Which gaming website for unbiased unpaid reviews?

[Edge-]

Users review bomb great titles because of outside controversy. Look at Pokemon sword & shield for a most recent example.

"WORST POKEMON EVER!"

*literally the fastest selling Pokemon game ever

[Tziva]

Why did he have to give that ridiculous score in the first place. That's unprofessional. He only took action because of public pressure. And the fact that he altered his score shows how fickle he is.

I don't have a dog in this fight, but this is silly. If the game is literally unplayable due to bugs, it should influence the review. Game bugs are a completely relevant metric by which to judge a game, especially if they render the game difficult or impossible to play fully or as intended.

And on that same token, if the game is patched and the bug is fixed, once absolutely should re-review the product, both because the bug is no longer present and therefore no longer relevant to readers, but also because now the reviewer can see more of the game to give a broader look.

That's not being fickle, that's literally how reviews should work.

Users review bomb great titles because of outside controversy. Look at Pokemon sword & shield for a most recent example.

This definitely happens (Night in the Woods is another recent example; fabulous game but game was barraged with thousands of bad reviews due to what happened with Alec Holowka who did the score for the game) but that's also why you need to actually read the reviews. It's pretty easy to tell which reviews are doing this because they always use the review to soapbox about the thing they are upset over. That advice doesn't matter if it comes from a professional reviewer or the average person; reviews should always be read in detail rather than just looking at the rating or you're not going to get a very accurate picture at all.

[lockybalboa]

For the same reason Steam has had persistent trouble trying to address issues with review bombing and why we see things like PS fanboys review bombing Death Stranding because it's not a PS exclusive. They can have value, and I'll factor them into my final opinions, but I generally give them minimal weight without reviewing more extensively. There are far fewer "checks" for those than there are with media reviews.



Sometimes, but again, I'll point to the fact that Valve spent years trying to figure out how to address issues with user reviews, including the fact that some users would provide positive reviews in return for a free key as to why I place far less value in them.



They're not under this pressure. Plenty of reviewers/outlets have slammed games but still maintained a healthy relationship with the developer.



EiC's, managing editors, and review editors that manage reviewers don't have a stake in this. Reviewers don't try to "please" them with scores, they try to "please" them with well written reviews backing up whatever score they give a game.



This is actually not on media, but on fans. Remember that time Eurogamer gave Uncharted 3, a solid game, a devastating 8/10 review score? A score backed up with lavish praise for the game, but with criticisms about how "on the rails" it is and how little agency is gives players? The one when Uncharted fans completely lost their god-damn shit and harassed the reviewer?

Because that happened. And it never should have. Reviewers should never be held hostage by fans. Ever.

https://kotaku.com/that-uncharted-3-...-about-5853319



Again, this isn't true. I've worked on some games that were popular but had poor critical receptions. And you know what? Media scored them poorly because they weren't great. Not because of some nonsense fear of fans or publisher or anything else.

Again, these things you continue to say exist don't exist in reality.

And there you have it. The examples you provided show that reviewers are constantly under pressure from fans. So how can you be sure they do not succumb under the pressure. And you are saying reviewers are all saintly and all but the consistency of the high scores they give to the big titles shows it all. And you can easily find critics confessing on how much pressure they are facing in their line of work all over the Net. It is foolish to say reviewers are all saintly, and they face no pressure like you've stated. The pressure is very real.

[Hinastorm]

Easy to find regressive types. They are the ones that think we should be beholden to government to tell us what to do at every turn of our lives. They also tend to think our thoughts and speech should be policed and conform to their own opinions. In other words, most SJWs.

So brainwashed, so sad (you I mean, to be clear).

Imagine having a problem policing hate speech, and thinking equality is a bad thing.

And ya, i'll take government control over the current status quo (the rich raping us in multiple ways).

[lockybalboa]

I don't have a dog in this fight, but this is silly. If the game is literally unplayable due to bugs, it should influence the review. Game bugs are a completely relevant metric by which to judge a game, especially if they render the game difficult or impossible to play fully or as intended.

And on that same token, if the game is patched and the bug is fixed, once absolutely should re-review the product, both because the bug is no longer present and therefore no longer relevant to readers, but also because now the reviewer can see more of the game to give a broader look.

That's not being fickle, that's literally how reviews should work.


This definitely happens (Night in the Woods is another recent example; fabulous game but game was barraged with thousands of bad reviews due to what happened with Alec Holowka who did the score for the game) but that's also why you need to actually read the reviews. It's pretty easy to tell which reviews are doing this because they always use the review to soapbox about the thing they are upset over. That advice doesn't matter if it comes from a professional reviewer or the average person; reviews should always be read in detail rather than just looking at the rating or you're not going to get a very accurate picture at all.

He should have waited til the bug is fixed then give a review. That is the ethical way of doing things. Do you think it is fair for a game's reputation to be dragged down the drain due to an initial bug?

[Mehrunes]

Never trust only one source for information you silly goose. Look at multiple.

Multiple as in two: Polygon and Kotaku. Anything more than that isn't needed.

[Tziva]

He should have waited til the bug is fixed then give a review. That is the ethical way of doing things. Do you think it is fair for a game's reputation to be dragged down the drain due to an initial bug?

Uh, yes, if your game launches with a bug that makes it unplayable. If anything, I'd say the reviewer had an ethical duty to consumers (not the game dev/pub) to let people know. As long as it was clear from the review and it wasn't inaccurately presented as someone playing the whole game and downrating it for other issues.

I'm surprised this is even controversial. If a Sony put out a TV where the screens would just turn black while users were trying to watch something, no one in their right mind would argue it was unfair to give that TV a bad product review or that the reviewer should have waited for Sony to issue a recall or repair first.

A product not working consistently or correctly is a completely valid reason to poorly review something in any other context, why would a video game be different?

[lockybalboa]

Uh, yes, if your game launches with a bug that makes it unplayable. If anything, I'd say the reviewer had an ethical duty to consumers (not the game dev/pub) to let people know. As long as it was clear from the review and it wasn't inaccurately presented as someone playing the whole game and downrating it for other issues.

I'm surprised this is even controversial. If a Sony put out a TV where the screens would just turn black while users were trying to watch something, no one in their right mind would argue it was unfair to give that TV a bad product review or that the reviewer should have waited for Sony to issue a recall or repair first.

That bug wasn't a widespread problem, and only affected Dan's corrupted save. Many other users were playing the game just fine at the same time. He should've had the patience and decency to find out the severity of the problem and waited till he continued his progress before giving his review.

[Edge-]

And there you have it. The examples you provided show that reviewers are constantly under pressure from fans.

Actually...they're not. I pointed that out to show that fan pressure doesn't impact scores. He didn't change his score. He didn't back down. He stood by it, and media stood by him. Because they don't give a shit if fans get pissed that they reviewed a popular game/franchise/IP poorly.

And we've seen reviewers who have been targeted by these asshats continue to review games without change. Why? Because despite the harassment, they're not going to cave to the whims of irrational manchildren who can't accept that someone may have a different opinion that they disagree with.

And you are saying reviewers are all saintly and all but the consistency of the high scores they give to the big titles shows it all.

If shows that throwing a lot of money at a game gives it more of a chance for a good review score.

Again, look at my post where I linked to a handful of major AAA games including Anthem, FO76, Crackdown 3, and more that received garbage reviews from media. Why? Because they weren't good games. They were still AAA, but the money behind them wasn't enough to cover up for the fundamental flaws.

And you can easily find critics confessing on how much pressure they are facing in their line of work all over the Net.

But what kind of pressure? I'd love to give some of these a read if you have some links.

It is foolish to say reviewers are all saintly, and they face no pressure like you've stated. The pressure is very real.

I've never said they were "saintly". They're human. They have biases. Most, try to compensate for their biases, but it's very much not always possible. But that's life, and you'll find that in enthusiast media for any industry. Review an Apple product poorly? You "risk" the wrath of the Apple faithful. Slam the new Ford F-150? Now the Ford devotees may come after you. Write that the latest Kanye album is garbage? Good lord, shut off your social media.

But that doesn't mean that media are changing their review scores because of asshats who can't handle differing opinions. At best, you have insinuation to back up your arguments, no actual data or evidence as you've still yet to post any.

- - - Updated - - -

That bug wasn't a widespread problem, and only affected Dan's corrupted save. Many other users were playing the game just fine at the same time. He should've had the patience and decency to find out the severity of the problem and waited till he continued his progress before giving his review.

How long should he have waited for? Should he have conducted polls of readers to see how many others were affected before making any decision? Should a rare bug that can literally break your playthrough be a non-factor in a review just because it's rare? Should he have reached out directly to the developers so they'd know it was an issue affecting an IGN review, which they'd be FAR more likely to immediately remedy, or should he have reached out anonymously as if he was a regular user?

This line of thinking opens whole other cans of worms that you need to address, it's not just as simple as "just wait".

[lockybalboa]

Actually...they're not. I pointed that out to show that fan pressure doesn't impact scores. He didn't change his score. He didn't back down. He stood by it, and media stood by him. Because they don't give a shit if fans get pissed that they reviewed a popular game/franchise/IP poorly.

And we've seen reviewers who have been targeted by these asshats continue to review games without change. Why? Because despite the harassment, they're not going to cave to the whims of irrational manchildren who can't accept that someone may have a different opinion that they disagree with.



If shows that throwing a lot of money at a game gives it more of a chance for a good review score.

Again, look at my post where I linked to a handful of major AAA games including Anthem, FO76, Crackdown 3, and more that received garbage reviews from media. Why? Because they weren't good games. They were still AAA, but the money behind them wasn't enough to cover up for the fundamental flaws.



But what kind of pressure? I'd love to give some of these a read if you have some links.



I've never said they were "saintly". They're human. They have biases. Most, try to compensate for their biases, but it's very much not always possible. But that's life, and you'll find that in enthusiast media for any industry. Review an Apple product poorly? You "risk" the wrath of the Apple faithful. Slam the new Ford F-150? Now the Ford devotees may come after you. Write that the latest Kanye album is garbage? Good lord, shut off your social media.

But that doesn't mean that media are changing their review scores because of asshats who can't handle differing opinions. At best, you have insinuation to back up your arguments, no actual data or evidence as you've still yet to post any.

- - - Updated - - -



How long should he have waited for? Should he have conducted polls of readers to see how many others were affected before making any decision? Should a rare bug that can literally break your playthrough be a non-factor in a review just because it's rare? Should he have reached out directly to the developers so they'd know it was an issue affecting an IGN review, which they'd be FAR more likely to immediately remedy, or should he have reached out anonymously as if he was a regular user?

This line of thinking opens whole other cans of worms that you need to address, it's not just as simple as "just wait".

So you've just admitted that pressure is prevalent. One reviewer did not yield under the pressure, but how can you be sure the others will do the same? Just look at the official scores given by major game sites to those AAA titles. Official scores. You will find that they are consistently inflated to boost the image of their "clients".

As for the Stapleton incident, many were playing the game just fine and he was just unfortunate to encounter a corrupted save so how is it fair for him to just vent his frustrations and to meet his review deadline, giving the game 4 while all the other reviewers were having no problems and progressed with the game just fine? He should have started another save, continued his progress then give a proper review, and not to be lazy and act like a spoilt brat and give his verdict immediately.

- - - Updated - - -

Actually...they're not. I pointed that out to show that fan pressure doesn't impact scores. He didn't change his score. He didn't back down. He stood by it, and media stood by him. Because they don't give a shit if fans get pissed that they reviewed a popular game/franchise/IP poorly.

And we've seen reviewers who have been targeted by these asshats continue to review games without change. Why? Because despite the harassment, they're not going to cave to the whims of irrational manchildren who can't accept that someone may have a different opinion that they disagree with.



If shows that throwing a lot of money at a game gives it more of a chance for a good review score.

Again, look at my post where I linked to a handful of major AAA games including Anthem, FO76, Crackdown 3, and more that received garbage reviews from media. Why? Because they weren't good games. They were still AAA, but the money behind them wasn't enough to cover up for the fundamental flaws.



But what kind of pressure? I'd love to give some of these a read if you have some links.



I've never said they were "saintly". They're human. They have biases. Most, try to compensate for their biases, but it's very much not always possible. But that's life, and you'll find that in enthusiast media for any industry. Review an Apple product poorly? You "risk" the wrath of the Apple faithful. Slam the new Ford F-150? Now the Ford devotees may come after you. Write that the latest Kanye album is garbage? Good lord, shut off your social media.

But that doesn't mean that media are changing their review scores because of asshats who can't handle differing opinions. At best, you have insinuation to back up your arguments, no actual data or evidence as you've still yet to post any.

- - - Updated - - -



How long should he have waited for? Should he have conducted polls of readers to see how many others were affected before making any decision? Should a rare bug that can literally break your playthrough be a non-factor in a review just because it's rare? Should he have reached out directly to the developers so they'd know it was an issue affecting an IGN review, which they'd be FAR more likely to immediately remedy, or should he have reached out anonymously as if he was a regular user?

This line of thinking opens whole other cans of worms that you need to address, it's not just as simple as "just wait".

Let's see ... Blackops got 9.2 Halo 4 9.8 (LMAO) and Alien:Isolation being the small fry that it belongs to got a 5.8 wow

[Edge-]

So you've just admitted that pressure is prevalent. One reviewer did not yield under the pressure, but how can you be sure the others will do the same?

The onus is on you to prove that "something is happening", which in this case is reviewers changing scores due to outside pressure.

The onus isn't on me to prove that "something isn't happening", because that's literally impossible. I can't prove to you that there's no such thing as a unicorn, but we can conclusively prove if that horse outside with a horn on its head is indeed a unicorn as the horse's owner alleges, or if it's a horse with a carrot tied to its head.

Just look at the official scores given by major game sites to those AAA titles. Official scores. You will find that they are consistently inflated to boost the image of their "clients".

You continue to say this without a shred of evidence. Meanwhile, let me link, for the second time, back to my original post containing multiple major AAA titles that launched to poor reviews from IGN, as that's who we were discussing at the time - https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...1#post52065509

Let me know what you think, because you don't seem to actually be reading that despite repeated links.

As for the Stapleton incident, many were playing the game just fine and he was just unfortunate to encounter a corrupted save so how is it fair for him to just vent his frustrations and to meet his review deadline, giving the game 4 while all the other reviewers were having no problems and progressed with the game just fine?

Because Dan Stapleton wasn't talking to every other reviewer to know how their reviews were going, so had no way of knowing if what he was experience was indeed an isolated incident or a widespread bug. Reviewers shouldn't be talking to each other about their reviews ahead of launch.

And do you know what? I've worked on games where we've discovered progress stopping bugs after review keys go out, even very rare ones. Know what? We reach out to everyone potentially affected (depending on if the issue is by platform, region, language, or across all) to let them know we discovered a bug and provide updates on a potential fix.

It's not on reviewers to report bugs to developers, it's on them to review a game. If the game they receive has bugs, that's a part of their review.

He should have started another save, continued his progress then give a proper review, and not to be lazy and act like a spoilt brat and give his verdict immediately.

You seem really personally offended by this, dude. This is nowhere near as big a deal as you make it, and his review was fair in the context of how IGN and most sites score their reviews when they encounter major bugs.

Though on starting a new save I'll mention one thing specifically...he was 34 hours into his review.

https://segmentnext.com/2017/05/12/i...ith-reviewing/

Is that a reasonable thing? That he should replay the fist 34 hours of the game because he literally hit a bug that prevented continued progress. A bug that Bethesda was working to address, but was a real part of the launch build for the game that consumers were purchasing.

Let's see ... Blackops got 9.2 Halo 4 9.8 (LMAO) and Alien:Isolation being the small fry that it belongs to got a 5.8 wow

What are you talking about? Where are you getting these scores from so I can take a look?

Edit, seeing now.

IGN for Black Ops III - https://www.ign.com/articles/2015/11...k-ops-3-review

And? You don't say anything other than their score, what point are you trying to make? Despite the memes, it was still a well received game.

Halo 4 - https://www.ign.com/articles/2012/11/01/halo-4-review

Again...and? Similarly a very well received game.

https://www.ign.com/articles/2014/10...olation-review

It was a well received game, but IGN gave it a low score. But guess what? This was still firmly a AAA title from a major publisher (Sega) developed by a major, and pretty well liked developer (Creative Assembly).

So if your arguments were logically consistent, then Alien: Isolation should have received a similarly high score. I hope you realize this actually weakens your argument...

[lockybalboa]

The onus is on you to prove that "something is happening", which in this case is reviewers changing scores due to outside pressure.

The onus isn't on me to prove that "something isn't happening", because that's literally impossible. I can't prove to you that there's no such thing as a unicorn, but we can conclusively prove if that horse outside with a horn on its head is indeed a unicorn as the horse's owner alleges, or if it's a horse with a carrot tied to its head.



You continue to say this without a shred of evidence. Meanwhile, let me link, for the second time, back to my original post containing multiple major AAA titles that launched to poor reviews from IGN, as that's who we were discussing at the time - https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...1#post52065509

Let me know what you think, because you don't seem to actually be reading that despite repeated links.



Because Dan Stapleton wasn't talking to every other reviewer to know how their reviews were going, so had no way of knowing if what he was experience was indeed an isolated incident or a widespread bug. Reviewers shouldn't be talking to each other about their reviews ahead of launch.

And do you know what? I've worked on games where we've discovered progress stopping bugs after review keys go out, even very rare ones. Know what? We reach out to everyone potentially affected (depending on if the issue is by platform, region, language, or across all) to let them know we discovered a bug and provide updates on a potential fix.

It's not on reviewers to report bugs to developers, it's on them to review a game. If the game they receive has bugs, that's a part of their review.



You seem really personally offended by this, dude. This is nowhere near as big a deal as you make it, and his review was fair in the context of how IGN and most sites score their reviews when they encounter major bugs.

Though on starting a new save I'll mention one thing specifically...he was 34 hours into his review.

https://segmentnext.com/2017/05/12/i...ith-reviewing/

Is that a reasonable thing? That he should replay the fist 34 hours of the game because he literally hit a bug that prevented continued progress. A bug that Bethesda was working to address, but was a real part of the launch build for the game that consumers were purchasing.



What are you talking about? Where are you getting these scores from so I can take a look?

I'm sick of going round in circles dude. It's late here.So what? wtf? You are actually a game reviewer or what? I still have no idea what your line of work is but you seem particularly jumpy when it comes to review bias.

So how do you explain mediocre games like Blackops, Evolve and Fifa series getting blatantly inflated scores then? I've already provided links for Fifa and already explained the dynamics involved between game sites and developers and I will not post again, you can go back to my previous posts. While the dynamics between game sites and developers are so intricately linked you are making a quite honestly laughable claim that game review scores are definitely not influenced by such dynamics. I would like to see you substantiate such a boisterous claim.

As for the Stapleton incident if he is truly professional and devoted to giving an honest review then yes he should be making that extra effort.

[ErrandRunner]

I have this theory that about 50% of online reviews are BS either to promote or detract from a certain product.

[Onikaroshi]

"WORST POKEMON EVER!"

*literally the fastest selling Pokemon game ever

Tbf on that, it could be the worst pokemon game ever for that person. I would never buy it, i'm not a fan of new pokemon and being limited to the old pokemon that I can bring into it is a turnoff.

[kail]

Look at critic reviews, user reviews, and even actual gameplay via YT or twitch. You can't come to a concrete review from only one source.

[Vash The Stampede]

That's the thing: They don't do group reviews, really. People having different opinions is irrelevant to that.

I'm not talking about group reviews but it seems they don't talk to each other and form an opinion that doesn't contradict each other. Like there's a lack of internal communication.

Again, only if the reader has some nonsense notion that every IGN editor holds the same opinion and views. Which is patently absurd.

There's nothing wrong with having different opinions except when the viewer is trying to determine if a game is good or bad. Saying Sonic was never good and then saying they finally got Sonic right shows that nobody at IGN knows what they're talking about. IGN can't even get if game good or bad. People might as well flip a coin.

And having differences of opinion doesn't mean they sound like "idiots", unless, again, you're holding some misguided notion that they all must share the same opinion.

Firstly, IGN sounds like idiots because of their reviews, like this video. There's nothing wrong with having a difference of opinion so long as in the end you can tell me if it's a good or bad game. You can like Skyrim for various reasons, and hate Contra Rogue Corps for the reasons you find. So long as everyone at IGN agrees that Skyrim is good and Contra Rogue Corps is bad then that's not a problem. The problem is when some IGN employees say Sonic was never good and then some say they got Sonic right is when there's a problem.

Fucking one angry gamer, lol.

First thing I Google'd.

That aside...what about that? Do you even know the context that surrounded the closure of the Gawker brand and selloff following the Peter Thiel lawsuit of their other properties to Univision, who in turned sold them to Great Hill Partners? Literally none of that had anything to do with Kotaku, that was all stemming from Peter Thiel's earlier lawsuit against Gawker.

If you're not going to inform yourself about these things don't expect anyone to take your declarative opinion seriously.

Sounds like the new owners weren't happy with how Kotaku was doing their reviews. The disjointed reviewers were bumping heads with their owners.

[Edge-]

Sounds like the new owners weren't happy with how Kotaku was doing their reviews. The disjointed reviewers were bumping heads with their owners.

Heel's is beyond ignorant and idiotic and I can't remember ever hearing him say anything of value, and rarely anything approaching truth or fact.

I clicked on the video out of morbid curiosity and the only thing he's showing is the GMG Union, which does include Kotaku, but was not specific to them. Skipping through the rest, oh look...it's not Kotaku at all but Deadspin's editor that was fired. So he's covering the autoplay ad dust-up that was a brief blip, and not specific to Kotaku. And then the Deadspin editor getting fired which caused a lot of anger from the GMG Union towards their new ownership but, again, was not specific to Kotaku. This is like when Gamespace wrote an article based off of some of those tweets that Kotaku had seen layoffs which...was absolutely false.

I literally don't know why anyone watches him unless they're just looking for any lies, misinformation, or low quality information they can grasp to justify their outrage over something. I'm not going to listen to him whinge pathetically for 15 minutes, the first few minutes of listening were enough and skipping through the rest of the video he shows nothing indicating "KOTAKU in SERIOUS TROUBLE After Crossing New Owners!!!" like the fucking bullshit tabloid-esque clickbait garbage this video is. Just the same tweets I saw when both these events were unfolding, none of which Kotaku specifically was ever in the crosshairs of management specifically. And the GMG Union have been, and still are, battling their current management so this isn't anything terribly new or unique.

You're better getting your gaming news from the National Enquirer

[ThatsOurEric]

Before You Buy is a pretty good Youtube reviewer.

[ThrashMetalFtw]

Not checking out a game/movie/book/whatever, that you initially had interest in, just because of negative reviews, has got to be one of the most retarded decisions one could ever make.

Check it out yourself, then form an opinion.

[D3athsting]

WC3 not reviewed and somewhere not even mentioned by many gaming websites says a lot on how much those websites like to suck actiblizzard's di**