Critics have incentive to give inflated reviews because of gibs

>Critics have incentive to give inflated reviews because of gibs
>Consumers give inflated reviews because of buyer's remorse

Are pirates the only trustworthy critics?

The only trustworthy critic is yourself since you alone know your tastes. If you cant tell if you like a game after seeing gameplay footage you're probably stupid enough to enjoy the games reviews recommend to you.

>Critics have incentive to give inflated reviews because of gibs

Critic here

Every time we publish a review of an highly anticipated AAA, we get a huge backlash by the readers if our score is even 1 points (sometimes 0.5) lower than the average

You need to tell people what they want to hear, or they'll simply go away and never return

It's the main reason most webstites are forced to give such high scores, I fucking wish we were simply paid to keep them higher than 7 (it usually happen in Murrica alone, plus maybe britain and germany)

Other than that, some major AAA devs will blacklist you if your score isn't what they were expecting

Overall yeah, I mostly pirate everything and pirate's judgment is usally really trustworthy; at least, it's disinterested

I would still suggest you to watch videos by yourself and actually read some decent-quality reviews if you don't mind the effort (instead of looking at the score alone)
That said, avoiding american/british critics is the first step if you don't like dicks in your ass

Exactly this

thats a really long an interesting way to admit that you as a journalist have no credibility

>game critics
>journalism
pick one

>i will never afford this
fuck my life

can i order this without all the stupid bartender theatrics

just give me my fucking drink dude

What about the game that look like shit, but have still potential? Trials & Tribulation looked like ugly flash-tier animeshit visual novel from videos/trailers, then somebody told me to actually try it and it was really nice
Sometime you need a critic/suggestion, or you'll skip good titles because their actual potential can be hidden

>you as a journalist have no credibility
How? I give lower scores than my whole competition. Shit, some of my reviews have the lowest score you can find on the internet about that game (though it's usually EA crap).

They even stopped me from doing new reviews at some point, now I just write long articles shitting on the next big company that deserves it for a reason or another.
Already shitted hard on EA, Activision, Valve, Ubisoft, Microsoft, Square, late LucasArts and others, still going strong

And they're paying me to do so

In my country it's legally considered as actual journalism, to be honest
It has no differences from other kinds of journalism

I'm not looking at gameplay footage for the graphics, its to see how it plays genius.

>How?
Because of exactly what you said in your post.

Yeah, and some games (like that Ace Attorney one) apparently play like shit, it looks like the series got some PowerPoint-tier "click on the box to get the next line of dialogue" gameplay.
Half the game is actually investigation while the other half is wannabe courtroom simulator, but it looks like thety're just endlessly talking about whatever; the game looks like shit and it plays like shit too, it's all you can get from a youtube video (unless you actually sit and watch like 30 minutes of it, without getting bored by the first 15 seconds)

Then you play it and it's way better than the videos suggested

Just explained how things actually work nigga
No need to be mad, try hard and maybe one day you'll be paid to do what you're doing here for free too

It being how things work does not magically give you credibility for doing so.

You see in addition to my eyes, I also use another important tool: MY BRAIN! Yes, using the advanced technique of INFERENCE or maybe even EXPERIENCE you too can accurately determine how a game plays from mere footage! Even if you're a braindead game critic from a 3rd world country.

>give you credibility for doing so.
Good thing I don't do it then, like I specified here >I also use another important tool: MY BRAIN!
Wow, your brain can tell you if a game has some sort of hidden potential that will make you love it despite the video proof of its shittiness you just witnessed? Impressive

My point is "some games can have something to offer even if you come to the conclusion they're shit, but you'll never know it if you refuse to listen to any suggestion from people other than yourself"

>Even if you're a braindead game critic from a 3rd world country
Actually we're in the top 5 of European vidya websites, but you can believe I'm from Somalia if that makes you sleep better

>it cost them nothing.
>they weren't paid to play it.
>they went out to play it themselves.
what do you think?

The only trustworthy critics are people who understand criticism and only insofar as the methodology present in their area.

Criticism is an objective practice and carries no bearing on any person's enjoyment as what one likes is a choice as opposed to a magical universal truth like you may have assumed.

Criticism only matters in a profession to people involved in that profession and unless the scope of the critic overlaps with your own professional work then it's generally entirely worthless to your life.

Obviously.

>Wow, your brain can tell you if a game has some sort of hidden potential

Yes, because i have played a video game before hard to believe i know.

no. the problem is that you only need 2 things.

1. the why's of how you scored the game the way you did
and
2. the metric in which these were scored against in relation too all the other scores you've given.

and you failed them all.

>european
>not 3rd world

>no. the problem is that you only need 2 things
Who? Me?
>the why's of how you scored the game the way you did and the metric in which these were scored against in relation too all the other scores you've given
Seems fair. It was actually like that 15 years ago. Now it's a bit different (the score isn't actually that related to the content of the review, so looking at it isn't enough to get the actual quality of the game), other factors are counted (like each time a game sets the bar a little higher)

>and you failed them all.
Me? How and when? Again, I didn't talk about the way I write reviews (read ), I just explained why so many scores are this high these days

Not saying it's right or it should be right, but it works like that, like it or not

kek

>Yes
Hope you start developing new powers then, like psychokinesis
Good luck with your training