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

[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.

[Roanda]

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".

[Roanda]

Im not asking to review potential (>_<) guys

The game was revolutionary and without any major bugs. Not even disconnects were common.
I sinked thousands of hours in it...i skipped school to play it many times...im a loser today because of monster hunter 1 (nah just kidding, but i DID skip many school days for it)

I dont know what to say...

[Edge-]

Im not asking to review potential (>_<) guys

The game was revolutionary and without any major bugs. Not even disconnects were common.
I sinked thousands of hours in it...i skipped school to play it many times...im a loser today because of monster hunter 1 (nah just kidding, but i DID skip many school days for it)

I dont know what to say...

You brought up the reviewers "failure" to see the potential, that's on you.

Beyond that your complaints have transitioned from, "They're paid." to making it repeatedly clear that you don't understand the point of reviews, despite repeat explanations, and that you react with hostility towards opinions you disagree with (calling for reviewers to be fired). Those are all big "you" problems, and if you're not open to learning what reviews are and being reasonable then we can't help you out here.

[Roanda]

You brought up the reviewers "failure" to see the potential, that's on you.

Beyond that your complaints have transitioned from, "They're paid." to making it repeatedly clear that you don't understand the point of reviews, despite repeat explanations, and that you react with hostility towards opinions you disagree with (calling for reviewers to be fired). Those are all big "you" problems, and if you're not open to learning what reviews are and being reasonable then we can't help you out here.

Wait wait wait, there is a misunderstanding.
I dont agree with OP at all...and i never agreed to any conspiracy theories.

I said at most, "ofcourse there is pressures" because in life, specially in jobs like this there is always pressures...

[Neuroticaine]

About a decade ago or maybe half a decade ago, we had validated concerns that Triple-A game studios would pay off reviewers to shill their game even if it was shit.

But we've had a slew of Triple-A games in recent times, namely Callisto Protocol and Forspoken, that only had their reviews delayed; they opened to horrible reception.

I'm mainly suspicious because Resident Evil 4 remake reviews have been rolling in quite a bit ahead of release, and it has opened to near-universal acclaim.

If a company is confident in the quality of their product, they allow for it to be reviewed ahead of release.

If a company is not confident in the quality of their product, they usually legally require reviews not be released until release day via NDAs or simply not sending out review copies ahead of release.

Been like this for a very long time. And it's not always the case, either. There have been great games that did not allow for reviews ahead of release, and there have been bad games that have allowed reviews ahead of release. It's just rarely a good sign when a company does not allow their product to be reviewed before it's available to the masses.

[Fencers]

If a company is not confident in the quality of their product, they usually legally require reviews not be released until release day via NDAs or simply not sending out review copies ahead of release.

This is totally untrue. And it was my job for 4-5 years specifically to manage this sort of thing.

There is not one type of "review" copy of anything. A game review could be based on a previous iteration of the game than a retail release with unfinished or placeholder elements. Or entirely missing elements.

This is the same for film and television as well- this is very common in fact. I just got the Marvelous Ms. Maisel screeners last week and they were not finished for broadcast.

The longer the lead time for a review, the sooner platforms and publications would need the product for review.

This is called a commercial and professional review copy.

Another factor why NDAs are used is for spoilers, copywriter protections, and regional-based legal obligations to distributors and publishers.

You can not just say, "Oh it's Wednesday, March 20th. Push the button for the game release."

It does not work that way for any major game, film, or television show publication.

Edit: Also, an NDA is not what some people think it is. There is a lot an NDA will not cover. There is also a difference between a confidentiality agreement and a non-disclosure agreement in media. One doesn't necessarily cover the other. This was also my job for like 2 years.

[Neuroticaine]

see your statement. that's actual cope. It's mainstream to accept that reviews are dishonest crap these days. Probably because of all the movies getting 80's when they're 30's. And as for Elden ring, fromsoft doesn't need the reviews. Elden ring sold itself by existing, Dark soul's but open world was going to get game of the year regardless of reviews. And if you don't believe a bunch of people with no passion for the medium they review wouldn't set up a discord so they can coast like a failing college student. you're delusional. And as for last minute pre-orders in reality they're more influenced by pre-order bonuses disappearing rather than I dunno Kotaku. That being said I will give you reviews might probably influence children given they have a reduced amount of lived experience to reference.

But hey I got no idea who this NPD guy, but it's not as if people haven't falsified data before to inflate something's value.

Elden Ring has actually sold dramatically more than previous From Software games, well beyond the Souls series' usual core audience. This is absolutely helped by being portrayed as a modern masterpiece.

Whether you want to accept reality or not, the average gamer is NOT the "gamer" you have in your mind. The average gamer is normal people that generally do not have an opinion on games journalism one way or the other. However, tons of good reviews allows for the publisher to push for a renewed media blitz telling potential buys how great their product is, which increase product sales. If these did not matter, publishers would not continue to invest in accolades marketing. We wouldn't continue to see rereleases of games marketed as GotY Editions.

[Zenfoldor]

Look honestly, my truth is this. Yes there in some cases a level of trepidation of pissing off publishers but that is founded in worries about the basic understand of the game and unfair criticisms, not fair criticisms. For example, judging a whole 60 hour game by its bad ending decision is not fair and might anger publishers. Go to rotten tomatoes right now and look up a movie that is great with a bad ending. It will have mid to high critic, low user score.

You know what does actually make reviewers afraid? Putting a review out that angers gamers. Going viral for a bad review and getting personally attacked. Also their reputation loss and future work.

So pro reviewers have MUCH more incentive to get the review right than to try to pump the score up. People will know they were full of it once they play the game.

[Aliven]

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.

You can make story good or bad. You know that people write and study HOW to make story not sucks? The same thing with vibe - it can clash with other elements. Character design is the same, sound? Dont even get me started, you can have sound that actually annoy people, like scientifically proven.

Fun factor is the only thing that is 100% subjective but even it can be guided.

- - - Updated - - -

Look honestly, my truth is this. Yes there in some cases a level of trepidation of pissing off publishers but that is founded in worries about the basic understand of the game and unfair criticisms, not fair criticisms. For example, judging a whole 60 hour game by its bad ending decision is not fair and might anger publishers. Go to rotten tomatoes right now and look up a movie that is great with a bad ending. It will have mid to high critic, low user score.

You know what does actually make reviewers afraid? Putting a review out that angers gamers. Going viral for a bad review and getting personally attacked. Also their reputation loss and future work.

So pro reviewers have MUCH more incentive to get the review right than to try to pump the score up. People will know they were full of it once they play the game.

LoL, im sure AngryJoe is afraid of evil player base which would do what exactly to him?

[Tech614]

LoL, im sure AngryJoe is afraid of evil player base which would do what exactly to him?

There are still people that unironically watch joe for reviews? I thought that schmuck lost his gaming relevance years ago so started dipping into reviewing and reacting to other forms of media.

[Aliven]

There are still people that unironically watch joe for reviews? I thought that schmuck lost his gaming relevance years ago so started dipping into reviewing and reacting to other forms of media.

Irrelevant to the point im making. He is millionaire. He could just quit and be done. He doesnt give the fuck both what player base thinks and what companies thinks. It is priviledge for them to be reviewed by him and blacklisting him is simply a bad buisness.

[shane brannigan]

Elden Ring has actually sold dramatically more than previous From Software games, well beyond the Souls series' usual core audience. This is absolutely helped by being portrayed as a modern masterpiece.

Whether you want to accept reality or not, the average gamer is NOT the "gamer" you have in your mind. The average gamer is normal people that generally do not have an opinion on games journalism one way or the other. However, tons of good reviews allows for the publisher to push for a renewed media blitz telling potential buys how great their product is, which increase product sales. If these did not matter, publishers would not continue to invest in accolades marketing. We wouldn't continue to see rereleases of games marketed as GotY Editions.

You Know since you've brought it up. I think game of the year being a closed system is pretty much the only form of relevance most review outlets really have today.
Because While Smokey Joe the crack head might not read a IGN review, he sure as fuck can see "game of the year".

But as a whole kinda an outdated reductive take. The souls thing for example completely ignores, the influence increased internet availability around the world creating new markets. conversion of piracy to sale through grey market resellers, memetics, new generations entering the market, trusted influencers and the forming parasocial relationships. Streaming that's a big one. new social media formats. there's a whole host of reasons why Elden ring sold better than the souls series. the marketing pressure exuded by Conventual reviews is just a fraction of what it once was. they're hardly the driving factor behind a marketing blitz, personally while not my thing I think hololive does a lot more to market games than lets say Kotaku.

As for the "gamer" thing. I think you're consuming a niche sub-culture of power users with the general audience. its a degree of investment kind of thing.
For example a crack head plays the odd game while lighting up, probably not getting reviews from IGN. Average office worker hasn't got a lot of free time, more often than not doesn't have the energy to game, probably gonna ask friends who do game what they think before buying, then watch gameplay or dunkey. average heavy social media user, more exposure through adverts than anything else, probably doesn't know what rock-paper-shotgun is. the only people that would care, are the obsessive few and people who's careers kind of need to reference them.

But to reiterate my original post in this thread.
I kind of don't think they really need to pressure journalists, the lack of relevance does that already. + They kind of polarised their target audience.