830°

Bethesda & Game Reviews

At Bethesda, we value media reviews.

We read them. We watch them. We try to learn from them when they offer critique. And we understand their value to our players.

Earlier this year we released DOOM. We sent review copies to arrive the day before launch, which led to speculation about the quality of the game. Since then DOOM has emerged as a critical and commercial hit, and is now one of the highest-rated shooters of the past few years.

Read Full Story >>
bethesda.net
italiangamer2732d ago

This smells like shit, I can see other publishers following this route. I am looking at you Ubisoft and EA.

Cindy-rella2732d ago

Sounds good to me. A lot of sheep like to disregard good games based on someone elses biased opinion even when the reviewer is being overly critical of certain things other games get passes on. Reviews are good to know more about games but i see them doing more arm than good.

Vegamyster2732d ago

So what if a game has performance issues & bugs ect not shown in the previews aka Mafia 3? The people your talking about are the vocal minority and don't represent the millions of consumers out there.

Kreisen2732d ago

Critics give practically anything 9/10 now. The only ones who have anything bad to say about any game are gamers.

Majin-vegeta2732d ago

@Vega Wow that's a real tough one I mean it's not like people can wait for reviews....oh wait.

Vegamyster2732d ago

@Majin-vegeta

You're right, you can, but wouldn't you rather have them before the game comes out instead of a few days or weeks after the game comes out?

The 10th Rider2732d ago

@Kreisen,

There's literally only like ten non-remake games this gen that have above a 90 average on metacritic.

gbsrnctaln2732d ago (Edited 2732d ago )

@kriesen

Riiiiiiiiiiiighhhhtttt....

Like "critics" dont put out negative clickbait reviews...

2732d ago
Utalkin2me2732d ago

I think if they want to play like this. When the time comes to review their game, all the game reviewers should not review it period and give it no publicity at all.

vickers5002732d ago

@vegamyster

Then they can wait for the damned game to come out and wait on the reviews. Nobody is forced to buy the game day one.

Vegamyster2732d ago

@vickers500

Never implied people were forced to buy it day one, just pointing out this in no way benefits us the consumer wanting to know more about the game leading up to launch.

morganfell2732d ago (Edited 2732d ago )

I applaud this move by Bethesda and I do hope other companies follow suit. It is time these sites with zero standards and narrow viewpoints that vary willy nilly from day to day lose as much influence over our pastime as possible. There is no accountability at all for these companies. Screaming idiots with no reign can destroy good games and prop up bad ones. And if you do not like this Bethesda method, if you need someone to tell you what is good and what is bad then you are free to wait.

EDIT: @bruce,

People like to be informed? By what? Some snot nosed opinionated little basement dwelling dweeb with absolutely no grading standards for their reviews? Just an opinion? You can go to any gaming forum and find one and often better informed. There are almost always copies that are sold early. Here is a novel idea, spend your money wisely. If gamers were more reticent and chose better (reviews do not assist this) then companies would be forced to do more for your buck. It is that simple. It is an illusion that game reviews are of a real benefit. Often reviewers overlook real issues either by way of intention or incompetence. The times they did point something out many gamers already knew.

fiveby92732d ago

I prefer watching game streams to gauge how I might like the game. Reviews have some value but they are limited and man y of them are handing out 8, 9 , or higher to please advertisers on their site. Best idea is to not buy games on day 1 and wait a couple days / weeks to see how the game really plays. I am guilty of buying NMS on day one. And now it sits there collecting dust. Lesson learned (again).

DragonKnight2731d ago (Edited 2731d ago )

Bethesda gets endless praise for putting out broken games, so your comment is very ironic Cindy-rella.

Watch the Jimquisition on this practice.

https://youtu.be/gUkn5PhEqn...

@morganfell: You applaud anti-consumerism? You understand that devs like Bethesda are not doing this to go after the sites you're talking about right? They're doing it to maintain false impressions about their games so as not to risk sales. That's not a good thing.

morganfell2731d ago (Edited 2731d ago )

How is this anti-consumerism? Are you not allowed to read or watch a review before you buy? Do you lack self control to the point you cannot contain yourself? Are you about to burst when a new game launches so that your money flies into the hands of anyone nearby? These so called reviewers are free to damn good games and promote trash - all with absolutely zero accountability.

Perhaps you should just give your money to someone else and let them decide for you. That is in effect what you are doing if you require reviews to purchase. And I mean reviews that have no written standards, written by people with whom you do not game or hang out, written by people whose motivations you do not know, reviews by people that often fail to hit the best or worse real issues in titles, that is what you need?

DragonKnight2731d ago

@morganfell: Never once have a ever let a review decide for me, but if you don't think this is anti-consumerism, then firstly you need to see this...

https://www.youtube.com/wat...

Secondly, it's anti-consumer because these devs and publishers are trying to hide their games' flaws for as long as possible. This is a marked lack of confidence in the quality of their work and they do not want that negativity spread. They want people to spend money on inferior products. Again, Aliens Colonial Marines, and Assassin's Creed Unity. These are the games you are supporting when you praise this practice.

Vegamyster2731d ago (Edited 2731d ago )

@morganfell

You should never base your purchasing decision on what a reviewer says but what exactly do you find wrong with knowing more about a game prior to launch? The main reason i don't like this is specifically due to potential issues that the game has, yes not every reviewer is equally good or calls out issues that a game has but when you have 50+ reviewers you'll find a portion that does and those are the ones I'm interested in.

+ Show (13) more repliesLast reply 2731d ago
Utalkin2me2732d ago

Well this sucks for people that buys the games. Makes no difference to me cause i do not purchase their games anymore and haven't for a while.

2732d ago
Utalkin2me2732d ago (Edited 2732d ago )

Well my opinion thinks otherwise. Not only that i have played some of their games at friends house and such, and im not missing a single thing. The only thing that kind of bothers me is the new doom.

Paelmoon2732d ago

I never pre order games anymore, and this will just mean i wait a week or two longer.

joab7772732d ago

I guess we should react by waiting to buy the games then. Though we pretty much know what we are getting with Bethesda.

DarthZoolu2731d ago

I think that's the point we know exactly what we're going to get with Bethesda and we love it they don't need to change anything they don't need to push for innovation because the people that are spending money on their games by the truck loads didn't ask for any of that just give us what we ask for!

DragonKnight2731d ago

Speak for yourself. Bethesda have A LOT to change. For starters, releasing games that are actually playable and not lines of code held together by duct tape and hope.

joab7772730d ago

I didn't say that they don't need change. I am saying that we KNOW what we are getting. So, we choose to buy or we don't. They are like Apple and so many others that rest on their laurels and only take giant leaps when they have to. It's amazing that Skyrim looks way better than F4 and it's a last gen game, but I'm not really complaining b/c F4 is definitely worth $60.

It's bad business for them to send out thousands of copies, when early reviews can only hurt them. That said, if this strategy effects the bottom line, they will have to rethink it. I'm almost certain it isn't being done to hide shit.

Muzikguy2732d ago (Edited 2732d ago )

I actually think this is a great idea and should've been done a long time ago. Leave it to the outlets that ruin it for everyone else, but I want to see this continue. Yeah it would be great to have a review ready before the game drops, but if you're already following it you probably know much already. Just wait a little bit and see what's said. If you like it, go get it. I feel like many reviews are fake these days anyway

NXSwitch2732d ago

None are fake, they just tell the truth like it is.

Muzikguy2732d ago

No todd, that's a lie. They've obviously fooled you and you just proved my point

DragonKnight2731d ago

You understand that following a game only means you're seeing what the devs want you to see right?

No one expected Aliens Colonial Marines or AC Unity to be the dumpster fires they were, and people followed both games. This is not by any means a good thing.

Muzikguy2731d ago

Same with reviews too. They, many times, only show or say what they want you to see and hear

DragonKnight2731d ago

@muzikguy: That's the entire point of a review though. You like something in the game, you show it off, you don't like something in a game, you show why it's a problem. What else would you propose?

Muzikguy2731d ago (Edited 2731d ago )

The point is they're biased too. If something is in the game that could essentially ruin it for others, the reviewer may never even talk about it. Same with those previews of games like Aliens Coloniel Marines. Not many reviews are "fair and balanced" where they cover all aspects. People should decide for themselves and not rely solely on reviews. I've had far too many instances in where I'll like a game but hwnreciews were off-putting. Then you'll have reviews that praise a trash game. It goes both ways between reviews and previews

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 2731d ago
lxeasy2731d ago

I don't want EA and Ubisoft doing this but I do trust Bethesda more than both of them.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 2730d ago
DragonDDark2732d ago (Edited 2732d ago )

Freaking bullshit

Princess_Pilfer2732d ago

Add another one to the list.

Bethesda, till you change this I don't buy your stuff. You refuse to let people give me the real information about your game in an attempt to manufacture low information consumers and then trick them into buying your stuff based exclisively on pre-release hype while actively punishing people who do as you "recommend" and wait for reviews with pre-order nonsense, I refuse to give you my money. Not just until I have information about the game from someone other than you, because as long as this is a net-profit for you then you don't care when people buy your stuff, so I have to do my part to make it a net loss and force the change.

cleft52732d ago

You know what, Game Reviewers only have themselves to blame for this new policy. The reality is if Reviewers still held the credibility they use to have with the gaming community than developers could not pull this crap. It would be a death sentence for them. Yet, how quick are gamers to say that this reviewer or review site isnt credible. That stuff does eventually take its toll and now a major publisher is saying fuck it, we dont need reviewers anymore.

Princess_Pilfer2732d ago

Uh, no. WTF are you even talking about?

1: What does it matter if some people think a reviewer is or isn't trustworthy, based on Bethesda's stated reason or preventing leaks, as long as Bethesda knows they won't leak things? All Bethesda has to do is only give keys to reviewers they already know are credible (the angry joes, IGNs and total biscuits.)

2: Game reviewers are not a monolith. Total biscuit isn't responsible for the actions of sleazebag#77685 who decides to break the embargo on youtube, it's on BETHESDA to decide who does and doesn't get codes and all they have to do is restrict it to more established critics so leaks are easily tracked down and people who do it denied access.

It's anti-consumer BS in the form of a deliberate attempt to manufactuer low information consumers, and it's BETHESDA (the people who actually made the decision) who is to blame.

game4funz2732d ago

Are you so easily tricked??
Do you honestly care about other consumers?

You're a real hero aren't you

pumpactionpimp2732d ago

Why don't they control who gets review copies, instead? Only send review copies to known or trusted bigger name sites? You blame reviewers, yet companies send a review copy to any idiot with a site, or youtube channel.

They're happy to receive all the free publicity when they do it. But aren't happy when there's negative feedback. Seems they just want it both ways.

How about instead, they select random gamers, and send them a review copy. So long as they make a short video, or article describing their time with the game?

rainslacker2732d ago

@Forum

You don't feel that people would just accuse Bethesda, or other publishers if they do as you suggest, of only sending out review copies to those they feel would give favorable reviews?

There really is no easy answer for this, and ultimately, I do feel the media as a whole has too many bad apples which make things like this come up.

The best solution has been the early review copy, with an embargo so they all release on the same day, either early or day one. I know people gripe about it, but now, with Bethesda games, all we get is incomplete reviews, or IGN's more recent trend of reviews in progress.

I don't care if Bethesda itself wants to take this route, it's their decision, and it's probably not going to affect them much since so many people don't really wait for reviews anyways. Truthfully, most people know if they'll get something long before the reviews, and the reviews themselves are to gain attention from those who are unaware of the game. That's just how it is nowadays. Reviews are nothing more than marketing tools for the publishers, because of consumer spending habits, and the media itself screwing things up for years to promote themselves instead of the games.

It sucks for the honest reviewers who try to serve their readers, but that's the way it is, and Bethesda isn't the first company to enact such policies.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 2732d ago
2pacalypsenow2732d ago

Has there been any game that withheld reviews until after release that have turned out to be great?

Alucardx032732d ago

Doom, which turned out to be incredible.

jonivtec2732d ago

Solid game i approve.People should just not wait for a completly new skyrim and wont be disapoint.

2732d ago
ShadowNextGen2731d ago

Civilization VI is a good example of that.

Hoffmann2732d ago

Wow. Times changed a lot.

You younger people won't believe it, but back in the nineties it was the STANDARD that gaming magazines reviewed games that were released AFTER (Often 2-4 weeks later) the magazines were published.

Today..you have all these review embargos instead and Bethesda is for sure not the only game publisher that doesnt give out early review copies.

But hey..instead you get buggy launch versions..tons of dlc..season passes with unknown content and microtransactions.

NarooN2732d ago

I still have at least 200 of my old gaming mags. It was really awesome when they were relevant, as I remember reviewers being WAY more honest and transparent back then. No BS most of the time. Plus as you said, the reviews were often well in advance of the game's retail release, which was great for either building more hype or destroying it altogether, lol

2732d ago
NarooN2732d ago

@thunder

Where the hell did you get that from? Learn how to read properly, lol. Nobody said games were bug/glitch-free in the 90's. All games have bugs and glitches, some may be hard/nigh-impossible to trigger unless the game itself is super-simple design-wise with little room for error. In the 90's and even early-to-mid 00's, games pretty much NEVER shipped in the horribly broken states that "AAA" games are releasing in nowadays. And it's not like it's due to game complexity because gameplay has barely evolved since then, it's just prettier graphics most of the time.

2732d ago
DragonKnight2731d ago

No they weren't reviewed after. Do you have any idea how print media works? The reviews only appeared to be released after. Print media reviewers received advanced copies of the game too. In fact when the transition was occurring between print media and the net, print media always received early copies first, and way before net media as the timing was much more difficult for print media to put out a review and required more time.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 2731d ago
UCForce2732d ago

Yup, I never trust Bethesda to be honest.

-Foxtrot2732d ago

They should be sent out 2 weeks in advanced and be allowed to post the review after a week if they so wish. It means people who have pre ordered, especially expensive collectors editions, have the chance to cancel.

Hoffmann2732d ago

That would be fair to Flair, but today's game industry uses every type of shenanigans to make as much bucks as possible. And todays game industry is grown up and not in the wild nineties anymore.

crazychris41242732d ago

and thats why they are stopping them. Dont want anybody canceling pre orders when they find out game is broken or bad.

Red_Renegade2732d ago

people could just not be stupid and wait for the reviews. nobody forcing them to pick it up day 1.

The 10th Rider2732d ago

Except they're literally trying to force people to preorder by locking content behind preorder bonuses.

Show all comments (141)
150°

With Larian Out Of The Picture, Will The Baldur's Gate IP Be In Safe Hands?

Huzaifah from eXputer: "With Larian Studios washing their hands of the IP, what is the ultimate fate of the legendary Baldur's Gate series?"

RaidenBlack23h ago

If anybody's gonna mention BioWare, then look at Archetype Entertainment, they're the new BioWare
or else
Obsidian is still a good choice but not independent anymore.

anast22h ago(Edited 22h ago)

No, WoTC is pivoting to mobile. They can use Larian's work to justify DnD Go and everyone will accept it.

RiseNShine22h ago

Short answer, nope. Long answer, f*ck nope.

robtion5h ago

Correct answer. Most people don't realise that the companies that are still making good games using common sense and a customer focus are generally not American. They are from Poland, Belgium, Japan, or other countries that have not yet become completely corrupted by 'extreme capitalism'.

Before you down vote me into oblivion I am not anti-american. I just don't like greed and corruption which unfortunately seems to correlate with power.

I would guess the next Baldurs gate will probably be filled with GaaS.

Christopher22h ago

Honestly, we're talking completely new engine and none of Larian's built-in stuff with regard to environments and the like that they had from their past divinity game. No one is going to have that just ready to go. So, they need to shop for a dev studio that has a past game that shows what they want.

Obsidian doesn't have that, maybe the closest being Dungeon Siege 3 or Pillars of Eternity, but those are very basic, not as open, very little environment related and altering capabilities. So, we're talking a step way back on what Larian delivered. Zero scene experience to line up with what was done in BG3. Okay conversation tree designs, but still needs more complexity.

inXile has Wasteland 3 as a base model engine, and I think that's better than Pillars of Eternity from Obsidian. But, still needs to be more open world, more environmental effects, and a much heavier rules set adaptation. But, not a bad overall engine as a base, but still a ton of work. Zero scene experience to line up with what was done in BG3. Needs a ton of work on that entirely.

Tactical Adventure did the Solasta game. Really good and more accurate as far as 5e rules than BG3. But, again, if the expectation is similar to what made BG3 a big hit, engine isn't designed for moving the camera, is a bit outdated in graphics, doesn't have in-game scene elements, and needs much better writers/voice actors.

Owlcat of pathfinder games is another choice, even though they've recently moved on to WH40k licensed games. Again, though, the engine is the biggest issue here to match up, but it's a much better option overall than Tactical Adventure. Another question is writers/story telling, as much of their overall story telling bits are very limited with a lot of random worldbuilding elements that are just +\- of some attributes.

TBH, no matter who takes over, it's just not going to be like BG3 much like how BG3 isn't at all like BG1/2. And BG3 was so successful because of how much Larian was able to put in with their engine and how focused they were on players having ridiculous control over the story being told. I just don't see the next BG being the same and depending on what it is, it might be good but I'm not as big of a reach as BG3. It's way more likely players are going to go into BG4 (or its spiritual successor if it moves away from Baldur's Gate and into Neverwinter or something like Plansescape) expecting much of what is in BG3 with more options, new and older characters, and the same level of control over what they're doing. If it doesn't have that, regardless of who makes it, it won't be as successful, IMHO.

exputers5h ago

Yes, I completely concur.

As good and talented as inXile and Obsidian are in their own specific way of making their particular games, none of them have Larian's attention to detail, dynamic worlds, and reactivity, so even if they end up making a new Baldur's Gate, it's going to be a significant step-down in terms of gameplay if not narrative.

CrimsonWing6921h ago

Probably not, but maybe… just maybe…

Show all comments (8)
30°

Human Fall Flat 2 Delayed, Devolver Details Major 2023 Sales Decline

As part of its latest financial report, Devolver Digital has announced that upcoming physics platformer Human Fall Flat 2 has been delayed beyond 2025.

Read Full Story >>
techraptor.net
260°

Microsoft has ‘let Blizzard be Blizzard’ following its acquisition, studio says

Microsoft has 'let Blizzard be Blizzard' following the acquisition of the veteran developer according to World of Warcraft's executive producer.

Read Full Story >>
videogameschronicle.com
Kaii1d 20h ago

Diablo 4 storefront being a cash grabbing shitshow does unironically attest to that, kudos.

kythlyn13h ago

Microsoft needs to be guiding Blizzard to be what it USED to be, not allowing it to continue to be the greedy bastardization of itself that it has become.

XiNatsuDragnel1d 17h ago (Edited 1d 17h ago )

Okay i will be interested if they become old Blizzard but might as well be dead.

Rynxie1d 2h ago

They will never be old blizzard. Most of all the OG's left from developers to those on the top (even some decision making folks left).

Vits1d 17h ago

Shame most of the people that made Blizzard what they were, have already left a while ago.

ApocalypseShadow1d 17h ago

I was about to say this. How can they be blizzard when they're no longer blizzard from yesteryear?

Hofstaderman1d 7h ago

Just like Rare and Bioware...

blacktiger1d 7h ago

Rare was the thing I lost heart

victorMaje1d 4h ago

Exactly. Blizzard hasn’t been Blizzard for a long time.
Oh how the mighty have fallen.

Knightofelemia1d 13h ago

Blizzard is not the same Blizzard like it use to be.

PassNextquestion1d 7h ago

Were you expecting Microsoft to hire everyone that had left Blizzard long before they purchased the company...

Microsoft has let the Blizzard company they purchased continue to be the Blizzard company they purchased.

thesoftware7301d 1h ago

Wow, PassNextquestion,

You fully understand what that saying means, unlike some people on here who just have to say negative garbage talk.

When someone says, "Just let *blank* be *blank*, "they are just letting them operate how they operate.

It's pretty much how Sony "let Bungie be Bungie."

This comment section is full of outright haters, but you have to "let N4G be N4G"

GamerRN23h ago

This site leans so heavily in one direction...

BISHOP-BRASIL14h ago

I don't think people commenting are necessarily blaming MS for anything here, this is just collective longing for what Blizzard/Vivendi was before Activision's meddling.

Show all comments (43)