There seem to be a debate about the current state of gaming related journalism.
If we look at either side, we can first hear people cries about the corrupted industry and news outlets that go hand in hand, such as IGN.
But then there are people singing songs of praise. Looking at sites like RockPaperShotgun and Giantbomb, most people seem to like them, and you can't seem to find any sort negative feedback.
Could it be because people see evil in big corporations which gets all the attention, and therefore chooses to praise the underdog?
What do you think, is the gaming journalism at a critical state?
Rev3games are the only ones doing legitimate and objective journalism. Pretty much all others get stuck on petty things and/or are corrupted in some way.
There are very few gaming journalism sites that aren't corrupt and aren't being payed to say things by publishers. I would say IGN is not one of those sites, and they are very corrupt. They rate every single Call of Duty game a 9/10 when the game itself is a rehash and just a mere money grabbing scheme.
It's not just Call of Duty they overrate, they overrate ANY game they are paid to do so. If they aren't paid, then the game usually gets mediocre reviews when the game is actually pretty good, solely based on the fact that IGN isn't actually composed by people who play video games. I just find it extremely hard to believe any journalist on that website plays video games.
There's a reason why people sometimes say "9/10, it's okay". It's a reference to how IGN and other corrupt gaming journalist websites overrate games when the game itself is average at best.
Much like any reviewing category the reviewers often give ratings based on how they believe sales will be and how they think they'd want people to rate it. Hence often they'll give games like Call of Duty or whatever Naughty Dog's latest game is 9/10 or higher often. What fans of the genre truly like they often rate lower for not being accessible enough, even though the games often fit their target audience and beyond. If you want a true review for anything ask a friend who is very informed on the genre or gaming overall.
Perhaps in the future when the game industry swept away any other industry, the governement will decree subsidences or incentives to developpers who create "hardcore" and "niche" games :v:
[QUOTE=Boaraes;41084178]There are very few gaming journalism sites that aren't corrupt and aren't being payed to say things by publishers. I would say IGN is not one of those sites, and they are very corrupt. They rate every single Call of Duty game a 9/10 when the game itself is a rehash and just a mere money grabbing scheme.
It's not just Call of Duty they overrate, they overrate ANY game they are paid to do so. If they aren't paid, then the game usually gets mediocre reviews when the game is actually pretty good, solely based on the fact that IGN isn't actually composed by people who play video games. I just find it extremely hard to believe any journalist on that website plays video games.
There's a reason why people sometimes say "9/10, it's okay". It's a reference to how IGN and other corrupt gaming journalist websites overrate games when the game itself is average at best.[/QUOTE]
IGN doesn't grade games correctly. If games are only worth playing if they're eight and up, then why do you need a ten point review system? Why would you need seven points if all they are is varying degrees of shit.
A correct ten point review systems regards five as average. Getting nine or ten should be nearly impossible if six, seven, and eight are good, great, and amazing.
[QUOTE=junker154;41089410]Perhaps in the future when the game industry swept away any other industry, the governement will decree subsidences or incentives to developpers who create "hardcore" and "niche" games :v:[/QUOTE]
We're actually seeing a rise in Indie games right now which are all for the most part incredibly unique and innovative. Hopefully we won't see a gaming market 100% dominated by giant mega corporations.
The actual status of the games journalism is a bit murky. Reviewers aren't necessarily bribed but giving positive reviews and not criticizing the big companies seems to be the name of the game when it comes to getting exclusives and first previews.
I really hope that there will always been more complex and niche games, even if the profit is not that big for developpers. It always depends on the company though.
EA is more like a games factory, niche games are not their real target.
Game reviews are impossible to do well, because it's extremely subjective.
I agree, but there are still some objective aspects of a game that can be reviewed. Although I always like a subjective touch to reviews.
[QUOTE=junker154;41103048]I agree, but there are still some objective aspects of a game that can be reviewed. Although I always like a subjective touch to reviews.[/QUOTE]
I totally agree. Most journalism today is objective, and there are a lot of factors that play when writing a review. For example, hype. Although you also have to take in account the parts that will remain objective, like e.g graphics, options, sound. Though they could be interpreted differently.
A review, which for example hates dubstep. Could clank down on the music of a game (that features dubstep) as being to noise and repetitive.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.