So it has recently come to our attention that EA Norway has tried to manipulate review score's for Battlefield 3. As you might expect i was outraged by this, but what upset me more was the fact that there are people actually defending EA.The first claim that people mad is that "everyone does it so it's ok". Firstly everyone doing it is baseless speculation and unless someone can provide evidence of "everyone" doing it i'll disregard this. Don't get me wrong i've realized publishers have done this in the past Ubisoft(Assassins creed) and Rockstar(Red Dead Redemption) come to mind.
Secondly even if other people do it that doesn't make it "ok". If we really want gaming to be taken seriously as a medium of entertainment, this attitude of it being ok needs to change. Or do we wan't to be stuck in an era where manipulating reviews and having no credibility becomes the norm, therefor discrediting all of "gaming journalism". Gaming journalism has garnered a lot of criticism as it is, some rightly so with it's flaimbait headlines designed to incite flame wars, even when the content is entirely unrelated. And some unfairly, with fans getting upset because a game they love doesn't get a 10/10 which immediately follows a temper tantrum and them discrediting the reviewer. Maybe it's the infantile nature of gaming that's holding us back from being taken seriously, but that's another topic for another time.
Lastly people have been saying it's ok because EA put a lot of money into Battlefield 3. Ok, firstly shouldn't the game be able to stand for itself, if Battlefield 3 is as good as these same people that are hyping it think it's going to be then shouldn't it sell it's self and garner the positive reviews it deserves because it's a GOOD GAME! Putting a lot of money into a game does not mean you have the right to tell other people that your game is good. Nor does a high development budget make a game good.
Hey gang, It’s been a whirlwind few months here at the Larian castle, attending some of the biggest awards ceremonies in our industry, and we are absolutely humbled by the recognition we’ve received from our players and our peers.
Publisher One or EIGHT and developer Team EARTH WARS will release physical standard and Deluxe editions of LOST EPIC for PlayStation 5 and Switch on August 8 in Japan, the companies announced.
Golf With Your Friends gets better again, with the introduction of a Critical Hit DLC pack and the launch of Speed Golf.
I didn't even delve into that article about the score manipulation by EA because, well I couldn't be arsed but aswell a lot of people are just acting hypocrites over BF3 anyway (like saying "lolol MW3's gonna have a 6 hour campaign" *DICE say BF3 campaign 6-7 hours* "I'm cool with this it's the perfect length). I thought it was funny at first when EA put it up to Activision and started poking fun at them because they deserved it but when they just kept going on and on with it after Activision stopped returning fire it got boring and just made them look idiotic. Not that I like Activision or what they've been doing either over the years but they knew when to stop.
But this is nonsense, talking up BF3 like there's no tomorrow and then trying to manipulate review scores? I guess that's EA for you, (one of) the lowest of the low.
A lot of publishers do this. Sure it may not be right in a way, but as a business you try to protect your products.
For example I am a chef. If I was opening a restaurant and wanted good reviews from critics I wouldn't invite a critic that dislikes seafood if I was a seafood restaurant. I would make sure to invite those who would give the best reviews. So in a way what they are doing is not wrong.
There are plenty of games that are rated 9 and above that I don't own and plenty of games that are rated 8 and below that I do and enjoy. While it is dishonest for a company, EA or anyone else, to manipulate review scores, why do people treat them as the be all end all in the first place?
Everyone has different tastes and different expectations from games. Despite their chosen profession and any amount of money they receive, reviewers do not have a better understanding of what makes a good game for everyone any more than anyone else does.
Are some games absolutely terrible? Yes, ET for the Atari comes to mind, but there's probably still someone out there who thinks it's a fun game. Rather than place so much emphasis on how a game scores from a reviewer or reviewers why don't you play the game for ourselves to see if YOU like it or not.
Can't play every game that gets released? Me neither, so if a game appeals to you try it, if it doesn't leave it on the shelf. That makes more sense than trusting strangers to tell you if it's good or not.
***EA has been caught allegedly attempting to manipulate Battlefield 3's review scores by denying journalists who might treat the game unfavorably access to early copies.***
That doesn't prevent bad scores. It just delays them.
This is no different than putting an embargo on reviews to be posted the day the game is released, IMHO. This is done to help keep up pre-order numbers.
So, my position is if you're just now thinking this is an issue, you've been extremely ignorant on the situation as a whole.
Maybe publishers wouldn't have to manipulate scores if reviewers would simply review the games from a factual standpoint, rather than a biased opinion. I understand opinion has a lot to do with reviews, but there are ways to get around it in such a way to get rid of at least 90% of the bias.
In EA's case, they tried to root out the bias by asking whether or not the reviewer(s) is a fan of Call of Duty. If he is a true journalist, he would speak the truth regarding the game, and say whether or not is is worth purchasing. In turn, he could add a specific paragraph stating his opinion, and why people should/should not shy away from it. Do I think it is morally wrong to manipulate scores? Yes, I think so. But from a business standpoint, is it wrong? Not exactly. You spent a lot of money on this game, why would you want to give a free copy of the game to someone who will bash it to hell? Again, wrong in the moral sense, but not so wrong in the business sense.
EDIT: I fully support putting an embargo on reviews up to, if not a few days past, release so people will buy based on what they currently understand, not what other people say.
I think it comes down to exactly what Tuxedo_Mask said, if it appeals to you, buy it. If you are not interested, then leave it alone. I think that is the purest form of sales, did that 200 million you put into marketing pay off? I don't like the fact that the majority of people will base their purchases off of a review, which for the most part, is highly opinionated and generally quite biased. I think that is what is one of the things wrong with the gaming industry today, people won't make their own decisions.
As for the Call of Duty vs. Battlefield arguments, I wish everyone would shut the hell up (producers and fanboys alike). Both games have their strengths and weaknesses, and both games are worth picking up in some sense. If you enjoy it, then buy it, I think that is fair. Unfortunately in my case, due to lack of money and all the of the great games this fall, I dropped Call of Duty in favor of a game I feel will be more superior, in this case, Battlefield 3. Now, will I grab MW3 eventually? Yes. Does it make it better/worse than BF3? No. Two entirely different games.