I watched GDCA and all that and only watching all the news about skyrim without even playing it i had that uncertainity and that dull feeling ... i guess my suspicions were correct, but i didn't knew it was that bad. I mean ... not only are problems on PC which are to be expected but the thing had so many console problems which is pretty mediocre compared to the fact consoles have full hardware access and should be able to polish to perfection if commited.


http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=37509812&postcount=6

The content pertaining to the linked thread is not in my discussion and anyone replying is replying to that , not me. I only pointed this out without subjective opinion of any sort except honest feeling about it just hearing a few news articles randomly.


Battlefield 3 launched similarly ... and that one is even worse.

Personally i weitghted in on the interesting events that happen ... overhyped, buggy games getting goty and all sort of stuff .... fixing stuff afterwards makes people actually not quit playing but it doesn't really reflect reality, those scores ... reviewers are no compatible at all - the way industry has shifter do release now patch later is incredibly getting so much more irrelevant and pointless of scoring the games and determining their quality at launch.

Since the times of Dune 2000 - to Starcraft 2 - I have never gave a damn about any sort of review or reviewer or news site, this goty nonsense got to a mental level with crap of duties and modern warfails as well as some modern crapfares, no corporate entity will ever influence my mind, all my base belong to me.

The only reason i might have read some reviewes is to either:
- check how good it was written - if it was crap then i posted feedback to correct facts sometimes.
- laugh at it how stupid the reviewer is
- never checked it before I got the game (it's all spoilers)
- never did a review affect my final decision for purchasing (and im hardcoe, i don't play crap games anyways so ...)
- i don't even need a review to know what's going to be great or not , learn to learn.



This is an (very small) anolysis - the claims pretaining specifically to Skyrim above are not my creations nor did I provide any comments my self, I only said i was suspicious of the overhype and bugs, other than that i cannot comment further on things i do not research first-hand, the reason is genuine decision, I am not an RPG gamer thus i genuinely do not play the genre, if i would play it i could go into details.

Well You're gonna have a tough time convincing the Mass that Reviewers are the end all be all say, qualifier to buy said game when so many questionable processes are employed to gain positive reviews, or reviews taking a blind eye to the genre. I.E reviewing RPG's and Shooters in the same style/criteria.

So you laugh at how stupid the reviewer is if they don't agree with you, and claim they are wrong even though it is all a matter of opinion. Honestly, they talk about bugs in the review, if you actually read them, However, a few manageable bugs isn't enough to make a game go from a 10/10 to a 1/10. Also, I don't think any call of duty game has been a contender for game of the year since 2007.

Not to mention many of them don't do their job properly to begin with.

I cannot see relevancy or accuracy in scores produced by strict-time scheduled, packed, capitalist minded, and rupert murdoch or CBS owned corporate entities. Such things should be done by independent, non-profit organization that is would totally devote time into making a review and final score.

Reviewer is some journalist joe came from playing iphone games ... come on. Who the heck are these people IGN and gametrailers and crap like that puts on ... college students without tech background - or in other words, a generation that was breed by the corrupted console generation (x360/PS3)

I find reviewers and critics in general to be out of touch with reality. I first noticed it with movie critics, but the more I read game reviews I'm convinced it applies to them, too.

I don't agree with them, they write what they want and get paid for it. Why would I agree with something that is conflicting with reality?

Every site can go up and make them selfs "gaming news site" and have installed reviewers and the guy says "goty goes to .... "

You're saying like this GOTY thing is something global or standard, it's not, I can make a pile of trash as a GOTY prize and send it off to the company and post on my website the game just won GOTY, it has to really be that good ?

It's abused, it's not regulated, it's bullcrap.

Reviewers aren't critics. They work for a corporate entity which funds go to other companies like your good ol' humanity-friendly goldman sachs, bank of america .. to name a few ...etc

They don't criticize anything ... they show good and bad stuff.

Critical views are meant objective and expose every downside if possible. Takes into account everyhing including respecting developer decisions rather than claiming they forgot something or they should have "followed suit". Critical views are mostly done with high-experieced industry enthusiasts, historians - most of them are the actual hardcoe gamers. Hello

Critical assesment does not need positives of any kind, it's not designed to sell the game, used as marketing material, influence public perception and opinion, the number of negatives reflects quality.

Citing good stuff is called praising - that's what awards are for. Cricial assessment can include factual praise like innovation, but you cannot praise "oh they put in matchmaking in this game while the competitors game did not have it" - you're not suppose to compare games directly or base some positive on another game negative.

And you htink you can do a better job. Check your facts, Murdoch does not own any game outlet, and almost all game reviews are independent from anyone who profits from the games, meaning no conflict of interest, they don't get paid for giving a good review. Almost all game reviewers are long time gamers who have fully immersed themselves in the industry for at least a decade. and how is this console generation corrupt

At least reviers are more consistant and fair than the general public. The masses seem to call something worthless at the slightest percieved flaw, essentially what you are doing.

The reality is that the reviwer liked a game that you did not like. You don't have to agree with him, but that doesn't make him wrong.

And yes, theoretically, anyone can make a website and make any pile of [censored] game of the year, but likely your website won't be taken seriously, as a rule of thumb, if Metacritic takes its reviews into consideration, its likely a repuatble review site, if its just some random blogger you can probably ignore what he says.

Name one video game reviewer who is working for Murdoc, Sachs, or Bank of America. What evidence do you have of this conflict of interest. Again, nonprofit, well respected reviewers are generally consistent with paid critics, and the critic does not get more money if he gives a high score

sd
Whatever, I don't have time for this trolling

It does.

Play games you want to play, not what the masses tell you to play.

P.S: Games are marketed the same way movies are now, video games arnt what they used to be over a decade ago.

d

I agree, play the games you want to play, not what the masses tell you to play, but what the masses tell you to play is so inconsistant and unfair that its not even worth seeing what they think

actually the only problem with skyrim is the short quest lines and some shallow radiant AI quests, bugs don't bother me much cause all games have them...

and about BF3, my friend got it and let me say its is the most fun I ever had playing a FPS online ever since the first days of CS and quake 2, I'm trying to get a copy but they ran out from virgin and it seems my only option is to get a digital one which i hate since I like to pet my DVD box

updates and patches don't bother me been used to them ever since I got internet....

honestly we can't have everything and reviewers try to judge the games as fairly as possible (though not all do this)

games that svck will show their svck-ness and games that don't will successed...

is skyrim a good game!!!...oh yahhhh, is BF3 a good game!!! ...also yes

can I spot the "bad" stuff in both games!!! you bet your ass i can .... but here is the thing when you grow up you learn to take people and things (like games) as they come.... good and bad combined, great games (and people) usually have more good than bad in them.

• Corporate gaming sites don't have the time to play games to their fullest depths
  
• IGN is owned by News Corporation which is run by Rupert Murdoch ... and the obvious group of investors which fill the highest ranks (above law)
  
• News of the World which has since closed was owned by News Corporation, they hacked people to get "early exclusive info", also set up fabricated stories.
  
• News Corporation owns substantial share of US Media - corrupted - they are ignoring Ron Paul who tops +6000 people at rallies while others can't get a hundred.
  
• Metacritic, GameSpot are owned by CBS. Another US media company ... operated by similar people.
  
• The PS360 console generation is the worst one ever, even Wii with it's downsides contributes to the overall score. N64 and PS2 sold so much an PC was still able to coexist ... when the stupid trends came by stupid publishers by stupid developer selling their souls, these capitalists wanted to put consoles and PCs into the same bin and the biggest most diluted and industry-unhealthy practise was born: multiplatform titles. .. all this globalization behind it, did not help either worlds, nor consoles, nor PC, the creative and quality health of the industry dropped significantly, except nintendo and blizzard Real world examples of deserved success that people fail to fully notice and comprehend.
  
• I do not care if my website would not be taken seriously by the very people these corporate sites depend upon. Because the lack of presence of the mainstreams would be completely irrelevant to it's operation, meaning, and certainly the industry overall. Every one has a chance to improve and would be able to understand it if he puts enough effort in his awareness and knowledge.

Maybe you are unable to cope with the complex constructive debate.
Symptoms detected are frustration and denial or mocking of presented information.

These are signs of inexperience and closed-beliefs, a very unstealthy, easily detectable defence mechanism of this person.

Respected reviewers don't work for corporate conglomerates. They have smaller sites. The fact that corporate sites work is because they use questionable business practices such as bribery.

The problem is that we're taking in information from limited sources and making their opinions just. We need to keep an open mind about things and evaluate information for ourselves instead of relying on reviewers. There are so many factors that makes a game great or terrible, and most of it subjective.

Even with these patches, Battlefield 3 remains the most buggiest and unfinished high-profile games this year. It certainly was the buggest game of 2011.

I could identify over a 1000 bugs, inconsitencies, balance issues, annoyances, mistakes... one guy posted a list of 300 problems him self, props for taking time, just one guy ...

I stopped caring to post since the problems were so often, so many, i forgot them by the time i was going to post them on forums and i didn't care to create a note to write down every one. The hype lasted for 2 weeks, .... it was game 3 of 3 I bought in 2011 : (other was Rage and Zelda Skyward Sword)

I've done reviews for newspapers before, and honestly I wrote them to give a quick overview and provide another perspective. Unfortunately, a lot of reviewers take themselves too seriously and don't really play the games in-depth if at all, and it's just vey shoddy.

Read some well-written reviews and judge the game yourself, really. You're your own judge.

The thing is, there is no connection between what a reviewer gives and what he gets in payment, your only arguing that all reviewers take bribes because of a very vauge connection between IGN and Murdoch. Murdoch doesn't personally oversee something like IGN, mostly focuses on his conservative newspapers. Also, because Murdoch does not also own the game companies or game retailers, he does not recieve any more profit from high reviews.

I agree with the OP.

10yrs ago Skyrim would have gotten a "wut?" instead of "10/10"

I stopped taking you serious after you started pushing your fairy tale communist agenda on us. Not to mention your elitist attitude that goes with it.

Seriously, if the reviews don't effect how you play games, what does it matter that they do this? We should all know to take everything we are told with a grain of salt. If you don't question what you're told you're just a zombie. Also, I don't know of any game review sites that profits from game developers. Just because they're capitalist doesn't mean they're all in cahoots to make a buck off us sheep.

You're also over exaggerating the amount of bugs in these games. And if they are released with bugs, they are patched. When you have such huge open worlds like Elder Scrolls, or large maps where every building can collapse, you will have bugs that your testers didn't find. If all you did was game test your game would never be released because it's impossible to find every bug.

Also, it's allowed to just enjoy games even if they're not perfect. I'm really surprised you even do anything since you're such a harsh critic on everything. Maybe a mesh is just slightly on top of another mesh and it creates a small problem? I'm sure that just ruins the whole game for you. Go smoke a joint and have a shot of vodka or whatever you kids do these days to make life even livable.

There's a difference between a complex constructive debate and pointlessly arguing with someone on the internet. Just the fact that we're insulting each other indicates its the latter and not the former.

Overall, I'm just arguing that reviewers tend to be fair and consistant, you're arguing that they are taking bribes. Skyrim may have it's flaws, it may have been overhyped (which leads to disappointment by consumers) , but its still better than most of the crap out there that reviewers have to play, but you don't have to.

thank you, someone who is reasonable

I have a mind of my own, so I tend to come to my own conclusions about things, rather than reading someone else's opinion. Though there is no excuse for releasing broken games. Gamers need some form of legal protection from the industry. God knows, they squeeze enough money out of us.