Telltale screwing with Metacritic - Game Spot has the scoop!

#1 Posted by akzo (64 posts) -
#2 Posted by Video_Game_King (34619 posts) -

Why do I feel like GameSpot has already written a 3.5/10 review for the game and is just bitter that other people like it :P?

#3 Posted by Jimi (1126 posts) -

Inb4 whole thread about why gamespot sucks.

Anyway this has happened before with other companies, it is shady but I can understand why some people may choose to do it. They spend huge amounts of time developing a game only for it to be slated.

#4 Posted by DeeGee (2098 posts) -

@Video_Game_King said:

Why do I feel like GameSpot has already written a 3.5/10 review for the game and is just bitter that other people like it :P?

Because it's cool to hate Gamespot.

In reality, it's a well written article that points out a terrible trend in the industry. Telltale said that it's perfectly acceptable for its staff to flood metacritic with perfect scores purely because you can google their names to figure out they work for Telltale.

The people liking this game will be a minority. It's not getting well received and the quick look on the site made me understand why. It looks awful.

#5 Edited by phrosnite (3517 posts) -

I don't know why they care for User's Score... This is funny.

Edit: The game is bad. Haven't you seen the quick look?

#6 Posted by sixghost (1679 posts) -

In theory, this would be an ideal reason for interested gamers to check out GameSpot's fellow CBS Interactive property Metacritic. 

what a way to start an article, lol.
#7 Posted by Video_Game_King (34619 posts) -

@DeeGee:

No, I read the article (a bit); I just thought that would be kinda funny. Just like the thought that the indication that something was wrong was perfect grammar. "Articulate sentences? On MY Internet? Something is wrong in the world!"

#8 Posted by Guided_By_Tigers (8060 posts) -

Nice article....caught red handed.

#9 Edited by EvilTwin (3324 posts) -

This is embarrassing for Gamespot and Telltale both.  User reviews are bogus.  Even if there are people who are intent on giving a fair opinion of a game, the mean average is always adversely affected by a bunch of people with an axe to grind as to make the whole system pointless anyways.  That Gamespot would think this story is worth posting is laughable.  And the second to last paragraph of the story is so smug and self-righteous it's cringe worthy.  On the other hand, what in the world were those employees thinking?  Nothing good can come from doing this, even if you aren't caught.

#10 Posted by MikkaQ (10225 posts) -

Who cares? It's a user review which means literally anyone can say what they want no matter who they work for. I mean it's a fucking user review, what idiot would even take that into consideration anyway?

#11 Posted by magellan (77 posts) -

@EvilTwin: I thought it was an interesting story, and you did too, seeing as how you read through the entire article and then decided to chime in.

#12 Posted by buzz_killington (3532 posts) -

There is, honestly, nothing wrong with giving your own game a perfect score. It's your fucking game! How can you not?

#13 Posted by Video_Game_King (34619 posts) -

@buzz_killington:

What about them simply wanting to pump up their own score to pump up sales and get more publisher money? It simply comes off as dishonest.

#14 Posted by sixghost (1679 posts) -
@Video_Game_King said:

@buzz_killington:

What about them simply wanting to pump up their own score to pump up sales and get more publisher money? It simply comes off as dishonest.

You're delusional if you think 4 random user reviews will affect this game or Telltale in any significant way.
#15 Posted by Guided_By_Tigers (8060 posts) -

@Video_Game_King said:

It simply comes off as dishonest.

and tacky

#16 Posted by Video_Game_King (34619 posts) -

@sixghost:

I was arguing more from principle than action, if that makes any sense.

#17 Posted by RandomInternetUser (6788 posts) -

When a developer starts having all their employees make multiple metacritic accounts to rate the game highly over and over, that's when it will be a story to me. This isn't a huge deal in my eyes. If they want to, they should have a right to rate it high. Also, this isn't me defending Telltale, I generally dislike their games and this Jurassic Park game looks like a monstrosidad.

#18 Edited by Slaker117 (4835 posts) -

Devs reviewing their own games is dumb and tacky, but anyone relying on Metacritic user reviews to make purchasing decisions is doing it wrong. This is not something to get bent out of shape about.

#19 Posted by Village_Guy (2410 posts) -

@sixghost said:

@Video_Game_King said:

@buzz_killington:

What about them simply wanting to pump up their own score to pump up sales and get more publisher money? It simply comes off as dishonest.

You're delusional if you think 4 random user reviews will affect this game or Telltale in any significant way.

It won't have any effect of course, but I think this is more about the moral and ideology about it, that it is alright for game developers to attempt to boost user scores on sites like Metacritic.

Oh and anyone who cares about user scores on Metacritic needs to get a reality check.

#20 Posted by bybeach (4608 posts) -

@buzz_killington said:

There is, honestly, nothing wrong with giving your own game a perfect score. It's your fucking game! How can you not?

I like this. I don't agree with it at fucking all, but the statement hints of a deeper tuth.

#21 Posted by Simplexity (1382 posts) -

People actually read user reviews on Metacritic? Really?

#22 Posted by TheSouthernDandy (3629 posts) -

This gets a big ol' *shrug* from me because 
A) I don't care if a dev reviews their own game. I'm sure they enjoy it. If they have every right to say a game they worked on sucked, then they can say they liked it. 
B) Metacritic user reviews are useless. They no longer serve a purpose now that angry nerds have decided to game them if they don't agree with something, regardless of game quality.
 The whole "shame on you! shaaame!" tone of that article is irritating.

#23 Posted by magellan (77 posts) -

@TheSouthernDandy: Shame on you!

#24 Posted by TheSouthernDandy (3629 posts) -
@magellan: ......im sorry...
#25 Posted by The_Laughing_Man (13629 posts) -

@DeeGee said:

@Video_Game_King said:

Why do I feel like GameSpot has already written a 3.5/10 review for the game and is just bitter that other people like it :P?

Because it's cool to hate Gamespot.

In reality, it's a well written article that points out a terrible trend in the industry. Telltale said that it's perfectly acceptable for its staff to flood metacritic with perfect scores purely because you can google their names to figure out they work for Telltale.

The people liking this game will be a minority. It's not getting well received and the quick look on the site made me understand why. It looks awful.

Is it to much to ask for a open world Jurassic park game?

#26 Posted by EvilTwin (3324 posts) -
@magellan said:

@EvilTwin: I thought it was an interesting story, and you did too, seeing as how you read through the entire article and then decided to chime in.

It's not a good story, nor really worthy of any attention.  It's interesting in the same way tabloids are interesting, I suppose.
#27 Posted by TaliciaDragonsong (8698 posts) -

Random dev screws with Metacritic, other random dev/site complains about it.
 
Fuck Metacritic.

#28 Posted by Delta_Ass (3231 posts) -

The critic score is what matters, not the stupid user review score.

#29 Posted by benjaebe (2783 posts) -

Who cares. Metacritic user reviews are shit and no one uses them for anything.

#30 Posted by CornBREDX (4457 posts) -

this does not affect my love of telltale or my intent to buy the game.

I don't see why it matters.

Online
#31 Posted by PrivateIronTFU (3874 posts) -

The president is allowed to vote. I would imagine when running for re-election, he's going to be voting for himself. I don't have a problem with that.

#32 Posted by ThePaleKing (613 posts) -

" In theory, this would be an ideal reason for interested gamers to check out GameSpot's fellow CBS Interactive property Metacritic. Ordinarily, the online opinion aggregator can be counted on to compile review scores and links from a wealth of professional review sites, as well as assessments from other gamers who wrote up reviews on their own."
  
So is it ok for gamespot to praise and recommend people use a review aggregate site that they have a business partnership with? SOUNDS FISHY TO ME. 

#33 Posted by BabyChooChoo (4038 posts) -

@EvilTwin said:

This is embarrassing for Gamespot and Telltale both. User reviews are bogus. Even if there are people who are intent on giving a fair opinion of a game, the mean average is always adversely affected by a bunch of people with an axe to grind as to make the whole system pointless anyways. That Gamespot would think this story is worth posting is laughable. And the second to last paragraph of the story is so smug and self-righteous it's cringe worthy. On the other hand, what in the world were those employees thinking? Nothing good can come from doing this, even if you aren't caught.

...aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand this. What's particularly sad for me, is that I've always held Telltale in such high regard for sticking to their guns even when the industry tells them the genre is done. I mean, I haven't lost all respect for them suddenly or anything, but this is still kind of a downer. It's like if you found out Valve was also a meth lab. You'll still love Valve, but you'll be disappointed with their actions.

#34 Posted by CaptainCody (1504 posts) -

People are acting like they murdered someone who gave their game a low score. Get the fuck out with that overly sensitive,"but it's dishonest!" shit. Gamespot and Metacritic can rot and if a developer wants to give their game a 10 so they can keep their job then so be it.

#35 Posted by TheHBK (5407 posts) -

First they fuck up a fans Jurassic Jeep, now this. Fuck tell-tale games.

#36 Posted by Enigma777 (6047 posts) -

Not the first time this has happened and it won't be the last. Anyways who cares, it's just user reviews. No one looks at those.

#37 Posted by artgarcrunkle (971 posts) -

Uh people actually do look at user reviews guys not everyone is a super-savvy games guy who listens to podcasts about the industry and would know what a joke user reviews are.

#38 Posted by Vexxan (4598 posts) -

So basically this tells us they know they made a shitty game. 

#39 Posted by jakob187 (21508 posts) -

@sixghost said:

In theory, this would be an ideal reason for interested gamers to check out GameSpot's fellow CBS Interactive property Metacritic.

what a way to start an article, lol.

It'd almost be like a Giant Bomb Quick Look starting out with a Tested site staffer saying that the game is being "tested"...or something. -_-

In all honesty, GOOD ON GAMESPOT, and more particularly, good on Sinclair for writing the article. It never felt like a pot-shot, and moreover, it was something I would expect to hear from Patrick Klepek before GS.

#40 Posted by EveretteScott (1328 posts) -

@Unknown_Pleasures said:

Nice article....caught red handed.

I don't think they were trying to 'hide'.

#41 Posted by Slag (3350 posts) -

@Video_Game_King said:

@sixghost:

I was arguing more from principle than action, if that makes any sense.

did to me. I agree with what you said completely.

I don't think Telltale's actions if true are good business practices in the long run,once a company gets a rep for being deceitful it's really hard to shed.

I personally can't stand Metacritic either fwiw, and this sort of thing it encourages in the industry is a big reason why.

#42 Posted by secondaryunit (13 posts) -

@Unknown_Pleasures said:

@Video_Game_King said:

It simply comes off as dishonest.

and tacky

QFT

#43 Posted by Milkman (16228 posts) -

This Metacritic shit is getting so dumb.

Online
#44 Posted by MideonNViscera (2257 posts) -

If I made games or movies or whatever, I'd lie my ass off in like 20 different identities on the internet about how awesome they are.

#45 Posted by TheGreatGuero (9130 posts) -

Is it really such a big deal? Can't people obviously see past the bogus user reviews anyway?

#46 Posted by serverfull (56 posts) -

Old thread says what?

Best part is GB is know owned by Gamespot...wonder how many of these people are mad...hehe...

On another note though, doesn't the president get to vote for his self in the election...and his staff and wife and people that worked on his campaign. If I worked on something and was proud of that work why not review it favorably. Plenty of nerd rage and people rate stuff 1 if they don't like something (like DLC on disc or always no net connection). I really wish Metacritic required a verification of ownership via achievements because if you played it enough you would get at least one.

#47 Posted by BeachThunder (11267 posts) -

@serverfull said:

Old thread says what?

Best part is GB is know owned by Gamespot...wonder how many of these people are mad...hehe...

On another note though, doesn't the president get to vote for his self in the election...and his staff and wife and people that worked on his campaign. If I worked on something and was proud of that work why not review it favorably. Plenty of nerd rage and people rate stuff 1 if they don't like something (like DLC on disc or always no net connection). I really wish Metacritic required a verification of ownership via achievements because if you played it enough you would get at least one.

Online
#48 Posted by TheDudeOfGaming (6077 posts) -

@serverfull said:

Old thread says what?

Best part is GB is know owned by Gamespot...wonder how many of these people are mad...hehe...

On another note though, doesn't the president get to vote for his self in the election...and his staff and wife and people that worked on his campaign. If I worked on something and was proud of that work why not review it favorably. Plenty of nerd rage and people rate stuff 1 if they don't like something (like DLC on disc or always no net connection). I really wish Metacritic required a verification of ownership via achievements because if you played it enough you would get at least one.

..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................fuck.

#49 Posted by LordAndrew (13990 posts) -

@serverfull said:

Old thread says what?

Best part is GB is know owned by Gamespot...wonder how many of these people are mad...hehe...

On another note though, doesn't the president get to vote for his self in the election...and his staff and wife and people that worked on his campaign. If I worked on something and was proud of that work why not review it favorably. Plenty of nerd rage and people rate stuff 1 if they don't like something (like DLC on disc or always no net connection). I really wish Metacritic required a verification of ownership via achievements because if you played it enough you would get at least one.

Or I don't know, maybe something less insane. I would be perfectly fine with Metacritic killing off user reviews completely. Every time I hear about it, it's because of some sort of "abuse". It has failed to serve its purpose and I would like to see it go. Keep the critic reviews, you can probably count on those being honest at least. But the user reviews can die. If someone wants to write a user review, do it on GameSpot or wherever else people won't give a shit about the user score, as it should be.

#50 Posted by Enigma777 (6047 posts) -

Who the hell looks at user review anyways?

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.