Can You Trust Journalists
- Thread starter karmakid
- Start date
From who? Are you referring to the review from Metro that was completely misrepresented by Xbox fans?
You mean the review that not only dissed Xbox output and said it limited what accolades they could give the title, But also incorrectly claimed was the first exclusive title published by MS for the series X/S?
And yes, Nintendo get a massive free pass from most journalists.
They were saying the accolade of it being the best exclusive was limited because of the other exclusives. Completely misrepresented.
"The wasteland that has been the Xbox release schedules for the last few years limits the accolades we can give the game but it’s a breath of fresh air for Xbox gamers"
Not even a true comment apart from last years output.
Also not the first Series Exclusive.
Not even a true comment apart from last years output.
Also not the first Series Exclusive.
You removed the previous section saying its the best exclusive. They are essentially saying that the lack of exclusives limits what it means to call it the best exclusive.
They didn't dock the game for being on Xbox. That is really the only relevant issue.
The comments dumb. They wouldn't and haven't said it about any PS5 game despite just about all being available on PS4.
I would argue that the Halo infinite score was inflated because it was Halo and people wanted to like it. The gameplay was great but the actual "campaign" was almost non existent and the open world pointless. Rinse and repeat missions, no variety in the environment, average looking at best etc. The campaign at least deserved no better than a 7, it seems incomplete, but it was being praised as Halo's return. Halo 5 has an 8.2, worst game in the series and shouldn't have gotten better than a 6.5 lol, there is no bias against MSGS but there is a bias FOR certain big franchises.
Gears 5 got an 84 overall and it really shouldn't have been higher than a 7.5 either IMO and that's being generous. It was the worst game in the series IMO, the new character was a bore and her story sucked, the gameplay was the same as it had been for the last 13 years so what was the point in making the change? That open area was pointless other than to give the characters a chance to talk. That series needs a reboot or to just stay away and let that dev make something new.
Last edited:
Maybe but that is moving goal posts. They didn't dock it for being on Xbox
Halo really does poke a huge hole in this argument particularly the one of the original tweet. Reviewers have had excuses to slam Halo for about a decade and haven't.
I'm going to piggy back on what alot of others have said.
There is a media bias in gaming. As there is in most written or visual media. What that bias is however, is subjective and open for interpretation.
As I see it today, Sony and to a greater extent Nintendo are not judged as harshly or nit picked as much as Microsoft or Ubisoft.
For example, Ghost of Tshima is a universal well received product. It shares MANY likeness to Ubisoft's Assassin's Creed series. Some reviewers went as far to say it was the Assassin's Creed in Japan they've been waiting for Ubisoft to make. Now compare that universal acclaim to the scorn that modern Assassin Creed games from Origins to Valhalla have received by basically being the same game in different locals.
Another example I would give is the newly released Tears of the Kingdom. The latest GOTG type game. The game runs docked at 900p docked but can drop to around 720p when camera is panning. 720p max in portable mode. Running 30fps max with drops here and there depending on which Switch you have. Any other game with resume would be graded at a much steeper incline. But because its Nintendo, they given a pass for being innovative and just getting it to work on the hardware . Not saying that its not a good game but again anything else would have taken a score/ word or mouth hit if it were made by any one else.
So for to people say if Starfield just needs to be good/ exceed expectations and it will review well seems a bit disingenuous. Will it be given the same grace given to other titles if it has performance issues due to the complex ambition it is trying to pull off? Maybe maybe not. Will other leniencies given to other games be present for Starfield or will it be measured against this unobtainable standard that no game could equally meet? Xbox history says the later but I'm sure there will be some justifiable reason why from the critics.
There is a media bias in gaming. As there is in most written or visual media. What that bias is however, is subjective and open for interpretation.
As I see it today, Sony and to a greater extent Nintendo are not judged as harshly or nit picked as much as Microsoft or Ubisoft.
For example, Ghost of Tshima is a universal well received product. It shares MANY likeness to Ubisoft's Assassin's Creed series. Some reviewers went as far to say it was the Assassin's Creed in Japan they've been waiting for Ubisoft to make. Now compare that universal acclaim to the scorn that modern Assassin Creed games from Origins to Valhalla have received by basically being the same game in different locals.
Another example I would give is the newly released Tears of the Kingdom. The latest GOTG type game. The game runs docked at 900p docked but can drop to around 720p when camera is panning. 720p max in portable mode. Running 30fps max with drops here and there depending on which Switch you have. Any other game with resume would be graded at a much steeper incline. But because its Nintendo, they given a pass for being innovative and just getting it to work on the hardware . Not saying that its not a good game but again anything else would have taken a score/ word or mouth hit if it were made by any one else.
So for to people say if Starfield just needs to be good/ exceed expectations and it will review well seems a bit disingenuous. Will it be given the same grace given to other titles if it has performance issues due to the complex ambition it is trying to pull off? Maybe maybe not. Will other leniencies given to other games be present for Starfield or will it be measured against this unobtainable standard that no game could equally meet? Xbox history says the later but I'm sure there will be some justifiable reason why from the critics.
Is that really a media complaint when Valhalla reviewed either slightly better or slightly worse depending on platform?
Unless it's a complete mess Starfield won't score below an 8 I'm sure and if it gets an 8 it'll probably have a lot of issues that are being overlooked or downplayed. The only mainline bethesda game in the last 10-15 years that got knocked hard in reviews was the FO online game and that deserved it.
Just because reviewers haven't laid into Halo doesn't mean there isn't an overall bias against Xbox. There doesn't even need to be a bias against Xbox all of the time, or even most of the time for there to be bias. If Xbox exclusives are rated more harshly than Nintendo and Sony, all else equal, even if it's only 1 out of every 10 games, the bias would still be present.
There is a big difference between that and what the original tweet suggests which is that gaming outlets have already decided to give Starfield lower scores.
I'm going to go ahead and put a 79 on the rating prediction based on what I've seen so far.
I think it'll be forgiven for some things because it's so ambitious.
All media in 2023 (not just gaming) is based off clicks and drama instead of facts. Media loves a negative story, again you see it all over. Positive news has a harder time cracking the headlines.