Reviewers: Gave Duke Nukem a bad review? No more games for you!

[Graham Mitchell]

I disagree. The world needs to see *more* of the truth, not less. Each time something like this happens, the curtain gets pulled back another inch, exposing more behind-the-scenes shenanigans (a.k.a. "industry secrets ") and revealing the way things *really* are. It's a good thing.

To some degree, yes I agree with the spirit of what youre saying. But at the same time, I realize that everybody says stupid shit when theyre mad because theyre not thinking clearly. It doesn't necessarily reflect what people really think. Thats just human nature, unfortunately.

People in the public eye should know better than to use a social networking utility for venting personal frustration, but they don't. I'm just surprised that employers don't protect them from this type of thing somehow.

[Ed Oscuro]

I think you guys have a bit of a twisted view of professional game reviewers. They're not making a lot of money, and a lot of these mags/sites are on hard times too so nobody is really rolling in it. They are pressured to give high scores, but I'm skeptical that they're getting directly bribed. It's more a matter of publishers pulling advertising, which is the real way in which these publications make money, or denying exclusive access, which helps sell more mags/get more hits, allowing them to get more advertisers. If the reviewers give low scores that hurts the publication, they could theoretically lose their jobs or have their pay cut.

I agree with this.

On top of that, let's not forget there's a review scandal every few years so some of the worst excesses of bribery are avoided.

Basically, I think most of the bias you see in game reviews is pretty obvious to any reader - just look at the ways they usually term problems. But most of the game reviewers I've liked over the years have been very straightforward in describing problems, and describe what they see in a way that's not hard to dismiss.

The other half of that is in previews, in which reviewers are very "let's wait and see" even in games where you'd be hard pressed to bet that the game will shape up before release. THAT is where the most damage is probably done - do you think that game publishers would pay to skin a review website with their game's logo and characters if there was a bad preview? Yet the preview is the time when criticism about what works and what doesn't would be best. On the other hand, there have been some games that were restarted when near completion and it helped out a lot - although the only example I can think of (TimeShift) ended up being forgotten anyway.

About Duke, well, you can just about say "Always Bet Against Duke" at this point. It's a shame really, but I am so incredibly tired of seeing that boxart. Very Do Not Want.

[Rob2600]

I think you guys have a bit of a twisted view of professional game reviewers. They're not making a lot of money... If the reviewers give low scores that hurts the publication, they could theoretically lose their jobs or have their pay cut.

In other words, professional video game "journalists" aren't allowed to be completely objective. They're merely salespeople hired to hype games so that ad revenue keeps rolling in from the game publishers.

I know that's an oversimplification, but it's truer than many gamers would like to believe. I briefly worked for a book review magazine and it was the same exact situation. I was shocked at first, but that's how the world works. "This book only deserves two stars, but the author has been paying for ads in our magazine, so we'll bump the review up to four stars. We want to keep her happy so she keeps paying for ads!"

Ultimately, is it better to lie to readers just to keep a low-paying job and keep advertisers happy...or tell the truth and have integrity, but risk losing advertisers and/or being fired? (FYI, I couldn't take it anymore and left that job after 8 months.)

[Aussie2B]

I'd actually say it's more a matter of the professionals not being allowed to be completely subjective, rather than objective. A critique is a completely subjective thing, but I think the professionals are pressured to be more "objective" and attempt to predict how the industry and consumer base will respond to a game, rather than be truthful and state the conclusions that they genuinely came to. That's why you see something like Final Fantasy always get high scores and praise. Big-name games like that are expected to be good, and the publications not only don't want to tick off the advertisers but also don't want to go against the mainstream opinion of their readers. The readers are often young and petty, and if you give a score 1/10th lower than what they feel is the "correct" score, that can be enough to lose a subscription. General rule is that if a big-name product is released, it score has to be inflated, while the low profile stuff can get honest reviews (although those can swing the other way in which if they think the mainstream won't give a crap, they can't seem "outlandish" by giving a particular game a really high score; advertisers might also take issue if a low budget, no-name game gets more praise than something they've dumped money into).

As for previews vs. reviews, I don't think negativity in previews is really call for. But neither is gushing. Previews and reviews are two entirely different animals. A review is a critique, designed for no purpose but to assess the quality, while a preview is more about showcasing data and images/videos. A preview should be pretty neutral, but I think some level of optimism is fine, since Lord knows we have enough jaded, snarky professionals. If the person writing the preview hasn't even played the game, he/she really is in no place to criticize it, and if they've only briefly tried a demo, that's not enough to come to any serious conclusions either. Any criticism, like if the controls aren't so hot for example, should be accompanied by about how far along the game is.

[goatdan]

I'd actually say it's more a matter of the professionals not being allowed to be completely subjective, rather than objective. A critique is a completely subjective thing, but I think the professionals are pressured to be more "objective" and attempt to predict how the industry and consumer base will respond to a game, rather than be truthful and state the conclusions that they genuinely came to.

To be completely fair to game reviewers, I think that game reviewers are human -- and, what I mean by that is that those game reviewers for the most part do believe what they are writing...

But the thing is that game reviewers can form their opinions by reading the opinions of others. For example, let's say that you really enjoy game X, and you go to type up a review about it. You didn't think it was the greatest game ever, but you notice that all the other reviewers have given the game a 4 / 10 or below. You were going to give it an 8, so you decide to read those reviews, where you have people who talk about the camera being a little wonky in this one part -- which it was, you had forgot about that, another person pointing out some story inconsistencies that you hadn't really noticed, but now that you've read them yeah, it's weird they are in there, and another person who was really disappointed that the game didn't include a few multiplayer modes. You hadn't thought of this before, but now that you've read it, it too makes a lot of sense.

Suddenly, are you going to review that game as a 8 out of 10? you were just reminded of a bunch of issues that it has, and you agreed with a bunch. There was an issue recently about this in EGM actually where one of the editors noted that people were complaining that he said a bunch of negative things about I think it was Splatterhouse, but still graded it as like a 7 / 10, and he answered that while he saw the flaws that the game definitely had, he still had a lot of fun playing it and therefore even though his review sounded more negative, he stood behind the 7 / 10 (or whatever it was). He also pointed to another game that he reviewed pretty positively earlier, and noted that he scored it low because again of the intangibles.

But I don't think that many people do that in their reviews, but I don't necessarily think people do it on purpose. I do think things like where that 1up review that I read earlier stated things in it like it was "pretty fun at points" and stuff like that that the real reason it got such a low grade was simply to drive people to the site to read it.

Having said all that, maybe I'm wrong -- I know that I would grade White Men Can't Jump for the Jaguar as the worst game I've ever played, but I would also tell you that the reason why isn't that the game is completely horrible, but instead that the game builds you up for something that it completely fails to deliver on, and because of that in particular, it brings out all of the other flaws in the game and magnifies them.

I played through and *beat* White Men Can't Jump, something I probably can't say for even 25% of the games that I get. Yet, although I'll admit that it had fun moments, thanks to it completely crapping on me for playing it by basically just cutting the game off, all that I really remember about it was the horrible, horrible taste it left in my mouth.

Based on what I've been reading with some of the Duke reviews, my guess is that the aliens impregnating women thing that does sound pretty crass and tasteless being so near to the end of the game really was the thing that stuck out in a lot of reviewers minds when writing the review. Having said that, South Park tends to do things of equal or greater shock value, and doesn't get lampooned nearly as much as Duke is getting...

[Rob2600]

game reviewers can form their opinions by reading the opinions of others.

with some of the Duke reviews, my guess is that the aliens impregnating women thing that does sound pretty crass and tasteless... South Park tends to do things of equal or greater shock value, and doesn't get lampooned nearly as much as Duke is getting...

This goes back to what I posted before: Sometimes a game comes out and critics feel the need to outdo each other with excessive bashing. It's immature, but happens all the time.

And South Park doesn't get lampooned because it's smart and has substance. There's a difference between being crass to cleverly and humorously illustrate flaws in our society...and being crass because the writers are in a state of arrested development.

let's say that you really enjoy game X, and you go to type up a review about it. You didn't think it was the greatest game ever, but you notice that all the other reviewers have given the game a 4 / 10 or below. You were going to give it an 8, so you decide to read those reviews... Suddenly, are you going to review that game as a 8 out of 10? you were just reminded of a bunch of issues that it has, and you agreed with a bunch.

This is why 100-point review scales are completely useless. If a video game is worth buying and playing, it doesn't matter if it receives an 8.6 or an 8.4 or a 7.9.

Seriously, what's the difference between an 8.0 and an 8.1? Nothing. So why bother with such a granular scale? Supposedly it's for readers' psychological benefit, but it serves no practical purpose and is actually quite silly.

In reality, all entertainment media reviews should use a 3-point scale: three stars (totally worth it), two stars (maybe worth it), and one star (not worth it at all, skip it). It's as simple as that.

[heybtbm]

Based on what I've been reading with some of the Duke reviews, my guess is that the aliens impregnating women thing that does sound pretty crass and tasteless being so near to the end of the game really was the thing that stuck out in a lot of reviewers minds when writing the review. Having said that, South Park tends to do things of equal or greater shock value, and doesn't get lampooned nearly as much as Duke is getting...

Apples and oranges. From the Kotaku review...

People laugh at South Park because, while it can be vile, it knows what needs to underpin the gags to make them work. People can laugh at racial jokes, normally a taboo, from the likes of Richard Pryor or Dave Chapelle for the same reason. Heck, you can even make good Nazi jokes if you're smart enough.

Duke Nukem Forever isn't smart enough. It's not even close.

[goatdan]

Apples and oranges. From the Kotaku review...

People laugh at South Park because, while it can be vile, it knows what needs to underpin the gags to make them work. People can laugh at racial jokes, normally a taboo, from the likes of Richard Pryor or Dave Chapelle for the same reason. Heck, you can even make good Nazi jokes if you're smart enough.

Duke Nukem Forever isn't smart enough. It's not even close.

The thing here is you're quoting Kotaku, who of course would want to write something like that to back up what they are saying.

I know people, my wife included, that it doesn't matter what surrounds the gags, she finds things like South Park completely unwatchable. I know people who love South Park, but find Family Guy too over the top.

I'm certain that there are some people that will think DNF is over the top. I also believe that there will be some that think that it has formed enough of a case based on the earlier things that have happened in the game to make the jokes work. That spectrum is what it seems like a lot of people are refusing to accept, or even acknowledge with DNF.

[Icarus Moonsight]

phreakindee... ...said it's fun.

That's all I care about, really.

Speaking of which, the whole story here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_EESRrn-Ck

[Kitsune Sniper]

The thing here is you're quoting Kotaku, who of course would want to write something like that to back up what they are saying.

I'd take the opinion of a drunken hobo over Kotaku's any day.

I can't believe people still take them seriously.

[The 1 2 P]

I knew this was going to happen ever since Duke Nukem Forever finally became a reality last fall after Gearbox stepped in. While John St John and other Duke supporters want to remind people that Duke is all about it's sophomoric humor, the fact remains that it's an fps game launching in a very competitive fps market, especially this year with new iterations of Halo, COD, Battlefield, F.E.A.R., Crysis, etc.

I myself was wondering what exactly DNF was going to bring new to the table and according to reviews it hasn't brought much(if anything). But I'm still going to reserve judgement until I play a demo(or rent it from Redbox). I haven't been impressed with what I've seen so far but I still want to give it my own play test(even though my friends who have played it have already been telling me it sucks).

[flyngryter711]

The game wasn't the best but was unfairly bashed by critics. Although you hear about the dark side of the industry this story proves that this stuff really happens.

__________________
Cars 2 toys are expected to deliver as much fun as the movie that is if you can find cars 2 toys.

[Icarus Moonsight]

Just watched this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Th2z0xT-X5s

He nailed it.

Stay tuned for a great critique of 'pro' critics (Game Informer Witcher 2 review).

[Flashback2012]

I've been playing through it. It's not horrible by any stretch of the imagination but it's not lights-out the best thing I have ever played. I don't play many FPS games anymore, the last one I did play was Portal 2...if that even counts. If it does, that game had me WAY more engrossed than what I've gotten out of Duke so far.

If I were a reviewer, I wouldn't give DNF a bad review. Then again, I certainly wouldn't give it a good one either.

[TonyTheTiger]

I myself was wondering what exactly DNF was going to bring new to the table and according to reviews it hasn't brought much(if anything).

The question on my mind, though, is why should it have to? It was never a secret that the FPS genre evolved from Duke Nukem's day and that Duke himself was completely absent from that evolution. Ok, fair enough. But what was this game supposed to be? Was it supposed to leapfrog that period of time and become a contender on equal terms with modern games or was it supposed to be a throwback?

Given the amount of time it took for DNF to come out, the general atmosphere seemed to change from "this is the newest iteration of Duke" into "this is going to be a throwback to a bygone era/series." Because of the nature of DNF and it's legacy, I was always much more ready to compare it to something like Mega Man 9 or Scott Pilgrim vs. The World than the most recent CoD or Halo. It just doesn't feel like a fair complaint.

Admittedly I think the game got lost somewhere in between. It tried to keep to the classic Duke but at the same time not be too faithful to those early days. And maybe that's where it's real failings are. That it did both halfheartedly instead of picking one direction wholeheartedly.

[Orion Pimpdaddy]

A counterpoint to this whole thread would be, maybe DNF is actually a bad game and the reviewers have it right. I don't buy into all this reviewer conspiracy stuff.

Check out how close the "critic" average score is to the "user" average score are on Gamespot. Keep in mind that users are just regular gamers like us, many of which bought or rented the game:

http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/acti...lt%3Btitle%3B1

So you have an average of around 5/10 from about 1,000 separate reviewers. That's pretty convincing to me. Also, if you read some of the user reviews, a lot of them are fans of the older Duke games, so I don't think the low scores come from people who don't understand what the Nukem franchise is all about.

[Xtincthed]

i'm really fed up with the reviewers that first explain about the history of DNF.. and then review it to todays standards

the graphics arent great, the gameplay is old fashioned.. but if this game was released at it's original time (or 5 years ago) it would have been mind blowing

now it's a mediocre game, which i enjoyed and finished (which i rarely do)

[Xtincthed]

Just watched this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Th2z0xT-X5s

He nailed it.

Stay tuned for a great critique of 'pro' critics (Game Informer Witcher 2 review).

QFT, he nailed it indeed

[MarioMania]

Point and Simple, if it's not Call of Duty, There will trash it

[heybtbm]

I'd take the opinion of a drunken hobo over Kotaku's any day.

I can't believe people still take them seriously.

Any specific reason why?