Jim Sterling talks about the state of gaming reviews and games publishers controlling them

[dragosudeki]

42 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Can you elaborate on why he was using his weapon incorrectly?

You can read a whole bunch of people complaining about it in the reddit of the video:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Cynicalbrit/comments/584edj/wtf_is_shadow_warrior_2/

As a summary, people have said its less 'spongey' than the first game, which is something TB enjoyed.

Basically you need different weapons that deal different types of damages to deal with the enemy's resistances. You also need to put in skill points to upgrade your character's damage in certain areas. Melee also has its own set of abilities which allow you to survive more, which TB doesn't actually show but briefly discussed. Personally, haven't played much of the game, but people I know didn't understand how he was having problems and even enjoyed the changes from the previous Shadow Warrior.

Another nice thing to see is that the devs have responded nicely in response to TB, despite TB somewhat 'shitting' on the game. People have actually complained about the game being too easy, and then they dropped crazy new difficulties to the game...

[dalekphalm]

1 minute ago, dragosudeki said:

You can read a whole bunch of people complaining about it in the reddit of the video:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Cynicalbrit/comments/584edj/wtf_is_shadow_warrior_2/

As a summary, people have said its less spongey than the first game, which is something TB enjoyed.

Basically you need different weapons that deal different types of damages to deal with the enemy's resistances. You also need to put in skill points to upgrade your character's damage in certain areas. Melee also has its own set of abilities which allow you to survive more, which TB doesn't actually show but briefly discussed. Personally, haven't played much of the game, but people I know didn't understand how he was having problems and even enjoyed the changes from the previous Shadow Warrior.

Another nice thing to see is that the devs have responded nicely in response to TB, despite TB somewhat 'shitting' on the game.

I wonder if TB missed that, or didn't spend enough time with it - hard to say. TB generally does a "first impressions", not a "full review".

 

The difference? He'll play a game for a few hours, get part way into it, and then do his review. He usually doesn't finish the game. This sometimes means he might miss things.

[dragosudeki]

1 minute ago, dalekphalm said:

I wonder if TB missed that, or didn't spend enough time with it - hard to say. TB generally does a "first impressions", not a "full review".

 

The difference? He'll play a game for a few hours, get part way into it, and then do his review. He usually doesn't finish the game. This sometimes means he might miss things.

Hard to say whether it was missed or had no time to fully dive into it (He said at the end, he's not playing anymore of it anyway). Though, that's not really an excuse for a 'reviewer' with massive influence and following just hating on a majority of the game mechanics. You can't say Dark Souls-like games has terrible mechanics, if you fail to just understand the mechanics and ideas around the game, but I would happily accept it if he mentioned that the game just didn't suit his taste (He mentioned that this game was a terrible looter-shooter and went in the complete wrong direction and called it the "disappointment of the year"). Hating on something and accepting the fact that it doesn't suit your tastes are two different things unfortunately.

[dalekphalm]

1 minute ago, dragosudeki said:

Hard to say whether it was missed or had no time to fully dive into it (He said at the end, he's not playing anymore of it anyway). Though, that's not really an excuse for a 'reviewer' with massive influence and following just hating on a majority of the game mechanics. You can't say Dark Souls-like games has terrible mechanics, if you fail to just understand the mechanics and ideas around the game, but I would happily accept it if he mentioned that the game just didn't suit his taste (He mentioned that this game was a terrible looter-shooter and went in the complete wrong direction and called it the "disappointment of the year"). Hating on something and accepting the fact that it doesn't suit your tastes are two different things unfortunately.

Well TB is kind of notorious for not being very good at certain types of games - though he generally acknowledges when it's simply a style of gameplay he doesn't enjoy. Honestly I didn't even finish his WTF is... for SW2 - I got a few minutes in, and it just wasn't a very interesting review. Of course, I was never a huge fan of the game series anyway, never having played the first one. That type of gameplay doesn't interest me as much as others. But I wouldn't claim it's a bad game just because I prefer other types.

 

I myself can usually judge the gameplay just based on him playing it - in my personal case his commentary is there to talk about bugs and glitches and to go over the settings, and options in the game menus.

 

However, I can see how, him being terrible at video games, can be annoying to others, since he can misinterpret gameplay mechanics or entirely outright miss things. This wouldn't be the first game that it's happened with him.

[Master Disaster]

11 minutes ago, dragosudeki said:

Hard to say whether it was missed or had no time to fully dive into it (He said at the end, he's not playing anymore of it anyway). Though, that's not really an excuse for a 'reviewer' with massive influence and following just hating on a majority of the game mechanics. You can't say Dark Souls-like games has terrible mechanics, if you fail to just understand the mechanics and ideas around the game, but I would happily accept it if he mentioned that the game just didn't suit his taste (He mentioned that this game was a terrible looter-shooter and went in the complete wrong direction and called it the "disappointment of the year"). Hating on something and accepting the fact that it doesn't suit your tastes are two different things unfortunately.

Just to clarify, TB is very clear that he doesn't do REVIEWS, he does impression videos. He doesn't call himself a reviewer and he always labels his videos as impression videos. 

 

Personally I always watch multiple videos on a game I'm considering , I'll usually watch TBs, Sterling's and/or yahtzees (depending on who releases what) and equal that out with IGN and/or Gamespot to get an overall impression of the title. Relying on a single review is just as bad as buying blind IMO. Take as many opinions as possible to give yourself as much info as possible . 

[dalekphalm]

5 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

Just to clarify, TB is very clear that he doesn't do REVIEWS, he does impression videos. He doesn't call himself a reviewer and he always labels his videos as impression videos. 

 

Personally I always watch multiple videos on a game I'm considering , I'll usually watch TBs, Sterling's and/or yahtzees (depending on who releases what) and equal that out with IGN and/or Gamespot to get an overall impression of the title. Relying on a single review is just as bad as buying blind IMO. Take as many opinions as possible to give yourself as much info as possible . 

I personally can't STAND Jim Sterling. He is a critical and good reviewer, but his personality is so goddamn annoying I just can't make it through any videos. They're all so cringe-worthy to me.

 

But yes, I agree, anyone should always use multiple reviews to build a picture of a game.

 

The thing about TB's impressions - he can call them whatever he wants, but people still look at them as if they are reviews. It's a tricky situation, because on one side, TB makes it quite clear they are first impressions, not reviews, but on the other hand, when the vast majority of of viewers treat it like a review, there's a certain obligation there. You could look at it from both sides, to be fair.

[goodtofufriday]

5 hours ago, apm said:

Fallout 4 on the other hand was dogshit and a ton of diehard fans were disappointed by everything.

Definitely wasnt worth the money. And the last dlc had you become an evil king of raiders to raid the very cities you helped build. The whole game forved you to be good then suddenly youre entirely evil?

Horrible story all around. 

[jaggysnake57]

14 hours ago, tlink said:

-snip-

pirating isnt the answer and TBH feels like an excuse to be cheap. the answer is to not preorder or buy on the day of release......the answer is patience.

9 hours ago, dragosudeki said:

 Major problem with TB (and probably Sterling), is when he gives a bad opinion (whether its informed or not), most of his fans will blindly think the same thing and not try the game out for themselves. Reviewers that have a lot of influence on the community can be both good/bad for a game whether its justified or not. 

what! how are people ment to try a game with no demos? the point of a review is to avoid buying a shit game.....if your gonna buy the game regardless then why look at reviews......thats just stupid

[Master Disaster]

1 hour ago, dalekphalm said:

The thing about TB's impressions - he can call them whatever he wants, but people still look at them as if they are reviews. It's a tricky situation, because on one side, TB makes it quite clear they are first impressions, not reviews, but on the other hand, when the vast majority of of viewers treat it like a review, there's a certain obligation there. You could look at it from both sides, to be fair.

Yeah, that is a fair point. 

[dalekphalm]

1 minute ago, jaggysnake57 said:

pirating isnt the answer and TBH feels like an excuse to be cheap. the answer is to not preorder or buy on the day of release......the answer is patience.

what! how are people ment to try a game with no demos? the point of a review is to avoid buying a shit game.....if your gonna buy the game regardless then why look at reviews......thats just stupid

I fully agree with your first point. Publisher pushing bad practices? Game buggy?

 

Maybe just don't play the damn game! It makes me mad when people get all uppity about a bad port or something, and then go ahead and pirate it, as some sort of "take that!" to the publisher.

 

@tlink want to know what happens when you pirate a bad port? The publisher thinks they made a good game, because you still played it.

 

Not buying the game and also not playing it at all sends a much stronger message to publishers.

 

@jaggysnake57 as to your second point, Steam and Origin both have refund policies (And in the case of EA - what this thread is about - they have a very generous refund policy). In some ways, it's much better than a Demo.

 

Why? Because a Demo isn't the game. It's not the same. It can be manipulated, just the same as reviews can be. They can polish the fuck out of the Demo, and then the real game can end up being a turd.

 

From a consumer point of view, I would personally prefer to buy the game (after reading reviews), and try it myself, rather then trust some Demo that may or may not reflect the finished product. If I don't like it? I can use the existing refund policies.

 

Not everyone will find this ideal, but for me personally, this is what I would do.

[Master Disaster]

2 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

I fully agree with your first point. Publisher pushing bad practices? Game buggy?

 

Maybe just don't play the damn game! It makes me mad when people get all uppity about a bad port or something, and then go ahead and pirate it, as some sort of "take that!" to the publisher.

 

@tlink want to know what happens when you pirate a bad port? The publisher thinks they made a good game, because you still played it.

 

Not buying the game and also not playing it at all sends a much stronger message to publishers.

 

@jaggysnake57 as to your second point, Steam and Origin both have refund policies (And in the case of EA - what this thread is about - they have a very generous refund policy). In some ways, it's much better than a Demo.

 

Why? Because a Demo isn't the game. It's not the same. It can be manipulated, just the same as reviews can be. They can polish the fuck out of the Demo, and then the real game can end up being a turd.

 

From a consumer point of view, I would personally prefer to buy the game (after reading reviews), and try it myself, rather then trust some Demo that may or may not reflect the finished product. If I don't like it? I can use the existing refund policies.

 

Not everyone will find this ideal, but for me personally, this is what I would do.

One of my mates bought No Man's Sky on launch day, one hour in we decided it was a refund and put in the request. Within an hour it was gone from his account but the game files remained on his PC. A bit later someone on Teamspeak suggested he download the crack and carry on playing . Our response was fuck no, it honestly wasn't even worth pirating. 

 

The same can be said of many games released in the last few years unfortunately, the release state is so bad it's not worth the time or effort to play them illegitimately . 

[Jovidah]

Shitty development... but IMO not very meaningful as long as everyone just stopped pre-ordering. What's the point in it anyway? It's not like Steam is going to run out of keys for any of these new games... You're just taking a wild gamble at something good, with really only a token compensation for that risk (usually...a free skin, car or crappy gun).  Just be more patient and this will all go away!

 

I don't really understand Bethesda's move though. In my mind they have a pretty good track record of consistently putting out good quality games, none of which have ever dissapointed me. So why try to rain on the reviewers parade? As long as you're not making crap it shouldn't be an issue...

[tlink]

1 hour ago, jaggysnake57 said:

pirating isnt the answer and TBH feels like an excuse to be cheap. the answer is to not preorder or buy on the day of release......the answer is patience.

if their game is shit and their practices are shit, then its not worth the money. cracking it solves the problem most time for example removing the always online on simcity or shit like that.

[silberdrachi]

9 hours ago, EUD said:

60$ demo

80 dollar demo, you got to pay extra to get into that closed beta period man.

 

Sure you are just paying to QA their game, but you get to play ahead of time!

[dalekphalm]

32 minutes ago, tlink said:

if their game is shit and their practices are shit, then its not worth the money. cracking it solves the problem most time for example removing the always online on simcity or shit like that.

Always online is a pretty marginal problem in the AAA industry. Very few games actually require it.

 

So what about all the other games, then?

 

Cracking it does not solve the core problem, because that just makes them want to add more DRM to make it harder to crack.

 

Quote

then its not worth the money

I agree with this specific part. If it's not worth the money, though, then don't play it.

 

By not playing the game, you're sending a stronger message.

[tlink]

4 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Always online is a pretty marginal problem in the AAA industry. Very few games actually require it.

 

So what about all the other games, then?

 

Cracking it does not solve the core problem, because that just makes them want to add more DRM to make it harder to crack.

 

I agree with this specific part. If it's not worth the money, though, then don't play it.

 

By not playing the game, you're sending a stronger message.

if its not worth the money it might still be worth the time. if they don't get money they will research how to get money. drm won't fix it because people still won't buy a shitty product. 

[dalekphalm]

23 minutes ago, tlink said:

if its not worth the money it might still be worth the time. if they don't get money they will research how to get money. drm won't fix it because people still won't buy a shitty product. 

That's an oxymoron. If it's worth your time, it's worth your money. Period. Otherwise, you're basically doing something unethical (in my opinion), since you're saying "This is good enough for me to play, but fuck paying for it".

 

If something is overpriced, the price will be naturally corrected by the market, since people won't buy and use the product. They will do without, or they will use a competitors product that offers better value.

 

It might be stealing in the physical sense, but what you advocate doing is bad for the gaming industry as a whole - potentially just as bad as those shitty/sneaky/shifty business practices that you claim to hate.

[Monkey Dust]

10 hours ago, Void Reaper said:

I dont blame Bethesda, their Games focus heavily on their Story, so having nobody to Spoiler that is a good thing imho, even though it worked for previous Games. Could be that i just fanboy Bethesda, but i'd rather have a Studio that doesnt give out Review Codes than EA that just punches you until you give them a good Review or you'll never get one ever again.

Bethesda also have a track record of releasing broken games, it would be nice to know if I should purchase now or wait a couple of patches for the worst faults to be ironed out. Admittedly it is a little better than EAs approach of only giving review copies to tame reviewers. But since EA Game = shit is a pretty solid assumption most of the time you'd have to be off your head to buy one before credible reviews came out post launch.

7 hours ago, apm said:

because you cant review the story?

i want reviewers to complete the games and not some half assed shit.

 

i only preorder games where im 100% certain that it wont suck and dishonored 2 might be one of them.

fallout 4 on the other hand was dogshit and a ton of diehard fans were disappointed by everything.

 

no mans sky.

You can never be 100% sure a game won't suck, not even Dishonored 2. I was nearly convinced Mafia 3 was going to be the greatest game I'd played in ages, and look how that panned out. Very glad I didn't preorder as it looks very much like a Steam sale purchase rather than full price. I think calling Fallout 4 dogshit was a little harsh, it was a bit disappointing but I'd still recommend it to someone looking at it in a Steam sale IMO. 

 

Given how many games are buggy at launch, requiring at least one patch, have poor mechanics, short story padded out with annoying fluff, run poorly on one or the other brand of GPUs for no apparent reason other than they can't be arsed, poor or no support for ultra wide resolutions, and plenty of other faults I can't think of right now, and no guarantee they'll get fixed, it's a risky business buying on launch day, utter madness to pre-order. I will concede I have given in and pre-ordered, but I still think it's a bad idea.

[tlink]

21 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

That's an oxymoron. If it's worth your time, it's worth your money. Period. Otherwise, you're basically doing something unethical (in my opinion), since you're saying "This is good enough for me to play, but fuck paying for it".

 

If something is overpriced, the price will be naturally corrected by the market, since people won't buy and use the product. They will do without, or they will use a competitors product that offers better value.

 

It might be stealing in the physical sense, but what you advocate doing is bad for the gaming industry as a whole - potentially just as bad as those shitty/sneaky/shifty business practices that you claim to hate.

thats a black and white fallacy or a strawman fallacy. if its not worth the money its sold at then there is not an option for giving it the money you find it worth, if there was then we wouldn't pirate nearly as much as we do.

[dalekphalm]

1 minute ago, tlink said:

thats a black and white fallacy or a strawman fallacy. if its not worth the money its sold at then there is not an option for giving it the money you find it worth, if there was then we wouldn't pirate nearly as much as we do.

People pirate because they can get away with it, and because it's (relatively) easy. Pretty simple.

 

The fact that someone sells a game at, say $50, but you only value it at $25, but there's no option to pay $25, does not give you the right to simply pirate it. You should instead refrain from buying or playing it.

 

Tweet at the Publisher saying the game isn't worth the price, suggest a better price. Post on their Facebook page. Make a blog post. Post in the forums, etc.

 

But pirating it helps no one. It certainly won't help make them lower the price.

[Misanthrope]

2 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

People pirate because they can get away with it, and because it's (relatively) easy. Pretty simple.

 

The fact that someone sells a game at, say $50, but you only value it at $25, but there's no option to pay $25, does not give you the right to simply pirate it. You should instead refrain from buying or playing it.

 

Tweet at the Publisher saying the game isn't worth the price, suggest a better price. Post on their Facebook page. Make a blog post. Post in the forums, etc.

 

But pirating it helps no one. It certainly won't help make them lower the price.

Aye for example if I don't like how EA is handling mass effect I'd tweet "Hey @EA instead of wasting my money on your crap I'm buying another copy of Witcher 3 to give away to one of your followers at random"

 

This would honestly work a lot better if I had a few hundred thousand followers and not like 30 but still you get the point.

[dalekphalm]

8 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

Aye for example if I don't like how EA is handling mass effect I'd tweet "Hey @EA instead of wasting my money on your crap I'm buying another copy of Witcher 3 to give away to one of your followers at random"

 

This would honestly work a lot better if I had a few hundred thousand followers and not like 30 but still you get the point.

The problem in modern society (to be fair, this has always been a problem to one degree or another) is that people might be mad at something, but they won't DO anything about it.

 

Eg: EA releases a piece of shit SimCity with always online.

 

Joe Blow decides it's a piece of shit, and not worth the $60 price. Joe pirates the game. The end.

 

How the fuck is EA supposed to know you pirated the game because $60 was too much, or that Always Online was the problem, or that the game was padded and needed more content?

 

When you pirate a game, how is EA supposed to know it's not because you're just a cheap piece of shit? Or that you're poor? Or that you live in a country with a garbage economy and make $0.60 per day? Or that the game was too expensive? Or that the game was too short? Or that it had DLC? Or that it had Microtransactions? Or that you're a rebel and like breaking the rules? Or that it has Always Online? Or that the publisher doesn't support workers rights? And so on.

 

There are a million reasons why some people pirate. Pirating a game doesn't tell the publisher why their game is bad (or even IF their game is bad). FUCKING AWESOME games get pirated all the time - hell, possibly more than shitty ones (though I have no stats to directly compare).

 

@tlink do you see the issue with pirating a game, as sending a message? It's a message that: 1. Isn't clear, and 2. Falls on deaf ears.

[Misanthrope]

Yeah most pirates are usually younger people from less than stelar economical situations and places that would pirate no matter what I just don't get why some people pretend it's about sending a message when it's clearly not it's just about being broke most of the time.

 

And in the end the success of Cities: Skylines today is the last laugh in that whole Simcity debacle if you ask me.

[Derangel]

5 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

The problem in modern society (to be fair, this has always been a problem to one degree or another) is that people might be mad at something, but they won't DO anything about it.

 

Eg: EA releases a piece of shit SimCity with always online.

 

Joe Blow decides it's a piece of shit, and not worth the $60 price. Joe pirates the game. The end.

 

How the fuck is EA supposed to know you pirated the game because $60 was too much, or that Always Online was the problem, or that the game was padded and needed more content?

 

When you pirate a game, how is EA supposed to know it's not because you're just a cheap piece of shit? Or that you're poor? Or that you live in a country with a garbage economy and make $0.60 per day? Or that the game was too expensive? Or that the game was too short? Or that it had DLC? Or that it had Microtransactions? Or that you're a rebel and like breaking the rules? Or that it has Always Online? Or that the publisher doesn't support workers rights? And so on.

 

There are a million reasons why some people pirate. Pirating a game doesn't tell the publisher why their game is bad (or even IF their game is bad). FUCKING AWESOME games get pirated all the time - hell, possibly more than shitty ones (though I have no stats to directly compare).

 

@tlink do you see the issue with pirating a game, as sending a message? It's a message that: 1. Isn't clear, and 2. Falls on deaf ears.

100% this. Companies are not going to ask people why they pirate or even spend a ton of effort trying to figure it out. Even companies that propose theories about piracy aren't asking why everyone is pirating. At some point it comes down to "they're just doing so because it's free and there is nothing we can do about it".

 

If people want to pirate something, whatever. Do whatever the hell you want, but stop trying to pretend it's sending a message or is anything but being selfish and caring only about yourself versus some BS higher meaning.

[tlink]

13 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

The problem in modern society (to be fair, this has always been a problem to one degree or another) is that people might be mad at something, but they won't DO anything about it.

 

Eg: EA releases a piece of shit SimCity with always online.

 

Joe Blow decides it's a piece of shit, and not worth the $60 price. Joe pirates the game. The end.

 

How the fuck is EA supposed to know you pirated the game because $60 was too much, or that Always Online was the problem, or that the game was padded and needed more content?

 

When you pirate a game, how is EA supposed to know it's not because you're just a cheap piece of shit? Or that you're poor? Or that you live in a country with a garbage economy and make $0.60 per day? Or that the game was too expensive? Or that the game was too short? Or that it had DLC? Or that it had Microtransactions? Or that you're a rebel and like breaking the rules? Or that it has Always Online? Or that the publisher doesn't support workers rights? And so on.

 

There are a million reasons why some people pirate. Pirating a game doesn't tell the publisher why their game is bad (or even IF their game is bad). FUCKING AWESOME games get pirated all the time - hell, possibly more than shitty ones (though I have no stats to directly compare).

 

@tlink do you see the issue with pirating a game, as sending a message? It's a message that: 1. Isn't clear, and 2. Falls on deaf ears.

i never said pirating was a message. i said don't buy their shit if its not worth the money. stop making strawman fallacy's. the messege is not buying it. pirating is just the way you don't completely have to miss out. hey, maybe even buy it when its on sale for 5 bucks after 5 years or so, thats what i do.