Do you think videogames review/journalism sites are corrupt?
Do they get paid to give games favorable reviews?
there's absolutely nothing wrong with gaming journalism
>should you buy <new AAA game>? read our article and find out! (spoiler:YES, buy it)
that's some quality journalism right there, and not just blatant advertisement at all. i'm real glad that journalists in the video game industry are asking the tough questions, getting to the bottom of important issues that affect us all
>>318248416
honestly i don't even know why they bother
i haven't bought a game based on a review since I was 8 years old.
this is what gameplay video is for
>>318248524
>honestly i don't even know why they bother
Because they get tons of money. Ad revenue and all that.
i mean, what kind of a fucking idiot child do you have to be to put "video games" and "journalism" in the same goddamn sentence without a trace of irony? just how fucking gullible do you have to be?
>>318248194
Theres no doubt about some money exchanging hands sometimes but, the real problem is that most if not all outlets are afraid of bashing games too much and risking pissing off publishers. So for big AAA games we end up with reviews that just kiss ass, despite sometimes those games being less than great. Remember when Halo 4 came out and shills everywhere were saying it was the second coming of Christ and what not and a month later the game died? The journalist are just afraid of publishers and in turn do gamers a disservice.
And then theres sjw journalists, theyre a cancer.
>>318248653
That's more to do with journalism being a (big, elaborate) joke in general these days.
>>318248194
It's more like they get punished if they give a sponsor's game a negative review by having the ads pulled.I'm speaking from experience, so this isn't a theory.
>>318248267
This faggot works for gawker.
>>318248724
true, true. that's the equally depressing other side of the coin
is it really a big deal
are you happy /v/?
Literally every single professional vidya journalism outlet is corrupt to some extent. But they don't bribe journos with bags of cash. The system is a lot more subtle, it had to be in order to be sustainable.
Publishers don't like putting ads on websites that give them negative reviews, as it is seen as a waste of money. They will pull ads and thus revenue from websites that piss them off. Don't be so quick to trust the review for a game when ads for that game are plastered all over the page. See that Mass Effect 3 review for a truly offensive example.
Publishers often have journos review games at fancy hotels where they are given gifts rather than giving them a proper copy. Or you have Konami's review system for MGSV where they set a time schedule designed to ensure most of them wouldn't see how rehashy it gets near the end, and would review the game without finishing it.
But the most important element is early review copies. Even something as simple as getting early review copies only happens if the publisher is satisfied that you will provide generally favourable coverage and reviews. Early review copies are where journos get their ad revenue from - in fact it is the only reason they are relevant. You know that IGN or Gamespot or any other outlet's employees are not more qualified than yourself. They don't have good taste in games, their judgement of games is shallow, and they write at a fifth grade level. So why do you care what IGN says? You care because they have reviews out on the day of release or earlier, and they have those reviews out so quickly because they have a symbiotic relationship with game publishers. You care what IGN has to say because IGN has been chosen as an unofficial spokesman for the industry, with all the shilling that entails.
You see, it's a lot more insidious and subtle than simply paying journos. The journos don't get shit besides keeping their jobs and maybe some gifts at events.
>>318248741
being honest about a game leads to
>no free review copies
>no ad revenue from those companies
>blacklisted from attending future events and announcement keynotes
>blacklisted from communicating with key industry figures so more juicy interviews
Basically, they have nothing to write about, at least, they won't be able to write anything that will pick up any significant clicks over another news site that decided to suck the publisher's dick so much that they got a pre-release copy and a review ready to publish on release day.
>>318248194
I think the problem is more just general ineptness. If the staff of an average videogame "journalism" site was replaced with /v/ posters I think there would be a fair chance that the quality of their output would improve.
>>318248194
No
No
I think they generally forget that they are supposed to be above typical fanboy hype when evaluating a game and they let the hype of the community influence their rating more than the actual quality of the game.
>reading video game reviews
Never ever.
It's like this. If they don't give the games good reviews then they don't get early copies of the game from the publishers. If they dont get early copies of the game then they can't write a shitty biased review. This is how it works. They feed off one another.
If they have a review ready before a game is released it generates more hype for the game thus driving up sales. This in turn benefits the reviewers because they gain more traffic to their websites or just in general more attention to their media outlets. It has never been about legitimate reviews. It's all about advertising. Gaming magazines and websites serve no other purpose but to advertise games not give the public an idea on whether or not something is worth your time.
hey i'm gonna start a blog where i tell people to buy dragon dildos
from now on i'm a dildo journalist
>>318249256
you serious?
>>318248194
Yes.
Maybe we should start a movement to stop all the corruption.
>>318249770
yes let's start a big movement to tell everyone what ought to be obvious to a fuckin' five-year-old, and then wonder why even 4chan thinks we're too fucking stupid to live
>>318249256
People with poor taste and shallow thoughts are specifically sought after. The most noticable difference at say, IGN, if you were to put /v/ in charge is that most of the review scores would be firmly in the "This game isn't very good. Save your money and buy it at a huge discount later on" area. Which is where most games firmly belong.
That does not suit the interests of IGN and the publishers they feed and feed off of. 9/10 it's okay exists for a reason.
>>318249615
You're too late:
https://www.youtube.com/user/FunWithSexbad/videos
>>318249520
PCGamer magazine used to be the last bastion, but even they couldn't endure. When they started sinking I knew it was going to be down to asshats on youtube.
>>318249895
you sound like you're one of the retards who focus on a few mean tweets rather than what the facts are
Yes and yes
/thread
>>318250054
Rather than asshats on YouTube I would recommend watching uncontrolled game footage when a game releases, whether on YouTube or a streaming site like Twitch. Watching someone simply play a game for a few hours is often a perfect way of gauging quality, free from any control or shills.
Indeed, there's really no point in journos when it is so easy to share gameplay footage these days. Journos were only essential in the past.
>>318250058
you're fucking serious. you think that "hey, the people who make a living telling us to buy video games might not be trustworthy" is some earth-shaking revelation. you think that anyone with half a brain, hearing about "corruption in video game journalism" thinks anything except "well, no shit"
fuck you
>>318249207
Is there a real solution to the endemic problems plaguing gaming journalism?
If true critics are purposefully starved out, how can the industry hope to regain any measure of integrity?
>>318248194
Yes
Not really
They get "compensated" with review copies, exclusive footage/information from new games, interviews, ads, etc. There's little to no physical cash changing hands, it's all indirect, very quid pro quo.
>>318250293
Yes and no. Doublethink is a very real thing. People will say that gaming journalism is an obvious one day, only to the next day suddenly believe an IGN review and share it with others eagerly, then accuse anyone who points out what they knew as obvious yesterday of being "conspiracy theorists".
>>318250421
gaming "journalism" is over.
It's in it's dying throes right now, rapidly slipping into irrelevance now that everyone and their grandmother uploads footage of themselves playing their new games on the internet for everyone to watch.
>>318250421
>how can the industry hope to regain any measure of integrity?
you say that as if there was any integrity to begin with
it's like wondering how professional wrestling can stop being fake
>>318250421
The solution is to realize you don't need gaming journos. Their reviews are low quality and the only reason anyone cares about them is because they get the games first. Settle for watching uncontrolled play footage from real people who bought the game and decide for yourself its quality. Support smaller websites that put out reviews not day-one but a few weeks from release, with actual insights and quality critique. They'll never "beat" the corrupt journos but they don't need to.
>>318250425
Thats still payment just not in dollars.
If you scratched my back and I sucked your dick inexchange I would be paying for your service.
>>318250184
Look at Nintendo Direct. They've realized that their audience prefers it when journos aren't involved at all. This is because of the distrust that gradually built up to and erupted with gg.
>>318250293
you're an idiot. gg was a backlash that happened because of the blatant collusion between journos. then it erupted when they colluded to make it about a few mean tweets. the reason people still tweet gg is because inaction is even worse than taking the wrong actions, you might be content with the shitty status quo between journalists, devs, publishers and consumers but the people in gg aren't
>>318249090
PUT A FUCKING SOCK IN IT, LESLIE!
>>318250659
Nintendo Direct is just Nintendo advertising their products on their own platform instead of using the E3 platform. It's really not related to this.
>>318250586
>you say that as if there was any integrity to begin with
Nigger please, there used to be some outlets with actual integrity. EGM and PC Gamer were great publications for years before they slowly collapsed.
>>318250467
>>318250659
there is no such thing as video game journalism. there are video game advertisements. that's it
if you don't get that, you're a fuckin' retard. and if you're part of a movement trying to complain everywhere online that you got fooled by a bunch of marketers, you are too fucking stupid to live. kill yourself
>>318250731
yes, they're advertising but we know they're advertising which means in order to keep brand loyalty they'll try their best to respect the consumers. anything less would be bad business. I still agree that journos aren't needed at all, since they, more often than not, just turn it into a clusterfuck of dishonesty
>>318250768
yeah, once upon a time these marketers told me to buy a lot of games that i actually enjoyed. that's the same as journalistic integrity, right?
>>318248194
Of course. It's a young industry. All industries go through this in their early stages. VJ has it bad because it's filled to the brim with young hipster fucks, who thinks being a journalist is the equivalent of getting to know friends and having a coffee with them even if you're writing about that person. Also if where talking about Gawker, there's all kinds of seedy shit that fucking rag of a company gets involved in.
![[HorribleSubs] Concrete Revolutio - 05 [720p].mkv_snapshot_16.53_[2015.11.03_02.05.30].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/RTZj7HF.jpg "[HorribleSubs] Concrete Revolutio - 05 [720p].mkv_snapshot_16.53_[2015.11.03_02.05.30].jpg")
>>318248194
>Do you think videogames review/journalism sites are corrupt?
Yes
>Do they get paid to give games favorable reviews?
Probably not paid directly as much they are "sponsored" with adds or expensive giffs.
Not like they can give AAA releases anything less than a 9 in most cases without pissing out autistics.
>Hurr hurr Zelda got less than a 9.1 I'm going to act like my family was raped and killed
>>318250879
calm down retard, it's obvious you don't know what you're talking about
>>318250958
>being this cynical
Contrary to your own bitter beliefs, not every game mag was Nintendo Power.
>>318251006
>Of course. It's a young industry. All industries go through this in their early stages.
I don't know about that. As long people keep acting like SH are their best friends nothing will change.
>>318249192
/thread
The way it's going to be fixed is by having indipendent critics that aren't tied to these publications
For example I usually look up totalbiscuit's videos
Because I care about the pc version of games and I don't think there's another guy that gives a more in-depth analysis of pc performance than him
And this one of the reasons I think he's uncorruptible in a way, if a game runs like shit you can't lie and say it doesn't, it's a objective fact and he just does a thorough analysis
>>318251147
wtf are you talking about? nintendo power was the most blatant advertisement of them all
>>318248194
In this age, accepting Capitalism as a driving force in the quality of games whether popular or indie is comparable to accepting games for what they completely are
>>318248717
whats the story in that pic
>>318251316
do you have literally no reading comprehension
If only there was a movement trying to steer game journalism in the right direction
>>318251351
>shitty gaming news site becomes SJW
>tells their core userbase to fuck off because they're not progressive enough
>people gladly left
>site closes down a year later because they lost all their readership
>>318250879
This is the reality of anything where there is a large amount of money involved. Money always finds a way.
If /v/ became influential enough to have a meaningful effect on sales then this place would turn into shill central too. Everyone would be trying to meme their game into being GOTY.
>>318251351
of course, the guy cared more about politics than upholding the journo facade.
Insulted readers, popularity dunked, end of site. He's probably in some other anyway.
>>318251447
but what if the movement got smeared, and all the reasonable and relevant things they had to talk about was deflected and ignored?
boy, that would be awful
>>318251585
>If /v/ became influential enough to have a meaningful effect on sales then this place would turn into shill central too
y-yeah
g-good thing this didn't happen goyi- ANONS!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbymQuSJmwI&feature=youtu.be&t=2921
48:41>Uhm, okay, so I have a bone to pick! And it's people who review shit low. Because I feel like people just do that to be different. Like, everybody else gave fallout 4 90's and up- 70. Like, you're not different or special just because you reviewed a game low!
>(Mocking tone) Look! We have legitimate things to say and if we don't rate it low, you won't know how legitimate they are!
>>318251830
I do actually believe that 90% of the shill-ish threads on /v/ are plain bored retards being retarded, not actual company shills.
Because spamming is a sport on 4chan.
>>318251673
only retards with a shallow understanding of the movement would be stupid enough to fall for the tawdry smear campaigns that have been pitted against it
>>318252058
>Like, you're not different or special just because you reviewed a game low!
But she's right tho.
>>318252137
So, most of the target audience.
>>318252270
A legit 6 or 7 isn't supposed to be a bad game. 5.5/10 is the literally definition of the average in a ten point scale. However, 7 or even 8s are taken as averages these days. It's a retarded rating system.
>>318252270
no, she's not. she's using a strawman argument. she's suggesting that anything less than a 9/10 is illegitimate because it's only a means to stand out from the crowd, which speaks more to her lack of honesty than anyone she's attempting to disparage
>>318252412
What is even the point?
Any review score below a 6 might as well be zero.
10 point review scores have been weighted like test scores for a looooooong time.
>>318252058
>people just call a spade a spade because they want to be contrarian
It's no different from how Hollywood works.
>>318252461
When everyone loves a game and only you are vehemently shitting on it, maybe the problem isn't the game, maybe it's just you?
>>318248194
yes
yes but not montarily, gifts come in the from of "swag" and favorable treatment when press releases roll around. review sites aren't necessarily to blame for this, they have to play ball or they get blacklisted.
>>318252404
yeah, one of the biggest problems is that gamers have become legit keks and don't even care about their hobby anymore
>>318252530
>What is even the point?
A credible rating system. I'd play a 5 if I knew it was average, instead of completely unplayable. Big Rigs would probably be rated a 6 by Kotaku
>>318248194
No, they just have quite low standards.
The gaming industry in general isn't exactly renowned for high standards.
>>318252756
Or you know, you could rate them A, B, C, D, and F, which correspond to a 9, 8, 7, 6, and anything below a 6.
Big Rigs would deserve that F rating.
Numbering systems are the bane of video game reviews. If the inattentive, no-attentionspan fucks of readers would actually read a review, it wouldn't need a summary box with a meaningless quantification at the end. Disgusting.
If you want to know what you're getting into, at least give it as much attention as a goddamn fucking article that explains what it is.
>>318252635
that's a collectivist mindset, and it's not an argument against objective assessment
Gaming journalism is dead. Places like /v/ killed it.
Listen you glorious faggots, there's a difference between gaming and almost any other hobby, and it's audience aptitude for inside baseball. Put simply, fans of the gaming industry know too much to have the wool pulled over their eyes(for the most part). That's why we're always so cynical, we know it's all bullshit.
Video game journalism existed for a time before the internet was ubiquitous. Now it is, and I hang around in a group of people who talk about video games, why the fuck would I need the views of some college dropout who chanced into a video game review job?
Seriously, almost none of them have journalism degrees or even writing degrees. 9 of 10 professional video game reviewers got their job from right-place-right-time nepotism bullshit.
You can draw a red line through about 75% of games journalist having worked together at some point. That's how you get collusion, that's how you get self-styled kingmakers, that's how you shut *outside voices* out.
That's why it's sinking, and that's why the "journalism" arm of our hobby is being slowly obliterated by internet forums and youtube personalities.
>>318252989
Well, what makes you so special that you think you're entitled to shit on a game that everyone else seems to like unconditionally?
It just tells me that you're looking for attention.
>>318252058
GOD DAMN GUS RVBS BEEN AROUND FOR NEARLY 10 YEARS NOW HOW COME YOU STILL LOOK LIKE SHIT
>>318253010
Those who buy games, regardless of their qualities and problems, are the root of the problem. Nobody else. Goes for games, as much as anything else.
>>318253051
it's not about being special, to think it is makes you seem like an insecure cunt. some people are honest, faggot
>>318253228
Then why does nobody agree with them?
>>318253253
prove that nobody agrees with them
>>318253051
>having an opinion that doesn't gel with the majority makes you a special snowflake
hang yourself
>>318253051
Because unlike most people, I have the ability to look at game objectively.
>>318253392
and what does it matter if nobody gives a shit?
>>318252851
Or you could just not grade things like you're still in fucking elementary school.
But of course, the majority of the people they're marketting their low quality schlock reviews to are kids under 15 so I guess it's to be expected.
people are now too afraid to burn bridges with game publishers
>>318253436
look at all the threads pointing out how shitty 4 is and fuck off retard
yep
>>318253436
They should if they have any respect for what is objectively true and false in this world. If I tell you that the sun is going to rise tomorrow, are you going to tell me it isn't?
>>318253436
>people will forever not give a shit
>hurr every thing is pointless why even try
look at this retard
A prophecy from the 90s about the future of games journalism.
Why haven't I been mentioned. Are you telling me something /v/? Are my general assfuckings of games no longer revelant? Because if so I don't fucking care.
>>318253597
>objectively true and false
and how do you know you haven't been compromised mentally and you're the only one with an issue with fallout 4?
>>318253719
comedy reviews don't count
>>318253736
Again, like I said, I have the ability to look at games objectively. Most people don't.
>>318253736
judging by your retarded questions I'd say you're the only compromised one here
Seriously, if /v/ is talking about a game, it's probably worth playing. I don't need a review. I don't need Poodiepie screaming into a mic to tell me, the fact that you asshole give enough fuck to either like it or bash it is enough for me.
I don't need a handfulla dudes who live in SanFran to tell me what to like, I'll stick with /v/, like I have for years.
Always stay the same /v/, this place always feels like home.
>>318253805
>comedy
>>318253813
Everyone has biases, anon. Even you.
>>318253813
>, I have the ability to look at games objectively.
So says you.
What if I told you that you weren't nearly as objective about games than you like to believe?
Would you believe me?
You don't even know if its true.
How could you possibly believe your own delusions if you can't trust anyone else to review games objectively?
>>318253828
/v/ talks about whatever gets shitposted and shilled the hardest
i bet you think XCX is a good game too, huh?
>>318253913
Because objectivity is pretty simple. Hard to make a mistake there. Unlike your strange brain misfirings you're trying to pass off as deep thoughts.
>>318253828
You have to keep a constant watch, though, because /v/ always follows the same cycle.
>Oh, we like this game! You should absolutely play this game, it's a good game!
>Wow, look at all the people playing this game. Fuck, there's too many people playing the game!
>We've always hated this game, who the fuck would want to play this garbage game?
>568 shitposts and 151 meme faces omitted, click reply to view
>>318253997
>objectivity
>game quality
such a nebulous thing to define, really
How would you objectively quantify quality in a video game?
I'm waiting.
>>318253879
Wow, an implying joke, how original. Also may I ask why we have IGN in the mix as well? They are to put it as blunt as a baseball bat to the groin, a joke? So are they not Comedy?
>>318251673
>>318252137
>Kia right now
>Eceleb theread
>Some femminist twitter bullshit
>More eceleb
>Censoreship about a singer?
>Another ecelebt thread
>>318253719
Go to sleep, Ben.
>>318253987
Games worth playing aren't always good, anon. Some of them are there to make me laugh, some are just an experience to... well, experience.
I like the game Judge Dread vs Death. It's not a good game, it's not a fun game, but if I sure as hell enjoyed the game.
Also, Papers Please isn't that good, but it's pretty interesting.
>>318254259
those don't seem like objectively quantifiable feelings that you could put down as an objective rating of how worthy of your time a game is.
>>318254040
Yeah, I know the cycle, I play games that are mentioned here, regardless of vitriol, positive or negative buzz about it.
I haven't gone to a review site for a contemporary video game for like 7 years.
>>318254321
Why would I need that, anon? I'm not a robot.
>>318254402
what a tremendous waste of time
>>318254470
because you just claimed that game quality can be quantified objectively and is totally not some bullshit subjective opinion that you're pushing onto other people because you're a contrarian piece of shit who can't stand the idea of people liking anything popular because it might actually be good?
>>318254472
Oh? Otherwise, I'd be playing a new Assassins Creed every year, or a new Borderlands, or whatever's on the front page of Kotaku.
Games are inherently wastes of time in some people's eyes, why chase the dragon of "Perfect taste" especially when it doesn't exist?
>>318254125
Not while I can advertise Hatfall! *shameless self promotional cough* Did I mention Hatfall?
>>318254585
I'm >>318254470 and >>318254259
I haven't posted anything else. You're arguing with a different anon, anon.
>>318248524
this
>>318250768
>Nigger please, there used to be some outlets with actual integrity. EGM and PC Gamer were great publications
The early 90s were a glorious time for video game magazines. You had Zzap64 absolutely wrecking the shit out of Commodore games that fell short of the mark, Mean Machines reviewing for all console platforms with loyalty only to good games, who laid into the constant fuckery of EA and their rehashed yearly sports re-releases, gave no-name games like Buck Rodgers, Star Control and Starflight on the Magadrive top-tier scores for being great games even though nobody was paying them to hype these literally who titles, and being massively critical to the point of sarcastic mockery when companies tried to offer them perks for good reviews.
They just didn't give a fuck, and were a fucking hilarious and high quality read every month.
maybe it was something about that British banter.
>>318255983
Now you've offended my delicate feelings, are you even going to acknowledge me? Or perhaps you'll just continue wearing your nostalgia goggles.
>>318248194
I never understood this. What's this about anyway
>>318256616
It is a game called baiting.
>>318256616
The image? Basically, Geoff Keighley was the best chance gaming journalism got. He's harvard educated, talented, and had a drive and passion to bring serious journalism to video games.
A short while later and he's sitting dead-eyed in front of a doritos and mountain dew display, shamelessly hawking gamer garbage to gamers for his corporate overlords.
Even during the magazine era there were journalists--actual ones, not bloggers with a fedora--who were already citing corruption that was going on and sort of forecast exactly what happened due to a growing incestuous relationship between publishers and reviewers.
Of course you had NINTENDO MAGAZINE was was nothing but fucking Nintendo shilling back then, so basically shills have always shilled and anyone who has ever believed in the ethics of game 'journalists' were damn fools.
>>318256928
>shamelessly
Sorry, make that shamefully. Very fucking shamefully. It's clearly eating him up inside. Every new look at the man we get makes him look one step closer to the edge.
>>318248194
wouldn't go so far as to say they're blatantly corrupt but there is definitely incentive to skew reviews and very little oversight on the reviewing process.
>>318252058
And then proceeds to call out Jeff Gerstman's review where he actually considers how glitchy bethesda rpg's are and factors it honestly into his score.
All while having just unboxed a pip boy edition live, and 2/3 wearing their pip boy, and their company having just done a series of promotional videos for fallout 4
>>318248194
>Do you think videogames review/journalism sites are corrupt?
>journalism
>corrupt
Are you stupid or something?
>>318248717
i admire how blunt that first article is desu
>>318250958
Up until around '98 or so EGM hardly ever gave any game a 9 or a 10 and would regularly rip on big name companys' games if they were below par. Hell, they were proud of and advertised the fact that Acclaim and Capcom both pulled advertising support from them due to them giving their games bad reviews (Capcom was incensed over them giving SSFII on the SNES/Genesis low scores and giving Donkey Kong GB game of the month in that issue)..
