Support NeoGAF

[Elektro Demon]

So I have noticed that IGN, Gamespot, Polygon and probably other "major" gaming outlets don't have a review for Amid Evil and Dusk.
What, they're below their tier? These reviewers are too good to review these games?
Now I have to say, I generally don't care for these major sites and I think they're a bunch of shills. I get my reviews from pcgamer, eurogamer, ggmanlives, ACG ( Karak ), etc. But it still bugs me.
These 2 games sold very well but I feel they would've sold even more if these so called major sites had reviewed them. A lot of people only watch/read reviews from these outlets and are not into some smaller reviewers/yt reviewers. What also bugs me is, these shills reviewed smaller indie games like hotline miami, the witness and walking simulators like What remains of edith finch, gone home and similar stuff.
How are these walking simulators better then these 2 games I mentioned? What's the standard here to get reviewed by these so called professional reviewers?
And this is only these 2 games, who knows what other good games they've not reviewed.
What do you think?

 

[Virex]

They only review what is part of they're circlejerk

 

[xrnzaaas]

It's a simple calculation. Even if the game is good but it's not popular and it's not what their reader typically reads it won't give them enough clicks to become profitable. Actually I know a few sites that review even less games than IGN or Gamespot, mainly focusing on hot titles (no matter if they end up being good or bad).

 

[Elektro Demon]

It's a simple calculation. Even if the game is good but it's not popular and it's not what their reader typically reads it won't give them enough clicks to become profitable. Actually I know a few sites that review even less games than IGN or Gamespot, mainly focusing on hot titles (no matter if they end up being good or bad).

But it makes no sense. They have reviews of Serious Sam games and Doom. And these two games I mentioned are in that vein
Don't they care about their integrity?

 

[Virex]

But it makes no sense. They have reviews of Serious Sam games and Doom. And these two games I mentioned are in that vein
Don't they care about their integrity?

If they cared about integrity they would not have become "games journalists"

 

[Screamer-RSA]

IGN, Gamespot and Polygon are click farms, ofcource they won't spend their time reviewing small titles.

 

[xrnzaaas]

But it makes no sense. They have reviews of Serious Sam games and Doom. And these two games I mentioned are in that vein
Don't they care about their integrity?

Ask people who played some shooters if they know what Serious Sam and Doom are - it's very likely they will.
Ask them if they know about Amid Evil and Dusk - it's very likely they won't.

Yes, it's unfair that some games break through and people start talking about them (which results in them being reviewed) while others stay mostly forgotten.

 

[Danjin44]

Same thing happened with Atelier Ryza, most major sites and even EZA didn’t bother review the game.

 

[Virex]

Same thing happened with Atelier Ryza, most major sites and even EZA didn’t bother review the game.

EZA has gone downhill as of late because some patreon subscribers threatened to stop supporting them due transphobia or some "right wing shit". Can't really remember what happened. And their "trans month" they had last year. So they seem to review what they "mainstream" plays and seem to stay away from anything that can cause drama and upset their fragile patreon subscribers. They got woke and have gone downhill. I still miss the GameTrailers days

 

[Elektro Demon]

EZA has gone downhill as of late because some patreon subscribers threatened to stop supporting them due transphobia or some "right wing shit". Can't really remember what happened. And their "trans month" they had last year. So they seem to review what they "mainstream" plays and seem to stay away from anything that can cause drama and upset their fragile patreon subscribers. They got woke and have gone downhill. I still miss the GameTrailers days

It all went downhill at Gametrailers since Shane Satterfield left. Bossman and other betas are not really interesting imo..

 

[MiyazakiHatesKojima]

Who?

 

[Elektro Demon]

Who?

 

[Dr.Morris79]

But it makes no sense. They have reviews of Serious Sam games and Doom. And these two games I mentioned are in that vein
Don't they care about their integrity?

IGN, integrity? Wernt these wankers taking back handers off EA during the Mass Effect 3 days?

 

[Elektro Demon]

IGN, integrity? Wernt these wankers taking back handers off EA during the Mass Effect 3 days?

Among other things. When their reviewer copied a whole review from some smaller youtuber was also pretty amusing.

 

[Rean no Kiseki]

EZA has gone downhill as of late because some patreon subscribers threatened to stop supporting them due transphobia or some "right wing shit". Can't really remember what happened. And their "trans month" they had last year. So they seem to review what they "mainstream" plays and seem to stay away from anything that can cause drama and upset their fragile patreon subscribers. They got woke and have gone downhill. I still miss the GameTrailers days

I supported them on Patreon since day 1 with 10-25$ then dropped it to 1$ before dropping it all together because of the the whole Senran Kagura stream fiasco, i'm no fan of SK as I've made clear in previous posts, BUT when you put a voting system so PAYING customers could choose a game for you to play and over 70% chose SK and you back off because some of your members and some easily offended snowflakes in the fan base cried "muh sexism" you back peddle on a commitment you made?
That and thier "content" has gone downhill since 2018, i hate it when gaming channels think i'm interested in their opinions on movies-Tablet top games and other non-gaming activity, do your passion project on your own time and dime on other channels.
P.S GT crew streams were good when it was an hour each with more than 1 member and with games that lend themselves to streaming, playing FFXIV for 7 hours straight alone has no entertainment value.

 

[GymWolf]

Lol they are not too good to even review shape and smell of dog shit in the streets...

 

[Elektro Demon]

Ask people who played some shooters if they know what Serious Sam and Doom are - it's very likely they will.
Ask them if they know about Amid Evil and Dusk - it's very likely they won't.

Yes, it's unfair that some games break through and people start talking about them (which results in them being reviewed) while others stay mostly forgotten.

I generally agree with all you said.
But I think people who have an interest in fps games like ss and doom have probably heard about Dusk.

 

[Zannegan]

But it makes no sense. They have reviews of Serious Sam games and Doom. And these two games I mentioned are in that vein
Don't they care about their integrity?

In the same vein doesn't mean having the same reach. If it won't drive enough traffic and ad revenue to pay for the man-hours of a salaried writer, then thy aren't going to bother with it.

It has a lot less to do with integrity than with financial solvency. Besides, reviewing one game in a genre doesn't obligate you to put a score on everything else that follows. Even games in a once-popular series might bit have enough pull to make it worth their while. And can you imagine trying to put a score to everything in a genre that comes out on Steam?

...and now, having finished playing devil's advocate, I'm going to take a shower.

 

[The Scrivener]

Scores cost money. A 10/10 costs a million, and the lowest score, a 7/10, would cost an indie upstart around 500K. The trick is to take to Twitter and say your game is AAA for 6 years, thus breaking the monopoly.

 

[xrnzaaas]

I generally agree with all you said.
But I think people who have an interest in fps games like ss and doom have probably heard about Dusk.

I know that Dusk is gaining in popularity, maybe they'll do a review when it's released on Switch this year.

 

[Deleted member 774430]

P.S GT crew streams were good when it was an hour each with more than 1 member and with games that lend themselves to streaming, playing FFXIV for 7 hours straight alone has no entertainment value.

Last year they streamed Resident Evil 2 Remake and Sekiro SOOO much, they almost made me hate the games, i seriously haven't played those for myself because i couldn't.

Because of that Easy Livin' was essentially ruined for me: a mix of games we saw dozens of times already (including RE2 and Sekiro) so not special at all, and obscure games that were obscure for a reason (they're terrible, like that Shrek game). I've enjoyed watching the previous ones a lot, last year i couldn't, it was that atrocious.

/OT

 

[Elektro Demon]

In the same vein doesn't mean having the same reach. If it won't drive enough traffic and ad revenue to pay for the man-hours of a salaried writer, then thy aren't going to bother with it.

It has a lot less to do with integrity than with financial solvency. Besides, reviewing one game in a genre doesn't obligate you to put a score on everything else that follows. Even games in a once-popular series might bit have enough pull to make it worth their while. And can you imagine trying to put a score to everything in a genre that comes out on Steam?

...and now, having finished playing devil's advocate, I'm going to take a shower.

And a game like Dead Cells has more pull then let's say Dusk or Amid Evil?
You hear people raving about these two games on steam and youtube and it's quite popular.
Have a pleasant shower brah.

 

[Damigos]

What is Gamespot, IGN and Polygon ?

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

Part of it is due to not having enough staffers to write articles about every game. It is why enthusiast forums/boards are coming back because mainstream sites can't keep up and there are too many small/blog sites to consistently find reviews on lesser-known titles.

Part of it is due to not having good taste.

 

[Zannegan]

And a game like Dead Cells has more pull then let's say Dusk or Amid Evil?
You hear people raving about these two games on steam and youtube and it's quite popular.
Have a pleasant shower brah.

Can't wash away the guilt!

In all seriousness, I honestly don't know what their metrics for what "popular enough" look like. I'd like to think that some degree of passion and personal interest go into the writers' choices of games they review, which is why smaller stuff sometimes gets picked up.

Or maybe they had a tip-off that Dead Cells was going to be huge somehow. Phil McWhatsisface certainly wasn't passionate enough about it to write his own review, so...

 

[Leprech]

There is definitely something to it that they only review big aaa games and only look at indie games if it has big buzz around it or from indie devs they personally know (a entirely different discussion lol).
But then again we live in a time where more games are released in one year than have been previously released in a entire past generation and this wont stop lol next gen you will see single player open world games from indie devs, wrap your head around that one.
Not enough hours in the day/enough staff to review even just the good indie games lol let alone reviewing all to pick out the diamonds in the first place.

 

[Rean no Kiseki]

Last year they streamed Resident Evil 2 Remake and Sekiro SOOO much, they almost made me hate the games, i seriously haven't played those for myself because i couldn't.

Because of that Easy Livin' was essentially ruined for me: a mix of games we saw dozens of times already (including RE2 and Sekiro) so not special at all, and obscure games that were obscure for a reason (they're terrible, like that Shrek game). I've enjoyed watching the previous ones a lot, last year i couldn't, it was that atrocious.

/OT

I would've liked if the OT of EZA was still open and they were reading it and seeing some critique of their work instead of being locked into the echo chamber that was created for them by the rabid fanboys who deflect any criticism by that insuffrable in joke turned mantra "Love & respect".

 

[Liftplus]

Who checks IGN, Gamespot, Polygon for reviews? On those sites the reviews are based on how much publishers pay them.

 

[Elektro Demon]

Who checks IGN, Gamespot, Polygon for reviews? On those sites the reviews are based on how much publishers pay them.

You'd be surprised actually. Ikr.

 

[Guardian's Light]

They only review what they're paid to promote, Without even completing or playing it, otherwise they say shit about a game or have no review at all

Fixed for you

 

[Fuz]

There are lots of games that don't get reviewed by anyone.

 

[Serianox]

Ever since twitch has become a thing ive pretty much stopped paying attention to any game reviews aside from more indepth stuff like mandalore. No real need to read somebody barely competent at playing a game trying to describe their experience when you can watch the game being played live to see if its something id like or not regardless if the streamer i'm watching is shilling for it.

 

[SLoWMoTIoN]

Never even heard of these games.

 

[Cert.in.Death]

Clicks are their fuel and their leverage. The more they service their readership, the more they can bill for ad placement. If niche products aren’t garnering attention, they’re not worth the time investment.

 

[VertigoOA]

Major review publications are bought and paid for. We’re beginning to see the fallout recently across media circles. Just look at collider... they imploded and cancelled all their YouTube programs. Essentially many of the self respecting critics that were tired of sucking Disney’s dick grew tired of giving Disney the pass because they own the entire industry and quit And/or fired for not following the corporate approved criticisms.

Thank you to Rian Johnson and The Last Jedi for showing us all what a farce the entertainment review industry is.

 

[Allnamestakenlol]

What is Gamespot, IGN and Polygon ?

A miserable little pile of ____________.

 

[Vawn]

These sites are ultimately businesses, so they do what makes business sense. If it costs more to review a game (they aren't free to review) than what they think will be worthwhile in additional site traffic, they don't review it.

I don't really see what's wrong with this.

Honestly, I'm getting tired of all the negativity in this hobby. We hate game journalists, we hate game publishers, we hate "lazy" game developers, we hate the people talking about gaming on YouTube, we hate gaming specific retailers, etc.

 

[Damigos]

These sites are ultimately businesses, so they do what makes business sense. If it costs more to review a game (they aren't free to review) than what they think will be worthwhile in additional site traffic, they don't review it.

I don't really see what's wrong with this.

Honestly, I'm getting tired of all the negativity in this hobby. We hate game journalists, we hate game publishers, we hate "lazy" game developers, we hate the people talking about gaming on YouTube, we hate gaming specific retailers, etc.

We only love NeoGAF

 

[Vawn]

We only love NeoGAF

You mean SonyGAF, MicroGAF or NintendGAF, depending on the point we're trying to make.

 

[Danjin44]

These sites are ultimately businesses, so they do what makes business sense. If it costs more to review a game (they aren't free to review) than what they think will be worthwhile in additional site traffic, they don't review it.

I don't really see what's wrong with this.

Honestly, I'm getting tired of all the negativity in this hobby. We hate game journalists, we hate game publishers, we hate "lazy" game developers, we hate the people talking about gaming on YouTube, we hate gaming specific retailers, etc.

For me its kind of sad seeing good game doesn't get reviewed just because its not popular enough but I definitely agree with you on your second point.

Talking about games has become less fun here because most of the conversations is no longer about actual games, it more about whats "woke/SJW" and whats not and overreact in every little thing and when we do talk about games it mostly about "graphics". I missed the time when we actually talk about the gameplay and its mechanics and games plot points, I mean these days we rarely get Spoiler threads, because most people much more interested talking about "controversy" and "politics" behind the game more than actual games themselves.

 

[MiguelItUp]

I think this is definitely one example of why "Games Journalism" is outdated and just not up to par anymore. For years they only paid attention to AAA titles and "BIG" Indies. Not a problem, but MAN, SO many titles worthy of praise go under the radar, and I feel like it's not fair.

I mean, why not create a section solely for indies that deserve praise? I feel it'd be REALLY cool to not only expand the library of titles you're reviewing and previewing, but helping them get acknowledged even more so. It's just never made sense to me.

I was always iffy on magazine and websites reviews. When GameTrailers became a thing, it was my go-to for anything review related because not only did you get a review but you SAW the review, which I felt was much more important. By the time GT started dying, YouTubers already took the torch and started doing their own thing with solid editing.

I'm surprised these sites still exist. The only "BIG" one that I think deserves its place is Giant Bomb.

 

[Karak]

I can offer a tiny bit of insight into some of this as a whole.
First I may have issues with a lot of stuff but overall I don't consider this really a negative.

A couple of things;
1. Firstly sometimes you may not KNOW something will be popular so looking back at it those games may not offer insight. They may just have not pinged on their radar, may not have been available in whatever way needed to be covered or fit in schedule.
2. Speaking of availability. I was out Oct much of Nov and much of Dec and the shit I got was next level NEXT LEVEL. I can only imagine people there having months with folks gone and moving around and jostling for some coverages and things get lost and only some games get covered. If you specialized say in sports games and are gone, then maybe they don't cover it or cover it in a different way.
3. Also someone mentioned Twitch. That is also true. I have also seen the NDA's and to be honest, I am just stunned overall at what some NDA's say when it comes to reviewers versus streamers and basically indicating "anything negative about the game will be fixed prior to launch so if you find an issue state it's being fixed" on the streamer parts of some NDA's. It is safer for sure and from a business decision makes sense. In those cases you may not see REVIEW code even go out. However, it's not always nefarious.
4. Sometimes creators/journalists and so forth just miss. Sometimes I think something is going to resonate and it just doesn't. One person may like it but it just doesn't work. Things I thought would fail have been insane successes. The same goes for what games to cover, how to cover them, and so forth.
5. One particular element of reviewing and that kind of coverage is also the more you score the more people will begin to have issues. It is a simple calculation and something I actually had to track at jobs I had PRIOR to going into youtube when it came to the effectiveness of a message over a particular timeframe. Meaning with more sample data on such an objective front, many times with different reviewers the more false or less objective conclusions can be made from it.

#5 is something I work on all the time trying to zero myself back out as the years go by. One of those is to not always carry a Warhammer 40k style book of woe around with you with every single problem or issue you may have had with a company infecting your current coverage. If that were true I wouldn't be able to review any games or certainly consoles ever lol. The opposite is also true. A company/developer may have made a great game or done great things doesn't mean they will continue to do so.

None of this is a defense of anyone or anything. Just offering that at times nuanced and focused mindset don't mesh.

 

[Trogdor1123]

They only have so many resources, they out them where they think is best I guess.

 

[Enjay]

I've never heard of these games. No one has time to review every piece of shitty shovelware on playstation or switch's store

 

[ROMhack]

Limited resources probably. Games = time + more games = more time.

They concentrate on the biggest games for that reason, I guess. Tons of indie games go under the radar.

 

[Elektro Demon]

I've never heard of these games. No one has time to review every piece of shitty shovelware on playstation or switch's store

Hey man, Dusk and Amid Evil are not shovelware, what's wrong with you?
Just because you didn't hear about them doesn't automatically make them indie shovelware.

 

[EverydayBeast]

I'll say this about reviews, there are times where it isn't about the scores but the review's take. They'll always be disagreements in gaming reviews.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Probability of posting a review:

Popular game/publisher pays them off with free shit and banner ads: 100%

Popular game/no pressure or money from publisher: 75%

Unpopular game: 25%

 

[Whitesnake]

• Have the creators of the game paid off the reviews?
• Is the game popular enough that headlines about it will undoubtably give the site traffic?
• Is it a short enough or easy enough game that anyone can play it for a day and pump out a review?

If the answer to all of these questions is “no”, then it’s not getting reviewed.

 

[too much eslim]

Probably has more to do with the fact it's a PC game only.