What does Sup Forums think about the idea of paid reviews? Are they real or it's just paranoia?

What does Sup Forums think about the idea of paid reviews? Are they real or it's just paranoia?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=RbjaiZVVo00
youtube.com/watch?v=FUyNEIsJ7Tk
youtube.com/watch?v=BwD2GgWKIrs
youtube.com/watch?v=E6yoia5CxVM
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

The entire Gaming Journalism industry is paid reviews. Of course its real. Of course, not every reviewer is a shill. But if they are selling advertising space to publishers then they are definitely shills.

Better then using User Scores.

They are real to an extent. But you can't just pay off 78 reviewers to get a favorability rating that fewer than 10 games have ever gotten in history, otherwise everyone would be doing it.

>The entire Gaming Journalism industry is paid reviews.

This.

>people being honest is worse than paid shills

It's real. Most of the websites who publish those reviews are used as ad paid space by game companies. If you want money from Nintendo, you'll give their major releases good reviews. It's not rocket science.

Let's be real here: Nintendo could make a Zelda game that's a simulation of waiting in line at the post office and they would at least give it an 8.

If you consider Sup Forums honest then Hillary is not a crook, because that is what half of metacritic user reviews are.

>buttmad neckbeards giving honest reviews

Tell me another lie, user.

You are a wonderful person and will find love and be loved in your life time.

Is this the Gone Home of our generation?

None of that makes sense my fellow Trumpling.

There are buttblasted neckbeards giving both 10/10s and 0/10s. They cancel out.

Both sides are as bad as each other
>Critic reviews are seemingly 'paid' and 'shilling'
>User reviews can come from people that haven't even played the game, leading to retards giving genuinely good games 0's because muh console wars

So the fair score is a seven?

Pfft, you think I don't know I'm a horrible and cruel person? I murdered people in Iraq and enjoyed it.

I enjoy seeing my fellow man suffer.

Console warriors post 0/10 user reviews just for the sake of sinking the average user score.

>Pfft, you think I don't know I'm a horrible and cruel person? I murdered people in Iraq and enjoyed it.

Edgy.

7.6 at least. I despise the game and would personally give it a 4.5 out of 10, but that's more so because I expect top results from Nintendo, and I've got alot of personal gripes with the game. 7.6 seems like the general score that it deserves on a whole, no bias aside. Objectively or not, I can't defend hard mode being behind a paywall.

Nintendo doesn't pay for reviews, they've just convinced tons of retarded journo faggots that Nintendo can do no wrong
See this open world game with repetitive mini dungeons, horrible weapon degradation, frame rate drops out the ass, a mostly lifeless oversized world, and shallow combat? If this was any other publisher, it would be getting 7/10s across the board, but if you slap Nintendo on that shit, people give it 9s and 10s and act like it's fucking brilliance

No it makes sense. A True Trumpling can justify Anything as long as it isn't involving Trump.
Then you guys kind of start yelling and why?

I remember back when Sup Forums used to be against this journolist bullshit. What went wrong?

youtube.com/watch?v=RbjaiZVVo00
youtube.com/watch?v=FUyNEIsJ7Tk
youtube.com/watch?v=BwD2GgWKIrs

>Console warriors post 0/10 user reviews just for the sake of sinking the average user score.

Then why doesn't this happen to every single exclusive game? It only seems to happen to games that are controversial among fans.

The critics seem to ignore all the flaws of a game, especially if it comes from certain publishers.

Gaming industry was invaded by normies with no knowledge, respect, or expectations of the products they were buying.

now let's knock it down to 84

>Nintendo doesn't pay for reviews

That's a lie and everybody knows it.

youtube.com/watch?v=E6yoia5CxVM

Gaming magazines were always glorified commercials.

True, but at least they used to be entertaining. Plus before the internet became a thing they were one of the few ways to get cheat codes and walk-throughs. At least gaming journalism used to be somewhat informative. Now its just another vehicle to move product and not even a very good one at that. Now that anybody with an internet connection and an opinion can be a game journalist there is literally no reason to listen to anyone in particular.

Console warriors want to sink the bigger targets, which are bigger releases.

>Console warriors want to sink the bigger targets, which are bigger releases.

So a small bunch of fanboys have greater influence than massive corporations.

>So a small bunch of fanboys have greater influence than massive corporations.

They would if they weren't outnumbered 10:1 by average, everyday people who just like what is popular and are almost guaranteed to rate it favorably.

>Now that anybody with an internet connection and an opinion can be a game journalist there is literally no reason to listen to anyone in particular.

That's a good point. Any hack can make his own channel and make better content than your average journalist.

>honest

>Any hack can make his own channel
sure
>and make better content than your average journalist.
no

I'm not saying vidya journalism is worth a single shit, but the average person is fucking retarded and can't even write a cogent sentence or understand the difference between an assertion and evidence

This is just embarrassing really. Nintendo fans cannot be this desperate for validation.

Why not just look at the game yourself and determine its quality by your own thoughts and opinions instead of someone elses

Never underestimate nintenbros and their eternal persecution complex.

Everybody is that desperate thanks to Console War tribalism that the companies have been instigating since the 90's.

People are more prone to conforming to popular opinions instead of original ones so that they are easily and more frequently validated by others.

>that the companies have been instigating since the 90's.
Half this fucking board wasn't even alive in the 90's. How much of Sup Forums do you think had a 360, or a Wii for their first console? Likely more than you think, and that was long, long past the point video game companies pretended to be having some kind of competition.

Waiting for CEMU.

>and that was long, long past the point video game companies pretended to be having some kind of competition.

stop.

94 is the true score.

your lack of self-awareness is astounding

When it's a game you don't like, they're paid.
When it's a game you like it is underappreciated.

That's some nice projection drone.

Instead of responding to you trying to insult me using a word you don't understand the meaning of, I'm just going to point out that by posting cherrypicked 10 and 0 reviews that personally offend you, you only further discredited the validity of user reviews as a whole

either way it doesn't make "professional" reviews any more valid.

you're LITERALLY proving my point for me, thanks

I'm pretty sure he just wanted to make a point that sony fanboys are as fucking stupid and desperate as nintendo fanboys

>user reviews cannot be trusted but you have to blindly trust in critic reviews

Paid reviews are a thing, but so are naive, uneducated casuals that call themself "journalists" and throw around 10/10 scores like candy.

Scored reviews shouldn't be taken seriously.

Pretty sure you're the one who said that, just now, not me. You're free to continue putting my words in my mouth though if that's what makes you happy

Well, we don't have any actual proof that any reviewers of BotW were paid to give it a high score, but we have concrete proof that countless fanboys of Nintendo and Sony alike who had never played the game bombed its userscore just because they could.

If you really are vehemently opposed to the scores it's getting and firmly believe that there's corruption involved, you're welcome to personally contact IGN. And Gamespot. And everywhere else that gave it a glowing review. Trying to change a Sup Forumsirgin's mind on anything is like swinging a wooden stick into a concrete wall.

>you're welcome to personally contact IGN. And Gamespot

Oh yeah, the most trusted sources in gaming. I bet they will immediately fire all the corrupt people after you contact them.

>Contact IGN and Gamespot
You really think they're going to admit that they got paid to review if we just talk to them?

It would sure as hell be more productive than continuing to be indignant on a board full of the most stubborn people on the planet.

No, of course I fucking don't, you shitposting mong. But at least one website changed their policies because of Gamergate, so who knows what you could do if you and everyone else who's bitter about something as superfluous as a number on a website banded together to stop this corruption?

BoTW only reviewed so well because all the reviewers were blown away by an open world game on a 720p handheld.

>It would sure as hell be more productive than continuing to be indignant on a board full of the most stubborn people on the planet.

>thinks GG did anything of value

You should check yourself.

>But at least one website changed their policies because of Gamergate
You're so naive, it's hilarious.

Also because unlike most open world RPGs like the Bitcher 3, the game doesn't tell you where to go non-stop via magic GPS so it's actually fun exploring the world.

Its not as rampant as people on here seem to think it is, but it is a thing and you should be wary of it. Not like reviews really matter anymore though. Its fun to meme them, but if youre considering buying a game check a video showing it off. Not what some retard who beat 5% of it wrote.

This poster wrote truth

Also it would help for everyone to readjust their scales so that 5 is rightfully average and 10's are literally impossible to receive. That probably won't ever happen though.

That sounds really tedious and boring. I want to play a game, not run around nothing until I find a game.

>DAE WITCHER 3 BEST GAME EVER. I WAS BLIND BEFORE BUT NOW I CAN SEE....SMASH THAT MOTHERFUCKING LIKE BUTTON, SUBSCRIBE AND ILL SEE YOU NEXT TIME BROFOSOS!!!

Nintendo doesn't even need paid reviews they have brainwashed their cult of followers to kill any critics of Nintendo basically unless you want to be put on a blacklist DON'T fuck with them

>That sounds really tedious and boring
Yeah, following a bright red trail to finish a quest is super exciting. If Witcher had good combat i could maybe overlook it but it doesn't.

Why should I? You think I give a shit about fitting in? Sup Forums is just as much of a hivemind as any other place that starts with an 'r' and ends with a 'dit,' I hold precedence solely by merit of forming my own thoughts and opinions.

Kotaku began adding disclosures about personal affiliation or receiving products for free as a direct result of Gamergate. This is objective truth.

...

Reviews are glorified advertisements
Of course they're paid
You're an idiot if you think otherwise
You're a fool if you think "your company" is above it
You're autistic if you have a "your company"

You don't necessarily need to "pay them off" with money, all you gotta do is take them out to dinner and exclusive events. Of course there might be a dissenter or two in the fray, but you just gotta not invite those to the exclusive party the next time.

the easiest solution is to not be a poorfag and buy games that you want and not get caught up in a war of "x got a 94 and y got a 91 so i have to buy x not y."

the difference is that breath of the wild was caught in switch launch drama, and skyward sword is just mediocre. Did you even look at the images I and the other guy posted? People literally make throwaway accounts to downvote/upvote their respective fanboy agenda. People should quit looking at review numbers and just play the game themselves or look up gameplay videos or streams to determine whether or not it appeals to them. Letting some random fucker decide whether you should like a game is retarded.

I don't give a flying shit if they're paid or not.

Really, who cares?

>I remember back when Sup Forums used to be against this journolist bullshit. What went wrong?

Its okay when Nintendo does it. That's why.

I don't read reviews.

the only way to get a true sense of a game's review is to to look at all the reviews and then take away the top and bottom 10 scores.

eliminates all the shitty outliers who just wanted to be contrarian and also removes a lot of the fluff perfect scores.

the result would probably be many more games getting much higher scores since there's usually at least a couple dozen reviewers for each 90+ game giving it 10s, but many games just under that metric would be there were it not for a few random 50/100s from some shitty literally who website.

still flawed as fuck, but then we could approach that whole mess later.

All positive reviews are paid for, but they don't hand them cash for the review. The businesses that produce the reviews have a symbiotic relationship with publishers just as mainstream political news organizations have with governments. Both sides benefit from the collusion.

>trust user score
>these fucker spammed 0 score/10 score like an autist

Geez, paid shill are more believable than them at this point.