Dishonest Reviews Continue To Dupe Gamers

"Picture the scene. The latest big-name game is out today. There you are, racing over to the nearest store, hoping to be the first in the queue. You part with a hard earned £49.99 and sprint back, eagerly anticipating the moment the disc loads up on your next-gen console.

"You arrive home, dishevelled and sweating. The disc tray whirrs, the atmosphere palpable. After reading all those 10/10 reviews, this is going to be the gaming experience of your life, right?

"A few hours later, however, and you find yourself slightly confused. The game is awful; boring, buggy and barely worth a 3/10. What game were those reviewers playing? Have you picked up something else by mistake?"

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
thorstein1559d ago (Edited 1559d ago )

I honestly don't heed critics' reviews. But, gamer reviews are even less trustworthy. What is a critic anyway? Someone who mostly has an uninformed opinion about a piece of art that he or she has no ability to create on his or her own.

That said. What gets me to buy a game? I certainly can't do it without knowing about it. But, I also want know the opinions of the top developers. What games do they play when they have a chance? And which of those games are their favorites?

If I read an article about the games Amy Hennig or the creators of LittleBigPlanet play, then I would be more apt to give them a go rather than the opinion of some noncontributing zero like a critic.

Oh. And critics are the worst at taking criticism...especially about their critiques.

Ares84HU1559d ago (Edited 1559d ago )

So, you base your gaming purchases on what games the developers play instead of looking at gameplay videos, screenshots, reading about the story of the game or even trying a demo of a game?

If a developer plays all the games you like, it doesn't mean they will create one that you will like.

Other than that, I agree with you. Anyone can review a game and call it a professional review, when it's not. No one should care about reviews or review scores. It's just someones opinion and it will most likely differ from yours.

thorstein1558d ago

I didn't say that I solely play games based on a dev's opinion, just that I would rather trust their expertise than some critic.

No. I need some press to know about the game. But, I never use game reviews. Demos, betas, alphas, all help me decide.

TedCruzsTaint1559d ago (Edited 1559d ago )

Critics have their purpose.
I write reviews to the extent where I am paid to do so, but I expect anything I do to be nothing more than a supplement, along with videos and whatever else, to your decision making. Not the deciding factor.
A collective of reviews is good for giving an idea as to what to expect from a game, however.

wheresmymonkey1559d ago

I'll let you in on a little secret. Devs don't play a lot of games because they're too busy making them.

starchild1558d ago

Stupid article. People's tastes and opinions, such a hard concept for some to grasp. The self-righteous, arrogant people like the person who wrote this article are the ones that really get on my nerves. They think because they didn't like a game that everybody else must not like it either.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1558d ago
philm871559d ago

I've completed Watch_dogs and would give it at least 8/10. Much better than a lot of games on the PS4. Don't think there's any proof that reviewers are being paid by developers, maybe they just aren't over critical twits and sit down and enjoy the experience.

SimonSmith1559d ago

I agree with you I just finished Watch Dogs a couple of Days ago and I would give it about the same. Maybe .5 more because I really liked the hacking ability and just found it amusing to make cars crash into each other.

Ares84HU1559d ago

No proof??? I know it has been a few years but do you remember why Jeff Gerstmann got fired from GameSpot?

He gave a bad review of Kane & Lynch and guess what, Eidos threatened GameSpot that they will pull all their advertisements from GameSpot if they don't revise the score. So what did they do? They fired Jeff. So yeah, publishers do give money to reviewers. Especially if it's a bigger site. Why do you think that Call of Duty gets all those 10/10 scores every year even though each game is the same as the last??

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

matgrowcott1559d ago (Edited 1559d ago )

"Why do you think that Call of Duty gets all those 10/10 scores every year even though each game is the same as the last??"

Man, aside from the lizard people that rule the world, chem trails and Big Pharma's continued dedication to making us all autistic, this is the most sense I've ever seen on the internet.

Thank you, sir, for opening my eyes. Because I always thought it was TOO perfect that one of the most popular gaming franchises of all time might actually be enjoyable to some people.

Seriously though, nobody is paying for reviews. There's a lot of crap going on behind the scenes, especially when it comes to the big sites, but NOBODY IS PAYING FOR REVIEWS.

TedCruzsTaint1559d ago (Edited 1558d ago )

Please explain the scores Ghosts on Metacritic (a site I despise) then.
I am not saying reviews can't be bought. And if they are, publishers are targeting the elites of the industry.
At the same time, what is the actual point when there's a dozen other sites who, apparently, aren't up to taking a bribe and are going to trash your game anyway?
The latest CoD's Metacritic score says a lot. What it doesn't say is that many, if any, were paid off.

Spotie1558d ago

Most popular doesn't mean best. Call of Duty is usually a 7-8.5/10. Not since 4 has one of the entries deserved higher, but every one of them GETS higher. I mean, the games were such phone-in jobs that exploits and bugs from World at War were still around in Black Ops.

That sort of laziness is deserving of the highest possible scores each time? How long did it take them to update the weapon sounds?

Be real, man.

I have noticed, though: you seem to be on the side of the mainstream, the big company, the perpetuation of ignorance more often than not, Mr Growcott.

matgrowcott1558d ago

I didn't say popular was the same as good. I said that, if you hate something popular, there's a good chance you're not the target audience. Reviews aren't supposed to justify your echo chamber, they're supposed to take into account the target audience.

I don't like soap operas or Justin Bieber, but that doesn't mean I go into a hissy fit every time a TV or music critic gives the latest product top marks. I shrug my shoulders and say, well, I hate those things anyway.

I don't want to get into defending Call of Duty, because that always ends up in two people trying to shut the other down, but if you think literally nothing changes each year, you're wrong. If you think that the mere fact that they can still produce a fast-paced, enjoyable multiplayer mode - with co-op for those that need it - has nothing to do with those high marks, you're wrong. Don't give me the standard "bugs, glitches, same each year" reply, because it is what it is. There are very few other games that do multiplayer like Call of Duty, and if you don't like that, you don't have to play it. That's super.

As for reviews, Ghosts had terrible maps for the most part, far too large, and it got lower than expected scores. 'Nuff said.

I gave it a 7, by the way, and it thoroughly deserved it.

Palitera1558d ago

^ Good score, seems fair for the worse COD I've seen.

Where do you write?

matgrowcott1558d ago

The COD review was for GamesReviews. I'm currently writing for them and Push Square.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 1558d ago
Ezz20131559d ago

i just got the game few days ago
thank you for that comment

dumahim1558d ago

I think a lot of people got butthurt over the game not living up to the hype that was built up in their head and the drop in graphics from the first time the game was shown. It’s like people expected the game to be so much more than what it really was. Other than the graphics, I don’t think they showed anything that wasn’t in the game. I took it for what it was, and it delivered, and then some. I didn’t deal with any bugs other than some minor goofy collision reactions, which is usually more entertaining than annoying.

Dirtnapstor1558d ago

Yeah really... What was it that people were expecting? WD is just fine. I've enjoyed it thus far. Looks good, plays well, I have yet to get bored. The feel kind of reminds me of LA Noire (another great game).
I'm skeptical anymore of reviewers. And I agree (article) that they end up burning through a game just to get a review out in time. One cannot be thorough in a day. Ghosts was a good example of a teetered score. I liked the SP & Extinction, but really dislike the general MP. Might as well have a maze of hedges for maps! The rehashed from the past are good, brought back fun memories! If the developers really listen, CODAW might stand a chance with MP.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1558d ago
JusticeSoulTuna1559d ago

This is moot. Reviews are all opinions, be them critic or fan reviews. What matters is your own experience. Placing your purchase based on a review is no one's fault other than your own/

morganfell1559d ago

We can say that but we are not most of the buying public. Most of the buying public are swayed by reviews and posters in a store window "10/10!!!!" "Believe The Hype!!!"

In light of the recent stories surfacing concerning payments made to youtubers for likes, reviews, and such one can only imagine what is occurring with larger companies. This impacts us directly because when underhanded marketing cause such porr gfames to sell, more of theose same broken poor games will be sold.

Ezz20131559d ago (Edited 1559d ago )

but reviews shouldn't be just opinion
it's not about how the editor feel about the game
he should review what it has to offer from gameplay,story etc

also nothing upset me more than seeing someone do review on games in genre that he's not even a fan of in first place

JusticeSoulTuna1558d ago

Indeed, but the problem is that journalistic integrity and intellectual honesty are both optional requirements for people. Most of the time, reviewers are doing it to get paid, not cause they care about the game or fanbase. Sometimes, you're asked to review a game from a series you don't like or a genre you don't enjoy. Objective reviews are hard because people will always inject some bias behind their decisions. Also, people seem to respond more when someone is either passionately interested in something or vehemently opposed to it. 'Objective' and fair reviews are usually called 'boring'. Tis the state of the industry

rextraordinaire1559d ago

Usually, you find a reviewer that shares your opinion. There 's a good chance you'll find the same games good and therefore know beforehand if a games for you or not... That's what I do anyway.

knifefight1559d ago

But that involves paying attention!

...And you know how people feel about paying attention...

mcarsehat1559d ago (Edited 1559d ago )

I would give Watch_Dogs an 8 because of how many 3rd person shooters are out on the new consoles. ALL ONE OF THEM!

I liked it, there are obviously some flaws that need ironing out (You can shoot civilians but you can't hit them with the baton?)

Just because you think a game is meh doesn't mean it should be classed as meh, people are too egotistical nowadays. ALL reviews are subjective and you cannot change that no matter how egotistical you may be.

Professional Reviewers analyse games and pick what they like and dislike, you look at a game, play it, hate it and moan about it.

Show all comments (53)
The story is too old to be commented.