I said that HL would get average reviews at best because it was gonna be a janky game, and that there would be two camps in the user reviews: reactionaries who barely play the game so they can stick it to the LGBT community, and the other camp who will play the game and just admit that it’s not super good.
I was wrong on the fact that the reviews would be average; the press loved this game – I underestimated how much they loved the HP franchise. But I was right that the game was criticised for some jankiness.
Anyway our own co-admin @ksynwa@lemmygrad.ml was right about it when he told me that the game would get an 85 on metacritic – it’s sitting in at 84!
What fumbles me is that despite the jank, IGN still had the guts to give the game a fucking 9 outta 10; simply because the reporter liked Parrying Hotter. Shouldn’t you deduct a few points for the Jank? Especially on a AAA quality game?
They really should hire people that actually play video games as game journalists. Ugh.
And no, I haven’t played, nor am I playing Logwart’s Hegacy. I can’t find it in me to care about whatever that Just Kidding Rowling woman makes.
One, your comment is poetry.
Two, it’s the same in almost every similar industry, like fiction, movies, and series. They all coexist. Production and distribution, including marketing (i.e. the ‘reviewers’) are all owned by the same people, even if they appear to be separate entities. Real critics don’t get close to the widely distributed and promoted publications because that is not their purpose.
Once the head has decided that something will be a success, they will spend a proportionate amount of effort and money ensuring that it succeeds. There’s no way they even go into production today with something related to Harry Potter without a plan that is about as close as possible to guaranteeing it’s success. This can involve trickery. But by the time they critical people notice, it will be too late. Some negative press will be allowed to appear in the mainstream (like when we hear about a box office flop), but only after they’ve reached their sales targets (unless, like with a box office flop, it’s clear that the truth can’t be hidden).
I was thinking about this. The main problem is that within the video game journalism and reviewing industry there ia a fundamental conflict of interest. They have to try to make big games look good otherwise the industry that fuels their livelihood will be in jeapordy which will in turn jeapodise their own sources of income. When it comes to things like technical performance, websites like IGN never criticise those fairly. You are more likely to find honest criticisms on those from niche reviewers like Digital Foundry.
Wouldn’t they be able to just use ads, donations and - god forbid - stuff like patreon and subscriptions to make up for the lost corporate backing?
Also, how do they still maintain credibility (after giving bogus reviews and gameplays) among the general public? Clearly there still are people that read IGN, given how they still haven’t went under.
They are owned by a publicly traded company. They cannot refuse corporate banking.
Well the BoD would get their stonks low.