bugs
Lyus
Posts: 126
|
Post by bugs on Jul 25, 2011 10:08:48 GMT -5
I don't know if it's out and out bribery. I think it's more of a loss of access. If the professional reviewers give the next call of duty a 7 or 6 out of ten then Activision will refuse access to the next game. This in turn will lower site traffic and, in turn, ad revenue will go down. Not to mention the fanboys complaining that their favorite games got poor scores.
The smaller publishers can't afford to refuse access meaning they don't get special treatment come review time. Plus the JRPG crowd isn't nearly as mainstream as the FPS crowd. Heck it took us until the PS1 to get companies to recognize the US fanbase and it took us to the PS2 to get decently written scripts and professional dub work.
|
|
|
Post by thepeaguy on Jul 25, 2011 13:07:44 GMT -5
I don't know if it's out and out bribery. I think it's more of a loss of access. If the professional reviewers give the next call of duty a 7 or 6 out of ten then Activision will refuse access to the next game. This in turn will lower site traffic and, in turn, ad revenue will go down. Not to mention the fanboys complaining that their favorite games got poor scores. Which is pricisely why Call of Duty games get undeserved ratings from "professional" reviewers because Activision has muscle. Anything from a small company like Falcom don't get full attention and the reviews are mostly based on playing a few hours of the game. I prefer sites like RPGFan or user reviews on Gamefaqs because you get honest feedback, not because they're paid to.
|
|
|
Post by Este on Jul 25, 2011 13:28:11 GMT -5
But to be fair, a lot that goes into a person's review of a game is subjective. It's entirely possible that the guy who gets assigned to one of the many JRPGs just isn't a big fan of the genre. And a lot of games like COD that get those great reviews have an undeniably big budget and frankly great production value. I sort of hope that companies like IGN have their reviewers stick only to one system. I'd hate to have a guy play Uncharted 2 and switch directly to Ys Seven. If that were the case, of course the graphics will look like shit.
Honestly, I think it's up to the consumer to know their interests. If you're really into JRPGs, sites like RPGFan are a gold mine of valuable reviews. On that other hand sites like IGN probably won't give the reviews we're looking for. IGN is probably best for casual gamers and for gamers with really diverse interests in genres. The only thing that kind of bothers me when IGN gives a Falcom game a shitty review is that it probably hurts sales. Less sales in the US means less chances of domestic releases.
At any rate, I don't think that the issue is related to bribery at all. There's that saying "There's no such as bad press." I think it would hurt activision more to not release their games to IGN than it would hurt IGN. Or at least, that's my gut instinct.
|
|
|
Post by Mutagene on Jul 25, 2011 18:57:33 GMT -5
The thing I hate about professional reviewers isn't necessarily that they're bribed--after all, it's their job--but that they don't give fair treatment to games based on system, genre, production value, or target audience. Every time I read a professional review for Raiden IV that bashes it for being "short", I die a little inside.
|
|
|
Post by Raison D'etritus on Jul 25, 2011 19:07:45 GMT -5
I think exclusive access qualifies well enough as bribery. The prospect of being denied it for bad press very well constitutes blackmail. And we know it DOES go on in some circles. I remember reading a reviewer was laid off from a magazine or site or something for giving his honest opinion (after being warned not to) on a game produced by a sponsor.
There IS an obvious anti-eastern trend at play though, as JRPGs are more and more often labeled "cliche" while cookie cutter carbon copy western games get rave reviews. It's always enlightening to compare the lineup at Gamefaqs; eastern games will get much higher gamer reviews than professional reviews, and western games the inverse. Aside from CoD, look at Bethesda. Oblivion is a great game, but while reviewers hailed it as infinitely better than Morrowind, the majority of the fan base seems to prefer the earlier game. And then there's Fallout, which got GOTY status despite functioning on the same basic formula that's been employed since Daggerfall. Compare this to the professional opinions "Xenoblade" (I hate calling it that) will undoubtedly get if it were to come stateside: A rerelease of Final Fantasy XII.
The contrast makes you wonder just how much they are actually trying to serve their audience's tastes, and how much they're just trying to control them. I remember reading an editorial in a game magazine once in which the editor-in-chief complained that Devil May Cry sold so well even after they'd given it a poor review. He was quite bitter that people didn't heed their advice, and enjoyed the game anyway. To me this translates as extreme hubris. Rather than realizing they've failed their audience by giving a review the public agrees to, they arrogantly expect the public to bend to their own influence.
|
|
bugs
Lyus
Posts: 126
|
Post by bugs on Jul 25, 2011 19:30:15 GMT -5
I think exclusive access qualifies well enough as bribery. The prospect of being denied it for bad press very well constitutes blackmail. And we know it DOES go on in some circles. I remember reading a reviewer was laid off from a magazine or site or something for giving his honest opinion (after being warned not to) on a game produced by a sponsor. I think you're referring to Jeff Gertsmann's review of Kane & Lynch for Gamespot. For reference: Gamespot claims the firing was for "personal reasons". at the time Jeff concurred but in a giant bomb video he hinted that yea, he was fired for the review. As for the definition of bribery maybe i was being a bit nit picky.
|
|
|
Post by Este on Jul 25, 2011 20:01:07 GMT -5
Hmmm, I guess that's the power of the buck, kind of sad really. I know that when I read articles on MSNBC and they make reference to something about microsoft, they have to put a disclaimer in the article that their website is partially owned by microsoft.... basically saying "Take this with a grain of salt." I think game companies have the ethical responsiblity to put in similar disclaimers if they get any amount of money from a developer they're reviewing.
Still, I'm going to choose to believe sponsorship/bribery/whatever doesn't influence the reviews that much. In all honesty, what does the reviewer care if a small-budget game is good or bad? I'd assume they'd be rooting for the underdog and lay praise on a well-made game.
And the point of a review anyhow is to tell the reader about a game without spoiling it. Since no game is perfect, every review should include the elements of a game that were done well and the ones that were not.
|
|
Kuro-chan
Limendy
Clones are awesome! ... Even with the wrong hair colour...
Posts: 228
|
Post by Kuro-chan on Jul 26, 2011 13:43:30 GMT -5
There IS an obvious anti-eastern trend at play though, as JRPGs are more and more often labeled "cliche" while cookie cutter carbon copy western games get rave reviews. It's always enlightening to compare the lineup at Gamefaqs; eastern games will get much higher gamer reviews than professional reviews, and western games the inverse. Aside from CoD, look at Bethesda. Oblivion is a great game, but while reviewers hailed it as infinitely better than Morrowind, the majority of the fan base seems to prefer the earlier game. And then there's Fallout, which got GOTY status despite functioning on the same basic formula that's been employed since Daggerfall. Compare this to the professional opinions "Xenoblade" (I hate calling it that) will undoubtedly get if it were to come stateside: A rerelease of Final Fantasy XII. Interesting implication of digital racism... diss the game because of where it is made, not how good / bad it is. I do not think the reviewers are 'bribed' necessarily, but the people they work are probably to an extent and they are likely to give suggestions for reviewers to 'give this game a good reviewer because they paid us big bucks to help promote it', etc. And yes we are seeing both an seriously increasing trend of 'cardboard cutout' games where many of them are starting to look, act and play the same, but what is scaring me more lately is this increased sense of 'militarized realism' being found in many of them. Despite my overflowing collection, I have made efforts to avoid those kind of games because I play games to get away from reality, not to embed myself in dogma designed to act like real life. >_>
|
|
|
Post by Raison D'etritus on Jul 26, 2011 19:48:09 GMT -5
I've seen/heard the word JRPG used pejoratively both in GameInformer and on X-Play. On the latter they even complimented either FF 4 Heroes of Light or DQ IX (can't recall which) by saying it was fun. . . for a JRPG. Nice backhanded appraisal, huh? And listen to the wonderful genre bias they start off their Resonance of Fate review with: www.g4tv.com/videos/45122/Resonance-of-Fate-Review/And I recall somebody writing in GameInformer years ago that the Japanese cliches of being either an amnesiac or having your village burnt down (good thing he didn't play Xenogears! ) found in EVERY Japanese game are so far outpaced by the more original western RPGs like The Elder Scrolls. . . . because being a prisoner with a divine destiny is so much more original. Personally, I think the bias is just as juvenile as people who lump games into "PC" or "Console" (I play both, and so fail to grasp the divide). You'd think people who play games for a damn living, especially, would have the sense to go in without a predisposed bias, and judge the game by. . . THE GAME!
|
|
Kuro-chan
Limendy
Clones are awesome! ... Even with the wrong hair colour...
Posts: 228
|
Post by Kuro-chan on Jul 28, 2011 13:29:55 GMT -5
Of course not. Bias is part of the great charm in staying 'Narrow-minded', 'Jaded', and rather unable to see things as part of a greater whole. I could almost compare it to 'Staying inside the box'. That does seem to be a bad habit of American reviewers as of late: If it does not have the "MADE IN USA" stamp on it, it automatically sucks... Get back to me, 'Professional Reviewers', when your reviews are not so jaded, narrow-minded, and inside the box... >_> As for Xenogears. I luv it, but I have not been able to play it as much as I should have. I have one open and one sealed copy.
|
|
|
Post by Este on Jul 28, 2011 14:22:43 GMT -5
But, didn't the reviewers love God-Eater or whatever it's called. Not to mention Little Big Planet. I don't think that's really the case, I think they just like good production value.
|
|
|
Post by Raison D'etritus on Jul 29, 2011 0:48:42 GMT -5
Don't neglect it! If I had to keep only one game, I would surely weep at the loss of Final Fantasy Tactics, and probably go into convulsions at parting with Final Fantasy III (VI), but I'm sure Xenogears would be the keeper. Now I have to spend the night cuddling with my FFIII cartridge after saying that. They were JRPGs?
|
|
|
Post by Este on Jul 29, 2011 17:36:30 GMT -5
I thought the arguement was saying they like domestic games. If people think JRPGs are cookie-cutter, it's because they've been around for so long. I'm sure you could make a case like that for FPSs but those didn't really come around until N64/PS1 while JRPGS have been around for another generation (or 2 generations?).
|
|
Kuro-chan
Limendy
Clones are awesome! ... Even with the wrong hair colour...
Posts: 228
|
Post by Kuro-chan on Jul 29, 2011 19:28:09 GMT -5
Don't neglect it! If I had to keep only one game, I would surely weep at the loss of Final Fantasy Tactics, and probably go into convulsions at parting with Final Fantasy III (VI), but I'm sure Xenogears would be the keeper. Now I have to spend the night cuddling with my FFIII cartridge after saying that. They were JRPGs? Off-topic, but... Hehe. I have those too and more.
|
|
|
Post by Raison D'etritus on Jul 30, 2011 4:03:36 GMT -5
I'd quote Thepeaguy, but the original post is only like six inches up. Wow. The fact that you believe that makes me feel really old. No they've been around since the 70s, they just weren't big before id, much like RPGs weren't big before Square. so oldAs for the genre difference, if you watched the link I provided, the example game wasn't maligned for being cookie-cutter, it was maligned for being too original and complex. And they don't similarly denigrate ALL RPGs, because western RPGs are yet held in the highest reviewer regard (hence her use of the letter "J" when she said RPG in the review--I mean she FLAT OUT admitted to a bias against Japanese games. . . how does one refute that?). If a game is simply an FPS with RPG elements it's the single most amazing and revolutionary thing since the last FPS with RPG elements. Anyway, the issue isn't so much that they're unduly harsh with Japanese games, as much more sincere. What makes it stand out is the fact that what serves as criticism in one game is a point of praise in another. Hypocrisy and contradiction make for a paradox. Nobody's saying (that I've seen) that every single game out of Japan is getting a 6/10, just that big name western blockbuster releases are often getting higher marks, regardless of consumer opinion and objective qualification. The evidence lies in the popular reviews. You can compare most JRPG ratings between professional and fan reviews and find some degree of accord. Check the disparity between some of the more popular western games. StarCraft II is a bit too obvious, but look at Grand Theft Auto 4. Nearly a 10 across the board despite the fact it was a lackluster game which one could say was even inferior to its predecessors (it certainly didn't surpass them). The GameInformer review made claims of branching plotlines with multiple endings, deep characters who made in impact on the story depending on whether or not you saved or spared them them. To say this is an overstatement is a gruesome understatement. You can choose to believe that every reviewer is completely honest and that politics don't exist in the work place (if so, I'm moving to wherever you are! ),and I don't doubt many reviewers are free of pressured bias. But statistics simply don't lie. It's hard to believe there's complete sincerity when Japanese games typically fall within .5 of the popular score, but certain other games (namely, BIG ones) have a 2 star interstice.
|
|
|
Post by Este on Jul 30, 2011 9:28:02 GMT -5
Hmmm, my thought/hope isn't that there aren't unbiased reviewers, but that the majority aren't. It sucks that people like that are hired, or not scolded at least. I don't mean to say that I agree with all the reviews out there, I'm just defending them for the sake of discussion. Also, so that people don't pile it on so much.... there's a lot of shitty stuff in the world, but I bet that a lot of the shit has an explaination. And there are a lot of good sides to things too!
|
|
|
Post by Raison D'etritus on Jul 30, 2011 10:12:25 GMT -5
I honestly don't think the problem is with the individuals, but with the businesses. I assume most reviewers would want to give their honest opinions, and I doubt any of them personally get any kind of reward for doing favors, beyond keeping their job. It's the people that run the businesses (ANY non-family run business, to which magazines, etc. are likely no exception) that do whatever is necessary to thrive. But if, for whatever reason, your boss says "make your so-and-so review favorable," most people would do so simply because it's their job, as was shown in the Jeff Gertsmann example. By not adapting he was not doing his job. It doesn't -necessarily- make someone a "bad" person or anything to do as their employer dictates (just a cowardly one, far as I'm concerned). Not any more than the sheer majority of people who kiss up to a boss they hate, or talk about people behind their back but act pleasant to their face. Not ethics I agree with, but it's simply how people adapt to a system, and they excuse it with 'everybody else is doing it." And it's the system that I think bears any such flaws, as the people who get to the top often do so through Machiavellian means, just like the lion didn't become King of the Jungle by grooming and feeding weaker animals. I obviously enjoy discussion. And essays. While we have different stances, your views being more pure, and mine being more cynical, it's always nice to contrast perspectives. The world is a balancing act. To paraphrase the N-man, we pay for the good with the bad. We wouldn't have beauty without it's relative contrast to ugliness, so we pretty much need the bad stuff to appreciate the good.
|
|
|
Post by Este on Jul 30, 2011 12:28:08 GMT -5
The world is a balancing act. To paraphrase the N-man, we pay for the good with the bad. We wouldn't have beauty without it's relative contrast to ugliness, so we pretty much need the bad stuff to appreciate the good. Yeah, I had to move to Buffalo before I realized my hometown of Pittsburgh is actually a little pretty! ...and Buffalo's not so bad either. I've made a lot of friends here!
|
|
|
Post by Raison D'etritus on Jul 31, 2011 3:30:42 GMT -5
Another Pennsylvanian? We seem to have as many users from one state as Canadians (and we have us a lot of Canadians). I can empathize though. I always wanted to leave PA. . . South Carolina makes it seem a paradise in contrast.
|
|
|
Post by Este on Jul 31, 2011 13:28:06 GMT -5
Huh, I thought I was the only one in the state. Well, not anymore!
|
|