Does the media affect us too much?


Recommended Posts

Well, I've been thinking with the recently released Modern Warfare 2 that maybe the media affects people too much in the way that they think about games. For example, a lot of reviewers say that Super Mario Galaxy is really a fantastic game and possible the best ever. However, when you look at it's core and ignore all the reviews, all you get is a very basic and easy game. 'Nuff said.

I know I was once influenced a lot by reviewers, with a lot of them overrating games. I now think that, as said above, Super Mario Galaxy is a very average game. If the reviews all said that, I bet a lot of people would think it also.

That leads to Modern Warfare 2. Why is this game really any good? The campaign was waaaaay too short and wasn't the greatest. The Spec Ops mode is pretty good, not much wrong with it. But then the multiplayer just loses its appeal very quickly because of the aim assist (in the console versions only) and it just gets boring very easily. Not a lot of variation in there. So that just leaves the Spec Ops mode that isn't a full game there, it's just an extra 'bonus' mode, if you will.

So, what are your thoughts? Agree, disagree, what? Comments below are welcome, as always.

Source

Well, I wrote this, so, what are your thoughts? I think that it's a genuine 'issue' (whether that's the right word or not...hmm), and I think that a lot more people should be more individual with their views, not just relying on what, say, IGN think of a game and then automatically decide that yes, it must be a good game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The magazines should be there for the consumer to give a critical review. To say: x game is worth buying, x game is not.

Games journalists appear to be caught in two camps:

Too caught up in their own hype to take a genuinely critical eye over a game and give it a score it's due. For example listen to Shane's comments on MW2 in Invisible Walls recently, he sounds like a 12 year old at a show and tell. Barely mentioning that the game is 5 hours long then breezing over that by saying well it's the new standard!? :/

As one of my fave freelance journalists said recently: "The problem with Gaming Journalists is that they are gamers too and just as likely to get pulled in to the hype as much as anyone else."

Or they live in fear of the publishers (hi gamespot). Ad revenue is going down and magazines aren't selling. Though exclusives still give page hits or sell magazines regardless. Then if the game is a PoS come release if the reviewer doesn't agree with the score they can be replaced with another pig with less morals.

For an example of that Tony Hawk: Ride - One of the guys at Giant Bomb was suppose to go to a three hour event to review the game. People who went thent gave it 8's and 9's. Jeff Gerstmann slated it giving it 1/5. Telling it how it is, then, sticking the boot in saying he only had 15 minutes out of the three hours to play it! Sure they may not get any exclusives of Activision any more. But credit to the man to having some credibility and telling it how it is.

Influencing people? Most definitely. Effecting them? Na. Once people have the game they are likely to defend it till the end of time than admit they bought a stinker of a game. We've all done it in the past. Saying that I'm more likely to buy something on the recommendations of people who post on Neowin than a review I saw on IGN. Journalistic integrity is long gone in the gaming industry. It's a sad state of affairs when average Joe is more trustworthy than someone who gets paid to review on a professional basis.

Edit: Expanded my points a bit.

Edited by Spookie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spookie makes a good point. Even reviewers don't like to be wrong about the games they want to love. I have found many a critical gamer being sucked into the hype and wow factor of games, touting its awesome for weeks until they finally realize that the game isn't all that (usually only after another game comes out they can drool over). This happened with Killzone 2, Resistance 1/2, Gears 2, and even Halo 2/3. It is all to rare to see the media or any critics for that matter looking at games objectively and for what they are. They either compare this game and that game and say which is better rather than touching on the individual pro's and con's between the two or they just rate it high because of hype and anticipation corrupting their judgement.

But I feel this is also why the majority of the gaming veterans have come to use them as reference material and and not decision makers. I personally won't say a game is good or bad until I play it. I may make some mild judgements based on reviews but that is if I feel I can understand the comments within them. But even then, my own opinion is always based on what I have seen played of the game or through direct gameplay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They either compare this game and that game and say which is better rather than touching on the individual pro's and con's between the two or they just rate it high because of hype and anticipation corrupting their judgement.

Too true. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People don't need to rely on reviews like they used to, with the internet, previews, videos, trailers, demos, pictures, developer histories, word of mouth from friends, and then yeah, finally reviews, we've got plenty of aids. But it is an abundance of reviews (back in the day what, we had a few main magazines doing all our reviews, and a few internet sites? - Now we have about 100+ sites/magazines all chipping in). The expansion is one reason reviews have been turned into a profitable business, but in return the expansion has also affected gamers to be mad crazed loonies at times that won't touch a game that doesn't get a metacritic of 95+. Which is the catch22 that gets the developers/publishers all paranoid (No I don't condone pay offs/bribery, but you can see where it's coming from, gamers attitudes this generation are indeed part of the reason).

If there's one thing I've learned this generation as it's gone on, you bog yourself down in the world of reviews/metacritic, you'll end up becoming spiteful and hating gaming, turning every corner lashing out at sites/magazines/games/people who like games you don't, and forget to spend your time just playing the games. You'll read a gazillion opinions on a game before playing it then go into playing it with pre-loaded opinions before even booting it up, possibly affecting your time with the game. You'll see a metacritic of 85 and go PASS, completely forgetting metacritic is based over what is usually an average of 60+ written reviews for any one big game.

Then you'll probably end up as jaded as I used to be, going around raging my face off saying games shouldn't get 10/10, 100%, yada yada because no game is perfect. Like I somehow think perfection is a realistic goal to be represented on a review scale for a game. I do still think the best review scale is the way 1UP do it, with letters, but ideally the best review is one without a score, a well written piece about the game, but it's never about the written part is it, it's all about the scores... *reel in publishers meeting notes, "sales = it's all about the scores guys"*

We are essentially are our own reviewers, trust yourself more than anyone else, it is your money and it'll be you playing the game. No point in trying to force yourself to like something because other people say you should, and on the other hand no point in forcing yourself to hate something because other people say you should.

Oh, and finally, the problems of 'exclusive hype' stems solely from one simple problem (I'm sure publishers love the hype), competition/fanboy rivalry between the PS3 and 360. If such a thing were not at the heights it is this generation we wouldn't have as much ridiculous hype placed on every exclusive title to be supposedly better than something the other console has released/is releasing. Again, as hard as it is, best to try and ignore that or you do what I said above, go into playing a game with such a pre-loaded concious you either end up disappointed you haven't played God in videogame format, or get caught up in the willy rubbing in the official topic. Essentially you end up trying to adopt someone else's ideology about the game, which is usually an extreme in these cases (complete love, or complete hate) rather than forming your own.

Edited by Audioboxer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No game is worth a perfect 10/10, 100/100, or A+ though or whatever scale you want to use. There's always room for improvement. Unfortunately if you follow that rule then you end up in the same spot as DNF :p

I'm 22 now almost 23 and played plenty of games in my time. I've known for quite some time what type of game I like and don't so I'm rarely displeased with what I buy. Saying that, I do like to read/watch the reviews and opinions of others.

So for me personally, no it doesn't effect me at all. It's usually an after thought if anything. Like someone else wrote though, this generation has become filled with scoring nazis that won't play anything outside of the top 10. There's plenty of flawed but perfectly fun games out there and I do my best to get around to them all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesn't effect me, I don't even bother reading reviews any more and basing any decisions off of them. Most reviews these days are so bound by red tape and a writer trying to please the sponsors, the readers and the developers. It seems like every single game that costs more than ?5.60 to develop gets a 9/10 and then you have the terrible games, they tend to score 4/10 - So predictable.

It seems the days of personal opinions are slowly fading and everything is turning into either a negative or positive review - We don't even need a score chart any more. When a reviewer has the guts to give the game a 10/10, people go ape-**** because "No game is perfect, that can't be right!!" and then you have the more mellow people who can actually see that this is a personal opinion and a writer trying to tell the public what he thinks of it - Then there's such a big fuss over that, the reviewers don't even dare going near that score again and when they score games too low, people go bananas becausethey> like the game, bla bla.

So now the armchair-mom gamers thinks a review is a democracy and every game just gets a "safe" score to not upset anyone.

Beside all that, we have all this dodgy sponsor deal business and whatnot going on behind the scenes - Some games just seem to score that magic 9/10 despite not actually deserving it but it's a big-business game - So paid off scores may be a bit of paranoia but I still think it goes on - May not be hand-to-hand payments but it definitely goes through a lot of loops and twirls and it all ties into a nice bow.

So no, I would never ever base a purchase of anything in the gaming world off a review, everything is too biased and lacks personal opinion with facts and proper critics to be worth anything. In my dream world, I'd want a guy with my own pessimistic views to run a decent review site and give games some proper scores and go into details with it. Perhaps even try for once scoring an "AAA title" something other than 9/10 like Eurogamer tried .... BUT OHHHH then Eurogamer caught a lot of flak from the same whiny users.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah...The same thing happens with hardware "reviews". 99% of those sites exist so people running the site can get free stuff. All they have to do is at least give the product a neutral to good rating. For the companies it's virtually free marketing at the cost of a few review samples.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are essentially are our own reviewers, trust yourself more than anyone else, it is your money and it'll be you playing the game. No point in trying to force yourself to like something because other people say you should, and on the other hand no point in forcing yourself to hate something because other people say you should.

(Y)

In a world where everyone is a critic, trust yourself.

Hey! Super Mario Galaxy really was a great game!

Dunno if it was that great as a game (silly "plot"), but I had a LOT of Fun with it and that's what counts for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Control the media, control the mind.. thats the golden rule of this age from running business to running government.. if you can use the media for and against your enemies/competitors effectively then you are the king..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some brilliant and well thought out points made in this thread and I have to say, I stopped buying PC magazines and Gaming magazines a long time ago because I would read the reviews and be like "WOW" and then when it came to getting the game I'd sit and I'd play and be like...this sucks, what was the reviewer thinking.

Basically these days if I see a game about, I'll take a read on the official site, maybe see if there's a topic here and then (on neowin most commonly atm) and get involved in a discussion about it, but generally I will buy the game and if I made a bad purchase, I made a bad purchase. For example I brought Supreme Commander, now whilst many will be like "thats an amazing game" and many of the reviews at the time raved, I personally didn't like it, and then there's been other games where the reviews have been less favourable but I have loved the game.

In short, I tend to ignore the media now, read about what I can, if I like what I see from vids and shots then I will get it, and if it's a bad game I don't enjoy it's going to sit on my shelf and not get played, simples :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I have hardly stopped getting magazines. I get the magazines to keep my eyes open in directions I don't normally look. RPG's, MMO's, and Action Adventure games are things I don't research too much into so PC Gamer, EGM(god rest its soul), and other gaming mags allow me the opportunity to see new games I wouldn't have otherwise.

But as you said, my judgement of a game doesn't usually go beyond my own experience with it. I usually have some very small things that make my games enjoyable, such as the bouncy physics and glassy look of Halo CE, or the Animus branding/interface in the first Assassin's Creed. So when I play a game I look for what makes it unique, and most reviewers don't look passed the basics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.