2K games are really off to a bad start with their NBA 2K game. Everyone agreed that their microtransactions system is a complete ripoff, now, according to Neogaf, they pressured The Six Axis website to remove the review where they gave 2K18 a 3/10.
And they gave in. That's the opposite of what journalists are trained to do. You don't bow down and give in to bullies, neither do you essentially censor your own work. The reason publishers get away with this is because so many journalists allow them to, so they know this tactic will work.
Bullies? Publishers give good reviews and in exchange the sites get information on upcoming releases along with review builds of their games. They can easily blacklist a company from receiving their games early. 3/10 is outrageous in today's age when everyone looks at reviews before purchasing.
Its a problem with the review system. /10 scale is just simply outdated. It should be /5 3/10 4/10 5/10 6/10 2/10 and 1/10 all say the same thing. Bad game. Avoid it.
@EatCrow, that doesn't exactly make sense. if 2/10 - 6/10 all say the same thing. On a 5 point system that would basically mean 1/5 - 3/5 all say the same thing.... what's the difference?
@yomfweee Its a psychological thing. A 3/5 looks better then a 6/10 because it has a smaller numbers gap. Plus a lot of people are just bad at fractions.
@Crow Shhhh, you're not allowed to question the status quo of a bad review system here on N4G. People have been using it so long that they'll downvote-nuke you for even suggesting it's flawed.
@yomfweeee, I'm with eatcrow. It does make sense primarily because of how we're graded in schools. you don't get a 50% on a test and consider it average, but if you see a 3/5 star review you think "ok". Of all the outlets and youtubers out there I think I've only come across angry who sticks by the 5.0 = average. the rest see it as bad. Some of the worst scales are at places like IGN where they have a 100 point scale. That's just too much. what's the difference between an 8.6 and an 8.7? A twenty point scale is better but has the same problems as a 10 point that eatcrow mentioned. a 2/10 and a 4.5/10 both mean it's a bad game, no real difference. But a 1/5 and 2/5? That tells me one is a bad game and one is one of the worst games ever made. similarly, 3 would mean it's ok, 4 that it's good and 5 a must buy if you like then genre.
@Roadkillers. Give good reviews in exchange for goods......why bother reviewing a game at all then ? If you can't be honest then there really is no point in a review. Also, not EVERYBODY looks at reviews before purchasing a game, i don't need somebody else to tell me what is good and what isn't.
You sound like you would bow down to them as well. A review is an opinion, you are advocating for these reviews to just regurgitate what the publisher wants (lie) because they will get upset?? Yous a punk!!!
If dont care about reviews then why the hell does this bother you? It shouldn't because you dont care, but you are here posting your problem with it.
^just guessing, but probably because a content creator pressuring critics is kind of a big deal, even if you don't care about the review or game. Many of us haven't read reviews in years...many still do. If you can't see the conflict of interest within a publisher making a public media outlet a puppet...then that is very sad. That influences the industry; makes more shat games become acceptable, and removes any degree of integrity between the parties involved. I'm tired of comic book movies. I don't read reviews about them, and I don't go to see them in theaters (if ever, actually)...but when all the bs exploded last year about warner brothers pressuring critics because of Suicide Squad getting raked through the coals...It got my attention. I didn't care about the movie, didn't care if it failed...but if it was bad (which was obvious to me without needing a review), I most definitely didn't want the distributor walking around getting critics to pull the critique...isn't that like the most ethically obvious thing in all of entertainment? This is all very different than 'news media', owned by conglomerates that skew information while also money hatting political figures. No game site is blasting other games and turning around giving a publisher money with 'vote for this change in Halo's multiplayer'...there is NO reason for any subjective relationship between a game publisher and a media site. ever.
Why is 3/10 outrageous ? Are you saying there should be a minimum review score ?
@EatCrow 3 /10 would be a 1.5/5. So it's the same system. Just because it's your opinion or you don't know or are too lazy to do division or multiplication don't make it fact.
@ceo 1.5 is still a 10 point scale, he's saying it should be a 5 point scale. so either a 1 out of five or a 2. So maybe lighten up on calling him too lazy to do math before you can accomplish that little task yourself.
Yup that's exactly what I'm saying. 3/10 is setting a bad precedence for games. This game is a 7/10 at worst, so how would you rate the shittier games coming out. 2/10 and 1/10? Setting a very bad precedence.
They didnt give in. Read the effing article
I looked at the actual review where they had in fact taken down the score. They did give in.
Here a quote: "Update: In discussion with 2K Games, we’ve temporarily removed the score pending a statement with regard to our criticisms, at which point it will be reinstated. Additionally, a draft conclusion was posted that incorrectly characterised our score as a protest vote, and has been reworded to reflect that our criticisms are rooted in the effect that VC and microtransactions have on the gameplay." Any time a publisher contacts you because of a review score, it's pressure because they obviously didn't like the score. It. Can be in the most friendly way possible but it doesn't matter. Rather than read the criticism in the reviews they want to take it a step further and have direct influence in the reviews. Why would any outlet need to liaise with a publisher after a review goes up? They did cave in, and because this went public very fast and also something called the Streisand effect. If anything, the review should have need been taken down during the exchanges.
PorkChop what do you mean they gave in? They reinstated the score after the reviewed the complaint according to the article. Of course I'm reading it 15 hours after your statement so maybe they updated it after you read it?
Yup. When I read the article, the score was gone. They reinstated it after.
If everyone behaved like the reviewer for NBA 2K18 did maybe Shadow of War wouldn’t have happened, and maybe Overwatch wouldn’t have set a new standard for how much a game can get away with.
"Update 2 1PM BST 22/09: Our 3/10 score has now been restored to this review, with all but the wording that suggested this was a protest vote also kept intact."
Yeah, I saw. This was done after I saw the review.
I'm not sure they are journalists and having gone through journalism school myself I can confirm they basically teach you how to make money as a journalist and not how to be a good journalist.
I have also gone through journalism school, and my course must have been very different to yours. They hammered us with ethics, the pillars of journalism, loyalty to readers, etc. They taught us how to be good journalists, very little of the course had to do with money at all.
So basically they teach you to lie and extort literally teaching you that in your face or subtly suggesting it? So what are your assignments? Lie to the teacher? Do they expect the lies and bs or is this a game of trying to outsmart a liar? What kind of scummy class are you actually describing here?
so called gaming journalism has been a huge joke for at least a couple decades. Though from the sounds of it this was a childish score based not off the merits of the game itself but microtransactions etc. That being said, I'm sorry but any game that functions properly and plays good receiving a low score is absurd. idk what exactly their scoring system is and nowadays it's often a challenge to find the scoring system, if you even can, which enables you to put the score in context based off the particular site or reviewers values. Of course even giving imperfect games a 10 is a joke. Anyway, any given game that plays well with minimal bugs or problems should score between, at the very least, 6-7, probably more like 6-8. The article itself is where you knock the crap out of a game for management decisions you don't agree with or they fact they're pushing DLC, microtrans or whatever else that doesn't sit well with the reviewer.
I agree that the score was a bit ridiculous. But I don't even like scores tbh. Play, Wait, or Skip is much more useful information to me than some number.
On the other hand, gaming journalists are kind of shit to begin with.
Unfortunately I can't argue there. There are some good ones, but many do certain things that journalists just aren't supposed to.
They didnt give in.
Why even give review copies if you can't handle a review? review rɪˈvjuː/Submit noun 1. a formal assessment of something with the intention of instituting change if necessary. "a comprehensive review of UK defence policy" synonyms: analysis, evaluation, assessment, appraisal, examination, investigation, scrutiny, enquiry, exploration, probe, inspection, study, audit; rareanatomization "the Council is to undertake a review of its property portfolio" 2. a critical appraisal of a book, play, film, etc. published in a newspaper or magazine.
What the hell? Aren't reviews based off of opinion? If 2k really feels threatened by people's reviews maybe they should've put more time into the switch version. Does anyone have nba on switch? How does it compare to other versions?
It'll prob be Garbo like you'd assume basketball on a handheld would be.
You're right though. It was dumb to test switch waters with a degraded and custom built sports game when a shinier port of black ops 2 would have likely sold better to nintendo fans. The wii u version sold .41 million which meant like 3 copies per Wii u owner.
I don't have it but I hang around a few Switch sites and have heard from people that do. From the sound of things all versions have some minor performance issues in some areas, but on the Switch it's sometimes so bad it's nearly unplayable. From what I understand that's in the open world career mode or whatever it's called. The save files can be a ridiculous 5gb, which is a major issue since Nintendo still hasn't allowed us to transfer saves to an SD card. There's also a few bugs, most notably ones that can corrupt your save file . . . a huge concern considering how riddled the game is with micro-transactions and if you buy any and your save corrupts, you just lost all that money. There's enough there for it to eventually be a good game, but it clearly needed some more time for optimization and bug fixing, as well as some work to fix the astounding size of the save files.
I have the switch version, has some issues, but plays beautifully in handheld mode. One of a kind really. Its a bit muddy on the big screen though, and the save file is a bit insane. Overall though, id say its pretty solid, easily on par with last years and if theyd just patch in the option to skip cutscenes itd be golden. Also, ive no issues with microtransactions. Pretty easy to acquire both types of currency. I do feel a bit annoyed by the packa only including 1 player though. Give me an all player pack option!
Just wish there was more then 2 basket ball games each year. Playgrounds is good. Have switch version and no problems. But seems like you play 2k or nothing at all.
@someone72, Glad to hear it's working well for you. From what I heard the gameplay on the courts was fine, but the open world stuff or whatever was a little rough around the edges frame-rate wise. Then again, some people consider 20fps unplayable and others find it perfectly fine. Either way the port seems fine outside of save files. If they can fix that and optimize it a bit better it sounds like it'll be a good game.
@The 10th Rider - I can see that in mycareer. Also had the save corrupt issue this am, wiped my progress in mycareer. Still stand by my thoughts though, the gameplay itself on court is amazing. Ill definitely concede though that the open world is a slow and needs what id call quality of life adjustments to make things smoother.(a map would be nice, havmt found one yet)
Yeah, but reviews in general are starting to carry less and less weight now. Look at Jim sterling with hellblade. he got emotional about a bug most would be unlikely to encounter and gave it 1/5. Or games where the online component works great while only game journalists are playing their preview copies but then the online breaks when the masses hit it. Now with this, EA just called up Jimmy bone crusher to "talk" to them and the review score magically gets changed. the irony is reviews are easier than ever to find now but I never know if any of them are worth my time.
Stupid, 2K don't have the right to do that Also heard nothing but bad things from this game and the microtransactions. Make a better game with no ripoff microtransactions.
Its not as bad as people make it seem. You can earn everything its just that if you pay you will acquire it much faster. Should be that way if people are willing to spend more imo. It also doesnt affect every game mode. The gameplay is probably better than its ever been so 3/10 is complete BS.
It's people like you why MTs are getting worse. Stop defending bullshit dude. Please?
@PlayableGamez I have only bought DLC for any game maybe twice in my life.. Microtransactions? about $0 spent in my life lol. Im not defending it. Im defending the game getting a 3/10 review. Has nothing to do with MT.
@nowitzki2004 You say "You can earn everything its just that if you pay you will acquire it much faster." Let me ask you: Which do you think these publishers, 2K for example, want? For the players to grind through the game without paying or to pay and get better quicker? If you know how corporations work, you know they, 2K in this case, want you to pay. So they will get the game developing studio to increase the grind and make the in-game currency more attractive in an attempt to psychologically batter/force you to pay. Also take note, if 2K didn't want the players to use microtransactions, they never would've put them in the game.
I have played 2k games since they have been out on Dreamcast, I have no problem with the way it is. I personally used to hate how easy it used to be to get to a high rating while playing. Theres still an advantage if you play and get the rating up through badges.
U get less credits to buy stuff in game because they want to sell those for real money. So yes it isbad. Dont try to justify this money milking.
Sidenote: Why do you have to pay "Virtual Coins" to change your hair style in a video game?
Oh go away with that logic. People paid full price for what should have been accessible as soon as you boot it up. I don't care if you can everything the with need the VC, the is why is it riddled with micro transactions Content locked behind virtual currency belongs in f2p models. 3/10 is fully justified.
Dude, that's microtransaction is a scam system. It take away the meaning of grinding and reward. It's make thing feel less satisfying and more hollow.
All credibility lost.
I've played every 2k basketball game, and there are some major major flaws with this game not even counting the reliance on micro transactions. The narrative in the my player portion is laughable. The character that's supposed to be your friend is so annoying and pointless. The graphics are bad in the my player portion. Also the after game reactions make no sense. I had 40 pts, 11 rbs, and 12 assists yet after the game the narrative was that I had a terrible game. Once again the play calling when playing through a season is very unintuitive, by the time you cycle through to the play you want the shot clock is almost at 0 and you end up having to force shots. Lastly and most frustrating is the server issues and how your my player won't show up at certain times forcing you to reboot the game. In my opinion it's a 5 out of 10 at best.
Sounds like you need to practice and get better.
Yeah, your just trash it sounds. Game is amazing. And very well done. And that's just my opinion
Sounds like you two need to take the 2k blindfold off and actually look at what he's saying.
Thank you sir.
Lol, that's how the shot clock works. You don't 20 minutes to decide a play. Jesus christ.
Yes I understand how the shot clock works, but the play calling system is not intuitive at all. I don't need 20 minutes, but the way the play calling is mapped isn't very user friendly. I'm sure you just shoot 3's from half court every possession. As I said I but all the 2k NBA games and enjoy them, but I just feel this years iteration is lacking in some major areas. If you liked it that's awesome.
No, no half court threes. I usually do run the suggested play, or the plays that are set up to the left directional pad button, but it doesn't take 24 second to press the left bumper, pick a player, and pick a play for them. Should take maybe 5 second if you have played more than a couple games.
Well everyone is entitled to their opinion and that’s all reviews are, but with an average of 8.7 you can probably decipher that a 3 is not exactly a far score or inline with the objective consensus. Either way, who takes a single reviewers score/write up as gospel, especially when they’re one extreme or the other? Read a mix, build up an educated impression.
Well, if this isn't the first time that 2K has bullied a reviewer into taking a review score down, then the average would be a bit lower, yes?
Fishy, you're whole first statement contradicts itself. It is very fair and plausible that his *opinion* (as you said reviews are) is that the game is terrible. I would give it a 3, too. I played 2k17 on my laptop last year and it worked beautifully. On max settings. I can't even run 2k18 on low without it running like shit. Apparently I'm not the only one. And yes, my specs are higher than the recommendation. I'd prolly give it lower since I can't even play the damn game? And then on top of micro transactions which, let me tell you, have no business in a game like this. Terrible decision on 2k's part. Unfortunate, I like 2k..
87 on metacritic. Out of 20 reviews, not ONE even mixed nevermind negative. Good for EA. Im sick of these attention whore outliar reviews.
You mean 2K? EA didn't make this game.
Oh yeah...meant 2k. Thx
read the user review on metacritic right now the user rating is 3.3 out of 10. the microtransaction alone made me skip nba2k this year, that bs is way too much greed imo. peace:)
Same here, i've been buying 2k since 2000 on the Dreamcast, this is the first year I'm not picking it up, these VC coins are getting out of hand. It will give me more time to play FIFA 18, and luckily MT have not invaded the career mode on that.
I don't trust any reviews that skipped over the use of their micro-transactions ign gave them a 8.4 while basically saying this in part of their review "Those are all steps forward, but NBA 2K18 has also taken a significant step back by bringing microtransactions to a place that feels uncomfortable. They were around last year, but now you’re forced to use virtual currency to buy everything from a tattoo to a T-shirt, as well as increasing your character’s stats. You can earn this currency by playing – very slowly – but if you buy the $150 version of NBA 2K18 you can get a big boost with the currency that comes with it. You’ll see plenty of those artificially high-rated players around, and it feels like we’re being steered toward spending money to avoid an insane amount of hours spent grinding for points." so to match other players you'll need to purchase the 150$ version . . .beautiful