Things journos told me about games that are totally lies

[Stark]

It's been such a funny week in the gaming press I had to start a thread.

1) Dead Island was full of 'glitches' and 'bugs' but Riptide isn't; co-op is 'boring'. That's why co-op in Riptide hard-locked my console 3 times! :V

2) Metro 2033 had 'unreliable' weapons that would 'break' at the 'worst times' (and 'woeful' stealth). The game was good despite annoying weapon jams and all the 'bugs' and 'glitches'. NB - there is actually no reliability or jamming mechanics in Metro at all.

3) Star Trek is probably the worst game of the year, and is full of 'bugs' and 'glitches'. That's why my wife demanded to play coops after watching it for 10 minutes, then wanted to watch the 2009 movie, and now we're seeing the movie on thursday. Because it's so terrible (described by Sherry as 'better than Gears 3'). One whole map glitch! WOULD NEVER HAPPEN IN MASS EFFECT LOL

4) Dark Arisen is 'too hard' and repeats map geometry, but fixes all those annoying 'bugs' and 'glitches' in Dragons Dogma like the texture popup that never, ever happened.

In short, this week I learned that if you don't like a game but it either sold well or people won't take your word for it, just refer to nebulous 'bugs and glitches' which make it a bad game and hope nobody stops to consider the enormous raft of 'bugs and glitches' in your average 5 million selling AAA title. The way gaming 'websites' refer to Dead Island as 'surprisingly popular given the bugs and glitches' is fucking gold.

[bilateralrope]

Are you trying to make a point other than "video game reviews are full of lies" ?
Because I believe you have made that point before. I can't argue with you as I've been ignoring reviews for years and I do remember running into one of the reviews claiming unreliable weapons in Metro 2033.

To try and get this discussion to go somewhere new, I've got two questions:
- Are there any gaming journos you have found to be honest ?
- Is there any reliable way for me to judge if a game is worth my time and money before buying it ?

[Stark]

People publicly making statements that are verifiable lies and people who like the person or presentation uncritically accepting them will NEVER get old. It doesn't matter if you 'ignore reviews' or feel clever about doing so; these people who set the narrative on gaming products arguably shape the industry like any other media. People lying through their ass and torpedoing a game doesn't ruin less studios just because you personally don't read reviews.

This isn't a 'review' saying a game is 'bad' in fluffy subjective ways - its people making statements about objective fact that are demonstrably wrong, either through ignorance or deliberate dishonesty. In an industry sense, these lies can be as relevant or more relevant than anything else. It'd be a joke if I was talking about Kotaku's hilarious ability to apparently always send people to previews who have no knowledge of or interest in the games or genre of games being presented, so they can end their entirely paid-for advertising with 'but I don't know much about shooters'. Did I mention a Kotaku (or Joystiq) preview of Last Light where the person writing the article believed the level called 'Venice' was set in the Italian city, despite the game being about the Moscow metro system?

For me though, the best is the reception of poor old Star Trek, where the media narrative on the game is so strong people who have no information about it at all will contradict my description of the game and refuse to accept it. I mean honestly, how can something be the worst shooter of the year when Aliens just came out? That's right, because everyone already forgot about that and people are interested in cool stories they can repeat from named authorities.

And frankly your first question should be 'how long does it take an honest game reviewer to cease to be such, due to professional, economic or demographic pressures'. I've found this process is faster the more popular a website or individual is, but never takes more than six months to go from honest and outspoken to terrible puns, gonzo bullshit, clickthrough hunting cut and paste. Its almost like once something becomes your job or primary income you have to follow the industry to keep a roof over your head!

[bilateralrope]

People publicly making statements that are verifiable lies and people who like the person or presentation uncritically accepting them will NEVER get old. It doesn't matter if you 'ignore reviews' or feel clever about doing so; these people who set the narrative on gaming products arguably shape the industry like any other media. People lying through their ass and torpedoing a game doesn't ruin less studios just because you personally don't read reviews.

True. But is there anything I can do about it ?

As for me not reading reviews, why should I spend any of my time paying attention to them ?

Their lies mean they are best ignored if I'm trying to decide if I should purchase a game and the reviews don't have any entertainment value on their own.

This isn't a 'review' saying a game is 'bad' in fluffy subjective ways - its people making statements about objective fact that are demonstrably wrong, either through ignorance or deliberate dishonesty.

People saying things which are objectively wrong and harm the companies that produce the games they are lying about. It sounds like part of the problem is that publishers are too afraid of the media backlash to respond to this defamation with legal action.

And frankly your first question should be 'how long does it take an honest game reviewer to cease to be such, due to professional, economic or demographic pressures'. I've found this process is faster the more popular a website or individual is, but never takes more than six months to go from honest and outspoken to terrible puns, gonzo bullshit, clickthrough hunting cut and paste. Its almost like once something becomes your job or primary income you have to follow the industry to keep a roof over your head!

That would be another part of the problem.

[Stark]

It doesn't matter what you as an individual do. So long as the perception exists that people who talk about video games either in magazines or popular websites have any authority or even honesty, the complete fabrications they invent will continue to shape the industry. This is why I think it's important than when people read anything about a game - especially a game that hasn't come out yet, or a sequel to a game that wasn't a huge hit, or a little-known game - there is almost no reason to believe any of it is even true, let alone valid. It isn't even a question of 'is this person making reasonable judgements about the content of this game' any more - its whether or not what they say has any relation to fucking reality. Due to EB's return policy I have the luxury of being able to play questionable or outright bad games at no risk, and so I frequently find that positive buzz can make almost any game popular regardless of faults, and negative buzz can sink almost any game regardless of merit... and this buzz is often entirely fictional, which obviously means in the case of negative press that nobody ever plays the game to discover that things like 'too much jamming in Metro' could not be a more dishonest statement if it involved Richard Nixon.

People just like stories, especially funny or critical stories. This is why when games like Dead Island are successful in the face critical hostility they're forever preceeded by statements like 'that game that people liked even though we warned them about the terrible bugs and glitches'. It's simpler to just read a review or hear a tall tale from a friend and just never find out.

Like serious I had a guy yesterday lecturing me about how the cover in Star Trek sucks, even though he's never played it and only heard something in a podcast once. And sure, it's not ME3, but neither is any third person shooter that isn't ME3. But the story is compelling and funny, and thus more important than the actual characteristics of the game.

But in answer to your question I don't know if there's anything positive anyone can do about it. You can demonstrate reviewers lying all day long, and its probable most people won't even care because they don't go to reviews for facts. It's just a bit sad that people lose their jobs because of poor metacritic ratings, when those rating are derived from what is at times basically creative writing.

[Tolya]

Okay, so whats the bottom line on Star Trek? I've been wondering about this one. I admit, bad gaming press got me scared away from this title but I've been waiting for someone with an opinion to tell me what are it's actual merits and faults.

[Flagg]

My bottom line is that it's boring licensed trash that squandered excellent voice talent for a quick cashin.

[Stark]

Its an average third person shooter with platforming. If it's 'boring' its because its Star Trek and people talk and solve puzzles a lot. The only genuinely bad part is when they built a level around an engine limitation, where you're in zero-g and have to run 'up' a tower and your camera spends the whole time looking straight up while making it hard for you to aim your camera away from 'up' to see the puzzle gimzos. Oh, and maybe partner AI making it really hard to get the optional rewards for non-lethal and stealth so you have to manually tell them to wait in the corner.

IE nothing that doesn't happen on all manner of other shooters.