Neuromancer
Member
The first step in video game astroturfing is to not use your official developer profile when making positive comments about one of your games.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Brickblast U! dev isn´t satisfied with a Nintendolife review.
- Thread starter Hanmik
- Start date
UncleSporky
Member
Nintendo Life is generally awesome, they're the only site I know of that reviews literally everything on Nintendo's eShops, or as much as possible. Sometimes it's really hard to find impressions/reviews of the more minor games.
Gonzo The Great
Banned
AAA
I wish i could, but as i understand isnt easy to get a WiiU Dev Kit if you live in latin america.
That's, uh... that's something. I don't know if I could call that a beta with a straight face, though.
pinkurocket
Member
Well, I can understand a negative review can strongly impact the sales of a game when it isn't that 'bad' for many people.
I think it was the game 'Retro City Rampage' which isn't a bad game at all, but got a 5.3 on IGN. For many people who simply google whether a game is worth a purchase without reading too much into it, a review like that can hurt sales. Especially from a big site like IGN, who a lot of people take serious (even if they don't always deserve to). But Retro City Rampage is an original game that is fun and unique. To act all upset over a negative review when your game is nothing more than a fancy looking clone of a tried and tested game concept, it is a bit embarrassing.
I think it was the game 'Retro City Rampage' which isn't a bad game at all, but got a 5.3 on IGN. For many people who simply google whether a game is worth a purchase without reading too much into it, a review like that can hurt sales. Especially from a big site like IGN, who a lot of people take serious (even if they don't always deserve to). But Retro City Rampage is an original game that is fun and unique. To act all upset over a negative review when your game is nothing more than a fancy looking clone of a tried and tested game concept, it is a bit embarrassing.
The music makes this unintentionally hilarious
I like the use of free fonts
Papyrus + Rosewood Std
This guy isn't doing himself any favours. He hasn't got the money or the staff to make AAA games, that's fine. He should defend his games on their merits, not defensively lash out at those who attack their flaws.
PetriP-TNT
Member
Haha. Quite epic.
Flachmatuch
Member
Obviously, but this does not change the fact that a reviewer whose reviews get published should be (and is actually *expected to be* in real life) more responsible than someone just writing a user review. This argument is the same pattern (although the question is obviously not remotely as important) as the "advertising/violence etc in mass media is not the problem because parents have the responsibility to control their children's access to it" which is often used to release the media producers from ALL of their responsibilities and put it ALL on parents. In this case, of course, this argument has a lot more validity (as video games are just entertainment after all) but the pattern itself is just blame-shifting from the powerful to the powerless. But Uncle Ben was right: with greater power comes greater responsibility.
And again: all better reviewers seem to know this and act on it and are professionally proud of it. The entire industry seems to know this, which is why eg. metacritic handles user reviews and critic revies separately. Etc. Reviews have personal opinion, even subjectivity and bias (in fact I think this can actually be a good thing as long as this subjectivity and "bias" is well known and taken into account (eg when deciding who reviews a particular game and what score is given)) but they are not simply personal opinions.
themagicalkitsune
Member
That running animation + epic music + american dad = can't breathe
Bony Manifesto
Member
How would you suggest that writer would go about writing a fair review for Football Manager though? I don't think he can - he can either write an honest, but grossly uninformed review (which he did), or he can regurgitate the opinions of other, more informed writers and try to pass it off as original thought (which is a hairs-breadth away from plagiarism). Both scenarios would result in a meaningless review, and IGN US shouldn't have reviewed it at all if they didn't have anyone with the required background knowledge to play it.
I disagree to some degree.
The only think you HAVE to do is stay honest. You can't say "it doesn't work" because you didn't take the time to read the manual. Or criticize an aspect of the story that you didn't understand just because you lack the background needed to understand it. In this case, you have to do some research.
But I really think that "I didn't find the game enjoyable" is far better than trying to guess if others people will like it. Honestly: you don't have a clue.
And if you don't like the kind of game you're testing, either be honest with this from the start, or refuse to test it. If you're REALLY accustomed to a genre, be honest about it too.
(and by the way, I don't think critics are journalists... not just for videogames, critics in general. Journalists usually states the facts. Critics and columnist express an opinion. Or at least, that's my take on it)
Cold, I agree.
Niche =/= Bad, even more.
I'm just saying that, while trying to be honest and thinking about your readers, you shouldn't try to guess what others people will like/dislike.
I agree, even if I still think that reading why you disliked it may be more informative for some readers than reading bland praising of the game of someone else.
You should probably read several reviews, not rely on one. Or read a review of a reviewer that you know will share most of your views.
Overall, I don't think our views are so different, in fact.
Nothing this guy has done is correct, appropriate or beneficial. The casual throwaway use of the weird rape is terrible PR. Taking offence and being defensive over a review is terrible PR. Calling out NintendoLife with unfounded and likely untrue* claims is terrible PR. Being confrontational and rude on social media is terrible PR.
He's making himself our to be some sort of heroic warrior of the truth in the face of website injustice but he looks foolish. No one will have more respect for him over this and many will have less.
*NintendoLife have a fantastic reputation for championing indies. They give plenty of fair coverage before, during and after the release of eShop games and I also believe I'm right in saying they've actually helped developers at times with things like contacts and networking. I have never seen a developer call out NL.
He's making himself our to be some sort of heroic warrior of the truth in the face of website injustice but he looks foolish. No one will have more respect for him over this and many will have less.
*NintendoLife have a fantastic reputation for championing indies. They give plenty of fair coverage before, during and after the release of eShop games and I also believe I'm right in saying they've actually helped developers at times with things like contacts and networking. I have never seen a developer call out NL.
Castef
Banned
Care to explain this concept a bit more?
I mean, you took as an example a game which a not-properly-stellar average on both Gamerankings and Metacritic.
Why would a rating of 5.3 (well motivated in the review) be wrong?
pinkurocket
Member
Wow. This developer can't be much older than 17 at most. Seems like a privileged boy that just started to make games. No sign of any form of gameplay to be found in those 'trailers' when gameplay should be a premier focus. Mediocre graphics deemed impressive, music from some random album of 'epic' trailer tracks. Yes, it's impressive to build your first projects, but if he seriously tries to call this an AAA experience in the making... This boy is full of delusion.
This was the type of thing Nintendo was trying to avoid when it had it's strict conditions on becoming a developer for their hardware. Now that those barriers are gone we're going to get more and more of this crap. I get that everyone has to start somewhere but what is happening here is wrong. I can only hope people do not buy these games. The few that get sucked into this and waste their money learn their lessons and don't do it again in the future.
First thing I thought of was you!
qualitydisc
Member
Jesus! Who thought that price point would be a good idea?
BibiMaghoo
Member
If you say you are working "on many AAA games", I think it likely you are not working on any AAA games.
Triggerhappytel
Member
Yeah, what an idiot. Needs some very basic lessons in PR.
He reminds me of Uwe Boll.
Looks like the review was being generous. I wouldn't have gone as high as 2/10.
Cha
Member
First thing I noticed about those pics too. D: Dude's font (and overall design choices) make want to cry.
Game looks like a 2/10 to me.
Jo Shishido's Cheeks
Member
I just don't understand why Nintendo lets such shit on to their store...?
BillGaitas
Member
pinkurocket
Member
Well, the game isn't outstanding in any possible way, but I think we both understand that a rating of 5.3 would be considered 'bad' by most people. The whole number system just sucks. The game doesn't deserve the negative impact a 5 carries, it's a solid game that deserves a decent 7 at the lowest. People rarely read reviews to understand the reasoning behind the score. This game is an indie project sold for a small price, it's easy to just ignore it and move on after seeing a low score pop up in Google.
I remembered this particular example because the developer had a similar 'rant' about the negative review hurting the sales. He released an updated version of the game (which I played, so idk if the original was really that 'bad') and the IGN review was still linked to that which also caused frustration for him.
AcademicSaucer
Member
Retail release pls
Flachmatuch
Member
It's not "wrong", of course, but do you think IGN, for example, applies the same principles of scoring to these games as they do to big money stuff? Are they really impartial and critique the companies they get their money from the same way as they do small developers? If they don't, it's abuse of power; while if an average joe does it on gamefaqs, it's at worst a silly inconsistency, a personal piece of "irrationality" or fanboyism.
Loads of great journalists all took sides and had their personal opinions. In fact, all journalists do that - when they pretend not to, like the professionals in corporate media, they are actually manipulating people more than the journalists who are open about their affiliations. Especially now, it is actually pretty much impossible not to take sides. Pretending one doesn't, usually while working in deeply ideologised environments, is a lie.
Great journalists don't just "state the facts". That's a misconception. In fact, there is no journalist who just "states the facts". They always select what facts to state, what pov to look at them from, what words they use to describe them. And in fact the biggest paid "professionals" are the most ideological.
They really do need to start weeding some things out or just more if they are doing it. Just because it runs and doesn't crash the system should not be the only requirements. A game can be bad but there are certain standards that should at least be reached.
Awww...
:Motorbass
Member
Haha. Based on this, I bet this ride game has awesome drift mechanics!
But yeah. Nintendo Life does reviews that I can get behind 99% of the time. Doubt they are wrong on this.
Castef
Banned
Yes, and it is considered "bad" even by the reviewer, because if you read the whole article he clearly states that he did not appreciate the game after the first bunch of hours.
In that case what would you expect him to do?
Give the game an higher rating because otherwise the game could sell poorly?
A review is not just a number. It has an article attached to it which explains the number. In this particular situation, even a detailed one.
Also, by saying that the game "deserves a solid 7" you are just doing exactly what the reviewer did: expressing you opinion about this game.
After trying the game a bit I decided it was a letdown and did not purchase it. So, most probably my opinion of the game is a bit more 5ish than 7ish.
How is this possible a problem of the reviewer?
I don't know: seems to me that Destiny, a very BIG release, is getting mixed reviews as well.
Is this just another occasion to throw garbage to the whole gaming journalism?
I don't like the idea that reviewers should ignore whether they like it or not and instead write for what the audience would like, that leads to crap like that infamous Paper Mario review ("Great game, loved it but others probably wouldn't so 5/10") or just reviewing things by their production values (AKA automatic 9/10 for any hyped AAA game) instead of their entertainment value.
A reviewer can only detect the enjoyment he himself found in the game, he cannot reliably determine what other people would think about it. You're supposed to follow reviewers who tend to share your tastes or in the worst case take an aggregate of many reviewers to get a (badly selected but still) sample of the population's preference.
Also fuck this game. "You're expecting GTA 6"? No, we're expecting AlphaBounce. Easy mistake to make though.
A reviewer can only detect the enjoyment he himself found in the game, he cannot reliably determine what other people would think about it. You're supposed to follow reviewers who tend to share your tastes or in the worst case take an aggregate of many reviewers to get a (badly selected but still) sample of the population's preference.
Also fuck this game. "You're expecting GTA 6"? No, we're expecting AlphaBounce. Easy mistake to make though.
Maybe they are, when excellent games like ZombiU get very poor scores I question the system.
DarkLegion
Member
Holy Shit that quick Head shake at the end killed me
pinkurocket
Member
Well a good review shouldn't necessarily judge the game from a purely personal standpoint. They should look at the game, what it tries to do and how it succeeded in doing that. Everyone has different responses to a game, a review should be there to give a neutral insight in what the buyer can expect from the game. In that sense a 5 isn't worth it. The IGN reviewer deemed the game frustrating and for that reason stopped caring and pasted that number on it. In my opinion the review doesn't even read like it would result in a score of a 5.3. I guess the main conclusion is that the the numbering system is simply flawed since people rarely actually read a review unfortunately.
But I didn't want to critique this particular review, I was just giving this example because it came to mind with the developer commenting on a negative review impacting sales... I got a bit carried away.
MrNyarlathotep
Banned
Or he could have reviewed the game in front of him, not the game in his head.
For example, there are multiple people who played the latest Firaxis Xcom reboot without a background in turn based strategy titles, or knowledge of the prior games in the series who didn't shit on it because it doesn't play like Gears Of War.
qualitydisc
Member
Wh... wh.... why would a dev put out a video of his game with American Dad audio over it, even as a mistake, and not fix it? Sloppy sloppy sloppy.
bobawesome
Member
Is this episode of American Dad on good and loud? Mmyep, time to record.
test_account
XP-39C²
I see your point, but my point is just that each person decide on how much "power" a review has, regardless of whos writing it. Some people are more articulated when it comes to writing, and some have more experience writing reviews than others indeed, but games' main "concern" (or what i shall say) is if its fun or not. A game review is basically telling if the reviewer finds a game fun or not to play, and that is something that is highly subjective. That is why i personally basically never let a game review decide if i should buy a game or not, because i know that my opinion about the game can be very different.
bitesnintendog
Member
I once had the idea of making intentionally horrible eshop games with an awful persona who would fail at PR attempts and just be generally unaware that the games being made are terrible.
I could have never conceived a game like The Letter or a trailer that has American Dad blaring in the background.
I could have never conceived a game like The Letter or a trailer that has American Dad blaring in the background.
Flachmatuch
Member
Yep, which is imo a pretty good thing, although I've not played Destiny (I only play offline). I just wanted to point out how and why a review published in a gaming publication and a personal opinion "published" on gamefaqs are different. But tbh I'm pretty sure this kind of money-based bias has to exist, even if only indirectly and even if not a single reviewer does it consciously.
I think video games "journalism" overwhelmingly serves as general industry marketing. And tbh, I don't really know if it can aspire to become something significantly more than this. And there's no problem with that. Despite all their issues, I really love video games, but they're not like books. They're usually not made by a single person. They are born from years of labour of (usually) many (dozens and sometimes hundreds) of people, and so they must at the very least support the livelihood of these people. Garage games are awesome, but (while I don't really care for modern big budget AAA stuff) my "sweet spot" is around the PS1-PS2 FF production quality and that's already not that cheap. Right now, only "the market" can create these games and "games journalism" is part of that.
As far as I know, content producers consider this power to have a quite objective existence and sometimes even do immoral stuff to use it (paying off reviewers eg.) This power exists and can be misused, even if it can be counteracted to some degree on an individual level.
No, a game review is not just - or even mainly - "telling if the reviewer finds a game fun or not to play". It should put the game into its "historical" context (whether there are expected features missing or if there's anything new in the game), provide evaluation on the technical side (graphics, controls etc), talk about how - or whether - it relates to other games in the genre etc. I certainly want to know whether a reviewer liked a particular game or not (and if they actually like the genre and its other games in general) but that's because people have fun with different things and I have to understand the reasons why the reviewer is having fun (or not); their personal preferences are only important because they allow me to try to "translate" their evaluation to myself. If this makes any sense.