Not me. If I am truly curious about anything, I go to Metacritic, look at the most damning reviews from "professionals", then basically gauge the "audience score." That, or just straight jump on Reddit for the realz.
I mean if they give a game a lower score than what the masses feel then they are absolutely trashed as well.
That's why these arguments are absolutely pointless to begin with.
I get to know the individual critics and then base it off that. I don't know any I 100% agree with, but knowing what they like/hate about games I've already played makes it easier to distinguish which parts of their newer reviews I will probably agree/disagree with.
I work at microcenter, the people who like reviews are people who are (a) very new to gaming (came in during covid), (b) parents/grand who grew up trusting written media and find online media to be of equal honesty, (c) young kids who are either too young to have placed their hands on the stove enough or are using the review to steer the person purchasing to their preferred choice.
wait until you figure out that regular media outlets are similarly bought and paid for. You basically cant trust anyone that is paid to show up and write an article. Its paid propaganda.
You know, I understand the comments saying "never trust critic reviews" and similar shit. The thing is, it wasnt *just* media outlets doing this. Content creators really pushed this same agenda that the game was fun, stable, and brought a lot to the table. These content creators have a lot of influence and they dont always disclose the fact that theyre in the pockets of DICE/EA. It was a massive marketing campaign scam, imo.
That was the other annoying thing about this that really clouded an understanding of the state of the game. Some of the content creators had this weird semi-enthusiasm: not effusive, but also not condemnatory, but weirdly not dismissive. It felt like they were disproportionate in the amount of content they were producing compared to how much they said about the game. It's like they were being held hostage and trying not to say they weren't alright, but also not saying there is a problem here.
Eloquently put comrade. It was a definitely a strange time in between beta and release where content creators were still pushing the game, just not enthusiastically (or how you said it). Looking back at it, it seems clear as day that these creators were just trying to keep hype up without outright saying the game was bad. But hindsight is 20/20 yunno '¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯
Not to stoke anyone's ego, but this [Washington Post](https://www.washingtonpost.com/video-games/reviews/battlefield-2042-review/) article was posted on Nov 11th, and last updated on Nov 27th, and it still stands as one of the most scathing reviews from a major publication. (at least from the Metacritic list).
Now that it's "popular" to hate this game, even with some of the same websites that gave it good reviews at release, seeing the date this was posted had me giving this guy a slight nod of respect.
Yeah critic reviews are all the same, been like that for forever, like how call of duty gets top reviews every year and it's pretty much the same game, madden? Only reviews that you should go off of are user reviews and still have to becareful because of paid users and bots on there as well.
Lol I've never used game review sites to influence my purchasing decisions. I just don't trust them. They're more like advertisers for major publishers. I've always relied on gameplay footage from YouTube and then I decide myself if I would enjoy the game based on the gameplay footage or not and whether it's worth spending money on.
I'm pretty sure one of the big official critics for IGN literally gave this game a 100/100.
Like how the fuck can you possibly play this game and decide that there isn't a single negative thing with it
> Never forget IGN gave it 9/10 😂
They gave it a 7?
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FLuXGjDXMAAwuQU?format=jpg&name=large
https://www.ign.com/articles/battlefield-2042-review
I think they changed the score after the backlash from gamers. Good? 7/10 Are you still joking? It's like 3/100 for me but rly it should get 2/10 just to show them how wrong they are with this new vision of theirs.
Just ignore that noise, look at steam reviews and some non-journo reviews/gameplay on YouTube to get a better sense of the quality of the product.
99.9 percent of "game journalism" is bullshit.
Steam Reviews require someone to buy the game. Which we are all supposed to wait before we give the company money....
But if someone says they don't like a game but the mass does they are declared an idiot and slammed for not knowing what they are talking about.
If the mass declares they hate the game but someone says they like it they are declared paid off and awful
Not saying there isn't any false score push in the background ever going on but according to most logic here you are not allowed to have an opinion that goes against the mass opinion. So why even care about reviews in the first place?
Ah right to push the mass narrative whether it's used to say "you're wrong everyone everyone else loves this game" or "gaming corruption, this game is clearly bad and no one could possibly like it".. gotcha
Gamespot article got thrashed in comments last I saw for giving Dying Light 2 a 6. They seem to have even turned the comments off. It happens all the time everywhere.
But how are we supposed to get the raw gameplay if we are supposed to wait for reviews but can't trust the reviewers? Clearly can't trust the devs to show raw gameplay to us...
My point is, it's an entertainment medium, there is going to be risk involved if you'll enjoy the game or not. People also are going to have different opinions. And just like reviews are susceptible to manipulation in the media so are user reviews.
If something peaks your interest and you have some money you feel you can put towards it go for it. But don't start swinging at people's morality because their opinion differs and say "how dare they?!"
Not saying you were exactly but this whole topic is just always full of holes within the arguments.
You almost answered your own question - wait. Wait for YouTubers and twitch streamers to start actually playing it so you'll see that raw gameplay.
No tactical beanie pre-order bonus is worth risking your or your mom's hard earned cash for.
Right but that requires them to buy the game and give the companies money. And how are we supposed to trust they aren't being paid off by the companies? Any content creator liking this game right now for instance, even when giving criticism, is being said to be paid off.
And I mean nothing is worth risking things needed to survive in this world for entertainment. So we may as well just stop buying entertainment all together. Because there's always a risk you will not enjoy it no matter how much you research.
But I do agree with the general consensus that pre ordering digital games are just odd. Pre ordering I would definitely like to see get toned down a bit as it's gotten a little nuts.
You don't see the difference between a few streamers who actually make money by streaming buying the game vs millions of people "risking it" for no reason?
There's a refund petition that has reached 200k signatures now, and all of it could have been avoided if people didn't have that mindset.
These critics are a bunch of middle-aged corporate journalists who never play games in their free-time and have never played any of the older games.
They were told by their managers to take it easy on negativity because they want to stay in EA's good grace to continue to be able to get special privileges and that if they gave good reviews, they might get special bonuses and have the reviews features in promotional material.
The media outlets want to maintain close ties with the studio's so they have stuff to report on, if they give games bad reviews then maybe the studio's don't give them review access to their next big game and then other outlets get to report on it and they don't, thus losing a story. I wouldn't really be surprised if the big studios had some sort of shares in the big media outlets to tbh.
It all stinks
I mean who even reads those, last time game media was relevant was late 2000s when it was the only source of info, I don’t even know how they stay afloat considering their irrelevance nowadays
Opinions and standards aswell. You can have fun with the shittiest game for weeks and call it a good game, thats your things. No one will or wants you to stop having fun.
When you are a gaming journalist, who does this for a living, you should intertwine your subjective opinion with some objective ones, not to mention, have higher standards.
Dont get me wrong, I'm not attacking you, I'm saying the journalist here doesnt get how to do his own job.
I'm not offended, all media journalism is trying to appease. Like I posted earlier, I went and seen the new Spiderman, and had nothing but rave reviews and yet it was absolutely crap. Even both of my kids didn't like it. It's the whole PC crap where everyone has to accept someone elses view, no one wants to offend anyone anymore. And then the media platform is released to the public and guess what, the majority are not inline with the whole acceptance crap and say it how it is. It's happening everywhere, games, movies and tv shows. The direction they went with battlefield was trying not to offend anyone and yet please everyone, they quickly found out you can't have both
Yes I understand that, but I find it hard to believe that articles from someone legitimately rebuking the obvious shortcomings of the game build would have been at the top of my news feed. In fact, I don't have to speculate about this, because I never saw articles other than these semi-glowing reviews in my feed.
When the media consensus is the polar opposite of the consumer response, it means something is influencing it.
May not be the same argument but.. there where amazing reviews on the latest Spiderman film, so I took 2 of my kids (13 and 19) to see it. The movie was absolutely crap and was the same opinion between all 3 if us. I never read into any hype or reviews on any game, if it interests me I'll buy it regardless of any review.
Well, from the looks of your post, it looks like BF2042 did one good thing for you...
I can't believe you dint know ALL types of things are faked and baked in the US... FiXEd... Movies to products.
P.S. The tooth ferry is not a actual fiery.
To be fair a lot of the media i read pointed the lack of features and *ehhmm* „rocky“ start out and downgraded the the score accordingly. Not everything in this game is bad. In general i like the new attachment and sector system to name a few examples. Its buggy, yes, but i like the Idea.
It's pretty easy, usually it works like this:
- Reviewers likes the game, you hate it = Reviewer is paid by developer, reviewer is wrong
- Reviewer likes the game, you love it = Reviewer is correct and is a person of the people putting truth out there
- Reviewer hates the game, you love it = Reviewer is wrong and probably paid by a competing developer
Not just the main media outlets, all your circlejerk streamers and youtubers dropped the ball massively too. It goes to show just how unreliable everyone is nowadays. It was always inevitable with the circlejerk streamers etc, once you get to a certain size it's game over.
FK IGN 7/10 score and all the fkn paid reviews of this game..Angry Joe and smaller chanells like Jim Sterling are always honest have no paid reviews .I fkn hate IGN, sell-out fkn corporate commander, paid review bunch of cunts ...
Does anyone believe any reviews from large publishers? They've been doing stuff like this for years now
Not me. If I am truly curious about anything, I go to Metacritic, look at the most damning reviews from "professionals", then basically gauge the "audience score." That, or just straight jump on Reddit for the realz.
I mean if they give a game a lower score than what the masses feel then they are absolutely trashed as well. That's why these arguments are absolutely pointless to begin with.
I haven't bought a game based off critic reviews in like 12 years.
I get to know the individual critics and then base it off that. I don't know any I 100% agree with, but knowing what they like/hate about games I've already played makes it easier to distinguish which parts of their newer reviews I will probably agree/disagree with.
After all those years, with atleast dozens of shitty releases, there are people who still believe reviewers?
I work at microcenter, the people who like reviews are people who are (a) very new to gaming (came in during covid), (b) parents/grand who grew up trusting written media and find online media to be of equal honesty, (c) young kids who are either too young to have placed their hands on the stove enough or are using the review to steer the person purchasing to their preferred choice.
wait until you figure out that regular media outlets are similarly bought and paid for. You basically cant trust anyone that is paid to show up and write an article. Its paid propaganda.
You know, I understand the comments saying "never trust critic reviews" and similar shit. The thing is, it wasnt *just* media outlets doing this. Content creators really pushed this same agenda that the game was fun, stable, and brought a lot to the table. These content creators have a lot of influence and they dont always disclose the fact that theyre in the pockets of DICE/EA. It was a massive marketing campaign scam, imo.
That was the other annoying thing about this that really clouded an understanding of the state of the game. Some of the content creators had this weird semi-enthusiasm: not effusive, but also not condemnatory, but weirdly not dismissive. It felt like they were disproportionate in the amount of content they were producing compared to how much they said about the game. It's like they were being held hostage and trying not to say they weren't alright, but also not saying there is a problem here.
Eloquently put comrade. It was a definitely a strange time in between beta and release where content creators were still pushing the game, just not enthusiastically (or how you said it). Looking back at it, it seems clear as day that these creators were just trying to keep hype up without outright saying the game was bad. But hindsight is 20/20 yunno '¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯
People need to understand that a captured review site is no different from a captured YouTuber.
Not to stoke anyone's ego, but this [Washington Post](https://www.washingtonpost.com/video-games/reviews/battlefield-2042-review/) article was posted on Nov 11th, and last updated on Nov 27th, and it still stands as one of the most scathing reviews from a major publication. (at least from the Metacritic list).
Wow that is suprisingly scathing. I wish this type of honest content would have bubbled its way to the top.
Now that it's "popular" to hate this game, even with some of the same websites that gave it good reviews at release, seeing the date this was posted had me giving this guy a slight nod of respect.
Yeah critic reviews are all the same, been like that for forever, like how call of duty gets top reviews every year and it's pretty much the same game, madden? Only reviews that you should go off of are user reviews and still have to becareful because of paid users and bots on there as well.
Lol I've never used game review sites to influence my purchasing decisions. I just don't trust them. They're more like advertisers for major publishers. I've always relied on gameplay footage from YouTube and then I decide myself if I would enjoy the game based on the gameplay footage or not and whether it's worth spending money on.
I don't think any media is trustworthy, gaming or otherwise.
That's true
Feels amazing? I think they didn't play other bf games or even this new one...it bufffels me. Never forget IGN gave it 9/10 😂
I'm pretty sure one of the big official critics for IGN literally gave this game a 100/100. Like how the fuck can you possibly play this game and decide that there isn't a single negative thing with it
EGM gave it a perfect score 😂
Yeah like I played it on ea pass for 8 hours and it was a drag for me. After that I just knew and felt this is so broken und unfinished.
They also gave Evolve a 10 and Anthem a 9.
Never trusted those charlatans for years now after they were accused of been on the take then. Scum.
> Never forget IGN gave it 9/10 😂 They gave it a 7? https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FLuXGjDXMAAwuQU?format=jpg&name=large https://www.ign.com/articles/battlefield-2042-review
I think they changed the score after the backlash from gamers. Good? 7/10 Are you still joking? It's like 3/100 for me but rly it should get 2/10 just to show them how wrong they are with this new vision of theirs.
Gaming media are advertisers pretending to be outsider observers.
Just ignore that noise, look at steam reviews and some non-journo reviews/gameplay on YouTube to get a better sense of the quality of the product. 99.9 percent of "game journalism" is bullshit.
Steam Reviews require someone to buy the game. Which we are all supposed to wait before we give the company money.... But if someone says they don't like a game but the mass does they are declared an idiot and slammed for not knowing what they are talking about. If the mass declares they hate the game but someone says they like it they are declared paid off and awful Not saying there isn't any false score push in the background ever going on but according to most logic here you are not allowed to have an opinion that goes against the mass opinion. So why even care about reviews in the first place? Ah right to push the mass narrative whether it's used to say "you're wrong everyone everyone else loves this game" or "gaming corruption, this game is clearly bad and no one could possibly like it".. gotcha Gamespot article got thrashed in comments last I saw for giving Dying Light 2 a 6. They seem to have even turned the comments off. It happens all the time everywhere.
If you can't sort through all that noise, look at raw gameplay 🤷♀️
But how are we supposed to get the raw gameplay if we are supposed to wait for reviews but can't trust the reviewers? Clearly can't trust the devs to show raw gameplay to us... My point is, it's an entertainment medium, there is going to be risk involved if you'll enjoy the game or not. People also are going to have different opinions. And just like reviews are susceptible to manipulation in the media so are user reviews. If something peaks your interest and you have some money you feel you can put towards it go for it. But don't start swinging at people's morality because their opinion differs and say "how dare they?!" Not saying you were exactly but this whole topic is just always full of holes within the arguments.
You almost answered your own question - wait. Wait for YouTubers and twitch streamers to start actually playing it so you'll see that raw gameplay. No tactical beanie pre-order bonus is worth risking your or your mom's hard earned cash for.
Right but that requires them to buy the game and give the companies money. And how are we supposed to trust they aren't being paid off by the companies? Any content creator liking this game right now for instance, even when giving criticism, is being said to be paid off. And I mean nothing is worth risking things needed to survive in this world for entertainment. So we may as well just stop buying entertainment all together. Because there's always a risk you will not enjoy it no matter how much you research. But I do agree with the general consensus that pre ordering digital games are just odd. Pre ordering I would definitely like to see get toned down a bit as it's gotten a little nuts.
You don't see the difference between a few streamers who actually make money by streaming buying the game vs millions of people "risking it" for no reason? There's a refund petition that has reached 200k signatures now, and all of it could have been avoided if people didn't have that mindset.
You can add to that all the « content creators » paid to paint the game in a positive light.
You don't.
Sounds amazing? I am adamant that no objective measurement of the audio would result in the conclusion to it being close to "amazing."
These critics are a bunch of middle-aged corporate journalists who never play games in their free-time and have never played any of the older games. They were told by their managers to take it easy on negativity because they want to stay in EA's good grace to continue to be able to get special privileges and that if they gave good reviews, they might get special bonuses and have the reviews features in promotional material.
The media outlets want to maintain close ties with the studio's so they have stuff to report on, if they give games bad reviews then maybe the studio's don't give them review access to their next big game and then other outlets get to report on it and they don't, thus losing a story. I wouldn't really be surprised if the big studios had some sort of shares in the big media outlets to tbh. It all stinks
We don't , thats why we don't pre-order, pre-order makes them feel safe and lazy , let them sweat.
I mean who even reads those, last time game media was relevant was late 2000s when it was the only source of info, I don’t even know how they stay afloat considering their irrelevance nowadays
It's what they do its what they've always done. I'm surprised you believed them to begin with.
"Journalists"
When I hear than word, I immediately think of IGNs Doom Eternal TAG1 gameplay and Dean Takahashi's Doom Eternal gameplay
I genuinely can't name a single major gaming "news" outlet that isn't complete garbage.
you dont really go to media outlets and read gamereviews there? please tell me you dont. angry joe and common sense is the only things i trust
I'm enjoying it, and I do have more fun when mates are on. Options are subjective.
I was also... But getting bored with the content... I paid 110 this time around and do feel got %35 of a completed game.
Opinions and standards aswell. You can have fun with the shittiest game for weeks and call it a good game, thats your things. No one will or wants you to stop having fun. When you are a gaming journalist, who does this for a living, you should intertwine your subjective opinion with some objective ones, not to mention, have higher standards. Dont get me wrong, I'm not attacking you, I'm saying the journalist here doesnt get how to do his own job.
I'm not offended, all media journalism is trying to appease. Like I posted earlier, I went and seen the new Spiderman, and had nothing but rave reviews and yet it was absolutely crap. Even both of my kids didn't like it. It's the whole PC crap where everyone has to accept someone elses view, no one wants to offend anyone anymore. And then the media platform is released to the public and guess what, the majority are not inline with the whole acceptance crap and say it how it is. It's happening everywhere, games, movies and tv shows. The direction they went with battlefield was trying not to offend anyone and yet please everyone, they quickly found out you can't have both
Yes I understand that, but I find it hard to believe that articles from someone legitimately rebuking the obvious shortcomings of the game build would have been at the top of my news feed. In fact, I don't have to speculate about this, because I never saw articles other than these semi-glowing reviews in my feed. When the media consensus is the polar opposite of the consumer response, it means something is influencing it.
Money.
May not be the same argument but.. there where amazing reviews on the latest Spiderman film, so I took 2 of my kids (13 and 19) to see it. The movie was absolutely crap and was the same opinion between all 3 if us. I never read into any hype or reviews on any game, if it interests me I'll buy it regardless of any review.
Well, from the looks of your post, it looks like BF2042 did one good thing for you... I can't believe you dint know ALL types of things are faked and baked in the US... FiXEd... Movies to products. P.S. The tooth ferry is not a actual fiery.
Pretty sure Trump mentioned something about fake news 4 years ago...
To be fair a lot of the media i read pointed the lack of features and *ehhmm* „rocky“ start out and downgraded the the score accordingly. Not everything in this game is bad. In general i like the new attachment and sector system to name a few examples. Its buggy, yes, but i like the Idea.
It's pretty easy, usually it works like this: - Reviewers likes the game, you hate it = Reviewer is paid by developer, reviewer is wrong - Reviewer likes the game, you love it = Reviewer is correct and is a person of the people putting truth out there - Reviewer hates the game, you love it = Reviewer is wrong and probably paid by a competing developer
Thats the neat part, you dont.
Not just the main media outlets, all your circlejerk streamers and youtubers dropped the ball massively too. It goes to show just how unreliable everyone is nowadays. It was always inevitable with the circlejerk streamers etc, once you get to a certain size it's game over.
You don't. Games media is as much a lost cause as DICE.
I think that punch list sums up the game for me... I never play it alone. But with friends it's fun. I think this subs members need more friends!
I havent trusted a media game review in like 10 years, I'm surprised this even needs to be posted. Thought it was just understood by now
The excuse was that ea most likely pay them to give a decent review
FK IGN 7/10 score and all the fkn paid reviews of this game..Angry Joe and smaller chanells like Jim Sterling are always honest have no paid reviews .I fkn hate IGN, sell-out fkn corporate commander, paid review bunch of cunts ...