Paid reviews

I was about to make a comment like this. They do it for free.

I don't think they were payed to give 10/10 but they are incredibly biased. Anyone who gets an early copy of a game will give it a good review in order to get more early copies in the future. Those reviews should not be trusted regardless of if the game turns out to be good or not.

Yes, video game reviewers will be given swag/special access for individuals or advertising for websites, and they have to give the games a decent score lest they never get swag or paid for advertisements again. This is why Jeff was fired for his Kane and Lynch review, it's public knowledge.

The game will probably get great reviews because of how reviewers literally are required to give good reviews to keep getting early review copies, but from what we've seen so far it really doesn't deserve it
>Entire first game has the message of don't trust anyone. Joel is constantly on edge around strangers, not even wanting Ellie to give her name to people they meet. Not to mention the fireflies they spent the entire time going to ended up wanting to kill Ellie and were going to do it without giving her a choice
>First game literally shows how distrust is ingrained into who Joel is, and how he's managed to survive for 30 years
>Second game Joel and Tommy willingly walk into a room full of armed strangers and introduce themselves with their real names, and tell these strangers where they live and that they have enough supplies to give some away
The writing is fucking atrocious. Characters have turned into drooling retards for the sake of drama. It's the fucking apocalypse, there's absolutely no reason you'd ever meet a group of armed strangers and tell them where you live and that you have a lot of supplies

What's scarier, if the reviews were paid for, or that the "journalists" actually believe it's a 10/10 experience

The corruption, for sure

Definitely corruption. There's a reason basically every single AAA game gets 9s. Even when they're fucking awful they still get a 7.

There is proof that critical critics don't get review copies and/or get dislike bombed. This counts for most games though

Holy shit. Who knew Jeff was so based.

>Implying it's not both of those at the same time

>solid proof of video game companies paying reviewers for good reviewers.
So how new are you?

The big one arr kane and lynch gamespot and famitsu extremely fucking often. But Zig Forums will try and make it east vs west polarised hyperbole garbage because agenda etc etc.

Stop letting this place dictate your opinion on stuff that YOU have never played and what those with overly strong opinions for things THEY have never played. Grow a fucking spine for fucks sake.

paid...

nobody paid those cuck piece of shit tranny lovers to give it 10.... they gave it 10 so they can have a job tomorrow...

They are not such things at paid reviews, but they are "conditionated" to give good reviews, if not say goodbye to early copies, ads on your website and invites for conferences.

I can't say so. We KNOW the corruption exists, we've always known, and that's why "games journalism" has always been a joke. The real sad part is how far our standards have slipped, that all it takes is some polished graphics to make literally everyone who reviews a thing completely ignore what's actually happening in their hands.

Like if you gave people a clunk-ass generic Third Person Shooter video game with janky Morrowind graphics, and then gave them the exact same game with modern AAA graphics, they'd say the latter was a masterpiece and a revolution in gaming. They'd tell you that the controls feel tight and responsive, they'd make up some bullshit about how the sound design compliments it perfectly and how the combat feels visceral and brutal. Even if it was the exact same busted-ass jank shit from 10 years ago.

Because people are actually too fucking stupid to stop and assess what is going on in front of them. They're blank NPCs who just get dopamine from flashing lights and pretty colors and their brains fill in the details after the fact.

First, the question seemed to be worded as an either-or scenario. It's far less concerning for me to have game reviewers with casual, normalfag tastes than it is for some form of corruption. Second, I don't think standards have ever been particularly good - I remember Nintendo Power giving good reviews to practically everything.

I was implying that the second choice was the more disappointing truth.

Hey guys, so I started with a SkillUp review where he was like "its okay but a bit disappointing all around 7/10" and that was before everyone else got their reviews out. Now he's getting hate mail and stuff and one of his podcasts he went into how blown away he was that everyone else collectively decided it was a masterpiece, making him seem like some contrarian dick.

So that was a few days ago and it's even more fucked now on Metacritic. So I went looking for the other bad reviews and it seems the more major or mature the publication the less likely it is to give the perfect score.

I started finding the negative reviews that are all the same sort of "yeah its pretty alright but some bits are shit" and those simply are not being factored into the Metacritic aggregate. They show up as "in-progress" reviews. So I went and tried finding the worst reviews and saw even Kotaku US said:

>"So many people worked on this game for so long, and at such cost, that I want The Last Of Us II to be more than the experience I had. It’s a visually beautiful game that feels distinct to play, and the story it tells and how it tells it, at the most basic level, certainly pushes the edges of what games have done before. None of those accomplishments elevated or redeemed it for me. "

That review was deleted. See I figure Kotaku US of all places was one of the least integrity filled outlets so if they are willing to look past the LGBT parts and judge it on it's merits rather than it's outside context then that is pretty severe. The way I see it going down:

>Write your hot take 7.5/10 for the hot upcoming game
>Shit the bed when everyone else 10/10s it
>Don't want to appear to be 'that guy' and delete your review quickly

It's past my bed time - I shouldn't even care, but its fascinating to see the fear people have.

Attached: 1591981874718.webm (1280x720, 2.77M)

The whole industry is one big paid review. People who review games are product reviewers, they arent journalists and they arent critics. Stop thinking of them as such. They are product reviewers that get black listed if they say bad things, they get free loot and paid trips paid for on behalf of game companies. The company they work for survives on ad revenue from publishers and access to developers and as well as higher ups. For a review to be bad it has to be really egregious like FO76.

I don't know how we can get away from it, but as a Society™, we place an exceptional amount of value on review scores. It would be really great if we started to ignore these numbers altogether, making Metacritic worthless. I'm sure it'll never happen though.

Driver 3 comes to mind, but I can't remember if any proof surfaces. Kane & Lynch: Dead Men for sure though.

The kotaku/polygon negative reviews are definitely still up, you hit a dead link or something

Attached: misery.png (1283x893, 344.19K)

this

I was trying to use this link:
kotaku.com/the-last-of-us-part-ii-the-kotaku-review-1844006193

I saw that the Kotaku AU (Australia) was still up but that review was glowing.