Quote:
Originally Posted by RAnthonyMahan
Rather Dashing (where is he, by the way? With how he freaked out about BttF you think he'd be having a field day now)
|
Oh hi, post from the past!
I'm here because I woke up at 3 AM with a sore throat, read that lovely(read: disgusting, deplorable, gag-inducing) press-skewing blog post(if you don't read the blog, read today's post! It's the worst piece of shit you'll ever read! Look up the scores of the reviews cited!), and got to wondering about the press goings-on in Jurassic Park land. Woah, this was a rather nasty thing to pop up!
I've not been posting here. After all, I have:
-Not bought or played Jurassic Park, nor do I plan to. With Back to the Future, I'd actually PAID for that garbage, I'd actually PLAYED it, and frankly I had thoughts on the matter that were based on very in-depth analysis of the gameplay and its lack of connection to the narrative elements occuring on screen. Not so here. I could only really bash a basic direction Telltale is going, bash their press, but without playing the game I can't levy anything concrete against it.
-Never been a Jurassic Park fan
-had classes and tests to take
-SKYRIM
-MORE SKYRIM
-OH MY GOD WHERE DID MY TIME GO, OH RIGHT, TO SKYRIM
-Honestly got sick of dealing with a realm in which "WHO GIVES FIVE FUCKS ABOUT GAMEPLAY?" is considered an actual, worthwhile point by the greatest defenders of a game.
A few points:
1. Gamespot definitely poorly worded what prompted the investigation. Proper spelling and grammar? They should have iterated more clearly that:
-These were 10/10 reviews for a game that has had a very negative press response.
-They praised the developer and the game in a way that felt "press-y"
-They did not read like user reviews
These are things that arouse suspicion, and when it was found that the Metacritic user IDs were ones known to be used by Telltale employees with some rather quick Google-fu, Telltale defended the reviewers. This WAS DONE BY TELLTALE, and we HAVE to establish that in order for any conversation of the matter to take place.
2. Having a public opinion of your work is fine, but it's NOT COOL to do so under the guise of a "user" without even placing a disclaimer on said review. People go to user reviews to see what people who've played the game think about it. Developers have plenty of avenues to express their thoughts, positively, without being the least bit deceptive. Don't tell me that this was about expression. This was about raising the average review score on a site that is known for its effect on sales, and frankly, that's deplorable no matter how good you think the game is. To put it in one simple sentence:
DECEPTION is bad and WILLFULLY SKEWING REVIEW NUMBERS in your favor is also bad.
3. Intentionally conflating people who have concrete complaints about a product with those who have absolutely stupid, or at least incidental, complaints about a product is willful misdirection of the conversation. If you are going to reply to a person who has made complaints, and you are wanting to nullify them, THEIR points have to be addressed, NOT the points made by some random individual somewhere else on the same matter, even if they share the same "side"(I for one would HATE, for example, to be confused with a fellow who hates Back to the Future: The Game for art style reasons, for not having free-roaming, for not being a GTA rip-off, for not having enough time periods, or for not having every single actor from the films playing their roles, as those are NOT my complaints and I don't want someone acting as if they are)
4. My opinion on this matter is that this practice is vile and disgusting. While I feel Gamespot's article is sadly somewhat poorly written, their core points are on the whole solid. Suspicious reviews popped up, they looked into it with some simple Googling, and found that Telltale employees were obscure enough to not be immediately recognizable as employees at a glance while not smart enough to cover their tracks when performing an action which was OBVIOUSLY illicit. They are right in saying that defending this action on those grounds shows incompetence more than anything.
The quality of the game doesn't matter. It could be a 10/10, this would still be wrong.
Whether or not the employee thought it was a 10/10 doesn't matter. Even if that's his or her opinion, reviewing your own work inherently creates a position of bias, especially on industry-affecting Metacritic, and it's extremely poor form to not even include a disclaimer.
Even with a disclaimer, it's poor form because it skews a user number that is NOT meant to be an average of the opinions of the users and the game's press department.
IF YOU SAY I CARE ABOUT THE JEEP I WILL GUT YOU.