Do triple A companies intimidate or pressure journalists for good reviews?

[Tech614]

Most youtubers im talking about are random people and not actual professional movie/game reviewers.

And many years checking the gaming/movie official critic ratings...i most of the time disagree with them and agree more with the "user reviews".
With some exceptions ofc.
Is not a 100% science

So basically you look specifically for reviews to feed your own confirmation bias and can't handle different people having different opinions? That's sure what it sounds like. "I look for a random youtube until they agree with me!"

[Big Thanks]

So basically you look specifically for reviews to feed your own confirmation bias and can't handle different people having different opinions? That's sure what it sounds like. "I look for a random youtube until they agree with me!"

Nah, is just my 30y old self reading critic reviews and thinking this guys are insane sometimes.

Some example in movies and rotten tomatoes scores:

Mr Nobody - 68
The Fountain - 52
The Scret Life Of Walter Mitty - 52
Equilibrium - 40
Judge Dredd (1995) - 22

How can ANY professional critic think and say this movies are bad?
I dont care what they are, insane, snobs, agendas, political or whatever they are. They are dumb to me for thinking one of this movies is "bad".

[Edge-]

Judge Dredd (1995) - 22

How can ANY professional critic think and say this movies are bad?
I dont care what they are, insane, snobs, agendas, political or whatever they are. They are dumb to me for thinking one of this movies is "bad".

Because it's objectively a dogshit movie. Don't get me wrong, I like that movie, it's a lot of cheesy fun. But it's poorly made and bad as a film. That doesn't mean you can't have fun with it, I do.

Same goes for games, which please keep the discussion on games as that's what this forum is for.

[Big Thanks]

Because it's objectively a dogshit movie. Don't get me wrong, I like that movie, it's a lot of cheesy fun. But it's poorly made and bad as a film. That doesn't mean you can't have fun with it, I do.

Same goes for games, which please keep the discussion on games as that's what this forum is for.

Sorry, my bad...i confused Demolition Man (1993) with Judge Dredd....wtf (>_<)

And sorry for giving movie examples.

Gaming reviews are wayyyyy more difficult and can HONESTLY be given different scores depending on personal preference!
Recently for example, im having tons of fun with Outriders (a looter shooter) and its metascore makes no sense to me.
73 in metacritic
5.7 in user reviews

I love the game and see no reason for such a low score.
Videogames are way more complicated to give score.

[Edge-]

Sorry, my bad...i confused Demolition Man (1993) with Judge Dredd....wtf (>_<)

And sorry for giving movie examples.

Gaming reviews are wayyyyy more difficult and can HONESTLY be given different scores depending on personal preference!
Recently for example, im having tons of fun with Outriders (a looter shooter) and its metascore makes no sense to me.
73 in metacritic
5.7 in user reviews

I love the game and see no reason for such a low score.
Videogames are way more complicated to give score.

I played outriders as well. Much of the score was determined by the quality at release - which was really bad and buggy and unstable. That factors into review scores, which are snapshots of a game. Otherwise it was...ok. Endgame was boring AF without any meaningful balance or progression and it took the better part of 6+ months for them to get the game remotely stable and actually make a lot of the passives and abilities work. That's where most of the negative reviews come from, when the game was just fairly busted as hell.

I played it, it was fine. Honestly the user score is an accurate snapshot of the general community reaction to the state of the game at launch and well after, and the higher but still middling critical score reflects the actual quality of the game aside from those stability/bug issues pretty well IMO. It was an ok game, average. Had some great parts, but really weak in a lot of other areas. Still fun for a while, but not great.

As to the bolded, you're right. That's why reviewers write entire reviews explaining why they arrived at the score the did in some level of detail. That's literally how reviews work.

[Shakzor]

Fucking love this absolute confidence with no actual evidence other than the typical "it just makes sense!" or "it has to be, cause i think otherwise about some games" of some of the responses in here
People really think they'd pay for review when it'd get basically everyone involved in more trouble than if they were to give a crap game the 5.5/10 it deserves, as if the outlets don't need to abide to laws requiring to mark sponsored/bought content

[Relapses]

Nah, is just my 30y old self reading critic reviews and thinking this guys are insane sometimes.

Some example in movies and rotten tomatoes scores:

Mr Nobody - 68
The Fountain - 52
The Scret Life Of Walter Mitty - 52
Equilibrium - 40
Judge Dredd (1995) - 22

How can ANY professional critic think and say this movies are bad?
I dont care what they are, insane, snobs, agendas, political or whatever they are. They are dumb to me for thinking one of this movies is "bad".

There are opposite corollaries as well. For example, I love the movie A Ghost Story, an extremely pretentious, philosophically dense arthouse film which features a 5-minute fucking take of Rooney Mara eating a pie. I think it's a God damned masterpiece, though, and most critics agree. 91% certified fresh with a rather tepid 66% audience score, many audience reviewers taking offense to just how far the movie is up its own ass. (A valid critique, but one which I disagree with since everything happens in the movie for a reason.)

Whenever you try to equate the relevance of professional and layman reviews you're going to end up with vastly different perspectives. I think, personally, movies like A Ghost Story deserve to be looked at with a critical eye because only through analyzation can you truly appreciate it. However, I also understand that maybe not everybody who spends $20 on a night out at the movies is all that jazzed up about watching Ben Affleck's little bro walk around aimlessly in a child's bedsheet ghost costume for two hours. A professional reviewer will be more likely to have a positive takeaway since they're going to spend time analyzing its themes whereas a casual viewer is far more likely to be totally bored because the movie wastes absolutely no time getting experimental and weird. Neither experience is empirically right or wrong. It's just two different ways of viewing the same content.

Ultimately, it's up to the individual to determine the merits of each individual review, professional or otherwise -- both positive and negative. When you try to write off reviews because they disagree with some predetermined notion you have in your mind then you're really only providing a disservice to yourself.

[Aliven]

Sorry, my bad...i confused Demolition Man (1993) with Judge Dredd....wtf (>_<)

And sorry for giving movie examples.

Gaming reviews are wayyyyy more difficult and can HONESTLY be given different scores depending on personal preference!
Recently for example, im having tons of fun with Outriders (a looter shooter) and its metascore makes no sense to me.
73 in metacritic
5.7 in user reviews

I love the game and see no reason for such a low score.
Videogames are way more complicated to give score.

No, they are not. You can have fun playing shitty game and could absolutely stand objectively amazing game.
That does not make bad game good or good game bad (objectively speaking).
Outriders, for example, is so edgy it becomes parody of itself story wise. Gameplay has crisis in itself (game is cover shooter where cover shooting would get you killed).

[loras]

There are opposite corollaries as well. For example, I love the movie A Ghost Story, an extremely pretentious, philosophically dense arthouse film which features a 5-minute fucking take of Rooney Mara eating a pie. I think it's a God damned masterpiece, though, and most critics agree. 91% certified fresh with a rather tepid 66% audience score, many audience reviewers taking offense to just how far the movie is up its own ass. (A valid critique, but one which I disagree with since everything happens in the movie for a reason.)

Whenever you try to equate the relevance of professional and layman reviews you're going to end up with vastly different perspectives. I think, personally, movies like A Ghost Story deserve to be looked at with a critical eye because only through analyzation can you truly appreciate it. However, I also understand that maybe not everybody who spends $20 on a night out at the movies is all that jazzed up about watching Ben Affleck's little bro walk around aimlessly in a child's bedsheet ghost costume for two hours. A professional reviewer will be more likely to have a positive takeaway since they're going to spend time analyzing its themes whereas a casual viewer is far more likely to be totally bored because the movie wastes absolutely no time getting experimental and weird. Neither experience is empirically right or wrong. It's just two different ways of viewing the same content.

Ultimately, it's up to the individual to determine the merits of each individual review, professional or otherwise -- both positive and negative. When you try to write off reviews because they disagree with some predetermined notion you have in your mind then you're really only providing a disservice to yourself.

This, 10/10

[Big Thanks]

No, they are not. You can have fun playing shitty game and could absolutely stand objectively amazing game.
That does not make bad game good or good game bad (objectively speaking).
Outriders, for example, is so edgy it becomes parody of itself story wise. Gameplay has crisis in itself (game is cover shooter where cover shooting would get you killed).

I think you can objectively say graphics, gameplay and maybe interface if they are good or not.
Story, vibe, customization, character design, sound...fun factor...not so much.

I dunno man...IDEALLY every professional critic would just share and rate objectively opinions...like what the NEWS channels are supposed to be...yet they are not.

[Edge-]

I think you can objectively say graphics, gameplay and maybe interface if they are good or not.
Story, vibe, customization, character design, sound...fun factor...not so much.

I dunno man...IDEALLY every professional critic would just share and rate objectively opinions...like what the NEWS channels are supposed to be...yet they are not.

There is no such thing as an "objective opinion", there's always subjectivity involved, that's the way opinions are.

Honestly, usually (and in this case given your posts on the topic), you don't actually want "objectivity" but you simply seem to want reviewers opinions to conform with your own.

[Big Thanks]

There is no such thing as an "objective opinion", there's always subjectivity involved, that's the way opinions are.

Honestly, usually (and in this case given your posts on the topic), you don't actually want "objectivity" but you simply seem to want reviewers opinions to conform with your own.

Yup, to me EVERYONE that said, for example, Monster Hunter for the Playstation 2 was a bad game...is compeltely out of touch critic that deserves to lose his/her job.
Because...to me...objectively...it was revolutionary and amazingly fun.

And btw

MANY people gave bad reviews to it and i sinked thousands of hours on it.

[Edge-]

Yup, to me EVERYONE that said, for example, Monster Hunter for the Playstation 2 was a bad game...is compeltely out of touch critic that deserves to lose his/her job.
Because...to me...objectively...it was revolutionary and amazingly fun.

That's not what objectivity is. You subjectively like the game and are upset that others don't share your opinion.

And btw

MANY people gave bad reviews to it and i sinked thousands of hours on it.

Again, you don't seem to understand that a game reviewing poorly doesn't mean it's not fun or that folks can't enjoy the shit out of it. Because the review score is not a "fun score", which you seem to continue to not understand.

[Big Thanks]

Again, you don't seem to understand that a game reviewing poorly doesn't mean it's not fun or that folks can't enjoy the shit out of it. Because the review score is not a "fun score", which you seem to continue to not understand.

Then explain to me WHY should i accept the opinion of a critic that said Monster Hunter for PS2 was bad?

Why should i think this person is sane?

Im watching the metacritic page right now.
Im seeing professional reviewers saying "graphics bad, sound bad" other one said "graphics good but controls bad, 30/100"

Im not understanding what SHOULD i think instead.
What are you trying to tell me? How should i feel about random reviewers?

edit: IMO the only bad thing of MH for PS2 was the controls...required eagle grip on controller AND ofcourse an internet connection

[Edge-]

Then explain to me WHY should i accept the opinion of a critic that said Monster Hunter for PS2 was bad?

...? You are welcome to disagree with them and nobody is saying you can't. Again, you're looking at "Did I enjoy this game?", critics are looking at, "Is this a good game?", which are two entirely different measures.

Why should i think this person is sane?

Because grown-ass adults are usually capable of accepting that people have different opinions, especially on trivial things like videogames?

Im watching the metacritic page right now.
Im seeing professional reviewers saying "graphics bad, sound bad" other one said "graphics good but controls bad, 30/100"

...and? Reviewers aren't hive-mind. Again, you fundamentally do not seem to understand the point of reviews.

Im not understanding what SHOULD i think instead.
What are you trying to tell me i should feel like?

You should think whatever you want! If you disagree with those reviews that's totally fine! I disagree with plenty of reviews! But the whole, "They're paid shills because they disagreed with my opinion!" or "THIS IS AN OUTRAGE THEY DISAGREED WITH MY OPINON ON A GAME!" or "THEY ARE A CRAZY PERSON BECAUSE THEY HAVE A DIFFERENT OPINION!" are all pretty unreasonable reactions.

Calling for people to lose jobs over a single review you disagree with? Like, that's kinda unhinged shit my dude.

[Fencers]

They are dumb to me for thinking one of this movies is "bad".

And people would think you "are dumb" for thinking those films are "good". That is the nature of opinion.

Critics typically explain their POV in the article. Which a "score" can not reflect. Especially aggregate scores- which is just an average.

Reviews are not recommendation engines either. That is to say, a review does not necessarily seek to provide a guide to relative value.

When Siskel & Ebert, who popularized movie critique in the US, brought film reviews to mainstream audiences they specifically decided on a binary rating system for ease of translation. In their written reviews, they both wrote exhaustively and in-depth on the elements of films. Sometimes giving a film a "yes/thumbs up" on their TV show but a mediocre analysis in print.

A film/game/record in aggregate having a score of "7/10" isn't negative. It's exactly average; which is the majority of media. Because it is average.

[Big Thanks]

Calling for people to lose jobs over a single review you disagree with? Like, that's kinda unhinged shit my dude.

Well...to be fair i gave the Monster Hunter 1 example...which is a legendary franchise loved by many...a pillar to the genre that also inspired many other games to copy it.
All those reviewers DIDNT notice potential on the franchise...and guess what....is legendary status now.

[Endus]

Again, you don't seem to understand that a game reviewing poorly doesn't mean it's not fun or that folks can't enjoy the shit out of it. Because the review score is not a "fun score", which you seem to continue to not understand.

Like, there's a game that I got way into way back in the earlier days of MMOs and I'm betting most here have never even heard of it; Auto Assault. The basic conceit was that rather than walking a dude around a fantasy world and auto-attacking things, you were driving around a post-apoc Mad Max/Fallout style world and your car was your "character" and the combat was all a lot more active than typical MMO at the time. It had a three-faction system rather than two, and there were mechanical differences between those factions. It all came together in a way that really engaged me. And the reviews were middling at best; https://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/auto-assault
For the era, it was ahead of its time, but it was also buggy as fuck sometimes and had basically marginal story; it deserves those middlin' reviews.

It ended up shutting down pretty quick, unfortunately.

I also got real big into APB when it first launched. Also kind of terrible in many ways; https://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/a...oints-bulletin

But fun as hell if you could get into it. Cop players getting benefits for arresting criminals with the less-effective nonlethals and taking the time to cuff the guy (and nonlethals wore off, so you couldn't safely down a team and then cuff 'em). The real big boon was the player creation system; they gave no fucks about nudity or crudity, and you could make player skins for cars and put up billboards and it was "anything-goes" except for outright hate speech. You could also create stuff like player "theme music" which would play a short clip of chiptune-style music, or clothing, and all this was marketable in-game for players to buy off other players; I had a modest business of building video game chiptune stuff in.

How much fun you find a "bad" game doesn't make it "not-bad". It just means you had fun with it.

- - - Updated - - -

All those reviewers DIDNT notice potential on the franchise...and guess what....is legendary status now.

Game reviewers don't review for "potential", at all. They review the game-as-it-actually-is. The closest they'll get is acknowledging major bugs and stating what the score would be for that specific game if those bugs were fixed. They're not ever gonna score a guess as to the "potential" of a franchise, especially not off a first game that may or may not even get a sequel.

[Fencers]

Well...to be fair i gave the Monster Hunter 1 example...which is a legendary franchise loved by many...a pillar to the genre that also inspired many other games to copy it.
All those reviewers DIDNT notice potential on the franchise...and guess what....is legendary status now.

No one reviews potential.

[Edge-]

Well...to be fair i gave the Monster Hunter 1 example...which is a legendary franchise loved by many...a pillar to the genre that also inspired many other games to copy it.

Completely irrelevant. This is petty and vindictive shit over a literal difference of opinion on a piece of entertainment. Opinion which clearly didn't hurt the franchise in the slightest.

All those reviewers DIDNT notice potential on the franchise...and guess what....is legendary status now.

...and? They're not fucking fortune tellers predicting the future. This is such an absolutely insane expectation of your fellow human beings. They reviewed the game as it was when it was released, nothing more. That's not their job to predict the franchises future and retroactively gush about "where it all started".