News, PS3

Sony’s Shuhei Yoshida Bares Fangs on 7.5 The Last of Us Review (UPDATED)

by on June 13, 2013 2:42 AM 66

I just wrote yesterday that Sony’s Shuhei Yoshida is most definitely a nice and friendly fellow, but like every passionate gamer, he can readily bare his fangs when he sees something that really doesn’t sit right with him.

A few days ago the internet was taken by surprise by Polygon’s review of The Last of Us, that gave the game a rather low 7.5, at least compared to its current Metacritic score of 96. Especially criticized was the site’s policy to have senior editors “help” in determining the score of a review after it has been written.

Games are not scored until a review is written and finalized. Once a review is complete, the reviewer meets with a group of senior editors to determine which score on our scale properly reflects the text as written. We do not write with scores in mind.

There has even been word about the site banning commenters that harshly criticized such policy.

Today the review’s author Philip Kollar stirred Yoshida-san with what seemed to be a quite sarcastic tweet, causing him to respond rather curtly:

Following the first exchange of fire Yoshida-san elaborated further.

Despite the initial exchange, that wasn’t exactly friendly, things cooled down rather quickly.

While the exchange is funny (and it’s entirely possible for it to be an inside joke between Kollar and Yoshida-san. Such things do happen at E3), I wouldn’t normally report on it. After all a reviewer is absolutely free to score his review however he wants, even way out of the Metacritic average, just as much as a developer is entirely free to vocally respond when he feels that something isn’t right.

It has to be said that Kollar himself has taken criticism quite in stride. I always say that game critics need to learn to be on the receiving end of criticism, instead of just standing of their soap box and preaching while being immune to their own coin, and in this case Kollar did rather well.

Though, this all raises a relevant question, on which I’d like to hear our readers’ opinion as a writer and editor (and please, don’t let yourself be swayed by the game and score in question).

Should people that haven’t played a game really contribute to scoring it? While a veteran editor can get a feel of a game by reading a review, can he really catch all the nuances that you may be able to notice only by playing?

I’m most definitely not disputing another site’s review policy. It’s their prerogative to score whatever they like however they like, and their readers will then judge. Nevertheless I’m curious about our readers’ opinion on the issue. I’ve personally got in touch with some of our writers when I felt that a review’s score didn’t properly reflect the written text (especially when the writer was new), asking him for his reasoning, and I know that Chad (our review editor) did as well, but we normally just try to understand the reasons behind it, instead of influencing it.

On the other hand, I’m entirely in agreement with scoring a review only after it has been written, and I know Chad is as well. I see too many reviews written with a certain score in mind as a goal, and the quality and clarity of judgement normally suffers.

Are we doing it right or wrong? Should a writer be completely independent in scoring his review, or should editors be able to weigh-in whether they played the game or not? Should scores just go away and let the true text-based opinion shine? have review scores (low, high or otherwise) become just a ruse to earn more of your clicks? The ball is in your court. Let me know.

Update: A further exchange appeared way more peaceful, showing that either the issue has been settled with group hugs, or, as previously mentioned, it was an all an inside joke to begin with.

Join the Discussion

  • NoWorld0rder

    If you didn’t play it, you can’t score it.

  • Draken

    I see no problem with the score being totally up to the reviewer or board IF the board has played through the game. Why people who haven’t played the game have any say in the final score makes zero sense to me. Would you have someone score a movie if he/she hadn’t even seen it?

    As far as polygon goes, I feel yoshida hit the nail on he head. One really negative score in a sea of really positive scores draws a lot of attention. They are free to write what they want, but I smell a rat. Either that, or the people over at polygon have no idea of what makes a good game.

    • brianc6234

      Kollar even tweeted it did what he wanted. Got people talking. What a creep. I think Metacritic should just ban their reviews. If that’s what they want, hits, don’t let their reviews decide the Metacritic score.

    • oofy

      7.5 is negative?

      • Draken

        Not necessarily, but everyone seems to feel that it is (as being applied to this particular game). When I see 10/10, 5/5, 9.5/10, etc, etc, a 7.5 starts to look way out of place comparatively.

      • DanO

        By game standards it is very low.

      • Papa Derp

        Didn’t they say it was the worst game they reviewed for the month? I’m not sure

        • bigevilworldwide

          That and apparently the person who played it played like it was a COD

      • Will

        Its negative when its on the far polar opposite of the well received reviews. To someone who owns an aston martin or Ferarri, a bmw is a negative downgrade.

        • Dakan45

          OR MAYBE, JUST MAYBE, YOU SHOULD STOP MAKING YOUR MINDS ON HOW GOOD A GAME IS BEFORE YOU EVEN PLAY IT AND STOP BELIEVING 9.5S AND 10S BEFORE THE GAME EVEN COMES OUT.

          just saying, stop believing before you play it.

          • Will

            Who said anything about believing “9′s and 10′s?”o made a simple statement about why people are bothered by low scores and you went on the outside, assuming something you had no business assuming. Ignorance is not always bliss it would seem.

  • Nicholas Perry

    7.5 seems completely reasonable.

    A lot of my favorite games of all time have been rated poorly. Everyone has different tastes and it’s not an objective matter.

    • Giuseppe Nelva

      Now, “not an objective matter” isn’t exactly true.

      Regardless of this specific score, reviews are just partly opinion.

      The reviewer that tells you he’s *completely* objective is bullshitting you. No buts and no ifs about that. I’ve been reviewing games for 16 years now, and I can tell you, I never reviewed a game once without my opinion filtering through my words.

      On the other hand, every opinion should be heavily grounded and based on fact. You can’t have a valid opinion on the sky if that opinion is based on the notion that the sky is green with yellow polka dots.

      Often I do notice that a writer’s opinion heavily overtakes the facts. And that, IMHO, should not happen.

      • James Hammond

        I always wondered if a person with a non-functioning amygdala reviewed a game would their reviews be more objective, since they lack emotional responses.

    • bigevilworldwide

      Well when the site receives $750,000 from Microsoft for some “documentary” then they go and score Ni No Kuni a 6/10 when every other site is like 9/0, 5/5, 10/10 and the same thing happens with TLOU it starts to look fishy

  • Mitesh Ghanekar

    the problems in the game are real, for eg, in a section , the game wants you to tiptoe around, but the supp char just keep on talking loudly and running around

    • brianc6234

      That’s a minor issue. Not something that should drop it from 9+ to 7.5.

      • Mitesh Ghanekar

        im sorry but that is a massive issue, because it stinks of laziness. and to give it perfect 10s when it has such a massive defect is frustrating because it ruins the immersion and irritates me.

        • bigevilworldwide

          Whos to say it’s a massive defect…I’d bet my left nut you haven’t actually played the game so the support character might not even actually have any effect on the world…It’s only a defect when it makes it impossible because the character actually keeps alerting people….Which NOBODY has said that she does

          • Mitesh Ghanekar

            get yourself castrated then , i have the game, go to my fb profile, where ive even put up a pic of it, and she doesnt have an effect, but its absolutely irritating that you have to tiptoe around , while the others just round as if its a bday party. for a game thats supposed to be so high on atmosphere, this just ruins it.

  • brianc6234

    If you read the review what would you think the game should get? It didn’t seem like a 7.5 to me but the dumb editor of the site said they gave it the score the writing seemed to give it. They make no sense. And the site is heavily pro Microsoft. Cliffy B’s brother I believe is one of the uppity ups there even. Mr. 360. Does Polygon give Sony games lower scores than most sites?

    • bigevilworldwide

      Well don’t forget the $750,000 that Microsoft gave them to make their little documentary

  • mike

    Hey, polygon team,
    A friend of mine watched a movie, and told me a few things about it.
    I didn’t watch it, but I don’t really like it, i will give it a 6/10

  • che

    is called… “let me make a name for myself by being the only reviewer who doesn’t love TLOU” sadly, thats how people get attention these days.

    • Dakan45

      its called not paid reviews

  • ariessiren

    Reviewers are not Gods, they are humans, they make mistakes. its not just polygon. I’ve seen many reviewers score badly to get hits on their sites. But i don’t trust their site anymore and i don’t respect the reviewer. I avoid those reviewers that i feel were honestly wrong. Reviewers NEED your hits ALWAYS remember that. Some are out of control. we all know last of us is not a 7.5. Lets be honest. just choose not too support the reviewer or site. Simple

    • ChadAwkerman

      It’s hard to say or even prove if a reviewer is doing it only to get hits or to get noticed or whatever. I’m not saying any given reviewer is or isn’t, I’m just saying you don’t know for 100% certainty.

      What you feel in your gut is what you feel, we can’t change that and I’m not arguing how you feel or who’s reviews you choose to read. Just remember that you can never be absolutely certain of anything.

      And no, we are not gods. :)

  • Rogerio Ap Silva de Andrade

    Interesting… gamespot review of Zelda Skywasr Sword didn´t recieve such a passionate reaction from its developers…. I found yoshida´s reaction very strange, at least

  • KuchikiSentou

    This happened with Ni No Kuni Among the 9s and 10s Polygon’s score was the lowest with a 6.5

    Microsoft gave them $750,000 [for some project they were doing] in 2012. Just saying.

    • John Funk

      And the same reviewer gave PS Vita exclusive Persona 4 Golden a perfect 10. http://www.polygon.com/game/persona-4-golden/2718 Suggesting he’s on payola because he didn’t like two games as much as other people is ridiculous.

      Microsoft sponsored their documentary. Do you know what they got for that? A “Sponsored by Internet Explorer” on every episode.

      I know Phil Kollar well. I’m friends with Phil Kollar. He genuinely felt Last of Us was a good but flawed game. It wasn’t because Microsoft paid him, it wasn’t because Arthur Gies pressured him to give it a lower score, and it certainly wasn’t because he wanted clicks. It’s frightening the outrage that someone could dare to have a different opinion.

      (And Griffin and Phil are friends with Mr. Yoshida. They were joking with each other.)

      • KuchikiSentou

        As I said, “just saying”. All I did was drop that in the middle of the room and walk out. Polygon is the only game review site I’ve seen that posts its ethics policy at the end of each review. http://www.polygon.com/pages/ethics-statement
        I look at everything in more than 2 ways, following the principle of Duality of Actions. Should it not be obvious that reviewers should not “accept gifts from publishers” etc?
        Making such an obvious statement could be an attempt to mask the dark reality. Could be. It shouldn’t be there if it goes without saying. Res ipsa loquitor.
        Plus, it will be obvious when EVERY PS game gets lower scores, so a 10 here and a 9 there could make it all OK as an attempt to avert keener eyes. Like mine.
        Again, just saying.

        (Lol, the fact that they are friends is irrelevant to me. Shu is “friends” with a lot of people. I just look at facts and piece them together. It has to be one of those 2. Opening statement of the Last of Us review. OPENING STATEMENT: “the Last of Us makes me sick to my stomach”. Without even so much as a lead-in, introductory preamble as to what the game is or what it sets out to be.

        As Shu said, the reason ANYBODY read that review was because of the score. And that opening statement will cause pause for anyone who has written reviews, even for the worst of games.)

        In a world where sites have attempted to withdraw their scores from metacritic and replace them with newer ones, with a marked score difference, one has to wonder.

        • John Funk

          The reason Polygon posts its ethics policy at the end of the review is precisely because of this pervasive idea that video game journalists are on the take; having a public statement of ethics is actually pretty rare in this industry. The problem is that while it SHOULD go without saying, many gamers are under the impression that it doesn’t.

          The opening statement is meant to evoke a reaction. And anyone who’d been following the game even cursorily should have known that it was meant to be a dark, violent game – remember that scene in the original demo where the dude was begging for his life before Joel shoots him in the face? That could be a GOOD thing for the game; as it turns out Phil really didn’t like how the game made him feel, but what about someone who wants to feel like that?

          I am straight up telling you that as someone who knows Phil pretty well, nothing influenced that review other than his own opinion.

          • KuchikiSentou

            He may have said that to you. But you cannot make that statement with absolute certainty [that is a metaphysical fact] because of the paradox of communication and knowledge. You can never truly know someone and communication does not convey everything, even when the person you know very well is the one communicating a fact to you.

            Gamers are under the impression that it doesn’t because there has been evidence to suggest it in the past. It was Gamespot [I hate mentioning names] who had the thing with metacritic where they had to update their review. Things as serious as this don’t just materialise from thin air. I didn’t know about the $750k until I heard the controversy about the review.

            Nobody should feel pressured into joining the bandwagon and giving perfect scores because 27 other sites gave it perfect scores. But regarding fundamentals of game reviews. Categories such as Story Graphics Gameplay. With secondary issues like, progression, mechanics, presentation, character development which of these did Mr Kollar find particularly lacking? None.

            The issues were with the AI which, the general opinion says does not do much to hamper the overall experience. Of course we’ve seen some games get perfect scores they didn’t deserve, usually from lesser known sites with allegedly less credibility. But within the echelon of a top tier site, there are certain standards a game has to hold up to break that barrier from 8 – 9 and 10. It’s a matter of asking what level of objectivity is required to giving a game a particular score. because the effect of the score is not objective at all. It’s “common knowledge” that Scary Movie 5 was a “bad movie” but half of the people who say that never watched it, but that remains what it “objectively” is.

            So there is a problem. Does uniformity create objectivity? The sky is blue. In fact, the word “blue” is rarely defined without invoking the sky at some point, and a person who doesn’t see it that way.is objectively “colour-blind” because the sky is “objectively” blue. Opinion, subjectivity does not matter then because it is a common concurrence. Everybody knows the sky is “blue”.

            We can take that principle and apply it. Given what is required of a game at this stage in the generation. Graphics, immersion, gameplay, story, character development and evolution. The reviewers found that the game was able to achieve this excellently, thus certifying that the sky is blue or that the game is a 9 or 10, while Koller-san, who thinks the game is below that grade at 7.5, is colour-blind [or has been made colour-blind by $750,000 sunglasses].

            People hide behind “opinion” way too easily these days. But let’s face facts. Some opinions ARE wrong. There are opinions that hold no validity with reference to the world around it. The Americans shout everyday about free country, free speech, free this and that. There is no such thing as freedom where there is law. Therefore there are some things you cannot say. Some things you cannot do. There are therefore opinions you should not have. It’s that simple. I could mention some opinions as examples but I think it’s best to leave those to the imagination. And that there is another aspect of it. Even a statement made, as an example or a preamble, like Kollar’s opening statement can be taken as categorical. And why not? People are “free” to interpret statements however they please.

            The scrutiny of the review is deserved. And should be thoroughly investigated. Because there are people who depend on such things, not just gamers in the community but game-makers in the industry. A few months back there were reports of people losing royalties and certain benefits because of metacritic scores. Back in the day when FIFA lost to PES, EA Canada used to fire each team that lost critically to PES.

            When you take an “opinion” and show it to everyone to see, it ceases to be an opinion but it becomes a “representation of fact”. If a person relies on that representation and finds it false, you become liable. So Mr Kollar has made a representation and must be held liable for that representation.

            I come out to say I think Hilary Clinton is a bigot. That is my opinion, but once I share that, I’m asked to show the “fact” of which I am making a representation, by being asked for proof she is indeed a bigot. So depending on whether what I show the people are accepted and interpreted as fact, the entirety of my opinion may become “wrong”. So you see, the opinion is not as inviolable as it sounds. A 7.5 game has to at least look like a 7.5 game. The Last of Us doesn’t. What does a 7.5 game look like is a question for a different day.

            But I totally get where you’re coming from.

          • Giuseppe Nelva

            A reviewer needs to be able to detach as much as possible from his personal taste.

            That’s one of the main differences between a professional critic and some dude on tumblr writing about how he feels.

            Also, writing to evoke a reaction is normally bad form in a review. You’re writing to provide a service to your readers, and to give them an idea of the game that is as grounded as possible, not to evoke reactions.

            Ultimately a review needs to be about the game, not about the reviewer.The more your personal feelings overtake fact, the less useful the review is to your readers, up to the point in which it becomes a *disservice* to your readers, as your personal taste and feelings don’t apply to them.

            Example: I strongly dislike Mario. Games that feature him give me an instinctive and only partly rational sense of repulsion. Yet that never factors in the scores of my reviews of Mario games, that in fact are pretty much always rated high. Why? Because my experience as a reviewer allows me to recognize that the quality of those games is objectively very high, regardless of my personal feelings.

            Rating them according to my personal feelings (that apply only to me) more than according that objective quality (that applies to everyone), would be a disservice to my readers, and doing a disservice to my readers is not the business I’m into.

          • extermin8or2

            I’ve only just noticed you’re a mod for this site and clearly write for it :)

      • extermin8or2

        Read his review-he shouldn’t have been reviewing it, he marked it down for essentially the genre and atmosphere the devs had intended it to have and the fact it made him think about the situation and he didn’t like that, fair enough but a review score isn’t an opinion-it’s meant to be objective.

        • John Funk

          What can a review be BUT an opinion? “This is how I felt about the game.” He also cites that the game seems to be at odds with itself in what it wants you to do – making the combat unnecessarily difficult and encouraging stealth options and then throwing mandatory combat sections, a la Deus Ex HR.

          You’re of course free to disagree with his opinion, but that’s just what a review is – an extremely educated and experienced (ideally) opinion.

          • Giuseppe Nelva

            “What can a review be BUT an opinion?”

            Umh no. I’ll stop you right there on this, and repeat what I said before.

            Regardless of this specific score, reviews are just partly opinion.

            The reviewer that tells you he’s *completely* objective is bullshitting you. No buts and no ifs about that, but every opinion should be heavily grounded and based on fact. You can’t have a valid opinion on the sky if that opinion is based on the notion that the sky is green with yellow polka dots.

            Often I do notice that a writer’s opinion heavily overtakes the facts. And that, IMHO, should not happen.

          • extermin8or2

            Thank you… someone who clearly studied english and actually remembers studying it… *sigh*

          • extermin8or2

            It’s pretty much impossible to write a review without an opinion, even if you could it would come across robotic and unfeeling that wouldn’t work well at all however, the opinion is only supposed to be part of the review the rest and certainly THE SCORE should be based on an objective look at the thing you’re reviewing the things in the case of a video game it appears to have failed at trying todo-so if the games a buggy mess no matter how great the story etc are it still needs it’s score lowering, and even the story needs to be assessed not from a “did i like it” but a “did i have an emotional response to it, was it really predictable the whole way through?” “well written and clear to understand?” gameplay should be based on if it functions, does it allow you to progress in the story in a way that makes sense for the most part and doesn’t clash with the tone of the game etc etc. So if a game is truly exceptional even if YOU don’t like it- it should still end up with a high score…

        • Martin Brentnall

          A review should analyse what the developers goals and ambitions were and make a judgement call as to how well those goals were met.

          A review should NOT criticise a game because the goals and ambitions are not aligned to the reviewers preferences, which is exactly what happened in the Polygon review.

          What Polygon did is like giving Gran Turismo a score of 2/10 because the reviewer prefers arcade style racing, rather than recognising that GT is supposed to be realistic and rating it according to that goal.

          • kill all gamers

            “bad games should be given 10/10 if they’re intended to be bad games” – internet

          • Martin Brentnall

            It goes without saying that a review score should be composed of a judgement call on the challenge, scale, innovation, etc. of the goals and ambitions IN ADDITION to how well executed those ideas are.

            I thought most people would be be able to figure that out by themselves.

      • myaccount nowname

        Now that it has come OUT that Microsoft is paying people to review games do you think it was right to call people DUMB for figuring it first?

        QOUTE:(“You may not say anything negative.”)
        http://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-youtube-xbox-one-comments-2014-1

    • TheDocMontalban

      Polygon had Ni No Kuni scored right.

      • KuchikiSentou

        Whatever. Most of the scores were 9s and 10s so, I don’t know what your point is. I’m just stating a fact.

    • Michael Clanton

      really? dumb enough to assume MS paid and had an influence on the score…hmm they dont have to, sony has great exclusives…that sony fans make a big deal with words but not with dollars, which is why you have never heard a sony exclusive breaking entertainment records.

      • KuchikiSentou

        Nobody is assuming anything. We are just saying that MS gave them money. Simple. You are the one drawing conclusions. Sony’s exclusives don’t set commercial records but they set critical records which is what is in contention here.

  • Zepher

    What I read “How dare some filthy gaijin not want to suckle the buttock of a Japanese developer.

    • ChadAwkerman

      Except Naughty Dog isn’t a Japanese developer.

  • DarkSpirit

    I personally think that polygon did it just to get clicks, either that or someone paid them off *cough* Microsoft 750,000$ *cough* (tinfoil hats!!!). Joking aside, most reviews these days are imo worthless. I don’t trust review scores, and I honestly could care less about game critics in general (no offense). Someone sharing their opinion on a game is fine, but that person should at least have played the game. Anyone that did not even play the game themselves have no right in reviewing/scoring that game. People should stop focusing so much on scores and give games a try before they either praise or condemn a game. Everyone has their own opinion, and just because a few critics liked/disliked a game does not mean you or anyone else will like/dislike that game.

  • Nintendo Fan 4 Lif3

    The problem is that only gamers or people have a interest in games should be reviewing and scoring games, and with exraneous groups doing so, it hurts games’ image and also undermines the value in games if you ask me.

  • Mr Mister

    When they say they review the text and give it a score, I think what they mean is they apply a score based on what the reviewer wrote, not on their own opinion of the game. If the review was glowing, they give it a 9 or 10. I would think this is a way to keep their scores consistent.

    Having read his review, he harped on one issue about the dreary setting and gameplay. Very little mention of everything else that goes into a game. Almost like saying the Mona Lisa is so so because her nose is a little too big.

    • ChadAwkerman

      The Mona Lisa is “so so” because of more than that. It isn’t that impressive. ;)

      That may be what they mean when they said that, but it’s hard to convey, really.

      Here on DualShockers, we let the individual reviewer come up with their own score AFTER they write their review (no one on any site should ever be writing the review with a score in mind before hand, that’s just fail on so many levels). What I do as the reviews editor is make sure what they wrote sounds like the score they give it.

      If they don’t mention a thing wrong with the game, but give it a 7/10, I have to question their score based on what I read in their written review. Similarly, if they spend half the review knocking huge parts of what makes the game and give it a 9.5/10, I also have to question that. It’s a matter of integrity. But, this is different than what Polygon’s review process implies.

      They imply that all these editors who likely may not have played the game, are reading the review and then apply a score to it. To me, that doesn’t sound right, however, they are allowed to review games however they want, and whether any of their readers like it or not.

  • John

    Kollar’s review seems very reasonable to me and gave me a decent sense for expectations for this game. I was completely shocked with the final 7.5 at the bottom. For me at least, there is a large disconnect between the text and the number. Yoshida might have been on to something there with the low score = clicks (which could have came from Kollar or the editors).

  • Dakan45

    Listen, reviews these days are paid. The last of us and bioshock infinite DEFINETLY do not worth 9.5s, but ofcoruse games cost 100 million so, its easier just to give a few thousands to sites and get the publicity going by convicing people the game is great before even playing it.

    WIN WIN situation.

    • Smazeli

      Either that, or your opinion of those games are different than those of reviewers. NAH, THERE’S NO WAY.

      • Dakan45

        and all the reviewers have the same opinion? NO WAY, paid scores i tell you.

        It seems you STILL dont get it, so i am gonna have to say it again. The reviewer doesnt rate the game, the reviewer writes the review then the staff are met and rate the game accordingly, so long story short= paid reviews.

        • Smazeli

          Let’s break it down: normally when a person reads a review on the internet they disagree with, they come to one of two conclusions:

          1) “These reviewers clearly have a different opinion than I do”
          2) “These reviewers are clearly part of a mass conspiracy involving game publishers and their efforts to buy the complicity and silence of dozens of publications and hundreds of people, to which after several years not one person has come forward to blow the whistle. It’s a very efficient conspiracy”

          In my opinion, anyone who considers their own opinion to be SO INDISPUTABLE that they would sooner believe in an industry-wide system of corruption than they would believe that there are people that don’t agree with them has some serious ego issues.

          • Dakan45

            “anyone who considers their own opinion to be SO INDISPUTABLE that they
            would sooner believe in an industry-wide system of corruption than they
            would believe that there are people that don’t agree with them has some
            serious ego issues.”

            Aghh, there is no conspiracy you moron. How do those site stay up? ADS, who gives the ads? GAMES, how much games cost? 100 million plus, so yes the reviews are paid, or you forgot how they fired off a reviewer in gamespot and eidos said they wont put ads on their site anymore.

            its a win win situation, or you think that when people like say ken levine that give interviews to every site and including tv, those reviews are not paid? Ofcourse they are interviews and publicity costs money, they PAY the sites for interviews just like they pay magazines for marketing. WAKE UP like i said its all about money. MS paid rockstar 50 milion for timed exlusivity gta iv dlcs, from ever xbox live subscription activision get a cut. From 60 bucks games, 10 go to the console owner, to make games for a console you have to buy a 500.000 license.

            Money are everything Also like i said the reviewer doesnt score the game, the site does with the staff deciding the score.

            So get that crap out of your head.

          • Smazeli

            “you forgot how they fired off a reviewer in gamespot and eidos said they wont put ads on their site anymore.”

            Yeah, I know. Jeff Gerstmann, who went on to found his own successful site Giant Bomb. To this day, he still denies that there were ever any paid reviews at gamespot. Furthermore, there are hundreds of former professional game reviewers out there, who have dropped out of the profession because they get paid crap. Why is it that not ONE of them have blown the whistle about paid reviews?

            “How do those site stay up? ADS, who gives the ads? GAMES”

            Really? Because I’m scrolling up and I’m seeing ads from Sprint and Cox on this site. Those aren’t game publishers, are they?

            “Ofcourse they are interviews and publicity costs money, they PAY the sites for interviews”

            Why the hell would they pay sites to get them to interview? Those interviews create content for the sites, which bring in more readers. Game websites want interviews because it gives them content and generates hits.

            But I have a question for you. If giant game publishers pay for reviews, then why did Resident Evil 6 and Medal of Honor: Warfighter get such bad reviews? Did Capcom and EA forget to mail the checks out for those games?

          • Dakan45

            If he admits that reviews are paid, credibility is lost. Like i said,its the staff that gives the scores NOT the reviewer.

            “who have dropped out of the profession because they get paid crap”

            Thats why they dropped. If they pay you well, why drop?

            This site doesnt use the same rating system, the staff doesnt rate the games, only the reviewers.

            Basicly every review from ign, gamespot and gametrailers are paid.

            “Why the hell would they pay sites to get them to interview?”

            This is exactly how it works, you think they go on tv and magazines and freely give interviews? They give interviews if asked by them, or they pay money along with a marketing campaign, thats how it really works.

            ” Those interviews create content for the sites”

            Like some interviews here and there featured by all sites are gonna boost the site.

            “But I have a question for you. If giant game publishers pay for
            reviews, then why did Resident Evil 6 and Medal of Honor: Warfighter get
            such bad reviews? Did Capcom and EA forget to mail the checks out for
            those games?”

            Same reason colonial marines and crysis 3 got bad reviews.

            Either they were buggy and unpolished, so there cant be high scores, there wont be any credibility, or like crysis 3 they were not paid because ea thought it was not needed. Till this day i dont understand how the flying crap bioshock infinite has 9.5s and 10s and crysis 3 got 7s.

            Obviously crysis 3 has better gunplay for a fps and better ai and better graphics and better sound and ofcourse better level design from the linear maps of bioshock infinite. Including better gameplay with stealth, upgrades and customization and nonlinear maps, so why the hell Boreshock infinite repetition got 9.5s and 10s is beyond me, no a story doesnt fix a broken game. All that hype and interviwes basicly convinced everyone the game was good before the game even comes out. Despite the fact that it did not deliverd what was promised and just like resident evil 6 and dead space 3, its a watered down sequel made for the masses and has thrown away what made the franchise great. Or like colonial marines it pretty much faked E3 demos and the actual game was nothing like the full game. Its not like it does anything new or reletively well, so either all the reviewers are biased morons who like elizabeth and have no touche with reallity on what makes games good, yet they call them selfs “Critics” with no qualifications required to fill that role.

            Or the game pretty much achieved high ratings through hype and paid reviews. Once the game gets high ratings everywhere, no one can say anything. Take a look at call of duty, no matter how much hate there is in user reviews, the high ratings will still hold the game high on critical aclaim and sales. Which is exactly what the last of us did, they basicly paid off reviews and since the game is not out till july, no one is gonna change anything when it finally comes out.

            If thats how game industry will be, the next gen is filled with simplistic games taht will get very high ratings for graphics rather gameplay.

          • Smazeli

            “If he admits that reviews are paid, credibility is lost. Like i said,its the staff that gives the scores NOT the reviewer.”

            But Gerstmann has said the opposite. That they were never any paid reviews. Every former Gamespot reviewer has said the same thing, even the ones that don’t work as reviewers anymore. How many does it take? Do you only take people at their word when they say what you want to hear?

            “This is exactly how it works, you think they go on tv and magazines and freely give interviews?”

            Yes? That’s what journalists do, they interview. They are literally in the business of interviewing people. They don’t need marketers paying them to take interviews because every interview they do gets them more readers.

            “Like some interviews here and there featured by all sites are gonna boost the site.”

            Yes, they do. All of them. There are no interviews that get zero clicks.

            “Either they were buggy and unpolished, so there cant be high scores, there wont be any credibility,”

            Fascinating. So companies don’t buy reviews for the games that genuinely need better reviews?

            “so why the hell Boreshock infinite repetition got 9.5s and 10s is beyond me,”

            Yes, it is beyond you. That’s the central issue. You are blaming your own obliviousness on other people. It’s not their fault you “don’t get it”

          • Dakan45

            Again, if he admtis that, thats it. If you review a game and break embargo, no one is gonna work with you. Same with admiting the reviews are paid.

            Not that the reviewers will know that, the staff rates them.

            ” They don’t need marketers paying them to take interviews because every interview they do gets them more readers.”

            Not really, developers and publishers pay for interviews, or you think ken levine got on TV interviews freely? Ofcourse not, thats why estimates said that infinite must took 200 million to develop, because of all the hype that was paid.

            “Yes, they do. All of them. There are no interviews that get zero clicks.”

            You missed the point, one interview is not gonna magically boost the site.

            “Fascinating. So companies don’t buy reviews for the games that genuinely need better reviews?”

            How exactly do you rate a broken game with high ratings? Reviews are pretty much paid to give the game high score. Crysis 3 didnt pay and got a 7.0, what is the logic behind giving that game a 7.0 and indie games 8.5 and 9.5s?

            “Yes, it is beyond you. That’s the central issue. You are blaming your
            own obliviousness on other people. It’s not their fault you “don’t get
            it””

            How exactly am i suposse to “get it” Where exactly is the worth in taht game?

            It gloriously screwed the franchise.

            It was dumbed down

            It does nothing new for the genre.

            It had fake E3 demos, MORE faked than colonial marines that they whined about, because colonial mariens didnt pay.

            The gameplay is subpar.

            So you telling me that the so called “critics” that do not have any requirements for expertise to be “critics” rated the game on story alone?

            You are oblivious, not me, for supporting this garbage rating system and it has to stop.

            You pretty much help lazy uimaginative generic samey games get 9.5s for achieving LESS than their predecessors did.

            Is that what the next gen is heading towards?

          • Smazeli

            “Again, if he admtis that, thats it. If you review a game and break
            embargo, no one is gonna work with you. Same with admiting the reviews are paid.”

            There are many former Gamespot employees that don’t review games anymore. What reason would they have to maintain a coverup?

            “Not really, developers and publishers pay for interviews, or you
            think ken levine got on TV interviews freely?”

            There’s not one instance of a publisher paying someone to run an interview. Ken Levine got interviewed because he’s a famous game designer talking about a highly-anticipated game. His interviews generate lots of hits and views, therefore websites want to interview him. This isn’t hard to understand, why are you having trouble with such a simple concept?

            “You missed the point, one interview is not gonna magically boost the site.”

            When a website posts an interview, it generates clicks and views, which gives them more income. Every time. It’s hardly “magic”, it’s common sense

            “How exactly do you rate a broken game with high ratings? Reviews are pretty much paid to give the game high score. Crysis 3 didnt pay and got a 7.0, what is the logic behind giving that game a 7.0 and indie games 8.5 and 9.5s?”

            Maybe you should read those reviews? They state the problems they had with Crysis 3 in plain english.

            “How exactly am i suposse to “get it” Where exactly is the worth in taht game?”

            Again, maybe you should read the reviews? All I’m seeing is you throwing a bitch-fit because most people don’t share you opinion about certain games. But instead of accepting the possibility that your opinion is wrong or simply different, you invent a conspiracy theory of paid reviews with zero evidence.

  • Martin Brentnall

    To those saying reviews should be “Objective”:

    You’re not necessarily using the right word, but I get what you’re saying. An idea in a game can be judged as “well executed” but “disliked” by a reviewer. Neither of these are objective terms, but only the former should be used in a review; the latter should be avoided.

    The mistake Polygon made is using the latter term as their review criteria.

Recent Comments

Powered by Disqus