The integrity of journalists (not the ones here btw)

VG247 Forum » The VG247 forum

The integrity of journalists (not the ones here btw)

(18 posts)

Started 5 months ago by Talkar
Latest reply from DSB

Talkar
Member

So i was reading some random stuff from various forums, and as you guys may know i play a lot of SWTOR.
I saw a post linking to a re-review of SWTOR from Eurogamer, and before i link to it, i want to say that in the initial review, when the game came out, they gave it 8/10, as you can see here: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/star-wars-the-old-republic-review

Now, in the re-review they only gave it a 4/10. I have nothing against them giving it a low score in and of itself, i consider reviews to be subjectional, but here we're talking about a re-review. So i'm really curious on how the bantha could they change their mind in a 180 degree angle? I thought that if you think something is good, then you think it is good.
So my question boils down to, were eurogamer paid for the initial review? Are they just writing what they know their readers want to read with this re-review? Or can't they decide what they like and don't like?

The re-review is here: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-11-26-star-wars-the-old-republic-re-review

Posted 5 months ago #
Dragon246
Member

If you are saying about getting paid, I would say no. MMOs change a hell lot over time, so I have no problems if the review scores change drastically.
Its easy to question anyone's integrity over net, where ironically the people who are getting scrutinized are the ones who reveal their names and the people who scrutinize them remain anonymous.

Anyways, you can always ignore the reviews and judge for yourselves. Its free to play.

Posted 5 months ago #
DSB
Member

I'd say the first review is scored way too high for what it actually says. That could have a number of reasons though.

Unless you have a Wainwright-style smoking gun, I think it's hard to tell what's sensationalist or corrupt, and what's just opinion.

Personally I just don't trust the average games journalist to tell me how he or she really feels. I don't think they're confident/independent or competent enough to do it most of the time, so with most reviews I either stick to people I know are consistent critics, or I try to read between the lines, which ultimately makes a review virtually useless.

It sucks that it's like that though.

Posted 5 months ago #
Talkar
Member

Whether or not it deserved an 8 to begin with is not what i'm concerned about. I'm more concerned about how they can say the game is stellar one day, and the next say it is crap. It doesn't make sense to me. Of course i don't have proof of anything, and it is purely speculation on my part, it just seem very very odd. To me, either something is good or it isn't. And since no content has been lost in SWTOR. In fact content has been added, i don't see how the score could decrease to drastically. A 6 or something like that would have made more sense to me. Just seems so weird to me :/

Posted 5 months ago #
DSB
Member

A publication is not a hivemind. It's two different reviewers.

From the publications point of view, when you publish a review you're not saying "Eurogamer thinks this", you're saying "Eurogamer supports this".

(although in Eurogamers case that support apparently only counts as long as no one mentions the word lawyer)

Two people. Two reviews. Two scores. There's nothing wrong with supporting two different opinions. Even though they're both quite similar.

Posted 5 months ago #
Talkar
Member

If i learned anything from journalists in Denmark it is that unless the publication states that a given article is not the opinion of the publication it is very much the opinion of the publication and can as such be perceived as you say a "hivemind". Of course if this is just a thing in Denmark, or if it is a general thing in journalism, i've got no idea x)

Posted 5 months ago #
DSB
Member

That's a legal term, not a journalistic one. You're mixing apples and pears.

The publication is responsible for what it prints, but it doesn't have to subscribe to any one opinion.

Politiken, in spite of being a traditionally culture radical paper, is still perfectly entitled to run an article in favor of Dansk Folkeparti, for example. How the readers recieve that is up to them.

It used to be standard practice for older publications like Games Domain to run second opinions on games, open to writers or even freelancers who didn't agree with the initial review. It's a shame that that sort of thing seemed to go away as games journalists started to agree more and more.

You may "expect" them to be a hivemind or whatever, but that's your own rule as a reader. It's not one that's enforced or taught in very many places outside of North Korea.

Posted 5 months ago #
Ireland Michael
Moderator

The review is an analysis of the games ongoing value as an MMO.

As far as MMOs go, it's a fairly agreed consensus that The Old Republic has little long term playability. There is almost nothing in the way of end game content to keep people playing beyond th class stories.

So while the game is solid enough as you make your way through the leveling experience, it falls apart when viewed as an actual MMO experience.

Hence the low score.

Posted 5 months ago #
DSB
Member

What I really want to know is how on earth the first one ends up with an 8. That's some weird scoring.

"This is disappointing" "This could be better" "This isn't very good" "This is taken from something else" "This is decent"

And then one paragraph saying that it's pretty decently engineered, followed by another that says it probably won't last.

Wham, 2 points short of unadulterated, indisputable perfection.

Posted 5 months ago #
Talkar
Member

@Ireland
Yup that is pretty much the consensus now. And i do agree it doesn't deserve an 8/10.

@DSB
So you understand my confusion with the site then? x)

Posted 5 months ago #
DSB
Member

Site, no. Reviewer, yes :P

Although I have to admit I never really thought much of Eurogamer. It's home to some of the worst reviews I've ever read.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/braid-review

Oh look, a platformer with a cute soundtrack, lovely graphics and a time control gimmick. 1500 out of 10 points!!! BESTEST. SMARTEST. GAME. EVER.

But was it? Was it really?

Posted 5 months ago #
Giskard
Member

@DSB

Some people liked it quite a lot. Others, me included, could not stand it. The reviewer wasn't bought on that game, since it's a small indie developer who could maybe give the reviewer a mug of coffee (They're that cheap?).

People have different views. Shocker.

Posted 5 months ago #
DSB
Member

I wasn't saying he's bought, just that he's bad.

He's off on some pseudo-intellectual acid trip reading waaaaaaaay too much into a platformer with a time gimmick, when he should be reviewing a game.

That's a 13 year old girl talking about the Backstreet Boys, not a games review.

Posted 5 months ago #
absolutezero
Member

Dan Whitehead has more than just Braid in his horror show of reviews.

Awful awful writer.

Posted 5 months ago #
mathare92
Member

Every site has its dubious reviews. Some (way) more than others. On the whole, I'd say I enjoy reading Eurogamer's reviews (and features) more than any other publication. Whitehead, Parkin, Bramwell, etc. have all produced numerous great write-ups - not without the occassional slip-up of course (see Parkin's recent Halo 4 review). And I say that having had experience consuming content on most if not all the major outlets. As an example, I read through about eight different reviews of Far Cry 3. I was bored... very bored.

Posted 5 months ago #
Stardog
Member

Game reviewers are clueless. Most are 21-year-olds who are hired because they'll look hip on camera or sound good on a podcast, but they don't know jack shit about video games.

Film reviewing also has plenty of clueless ones, but at least you can fall back on the Mark Kermodes and Roger Eberts of the world. Game reviewing has very few of those (Kieron Gillen).

The rest don't even know forward from deferred shading.

Posted 5 months ago #
Gheritt White
Member

Kieron Gillen - while being a top bloke and terrific comics scribe - was not tyhe world's greatest reviewer.

That accolade goes to Radeon Automatic.

Posted 5 months ago #
DSB
Member

Hehe. Even for all the hype, I still had a soft spot there for Gillen. His features were some of the best, and he didn't just start jerking off whenever he was put in front of the latest highbrow indie..

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/08/04/john-and-kieron-argue-about-limbo/

... unlike some people.

RPS went to hell in a hurry after he left.

Posted 5 months ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.