Do you believe in paid reviews?

File: lolign.png (49KB, 1008x356px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 1008x356px

yes

If they're not paid directly, they're paid in different ways such as giving holidays to come try it or giving out goodie bags of shit to help sway the vote.

>>387826004
Of course not, I mean...

http://www.pcgamer.com/dragon-age-2-review/

File: 1394329694651.jpg (37KB, 511x341px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 511x341px

>>387826004
Believe? Pretty sure some people got sued for not disclosing.

No. Every single review is totally honest. No shills at all

Yes.

People that are denying this are completely retarded.
pretty much kind of journalism is paid-off.

>>387826439
while this is true, they also are paid directly, go to a game website and you will see adverts for new games, those adverts are paid for so theres an incentive to be nice to the companies that pay to advertise on their site aswell.

Did you think after GG we'll never have another shot at dodgy reviews? Ever since then any criticisms of any journo activities is immediately boiled down to fuck off gamer gate reee.

>>387826632
just turn on adblock and wait for them to fall into obsurity and irrelivance

>>387826004
I vaguely recall some EDGE writer getting drunk on twitter and saying its true and specifically named a few, but then the next day he took it all back but was still fired.

>>387826004
>believe
Thats how they call paid promotion nowadays?

>Journalism
>in 2017

it's fucked.

>>387826004
BotW having 97 on Metacritic is the purest example of their existence.

>>387826084
>Jose Otero

No, I think that's just biased. Same goes when Greg Miller or Colin Moritary reviewed Sony games giving it 10's. You don't let fanboys review games.

Anyone who does not think it happens is a retard and should be ignored.

>>387826004
even if these hacks don't get paid directly, there's a whole industry of sketchy stuff. for example, selective granting of review copies, 'press events' that are fully catered etc.

Konami had a whole bunch of reviewers and community people come to their place for MGSV and basically sucked their dick the entire time

game reviews aren't high art, and people like nice things

>>387827079

>game for children
>97 points

wtf?

>>387826004
Reviews are pure! pure!

It's not like WB gave money to youtubers to promote their games. That's was just a coincidence and in no way related.

>>387827460
I was 98 at one point.

>>387827460
Do you expect someone giving an 8.8 again to a zelda game after last time?

>>387826004

It's very hard not too when the supposed objective reviewers have massive adds placed all around their sites

File: reviews.png (1MB, 1726x1090px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1726x1090px

No. Paid Reviews is just a scapegoat people use when a game from a company/series they dont like gets favorable scores.

At worst a game will get a bit of leeway (to a degree) because its a popular franchise but anyone who actually thinks companies directly gives journalists cash to not say bad stuff about their games are dumb conspiracy theorists.

>>387826004
Not really since they are professional journalists and experts in videogames

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3pQ0oO_cDE

>>387827945
is that you, pew?

File: 1502313724007.gif (434KB, 512x807px) Image search: [Google]

434KB, 512x807px

>>387827945
Who made this? For what reason exactly? I know Nintendo games aren't always perfect 9-10's, but for someone to go out of their way to make this collage to prove a point makes me think.

>Why would Nintendo pay to grade Star Fox Zero highly if the audience is only niche
>ARMS is a brand new IP, and has time to grow in the future, so why would Nintendo waste bank on that?
>Hey Pikmin was outsourced trash made by Arzest, only to make a quick buck.

>>387826004
Sure I do. They aren't as common as many people think, though.
Only a very naive and childish person would fail to see that bribing for better scores happens for videogames reviews just like it happens for movie reviews.

>>387828518
Star Fox Zero was supposed to revive the franchise, why wouldnt they?

>>387826004
Sure CDPR exist.

I believe in nepotism over paid review to be honest.
How many of these people do you think are friends with devs? Probably a lot.

File: the-last-of-us-citizen-kane.jpg (64KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 1280x720px

Does Naughty Dog pay for reviews?

>>387826004
yeah, but i try not to read them anymore

File: mqdefault.jpg (16KB, 320x180px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 320x180px

>>387828864

>>387827460
These are the same people who mindlessly andf endlessly wank off cinematic movie games like Uncharted and gave Gone Home 10/10's across the board. For them to like Zelda is way too far of a stretch to believe. Either nintendo greased their palms, threatened to blackmail them from any future interviews of their games, or intimidated them via their fanboys, like when Jim Sterling got death threats and DDOS' on his website. Sure I don't agree with that asshole on many of his points, but that's going too far.

File: mea score.png (50KB, 641x331px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 641x331px

>>387826004
If the game is actually an irredeemable heap of shit, then yes.

>>387827946

I laugh, cry, and become angry everytime I see that shit ass gameplay. I then remember the coordinated effort between 7 sites defending that bullshit.

Anyone have that screenshot of Ninja Theory literally posting a review score from Xbox magazine before it went to print?

>>387826004
I don't believe in paid reviews. I do however believe that reviewers artificially inflate scores of bad AAA games to make sure the big companies don't get mad at them and stop giving them early review copies. See: Mass Effect Andromeda, Fallout 4

File: 1490262073397.jpg (316KB, 695x726px) Image search: [Google]

316KB, 695x726px

>>387829520
>when you think that the cuck factor will be enough to get good reviews and dont pay extra money to get decent numbers.

Its likely common practice by now. Not literally paid as such, but granted through various favors (ad space, travel, gifts etc.). At this point is likely publishers are cooperating with the gaming media to set a specific narrative.

The fact there are a large quantity 9s and 10s thrown around more in recent times than ever is an indicator.

AAA game development is expensive. The publishers have to ensure they can gross enough revenue.

>>387830514

fucking Chad

>>387828518
>why would [insert company] waste bank on a new IP

Why wouldn't a company invest on something they just made and want to succeed. It would be a waste of money just to let it sit there and rot.

>>387826831
great evidence

File: mb.png (53KB, 1239x260px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 1239x260px

Yes.

>>387830625

There was an article as far back as the mid 90's. It's common knowledge that the biggest publishers are in bed with the major reviewing publications, not directly with cash, but with favors as you said. They'll fly them to a special location, provide beer, high quality food, and various other luxuries, and then have them play a very specific section of the game that showcases only the best setpieces. These favors will then be held over their heads by not so subtly hinting that these favors will disappear along with review copies if the score isn't favorable.

>>387830837

>freedom to play how you want and create your own narrative is a negative
>bugs are bad as long as they aren't in a Bethesda game.

i am filled with hate

>>387829005
No, they pander to exactly what critics want from games though.

More movie and more "experience" than game.

>>387830514
He doesnt deserve the name Chad

>>387831002

There's a rumor Sony has taken it one step further and using it as a negotiation tactic for third party support, ensuring inflated scores.

Its also somewhat curious how Sony has employed people from the media e. g. Nick Suttner, Shane Bettenhausen a. o. as far as I recall.

>>387832007
If only they could hire someone to fix their damn PSN. Between the constant downtime, security leaks, and downright amateurish user interface, I can't think of a reason to pay their inflated prices.

>>387832149

Fucking PSN. I guess the revenue from PSN Gold is all going to the rest of their failed business ventures.

>>387830625
I remember a local editor from a magazine in my country (argentina) said, in response to complains about the inflated scores for some games and the decline of quality in the magazine in general, that some concessions are necessary to maintain a cordial treatment with people in the industry and thus to be able to obtain exclusive notes and articles in the future.

>>387826004
Yes advertising dollars are super important to the health of these sites.

>>387826004
If you don't think paid reviews don't exist look at any of those literal who reviewers that gave DoW 3 a good score

File: EA-1.jpg (1MB, 1600x2702px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1600x2702px

>>387826004
>Doubting about Nick and Mike from North Korea

You disgust me, OP. Those are honest people.

File: 1501717627754.jpg (23KB, 439x290px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 439x290px

>>387826469
>that game informer review where they praised 2 and gave it an 8.5
>end of the year dragon age 2 was in their top 10 worst games of the year

Really activated my neurons

>>387826004
It's widespread, especially with youtubers and small websites that are put onto metacritic

I personally don't think there are many, if any, actual "paid" reviews.

I'm certain that video game companies offer favors/certain things for favorable reviews, but I don't think that many companies have outright paid reviewers.

I know it's nitpicking and you could count it as "paying" the reviewer but I've always assumed it was more of a mutually beneficial thing. Like a reviewer gives a really positive score to a game, and in return that company gives that site early access to their next stuff, or flies them out to a fancy event or hooks them up with interviews/access to news about upcoming games.

>>387833417

>Fred from Pakistan

they didn't even fucking try and they got away with it.

A guy in gamespot got fucking fired for giving Kane & Lynch a bad review. That's a direct confirmation that paid reviews are real. But still, even the fact that sites might be inclined to give better reviews for more benefits from the publishers is also a form of purchased dishonesty.

Where does
>it's all a dream
come from?

>>387833745
Withholding reviewer copies for actual critical reviews should be illegal it's ridiculously anti consumer. Too bad consumers are literally seen as cash pinatas in the land of the free

>>387831214
How the hell did that the name Chad become a meme anyway? The only time I had ever heard of that name before this shit took off was with a useless jobber character from some manga.

>>387834156
It's an /r9k/ meme

Not really, maybe in a few cases. The people who review for these sites mainly just have shit taste, and aren't really giving proper opinions, but the opinions they expect the audience to have parroted back to them

>>387833942
Blame the video game audience. Half the reason the industry is in it's current state is because the majority of the consumers are braindead and will buy anything.

>>387833942
That's because they ARE cash pinatas.
Have you ever stepped back and thought about the real implications of the word consumer?

>>387826004
Halo Reach and Metroid Other M, enough said, you can also add Halo 4 into the mix.

>expecting commercial outlets to be unbiased

If you ever thought they ever were then you are a complete retard. If it's commercial in nature, it's trash because it's almost always going to be about the money than any kind of integrity.

File: EA-3.png (230KB, 574x855px) Image search: [Google]

230KB, 574x855px

>>387833942

>>387835190
>It is a sad situation for both EA and game journalism that it appears that this is normal
>it appears that this is normal

Classic Gunnar

>>387827945
>That 54

>>387835190
Why is EA still alive?
WHY?

>>387835491
Because they let good games come into development?

>>387835491
Because they make/publish games that sell obviously

File: 1491259560070.png (94KB, 500x400px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 500x400px

>>387826004
It's less that publishers pay for good reviews and more that outlets such as IGN depend entirely on remianing within the good graces of big publishers. They aren't going to shit on any of their flagship titles because next time they won't get a review copy early, which means their review won't be out on launch and they will lose a shitload of revenue.

>Countless developers and series killed or ruined
>Abuses employees (but then again, which big developer doesn't?)
>James Bond villain of a CEO
>Caught red handed manipulating reviews
>Allegedly got someone killed due to a billing error causing the power to get shut off, and with it a life support machine

>Continues to thrive thanks to sports games

Aside from being paid. People also seem to forget that these "reviewers" don't even finish the games half the times. They often rush through the game, get some hours in and then try give out review before someone else does so that they can get more 'clicks'.

Yes they are, you think the adverts they plaster on their site are not directly paid for by the companies whose games they review?

>>387826004
It happens but not as often as some people are led to believe.

>>387826004
Wasnt that whole gamergate thing about paid reviews?

>>387829005
No. I genuinely loved playing through The Last Of Us for the first time and while I'm personally not a fan, I understand the appeal of the Uncharted franchise.

>>387830514
It's the least diverse Mass Effect game. Basically only the citadel council member races had arks

>>387830837
To be fair warband was far better

>>387827945
>Rhythm Heaven and Ki:U lower than 8.5
WHAT

>>387836530
Yes.
However, companies have learned they can bring in politics as a shield to dismiss criticism and gather rapid supporters.

>>387833417
>mike from north korea

File: 1470114885759.png (91KB, 1075x491px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 1075x491px

>Andromeda

>>387833417
Olivia from Bolivia always give me a laugh.

lmao, only an idiot would deny it, not worth anyones time

>>387833507
Doesn't seem like they were paid. Problem is most sites just have a shit ton of writers so their opinions all clash with each other, making them look bipolar as fuck.

File: Mass Effect 3 in a nutshell.webm (887KB, 712x400px) Image search: [Google]

887KB, 712x400px

>>387826004
Remastered for your convenience.