@Albelnox0 @games5522 Nowhere did I deny that companies like Bank of America were doing terrible things. I was simply noting that EA is more affected by "awards" like these because people can simply stop buying their games.
Someone who knows that Bank of America is shit isn't as easily able to shift their business away from said bank if they are already doing business with them. Similar reasoning is why companies like monsanto and oil companies don't give a shit about awards like this, because they know that people NEED their services.
The point of the awards is to send a message to the company that would actually be hurt more by receiving the award. Bank of America won the award for a good few years in a row and gave no shits about it. When EA won the award last year they got all flustered.
@Saidrex I usually feel that user scores are overdeflated, while critic scores are overinflated. The solution? I grab the user average score on metacritic, add it to the critic average score on metacritic, then average them again. With this, DmC's 360 version get's a 5.9.
This method tends to give games scores they likely would have received if they were reviewed in the 90s-early 2000s, I've noticed.
"Don't like it; don't play it." I see this whenever people dislike a game. Sure, it's usually used when people continuously attack one game in the comments various youtube videos, but it never seemed like a valid argument to me. To developers, a sale is an indication of some level of approval on the part of the person who purchased the game. They can only know so much about a game without playing it, but nobody can really know if they like a game until they play it themselves. This usually means renting it (rental places usually have some agreement with the developers to give some money to the developers with each rental), buying it (giving more money to the developer/publisher), or borrowing the game from a friend or playing the game at a friend's house. Not everyone has the benefit of having friends with the same tastes in games as themselves or a rental place within reasonable reach, so they'd have to buy it (I know they can pirate too but that is another discussion). What of the people who paid their hard earned money? If they gave the game a fair enough chance of wowing them, they usually can't get a refund and have to try selling it second hand.They wouldn't get all of their money back and would have actually lost something from learning that they didn't like a game.
@Justforvisit @TerraMantis A long standing problem with game reviews and game journalism in general is that everyone doing the reviewing is either a fan of the game/series being reviewed or a fan of some other game/series within the same genre. For example: the IGN review of DmC referred to the developers as "the badasses at Ninja Theory" while referring to anyone who could have any possible negative opinion toward the game as babies. This signifies a possible personal investment in the game, whether it be "I like these developers/their games, I don't want to hurt their feelings, so I'll give them a 9" or "I don't want to lose my job so I'll skim over any negative points and give it a 9." I know I'm pulling a lot of this out of a few short statements, but I do often see reviewers referring to developers as if they were best buddies with them, which is mildly unsettling.
@megadeth1117 @games5522 No, that would be the usual reaction to any mass criticism of a game. With last years player backlashes toward Bioware, the naysayers were called misogynists and homophobes. It's just oversimplification of the issue to serve the developers.
I'm just glad that the article isn't calling the people giving the negative reviews "a bunch of entitled trolls who are only angry about the main character's hair colour" like I expected them to.
@Xenuri I dunno, CDProjekt RED seems to be doing fairly well even though they put no DRM on their games and host a DRMless digital game download service.
games5522's comments