The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Assassin's Creed is the most important game for 10 years.
The_Scarab
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
Hear me out. Seriously.
I can't remember the last time a game was so divisive, both in the critics and with the game buying public. Ranging in scores from <50% all the way to the high 90s, and covering all outlets from the respected to the borderline fansites.
I think Assassin's Creed may have long lasting implications for the gaming press, and the gaming industry as a whole.
The Importance of Self Worth.
When I say most important, I do not mean 'best'. Assassin's Creed is in my opinion a good game, but by no means spectacular. However that isn't my point here.
My point is this. For a long time the gaming press has gradually become inflated with it's own sense of self worth. A lot of senior editors and reviewers increasingly began to write their reviews less as genuine advice and more and more in a tone of 'This is how good this game is. I know more than you I am telling you how it is'
I feel the 'rot' too. I try with all of my writing to take not an objective stance but an 'innocent opinionated' stance. The importance being that a game review should describe the game, and also give the opinion of the reviewer. It should not tell people whether a certain feature is good or not. It should describe it and then give the reviewers interpretation of it. This is a catastrophically huge distinction that needs to be made.
Now in steps Assassin's Creed. As I said a divisive game, but more importantly a ridiculously successful game. Ubisoft claims 4 million shipped already, I wouldn't be surprised if it did Gears of War numbers in a quicker time, albeit on multiple platforms.
So how should the press take this? Especially the outlets who gave it a low review score? The sense I got from reading a lot of post mortem press about the game was a disturbingly large amount of reviewers felt disgusted that the public dared to buy the game that they said was crap. Furthermore the outlet they went down was of 'Their next game will be just as crap now it has sold so well'
A complete lack of respect for both Ubisoft and the consumer public.
Where does real power lie? With the people.
This annoyed me, as my post history in Creed and Sales threads can testify. Creed is not a terrible game, and if someone bought it they have not 'made a mistake' nor should they feel ashamed. Does the public really secretly have absolute control over the entire industry? As it should be?
And if Ubisoft did indeed copy paste the formula for another game it would not be a death knell for the franchise, it would be a talented company producing commercially viable product. Savvy businessmen and women.
So why do I think Creed is so important. I think it has put the gaming press in its place. We have already seen the backlash with Ubisoft 'blacklisting' EGM allegedly over their 4.5 Creed review (there is no conclusive evidence on this though, other than the word of Dan Hsu)
Now don't get me wrong, good games have tanked and shit games have made %texas in the past. But a new IP, launching in the console generation as it stands amongst the best holiday season for a long time, up against the Halos and Call of Dutys etc etc Creed has proven that game critics really dont matter at all.
Is it possible that there was an illusion that game reviewers had an effect on anything because no game really for a while has broken the mold of big hype quality game big sales or bad hype, bad game poor sales. I mean other than the obvious shovel ware non games and annual Madden installations (a whole other debate rages on the quality of those, and FIFA)
Have gamers reached a maturity where they can make up their own opinion on a game based on either word of mouth or unbiased preview materials? I remember a time not so long ago when the scores magazines gave a game was gospel. You just did not buy the badly reviewed ones. At all.
Falling on Deaf Ears.
In this way, Assassin's Creed I think is a landmark. The jury is still out, both amongst critics and consumers, as to just how good the game is. But sales wise it has been a mega hit.
With some of the most high profile outlets panning the game, the ones with the largest circulation and presence, you would have thought that it would have not sold so well. Or that sales would have been impacted considerably.
However what actually happened it seems was that everyone ignored the press entirely and bought it anyways.
Is this then a maturation point for the gaming press? Does anyone think that they are still relevant in a meaningful way. I for one still read reviews of my favourite and trusted sites/magazines, but I've noticed that I have begun to read their reviews for information rather than opinion. It never used to be like this. If Keiron said Doom 3 was shit then by god it was shit and you didnt touch it.
Now though I see more and more gaming review outlets fading into obscurity in an attempt to regain that absolute control over the consumer. If you look at which magazines are losing circulation and which are gaining the story is told completely.
Lasting fallout
This whole thing raises a whole bunch of questions:
- Is it possible to be commercially successful as a game review outlet on the back of integrity alone, or do you need to sell out a little for things like early previews and exclusives. In effect, do you make more money as EDGE magazine or EGM magazine?
- Will game reviewers change stances? With the relationship between the press and the publishers teetering perilously on the edge of collapse (Gerstman-gate, Blacklist EGM) how many publications will strive to keep their integrity in the face of serious financial pressures.
- Does anyone think we are on the cusp of a major breakdown between the publishers and the press? Ubisoft and co cut off EGM on the back of bad reviews (an entirely justified move in my opinion).
- Anyone think that we will see two distinct factions emerge in the press? The ones with integrity and the ones without? It wouldnt surprise me to see the smaller, almost indie, outlets commiting to accurate and informed reviews, whereas the larger more corporate ones starting to court the publishers for fear of being cut off at the teat.
I think Assassin's Creed has set in motion a lot of these events. It was the first game for a long time that I can remember being so divisive. People loved it or hated it to incredible degrees.
Will Ubisoft in the face of crushing financial success improve the game or churn out a sequel for a quick buck? And when that sells millions and is similarly critically panned what then? Two times critics have told 'us' not to buy a game and two times we ignored them.
Or on the flip side, will we see reviewers taking a harder stance on games. I don't want to see the publishers have political influence over the magazines any more than the next guy, but I also don't want to see an all out split between the two.
Will this whole thing vindicate Dyack I guess is the summing up to this whole thing. The relationship between publisher and press is a horrible state of affairs right now. I think Assassin's Creed could be the game to tip the scales one way or another.
You can't buy respect, but you sure can sell it.
If the major publications dont change to reflect their changing audience then I think many of the big names will simply die out as a direct result of Assassin's Creed causing such a rift between the two factions.
Publishers have seen that the press have no real sway over the public now. This puts them in the driving seat for all future deals. If a magazine doesn't like one of their games, the publisher can cut them off completely without fear of reprisal, as the consumer has proven to not pay attention to the press opinions as much anymore.
This means the press might end up having to decide. Do they fall in line with their new masters or rebel and remain a bastion of respected gaming journalism, but suffer consequences of no more previews and dwindling sales?
Thoughts? Feel free to shoot me down completely, these are just general musings. Obviously evidence could be provided to support half of this but it's not worth the effort really for a simple discussion.
TL:DR -
With whom does the power lie in the games industry? Publishers or the press? What does the furor around Assassin's Creed do to change this balance now that the press was in a way proven to be irrelevant at impacting sales?
I can't remember the last time a game was so divisive, both in the critics and with the game buying public. Ranging in scores from <50% all the way to the high 90s, and covering all outlets from the respected to the borderline fansites.
I think Assassin's Creed may have long lasting implications for the gaming press, and the gaming industry as a whole.
The Importance of Self Worth.
When I say most important, I do not mean 'best'. Assassin's Creed is in my opinion a good game, but by no means spectacular. However that isn't my point here.
My point is this. For a long time the gaming press has gradually become inflated with it's own sense of self worth. A lot of senior editors and reviewers increasingly began to write their reviews less as genuine advice and more and more in a tone of 'This is how good this game is. I know more than you I am telling you how it is'
I feel the 'rot' too. I try with all of my writing to take not an objective stance but an 'innocent opinionated' stance. The importance being that a game review should describe the game, and also give the opinion of the reviewer. It should not tell people whether a certain feature is good or not. It should describe it and then give the reviewers interpretation of it. This is a catastrophically huge distinction that needs to be made.
Now in steps Assassin's Creed. As I said a divisive game, but more importantly a ridiculously successful game. Ubisoft claims 4 million shipped already, I wouldn't be surprised if it did Gears of War numbers in a quicker time, albeit on multiple platforms.
So how should the press take this? Especially the outlets who gave it a low review score? The sense I got from reading a lot of post mortem press about the game was a disturbingly large amount of reviewers felt disgusted that the public dared to buy the game that they said was crap. Furthermore the outlet they went down was of 'Their next game will be just as crap now it has sold so well'
A complete lack of respect for both Ubisoft and the consumer public.
Where does real power lie? With the people.
This annoyed me, as my post history in Creed and Sales threads can testify. Creed is not a terrible game, and if someone bought it they have not 'made a mistake' nor should they feel ashamed. Does the public really secretly have absolute control over the entire industry? As it should be?
And if Ubisoft did indeed copy paste the formula for another game it would not be a death knell for the franchise, it would be a talented company producing commercially viable product. Savvy businessmen and women.
So why do I think Creed is so important. I think it has put the gaming press in its place. We have already seen the backlash with Ubisoft 'blacklisting' EGM allegedly over their 4.5 Creed review (there is no conclusive evidence on this though, other than the word of Dan Hsu)
Now don't get me wrong, good games have tanked and shit games have made %texas in the past. But a new IP, launching in the console generation as it stands amongst the best holiday season for a long time, up against the Halos and Call of Dutys etc etc Creed has proven that game critics really dont matter at all.
Is it possible that there was an illusion that game reviewers had an effect on anything because no game really for a while has broken the mold of big hype quality game big sales or bad hype, bad game poor sales. I mean other than the obvious shovel ware non games and annual Madden installations (a whole other debate rages on the quality of those, and FIFA)
Have gamers reached a maturity where they can make up their own opinion on a game based on either word of mouth or unbiased preview materials? I remember a time not so long ago when the scores magazines gave a game was gospel. You just did not buy the badly reviewed ones. At all.
Falling on Deaf Ears.
In this way, Assassin's Creed I think is a landmark. The jury is still out, both amongst critics and consumers, as to just how good the game is. But sales wise it has been a mega hit.
With some of the most high profile outlets panning the game, the ones with the largest circulation and presence, you would have thought that it would have not sold so well. Or that sales would have been impacted considerably.
However what actually happened it seems was that everyone ignored the press entirely and bought it anyways.
Is this then a maturation point for the gaming press? Does anyone think that they are still relevant in a meaningful way. I for one still read reviews of my favourite and trusted sites/magazines, but I've noticed that I have begun to read their reviews for information rather than opinion. It never used to be like this. If Keiron said Doom 3 was shit then by god it was shit and you didnt touch it.
Now though I see more and more gaming review outlets fading into obscurity in an attempt to regain that absolute control over the consumer. If you look at which magazines are losing circulation and which are gaining the story is told completely.
Lasting fallout
This whole thing raises a whole bunch of questions:
- Is it possible to be commercially successful as a game review outlet on the back of integrity alone, or do you need to sell out a little for things like early previews and exclusives. In effect, do you make more money as EDGE magazine or EGM magazine?
- Will game reviewers change stances? With the relationship between the press and the publishers teetering perilously on the edge of collapse (Gerstman-gate, Blacklist EGM) how many publications will strive to keep their integrity in the face of serious financial pressures.
- Does anyone think we are on the cusp of a major breakdown between the publishers and the press? Ubisoft and co cut off EGM on the back of bad reviews (an entirely justified move in my opinion).
- Anyone think that we will see two distinct factions emerge in the press? The ones with integrity and the ones without? It wouldnt surprise me to see the smaller, almost indie, outlets commiting to accurate and informed reviews, whereas the larger more corporate ones starting to court the publishers for fear of being cut off at the teat.
I think Assassin's Creed has set in motion a lot of these events. It was the first game for a long time that I can remember being so divisive. People loved it or hated it to incredible degrees.
Will Ubisoft in the face of crushing financial success improve the game or churn out a sequel for a quick buck? And when that sells millions and is similarly critically panned what then? Two times critics have told 'us' not to buy a game and two times we ignored them.
Or on the flip side, will we see reviewers taking a harder stance on games. I don't want to see the publishers have political influence over the magazines any more than the next guy, but I also don't want to see an all out split between the two.
Will this whole thing vindicate Dyack I guess is the summing up to this whole thing. The relationship between publisher and press is a horrible state of affairs right now. I think Assassin's Creed could be the game to tip the scales one way or another.
You can't buy respect, but you sure can sell it.
If the major publications dont change to reflect their changing audience then I think many of the big names will simply die out as a direct result of Assassin's Creed causing such a rift between the two factions.
Publishers have seen that the press have no real sway over the public now. This puts them in the driving seat for all future deals. If a magazine doesn't like one of their games, the publisher can cut them off completely without fear of reprisal, as the consumer has proven to not pay attention to the press opinions as much anymore.
This means the press might end up having to decide. Do they fall in line with their new masters or rebel and remain a bastion of respected gaming journalism, but suffer consequences of no more previews and dwindling sales?
Thoughts? Feel free to shoot me down completely, these are just general musings. Obviously evidence could be provided to support half of this but it's not worth the effort really for a simple discussion.
TL:DR -
With whom does the power lie in the games industry? Publishers or the press? What does the furor around Assassin's Creed do to change this balance now that the press was in a way proven to be irrelevant at impacting sales?
The_Scarab on
0
Posts
That said, no doubt this game specifically made the most out of those types of methods to get the knowledge of this game out before it even hit shelves. I watched the e3 coverage, and I know from so many threads just here, that other people did as well. I don't know if others outside of this type of atmosphere watched that stuff, or read about it. I know they heard about it though. Hell, my brother bought a ps3 and this game just from word of mouth, from people who HAD watched it. He loves it, and I love that I didn't have to buy either to enjoy it.
I'm sure the game would have done well, but not this well until much later after release, had the same stuff not been released to the public.
I think publishers can do a lot if they know what they have on their hands. We've all seen publishers put out garbage for good games, and way over the top preview-review stuff when the game is a terrible waste of time. Sometimes they get it right, sometimes they don't.
Usually though, good games will sell. Hopefully that's somewhat of a gimme.
Click image for my huge backlog
How can you put a number on seeing the Colossus no. 1 for the first time?
How can you quantify how badass having just the right amount of multitools to get in and out unseen in Deus Ex is?
How can you complain about not having time to make a profile when there are zombies coming up the hill.
Is God Hand just a game about punching people?
I agree with everything you just said, good sir. I've been saying for years that it's actually kinda of retarded to put a numerical value on a game. Seriously.
"Hey Mega Man, join my side. You'll be mine, FOREVER!"
It's novel and interesting, and in this cookie-cutter climate that enough to push it past AC's many flaws.
My GF has enjoyed watching me play the game because of this (though not the fighting) and the original plot. And she hates stuff like this. AC has 'casual appeal' and to be honest, I think a lot of reviewers, like a lot of gamers, have established what they like, and dislike anything mixing that up a little.
2009 is a year of Updates - one every Monday. Hopefully. xx
Full Price - so great that people need to get it NOW
Rental - too short or too one-note to make it worth full price
Price Drop - not that great, but cool to play maybe when there's a drought or something
Sack of Crap - don't bother
Of course, the main people that this won't really help are those that are really into single player games... see, for me, new installments of fighters is always a Full Price, single player only games are nearly always Rentals, etc.
There was a similar problem with Amiga gaming in the early 90s, part of it to do with Sensible World of Soccer. It's happened plenty of times since then, and will continue to be an issue.
Hell, Assassin's Creed is probably less important because, at least with my experience with the game, most of the complaints lodged against it are valid. Granted, I've only played the first three or four hours of the game, but those three and four hours sucked. Repetitive in every sense of the word, from action to dialogue. Long waits before you can even do anything. Long winded and tons of filler.
AC isn't important simply because it has the spotlight shone on it.
Kudos to Ubi and Assassins Creed for making the game they wanted to make, reviewers be damned, and meeting some financial success, but I still have no illusions that the next Tim Schaefer project is going to have to published by Majesco and will sell like twenty copies, and I have no illusions that Madden 2008 will be a roster update for Madden 2007 with some infuriating underdeveloped "New Feature" and will sell like crack.
4 star - This game is a really good time. If you like this kind of game (FPS, JRPG), it's a must buy. If this isn't usually your cup of tea, you should still consider this next time you're at the store.
3 star - This game has good and bad, but they pretty well balance out. You may want to try it before you buy it, or wait until the price comes down.
2 star - If there's a reason to own this, its not because of the game. Maybe you love the movie tie-in, or a friend worked for the developer that summer, in which case you might enjoy some of what this game has to offer. Regardless, the reviewer didn't enjoy it, and he suspects the average gamer would not, either.
1 star - The game works, but that's all that's good about it. No quality or innovation is to be found here, only a lesser version of games you've played before.
0 stars - This game is broken. Mission Impossible/E.T./MMO without servers broken. It is your duty as a gamer to never buy this game, because reinforcing this developer is a sin against mankind. If it gets fixed (patched), then a new review is in order.
This is how I group games in my head, and how I used to think about selling them back in the day. This is how a lot of sites say their scores work, but in the end, the score is just a point total, with +1 for online and -.5 for being too short.
Recommended
Try Before you Buy
Not Recommended
Play for a Laugh (Big Rigs over the Road Racing)
Fixed that for you Gaming Journalism Industry.
Wait, Gaming Advertising Industry. Fixed that for me as well!
It's just that Assassin's Creed rocked the boat a little more because it was really successful and even among the journalist community, it's received reviews all over the place. Game Informer gave it a 9.5. Gabe and Tycho loved it. EGM gave it a 4.5. People are going to almost always buy the games they want regardless of the reviews. The only importance reviews have ever had is to justify to yourself the money you spent.
"Well, I liked this game and they did too, so it was a good deal."
Review scores mean almost jack shit to the game buying population unless they know absolutely nothing about the game or are trying to decide between two very similar games(NBA Live and NBA 2K, etc...)
This is still broken. I don't care how many people say Halo 3 is 5-Star. I don't want it.
i mean the difference between a 1 and a 2 is very little
in fact, the difference between 0 and 5 is very little
but the difference between 7 and 8 is what separates a mediocre game from an excellent one, apparently
See, the funny thing is, I don't think many game journalists would give Halo 3 five stars, now anyway. How many GOTY lists did it show up on? Not many.
The problem with this, and any other scoring system trying to be reductionist and go without decimals is you give Mario Galaxy 5 stars and Orange Box 5 stars, but someone can only afford to buy one. both reviews are glowing about it and cant really find fault. The decimals and onwards system was a result of games being expensive commodities.
If I thought for a second everyone could afford to buy all games ever released I would use a 5 star or a thumbs up/down system. But you can't. Like it or loathe it, the 100 point system is better because it allows more accuracy in the review.
A lot actually.
nope, too many values
if you absolutely have to put a value on this, then you shouldn't have a middle value so people can just assign games a 3 for medium
they need to be forced to have an opinion one way or the other
so it's 4 stars
and even then, is 0 stars meaning it is bad to play, or glitchy? or what?
So yes, that is very important, now to see if the next Assassin's Creed is as phoned in as the first and how many other games/publishers follow the same pattern.
edit: I am not saying that spending some time climbing some shit and killing some people is without merit, I enjoyed my time with AC to an extent. But it's execution is deplorable, and I'm glad I never supported it with my money.
Yea, but how can you objectively describe the difference between an 8.9 game or a 9.0 game? And once you get under 5, what's the point? You can't be accurate with an opinion.
Perfect. :^:
On top of that, the snarky, cynical, smart-assed comments and opinions parading as hip, trendy writing with the goal of looking out for the little guy--y'know, us gamers out there--makes it ten times worse. I don't want a game journalist kissing a dev's or pub's ass, but nitpicking and general negativity get pretty damn old after a while.
Regarding some of the other things OP touched on, I don't think it's necessarily a matter of journos giving up their integrity to maintain an in-track with pubs and devs, although that is a factor. I think it's more a matter of some members of the gaming press (Ziff, some others) getting off of their high fucking horse and realizing that they don't have the final word with these products and that devs and pubs should receive a fair shake despite the fact that they're often portrayed as "The Man" pimping subpar products on the unsuspecting masses.
It's like they think they're coming to our fucking rescue when I read some of their shit.
Ng Security Industries, Inc.
PRERELEASE VERSION-NOT FOR FIELD USE - DO NOT TEST IN A POPULATED AREA
-ULTIMA RATIO REGUM-
but that just ends up with more confusion! what's the difference bewteen 3 and 10? you aren't going to buy either of them!
but what about a 59 to a 78?
what's the difference between a 76 and a 77? or 76 and a 79?
Indeed. But on the flipside, how can you honestly say Galaxy and Orange Box are as good as each other when one is clearly superior, by giving them both 5 stars. You couldnt give Galaxy 4 stars to show that Orange Box is superior because it deserves 5 stars cause it is a great game. Nor could you give OB 6 stars as that would fall outside the scale and make you look like a dumbass.
Review scores are not meant to describe how good a game is. Thats the body text of the reviews job. A review scores primary reason for being there is to allow you to grade the game against others.
So an opinion can be accurate. For example, Halo is better than Quake 3. But Quake 3 is better than blah. And blah etc etc. Over time the scale should become accurate as you gradually begin to scale games.
I'm not going to buy a game cause it gets a 90/100 in a magazine. Ill buy the game if the review indicates it is a good game.
However I will buy a game if it gets a 90/100 if there are two games I want and one has 89/100.
I think the score for a game is less an indication of the quality and more an indication of whether it is a worthwhile purchase at the time the review is published.
just give me a summary
This post gets a 9.2/10 from me.
a pity, another 0.35 and you would be making out with me right now
Simple.
1 = Don't buy this.
2= Average. Rental fodder or will require more research in the part of the buyer.
3 = Fun. Buy it.
There.
I don't think so, and if that's the purpose of your scoring system, I think it's doomed from the beginning. And the idea that you could determine a difference between a 9.4 and a 9.3 is ridiculous to me. If I had to choose, I'd much rather judge a game against its ideal and how close it came to reaching that. How good it could have been versus how good it is. And if you must compare it to other games, limit that comparison to games reaching for the same ideal. Any other direct comparisons are useless to me.
1-3 is too restricting. 1-5 though seems about right. 1 is piss poor. 2 is on the loosing side of mediocre. 3 is straight down the middle mediocre. 4 is...
Well fuck, you get the idea.
well that is so simplistic why even have it in the first place?
why are you so attached to numbers, when 3 or 4 sentences at the end can go into so much more depth and breadth than 6.57/10 ever can?
Let me tell you about Demon's Souls....
And it just dawned on me. No numerical 'score' - instead a dollar amount. How much would be a good amount to pay for this game?
For example: Conan for the 360. I like Conan for the 360. It's a bloody good time, also: boobs.
Is it worth $60? Fuck no, $25 at best. There's your review score.
3DS: 1650-8480-6786
Switch: SW-0653-8208-4705
I always read reviews, but really only to find any bad mechanics or nitpickings in the game.
I believe I kind of 'even it out' by reading the low-end and high-end reviews of the same game.
I do it in a similar manner. I use the same method as I do when I shop on Amazon. I read some of the high-scores and some of the low-scores. Usually I find some of the great things about it that the high-scores rave about, and some of the things that it does wrong by way of the low scores.
Really, I'm an educated enough consumer that I don't NEED numerical scores. The tone of a review is much more important than a number tacked on the end.
This whole argument is really fucking stupid. You mean to tell me that reviews of two great games, giving both titles 5 stars, makes the decision to buy one or the other difficult? Are you absolutely god damned retarded?
Read the print! See what they say about the games! Find out which one has more features you will enjoy and make use of! THEN buy one of them.
Really, when you get down to it, you need to find a magazine with a 1,000,000.000 point scale for yourself. Since no game can ever be rated the same as another, lest ye not be able to make a decision, that should give you enough possible scores to last the rest of your gaming life.
But then, what if Devil May Cry 4 and Smash Bros Brawl come out next month, and the reviewer has difficulty deciding which one gets the 955,923.445 score, to leave the other with a 955,923.444 score? I mean, shit, they'd be dooming one of the games to retail failure!
PCXL gave Half-Life an 11... I'm just sayin. ;-)
https://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561197970666737/