[Lonbjerg]

This is scary reading, but goes well with what have been my impression for a long time:

http://kotaku.com/5511199/rumor-gran...l+%28Kotaku%29

You cannot trust game reviews or their scores.
I have for years suspected that it was pressure that made crappy games get disproportional (too) good scores.

I didn't know where else to post this, as the gaming "mafia" dosn't have it own section...

[Davros]

remember all the fireworks with gamespot (i think) and kane and lynch

[DarN]

Indeed. I miss Jeff.

[Lonbjerg]

That is just another nail in the coffin for "game reviews"

[swaaye]

The only major review source that I ever trusted was Computer Gaming World. They ripped apart more than a few games in their time. Perfect scores were fairly rare and usually were accurate.

These days I try to get a feel for a game's quality by following what formgoers are saying. Gamespot, IGN and friends are good for screens and maybe some of the reader reviews but those are often written by kids who haven't a clue.

[Jedi2016]

That's one of the reasons I like to get my reviews from a number of sources. I take a sort of "average" of all of the review sites, combined with user reviews, before making a decision. Except for the rare games that I'm going to buy regardless, either because I'm a fan or I know it'll be good.

[Mobius1aic]

Bunch of bastards.

[Silent_Buddha]

What a shady journalist, publishing internal e-mails publicly. And looking at what he DID post, it's borderline as to whether that is even pressure.

It basicly asks for recognition that it's their largest game since GTA IV, and that it's receiving game of the year nominations from other sources. So basically just make sure he's being fair on the game.

Was there more, as in make sure he at least plays more than 5 minutes before writing a review? Or did he only selectively post a few lines in order to make Rockstar look as bad as possible out of potential context?

Meh. Hell, I don't even like Rockstar...

Regards,
SB

[homerdog]

This sucks but the journalist could've handled it better.

Reviews (the articles not the scores) are sometimes helpful but if you really want to know something about a game it's better to ask here and get multiple informed opinions.

[Silent_Buddha]

The way I generally approach articles is to focus on anything bad they say. See if it's something that would annoy me enough to not want to play the game, then verify with others that those problems are actually in the game.

After that I'll then see what they may have liked about it.

Basically if a review has absolutely nothing bad to say about a game, no matter how good the game is, it's probably a rubbish review. Because every game in existence no matter how good has flaws.

Regards,
SB

[Rolf N]

Back when I still spent brain-cycles on this I thought it was a great idea for reviewers to try and be consistent, and structure their work around that goal. First mistake is to have any line of contact to the publisher or developer.

But that's of course if you try and treat it as a craft. Work every day to become better at it etc.

Most actual reviewers though are frustrated English majors (at best) who want to get noticed enough to be hired into a better job.

[Frank]

I don't know if they earn it, but the only site I still trust is Eurogamer.

[Grall]

Originally Posted by Silent_Buddha

What a shady journalist, publishing internal e-mails publicly.

It wasn't an internal email, it was an email from an external party (rockstar).

And how exactly does this make the JOURNALIST (term applied loosely) shady? Last I checked, disclosing information rather than keeping it secret isn't what makes a person shady.

And looking at what he DID post, it's borderline as to whether that is even pressure.

I think the intent is pretty clear and obvious. They want the editor to ensure a favorable review.

Was there more, as in make sure he at least plays more than 5 minutes before writing a review? Or did he only selectively post a few lines in order to make Rockstar look as bad as possible out of potential context?

You've no reason to make any such assumptions with the information given.

Meh. Hell, I don't even like Rockstar...

I've never played a single game of theirs, and I think their entire GTA franchise is a pile of antisocial and crime-worshipping crap tbh. I've no intent to spend any of my money on anything they've made, ever.

[doob]

Originally Posted by Grall

I've never played a single game of theirs, and I think their entire GTA franchise is a pile of antisocial and crime-worshipping crap tbh. I've no intent to spend any of my money on anything they've made, ever.

C'mon that's far fetched. The first two gta titles, maybe, but after that? That's like saying a RTS/FPS/TPS air/naval combat games are extreme right nationalist xenophobic nation worshipper and world wide war psychopath lovers.

And anti-social? Maybe if the anti- is towards society flaws i would agree. Most of it is a satire towards social complexes and political/judicial/corporate corruption&"idiocracy" of contemporary times. The crime part is just an easy way to give some adrenaline rush on what without would be a dull virtual city/world. Making things(all types of interactive objects including people) "die" by on-purpose or accidental means and see how they interact (and behave in ackward situations) is just for the visual show. It's the closest the user/gamer can feel being in an action movie and making choices on the go on how to achieve the basic script story which is much better than just slapping text on the screen and reading another classic hero/villain or no black&white/hero&villains but just entities with intentions and starting how they can progress in different situations making mistakes or taking wrong choices is part of the adventure.

[Arwin]

The article has been updated:

I would like to make it clear that at no time has Rockstar EVER sought a preferential review in return for advertising. In fact no games company has ever suggested this. And Zoo would never give a positive review to a game we didn't rate in return for ad dollars.
Toby McCasker was sacked for a number of reasons, one of which was his decision to post a private email on his Facebook page. This email was not referring to a game review. He should not be considered a credible source of information on this matter.

[Cartoon Corpse]

They should spend LESS time on PREVIEWING upcoming games, and MORE time REWVIEWING after THOUROUGH paythroughs of EXISTING games. Hence a review.