In addition , ( non-online ) game magazines/periodicals have reported that, for the reviews they are making, it is getting harder to get pre-release copies of any game. Many companies are anxious to get "bad publicity" or a negative review or just anything which counters their advertising policy. There is no denying they are scared. Scared of losing heaps of money, scared of losing jobs, even scared to be pointed at as the big looser or worse.
Developpers are only human and to see your newborn been dragged through the mud is asking much of the human nerving system. Especially if you have a boss, such as John Reticciello, who just wrote what a tremendous job you ( the team ) did. It would feel unfair to your efforts, those of you colleagues. You would think it rude and unjust to be treated this way. Even if you only played a small part.
It would not come as a surprise if some dastardly path would have been taken, either by the company or the individual to counterattack possible offense. But there is, as of yet, no irrefutable proof of any manipulation. And they certainly don't have to cooporate "freely" to let their sales plunge because some ( self- ) proclaimed critic has written a devestating review.
Rated M for Mature - May contain content inappropriate for children
Is it really naive to be skeptical of something that hasn't been proven? I don't think so.
Being skeptical is not the same as beig naive.
I'm sorry if I choose not to believe every random conspiracy theory posted on forums by anonymous people that have no proof of their claims, but that's just the way I operate, and I believe that the person you are calling naive believes the same thing.
Show me proof and I will believe it. Got any? Didn't think so.
For something that is so widespread, there sure are no whistleblowers in the game review industry.
I have yet to see a single shred of evidence that would validate these wild accusations that are constantly thrown about. People sure do love to post this same thing over and over again, but they sure don't have any solid or even convincing evidence.
I believe in innocence until proven guilty, and by my standards, you folks haven't proven a thing.
If you want to call people naive for believing I truth and facts, then Maybe you should know that the word means simple or lacking experience, literally.
In my opinion, the only ones lacking experience are those that take as fact anything posted by anonymous people they will never meet, as fact at face value with no critical thinking, or ability to differentiate between fact and random noise posted with little to no supporting evidence.
You guys like to accuse these sites of being paid off, yet you use their sites, post in their forums, read and comment on all of their stories, and have no problem trumpeting an article (from the same sites) as the greatest review ever when it perfectly aligns with your opinions.
If these sites are really bought and paid for, then they have no journalistic value to you. It would actually do more harm than good to you to read them and continue to be a part of their communities. Tell me, if you really believe all of this, then why are you still reading these articles? Why do you continue to patronize these "evil companies."
The truth of the matter is, that you want nothing more than to attack people. The writers at mmorpg, massively, ign, or any site, are people too. They aren't just people, they are gamers. They enjoy the same hobby as you, and they have made a career inside the industry that surrounds it. They deserve respect, just as much as you do, and they are not the nefarious evil-doers you make them out to be.
Attempting to run these peoples names through the mud is a very small thing to do; you wouldn't want people doing the same to you at your job, I'm sure, so why don't we just lay off the writers until the day comes when you can finally prove your statements are true. I don't believe that day will be coming any time soon, however.
Wow, the conspiracy theorists on this site leave no stone unturned...lol. If I believed half of what some peeps post on this site, I'd be milling about in a tin foil hat. Quite sad what some people will dig out, just because they don't like the reviews coming out for a game they don't like.
Lol, "conspiracy theorists" lol.
This is the way professional journalism works these days. It's not "conspiracy theory." it's something you actually learn in journalism colleges. Just because something is not to your liking doesn't mean it's "tinfoil hat conspiracy theory."
Try working in pro media mate, you'll see that it's not all paragons of virtue and impartiality there, lol.
{mod edit} may have also noticed that I'm not talking about individual reviews but the collective score, which I find pretty close to my impression of the most games I played. Much closer, in fact, than the critic review scores which are, more often than not, wildly inaccurate.
Wow, the conspiracy theorists on this site leave no stone unturned...lol. If I believed half of what some peeps post on this site, I'd be milling about in a tin foil hat. Quite sad what some people will dig out, just because they don't like the reviews coming out for a game they don't like.
Lol, "conspiracy theorists" lol.
This is the way professional journalism works these days. It's not "conspiracy theory." it's something you actually learn in journalism colleges. Just because something is not to your liking doesn't mean it's "tinfoil hat conspiracy theory."
Try working in pro media mate, you'll see that it's not all paragons of virtue and impartiality there, lol.
{mod edit}
{mod edit}
The point is that ALL professional media is "professional" which means that they are getting paid for their work. And NO ONE is paying them to be truly impartial, objective or even honest. You might get that in intelligence services (a big maybe, though).
The only way impartiality, objectivity and honesty has any true value in this professional media world is by reputation. You need to present an illusion of these things so your true agenda (selling a product or an idea) can get better traction with your target audience. Sadly this is the way media works in capitalist system. It's not "a conspiracy theory" it is a simple, logical fact that is actually taught in journalistic schools. Anyone taking ANY professional review as truly relevant and objective does not how the real world works.
may have also noticed that I'm not talking about individual reviews but the collective score, which I find pretty close to my impression of the most games I played. Much closer, in fact, than the critic review scores which are, more often than not, wildly inaccurate.
Seriously? Metcritic user scores are easier, and cheaper, to manipulate than the professional ones. All it takes is people with too much time on their hands and a computer. Plenty enough of those to go around. If anyone actually cared about them more than "Oooo shiney!" companies could fix those too. Besides the ordinary goober is a great source of nutrition.
Well I agree with DA2 user score on metacritic and I know many people that agree as well.
This game was imho utter garbage. Low-cost money grab basing on well received DA:O.
Seems like consumers share this view since it sold much WORSE than DA:O.
edit: besides 0 scores are as stupid as flood of 10 /10 scores.
may have also noticed that I'm not talking about individual reviews but the collective score, which I find pretty close to my impression of the most games I played. Much closer, in fact, than the critic review scores which are, more often than not, wildly inaccurate.
Seriously? Metcritic user scores are easier, and cheaper, to manipulate than the professional ones. All it takes is people with too much time on their hands and a computer. Plenty enough of those to go around. If anyone actually cared about them more than "Oooo shiney!" companies could fix those too. Besides the ordinary goober is a great source of nutrition.
Well I agree with DA2 user score on metacritic and I know many people that agree as well.
This game was imho utter garbage. Low-cost money grab basing on well received DA:O.
Seems like consumers share this view since it sold much WORSE than DA:O.
edit: besides 0 scores are as stupid as flood of 10 /10 scores.
Yeah, but I found the average score a pretty good measure of what the gamers actually think of the game.
Actually, I almost never read the user reviews themselves. I might skim a few dozen to see if certain things repeat so there might be something to them, but I don't put any weight there. However, the average is a pretty good measure - all those 0s and 10s add up you know.
Everyone knows that EA is a giant gaming company, but do you think they all realize what is going on between big developers and gaming media behind closed doors?
Heres an interesting article I just read about Dragon Age 2, which got terrible ratings on metacritic (despite EA posting good reviews for it on there) and great reviews on various gaming media sites:
GatoFiasco engaged in some Google Matlockery. He found that Avanost had only posted one review for Dragon Age 2, and through a profile created on a different website, discovered his real name. This also so happens to be the name of a Bioware Engineer.
The fact is, EA controls who it gives its games to pre-release. Every media company wants to be able to review a game before it is released... And if you don't play ball with EA you will not get it. Why did SWTOR get overwhelmingly high reviews by professional media companies but mediocre ones from gamers? Because Mass Effect 3 is coming soon.
Want to secure your copy of mass effect 3? Write a good review. It is that simple and it is completely unspoken.
{mod edit}
Not too much different than the OP being paid by a competing company to make negative posts about a game on a forum to sway the opinions of people who haven't bought the game.
But those conspiracy theories are based in a wrong premise, DA2 is a bad game and no one can like it.
I like the game, DA2 is a solid 8 as single player game. Maybe its worse than DA:O but its obviously a lot better than all those 200 "review with a score of 0. Maybe the 4.5 stars of user review in Xbox live is a better indication of it real quality since those can't be manipulated by users creating multiple accounts.
But at the end everyone it's free to use whatever data they want to justify theirs belief. In the internet you will found anything, with time. Of course that doesn't make it correct.
An that's why I trust user reviews (on average) much more than pro (read "paid) ones.
Incidentally, SW:TOR just dropped to 6.0 on metacritic.
And so did the collective IQ of the majority of posters there. Reading their negative (and sometimes 0 rating) reviews of SWTOR are not only ignorant - I'm pretty sure a peanut would be a better source of review.
You can stroke your superior intellect by playing DA2.
And your hyper-intelectual laser vision may have also noticed that I'm not talking about individual reviews but the collective score, which I find pretty close to my impression of the most games I played. Much closer, in fact, than the critic review scores which are, more often than not, wildly inaccurate.
Seriously? Metcritic user scores are easier, and cheaper, to manipulate than the professional ones. All it takes is people with too much time on their hands and a computer. Plenty enough of those to go around. If anyone actually cared about them more than "Oooo shiney!" companies could fix those too. Besides the ordinary goober is a great source of nutrition.
Well I agree with DA2 user score on metacritic and I know many people that agree as well.
This game was imho utter garbage. Low-cost money grab basing on well received DA:O.
Seems like consumers share this view since it sold much WORSE than DA:O.
edit: besides 0 scores are as stupid as flood of 10 /10 scores.
Yeah, but I found the average score a pretty good measure of what the gamers actually think of the game.
Actually, I almost never read the user reviews themselves. I might skim a few dozen to see if certain things repeat so there might be something to them, but I don't put any weight there. However, the average is a pretty good measure - all those 0s and 10s add up you know.
So the ones you agree with are right and all others are wrong regardless of any possible manipulation right? It's not the zeros and tens you have to look out for. People who tamper make at least some effort to hide what they're doing. Using your theory wouldn't it make just as sense for ActiBlizz or EA to bribe companies not to give each other good reviews?
Of course it's possible to tamper with user review scores. But I find the average user scores a much much better representation of my own impression of the games.
If the 6.0 score is somehow tinkered with, then it would be the first one I know. EA's evil, unknown enemy would have to begin its massive campaign of creating hundreds of fake accounts and writing separate, distinct, individual reviews for each one of them. In such a way that style similarities are not a giveaway. In order to avoid this they would have to hire hundreds of different mini-reviewers who would have to write them... and not one of them spilling the beans.
So who's a conspiracy theorist now?
The hypocrisy of people pulling the "conspiracy theorist" card never ceases to amaze me. A word of advice, don't use this argument anymore. It's lost a lot of credibility in the past few years.
(Sorry about the "conspiracy theory" bit. Confused you with someone else.)
As for the last sentence... No, not really, they wouldn't pay to give their "competition" bad reviews because a) there really is not much direct competition in the game market. It's not a zero-sum game b) paying someone to shill your competition looks much worse than paying to say a few nice things about you, if it gets out that is and c) big mobs usually do not fight amongst each other directly, that's a rule of nature. it's actually an interesting biological phenomena as well (predators do not fight each other really, they have mock fights over food and mates, unlike herbivores who really do figh to the death amongst each other) but i won't go into that.
Of course it's possible to tamper with user review scores. But I find the average user scores a much much better representation of my own impression of the games.
If the 6.0 score is somehow tinkered with, then it would be the first one I know. EA's evil, unknown enemy would have to begin its massive campaign of creating hundreds of fake accounts and writing separate, distinct, individual reviews for each one of them. In such a way that style similarities are not a giveaway. In order to avoid this they would have to hire hundreds of different mini-reviewers who would have to write them... and not one of them spilling the beans.
So who's a conspiracy theorist now?
The hypocrisy of people pulling the "conspiracy theorist" card never ceases to amaze me. A word of advice, don't use this argument anymore. It's lost a lot of credibility in the past few years.
(Sorry about the "conspiracy theory" bit. Confused you with someone else.)
Not only all that, but seems much more plausible that its something a fan would do than a hater. I mean, its only a small step to go from being common fan to getting carried away, but to go from not liking a game to crusading against it like that just seems a lot more crazy to me.
When I want a single-player story, I'll play a single-player game. When I play an MMO, I want a massively multiplayer world.
This is the way professional journalism works these days. It's not "conspiracy theory." it's something you actually learn in journalism colleges. Just because something is not to your liking doesn't mean it's "tinfoil hat conspiracy theory."
Try working in pro media mate, you'll see that it's not all paragons of virtue and impartiality there, lol.
Good, then you understand the perils of launching theories at the public without any standard of evidence.
The op, in this case, does it on a regular basis. Some rather bland, standard anti-corporate rhetoric, no real evidence more than a "oooh, what if". And then the cool kids jump on the bandwagon effect with their 'me toos' in a reliable fashion and carry the signs for him.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
Well I agree with DA2 user score on metacritic and I know many people that agree as well.
This game was imho utter garbage. Low-cost money grab basing on well received DA:O.
Seems like consumers share this view since it sold much WORSE than DA:O.
edit: besides 0 scores are as stupid as flood of 10 /10 scores.
Yeah, but I found the average score a pretty good measure of what the gamers actually think of the game.
Actually, I almost never read the user reviews themselves. I might skim a few dozen to see if certain things repeat so there might be something to them, but I don't put any weight there. However, the average is a pretty good measure - all those 0s and 10s add up you know.
So the ones you agree with are right and all others are wrong regardless of any possible manipulation right? It's not the zeros and tens you have to look out for. People who tamper make at least some effort to hide what they're doing. Using your theory wouldn't it make just as sense for ActiBlizz or EA to bribe companies not to give each other good reviews?
Of course it's possible to tamper with user review scores. But I find the average user scores a much much better representation of my own impression of the games.
If the 6.0 score is somehow tinkered with, then it would be the first one I know. EA's evil, unknown enemy would have to begin its massive campaign of creating hundreds of fake accounts and writing separate, distinct, individual reviews for each one of them. In such a way that style similarities are not a giveaway. In order to avoid this they would have to hire hundreds of different mini-reviewers who would have to write them... and not one of them spilling the beans.
So who's a conspiracy theorist now?
The hypocrisy of people pulling the "conspiracy theorist" card never ceases to amaze me. A word of advice, don't use this argument anymore. It's lost a lot of credibility in the past few years.
(Sorry about the "conspiracy theory" bit. Confused you with someone else.)
No really, they wouldn't pay to give their "competition" bad reviews because a) there really is not much competition in game market. It's not a zero-sum game b) paying someone to shill your competition looks much worse than paying to say a few nice things about you, if it gets out that is and c) big mobs usually do not fight amongst each other directly, that's a rule of nature. it's actually an interesting biological phenomena as well (predators do not fight each other really, they have mock fights over food and mates, unlike herbivores who really do figh to the death amongst each other) but i won't go into that.
Yeah. I agree as well. I actually find average user score on metacritic correspond with my own personal score more 'closely' than reviewers score.
Especially that "suprisingly" not much games there get as bad user reviews as f.e. DA2. Most games get actually decent users scores even if bit lower on average than reviewers.
Originally posted by wormywyrm I'm sure you would like to discredit my post by trying to label it as a conspiracy theory
And he would succeed as it is precisely what it is.
The reason:
The media company to gain influence needs credibility, a reputation and repeatedly publishing favoring reviews that turns out to be undeserved will ruin your credibility rather fast.
The bias:
The linked article is only interesting by it's stupidity.
If 2 reviewers post the same review with same reasoning and score, does one make it less credible because it was posted by a person with assumed affiliation to product?
How about all the negative reviews? Shouldn't all the reviews be scanned for affiliation to product? Aren't they disgruntled ex-employees or butthurt in some other way, driving their true motives?
Guess what, all scores are biased because they are subjective and appeal to authority is fallacious.
If a company employees have a right to retain their anonymity, and I believe they do, to post negative reviews about company products to protect themselves from repercussions, the positive reviewers should have the same right to protect themselves from people like you and morons from linked article...
You guys know that every reviewer for SWTOR get a $600~$800 SWTOR package including keyboard, headset, mouse and mouspad, right?
No, but how about the USUAL $ 10.000 publicity agreement to sponsor all those nice buttons on the websites for the current year, a free trip to the next gaming convention and a visit to the HQ's of XXX as an exclusive pre view to see the latest announced video game ...
I think the value of a mere $ 600 dollars keyboard/headset would hardly get you a rate of C +.
Grow up please. EA spends dozens of millions on PR and marketing for each game they launch...
Hey look others are doing it too, so it ain't so bad.
I'm sure you would like to discredit my post by trying to label it as a conspiracy theory
And he would succeed as it is precisely what it is.
The reason:
The media company to gain influence needs credibility, a reputation and repeatedly publishing favoring reviews that turns out to be undeserved will ruin your credibility rather fast.
Not really. Its a a very old propaganda trick. You bury an important lie in a pile of irellevant truths. It's sooo very old and obvious. Macchiavelli wrote about it, Goebbels wrote about it... It's the "illusion of impartiality" which is very easy to create and maintain. They may give fair reviews to non-advertising companies which increases their credibility which they actually "sell" to moneyed sponsors. Yes, credibility is a commodity these days and it can be very precisely evaluated and sold.
They are all "presstitutes" as Celente calls them. Some are cheep streetwalkers with a shelf-life of a couple of years and some are fancy hotel hookers... There are artistic geishas who are not going all the way and BDSMs pretending to beat you up. Some are madames and even prostitution ring leaders and street pimps. But they're all "professionals" and they all sell their image.
The bias:
The linked article is only interesting by it's stupidity.
If 2 reviewers post the same review with same reasoning and score, does one make it less credible because it was posted by a person with assumed affiliation to product?
How about all the negative reviews? Shouldn't all the reviews be scanned for affiliation to product? Aren't they disgruntled ex-employees or butthurt in some other way, driving their true motives?
Guess what, all scores are biased because they are subjective and appeal to authority is fallacious.
If a company employees have a right to retain their anonymity, and I believe they do, to post negative reviews about company products to protect themselves from repercussions, the positive reviewers should have the same right to protect themselves from people like you and morons from linked article...
The point I'm tryin to makee is that NO PROFESSIONAL REVIEW can be taken at face value as impartial and objective, regardless of whether me or you happen to agree with them or not. Not one. But neither can the non-proffesional user ones be considered much better. It's simply the world we live in.
The only way to get quality information nowadays is to read as many different sources as possible and then create your own picture. Or hire the services of a professional intelligence service which actually sells its integrity and objectivity to YOU rather than advertisers and who knows who else.
If you're taking any single information source at face value nowadays you're nothing but sheeple and a tool. It's an information jungle out there and there are whole industries based on fleecing the info-sheep.
Originally posted by PilnkplonkIts a a very old propaganda trick.
The problem is, it only works for subjects and information that are difficult for the reader to verify.
In case of MMO it is easy - you read a review and then buy the game. If the review does not meet your gaming experience you will most likely won't use the same media as an evaluation meter for your next purchase and possible stop caring about that particular media completely.
The problem is, it only works for subjects and information that are difficult for the reader to verify.
That's true, and that's why art criticism (including entertainment) is so prone to it because there is no objective way of determining aesthetic value.
In case of MMO it is easy - you read a review and then buy the game. If the review does not meet your gaming experience you will most likely won't use the same media as an evaluation meter for your next purchase.
My point is that you need to read many reviews in order to build a useful picture in your mind. Reading just one review is pretty much worthless.
And as I said before, media company that sold their credibility can no longer pretend influence on serious topics, afterall that's what yellow press is about.
Exactly, but as credibility is just a commodity nowadays, it conforms to other rules governing commodity economics. You might dump-sell it like in yellow press or you might hoard it and sell only to the highest bidders, like in the so-called reputable press. But it's a commodity nonetheless. Imo every review of a game backed by a large and powerful publisher is especially suspect because of the money and interests involved.
It's not all black-and-white like you're trying to strawman here. These things actually take form of subtle haggling, similar to what you have in movie and theater business. "We both know your game is worth 7.0 and if I give it 95 I'll take too big a hit in credibility. I'll have to give fair reviews to other advertisers for a few months in order to regain it. That'll cost money. However I can give you 85 if we keep getting your stuff early as before. -90 and you'll have a first look at MW3. -Deal." That's the way it's actually done at the editorial level.
And if the journalist who has to write the review actually wants to play the integrity game, then there are many wannabe game writers out there. Or he may attempt to haggle IF he has some reputability value as well. "Well I've already written 2 of those paid ones, no one'll take me seriously if write a third. -You can have your retro gaming column starting next month. -Deal." Or he can start his own private rant blog if he so wishes and see if it'll make enough money to feed his family.
It's not all black-and-white like you're trying to strawman here.
"It is a big company, it is certain the media are on their paychecks."
Yet you got no proofs, figures, anything... Just a conspiracy theory worth of yellow press...
See how media credibility works?
Exactly, make your own conclusions mate.
I''m building mine on the stuff I know from my own personal experience and my knowledge of history, economics and media. But I might be working on an agenda here, or I could be just a crazy conspiracy theorist living in a trailer park (see my profile pic )
Think for yourself, listen to everything, but don't ever buy wholesale into whatever the media is telling you, regardless whether its "mainstream" or "alternative." Infiltrating your opponents propaganda service in order to discredit it is really old as well, practically codified in WWII. And it's not "conspiracy theory" - its something that was actively taught in military academies since time immemorial and which begun trickling down to civilian industries after WWII and especially Vietnam. It's not a secret at all - it's just something that is discreetly kept away from general public but is completely available to whoever wants to look for it.
If you come to different conclusions based on your research and experience then more power to you! However, the argument that something must be true and "objective" because it is pushed by an entity with a lot of money and power is just laughable.
Everyone knows that EA is a giant gaming company, but do you think they all realize what is going on between big developers and gaming media behind closed doors?
Heres an interesting article I just read about Dragon Age 2, which got terrible ratings on metacritic (despite EA posting good reviews for it on there) and great reviews on various gaming media sites:
GatoFiasco engaged in some Google Matlockery. He found that Avanost had only posted one review for Dragon Age 2, and through a profile created on a different website, discovered his real name. This also so happens to be the name of a Bioware Engineer.
The fact is, EA controls who it gives its games to pre-release. Every media company wants to be able to review a game before it is released... And if you don't play ball with EA you will not get it. Why did SWTOR get overwhelmingly high reviews by professional media companies but mediocre ones from gamers? Because Mass Effect 3 is coming soon.
Want to secure your copy of mass effect 3? Write a good review. It is that simple and it is completely unspoken.
{mod edit}
{mod edit}
It is true not only will you be cutoff like a nerd at a prom but you'll also sometimes get paid i'm sure if you are a big enough popular enough forum space ahem.
Comments
In addition , ( non-online ) game magazines/periodicals have reported that, for the reviews they are making, it is getting harder to get pre-release copies of any game. Many companies are anxious to get "bad publicity" or a negative review or just anything which counters their advertising policy. There is no denying they are scared. Scared of losing heaps of money, scared of losing jobs, even scared to be pointed at as the big looser or worse.
Developpers are only human and to see your newborn been dragged through the mud is asking much of the human nerving system. Especially if you have a boss, such as John Reticciello, who just wrote what a tremendous job you ( the team ) did. It would feel unfair to your efforts, those of you colleagues. You would think it rude and unjust to be treated this way. Even if you only played a small part.
It would not come as a surprise if some dastardly path would have been taken, either by the company or the individual to counterattack possible offense. But there is, as of yet, no irrefutable proof of any manipulation. And they certainly don't have to cooporate "freely" to let their sales plunge because some ( self- ) proclaimed critic has written a devestating review.
Rated M for Mature - May contain content inappropriate for children
Being skeptical is not the same as beig naive.
I'm sorry if I choose not to believe every random conspiracy theory posted on forums by anonymous people that have no proof of their claims, but that's just the way I operate, and I believe that the person you are calling naive believes the same thing.
Show me proof and I will believe it. Got any? Didn't think so.
For something that is so widespread, there sure are no whistleblowers in the game review industry.
I have yet to see a single shred of evidence that would validate these wild accusations that are constantly thrown about. People sure do love to post this same thing over and over again, but they sure don't have any solid or even convincing evidence.
I believe in innocence until proven guilty, and by my standards, you folks haven't proven a thing.
If you want to call people naive for believing I truth and facts, then Maybe you should know that the word means simple or lacking experience, literally.
In my opinion, the only ones lacking experience are those that take as fact anything posted by anonymous people they will never meet, as fact at face value with no critical thinking, or ability to differentiate between fact and random noise posted with little to no supporting evidence.
You guys like to accuse these sites of being paid off, yet you use their sites, post in their forums, read and comment on all of their stories, and have no problem trumpeting an article (from the same sites) as the greatest review ever when it perfectly aligns with your opinions.
If these sites are really bought and paid for, then they have no journalistic value to you. It would actually do more harm than good to you to read them and continue to be a part of their communities. Tell me, if you really believe all of this, then why are you still reading these articles? Why do you continue to patronize these "evil companies."
The truth of the matter is, that you want nothing more than to attack people. The writers at mmorpg, massively, ign, or any site, are people too. They aren't just people, they are gamers. They enjoy the same hobby as you, and they have made a career inside the industry that surrounds it. They deserve respect, just as much as you do, and they are not the nefarious evil-doers you make them out to be.
Attempting to run these peoples names through the mud is a very small thing to do; you wouldn't want people doing the same to you at your job, I'm sure, so why don't we just lay off the writers until the day comes when you can finally prove your statements are true. I don't believe that day will be coming any time soon, however.
Shadow's Hand Guild
Open recruitment for
The Secret World - Dragons
Planetside 2 - Terran Republic
Tera - Dragonfall Server
http://www.shadowshand.com
An that's why I trust user reviews (on average) much more than pro (read "paid) ones.
Incidentally, SW:TOR just dropped to 6.0 on metacritic.
Lol, "conspiracy theorists" lol.
This is the way professional journalism works these days. It's not "conspiracy theory." it's something you actually learn in journalism colleges. Just because something is not to your liking doesn't mean it's "tinfoil hat conspiracy theory."
Try working in pro media mate, you'll see that it's not all paragons of virtue and impartiality there, lol.
To the caterpillar it is the end of the world, to the master, it is a butterfly.
To the caterpillar it is the end of the world, to the master, it is a butterfly.
{mod edit}
http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/dragon-age-ii-mark-of-the-assassin
DA2 critic score: 83
user score: 49
{mod edit} may have also noticed that I'm not talking about individual reviews but the collective score, which I find pretty close to my impression of the most games I played. Much closer, in fact, than the critic review scores which are, more often than not, wildly inaccurate.
{mod edit}
The point is that ALL professional media is "professional" which means that they are getting paid for their work. And NO ONE is paying them to be truly impartial, objective or even honest. You might get that in intelligence services (a big maybe, though).
The only way impartiality, objectivity and honesty has any true value in this professional media world is by reputation. You need to present an illusion of these things so your true agenda (selling a product or an idea) can get better traction with your target audience. Sadly this is the way media works in capitalist system. It's not "a conspiracy theory" it is a simple, logical fact that is actually taught in journalistic schools. Anyone taking ANY professional review as truly relevant and objective does not how the real world works.
You guys know that every reviewer for SWTOR get a $600~$800 SWTOR package including keyboard, headset, mouse and mouspad, right?
Well I agree with DA2 user score on metacritic and I know many people that agree as well.
This game was imho utter garbage. Low-cost money grab basing on well received DA:O.
Seems like consumers share this view since it sold much WORSE than DA:O.
edit: besides 0 scores are as stupid as flood of 10 /10 scores.
Yeah, but I found the average score a pretty good measure of what the gamers actually think of the game.
Actually, I almost never read the user reviews themselves. I might skim a few dozen to see if certain things repeat so there might be something to them, but I don't put any weight there. However, the average is a pretty good measure - all those 0s and 10s add up you know.
Not too much different than the OP being paid by a competing company to make negative posts about a game on a forum to sway the opinions of people who haven't bought the game.
I like the game, DA2 is a solid 8 as single player game. Maybe its worse than DA:O but its obviously a lot better than all those 200 "review with a score of 0. Maybe the 4.5 stars of user review in Xbox live is a better indication of it real quality since those can't be manipulated by users creating multiple accounts.
But at the end everyone it's free to use whatever data they want to justify theirs belief. In the internet you will found anything, with time. Of course that doesn't make it correct.
Of course it's possible to tamper with user review scores. But I find the average user scores a much much better representation of my own impression of the games.
If the 6.0 score is somehow tinkered with, then it would be the first one I know. EA's evil, unknown enemy would have to begin its massive campaign of creating hundreds of fake accounts and writing separate, distinct, individual reviews for each one of them. In such a way that style similarities are not a giveaway. In order to avoid this they would have to hire hundreds of different mini-reviewers who would have to write them... and not one of them spilling the beans.
So who's a conspiracy theorist now?
The hypocrisy of people pulling the "conspiracy theorist" card never ceases to amaze me. A word of advice, don't use this argument anymore. It's lost a lot of credibility in the past few years.
(Sorry about the "conspiracy theory" bit. Confused you with someone else.)
As for the last sentence... No, not really, they wouldn't pay to give their "competition" bad reviews because a) there really is not much direct competition in the game market. It's not a zero-sum game b) paying someone to shill your competition looks much worse than paying to say a few nice things about you, if it gets out that is and c) big mobs usually do not fight amongst each other directly, that's a rule of nature. it's actually an interesting biological phenomena as well (predators do not fight each other really, they have mock fights over food and mates, unlike herbivores who really do figh to the death amongst each other) but i won't go into that.
Not only all that, but seems much more plausible that its something a fan would do than a hater. I mean, its only a small step to go from being common fan to getting carried away, but to go from not liking a game to crusading against it like that just seems a lot more crazy to me.
When I want a single-player story, I'll play a single-player game. When I play an MMO, I want a massively multiplayer world.
Good, then you understand the perils of launching theories at the public without any standard of evidence.
The op, in this case, does it on a regular basis. Some rather bland, standard anti-corporate rhetoric, no real evidence more than a "oooh, what if". And then the cool kids jump on the bandwagon effect with their 'me toos' in a reliable fashion and carry the signs for him.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
Yeah. I agree as well. I actually find average user score on metacritic correspond with my own personal score more 'closely' than reviewers score.
Especially that "suprisingly" not much games there get as bad user reviews as f.e. DA2. Most games get actually decent users scores even if bit lower on average than reviewers.
And he would succeed as it is precisely what it is.
The reason:
The media company to gain influence needs credibility, a reputation and repeatedly publishing favoring reviews that turns out to be undeserved will ruin your credibility rather fast.
The bias:
The linked article is only interesting by it's stupidity.
If 2 reviewers post the same review with same reasoning and score, does one make it less credible because it was posted by a person with assumed affiliation to product?
How about all the negative reviews? Shouldn't all the reviews be scanned for affiliation to product? Aren't they disgruntled ex-employees or butthurt in some other way, driving their true motives?
Guess what, all scores are biased because they are subjective and appeal to authority is fallacious.
If a company employees have a right to retain their anonymity, and I believe they do, to post negative reviews about company products to protect themselves from repercussions, the positive reviewers should have the same right to protect themselves from people like you and morons from linked article...
Hey look others are doing it too, so it ain't so bad.
The point I'm tryin to makee is that NO PROFESSIONAL REVIEW can be taken at face value as impartial and objective, regardless of whether me or you happen to agree with them or not. Not one. But neither can the non-proffesional user ones be considered much better. It's simply the world we live in.
The only way to get quality information nowadays is to read as many different sources as possible and then create your own picture. Or hire the services of a professional intelligence service which actually sells its integrity and objectivity to YOU rather than advertisers and who knows who else.
If you're taking any single information source at face value nowadays you're nothing but sheeple and a tool. It's an information jungle out there and there are whole industries based on fleecing the info-sheep.
The problem is, it only works for subjects and information that are difficult for the reader to verify.
In case of MMO it is easy - you read a review and then buy the game. If the review does not meet your gaming experience you will most likely won't use the same media as an evaluation meter for your next purchase and possible stop caring about that particular media completely.
"It is a big company, it is certain the media are on their paychecks."
Yet you got no proofs, figures, anything... Just a conspiracy theory worth of yellow press...
See how media credibility works?
Exactly, make your own conclusions mate.
I''m building mine on the stuff I know from my own personal experience and my knowledge of history, economics and media. But I might be working on an agenda here, or I could be just a crazy conspiracy theorist living in a trailer park (see my profile pic
)
Think for yourself, listen to everything, but don't ever buy wholesale into whatever the media is telling you, regardless whether its "mainstream" or "alternative." Infiltrating your opponents propaganda service in order to discredit it is really old as well, practically codified in WWII. And it's not "conspiracy theory" - its something that was actively taught in military academies since time immemorial and which begun trickling down to civilian industries after WWII and especially Vietnam. It's not a secret at all - it's just something that is discreetly kept away from general public but is completely available to whoever wants to look for it.
If you come to different conclusions based on your research and experience then more power to you! However, the argument that something must be true and "objective" because it is pushed by an entity with a lot of money and power is just laughable.
It is true not only will you be cutoff like a nerd at a prom but you'll also sometimes get paid i'm sure if you are a big enough popular enough forum space ahem.