public 2-3 days after it. (This may have been The Witcher, but I can't recall.)

 

The Gamestop reviewer wasn't paid to give the game a good score. How does this back up the suggestion that reviewers are paid? If they had paid him, he'd still be in his job maybe! The other reference you are making is vague and irrelevant. My only point is that journalists have never been paid by developers to talk up a game. Having people from within your own company putting pressure on you to give a good score is very different. Ad reps don't want to piss off someone looking to spend money. I have had to deal with that crap in the past on newspapers.

[coomber]

[quote name='H

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

Meh, Oblivion was a 5 puppies out of twenty schools for the deaf, IMO.

[H]

It was rhetorical. There's this sense of humour thing going on outside it too.

There are no facial expressions on the internets. Humor isn't always obvious.

[RPGmasterBoo]

Having a good PR team and bribing journalists are two different things (although sometimes the line between the two can be blurred). I agree with you that journalists are more inclined to score up games with big marketing campaigns and the like. But to say they are paid to do it by developers is 100% wrong.

So wrong in fact, that Gamestop never fired any of their reviewers for dissing Kane&Lynch. And some publisher never threatened to sue some gaming sites for unfavorable reviews for it's new top game with the excuse that they revealed those reviews days before the allowed date. Even though they made them public 2-3 days after it. (This may have been The Witcher, but I can't recall.)

 

The Gamestop reviewer wasn't paid to give the game a good score. How does this back up the suggestion that reviewers are paid? If they had paid him, he'd still be in his job maybe! The other reference you are making is vague and irrelevant. My only point is that journalists have never been paid by developers to talk up a game. Having people from within your own company putting pressure on you to give a good score is very different. Ad reps don't want to piss off someone looking to spend money. I have had to deal with that crap in the past on newspapers.

 

I answered this. He wasnt paid personally but Gamespot was. It was paid money for advertising the game, and the publisher expected a positive review. In this particular case he didnt get it, but everything suggests this is the way it usually goes, since they expected to get one.

I repeat. how can I expect an objective review out of a reviewer when his paycheck is paid in part through the publishers ads?

[Oner]

The Gamestop reviewer wasn't paid to give the game a good score. How does this back up the suggestion that reviewers are paid?

Did I say the reviewer (Gerstmann) was getting paid? Nope. BUT, Eidos was paying GameStop/CNET money to advertise K&L, and giving the game a bad review score won't up it's sales. I don't know if Eidos itself had a hand in it, or it was GameStop's idea entirely, but fact is, Gerstmann was fired after he uploaded the review, after which the video also got removed.

[AlphaPro]

[quote name='H

[alanschu]

How do you explain the recent, and quite common - large differences between gamer grades and the rewiewers grades present on say Metacritic?

Example:

Oblivion

-critic score: 9.3 (45 reviews)

-user score: 8.3 (142 votes)

Witcher

-critic score: 8.1 (50 reviews)

-user score: 9.3 (384 votes)

 

User reviews = Fanboys & Haters.

 

You will never get a fair average score/vote.

 

You're looking at one.

Both games have as many fanboys, haters and neutral voters as they could get in that place and in the time the voting was open. In fact Oblivion has a slight advantage because its there longer. So what's not fair about it? Obviously the Witcher inspired more people and Oblivion less.

 

 

I remember doing some reading up on user online polls and it seems on a poll from 1-10, the most frequently picked values are: 10, 9, 8, 7, and 1.

 

I'd suggest you stop using words like "obviously," because you use them in situations where things aren't really all that obvious.

 

 

Here's a fun little tidbit for you: Logic is fallible. It's been demonstrated to be wrong over and over again. Because you have made a logical assertion of "Games I think suck get high scores, therefore reviewers must be bribed" doesn't mean that your predicate applies to actual reality.

 

This is why scientists use empiricism over logic. Stick with Kane and Lynch scandals over what you think is the case.

Edited August 10, 2009 by alanschu

[coomber]

He wasnt paid personally but Gamespot was. It was paid money for advertising the game, and the publisher expected a positive review. In this particular case he didnt get it, but everything suggests this is the way it usually goes, since they expected to get one.

I repeat. how can I expect an objective review out of a reviewer when his paycheck is paid in part through the publishers ads?

 

My comment wasn't aimed at you, as you are no longer arguing the point I made. I have experienced exactly what you suggest happens to journalists - advertising sales staff put pressure on them not to upset their customers. I am a living example that that does happen. My point was, and always has been, that journalists are not paid by developers. Since your initial post you have broadened the definition of what you meant so we are not disagreeing.

 

Oner, if you are not arguing with me about journalists getting paid by developers...I'm not really sure what you are arguing with me about at all lol.

[RPGmasterBoo]

He wasnt paid personally but Gamespot was. It was paid money for advertising the game, and the publisher expected a positive review. In this particular case he didnt get it, but everything suggests this is the way it usually goes, since they expected to get one.

I repeat. how can I expect an objective review out of a reviewer when his paycheck is paid in part through the publishers ads?

 

My comment wasn't aimed at you, as you are no longer arguing the point I made. I have experienced exactly what you suggest happens to journalists - advertising sales staff put pressure on them not to upset their customers. I am a living example that that does happen. My point was, and always has been, that journalists are not paid by developers. Since your initial post you have broadened the definition of what you meant so we are not disagreeing.

 

Oner, if you are not arguing with me about journalists getting paid by developers...I'm not really sure what you are arguing with me about at all lol.

 

Alright, but you have to understand, and I suppose Oner meant it as well - that for us - the customers, its irrelevant who is to blame in particular, because if one part of the system doesn't work as it should it compromises everyone in it. And that since demos are not extensive enough, and reviews not to be trusted - leads to backlash, which is at the very least distrust, at the worst piracy. Ultimately the industry is digging its own grave this way and tarnishing your reputation at the same time.

[Oner]

I'm arguing that money does have a say in the score a game gets.

 

And in the post before that opinions aren't as simple as like-not like, but I trust that was clear for everyone.

[Pop]

This again. Great.

[Oner]

This again. Great.

Again?

[alanschu]

Hardly the first time discussions about reviewers being on the take has come up here.

[Pidesco]

This thread has gone completely off topic, and as such will be closed.

 

However, I'll use my absolute powers of modship to have the last word on the subject of review scores.

 

Scores are shortened reviews for the functionally illiterate. Regardless of whether a review is positive or negative, competently or incompetently written, wrong or right, biased or unbiased all you need to find it out is read the actual review.

 

 

 

 

Edit: Feel free to continue the discussion elsewhere.