Andy Corrigan writes "I’ve never been one to openly criticise somebody else’s work, especially in a field of which I’d like to be working professionally, but in looking to see how the rest of the press had received Capcom’s latest ‘Zombie ‘em up’, Dead Rising 2, there was something that just jumped out on Metacritics list of registered reviews and I just had to write about it."
Skewed and Reviewed have written an Opinion Piece covering issues in the gaming industry, how current issues were issues years ago, and what can be done to help restore consumer trust.
Nothing. It's up to the gamers to stop consuming content from companies that they don't agree with.
How do you know if you agree with it or not unless you play it? Which without conventions forces gamers to rely on trailers. Perhaps Demos should be made more frequently. But companies need to do better as well.
But is that not what they have now? Tons of gameplay or are you talking about watching actual gamers play it versus the trailers and streams? The big issue is that some companies pay streamers and influencers and they create content but for me; that is hardly a fair, unbiased, and factual look at a game.
They usually are attached to the money sadly. It would be nice to have gamers in charge but you have so much money invested that business people are needed. Hence the issue; you need people who know business but are also gamers who know have an eye to the community. It sounds simple in theory that if you give gamers quality games that they want to play; money will be made. But that is not always so.
Marie Dealessandri speaks to Borislav Slavov and Gustavo Santaolalla about “the new golden age of games music”.
A famous actor from Starship Troopers has showered praise on Helldivers 2 and said he is open to the idea of playing General Brasch.
Reviews should not be a matter of opinion imo.
They should follow a solid protocol which will determine in steps if a game is good in terms of technical, graphical, story elements. This structure should be used for every review sites. They should all meet and make such a protocol to follow.
The purpose of the article isn't to take away opinion from a review, what its illustrating is that when you offer an opinion you should at least base it on all the facts. If you have played the game then read that review, you will see that its not accurately portraying the game. The guy has blatantly fabricated an opinion based on nothing at all really. I would have said that the guardian reviewer had barely played the game at all.
What is a review? its someones impression/opinion of a game, but that opinion needs to have all the facts in there or its not worth the digital paper its written on!
When its written by IGN.
Zing!
I miss the open zone, I had a great joke that went like this:
"When it gives a 360 game a score higher than 5 out of 10, then it becomes a Microsoft sponsored blog"
But now that the open zone is gone I can't make that joke anymore.
well a review is no longer a review when the author decides to give the game a score. that is not a review people. the only reason i bring this up is because you people take these "ratings" so seriously that you have the audacity to call it a review. go sleep around with jstor and you will find out what a real review is. if you enjoy reading, then go ahead.
this is not a review: reasons for rating, followed by rating.