4 ms·

The article doesn't say "Nobody should care deeply about game reviewers"; it says "If a game reviewer gives a game you like a bad score, that's okay; it means t

The article doesn't say "Nobody should care deeply about game reviewers"; it says "If a game reviewer gives a game you like a bad score, that's okay; it means that you and the reviewer disagree and you should disregard their opinions on games because you are probably looking for different things than they are".

fartcannon 9y ago
If a reviewer gave a game a bad score, it could also mean that the reviewer is being paid to write a bad score. And a good score could be paid for, too. And I think it's OK to care about who is being paid to say what.
- eropple 9y ago
  > If a reviewer gave a game a bad score, it could also mean that the reviewer is being paid to write a bad score. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Until then, this is static.
  - Gargoyle 9y ago
    Why do you feel that's an extraordinary claim?
    - eropple 9y ago
      Because I'm familiar with both the games press and games PR. I understand how those interactions work well enough to be very, very skeptical. There is some minor possibility of good reviews in exchange for advertising--except that sales and content at any outlet significant enough to be called the "games press", from Kotaku to Giant Bomb, has a wall between sales and content and publishers (when they bother to notice the games press at all) know that bad scores are, occasionally, just part of the package. The last major break of that I can think of was Gamespot and Jeff Gerstmann, and the people involved in causing that were so roundly shredded that I don't even think most of them are in the industry anymore. So while vanishingly unlikely, sure, there's a possibility of payola there. But getting paid for bad reviews? Come on. Substantiate--with evidence--those wild claims or don't make them. If he'd said "games YouTube"--now, that's a different thing, as the interactions between influencers and publishers (in ways that are deleterious to the public, to be honest) are pretty well-documented across the board in ways that are not "some rando with an anime avatar said so". But even they aren't incentivized in any way that I've ever, not once, seen substantiated to give bad reviews. So, again, that's a put-up-or-shut-up.
- pjc50 9y ago
  Good scores often are paid for, perhaps indirectly through influence, access and advertising. Not exclusive to games, of course; eg Telegraph /HSBC. Credible allegations that bad scores are paid for are very rare.

fartcannon 9y ago

If a reviewer gave a game a bad score, it could also mean that the reviewer is being paid to write a bad score. And a good score could be paid for, too. And I think it's OK to care about who is being paid to say what.

eropple 9y ago
> If a reviewer gave a game a bad score, it could also mean that the reviewer is being paid to write a bad score. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Until then, this is static.
- Gargoyle 9y ago
  Why do you feel that's an extraordinary claim?
  - eropple 9y ago
    Because I'm familiar with both the games press and games PR. I understand how those interactions work well enough to be very, very skeptical. There is some minor possibility of good reviews in exchange for advertising--except that sales and content at any outlet significant enough to be called the "games press", from Kotaku to Giant Bomb, has a wall between sales and content and publishers (when they bother to notice the games press at all) know that bad scores are, occasionally, just part of the package. The last major break of that I can think of was Gamespot and Jeff Gerstmann, and the people involved in causing that were so roundly shredded that I don't even think most of them are in the industry anymore. So while vanishingly unlikely, sure, there's a possibility of payola there. But getting paid for bad reviews? Come on. Substantiate--with evidence--those wild claims or don't make them. If he'd said "games YouTube"--now, that's a different thing, as the interactions between influencers and publishers (in ways that are deleterious to the public, to be honest) are pretty well-documented across the board in ways that are not "some rando with an anime avatar said so". But even they aren't incentivized in any way that I've ever, not once, seen substantiated to give bad reviews. So, again, that's a put-up-or-shut-up.
pjc50 9y ago
Good scores often are paid for, perhaps indirectly through influence, access and advertising. Not exclusive to games, of course; eg Telegraph /HSBC. Credible allegations that bad scores are paid for are very rare.