Blizzard doesn't pay for reviews.

General Discussion
Prev 1 5 6 7 Next

Well, in some ways, I'd call them partly reasonable. Blizzard is getting away with a lot of crap that they shouldn't be doing, regardless of how people say it doesn't need to be fair. And considering you're just repeating yourself and being a condescending jerk, you seem to be quite the troll yourself. An awful troll, however a troll nonetheless.

What crap is Blizzard getting away with that they shouldn't be doing? It's moronic vague assertions like that that are what makes user critiques so worthless. Sensible people have pointed out balance issues and fundamental debate points, but those don't make the game bad. What makes the majority of you so stupid is how you overreact and don't even really understand what you're complaining about.

And yet I don't think you also realize how much of an arrogant prick you sound like. Honestly, I have noticed balancing issues. And having multiple patches in a row that degrade the enjoyability of a game IS a problem that needs to be addressed. If you also read plenty of threads (like the constructive criticism thread) you'll notice people have calmed down and are getting through to the mods and devs a bit more than before.
You, on the other hand, still just read the rage threads of people who have recently been nerfed to hell and are mad about it. Along with that, there are very few fair reviewers, so saying they are in anyway better than the rage thread reviewers and what not is like saying that being beaten to death by a marine is better than being beaten to death by a space-marine. One way or another, it is in no way helpful.

It's the fourth difficulty level and it's not balanced in a way that makes everyone happy. That's barely cause for a zero score.
It's the endgame. Y'know what most players were expecting to be playing for a long time to come. It's a huge part of the game. It's the replayability factor.

And it's there and it's functional. These games are never immediately balanced and there are plenty of people who are able to play through inferno fine as is. The only real problem with inferno is that it was skewed in favor of ranged classes and Blizzard is working to fix it. WAAAAH! TOO HARD! Isn't and objective critique.
Jeff Gerstmann

He got fired from GameSpot for giving decent reviews for a game which that game company had funded GameSpot for advertising .

Reviewers is not bought ? nahhhhhh .

EDIT : even if they aren't bought , they are forced to cause the review sites (company) wants them to :)


You have no idea how it works do you?

A mainstream website giving Diablo 3 negative reviews basically means that particular website/company can be barred from getting exclusive interviews, early access to games, early beta tests, etc

It's not worth it. Did you see how fast some of the "professional reviews" came out with their review? Within days. You simply can't judge this game and see what it really is until you hit 60 and do inferno for awhile. Even Dragon Age II got decent reviews and that is an objectively bad game.

Explain WHY EA and Activision games have gotten bad reviews then. Why aren't those publications barred. You say a reviewer giving a bad game a bad review is the death of their relationship with the publisher, so why are these reviewers still getting games to review? Why isn't every review a 100?

You're not making a point you're just ignoring my point and repeating your nonsense. SHOW ME WHERE THIS HAS HAPPENED!

Because EA/Activision do not actively deter all bad reviews, their management probably will determine if a game is worth defending or not and act accordingly. You don't plan to win all the battles, only those that worth it. In some cases, the company do acknowledge the faults when it was too obvious and it would have been suicide to contradict the bad reviews. One example, when Spore's 3 activation rule raise alot of bad reviews, EA acknowledged it and promised to change it in future patch.
If it were that easy to get a good review from a professional reviewer than no big budget game would EVER EVER EVER get a bad review.

"But the user reviews are bad." Users are idiots and trolls. Need proof? Read these forums for 10 minutes.


Hate to break it you, but yes, major game sites like gamespot or ign are paid to review games. Their revenues are affected by how favorable their reviews are, and that creates an incentive to give good review to those which pay them.

User reviews on those sites do often represent the extreme, but it's based on some nugget of truth. If everybody is rating a game 3.0/10 don't dismiss them as trolls/haters straight away. Some of them will be, but if the good ratings can't outweigh the bad/troll ratings, then there has to be something wrong..
ya they're really gonna give a game a bad review while the ad for the game is right on the site lol
06/21/2012 07:59 PMPosted by Kabshaak
Implying reviews are given after playing inferno difficulty
Nobody trolls, that is an urban legend.


I think I like you.
lol, what naivety.

Have a gander at recent "AAA" titles and you'll see that most of them score fairly high, even though they're crap console ports for the most part (and have many other inherent flaws).

If they were indie games, they'd get slammed. The only reason they get such good reviews is because 'professional' (LOL) game 'reviewers' (LOL) love being invited to fancy events, etc.

Once you start writing critical reviews, you stop being invited (and you don't get sent any early copies, which means you can't put a review out fast enough, which means you lose money to competitors). No one "buys" a review, but it's easy as hell to influence reviewers by enticing them with stuff (and by taking that stuff away if you don't like how they play).

Where have you been ? Indie games are doing just fine. Indie games are actually what I've been seeing at the top lately.(Angry Birds ^^) I do agree that giving reviewers incentives will give you a positive lean, but come on. The way folks are talking here it makes it look like every game that ever got a good score from a Reviewer had to buy it. For the sake of this thread btw, I took the time to check out some review sites and most User review scores range from 6-9. I have to agree with OP, there are alot of BIG FAT ZEROS WITH PEOPLE TYPING IN ALL CAPS. I dont take those users seriously.
[quote]Nobody trolls, that is an urban legend.



how about:

"one does not simply troll on forums."

anybody get the reference? if not then OP has made a point. :P
This idiot won't acknowledge the Gerstmann thing because it's evidence that directly contradicts his point of view. So of course he will stick his head in the stand and pretend he is still correct.
06/21/2012 08:35 PMPosted by Gigan
reviews aren't reliable because they're VERY EASILY TROLLED.

I don't think this word means what you think it means.

Please see :
06/21/2012 07:59 PMPosted by Kabshaak
Implying reviews are given after playing inferno difficulty

That is all that needs to be said.
06/21/2012 08:00 PMPosted by BuFFo
Video game Reviewers have been bought out since there have been video game reviewers in magazines. It was big news in the early 90's about this sort of thing. That was 22 years ago... You think people just STOPPED liking money since then or something?
Gigan, I'm positive that I camped your corpse in Diablo II. And if Diablo III had a dueling function, I would do it there too. Noob.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum