Bethesda Review Policy - Perfection Needs No Review

[Aeula]

Meh, never look at reviews anyway. But it's naive to call Bethesda's games 'perfect'. The reason modding is so popular for their games is because of how IMPERFECT they are.

[jeepguy16]

Meh, never look at reviews anyway. But it's naive to call Bethesda's games 'perfect'. The reason modding is so popular for their games is because of how IMPERFECT they are.

I think you may have missed the sarcasm as well...

[DesoPL]

Perfection needs no reviews? Someone became very confident like EA, Ubisoft or Activision are. I don't know if i should laugh or what, because thier games are popular only thanks for modding.

[Aeula]

I think you may have missed the sarcasm as well...

Well I didn't watch the video so...

[Yunru]

So much sarcasm .

But yeh, you cant trust big rewiev sites any more, since they are easy corrupt by *donations*.
Battlefield 1 --- score 9.....gamespot.....wait a sec....how can so buggy game have such a high rating.

Youtubers however have their reputation. If they try to call a shitty game good ---) puff 80% of subs gone --- ) out of biznis (if they are living on subs).

There is still a demo version of any game. Its called piratcy.

[Strangebrew]

Like i care, burn game "journalism" down.
Let youtubers and streamers rise out of the ashes.

It's nothing but hipsters, feminists and paid shilling, i have zero respect for it and they only have themself to blame.
Game journalism have turned into endless bitching about shitty ideologies and politics while they are slowly turning into a new Jack Thompson.

Good job Bethesda for going away from their bullshit, if only rest would follow suit.
And i say this as someone who isn't exactly a big fan of Bethesda.

[Poppincaps]

Honestly, while it is "anti-consumer" I think publishers are simply tired of how religiously people follow game reviews now. Mafia 3 is a good example of why game review scores can sometimes paint an incorrect picture of a game. If you just looked at the scores the game got, it's around the 6 and 7 range for the most part. For a lot of gamers a 7 is generally the cut off because with so many games coming out, most people don't have the time or money to spend on games that are mediocre. But, while Mafia 3 has a lot of problems both in terms of tech and gameplay, the story and characters are absolutely phenomenal. The problem with review scores is that people rarely read the reviews behind them.

By not giving reviewers early copies, publishers then have more voices to speak for their game whether it is positive or negative. You have reviewers, Youtube personalities, and also average consumers giving their opinions as opposed to just a bunch of gaming publications that everyone goes to on release day to see the score.

If you are so excited about a game that you can't wait 1 week after release for the reviews to post, then it probably interests you enough that you should just go pick it up.

- - - Updated - - -

So much sarcasm .

But yeh, you cant trust big rewiev sites any more, since they are easy corrupt by *donations*.
Battlefield 1 --- score 9.....gamespot.....wait a sec....how can so buggy game have such a high rating.

Youtubers however have their reputation. If they try to call a shitty game good ---) puff 80% of subs gone --- ) out of biznis (if they are living on subs).

There is still a demo version of any game. Its called piratcy.

The problem with judging a game based on bugs is that people's experience may vary. You say that Battlefield 1 is riddled with bugs, but I haven't really encountered any personally.

When The Witcher 3 came out, it was basically broken for me, but many people played it just fine. As a reviewer it's impossible to explain how bugs affect the experience if you haven't encountered them yourselves, since bugs can range from minor annoyances to game breaking.

[Sliske]

Bethesda is THE company of unpolished meme machine games.

Bethesda practically invented the following bugs and unpolished shit

1. Walking over physics props and instantly dying
2. Followers that stand in doors blocking your path
3. Repetitive enemies that shout the same 3 lines for 99.9% of the game
4. Repetitive friendly npcs that shout the same 3 lines for 99.9% of the game
5. The 'super cop' bug. You're doing something illegal, or fighting a dragon and a guard shows up. STOP RIGHT THERE CRIMINAL SCUM! in the middle of a dragon fight or an oblivion gate sequence
6. Laughable stealth detection. Person asleep and you're behind them? STOP RIGHT THERE THIEF! Person right in front of you blocked by a jar on the floor? MUST'VE BEEN THE WIND!
7. Horses. Jesus christ the horses. We exist in a world with Red Dead horses and Witcher 3 horses and we have Oblivion and Skyrim horses
8. Gravity that mimics moon gravity. Horses that can climb 95* angles, the ability to glide as if you have a pair of wings and change direction during a jump
9. The "we have so much diverse races!" shit. No you don't. You have the human female and human male model 9 times with slight texture changes.
10. The load screen boss
11. Major, game breaking bugs that would be detected if even 3-4 testers had played through the MAIN STORY at least once. My favourite of these is when you had to go into the Sewers to find one of the last Blades, only he won't open his fucking door. Having to load a save file i had 4 weeks ago or open the console and auto complete the quest is not fun! This is in EVERY one of their games.
12. "You can't do that now, enemies are near" WHERE?

Half the experience of a Bethesda game is laughing at the ridiculous, clearly untested polish. I expect better AI out of early Minecraft builds than from Bethesda games.

So yes, its fucking hilarious "perfection needs no review"

This is a meme with strength comparable to "when its ready" by Blizzard. Yep, Warlord of Draenor will release when its ready. Cataclysm will release when its ready. Diablo 3 will release when its ready. Got it!

[jeepguy16]

Like i care, burn game "journalism" down.
Let youtubers and streamers rise out of the ashes.

It's nothing but hipsters, feminists and paid shilling, i have zero respect for it and they only have themself to blame.
Game journalism have turned into endless bitching about shitty ideologies and politics while they are slowly turning into a new Jack Thompson.

Good job Bethesda for going away from their bullshit, if only rest would follow suit.
And i say this as someone who isn't exactly a big fan of Bethesda.

How does this help anyone but Bethesda? By striking back at "the enemy"? Also, while there have undoubtedly been issues, assuming that no one is trustworthy besides youtubers is kinda absurd.

First, because several youtubers have been caught doing unethical / illegal this year alone (not disclosing paid content / CS:GO Gambling). And based on how you judge games media / journalism, that means all youtubers / streamers must be guilty of it.

Second, one of the main reasons Bethesda and other companies are doing this, is so they can control all content prior to release. They now can hand out their copies to select youtubers / streamers willing to sign agreements saying they won't say anything bad about the game, and they no longer have to worry about reviews getting out there that may explain that the game has flaws. And by eliminating reviews, you push more people towards those paid content creators.

While I will say, I prefer to get information on games mostly from youtubers these days, I still had normal reviews as basically, another tool in my toolbox.

As some others have said, the ONLY possible silver lining here, is that people may stop pre-ordering......but lets face it, that won't really happen....

[Strangebrew]

How does this help anyone but Bethesda?

Am i supposed to think this is a bad thing when it's game journalism that get's screwed over?

I'll say it again, burn it down, there is zero respect to be had for it.
Call me when they get their shit togheter and i might, just might care.



"Oh how dare they not let us have games before everyone else so we can whine and cry about how everything is sexist and racist for my garbage ideology"

The horror, oh the horror that they have to wait until release date.

[jeepguy16]

Am i supposed to think this is a bad thing when it's game journalism that get's screwed over?

I'll say it again, burn it down, there is zero respect to be had for it.
Call me when they get their shit togheter and i might, just might care.



"Oh how dare they not let us have games before everyone else so we can whine and cry about how everything is sexist and racist for my garbage ideology"

The horror, oh the horror that they have to wait until release date.

I realize now I am wasting my breath as you didn't bother to read or care to try to understand what I was saying. So I will simply say this, you seem to loathe the games media for being dishonest and bias. However, with comments like these, you are becoming what you loathe. You wear your bias on your sleeve and generalize everyone in a particular industry. When you are willing to overlook anything negative about a situation simply because it hurts a group of people you hate, you may need to take a step back. Although I will say it is ultimately consumers that are hurt the worst by this but....anyway.

[Strangebrew]

I realize now I am wasting my breath as you didn't bother to read or care to try to understand what I was saying. So I will simply say this, you seem to loathe the games media for being dishonest and bias. However, with comments like these, you are becoming what you loathe. You wear your bias on your sleeve and generalize everyone in a particular industry.

5% out of 100% doesn't suddenly make the industry good, give me a fucking break.

Consumers aren't hurt one bit by this, only dumb morons who still buy into the bullshit spouted by video game journalists is.

[Deleted]

Consumers aren't hurt one bit by this, only dumb morons who still buy into the bullshit spouted by video game journalists is.

Pretty much this. As a consumer, it's my choice to blindly pre-order a game (my own fault) or simply wait for honest reviews from trustworthy gamers. But for the last couple of years, it has been hard to filter the reviews that we should trust or the pure "break the date" review from small dishonest sites and click-baiting major videogame "journalists" networks, just because they got the game earlier.

[Deleted]

Am i supposed to think this is a bad thing when it's game journalism that get's screwed over?

I'll say it again, burn it down, there is zero respect to be had for it.
Call me when they get their shit togheter and i might, just might care.



"Oh how dare they not let us have games before everyone else so we can whine and cry about how everything is sexist and racist for my garbage ideology"

The horror, oh the horror that they have to wait until release date.

Scummy BBC wasting british taxpayers money parroting eurogaymers whines.

[DesoPL]

Honestly, while it is "anti-consumer" I think publishers are simply tired of how religiously people follow game reviews now. Mafia 3 is a good example of why game review scores can sometimes paint an incorrect picture of a game. If you just looked at the scores the game got, it's around the 6 and 7 range for the most part. For a lot of gamers a 7 is generally the cut off because with so many games coming out, most people don't have the time or money to spend on games that are mediocre. But, while Mafia 3 has a lot of problems both in terms of tech and gameplay, the story and characters are absolutely phenomenal. The problem with review scores is that people rarely read the reviews behind them.

By not giving reviewers early copies, publishers then have more voices to speak for their game whether it is positive or negative. You have reviewers, Youtube personalities, and also average consumers giving their opinions as opposed to just a bunch of gaming publications that everyone goes to on release day to see the score.

If you are so excited about a game that you can't wait 1 week after release for the reviews to post, then it probably interests you enough that you should just go pick it up.

- - - Updated - - -



The problem with judging a game based on bugs is that people's experience may vary. You say that Battlefield 1 is riddled with bugs, but I haven't really encountered any personally.

When The Witcher 3 came out, it was basically broken for me, but many people played it just fine. As a reviewer it's impossible to explain how bugs affect the experience if you haven't encountered them yourselves, since bugs can range from minor annoyances to game breaking.

I think you also forget an long time ago scandal with GTA VC, where Haitan people are mad because on one of missions for Cubans ganglord, was an order. "Kill all Haitans"

Also there was another scandal, where you are allowed to harm cuban-haitan immigrants, which in result people of both countries maked an protest against Rockstar.

[paralleluniverse]

Who cares? To my knowledge, Blizzard also doesn't send review copies.

[Poppincaps]

Who cares? To my knowledge, Blizzard also doesn't send review copies.

To play Devil's Advocate for a minute, most of Blizzard's games have extensive betas so there is plenty of information on the quality of the game before it comes out. Perhaps not a proper review, but you can see what fans and critics alike think of the game before it comes out if you haven't tried it out yourself.

[minteK917]

Send copies to independant reviewers, im more likely to have a useful review from Angry Joe, than from IGN at this point. That tells me everything i need to know about Gaming Journalism.

[Deleted]

Making decision based on "popular reviewers" is the worst thing you could do anyway.

[Eleccybubb]

Don't think I've ever bought a game based off reviews tbh.