Does anyone really trust online game reviews? Game media is corrupt to the bone and the first thing I think when I see a positive review is that it was bought. Besides, the culture of game media is often far, far away from true gamer culture. That's why I often just watch raw gameplay footage, then I can make up my mind myself. I think this is a non-issue.
“Consumers have the right to know if reviewers are providing their own opinions or paid sales pitches,”
I think consumers should start to learn to think for themselves and stop relying on the state, bans and fines.
It depends on what you mean by "trust", and "game reviews".
I have varying levels of trust for different individuals, which you can factor into how much you take what they're saying at face value.
I don't think the concept of a game review is particularly helpful: they are all subjective opinion pieces. They could be essays (game reviews), rants or opinion pieces (what TB does say), raw gameplay (lets plays) or live interactive exploration of the title (Twitch).
You can combine those various streams, along with "lesser" (read "easier") user generated content like Reddit threads and what-not, to help you come to some kind of conclusion before a purchase.
> the first thing I think when I see a positive review is that it was bought
I feel for you, that can't be a nice way to think about things. I'm not sure where you're getting that kind of cynicism from honestly, but if the issue is as widespread as you say I feel like there is a pretty good expose in that.
> Besides, the culture of game media is often far, far away from true gamer culture.
That's a really odd statement. I'm not sure what "true gamer culture" is, but there is a good chance I come from a completely different country to you, have a completely different background and life experiences to you. Except I play video games. I'm not sure declaring some "true gamerness" test and segregating people who fit your expectations and those that don't is particularly healthy.
I think especially these days many people play games, to varying levels, on varying platforms. Games are not holy relics to be cherished by the anointed few, they are pieces of culture to be enjoyed (or not I suppose, if they're junk) by everyone.
> I think consumers should start to learn to think for themselves and stop relying on the state, bans and fines.
I'm not sure those are mutually exclusive ideas. People should think for themselves, obviously. But since basically every opinion you've ever had is based on the media you read / experienced it in, trying to push media toward being a cultural experience and not an advertisement is important too.
Especially in a world where everyone is hyper critical and distrustful of media (especially media that contains opinions they don't agree with), it's a boon to promote yourself as a game reviewer / critic / lets player who is not corrupted by the almighty dollar.
That's a really odd statement. I'm not sure what "true gamer culture" is, but there is a good chance I come from a completely different country to you, have a completely different background and life experiences to you. Except I play video games.
Not sure if you're serious or trolling here. As true gamer culture I describe people with a real appreciation for games (should be obvious). People who actually play and enjoy games (or create and mod them). Not people who are faking it for money, not people who are trying to push agendas onto gamers, just plain old gamers. And trust me, these are surprisingly rare in game media. You can call it unhealthy, the truth is often unhealthy. You can choose to remain ignorant about it, and patronize people like me. The fact is: Go out and ask kids, go and ask the people who play the most. They don't give a damn about game media and they are not involved in it at all. They just play their games.
I'm completely serious. I genuinely don't understand how you can pick some arbitrary rules and decide that the "other people" are not "true xyzers" and thus are invalid.
> As true gamer culture I describe people with a real appreciation for games (should be obvious). People who actually play and enjoy games (or create and mod them).
Great, I know lots of those people! I'm one of those people! Honestly, I don't really know anyone who doesn't enjoy games (who plays them that is).
> Not people who are faking it for money,
Great! Imagine if there were laws to make sure those people had to disclose when, why and how they were making money associated with games!
> not people who are trying to push agendas onto gamers
I'm trying really hard not to project the rest of the internet on to you, because I don't know you, and I'm sure you're a lovely person. It sounds though, like you're upset with certain "social" complaints that some people have had with games lately, i.e. being upset about women being over sexualised in games, or what not.
With that in mind: I agree with a reasonable amount of that commentary. Does that make me not a "true" gamer? What is your yardstick here? More importantly, why does your opinion on who a "true gamer" is matter?
> And trust me, these are surprisingly rare in game media
I don't see it. And I don't see how you can see it either honestly. I feel like if the entire games media scene was bought and paid for by game companies someone would have actually written about it. This stuff generally gets reported on pretty well when it happens (see: Jeff Gerstman being fired for giving a low score to Kayne & Lynch, the Warner Bros issue we're talking about right now, etc). There are always people looking to expose something to make a name for themselves, and if anything like this actually existed someone would have done just that. And no, I don't count KIA / whatever ramblings.
It sounds more like a bunch of people are saying things you don't agree with, and so you've decided they aren't "true gamers" so you can brush off what they're saying without having to really think about it.
> You can call it unhealthy, the truth is often unhealthy. You can choose to remain ignorant about it, and patronize people like me. The fact is: Go out and ask kids, go and ask the people who play the most. They don't give a damn about game media and they are not involved in it at all. They just play their games.
I'm not "choosing to remain ignorant", I'm disagreeing with you and what you're saying. Hopefully politely, apologies if it's not coming off that way.
It sounds though, like you're upset with certain "social" complaints that some people have had with games lately, i.e. being upset about women being over sexualised in games, or what not.
If you mean with "social" anti-social complaints like hating and bullying white males [0] and the like, then yes! I oppose everything that resembles stuff like that all day every day and do not consider anyone who does not condemn this a true gamer. Because what they do is no longer about games, they just use game media as a vessel to spread their poison into the fun-loving gamer community.
Great! Imagine if there were laws to make sure those people had to disclose when, why and how they were making money associated with games!
No, I don't want to solve everything with laws. I don't want to be babysat by the state. The community should just shun the the dishonest people, foster a positive culture of honesty and build proper review facilities. We don't need the state for that. In fact, I'd argue we need anything but the state for this.
It sounds more like a bunch of people are saying things you don't agree with, and so you've decided they aren't "true gamers" so you can brush off what they're saying without having to really think about it.
Oh, yeah, totally, how did you know? I have many tiny little boxes with labels in my brain, and every time someone says something I don't like, I put them into one and lock it firmly shut so I never have to think about it again. I have no shred of intellectual integrity inside me and thrive on ignorance. Me making a distinction between true gamers and those who have hijacked some of its media for hateful messages is a manifestation of my hate for reality.
> I think consumers should start to learn to think for themselves and stop relying on the state, bans and fines.
An idealist viewpoint, and perhaps a correct one. But in practice I support government rules against intentional misleading of audiences for the same reason I support government rules against lying about ingredients in food.
Okay, lying about what's inside a can of food is nothing short of fraud, that is, not fulfilling your contractual obligation to the buyer properly, even worse if it's intentionally. I don't want to abolish contracts, that would be ridiculous.
However, what goes on between a game company and PewDiePie, in monetary but also in other terms, is their private matter. I don't see a reason why it should be illegal to pay PewDiePie to be enthusiastic about the game when it's actually garbage. No contract was violated here. PewDiePie is not an authority on this game and what he says matters not for any purchase contract. So people who are mislead by him are fools themselves for relying on random internet stuff.
>"I think consumers should start to learn to think for themselves and stop relying on the state, bans and fines."
I see both sides. The reality is that these games are advertised not for us, but for the new generation of kids. Not sure if 8 year olds are being victimized by this or not, but I'd say its a possibility.
I think consumers should start to learn to think for themselves and stop relying on the state, bans and fines.
Absolutely, it's best to assume any who cares enough to do a review is biased in some way. Then it's just a matter of selecting reviewers who have a track record of honesty, and similar tastes as yourself.
There is basically one game-review site I really trust, Giantbomb.com. The site was created after Jeff Gerstmann was fired from GameSpot for giving a bad review to a game whose advertising was all over the site at the time[1].
I don't know how impartial they really are, but one of my favorite parts of the site are their Quick Looks. It's just a couple of people playing a game and talking about it. It feels like it gives me a good representation of what to expect from a game.
One of the problems with allowing undisclosed paid reviews is that it eats away at trust in reviews - as you put it, "the first thing I think when I see a positive review is that it was bought". It doesn't matter how honest a reviewer is, no-one will trust them. Also, watching gameplay footage wouldn't have saved you here - the only people who could post gameplay footage were paid promoters whose contracts required them not to show any glitches or anything else that showed the game in a negative light.
A lot of gamers aren't using game reviews from these major outlets to help decide to buy a game or not. These reviews are mostly used to validate an existing purchase or compare to someone else's favorite game. [1] Much like fandango star ratings virtually no one gets an actual bad review.
“Consumers have the right to know if reviewers are providing their own opinions or paid sales pitches,”
I think consumers should start to learn to think for themselves and stop relying on the state, bans and fines.