This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Your HONEST opinion, Are reveiws paid off?

#51GyrigoPosted 2/5/2013 9:38:41 AM
What is this...

I don't even understand the question being asked here. Are reviewers paid off by game companies? That isn't an opinion, there is proof that it happens on occasion both directly and indirectly.

Or is the question, do reviews of games pay off? Well they generate revenue for review hosting websites and organizations. They seem to impact sales. I don't personally care about reviewer sites like IGN but I have some youtube personalities whose opinions I trust and generally agree with.
#52PezofpowerPosted 2/5/2013 9:49:51 AM
FFTHEWINNER posted...
headwounds13 posted...
Aside from a couple of extremely rare outliers that have more to do with advertising revenue than bribes, people whining about paid off reviewers are only suffering from a case of unwarranted self importance. Obviously it would take conspiracy and bribery for someone to disagree with their immaculate taste.


This.



Except when yknow, dedicated fans of series make devs not want to get up in the morning because their game is so bad (Mass Effect 3) Getting a 10.
I'm fully aware that the scoring system is an opinion, but knowing weather or not a magazine fluffs their actual scores 2 points because of advertising revenue is kinda a big deal.
High scoring games tend to get a better first look that 6s and 5s by the unbiased player, why is it so unheard of to fathom the possibility that ad space inflates scores?
---
PSN:Pezofpower
#53XenobowPosted 2/5/2013 10:27:06 AM
Paid off? Most of them, No.
Honest reviews? Most of them, Yes.
Biased? Sometimes.
#54DEMONPANDA212Posted 2/5/2013 10:33:05 AM
I say yes, I have played so many buggy games that have no plot, no point other than to kill everything over and over again and no real value and then they get 9's and 9.5's.

The same scores that the truly great and respected games over the years have gotten, yet these apparent new great games get forgotten soon after release.
#55CaseyJonezPosted 2/5/2013 11:32:13 AM(edited)
Of course. Just not directly. Honestly people who have been playing games for several years should know better than to trust most reviews. Pick a game off the top of your head and you'll be hard pressed to find more than a few scores lower than 6/10.

What I like to do is go on to GFaqs and look at the review scores. I tend to take the reviews that have lower scores with more weight than the ones that praise the game.


Edit: Heck, look at the contrast between Reader and Critic reviews for Kingdoms of Amalur. That's proof that most sites are writing reviews for ad revenue. (I recall back in Jan 2012 a lot of sites playing that un-skippable 30 second KoA ad)
---
My brother's favorite number was always eight, symmetrical and clean.
Whenever I see the second poster in a thread quoting the first I die a little inside.
#56DonomegaPosted 2/5/2013 11:33:45 AM
I'd say some are, but I honestly don't know. I mean they get free games, ALL the games for free, what else would they need? lol
---
Intell 8088 @ 7.14Mhz | 640K RAM | TCGA 16 Color graphics | TWO 5.25" 640K Floppy drives | 10MB Hard disk
3DS FC: 0903-4184-6816
#57Akiba69Posted 2/5/2013 11:55:27 AM
Developers publishers and even reviewers have said previously on multiple occasions that there is a system in place. So yes, it isn't even an opinion it is fact. The only debate here is who are the primary offenders.

Publishers have and will continue to threaten gaming sites to give them a good score with the threat of pulling advertising, which is the life blood of most gaming sites. They can also threaten to no long give out early review copies of games.

If you want honest reviews listen to the people who have nothing to gain from telling the truth. Don't go to places like here or metacritic where users will vote someone a 10 or a 0.

A lot of the time people will give their honest review here, but because some buttravaged fanboy (yes they still exist, amazing isn't it) doesn't agree with the points that person makes, they will label them a troll and so on.
#58PokeLord473Posted 2/5/2013 12:30:33 PM
Some of them, yes. The fact that I don't know which reviewers/sites are corrupt means I just ignore all of them.
---
Dust 514 One Universe // One War
Proud member of ZionTCD http://ziontcd.enjin.com/
#59DuwstaiPosted 2/5/2013 12:45:40 PM
They arent paid off but they are certainly heavily influenced.

Gaming journalism is just too intertwined with advertising revenue.

And publishers hold all the power. They can blackball certain review sites/ magazines from going to events or getting review copies, etc.
---
balls
#60Carte360Posted 2/5/2013 4:43:14 PM
vigorm0rtis posted...
Carte360 posted...
Yes, of course. Anyone who says otherwise is a complete moron.


I've worked in the industry, it's not a matter of practice. Anyone who says otherwise can't see from the cheap seats.



No, no, no, trust me. I'm a gamer, I know things, dude.

Games like CoD don't deserve 9s! They are terrible. No one even likes them!


They just pay for their 9 and move on, darn Activision and corrupt review sites.

*grumble* *grumble*
---
Why would Microsoft worry about exclusives when it has the awe-inspiring Kinect to sell consoles. - MrRGerk