• Integrity, Journalism and free PS4s (Jimquisition)
    15 replies, posted
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rcog2zMVgPA[/media] In which everyone is wrong.
He talks as if reviewers are doing some sort of vital service to "readers". I think we'd do just fine if you didn't exist. Maybe with no free shit more reviewers would actually be honest about the game.
[QUOTE=itisjuly;42986571]He talks as if reviewers are doing some sort of vital service to "readers". I think we'd do just fine if you didn't exist. Maybe with no free shit more reviewers would actually be honest about the game.[/QUOTE] As corruptible as the system is, reviewers -are- quite a vital part of letting a consumer form an opinion if he does not have direct access to try a product.
[QUOTE=Géza!;42986591]As corruptible as the system is, reviewers -are- quite a vital part of letting a consumer form an opinion if he does not have direct access to try a product.[/QUOTE] Which is why the system is shit. Game developers know that it is easy to corrupt and that is exactly what they're doing. Which is also why I find it silly when they defend themselves about why they get free games and systems.
If I become a exotic car reviewer does that mean I get to keep the exotic cars? The fact that journalists don't have to pay for their systems means they don't have any concept of value for money when it comes to video games. They can't say "This game is/isn't worth the $40" because they never payed for it in the first place and therefore don't actually know what sort've quality $40 should get you. I'd trust any reviewer that can tell you a game or system's value for money over any of those IGNs or Kotakus.
[QUOTE=Midas22;42986744]I'd trust any reviewer that can tell you a game or system's value for money over any of those IGNs or Kotakus.[/QUOTE] I'm sure reviewers at IGN/Kotaku can but $$$ from publishers shuts their mouth.
[QUOTE=Midas22;42986744]If I become a exotic car reviewer does that mean I get to keep the exotic cars? The fact that journalists don't have to pay for their systems means they don't have any concept of value for money when it comes to video games. They can't say "This game is/isn't worth the $40" because they never payed for it in the first place and therefore don't actually know what sort've quality $40 should get you. I'd trust any reviewer that can tell you a game or system's value for money over any of those IGNs or Kotakus.[/QUOTE] Suddenly being a game reviewer skewers your perception of value? BS.
I think it does when you don't have to pay for the games. How do you know if the game is good value for money when you didn't spend any money on it?
[QUOTE=Midas22;42987261]I think it does when you don't have to pay for the games. How do you know if the game is good value for money when you didn't spend any money on it?[/QUOTE] You look at the price tag and decide if you would buy this game for that amount?
[QUOTE=Géza!;42986591]As corruptible as the system is, reviewers -are- quite a vital part of letting a consumer form an opinion if he does not have direct access to try a product.[/QUOTE] If only there were such things as Demos. Reviewing games should be a hobby not a job, few exceptions of course, how the hell did we come from everyone trying demo to form a like or dislike of the game to watching some man or woman giving their opinion, with their own perspective of things, and believing what they have to say.
Where do I become a game journalist? I need free money.
[QUOTE=Géza!;42987656]You look at the price tag and decide if you would buy this game for that amount?[/QUOTE] Yes actually. I wouldn't buy a CoD game or Saints row for £40 or many games for £40 actually.
[QUOTE=Aznsniper911;42988514]Reviewing games should be a hobby not a job, few exceptions of course,[/QUOTE] Such as?
Long read, but it's an interesting insight [t]http://i.imgur.com/oj0KGd1.jpg[/t]
[QUOTE=Midas22;42989818]Yes actually. I wouldn't buy a CoD game or Saints row for £40 or many games for £40 actually.[/QUOTE] Okay, so there's your answer.
[QUOTE=Géza!;42986591]As corruptible as the system is, reviewers -are- quite a vital part of letting a consumer form an opinion if he does not have direct access to try a product.[/QUOTE] You should not be dependent on the people who's product you are reviewing for your livelihood. Plain and simple. Even if you aren't taking bribes directly (and that's a whole side issue), the current system essentially means that a publisher can censor criticism by cutting you as the reviewer off from your source of income. You need hits on your site to survive, and if you don't have their games, you don't get hits. Therefore, even if you don't directly accept bribe money, you are at their mercy. If you do not see what is wrong with that, I don't know what to say. All of the 7-10 out of 10 inflated score bullshit, the retarded product placement spam, and everything else aside; what you have is a fundamentally broken system that is just begging to get abused, and we have seen plenty of evidence of just that happening. That alone, let alone everything else, makes reviews as a whole almost entirely worthless. As vital as reviews are, when they get to this point, you as a customer cannot trust them and expect to reliably be able to make well informed decisions, and that defeats any point in actually having them in the first place.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.