You quoted my later post but ignored what I said before it, about how previews are where the marketing hype goes, and how the poster was mixing up previews and reviews - and then you go on to do exactly the same thing. I said you need to understand that previews are marketing hype. It's very common for a review to say how wonderful a game will be and the review to say it's horrible.
I didn't say there has never been any corruption of reviews. Someone says 'gaming media is garbage and corrupt', I say no, I think generally it's not, and someone - you - says 'no, look at this case and that case' as is proving there have been exceptions - which there have - proves the claim that it's generally corrupt.
'Doctors are all perverts who molest their patients.' 'No, generally they're not'. 'Oh ya? Look at this case and that case! It happens!' 'Yes, it has as exception, it's not the usual case.'
A reviewer not playing much of a game before reviewing it might be a quality issue, but it is NOT corruption that proves 'the gaming media is corrupt and reviews are always sold.'
Do reviewers have to finish a game to have a useful review? I don't think it's usually necessary. It can be, mostly in the rare case the late game affects the game quality.
In one of the clearest cases I can think of, the game Lionheart would get a very different review for the first half than the endgame.
But every review I can remember for the game said that.
Its more than previews, and you're just delusional if you don't think that promo stuff isn't specifically aimed at impacting the perception of their games.
I don't know what to say. You act like there's barely any issue at all in response to a multitude of evidence.
WTF, no one said they all are. Not only do you completely distort what people said, but wow, a molestation analogy... This is more like the Catholic Church issue. Its been known by people involved for a long time, is widespread, and nothing but lip service was ever done about it. Sure when a big issue breaks they act all shocked and we get the excuses and same old crap while they don't do anything about the issue and just shuffle people to try and hide other problems. Promises of how they realize their errors, etc, and then same mistakes over and over.
If you'd bothered to actually think about what I posted you'd notice I said there's a lot of issues at hand. I can't help if you're so focused on reviews that you can't accept all the rest of the proof that gaming journalism is and has almost always been a farce. When it comes down to it, most game "journalists" are not journalists at all. Now they're bloggers being manipulated by PR departments. The gaming media themselves admits that in the article I linked to (that I'm sure you didn't bother to read). Even back when they were real magazines, there was little actual qualification for game journalism.
I would mostly agree. Thing is, its not just "not finishing", there's questions about how much they play the game at all before assessing a score. Game journalists themselves have been saying for years that the review processes short change people. Its deeply flawed to begin with. But there's not really anything more than minor issues with game reviews according to you.
There's been outright broken games released that get high ratings. Diablo 3 comes to mind. I also remember Doom 3 getting good reviews but then the gaming press made fun of it all the time after the reviews. If that doesn't give you an indication that something is up, then I don't know what to say. Do we need to dig up all the games that got glowing praise from the gaming press including reviews, and then were basically considered jokes? How many times do the companies making the games themselves come out and apologize, admitting they knew or should have known their game was broken or had other issues? Yet it keeps happening. And a lot of these games get positive reviews. Battlefield 4 is recent prime example. Rage was another one. Sim City 5 another one, where although the gaming press generally did cite its issues in their reviews they still gave it decent ratings. That game was one of the most broken ones in recent memory and places were giving it 5-8/10 even in the broken state it was released.
Now, what's causing these positive scores you can debate, but acting like there's not plenty of clear evidence that game media reviews are generally terrible, then I don't know what to say.
You know some of you are claiming that this issue is not what many are proclaiming it to be but I do not know how you can claim ignorance of the validity of this problem.
Who exactly are you referring to? I'm going to guess me, but nothing in your post in any way refutes what I said at all. I never claimed there wasn't a coverup (in fact, I point out that's actually probably the biggest actual issue in this).
A few things. I really don't care too much about what goes on at Reddit or whateverChans, both are cesspits of idiocy that you'd have to wade through oceans of sewage to try and gleam a few worthwhile coins from the bottom of the pool.
My guess, people were posting her pics, maybe personal information (if I was running a board where people were doing that to someone, I'd try to contact them about it so they'd know what was up and to maybe prepare for what that can bring). I'm pretty sure that's a huge no-no. Mods start closing threads to try and sort that out, but community goes crazy and then starts trying to post a billion threads (pretty sure its happened here before where some thread got closed/removed and a bunch of people made other threads because they felt it was some coverup when there was actually a good reason they removed the other thread, I seem to recall someone's personal information was the root of it), mods just start closing them all since its obviously going to get out of hand.
Did she try to censor some for certain? Yes she did. She filed a wrong DMCA notice to get the one video taken down. She very well might have done more, but its not like there couldn't easily be a reason they're closing threads or deleting posts. Also, I don't know what Reddit's rules are but if it devolved into a bunch of people just posting c*** or nude pics or something then I can understand it as well. The problem is, anything to do with that is going to attract the people that will just try to do that, and the more you try and stop it, the more people are going to get involved.
Again, I'm not defending her, but that doesn't mean I have to accept what the other side claims either, and this just looks like more message board garbage than anything. Very little of the rest of it holds up to scrutiny so far, and does not live up to the journalism crisis some people have acted like it is.
She's a game developer that has a product up on Steam. Her involvement in this is absolutely relevant to PC Gaming.
I do agree that the bigger issue is videogame "journalism" in general, but Zoe's actions should not be regarded as off-topic.
That'd be fine if there was any actual discussion about the game, or what the other actions had as far as impacting said game. Unless you count the dip**** in the OP's video talking about how much he just plain hates the idea of her game and how it isn't even really a game. The rest of the evidence is just silly (OMG he mentioned it in a short blog post?!?!?!?). He acts like just because some people told Steam that it wasn't worthy to be on there and didn't constitute a game even that that means Steam shouldn't have put it on there and obviously no one has any reason to have anything to do with it, so the fact that its both on Steam and was mentioned just proves that its only there because she slept with 5 guys! And like I already noted they can't even keep their BS straight. The guy says he doesn't even care about that, but easily half the video is about that.
That video and most of the rest is about trashing her specifically, more than anything. They just are trying to pass off this farce of a situation as some huge gaming journalistic ethics catastrophe. I'm not even saying they're necessarily wrong for focusing on trashing her since she seems to be a kinda horrible person, although I'm not going to defend them either (again, everyone involved seems pretty f'ed if you ask me), but they're complete full of **** acting like that is not absolutely the main motivation behind it.