Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Unpopular Gaming Opinions
Options
Comments
-
I didn't know Borderlands was ever that hyped to begin with.
Borderlands 2 certainly was. There was a massive circlejerk over that game when it came out.Calling people out for straight up bribes is usually ridiculous and unfounded, although there is still a problem with gaming journalism and general tendency to get on hype trains. For example:
That little award icon basically means that Titanfall was considered a great game before it was even done. That's the problem I, personally, have with game journalism.
The latest example is Ubisoft giving game journalists a free Nexus 7 at a Watchdogs preview. Its no surprise thateven a lot of gamers think of gaming "journalism" as a joke.0 -
-
Funny, that's actually the problem I have with a large swath of the gaming community. :pac:That little award icon basically means that Titanfall was considered a great game before it was even done. That's the problem I, personally, have with game journalism.
Basically, they'll see something they may or may not like the look of and jump to a conclusion without giving it even the slightest bit of thought. For instance, that badge clearly says E3, so since no games are actually launched at E3, it's safer to assume they're preview or show-based awards. A quick google would bring you here, confirming this.
Now, you can argue that it's slightly deceptive marketing to put such a badge on a poster like that but that's a completely separate argument, regardless of its validity.
On a related note, what one could legitimately glean from that link is that the "Game Critics Awards" are about as reliable as IGN are for previews and can therefore be safely ignored in the future.
0 -
Funny, that's actually the problem I have with a large swath of the gaming community. :pac:
Basically, they'll see something they may or may not like the look of and jump to a conclusion without giving it even the slightest bit of thought. For instance, that badge clearly says E3, so since no games are actually launched at E3, it's safer to assume they're preview or show-based awards. A quick google would bring you here, confirming this.
Now, you can argue that it's slightly deceptive marketing to put such a badge on a poster like that but that's a completely separate argument, regardless of its validity.
On a related note, what one could legitimately glean from that link is that the "Game Critics Awards" are about as reliable as IGN are for previews and can therefore be safely ignored in the future.
What sense does an E3 award make though?0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
Well it means that out of all of the games a particular journalist or publication saw or played during the Convention, that was the most notable one in its given category. Given the number of games on display at such a show and the level of access a lot of journalists get, it can be a useful gauge for what to keep an eye on in the future.What sense does an E3 award make though?
How much weight you put behind such commendations of course depends on the journalist or publication in question and how much video/preview/trailer watching you do yourself in the lead up to the event or during it. In the case of Titanfall at E3, personally I'd put far more trust in a "Best FPS" award from PC Gamer than I would from the myriad of awards of IGN gave it.
Similarly, at Rezzed in 2012, Hotline Miami (a game I had not heard of at the time) won game of the show from Eurogamer and RPS. That was enough to put it on many people's radars even if they hadn't already been wowed by the trailer which was released at the same convention. On a different scale, the Last of Us swept up a huge number of awards at E3 that same year. In both cases, they turned out to be games well worth watching out for. 0 -
Well it means that out of all of the games a particular journalist or publication saw or played during the Convention, that was the most notable one in its given category. Given the number of games on display at such a show and the level of access a lot of journalists get, it can be a useful gauge for what to keep an eye on in the future.
How much weight you put behind such commendations of course depends on the journalist or publication in question and how much video/preview/trailer watching you do yourself in the lead up to the event or during it. In the case of Titanfall at E3, personally I'd put far more trust in a "Best FPS" award from PC Gamer than I would from the myriad of awards of IGN gave it.
Similarly, at Rezzed in 2012, Hotline Miami (a game I had not heard of at the time) won game of the show from Eurogamer and RPS. That was enough to put it on many people's radars even if they hadn't already been wowed by the trailer which was released at the same convention. On a different scale, the Last of Us swept up a huge number of awards at E3 that same year. In both cases, they turned out to be games well worth watching out for.
My question is more, why does it need to be an award? I get it from a PR point of view, but from a consumer point of view reading about E3 coverage is infinitely more useful than an award, whereas post-release awards are fluff really, we've normally bought the games by that point if they're actually that good and we care about the genre.
In general I think both are just symptomatic of the whole hype curse that lies on gaming these days (something definitely not restricted to just the journalists).0 -
-
Funny, that's actually the problem I have with a large swath of the gaming community. :pac:
Basically, they'll see something they may or may not like the look of and jump to a conclusion without giving it even the slightest bit of thought. For instance, that badge clearly says E3, so since no games are actually launched at E3, it's safer to assume they're preview or show-based awards. A quick google would bring you here, confirming this.
Now, you can argue that it's slightly deceptive marketing to put such a badge on a poster like that but that's a completely separate argument, regardless of its validity.
On a related note, what one could legitimately glean from that link is that the "Game Critics Awards" are about as reliable as IGN are for previews and can therefore be safely ignored in the future.
I don't in any way disagree that the community are just as susceptible (many a Youtube comment at the time declared that the XBO would be superior to the PS4 because it had Titanfall amongst others) but at the same time, there's no barrier for entry to be a gaming fan so I don't really expect much there. When your job is criticising games, the expected standard is a little higher.
The fact that the awards were for previews was exactly my problem and realistically most people aren't going to know the difference between those awards and actual positive reviews (like The Last of Us pushed in their marketing). Sure, those of us who occupy message boards and other discussion forums will know to put no stock in it but plenty of people will see the extensive coverage in the run up to release as evidence of its supposed quality.
I don't blame EA for this though at all though, you expect them to show that kind of stuff off. I blame the press for showering games with praise based upon what is essentially promotional material. You can write articles and show videos of what looks like it might be interesting without giving it awards and acclaim. Essentially telling us what to be excited about is not beneficial to consumers.0 -
Advertisement
-
I'd imagine it boils down to two reasons really, awards are seen as more meaningful to people in general due to their perceived exclusiveness and secondly, they'll also appeal to people who want to find out about notable games but not necessarily have either the time or inclination to wade through a bunch of other previews or news pieces to find them.My question is more, why does it need to be an award? I get it from a PR point of view, but from a consumer point of view reading about E3 coverage is infinitely more useful than an award, whereas post-release awards are fluff really, we've normally bought the games by that point if they're actually that good and we care about the genre.
In general I think both are just symptomatic of the whole hype curse that lies on gaming these days (something definitely not restricted to just the journalists).
As for post release awards, I've always seen them as more congratulatory for the people involved rather than serving any kind of real commercial purpose. The only exceptions being the ones that do really well critically and commercially and get GOTY editions with said awards plastered all over them...preferably in a manner more tasteful than Arkham City.
As for hype, well some people like hype and getting excited about upcoming releases. The problems being when said hype leads people to ignore the facts and either greatly exaggerate a products strengths or, conversely, jump on a bandwagon to hammer home its perceived flaws. Examples of these, imo, would be Titanfall (From what I can see a damn good game that's far from the perceived saviour of FPS action or what I'd consider a true system seller) and Watch_Dogs (the fact that "downgrade" has entered the gamers lexicon causes me many a furrowed brow).
I don't necessarily disagree with the rest of your post but I thought this part was worth highlighting. Basically, I do see the merit in such "awards" being given based on decent preview material, namely hands on demos or actual in-game footage. Any publication which awards titles showing only pre-rendered footage with accolades along the lines of "Game of the show" deserve to be thoroughly ignored however.Essentially telling us what to be excited about is not beneficial to consumers.
As for the press being guilty of it in general, it's worth bearing in mind that these are separate companies and/or publications vying for readership numbers so will do their best to at least feature similar amounts of coverage as their competitors. On that note, even though I pour over previews, press releases and videos from most games announced at these conventions myself, I'm still interested to see what individuals on the ground felt was the most impressive game there. I can't imagine I'm the only person who feels this either so combine those two factors with the number of journalists/publications at these events and it's easy to see how a small number of high profile games can really rack up the convention gongs.
All of that being said, I don't for one second feel that games journalists are immune from the hypetrain so this is far from a blanket defense of the profession, I merely used it as an example of how a lot of mostly ill-conceived ill will can be generated within the community by a somewhat shallow observation of something, whether it's a game, event or review, as per the thread topic. 0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Join Date:Posts: 50599
I've seen far too many reviews were reviewers have gotten caught up in the hype and a fairly average game has gotten 9 or 10 nearly across the board. I feel the problem there is the quality of game reviewers is just so low. The majority are excitable early 20 year olds that let the hype get to them. The games industry knows this and exploits it and why wouldn't they when reviews are so important for sales unlike most other media.
0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
I remember Sinclair User talking up forthcoming games in the late 80s and the beginning of the 90s, like you say though, the whole thing lacked the critical mass that internet has given us. This is the core issue, it isn't that we get one, maybe two, magazines a month and that was our game coverage but we have many different outlets vying for people's attention and making a lot of noise to try and drive up pageviews to pay the bills even when the games aren't even out yet.
It's not so much that there's hype, that's normal, it's that it's being quite carefully cultivated by publishers whereas in the old days Electronic Arts wasn't quite as deft at it. And gizmo is quite right to point out that the gaming community is complicit in this, both reviewers and players.
While what you say is correct, I don't think this is anything unique to the gaming industry. The film industry, and to a lesser extent TV these days, is a perfect example. The hype machine for films is almost identical to that of games. Once you start getting into the range of 10s to 100s of millions in production values, publishers will become very adept at driving the hype machine.
I'm not sure that there is any way to get away from this, or that gamers in particular can be blamed - the blame lies with human nature perhaps.
My own personal approach to figuring out if a game is worth my time is to ignore the best and worst reviews, and find out what the people in the middle like and dislike. This tends to leave you with a good feel for whether or not the things they liked are things that you like and whether the things that bothered them will bother you. The same approach works pretty well for Tripadvisor reviews and the like.
0
Advertisement