Forums

Topic: Petition to have NintendoLife stop reviewing games of abysmal quality

Posts 41 to 48 of 48

Silly_G

I'd be happy so long as they stop giving RCMADIAX any more publicity than they already have.

Bertil Hörberg, who has so far released only two games on the 3DS eShop (and a package containing both games for Wii U), offers top notch production values and replay value within the same price range, and he too is a solo developer (with his brother composing the music). I wish him every success in his endeavours as I really admire his work and devotion to his craft (his games take about a year to make as opposed to a few hours). The fact that crap like PANDA LOVE that was put together in an afternoon or two gets a review of 4/10 is just sick (and mind you, some of my favourite games have been given a 4/10 by this very site). The screenshots even indicate that there was no effort whatsoever put into it. The junk games that I made in my childhood (for free) had more substance than this. As I've said before I don't blame him for doing as he does as I have no doubt that he is making a living from his so-called "efforts", but he should also be prepared to be scrutinised accordingly.

As I've said in an earlier post, RCMADIAX's games belong in the same heap as those 9,999,999 FULL VERSION GAMES!!!! collections on PC, which is made up of software that barely qualify as games. Let's downplay the hyperbole a little and say that RCMADIAX's games are included in a "200,000 FULL VERSION GAMES!" collection, which is priced at $20, effectively meaning that each game is valued at a HUNDREDTH of a cent, and yet he feels that his games are worth as much as AU$5.85 apiece..

I'm tempted to take up 3DS/Wii U development just to give this guy some competition (except my games would likely be a series of tacky dating sims offering barely a half-hour's worth of playtime ).

Edited on by Silly_G

Silly_G

3DS Friend Code: 2578-3134-0847 | Nintendo Network ID: sillygostly

roy130390

"I was stating a simple fact. Don't put words into my mouth: I'm not saying "people in a continent think alike because they share it" - it's immensely stupid to think that."
"I see americans tend to care less, and it's not racist or classist or whatever to say. You are free to think otherwise, I don't care."

If you can't see the contradiction in these two sentences then there's no hope for you. You say that you see that americans tend to care less just after saying that you didn't say that people in a continent think alike just because they share it. Just before that, you implied that americans, as usual, don't give a poop (your words) while europeans think that is a valid point. How aren't you generalizing and saying that most of the people in a continent think alike? You do need to explain how is that posible, of course you won't and you will say that you don't need to. The truth is, you don't wanna accept what you said and that you have no good resons to back it up. Just because you didn't say exactly "all people that share a continent think alike" doesn't mean that you didn't imply it. It's quite clear why you are doing it, dude. By the way, no, you weren't stating a fact, you just think you are, but it's actually just an opinion.

"I don't understand this. You are very defensive of other people's opinion. But I have expressed my opinion on the matter. You want me to take other people's opinion as right, but you take my opinion as wrong. There's something really unbalanced in this process."

For the record, I do think Panda's Love deserved a lower score, however I find ridiculous what you are suggesting since it isn't a real solution. What I found wrong about your opinion is that you assured many things about the game and what other people wanted from this site.

"But this is your fault for not expecting journalism to fulfill its primary purpose.
Journalists should call out people and companies for bad practices. For example, they should call out Nintendo for keeping the prices of their products artificially high (Nintendo was already fined €168 millions in 2002, but it never gets mentioned on gaming websites). Or they should call out developers who pump out abysmal stuff just to take advantage of people's wealth and naiveness. Calling out something is very different from attacking, I hope you know. You seem to expect jounalism to be simply about stating a polite opinion on something. But opinion, being opinions, are inherently worthless: what's "frustratingly difficult" for you, may not be as difficult for me. So what would be the point?!
I repeat, if you expect journalism to be just about describing a product, you are absolutely wrong."

First, this isn't a situation of scam until proven otherwise. It's just a mediocre game that got a higher score than some of us think, and it wasn't a good score, just a freaking 4. Your point would have way more weight if you would be suggesting this with an actual case of scam, and even then, asking for less reviews doesn't do anything to improve the situation. I never said that I just expect them to describe the product (now that's putting words in my mouth because I didn't say anything that implies that), they have as a primary purpose to inform with the truth of whatever theme they choose to write about. Calling out people and companies should JUST happen if they have evidence to back it up, not just based on stuff like a developer keeping a mediocre record in games. We aren't talking about past events or hypothetical situations, we are talking about this one.

"The point is still the same: you expect journalism to be just about a description of something. You're ok with reviewers telling you that "the environments are detailed" and "the platforming feels spot on" or that "the save points are too far apart" but this is not critique is it?! This is simply somebody stating an opinion you can't even trust because it's too subjective.
If the press doesn't point out the bad practices, who will?!"

Please, show where did I reply that I just expect a review to be a description? I didn't even say anything similar to it, it's just you assuming again because it seems that you don't believe in middle points.

"No. I've never said that.
But if a review has to be a non-critical text that only states about the graphics or the controls without addressing other more important issues because it's impolite, or because it's supposedly unprofessional (not true, it's highly professional), I don't see the use in that."

I agree, however nothing of that was mentioned or suggested. Taking it personal was the thing actually mentioned as unprofessional as well as lacking evidence, which would be indeed, quite unprofessional.

"I get it, you want reviewers to be sterile, useless products descriptors.
Big deal.
In 30 years videogame reviews will be written by cows. And you'll be ok with it."

No, but it seems that you prefer scandal as news. You don't seem to care about evidence if you can't understand that point, so you'll probably be ok with putting a man in jail just because he looks "suspicious enough" for you. Journalism is about searching and sharing the truth, and if that means they should call out a developer if they actually have a reason to do it, then great. However, if they don't have anything to back it up, then they should communicate just what they actually know and are sure about. You know, they have a reputation, they have to be professional. Sure, they can speculate but it should be handled as that: speculation. that's something you don't seem to get. You ASSURE strog things, with no actual proof of anything. There's no speculation for you, just what you blindly believe as truth.

" Of all things, this is probably the most stupid. They should keep covering everything just in case something good happens.Anybody with an IQ above the chipmunk level can play a game for half an hour and decide if it's worth coverage or not. You won't miss the next Miyamoto, don't worry."

Do you seriously think that there aren't good developers that started being quite crappy? It's really sad that you don't think in the chance of improvement. Also, if you get the game, and play it for half an hour, then you might as well review it. If they just review games that they like, then people are forced to limit themselves to the reviewer tastes. There are lots of people that discover "bad" games that they actually like just because they managed to read the features in the review.

roy130390

Silly_G

Meowpheel wrote:

What are you waiting for, the wiiu only has so much time left.

I can just port them to NX?

Silly_G

3DS Friend Code: 2578-3134-0847 | Nintendo Network ID: sillygostly

spizzamarozzi

roy130390 wrote:

For the record, I do think Panda's Love deserved a lower score, however I find ridiculous what you are suggesting since it isn't a real solution. What I found wrong about your opinion is that you assured many things about the game and what other people wanted from this site.

First, this isn't a situation of scam until proven otherwise. It's just a mediocre game that got a higher score than some of us think, and it wasn't a good score, just a freaking 4. Your point would have way more weight if you would be suggesting this with an actual case of scam, and even then, asking for less reviews doesn't do anything to improve the situation. I never said that I just expect them to describe the product (now that's putting words in my mouth because I didn't say anything that implies that), they have as a primary purpose to inform with the truth of whatever theme they choose to write about. Calling out people and companies should JUST happen if they have evidence to back it up, not just based on stuff like a developer keeping a mediocre record in games. We aren't talking about past events or hypothetical situations, we are talking about this one.

Please, show where did I reply that I just expect a review to be a description? I didn't even say anything similar to it, it's just you assuming again because it seems that you don't believe in middle points.

I agree, however nothing of that was mentioned or suggested. Taking it personal was the thing actually mentioned as unprofessional as well as lacking evidence, which would be indeed, quite unprofessional.

You have put so much effort into labouring the point that you have totally forgotten what I have stated in my opening post. I have explained in details why I believe that giving coverage to such games is bad, both for the audience and for other developers.
This is an assumption, of course, but so is yours that "it doesn't hurt anybody". I can't prove mine as much as you can't prove yours. My solution might be ridiculous but it is a solution. And it's not ridiculous.

What I find ridiculous is that you don't see that 1) nobody seem to agree with the scoring system anymore (just take a look at the review comments) and 2) developers who actually put effort into their games have been complaining for ages because their legitimately good games fall in the same price category of abysmal games done by monkeys on ecstacy pills.

Ever wondered why these developers still send out promo codes even though they know they'll get an awful rating?! Because at least they know they'll get a full page worth of coverage, and some idiot with too much money to spend will certainly buy their game. This has happened with gems such as The Letter, Meme Run and many others.

Because we seem unable to develop a grading system that is both fair, intuitive and explicative, I say - simply cut the problem at the roots and stop giving free coverage to people who are only in it for the coverage. Why you act like it's some sort of Nazi process of elimination is well beyond me.
Ten years ago anybody would have agreed that there was only a place and a price for these games: web browsers. For free. Nowadays we have to greet them and cope with the fact they cost 2 bucks?!?
Some of these developers have been addressed numerous times by the users on this website, and still they deliberately released material of the lowest possible quality, without ever once acknowledging the critique. If that doesn't sound malicious, I don't know what.
It might not be a "scam" in the proper sense of the word but sure it's something professional journalists should take a stand against. But the fact you are so defensive of this merry-go-round is absurd.

Videogame journalism has become dangerously non-critical. Actually, it's more of a big process of justification. For example, Nintendo is justified for region-locking their consoles. Capcom is justified for marketing their text-based adventures in Europe with only ONE european language. Developers are justified for bringing games of abysmal quality to the eShop simply because "they are free to do so".
When you release your game (or record; or movie) to the public, you have to be ready for every kind of criticism. If you can't create a clear division line between what's good and what's bad and can't offer a certain level of criticism, simply don't do it, for the aforementioned reasons. This is what I am suggesting.

Top-10 games I played in 2017: The Legend of Zelda Breath of the Wild (WiiU) - Rogue Legacy (PS3) - Fallout 3 (PS3) - Red Dead Redemption (PS3) - Guns of Boom (MP) - Sky Force Reloaded (MP) - ...

3DS Friend Code: 0104-0649-7464 | Nintendo Network ID: spizzamarozzi

DefHalan

How is this thread still going? I figured it would have been locked a long time ago.

People keep saying the Xbox One doesn't have Backwards Compatibility.
I don't think they know what Backwards Compatibility means...

3DS Friend Code: 2621-2786-9784 | Nintendo Network ID: DefHalan

roy130390

spizzamarozzi wrote:

roy130390 wrote:

For the record, I do think Panda's Love deserved a lower score, however I find ridiculous what you are suggesting since it isn't a real solution. What I found wrong about your opinion is that you assured many things about the game and what other people wanted from this site.

First, this isn't a situation of scam until proven otherwise. It's just a mediocre game that got a higher score than some of us think, and it wasn't a good score, just a freaking 4. Your point would have way more weight if you would be suggesting this with an actual case of scam, and even then, asking for less reviews doesn't do anything to improve the situation. I never said that I just expect them to describe the product (now that's putting words in my mouth because I didn't say anything that implies that), they have as a primary purpose to inform with the truth of whatever theme they choose to write about. Calling out people and companies should JUST happen if they have evidence to back it up, not just based on stuff like a developer keeping a mediocre record in games. We aren't talking about past events or hypothetical situations, we are talking about this one.

Please, show where did I reply that I just expect a review to be a description? I didn't even say anything similar to it, it's just you assuming again because it seems that you don't believe in middle points.

I agree, however nothing of that was mentioned or suggested. Taking it personal was the thing actually mentioned as unprofessional as well as lacking evidence, which would be indeed, quite unprofessional.

You have put so much effort into labouring the point that you have totally forgotten what I have stated in my opening post. I have explained in details why I believe that giving coverage to such games is bad, both for the audience and for other developers.
This is an assumption, of course, but so is yours that "it doesn't hurt anybody". I can't prove mine as much as you can't prove yours. My solution might be ridiculous but it is a solution. And it's not ridiculous.

What I find ridiculous is that you don't see that 1) nobody seem to agree with the scoring system anymore (just take a look at the review comments) and 2) developers who actually put effort into their games have been complaining for ages because their legitimately good games fall in the same price category of abysmal games done by monkeys on ecstacy pills.

Ever wondered why these developers still send out promo codes even though they know they'll get an awful rating?! Because at least they know they'll get a full page worth of coverage, and some idiot with too much money to spend will certainly buy their game. This has happened with gems such as The Letter, Meme Run and many others.

Because we seem unable to develop a grading system that is both fair, intuitive and explicative, I say - simply cut the problem at the roots and stop giving free coverage to people who are only in it for the coverage. Why you act like it's some sort of Nazi process of elimination is well beyond me.
Ten years ago anybody would have agreed that there was only a place and a price for these games: web browsers. For free. Nowadays we have to greet them and cope with the fact they cost 2 bucks?!?
Some of these developers have been addressed numerous times by the users on this website, and still they deliberately released material of the lowest possible quality, without ever once acknowledging the critique. If that doesn't sound malicious, I don't know what.
It might not be a "scam" in the proper sense of the word but sure it's something professional journalists should take a stand against. But the fact you are so defensive of this merry-go-round is absurd.

Videogame journalism has become dangerously non-critical. Actually, it's more of a big process of justification. For example, Nintendo is justified for region-locking their consoles. Capcom is justified for marketing their text-based adventures in Europe with only ONE european language. Developers are justified for bringing games of abysmal quality to the eShop simply because "they are free to do so".
When you release your game (or record; or movie) to the public, you have to be ready for every kind of criticism. If you can't create a clear division line between what's good and what's bad and can't offer a certain level of criticism, simply don't do it, for the aforementioned reasons. This is what I am suggesting.

At this point it doesn't matter anymore, because why bother if you don't answer directly any problem I mention about your argument? You keep doing the same assumptions like saying that nobody agrees with the scoring system BASING IT ON 19 COMMENTS. You mentioned that I forgot about your original post, pulling such thing out of... I'll just be polite and say nowhere.

It's not a a scam in any sense, period. It's not being defensive, it's just being smart enough to know that words should be used as intended.

It's quite funny that you compare me with a nazi and can't see the irony that you are suggesting limiting information just because you feel that way, despite several people telling you that they don't agree or simply don't care about this thread.

Journalism always had honest and dishonest people, and what you are saying about video game journalism as a whole is just your oinion. Personally, I find a lot reviewers too bitter and harsh. You really think you are the only one realizing "the way things are" and not understanding that to begin with, you just suggested to stop reviewing games of "abismal quality", which is based on your criteria simply because there's no other way to know what you consider of abysmal quality. Enjoying games is a subjective thing, simple as that. And... you just don't seem to understand that this page gives us the reviews nobody does! It's their thing! They aren't perfect, and it doesn't matter because even with a "perfect scoring system" what matters is that this is just a source of information and only intended as that. They don't force you to buy or to pass, they just share their perspective and they judge the game based on what they know, enjoy and dislike.

You don't have to look for the best interest of people (your words), we are capable enough of deciding that. We choose this site because we trust it, enjoy their articles, even if we don't agree always, even if it isn't perfect.

But you know what? You win, do as you wish. If it really means that much to you, it's fine by me. People show what they want with their actions, and right now their actions suggest that most of them are happy with the site. If this means that much for you, yes, I'm close minded and wrong, just as everyone that doesn't agree with you. By the way, we are all americans because as you know, americans tend to give a poop about everything. Videogame journalism is way too non-critical and all of us that fail to see your point are too dumb to realize it because our IQ is below the level of a chipmunk.

Edited on by roy130390

roy130390

Top

Sorry, this topic has been locked.