>IGN backpedals on the Prey review score >4.0 turned i

Who are you quoting?

This shit is why GamerGate needs to be a thing again

Glad that payment issue got worked out. I hope they learned to use a bank draft for next time.

>>376849792
bethesda didn't pay IGN on time that's all

Why does /v/ care about numerical scores for games again?

File: 1442439532648.webm (695KB, 334x250px) Image search: [Google]

695KB, 334x250px

>>376849856

>>376849975
I've been saying this for years. GG was always too fixated on the social justice aspect and not the actual gaming journalism.

On that front nothing really has changed. People who go against the grain and call Bethesda out for releasing buggy, unfinished products are shunned and shamed from the industry.

>>376849792
wait.. original score was 4/10?

They must have had two reviewers give it a 4.

>>376850139
fuel for shitposting

>haha your game got .4 less than my game eat shit

>>376849975

What's unethical about changing a review when the basis for the bad score was fixed?

>>376849792
>backpedals
I don't think you know what that word means.

>>376850159
It turned into a social thing because the media, and bandwagoning idiots who didn't read the threads properly - reframed it that way. The original threads were entirely about Kotaku/Gawker being caught with their pants down, but they managed to reframe the entire thing for normies.

>>376850292
Nothing. /v/ just wants to see stuff fail and gets upset when it doesn't.

File: 1490165731539.jpg (260KB, 900x948px) Image search: [Google]

260KB, 900x948px

>When Prey launched, I hit a game-breaking bug on PC that prevented me from recommending it. That’s now been patched, and so has this review. It’s now updated to cover our experiences on all platforms. It was initially scored as a 4.0 on PC.
So instead of actually waiting for the bug to be fixed, he hastily pumps out a review for those sweet revenue?

>>376850139
it honestly helps with the console warring

>hahaha IGN give it a 4.0 just because the reviewer had a bug that nobody else had, what a load of shit, this is journalism lol

>hahaha now with the bugfix ign backpedaled and changed the 4.0 like it wasn't deserved, how's it like being on the developers payroll, this is journalism lol

I swear to god /v/

People bitching at them to the point where this happened was worse.

I can't believe it has come to saying the words; IGN was right.

If you release a game where the majority of players can't fucking get more than partway through due to a crippling bug, then it deserves a low score at release, regardless of the fact that you could patch it later.

>>376850449
He reviewed a product in the state it was released to consumers in; they deserve to catch shit for releasing broken products.

>>376850330

Also didn't help Milo Yiannopolus made it his pet issue and used it as a basis to attack women in gaming.

>>376850449
Can't wait for TotalAsspain's 2 hour long video on this debacle.

Good, now do the same to God Hand, you fucks.

>>376850449
This.
Shouldn't have even reviewed the game on PC if he wasn't even able to complete it.
Maybe put out a disclaimer for the reason why he didn't review it.

>>376850449
They shipped it as is, he adjusted the score once it was fixed. Not seeing the issue except it's IGN.

>>376850579
True true. Arkham Knight had backlash also because of that too.
>bothering with review numbers instead of actual in-depth reviews

>>376850530
reviews and metacritic threads are just underages endlessly shitposting, you should never take them seriously.

>>376850656
So saying "We cant even review this game because the devs are incompetent" would have been better than reviewing the game as it was?

File: 1311758127462.jpg (97KB, 625x552px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 625x552px

>>376850449

I don't put much stock in reviews, but you're honestly a bit of an idiot.

If a business makes a flawed product, the consumers should know about that. You shouldn't refrain from presenting criticism simply because they might fix it (which is far from guaranteed).

Game gets a super bad score when there's a game breaking bug that prevents you from finishing it, now that the bug is fixed they give it a "proper" review.

Why do you give IGN flak for this? As much as I love to hate them, they're doing the consumer a service here. When your game's sales are shit because the metacritic score tanks and consumers are made aware of the fact that you pushed out unfinished shit, you better fucking hurry fixing it and think twice next time

And now that they got off their asses and fixed it, why not give it a new score reflecting that.

>>376850687
This is going to set a hell of a precedent. Review scores haven't normally been changed for any reason other a poor review. Now every developer/publisher is going to demand changed reviews whenever they fix release issues.

>>376850579
He isn't at fault here for claiming the game was broken because it was, for him. But why did he give it a 4? Why not a 3 or a 2? Why put out a review at all? Why not just write an article about it and warning people? This was just a publicity stunt and it clearly worked

YA CAN'T SPELL IGNORANT...

>>376851168
If that means the initial score accurately reflects every launch hiccup, that's fine by me.

>>376851253
WITHOUT

>>376851290

NORA

>>376851231
>Why put out a review at all?

Are you stupid? He was given the product to review, encountered a massive flaw that many consumers might very well run into, and what he wrote reflected that. Everything is above board.

Are you operating under the assumption that reviews should not take bugs into account?

When they back peddle like this it just makes them look bad.

The plain old 8 looks like they're playing it safe

>>376851231
Because he felt he got enough of an experience out of it to judge the product, had fun with the game all the way till shortly before the end, plus in the review he pointed out that this is will likely get fixed, just there's no guarantee for that and you also don't know how soon. The culmination of that makes for a score that's not nothing, but should make you think twice before purchasing.

I mean it's fucking being sold for 60 bucks. Are they just going to not review it? I for one am glad they take it upon themselves to *warn* people to not shell out instead of waiting for a fix and pretending like there was no issue afterwards.

Fuck devs pumping out buggy unfinished crap. It's becoming more and more prevalent and if IGN are gonna be the ones to call it out, cool

>>376849792
You don't have any proof for it having been a 4

can I get some food analogies in here?

>>376849792
>>376850183
The original score was 4/10 because they ran into a game breaking bug and save corruption that made them unable to finish the game

>>376850921
>getting a game breaking bug which literally no one else had means the game is shit
Okay.
As if a disclaimer saying
>Currently I can't review the game on PC because I encountered a game breaking bug.
Wouldn't be enough.

>>376849792
They have absolutely no honor, shameful.

>>376850292
How am I supposed to trust any score when it can be changed on the fly like that?

>>376850449
Have you heard of this little thing called deadline? Maybe you do once you get a job

>>376851975

>This steak was shit on! 4 out of 10!
>Oh, its still got shit on it, but the chef apologized. 8 out of 10! Be sure to download our podcast!

File: 1494638230250.jpg (135KB, 582x581px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 582x581px

>you can change review scores
since when?

>>376852121
Well how about you read the accompanying review where they wrote a paragraph for why it was changed you doofus

It used to be a 4, it is now an 8, the reason is a game breaking bug that was fixed. Even if you can't be assed to inform yourself, even if you only look at the number to judge whether or not to buy, the change makes sense. And has been made very transparently.

>>376850606
>>>/lgbt/
Back to your containment, roastie.

>>376849792
>Gives one of the buggiest games in existence, Fallout 4, a 9.5
> Gives Prey a 4 for a bug that only a handful of people got

Cunts.

>>376851975
>I ordered a medium rare steak and they fucked up my order and gave me a well-done steak. I rate their medium-rare steak a 4/10 until they give me a proper medium-rare steak.

>>376852190
How is that in anyway reflective of what happened?
>I ordered a medium steak but this steak is beyond well done, I'm literally unable to eat this because the steak is so hard, I broke my knife on it. 4/10!
>The chef brought me a new steak that's been done exactly to my specifications, though the dish still leaves something to be desired. 8/10!

>>376851661
By "review" I mean a *scored* review. The score is what bothers me, not what he said. If a game breaks, of course he should point it out but a 4 is just weird since he obviously thinks the game is an 8. I think he shouldn't have put any number at all and the 4 was attention whoring

>>376851975
I just want some chinese food now

>>376852206
Since IGN

>>376852567
>I think he shouldn't have put any number at all and the 4 was attention whoring

They probably just wanted to make sure they ended up on Metacritic.

>>376852567
You call it attention whoring, I call it lampshading. Sure they could have gone "it was really good but sadly at the end there was a bug preventing us from finishing so we're holding off rating till there's a fix" but if suddenly the metacritic score is fucked and IGN followers see a 4.0 score thinking man this game must be garbage, and guess which one is going to make the devs hurry the fuck up and get their shit together faster

I feel it's silly how people are up in arms about the IGN score but the fact that the devs sell you a game that some people just can't fucking play is just commonplace now so nobody really gives a fuck. Fuck that. Fuck Arkane and thank you IGN for doing the right thing

>>376852786
Metacritic doesn't require a numerical score for a review to be listed, hell they even take non-numerical scores and add one to it based on "the review's general direction"

>>376853074

Ok, I didn't know that. I thought it required a listed score (even if that's a zero) to affect the aggregate.

>>376852206
Since the beginning of online ratings.
No one does it because you get threads like this.

>>376850159
this is you
>>376850156
the fucking media switched it to SJW shit, it was always about journalism

Giving numbers to videogames is retarded

File: 1433357304908.gif (27KB, 560x485px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 560x485px

>>376852206
>god hand is still 3.0
>they put it in their top 100 ps2 games list but didnt change the score

>>376853548

There aren't that many good PS2 games.

>>376852206
>he doesn't remember the shitstorm when gamespot's review of Shenmue came out
6.8 was too high honestly

>>376851879
>You don't have any proof for it having been a 4

http://www.ign.com/articles/2017/05/13/prey-review-2

>By Dan Stapleton [Note: When Prey launched, I hit a game-breaking bug on PC that prevented me from recommending it. That’s now been patched, and so has this review. It’s now updated to cover our experiences on all platforms. It was initially scored as a 4.0 on PC.]

tlgr; a big prevented them from finsihing it so they gave it a 4 Now that the bug has been fixed, they gave it an 8

>>376853695
pls

>>376853339
>the fucking media switched it to SJW shit, it was always about journalism
Absolutely not true, I go to 8ch every now and then and those cancerous faggots are just like /pol/, ranting about jews, globalists, women, niggers etc. It's pure cancer

>>376853695
ign has around 150 games rated at 9.0 or higher
and that is only ps2

>>376854106
The media tricked them first.

>>376849792
>Encounters one game-breaking bug
>Halves the review score

That shit is absurd. If a game works 99% of the time and yet you're unlucky enough to encounter a single bug that fucks everything up that shouldn't factor heavily into the review score. I've played lots of games I love that did something to fuck up my saves dozens of hours in. I don't hate FFX just because the game fucked up while saving at some point and forced me to start over.

mediocre score for a mediocre game

all is right

>>376854342

>like who cares if the game is literally unplayable it shouldnt matter if the product works or not!!

>>376854403
>8/10 is mediocre
Jesus.

>>376854312
Well maybe if they didn't bite, they could have been taken seriously. Instead they started doxxing and harrassing anyone who shit-talked them and lost all credibility

>>376854498
Wow, you used quote arrows but then didn't repeat anything I said at all! How'd you do that?

>>376849792
Honestly I think the 4 picture was just some faggot 4channer photoshopping shit.

>>376854498
>literally unplayable
To a very small percentage of the playerbase.
He really shouldn't have given the review a score at all.

File: JUMANJII.jpg (112KB, 942x1181px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 942x1181px

Anything less than a 10/10 isn't worth my time.

>>376854632

fucking LOL

you shills are god damn pathetic, please have some fucking respect for yourself.

>>376854619
No dumb shit it was on ign website

>>376854342
>That shit is absurd

It would be absurd to do otherwise - a review is meant to inform consumers. Without knowing why the bug occurs, or how likely it is to happen to the player, a reviewer has no choice but to assume that any given person might encounter the same bug.

You claim that the game
>works 99% of the time
but you're pulling that number directly out your ass. You have no idea how prevalent this bug might have been before it was patched.

>hey guys, just bought a new car, it doesn't start or go at all but 9/10 because it would probably be good if it worked!

>>376854760
I haven't even bought, or played Prey.
And have no interest in the game itself.

>>376854897

Then why on earth would you shill so hard.

File: 1345566670018.gif (928KB, 480x396px) Image search: [Google]

928KB, 480x396px

>issue gets fixed
>revise review to compensate for this
>/v/ still gets upset

IGN just can't win.

>>376854342
The majority of people is not interested in replaying the whole game up to that point if your save got corrupted.
If anything halving the score is too kind. Judging by the reviewer's experience it should have been no more than a 2.
Game-breaking bugs are entirely the developer's fault and should be handled as such.

>>376854841
>but you're pulling that number directly out your ass.
Yeah, it should be 99.99% of the time. Prey is hardly Deadly Premonition or Sonic 06, it's not so technically incompetent that the crashes and constant hiccups are worth mentioning. This dude had a save file corrupted, in a newly released game that the developer made a good effort to patch out quickly. This patch also restored those corrupted saves to working order. This review is based on its state on release, but if it was an 8 up until that point a save corruption glitch is nowhere near enough to plummet the score down to a 4.

File: 1456624074685.jpg (21KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 500x500px

>>376853695

>>376854981
well, they're fucking IGN, they deserved it.

Their dogshit review was up for days, now they're paying the price for having no quality control.

>>376855007
Even if I never replayed FFX I wouldn't have walked away thinking it was bad or not worth my money. Your point is totally stupid. You would only give this kind of score of the technical problems are game-breaking or the rest of the game was already shit.

>>376849792
>say combat is bad in a game where you fight most of the time
>8/10
Can anyone explain this shit?

>>376855174

Paying what price? lmao if you think this is a controversy.

>>376850563
To be fair it was a minor issue.
The bug was PC only I believe.

>>376855238
He didn't say the combat was bad, though.

>>376855256
>can't spell ignorance without IGN

>>376855174
>Give it a 4 with the condition that they will update their review if the bug gets fixed
>Bug gets fixed
>Keeping your word is lack of quality control

>>376855346

A bug that corrupts your save and makes you lose all progress is not a minor issue. Get your head out of your ass.

>>376853548
God Hand is shit, its just a meme game.

>>376855414
If it happens one time after hours of playing only to specific people, yes it is a minor issue.

>>376849792
>http://www.ign.com/articles/2017/05/13/prey-review-2
>no pros or cons
WHAT?

>>376854540
It is for mainstream game reviewing. For a big budget game, 8 is mediocre, and 6 is a death sentence.

It's because they released a patch that fixed a glitch that made you unable to complete the game. After it was fixed they updated the score.

I'm pretty fucking surprised a reviewer not dealing with a dev's shit and giving out a poor review for a shit product until they fixed it would be something that's encouraged here. Guess not

>>376852206
This is shocking.
I too felt the internet was a bastion of integrity as well.

>>376855380

can't spell dignity either, like having the dignity to give a bad product a bad score

>>376855518

I'm sure you'd feel the same if you played a game for 40 hours only to have to start all over while also risking having it happen again.

>>376855587
I'd be disappointed if it happened after 40 hours, but no I wouldn't hate the game enough for it to fundamental alter my perception of it. I'd curse my luck and nothing else.

>>376855587

Nice guys will tell themselves anything to avoid having to feel strongly about something, let them be, they won't change until they're ready.

>>376855568

/v/ will look for any reason to throw a shitstorm. What else is new.

>>376855063
>Yeah, it should be 99.99% of the time

Again, directly out your ass. You might be able to reasonably claim a majority of players didn't encounter that bug, but using hyperbole just makes you look foolish.

>if it was an 8 up until that point a save corruption glitch is nowhere near enough to plummet the score down to a 4.

This is a ludicrous statement, and I don't think you actually believe it.

If someone plays the game, encounters this bug, and is literally unable to progress because of it, then that game probably isn't a great experience for them. Whether or not they refund it, that person would most likely feel as if they didn't get their moneys worth. I see no reason why a review score shouldn't reflect a similar attitude.

>>376855587

But the fix for the issue fixed the broken saves too, and it was fixed within a day of the game being out

STOP SUPPORTING GAMING WEBSITES.

We blew the lid on how corrupt and incestuous these retards are years ago.

They're glorified advertising for triple A companies and any indies that the writer has a close personal relationship with.

>>376855765

And they revised the review to compensate for this. What is wrong with this?

>>376849792
bethesda's cheque cleared

>>376855587
No point in arguing with him, we all know he'd have a thread up flaming the fuck out of the game if it happened to him.
It's like trying to argue with the dickhead at the bar no one likes talking to.

>>376851106
>"proper"
The first review was as proper as the second.
I think IGN were correct enough, though there are some issues with the reviewer's choice, in different ways:
>get literally game-breaking bug
>still give it a 4 instead of a fucking 0
or
>get literally game-breaking bug
>search for info on it and find out it's a known, extremely rare bug that is scheduled to be patched
>rush out review before the patch hits giving it a 4, in the full knowledge that the patch will fix the issue and the vast majority of players will never experience it
instead of
>Making it very clear he got a game breaking bug and not marking it a review In Progress with no score

Altering the review to an 8 is, like the 4 in the first place, not a terrible move for that system the review has to live in.
The problem is
A) Scores are fucking stupid, and
B) video game journalism is inherently crippled by the need to generate clicks and page views.
>>376851168
In progress reviews and scores being changed have happened before. This guy blew it up into a thing by a ludicrous choice because he wouldn't wait for the planned patch that would fix his problem.

File: 1391113253897.jpg (129KB, 960x960px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 960x960px

>>376855902
>cheque

>>376855702
Dude you're so full of shit. You really think just because your save got corrupted that literally everything else about the game falls in quality as a result? Having a save file corrupted a dozen hours in will alter whether or not you would recommend it? No, I do actually believe everything I'm saying and I don't think you actually know what you're talking about? What kind of child lets something like that completely flip their opinion of a game?

>>376850159
No, I was there when it happened.

It started out as Five Guys Burger and Fries, where we made fun of a dumb whore for fucking a bunch of beta males for her shitty indie games to get good reviews. The whole "so basically all reviews are bought one way or another" was something that everyone on /v/ that wasn't a newfag already knew about, it just surprised no one.

>>376855410
>IGN damage control

>>376855180
>play game for hours
>save corrupts
>have to replay it again if you want to experience more of the gameplay or see how it ends
>not walking away with a bad experience
Also save corruption is a major flaw not a bagatelle, it's definitely on the verge of game breaking.

The problem is that because Metacritic is shit, IGN's 4.0 review is still weighing down the aggregate score, and still says "The PC version is broken", and it will forever.

For ever.

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/prey/critic-reviews

>>376850626
http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sps46i
Key points if your attention span isn't up to snuff: Review scores suck and there is no consistency when you rate Prey a 4 for bugs when you've rated Dishonored 2 and Fallout 4 very highly.

>>376856046
It surprised me that EVEN FUCKING FREE INDIE GAME DEVS were that corrupt.

>>376850159
Fuck off Cody

4 is too low
but 8 is too high

Game is a solid 6.5, it's been done better more than once. We didn't need it done once more, pretending it's the first time.

So glad Bethesda ruined the IP themselves, all their effort for nothing. Serves them right, I laugh at Prey (2017)'s pathetic sales and lukewarm reception.

>>376855568
Nah it's a cuntish thing to do because a lot of people will just read the score and not even check the review. Plus devs get bonuses depending on metacritic scores.

Should've just called it ungradable until the bug was fixed.

>>376850159
Everyone thinks you're a loser, Cody.

Honestly, this game still deserves a 4 even without bugs.

>>376849792
The payment from Bethesda to IGN was a bit delayed.

In all seriousness though, the bad review score was because of the bug that was patched.

if the game can't be completed then they shouldn't score it at all

>>376856960
It was patched before the review was even released
They just wanted clicks

>>376856501
>Woman
>Colored hair SJW
>Looking for attention

It doesn't surprise me

>reviewers so spineless they back down to fanboys bitching at them and revise their scores
>unless of course if the game is japanese or niche

>>376855996
>You really think just because your save got corrupted that literally everything else about the game falls in quality as a result?

Your logic is shaky - you seem to be implying that IGN review scores are simply a sum total derived from the score of each individual 'part'. As far as I know, that's not the case. If the reviewer felt that the bug dropped an 8/10 game down to a 4/10, then that was at his discretion.

So are you complaining that the original score wasn't accurate, or that IGN's scoring/review system itself is faulty?

>Having a save file corrupted a dozen hours in will alter whether or not you would recommend it?

That would be up to the individual consumer. I pointed out how, given the lack of technical information, the reviewer could probably not make any assumptions about the prevalence of that particular bug. The point of a review is to inform the consumer, and if the author of that review didn't feel that the bug was worth mentioning, he probably wouldn't have mentioned it. But he did so, and I see no reason indicating that the article wasn't written in good faith and with the intention to present accurate information.

Why, exactly, do you feel that I'm full of shit?

>>376856657
Shouldn't have released the game with a game-breaking bug then.
Devs actually getting punished for delivering half-finished games and then patching them afterwards should be common practice.

Is anyone even going to remember this game outside of this year?

Has anyone here played The Darkness or the reboot of Syndicate?

The Darkness is a good game too but people get so fucking worked up over these scores. They don't mean anything - stop reading IGN.

grim fandango got a 9 and contains a game breaking bug

Relax people the check was late that's all.

>>376857213
I wish The Darkness was on PC
That game is great

>>376857280
Bear in mind that the reviewer is a known idiot

seems IGN doesn't have any editors on their payroll, which speaks volumes about video game """journalism"""

>>376852129
>sorry boss, my word document got bugged, but at least I'm giving you this piece of paper with 5 words on it

>>376856657
>Should've just called it ungradable until the bug was fixed.

Why? A review score should reflect the experience of the reviewer. If a bug ruins that experience, you give it a bad score. I realize that doesn't often happen in practice, but maybe it should.

Are reviewers only supposed to review games when they feel it deserves a good score?

File: 1334521988936.jpg (61KB, 320x304px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 320x304px

>>376850159
Fuck off, Cody "Edgeworth" Touchdown, you disgusting mouthbreathing shit vulture

>>376857148
I've heard very few people complain about game-breaking bugs and the devs released an update that fixed the bugs and the corrupted saves like before the IGN review was up.

Pretty sure it was just done as an excuse to kick Bethesda for not sending reviews copies, considering how broken games like Fallout rake good scores.

>>376849792
Well, it looks like that Zenimax finally remembered to pay the review toll.

>>376856501
the stereotype of women fucking their way into jobs and shit wasn't just made up

>>376857561
Doesn't matter how many other people had the same bug. You're supposed to review your experience with the game.
As long as it is the game's fault and not something on your end then it is entirely valid to bring up.

>>376857484
>Movie is a solid 8/10 from what I've seen but two thirds in the theater caught fire, we had to ecacuate and I spilled some drink on my shirt
>2/10 my day was ruined

I'm not sure that's a very professionnal attitude but that's vidya journalism.

>>376857484
The patch that fixed the bug the reviewer was complaining about came out on the same day the review was posted.
The patch even fixed the corrupted save files, which meant the reviewer could have continued where he left off.
The original review was done entirely for page views and attention.

>>376857865

Fucking awful analogy.

3/10 you can do better.

>>376857865
That's not the movie's fault though. And if you insist that it is then you should give the movie a 0/10 don't watch this movie you can die.

>>376857805
You bring it up yeah, but you shouldn't let it affect your rating if the game let you play 30 hours without issue.

Say it's good (or shit depending on your opinion) and put an huge red bar saying "wait before buying".

>>376857915
>The patch that fixed the bug the reviewer was complaining about came out on the same day the review was posted

And the score was then changed to reflect that. But before that, he encountered a bug that broke his saves. Thus, the original score.

Or are you claiming that he actually played the patched version, and his score of 4/10 is actually a disingenuous one? Seems unlikely.

>>376858231
>Or are you claiming that he actually played the patched version, and his score of 4/10 is actually a disingenuous one?
I honestly wouldn't put it past an IGN "journalist".

>>376858231
>And the score was then changed to reflect that. But before that, he encountered a bug that broke his saves. Thus, the original score.
Like four days later. How reactive and representative of the game's current state.

>>376857865
No you fucking retard, a better analogy would be that you're enjoying some chicken noodle soup; the chicken's tasty, the noodles are thick and delicious, but all of the vegetables inside are totally raw and rotted. It doesn't matter how good the rest of the soup is because it had fucking rot in the veggies.

>>376858137
>you shouldn't let it affect your rating

Why? What's the logic? He's reviewing the quality of the game, not the quality of the game except for bugs.

I'm not sure I get why people are claiming that bugs should not be factored into the review score. The only thing IGN is guilty of is not doing this for every game out there - maybe then Bethesda wouldn't be getting 8's and 9's all the time.

>>376858137
I don't see why you think the overall experience can't be bad as a whole if went to shit at the last second.
Like most movie reviewers will decrease the score significantly if the ending was shit and retroactively ruined the rest of the experience.

>>376858384

>They didn't fix it fast enough!

Not sure if I should be taking you seriously.

>>376858474
>food analogy
That's also pretty far from the truth, though.
A better analogy would be that you're enjoying some chicken noodle soup; the chicken's tasty, the noodles are thick and delicious and all the vegetables inside are fresh and cooked to perfection.
But the bowl you're eating the soup out of breaks mid meal, ruining your experience.

File: 14341400_1379120808781894_560557396_n.jpg (47KB, 640x898px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 640x898px

>>376858663
food analogy

>>376858663

You're implying that the bugs one might encounter while playing a game are not really a part of the game itself (just as the bowl is technically separate from the food).

But I think that claim is pretty illogical. A video game is a piece of software, bugs and all.

Stop with the food analogies THEY DON'T EVER WORK

>>376858384
>game comes out in poor state
>gets patched later

>review comes out in not-up-to-date state
>gets patched later

Sounds like a decent dose of well deserved irony to me.

>>376858950
>>376856436

>>376857213
i played the darkness 2 and man that game's marketing did it no favors, it was like some crazy spinoff of Shadow Warrior with shoulder dragons.

>>376859007
That's metacritic's fault then, not IGN.

>>376858525
I dunno, if the game has non-game breaking bugs or very common game-breaking one it should factor in, but a single game-breaking bugs that's fixed quickly shouldn't tank a review like that

>>376858630
Devs can get extra cash depending on the reviews the game gets tho.

>>376850656
Reviewers never complete a game before reviewing it.

>>376858940
The bugs are technically not a part of the game, though.
They're obviously not intended, and only exist because something gets wonky with the code.
Just like a soup bowl breaking mid meal.

>>376858663
think of it more like this

You're driving a car, it handles well, has good gas mileage, the interior is nice and comfortable etc.

Then suddenly it blows an intake due to faulty designs that could've been fixed but weren't.

They come out with a model that has that problem fixed, and you give it another try and all is good.

Thats what happened

>>376859146
Then what's the problem with the game-breaking bug that prevents him from completing the game :^)

>>376858950
A game like Fallout 4 or any EA game comes out "in poor state". Redefine your vocabulary.

>>376859163
More like getting food poisoning from mussels because nobody bothered to check if they were safe.
But aside from that they tasted good.

File: 1483470773397.jpg (39KB, 1024x564px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 1024x564px

>>376858474
>Food analogy

>>376858525
It depends on what the bugs are. The reviewer has no idea if the bugs are only on his copy of the game or if the bugs are on all copies. Also, the bugs might be patched out later, making his review obsolete. The reviewer must be lenient with them, crashes and small annoyances like in the Prey review shouldn't affect the score too much, while game-breaking bugs like in Sonic 06 should definitely affect the score.

>>376850563
Except the bug he encountered was part of the very small minority. On most sites I see praise for the port.

>>376849792
>Note: When Prey launched, I hit a game-breaking bug on PC that prevented me from recommending it. That’s now been patched, and so has this review. It’s now updated to cover our experiences on all platforms. It was initially scored as a 4.0 on PC.

Fuck off.

Reviews are largely useless these days. And people who claim developers should release games in perfect condition are stupid.

The only thing that matters is the quality of a game after the first 2-6 months. Buying games at release is idiotic, and arbitrarily deciding only the release build gets a review score is wrong.

>>376859136
>a single game-breaking bugs that's fixed quickly
>that's fixed quickly

That's the key here - it was fixed, so the review score was changed. Why shouldn't it be given a low score in the meantime? If the devs want to have their game scored higher, they better get to work.

>>376859367
What is your point?
Anyone reviewing Fallout 4 upon release should have taken that into consideration.
You don't think Fallout 4 deserved the fantastic scores it got do you?

>>376859697
>Also, the bugs might be patched out later, making his review obsolete
The patch that fixed the bug came out on the same day as the review.
And it was known way before hand that the patch was coming out on that day.
>The reviewer has no idea if the bugs are only on his copy of the game or if the bugs are on all copies
It's a good thing this thing called the Internet has been invented a pretty long time ago, then.
To fucking check if it actually was just a freak accident in his copy, or a huge issue with the game everyone has.

>>376859881
>You don't think Fallout 4 deserved the fantastic scores it got do you?
It most definitely didn't.
And not even because it was a buggy mess, it was just a terrible game altogether.

>>376850183
Yeah, their first check didn't clear and IGN thought Bethesda was trying to get a freebie.

>>376850292
Reviews are usually for launch right? If an update comes out for a game that isn't dog shit on launch they don't do a second review to reflect the changes.

>>376854589
are you upset that leftypol was deleted and you have no where to go?

>>376859912
Reviewers usually play their games a few days, even weeks before they come out. They can't know for sure.

>>376859776
Who's corporate dick do you have up your ass? Expecting a product to be presentable when you pick it up should be the norm.
The only reason we're in this current situation where you can't pick up AAA games at launch and expect them to have gone through quality control is because it has been tolerated for so long now. It's extremely anti-consumer.

>>376860157
>leftypol was deleted
Wait wat

>>376859697
>The reviewer has no idea if the bugs are only on his copy of the game or if the bugs are on all copies

And that's probably what the author of the Prey review thought - if he has no idea what causes the bug, then he should assume that any given person could also encounter it. Thus, the low score helps to inform the consumer that he doesn't recommend you buy it. The IGN reviewer made the right call.

If he refused to change the review score, then I might agree with people. But he didn't, and I'm not sure why anyone is complaining. Game breaking bugs should hurt a games reception - to claim otherwise is ridiculous.

>>376850159
Just let the gaming sites die. They eventually will just from being so shitty.

Games journalism is such a joke.

They were completely right in giving a broken game a low score. Games should not be broken on release.

I repeat.

Games should not be broken on release.

The 4.0 should have stuck as a reminder for developers to bug test their shit

>>376849792
Not even going to read the thread. They gave it a 4 originally because of some game breaking bug they couldn't get past. Devs patched it, so now there's a finished review

Off yourself for your shit thread

>>376861214
If a movie critic got a fucked up DVD should he give the film a bad review because he couldn't finish it? Christ you're fucking retarded

>>376850159
lmao no it wasn't.
>being surprised that game ""journalism"" is corrupt garbage with no merit
No one is this retarded. It was literally just people shitting on some whore then reacting to the fucking massive organized response from faggot websites like Kotaku and Cracked. Which again shouldn't have been surprising but it rustled some jimmies.

For a bunch of "gamers" they had no fucking winstate, whores will be whores and shills will be shills for all time.
The only reason they got the last laugh is because GG basically vetted Trump supporters for the meme war.
It wasn't the decider but damn there is just no logical explanation as to why they overplayed their hand so much for one slut who made terrible games.

>>376861508
It is a software issue, meaning the problem exists on all copies. It is just hard to activate.
And yes if that's the case, the critic should definitely say that you should not buy the DVD.

File: 1480287818204.jpg (84KB, 583x851px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 583x851px

>>376861508
Holy shit you are dense. It's not a single copy of the game. All of them were broken.

>>376860272
>the low score helps to inform the consumer that he doesn't recommend you buy it.

A reviewer doesn't recommend a game, he reviews it, sees if it's good or not. It's not his job to tell you to buy a game or not, although he can influence the reader's decision with his review. If he thought the game was good minus the bugs that will probably be patched later on, then he should give it a good score and simply mention the bugs in his review.

>>376861919
No they weren't? I played through the whole game encountering one bug tops on the ps4. SOME people encountered save file corruption like the IGN reviewer. Devs patched it out and now the guy can actually review the game. You're just some faggot looking for another MUH TORTANIC

File: eddie[2].png (841KB, 2284x1208px) Image search: [Google]

841KB, 2284x1208px

>nu/v/ is so pathetic it's defending devs releasing broken games to the public just because MUH GAMING JOURNALISM BOOGEYMAN

Everything has to be a conspiracy theory in this industry. It can't just be that a company released a fucked up game, got hit for it, fixed it and the hit piece was changed.

This is the kind of thing you Goobergaters WANTED. Ethically responsible reviewers who don't just give 9 and 10s to every big name publisher and developer and holds the industry accountable for its fuck ups.

Sad thing is that this shitposting will drown a good game and a few years later when Arkane is dead, people will say "Hey that was actually really good!"

>>376862294
See thats what these fags in here dont get, they probably didnt even read the guys original review. He literally starts off the review saying that he wants to call prey a good game, maybe even a great game, but he can't say because the save bug. They patched it, he finished it, and now he can actually review it.

>>376863052
>This is the kind of thing you Goobergaters WANTED.
I thought guys supporting it left in the first place or are at /pol/.

>>376862294
He thought the game was decent until he encountered a game-breaking bug which sullied his whole experience.
That's a perfectly valid reason to give it a bad score overall.

>>376862951
I don't disagree with you saying that he could have changed his review score, I just think that the original analogy with the DVD sounded like it was spouted by some raging autist.

>>376862294
>A reviewer doesn't recommend a game, he reviews it, sees if it's good or not

You are outright wrong - most reviewers are aware of how subjective their criticisms can be. If you run into one that blatantly tells you "If I gave it a good score that means it is a good game, period", then feel free to call him a fucking idiot. He's supposed to give his opinion, and it's up to you to decide how much weight that opinion holds.

>It's not his job to tell you to buy a game or not

It's his job to inform you of whether or not he THINKS a game is worth buying (or at least playing). If he doesn't think the unpatched version of the game was worth buying, then he should tell you so.

>the bugs that will probably be patched
>probably

I don't trust reviews much anyways, but a reviewer that recommends buggy games simply because he thinks the bugs will "probably" be patched is a fucking snake. Imagine if the bug in question had a chance to happen to 90% of all the players - it would be absolutely unbelievable if a reviewer gives the game a great score simply because he believes that the game MIGHT get a patch.

The truth of the matter is that nobody but the devs knows whether or not a game will get patched, and a reviewer should never pass up the chance to critique a game for having bugs.

>>376854114
>an IGN certified 3/10 is better than fifty-one 9/10s
yup sounds like IGN logic

>>376852121
>trusting gaming media review scores
Don't. If they're not corrupt they're just incompetent at actually reviewing games. And don't listen to /v/ either because people here just want to shitpost and out-contrarian each other. If you're interested in a game, watch a walkthrough or a stream of it for a few minutes and if you like what you see, think about buying it. That's my advice.

>>376857517
>>376856579
Reminder that it's now rumored by old tweets sent to his deleted account that he ran over a man and laughed about it

>>376849792
>"game sucks i hate it"
>"actually game is great nevermind"
QUALITY IGN REVIEWS

>>376864478
Who is Cody? I pretty much stopped caring about GamerGate when Jim left.

File: The underage part is most likely outdated.jpg (2MB, 1984x4320px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1984x4320px

>>376864873
A pest that was unearthed last year

>>376863498
And he did critique the game for having bugs hence the 4 score

Then the devs patched it so he could finally finish it and thats his final score

It IS actually a pretty decent game. 60 dollars worthy? Very few games are. Buy it on sale when its 40? Absolutely

>>376865196
>And he did critique the game for having bugs hence the 4 score

And there's nothing wrong with that. But saying he should have given an 8/10 when he encountered a bug that corrupted his saves is just laughable.

>>376863125
Most people skip the actual reviews and directly jump to the score, which is why situations where a game has bugs can be problematic.

>>376863498
>most reviewers are aware of how subjective their criticisms can be

I thought that should go without saying, a reviewer obviously decides if a game is good or not from his subjective point of view.

>If he doesn't think the unpatched version of the game was worth buying, then he should tell you so.

Yes, in the actual review and not on the overall score. The possibility that he is the only one who has the bug or that the game gets patched exists.

>a reviewer that recommends buggy games simply because he thinks the bugs will "probably" be patched is a fucking snake

Again, a reviewer doesn't recommend, he reviews. The bugs should definitely be mentioned in the review, but they should not affect the final score too greatly (Except if it's Sonic 06 levels of bugs).

>>376856046
>Threads about some dumb indie dev fucking guys for positive articles
>Turns into some god awful MUH JOURNALISM ETHICS
>Mutates further to MUH SJWS AND /POL/ FAGS
>End result is just some shitty footnote that was maniupulated by both sides to push their agenda
That shit ruined this website even further, Now everything is /pol/ and 4chan is viewed as some political website rather than the "seedy underbelly of the internet"
I miss when /b/ brought the underage and retards in, now it's fucking /pol/ and they leak everywhere

>>376865368
>Most people skip the actual reviews and directly jump to the score
>Yes, in the actual review and not on the overall score.
You see why those two are contradictory right?
He wants to warn people about the bug, and if people don't read the review then through the score is the best way to do so. He is also reviewing one version of the game, what implementations the devs might go for in the future is entire irrelevant to the experience he had.

>>376865368
>in the actual review and not on the overall score

That's just pointless semantics. You want him to say he thinks the game isn't worth buying, while at the same time giving it a great score? What's the point?

>The possibility that he is the only one who has the bug

Sure, it's a possibility - but he's writing the review to inform consumers. He would be doing a disservice to the readers if he didn't assume that it could happen to any given person (assuming he isn't aware of any specific technical information regarding that bug).

>Again, a reviewer doesn't recommend, he reviews

Again, you are wrong. A review can definitely act the part of either an endorsement or a condemnation. Do you honestly think there are no reviews out that that outright say something along the lines of "This game is worth a play through" or "I would definitely recommend purchasing this game"? You're outright lying to yourself if you think that.

>The bugs should definitely be mentioned in the review, but they should not affect the final score too greatly

Why? This is something that people keep saying, but not explaining. If a game has a severe bug, it gets a bad score. If that bug gets patched, the score gets raised. What is the problem with this sequence of events?

File: 18446781_1843643572567507_6181281079916073838_n.jpg (36KB, 718x362px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 718x362px

>>376865736
>I should lower the quality of my reviews because my audience is stupid

This is why reviews are so shitty these days.

Why games like pokemon like X/Y which also had a bug that corrupted your save file which had to be patched get great scores and no one bats an eye but for this game it would be ok to give it a freaking 4 over that? Its because muh bethesda is evil hive-mind which is so prominent on this place?

>>376849792
game reviews are like 100% paid

if you spend that much money working on a project how could you not set aside a relatively small amount as a marketing cost to bribe large reviewers, it's definitely worth it

>you want our help, go get the turret plans and set some up
>Alright whatever
>Get plans, go make a ton of turrets
>"You want the codes, make use some turrets"
>maybe I need to bring them inside and defend the door?
>spend 10 minutes throwing all my turrets through the window because no other way
>set up all turrets outside door
>"You want the codes, make use some turrets"
Bitch, what do you want from me? I can just hack that door and ruin everybody's day right now. I'm trying to be nice here.

>>376866001
Not what I'm saying at all.
The bug was detrimental to his experience and should therefore be added to the overall score.
Only mentioning a game-breaking bug in the review and not including it in the score is misleading the audience.

The game is mediocre as fuck though

There's not enough weapons and the guns aren't satisfying
There's little in the way of enemies and they're easy to cheese because stealth is a joke
The story and characters are not memorable
The music is almost non-existent. There's just this crappy ambient track for every area of the game
Hacking is an awful mini-game
You don't get psi powers till a third of the way through
Researching of enemies is boring
Crafting and upgrading of weapons is insulting
Ammo isn't even remotely scarce

The level design is good. That's about it.

6/10 at best. Completely forgettable experience.

>>376855980
its the correct way to spell it brochacho

>>376855796
>That guy who thinks Gamer Gate did anything

>>376866219
Now everyone is pissed at me for forcing the door open because I was tired of her bullshit. Even though Nobody died and all the enemies got slaughters in 5 seconds will the amount of turrets I had. No, it's okay. No need to thank me.