Support NeoGAF

[SenjutsuSage]

I personally don't rely on reviews for much, because I've learned, particularly in the last generation, just how flawed they are. Everybody has their biases and no single person can understand what I like about games, and what I hate about games.

Pretty much if a game has captured my interest enough for me to seriously consider buying it, no opinion other than my own will determine what I ultimately think about that game, as reviews these days can be so political and wrapped up in all sorts of nonsense. I love the days where people didn't just go glance at a metacritic score and then make these silly and uninformed judgments about games without trying them for themselves. That said, Adam Sessler is a guy I've always respected, and that goes as far back to his ZDTV days with Morgan Webb. He's always struck me as one of the few people in his line of work that genuinely seem to give a shit about games, and isn't just some hired gun.

So whatever has got him so upset, hopefully it's worked out.

 

[Sophia]

The problem has been around a long time, and journalists allowed themselves to become so entangled in it, they can't get out, so they blame Sony, or GAF, or whoever.

I do wish Sessler had not taken this to twitter to begin with. It's obviously a big deal for him, and impacting his judgement profoundly. Yet he should have confided with someone whom he trusts instead of taking to wishy-washy comments on what is essentially a public space. :\

 

[Mushroomer25]

The sense of entitlement in threads like this are fucking disgusting.

Define entitlement.

 

[jschreier]

And the reason you can't tell us what the actual issue is.......is what?

Because it would be improper of me to share something I was told privately. This whole cycle of GAF threads and vague tweets bugs me a lot, though, so I'm just trying to make it clear that people shouldn't get worried over something that is probably insignificant to them.

 

[Quote]

I just don't understand the cryptic way that they're going about this. If it's truly and issue, believe in it, preach it, people will follow if it's true a travesty to the industry or even to you as a journalist.

Being cryptic about it makes it more like a threat. "Hey company. I'm hinting at something to YOUR consumers, fix it or I tell the world!" Are we playing chips?

 

[Keihart]

You do realize youtube videos makers don't get nor need as many money from ads that actual websites right?

So...sites should get more hits on their pages, maybe with news, or preview reviews....or maybe some crazy stuff like actually fun, informative or entertaining material?
Not feeling the , if the review it's late then we are fucked thing.
Previews and information about a game are more usefull to the consumer, not people opinions...since reviews are that , and just that most of the time.

I still ca't believe that it's just that the problem here.

 

[w1gglyjones]

If you don't want us to know, start by not posting vague, public tweets or posts about it. Crazy-talk, right?

I do wish Sessler had not taken this to twitter to begin with. It's obviously a big deal for him, and impacting his judgement profoundly. Yet he should have confided with someone whom he trusts instead of taking to wish-washy comments on what is essentially a public space. :\

can't believe people don't get this. don't announce in public personal matters if you have a public platform

 

[ProcrasDANation]

Why do you have any right to know? Who the hell are you that you should know?

Why put it on twitter if you do not want speculation?

 

[robertsan21]

Well, there's a difference between what Sony considers "anti-consumer", and what is actually bad for the consumer. For Sony, requiring a secondary subscription to use things like Netflix & Hulu is anti-consumer. You're paying more money for no reason, and you know it. This makes you mad at Sony.
But review events? The average consumer is never going to know about that (barring massive controversy). They'll see a review (that might be more positive than a traditional one), and be none the wiser. See? Not anti-consumer. (From Sony's perspective).

A review set in the home of the publisher is in my opinion not a review at all. you have to take the final review with a truck load of salt, cause they could have been specifically told not to include some issues etc.

seems gaming journalism is just another form of PR.

 

[senador]

If you don't want us to know, start by not posting vague, public tweets or posts about it. Crazy-talk, right?

Just because he probably slipped up and probably shouldn't have posted that doesn't give anyone any right to know what he was talking about. Besides, we've been told we'll know soon enough. We've also been told it has more to do with his work than us as consumers. Get over it.

 

[DigitalRicket]

I personally don't rely on reviews for much, because I've learned, particularly in the last generation, just how flawed they are. Everybody has their biases and no single person can understand what I like about games, and what I hate about games.

Pretty much if a game has captured my interest enough for me to seriously consider buying it, no opinion other than my own will determine what I ultimately think about that game, as reviews these days can be so political and wrapped up in all sorts of nonsense. I love the days where people didn't just go glance at a metacritic score and then make these silly and uninformed judgments about games without trying them for themselves. That said, Adam Sessler is a guy I've always respected, and that goes as far back to his ZDTV days with Morgan Webb. He's always struck me as one of the few people in his line of work that genuinely seem to give a shit about games, and isn't just some hired gun.

So whatever has got him so upset, hopefully it's worked out.

Same. And when it comes to gaining interest in other games that I may not be aware of, I turn to GiantBomb or Twitch to watch Quick Looks and people actually playing the game live, not sliced up edited videos that show only the good parts and that continually use the same terminology to describe each gameplay feature.

 

[machinecaliber]

So it doesn't have anything to do with the heavily embargoed Microsoft event next week? Weird.

 

[Obscene Jester]

The sense of entitlement in threads like this are fucking disgusting.

Then stay out of them, you wouldn't be missed. I find your arrogance disgusting. You come in here and say you know something, but you won't tell us because we are not worthy. Fuck off.

 

[Chinner]

so what, journalists are annoyed because they're not getting free hand outs thus not being able to gloat online to everyone?

 

[Samyy]

seems gaming journalism is just another form of PR.

See Gerstmanns situation.
See GTA4 with 10's everywhere and banner ads of the game covering all the sites.
Its always been like this.
I don't trust or check Gamespot,IGN or any of the other bigger websites for this reason.

 

[mysteriousmage09]

If people are still basing their purchase over what a review from a site says then I feel sorry for them. Also, most game review outcomes have become based on the amount of hype the game in question builds up until launch anyways. Was anyone surprised to see the ridiculously high scores for say, Bioshock Infinite or GTA5? I sure as hell wasn't. Also, IMO, the early as hell reviews are usually always highly positive and scream corporate influence already, and that's been going on for years. I actually prefer reading reviews that come a week or so after release. Easier to take it seriously since you can bet the developer/publisher didn't have any involvement with the outcome, and the hype factor dies down for a more level headed opinion.

This whole things sounds more like whining about not geting as many site/video hits as conceivably possible from being one of the first to post a review rather than companies getting in the way and effecting the integrity of said reviews.

 

[RulkezX]

The Kotaku guy doesn't seem to think its a big deal , are we sure GAF has the correct issue down ?

 

[jschreier]

Clearly the big deal is that nobody will care about these systems, launch lineups or finding out whether they're any good or not if articles don't go up before the 15th.

What Schreier says is "doing a disservice to their readers" who have to know before Day 1, I interpret as they're "doing a disservice to their advertisers" because nobody will go to Kotaku for "their word on what's great and what isn't" after the 15th. They'll go here. They'll go to Twitter. They'll go to YouTube. And they'll go to their friends.

I'm not so sure about that. We're lucky enough to have a very large readership with or without day-one console coverage.

And again, let me preface this by saying I really have no idea what our next-gen console review plans are. I don't know anything about the PS4 review event.

But hypothetically, if given the choice between a tailored review event and no launch-day coverage at all, I'd choose the review event every time. I'd be transparent about the circumstances, of course, and cover lots more outside of that review event, but I believe it would be doing a disservice to readers to turn something like that down. A PS4 review that makes it very clear where the reviewer was and exactly what he/she saw is far more valuable to gamers than no pre-launch PS4 coverage at all.

 

[disastermouse]

The sense of entitlement in threads like this are fucking disgusting.

I don't think you understand this very over-used word.

I'm not knocking on someone's door to ask them to explain a private conversation I overheard while eavesdropping, for fucks sake - I'm asking for clarification regarding the tweets posted over the very public megaphone that is twitter or over a somewhat less megaphonically public post on a forum.

If you don't want me to ask you about it, then maybe don't make public tweets/posts about it.

 

[GillianSeed79]

Because it would be improper of me to share something I was told privately. This whole cycle of GAF threads and vague tweets bugs me a lot, though, so I'm just trying to make it clear that people shouldn't get worried over something that is probably insignificant to them.

Well, if that's the case I hope everything is alright with Sessler. He's one of the good guys, so I hope his site didn't go belly up, get bought out or he's lost his job again. The game journalism world is a better place with Sessler in it.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

Why do you have any right to know? Who the hell are you that you should know?

Haha. Who the fuck is this guy, anyway?

 

[senador]

Then stay out of them, you wouldn't be missed. I find your arrogance disgusting. You come in here and say you know something, but you won't tell us because we are not worthy. Fuck off.

I know all the things. Are you going to act like you deserve to know and like journalists owe you something? Yes, I do imagine you will.

 

[JDSN]

Because it would be improper of me to share something I was told privately. This whole cycle of GAF threads and vague tweets bugs me a lot, though, so I'm just trying to make it clear that people shouldn't get worried over something that is probably insignificant to them.

But you are part of that cycle now, I understand you want to put some context in Sessler's rambling but you are putting yourself on the spot while making nothing clear. Transparency is the name of the game here, Sessler and you are reliable, but you not being able to be fully transparent will be problematic to a commom observer.

 

[stonesak]

Just because he probably slipped up and probably shouldn't have posted that doesn't give anyone any right to know what he was talking about. Besides, we've been told we'll know soon enough. We've also been told it has more to do with his work than us as consumers. Get over it.

I think the conditions/situations in which game reviewers review the games is somewhat pertinent to the consumer.

 

[kayos90]

If people are still basing their purchase over what a review from a site says then I feel sorry for them. Also, most game review outcomes have become based on the amount of hype the game in question builds up until launch anyways. Was anyone surprised to see the ridiculously high scores for say, Bioshock Infinite or GTA5? I sure as hell wasn't. Also, IMO, the early as hell reviews are usually always highly positive and scream corporate influence already, and that's been going on for years. I actually prefer reading reviews that come a week or so after release. Easier to take it seriously since you can bet the developer/publisher didn't have any involvement with the outcome, and the hype factor dies down for a more level headed opinion.

This whole things sounds more like whining about not geting as many site/video hits as conceivably possible from being one of the first to post a review rather than companies getting in the way and effecting the integrity of said reviews.

I don't get what's so outrageous or strange about people buying a product based on another person's thoughts and opinion, especially if it's a written work published in what is perceived to be an established publication.

 

[studyguy]

Define entitlement.

Generally these threads just get really ugly. I don't care either way but people can get mighty angry over seemingly nothing given the chance.

 

[Sophia]

Just because he probably slipped up and probably shouldn't have posted that doesn't give anyone any right to know what he was talking about. Besides, we've been told we'll know soon enough. We've also been told it has more to do with his work than us as consumers. Get over it.

There's not much of a reason to be aggressive or abrasive about it, senador. Luckily for Sessler, once he's calmed down, he can take to twitter, apologize for the tweets, and possibly give a short explanation. Things blow over pretty fast in the gaming industry.

 

[Heshinsi]

Because people prefer to read a review before they buy a game than after and holding such an event pre launch means many gamers will be getting pretty unreliable reviews.

We were already getting that anyways, what with EXCLUSIVE reviews and all. This is the same industry that gave Mass Effect 3 near universal acclaim, and pretty much tried to downplay all the problems the game had. Let's not forget about all the free swag they keep getting from publishers, and now, now they want to talk about journalistic integrity.

On another note. What's the deal with the Xbox One review embargo? Arthur Geis said the reason for it is pretty dumb, so what is it?

 

[HaRyu]

Because it would be improper of me to share something I was told privately. This whole cycle of GAF threads and vague tweets bugs me a lot, though, so I'm just trying to make it clear that people shouldn't get worried over something that is probably insignificant to them.

Yeah, but seriously, he tweeted that he's considering a change of profession because of whatever the hell is upsetting him.

That's like telling someone you've caught a disease, then refusing to give any details until a later date. You've essentially peaked our interest and made us worry about your well being at the same time. And now we've got to know. Soon, preferably.

 

[travisbickle]

With the amount of journalists and gaming websites these days, isn't organising an event more logistically equal than sending out consoles to separate reviewers. It sounds like maybe the "top dogs" are pissed they aren't getting preferential treatment.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

I know all the things. Are you going to act like you deserve to know and like journalists owe you something? Yes, I do imagine you will.

Yes. Journalists do owe their audience something if they want to keep their audience. What the fuck are you talking about?

 

[ProcrasDANation]

I'm not so sure about that. We're lucky enough to have a very large readership with or without day-one console coverage.

And again, let me preface this by saying I really have no idea what our next-gen console review plans are. I don't know anything about the PS4 review event.

But hypothetically, if given the choice between a tailored review event and no launch-day coverage at all, I'd choose the review event every time. I'd be transparent about the circumstances, of course, and cover lots more outside of that review event, but I believe it would be doing a disservice to readers to turn something like that down. A PS4 review that makes it very clear where the reviewer was and exactly what he/she saw is far more valuable to gamers than no pre-launch PS4 coverage at all.

And I think that is the right approach. If only one option is put on the table then nail that coverage.

 

[kayos90]

With the amount of journalists and gaming websites these days, isn't organising an event more logistically equal than sending out consoles to separate reviewers. It sounds like maybe the "top dogs" are pissed they aren't getting preferential treatment.

An event is a more controlled environment by a publisher than one's own office/couch.

 

[Muppet of a Man]

Because it would be improper of me to share something I was told privately. This whole cycle of GAF threads and vague tweets bugs me a lot, though, so I'm just trying to make it clear that people shouldn't get worried over something that is probably insignificant to them.

Thanks for doing the reasonable thing and not dragging us along for a FUD ride that inevitably would end in an it'sfuckingnothing.gif.

Though I don't dig companies obfuscating the downsides to their products, if that is indeed what is happening here to some extent.

 

[Mushroomer25]

A review set in the home of the publisher is in my opinion not a review at all. you have to take the final review with a truck load of salt, cause they could have been specifically told not to include some issues etc.

seems gaming journalism is just another form of PR.

While I do agree (SimCity proved that organized events are not representative of the real experience) - you could argue that such a setup is simply necessary for next-gen reviews like this. The hardware isn't officially out there, and it's just impractical to do otherwise.

But again - Sessler's outrage really only makes sense if this is posed to be a long-term issue for this gen.

 

[senador]

Yes. Journalists do owe their audience something if they want to keep their audience. What the fuck are you talking about?

Owe? No.

 

[Quote]

I know all the things. Are you going to act like you deserve to know and like journalists owe you something? Yes, I do imagine you will.

With your logic, who are you to come in this thread and ask us why I care? I certainly didn't invite you and I dont owe you an explanation.

 

[machinecaliber]

We were already getting that anyways, what with EXCLUSIVE reviews and all. This is the same industry that gave Mass Effect 3 near universal acclaim, and pretty much tried to downplay all the problems the game had. Let's not forget about all the free swag they keep getting from publishers, and now, now they want to talk about journalistic integrity.

On another note. What's the deal with the Xbox One review embargo? Arthur Geis said the reason for it is pretty dumb, so what is it?

Might just have something to do with that embargoed event next week.

 

[Replicant]

so what, journalists are annoyed because they're not getting free hand outs thus not being able to gloat online to everyone?

Sums it up. If you're going to let someone feed you, then don't be surprised when they withhold foods until you comply to their demand. Learn how to earn your living without relying on handouts OR accept the handout and inform others that the food you received was given under certain circumstances.

 

[Gowans]

I'm guessing it's about YouRube monitiseation.

Best guess

YouTube/Sony/MS are going to do a Nintendo like thing around revenue from Games Videos shown.

Or embargo on video / uploading to YouTube.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

I don't get what's so outrageous or strange about people buying a product based on another person's thoughts and opinion, especially if it's a written work published in what is perceived to be an established publication.

It's weird. You have these journalists saying that people base their purchasing decisions off their review, but if it's absolutely imperative they get out a review before anyone else, that can't be the case, right? If the consumer is happy to settle with just any review from anyone--as long as it's timely--then they probably don't give a shit about any individual journalist's take on things.

If you have faith that your audience cares about your opinion, then explain the situation to them straight up. Make them be aware that Sony or Microsoft or whomever is making it difficult for you to get a timely review. If your audience is who you hope they are, they'll be pissed at the corporations giving you trouble and probably be wary of the game in question. Surely they'll wait a few days for your review.

 

[jschreier]

But you are part of that cycle now, I understand you want to put some context in Sessler's rambling but you are putting yourself on the spot while making nothing clear. Transparency is the name of the game here, and all parties involved are kinda muddy.

It's not ideal, you're right, but at this point I'd rather say "hey this isn't a big deal for you guys" than keep my mouth shut and watch everyone keep freaking out, especially after how many feathers have been ruffled over annoyingly vague tweets in the past couple of days.

 

[RulkezX]

While I do agree (SimCity proved that organized events are not representative of the real experience) - you could argue that such a setup is simply necessary for next-gen reviews like this. The hardware isn't officially out there, and it's just impractical to do otherwise.

But again - Sessler's outrage really only makes sense if this is posed to be a long-term issue for this gen.

It would be pretty typical of him to start shouting about the sky falling even if this is just a pre launch thing.

 

[ArkkAngel007]

Because it would be improper of me to share something I was told privately. This whole cycle of GAF threads and vague tweets bugs me a lot, though, so I'm just trying to make it clear that people shouldn't get worried over something that is probably insignificant to them.

We (at least some of us) appreciate you trying to alleviate the situation, Jason, but you're probably better off just leaving it be. People are putting themselves in certain frame of minds over this, and you just putting yourself in the situation is akin to kicking the hornets nest.

It sort of sucks, but journalism related threads are just too full of vitriol to be worth stepping into (Edit: Often for good reasons)

 

[disastermouse]

I'm not so sure about that. We're lucky enough to have a very large readership with or without day-one console coverage.

And again, let me preface this by saying I really have no idea what our next-gen console review plans are. I don't know anything about the PS4 review event.

But hypothetically, if given the choice between a tailored review event and no launch-day coverage at all, I'd choose the review event every time. I'd be transparent about the circumstances, of course, and cover lots more outside of that review event, but I believe it would be doing a disservice to readers to turn something like that down. A PS4 review that makes it very clear where the reviewer was and exactly what he/she saw is far more valuable to gamers than no pre-launch PS4 coverage at all.

Am I in a minority in following certain reviewers or sites regardless of when the reviews post? First reviews aren't really indicative of quality - and depending on the reviewer or site, I may just not jive with the general preferences of the site. I tend to look for reviewers who have liked the games I've liked and then I tend to trust those reviewers more.

I generally only pre-order stuff I fairly well know I'm going to like.

 

[senador]

With your logic, who are you to come in this thread and ask us why I care? I certainly didn't invite you and I dont owe you an explanation.

You can care all you want but you don't get to be privvy to all information and you don't get a free pass to know just because you are a "consumer".

 

[travisbickle]

An event is a more controlled environment by a publisher than one's own office/couch.

I mean Sony can invite everyone* to this event, they can't send out PS4s to everyone.

*bloggers, youtubers, small reviewers.

 

[GillianSeed79]

I'm not so sure about that. We're lucky enough to have a very large readership with or without day-one console coverage.

And again, let me preface this by saying I really have no idea what our next-gen console review plans are. I don't know anything about the PS4 review event.

But hypothetically, if given the choice between a tailored review event and no launch-day coverage at all, I'd choose the review event every time. I'd be transparent about the circumstances, of course, and cover lots more outside of that review event, but I believe it would be doing a disservice to readers to turn something like that down. A PS4 review that makes it very clear where the reviewer was and exactly what he/she saw is far more valuable to gamers than no pre-launch PS4 coverage at all.

Yeesh. This is where I'd agree to disagree. Like you said, you are lucky enough to have a very large readership. You have the clout to not have to go to a tailored review event. If they don't want to play ball, report it and review stuff day one like the average consumer. You'd lose clicks and advertising money, but you'd make up for it with more respect. There is no reason why you guys should have to go to those tailored review events.

 

[JDSN]

Owe? No.

We are who gives them their clicks and get their opinions in return, unless they gets paid by publishers they depend on us, so its not absurd that we feel entitled to know that their process for doing journalism is severely compromised.

 

[viveks86]

Question: What are the review plans for the xbox one? Is MS sending out retail kits to these guys prior to launch?