Ubisoft, Midway MK Team, Sony Sports ban EGM from coverage

Skrying said:
If the reviewer found the gameplay boring then it is perfectly reasonable for them to give it a 4.5. I seriously don't see the issue here, you seem to think a game with above average production value should automatically be given a ok score. Not really something I buy in to.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with it if a reviewer is consistent, I don't read EGM so I can't really comment on the particular score. Reviewers should aspire to hold themselves apart from their own tastes. I can see myself giving a game like super mario galaxy a 5/10 because I don't like the type of gameplay, but if I were to be a reviewer for a publication I'd try to set aside my personal tastes and find out what a game has to offer and present it to the reader in that fashion and rate it against the genre.

Anyone have some comparison scores for the reviewer in question?
 
Skrying said:
It's their jobs to inform you about the game, what are they going to say isn't somewhat subjective. Saying a game has boring gameplay is simply a matter of completely opinion and same with every aspect of games. A game isn't some device, its a piece of art. Do you want music reviewers to start reviewing bases solely on production quality? I really hope not.
Click to expand...

You make a fair point, but I think Music is much more subjective than games, and it's much easier to make a judgement on the overall quality of a game, than it is an album.

And...at what point did I mention production values?
 
scooby_dooby said:
You make a fair point, but I think Music is much more subjective than games, and it's much easier to make a judgement on the overall quality of a game, than it is an album.

And...at what point did I mention production values?
Click to expand...

I don't consider it much more subjective. They're both a form of art (at least that's how I treat it, and probably why I'm so picky about the games I like) to me. As for production values, you keep using the term "quality" and that's all I could equate it to in the way you were using it. The reasoning is that production values is the only truly objective aspect I can think of in games, sorta. I mean how can you say anything about gameplay other than describe it in extreme detail (in a review?), what about graphics on a game that is art focused and not technical (and what about bad implementation of technical aspects?). I think those looking for something objective in the reviewing of art are looking for bullshit to be honest. I don't think of games that way and I'm damn glad I don't. While this really has nothing to do with EGM's scoring, it's just my view that a reviewer can be subjective on art if he/she so chooses. There is no other way to review a game other than giving me bullshit and little nothings. Another reason why I don't read reviews for the most part. It's perfectly acceptable to give a "average" 90% game a 50%, as I know I would for a number of popular titles.

AlphaWolf said:
I have no problem with it if a reviewer is consistent, I don't read EGM so I can't really comment on the particular score. Reviewers should aspire to hold themselves apart from their own tastes. I can see myself giving a game like super mario galaxy a 5/10 because I don't like the type of gameplay, but if I were to be a reviewer for a publication I'd try to set aside my personal tastes and find out what a game has to offer and present it to the reader in that fashion and rate it against the genre.

Anyone have some comparison scores for the reviewer in question?
Click to expand...

You'd be pulling off magic if you could compare gameplay in a genre to someone who likes the genre. If you don't like the genre in the first place how are you suppose to say which aspects are good or not in the genre? You can't.
 
Skrying said:
You'd be pulling off magic if you could compare gameplay in a genre to someone who likes the genre. If you don't like the genre in the first place how are you suppose to say which aspects are good or not in the genre? You can't.
Click to expand...

Just because you don't like something it doesn't mean you don't understand it.
 
AlphaWolf said:
Just because you don't like something it doesn't mean you don't understand it.
Click to expand...

Are you sure? I'm not. I think if you don't enjoy something then you can't tell what would be more enjoyable that would entice those who thought the previous was already enjoyable.
 
I agree with Scoob, it's the reviewers job to know their audience and deliver objective reviews that help people make game buying decisions. That's why as much as I'm not a big fan of the GRAW series, I can respect it as a high quality product deserving good review scores. Not my thing, but that doesn't mean I would give it a 7.
 
Skrying said:
I think those looking for something objective in the reviewing of art are looking for bullshit to be honest.
Click to expand...

If you can't be at least somewhat objective than the review itself holds no worth for the people who purchased the magazine, and intend to use it to determine their purchasing decision.

The entire point of a review is that it explains how a game will appeal to fans of a given genre, as well as people who may not be fans of that genre.

The reviewer has to be able to put themselves in both sets of shoes, and do their best to judge how the game will appeal to those readers.

If games were as subjective as you say, I wouldn't be able to see such a perfect correlation between my own opinions, and the metacritic average for a game. At worst a game is under/over rated by 1 point or so, compared to what I think it deserves. I really can't think of a time where there was a huge disparity. If it was truly so subjective, scores would be all over the place, but they're not.
 
You fail to understand the point Scooby. I'm not saying all reviewers are that way, but that some are perfectly within their right to be that way. You even show my point "do their best job to judge how the game will appeal to those readers", I find those attempt to be laughable in most cases. I can rate music this way based on say the mix or the dynamic range, but then those are personal tastes just like a control scheme or a array of moves in a platformer. Also if you click on the games and see all the reviews you'd be to find out that games OFTEN have 2 or more point swings. Many games with the best overall scores see this and it's not the same magazines or online publications over and over, it's different ones for different games. The reason why the average out of many might match you is because you might just look at a games quality in the majority others do.

Are you really going to tell people that a game with a 94% overall rating is amazing but you know that the game has boring gameplay, a dead game world, levels that are basically recycled, a horrible leveling system, boring enemies, and no real sense of progression? You might, but I certainly would not be so rude to someone. Would you tell someone that a game also with a 94% overall has a infinite spawn mechanic that once discovered completely ruins the feel? That the action is faked and easily broken? That it's single player amazing short and forced feeling? I wouldn't and I'm a fan of the genre on both of those! Oblivion, Call of Duty 4, and even Mass Effect, the first two with more than one review that is a 2 point swing, the last with reviews all the way to a 4.6 swing! How about Halo 3 with many 2 point swings and some beyond that!

There are ALWAYS out liers and those reviews are perfectly acceptable when they provide valid reasons. It is their JOB to inform you what they thought about the game and you can certainly dislike the gameplay mechanics and be a fan of the genre and others can enjoy them or they can fake it because they "think" that fans of the genre will like it. It's simply incredible that you would argue against this. It's what keeps variety in games going (sorta, variety in games gets worse every day) because some people find certain aspects of a game horrible and others may love it.
 
The reason I've had an EGM subscription for 10+ years is to get their personal opinion on games. EGM knows their readers, and this is what they want.
 
Skrying said:
If the reviewer found the gameplay boring then it is perfectly reasonable for them to give it a 4.5. I seriously don't see the issue here, you seem to think a game with above average production value should automatically be given a ok score. Not really something I buy in to.
Click to expand...

Yet I'm pretty sure they've given several other games with repetitive gameplay excellent and much much higher scores...

If a publisher saw games with similar repetitive gameplay from other publishers getting ace reviews(which is the reality here.), they definitely have a right to complain, and to do so with their wallets.

Bias, moneyhats, the like? Very likely, the reason things like this happen. I don't see any other reason games with a similar issue would get a free pass and a high score.
 
That's the case of Assassin's Creed but the conversion diverged from that and become that simply in general I see nothing wrong with someone giving a game a much worse rating than others have been. Do I think EGM is clean of filth and bias? No way, that's why I can't even read the damn thing.
 
I'm going to agree with Scooby too. EGM should be called out on the score. I complained publicly in OXM's forums about Dan Amrich's score of Space Giraffe. MetaCritic has an average of 67, but he gave it a 20. Take out OXM's score and it averages 72. 15 of the 22 reviews are over 70. OXM got a pass by and large because of who they are and because the developer isn't known and it was just a Live Arcade game. It was a crime if you ask me. I personally didn't care for the game, but it absolutely didn't deserve that low of score.

Tommy McClain
 
It seems like what scooby wants is something like a consumer test magazine which test stuff like washing machines under certain criteria like speed, energy efficiency and so on.

For games the corresponding factors might be frame rate stability, game length, amount of sectrets and bonuses in the game, the number of moves you can do and so on.

Feature testing games is not the same as reviewing them.
 
There's a difference between knowing whats good and knowing what you like, if you can't figure out what's good, you shouldn't be reviewing games for a major publication.
 
tuna said:
It seems like what scooby wants is something like a consumer test magazine which test stuff like washing machines under certain criteria like speed, energy efficiency and so on.

For games the corresponding factors might be frame rate stability, game length, amount of sectrets and bonuses in the game, the number of moves you can do and so on.

Feature testing games is not the same as reviewing them.
Click to expand...

He's not wanting a Consumer Reports type review. He's just wanting reviewers to leave their egos at the door and do their damn job. Personally, I don't think that's too much to ask.

Tommy McClain
 
In this case, sure. Man, this is damn hard to get through peoples heads because they don't understand the concept vs someones foolish implementation.
 
This topic here went and made me register... sore spot for me. I've been a reader of EGM since issue #3 about 18 years worth of mags clog up my closet.. wife hates it but screw her, she doesn't understand is all.

on topic though, this is nothing more than seeking the spot light. giant egos have taken over and what used to be a mag helmed by people who loved games is now controlled by a group of liberals so apparently ate up with guilt over a lack of ethics they have to constantly refer to themselves as "journalists", and sure they are but I mean come on they play games for a living!! Perhaps they've just been at it too long maybe thats why Semrad left.

pulling stunts like this for, well, perceived street cred should be condemned it's foolish and unnecessary. I dunno sorry to rant but EGM just makes me sad anymore is miss the mag during the issue ~100 time frame.. maybe I'm just getting old..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top