Arpegi
Chat => Debates => Topic started by: NekoBot on February 11, 2013, 01:48:16 PM
-
Do you think gamehost websites and companies like IGN give false reviews because they're getting payed on the side?
-
(http://i.imgur.com/SLQJc.gif)
-
Yyyyyyyeeeerrrp that pretty much sums up my consensus
-
Depends on the reviewers. Big reviewers won't risk their credibility by getting bribed to write better reviews.
-
Depends on the reviewers. Big reviewers won't risk their credibility by getting bribed to write better reviews.
But IGN is a highly popular, and trusted reviewer but soetmes. Their reviews dont add up to the game too well
-
Depends on the reviewers. Big reviewers won't risk their credibility by getting bribed to write better reviews.
But IGN is a highly popular, and trusted reviewer but soetmes. Their reviews dont add up to the game too well
I don't follow IGN cuz I don't trust them :/ I'm subscribed to a great gamesmagazine.
-
And you can't ignore that Gamespot incident where an employee got fired for giving an honest review.
-
And you can't ignore that Gamespot incident where an employee got fired for giving an honest review.
The way I see it. If you see a shitton of adds for a game on a game reviewing website, odds are, they're gonna get that food review regardless how good the game is
-
they're gonna get that food review regardless how good the game is
omnomnom
PC Gamer gives legit reviews
-
Darn typos... lol, but what about the Microsoft/Sony empire? Can those reviews be trusted?
-
I've heard of a case where a reviewer gave Sonic 06 and 8/10. And another one where a person was threatened to give Shadow the Hedgehog a good score. Also, the Nintendo side of IGN isn't that bad, I think. Don't really know about the other parts, though.
-
I seriously don't think this occurs, or at least not as frequently as people would like to believe. The argument "the scores don't add up" is silly because the review in itself is subjective anyway, its normally only one persons opinion and regardless of whether or not he/she is experienced in gaming the opinion will always have an element of bias in it. One reason why I couldn't give a damn about reviews, unless its for comedy or entertainment purposes.
-
Definitely. And it's been going on since I was reading Megadrive and Amiga magazines in the early 90's at least. Many old reviewers have spoken out about it.
-
Definitely. And it's been going on since I was reading Megadrive and Amiga magazines in the early 90's at least. Many old reviewers have spoken out about it.
+1. I can't agree more here.
-
For all you know they could have just "spoken out" in order to promote themselves, easy publicity no matter whether its true or not. Evidence man, where's the evidence? (that's me asking for the names of these chaps)
Maybe a small amount of reviewers have been paid off, to rule it out completely would be foolhardy, but to imply its a frequent practice is a big accusation.
-
For all you know they could have just "spoken out" in order to promote themselves, easy publicity no matter whether its true or not. Evidence man, where's the evidence? (that's me asking for the names of these chaps)
Maybe a small amount of reviewers have been paid off, to rule it out completely would be foolhardy, but to imply its a frequent practice is a big accusation.
That kind of publicity would be BAD for reviewers. Once the public finds out that you've been paid to give good reviews on things your credibility instantly drops to nothing.
It doesn't just happen to video game reviews either. Restaurant critics, music critics, and most especially movie critics; almost anything that can be reviewed, some of those have been paid off.
-
Also, Giantbomb is probably good considering their history. It was found by the guy and his friend who got fired for giving Kane and Kynch a bad review.
PROBABLY.
-
That kind of publicity would be BAD for reviewers. Once the public finds out that you've been paid to give good reviews on things your credibility instantly drops to nothing.
It doesn't just happen to video game reviews either. Restaurant critics, music critics, and most especially movie critics; almost anything that can be reviewed, some of those have been paid off.
Nah not necessarily, sure it invalidates everything you've previously said, but its just a simple play of the sympathy card "Oh I'm a tragic villain, I've given into the dark evil that is the corrupted system. Please don't forgive me, for I do not deserve it" and people eat that shit up like its going out of style. If you're a particularly small reviewer then it just puts you on the map, if you're already relatively well known, then it sorta sets your reputation in stone. People won't remember a good review, or even a great one. But they'll remember a controversy.
I'm still unconvinced that this is an actual thing, actual bribing seems so movie gangsta cliche. Maybe a company sends them their game and some other goodies, and if its a soft as shit reviewer they think "Oh well, maybe I better be a little more lenient with their score" but I don't think companies outright say "Give me a good score and I'll make it worth your while". Nah.
-
I can't remember names now, I never paid attention anyway to be honest. They said if they never gave decent reviews they would not be given a preview copy of the next game by those devs. Something like missing out on the latest big games could kill an old style magazine that people paid good money for, and everybody was trying to get exclusive hands on previews etc. Also back in the day devs used to supply magazines with game demos and things that came free with each magazine, and was a big selling point, you didn't want to upset the people that made your living.