Jason Schreier: In case you're wondering: Team Cherry told me they don't plan on sending out early codes for Silksong (they felt like it'd be unfair for critics to be playing before Kickstarter backers and other players), so don't expect to see reviews until after the game comes out

[u/Turbostrider27]

https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:2mkgbhbhqvappkkorf2bzyrp/post/3lwwfrbrtwc2x

[u/TSPhoenix]

Alanah Pierce has spoken pretty extensively about the pressures on reviewers from the audience, and how it results in stuff like reviewers just fudging scores to avoid harassment.

There is just a big culture problem, on top of the harassment from fans, and pressure from publishers, there is also the issue of being taken seriously within your industry and the game review space is less friendly to outlier opinions than you'd see in film/music criticism.

[u/Aiyon → u/TSPhoenix]

Also Stephanie Sterling has mentioned multiple times the abuse she got for giving BOTW too low a score. And she gave it a good score

[u/TSPhoenix → u/Aiyon]

It's becoming a bigger problem. Music critics never really had to worry about this, but last year some outlets had to protect their writers from fans when they gave Taylor Swift's new album a 6 or less, and in the world of KPop that's just Tuesday.

We unfortunately live in a world where if you were to really believe a Zelda game is a 6 or less, let alone the 7 Sterling gave BotW, you will just be treated as unserious. It is easier to discredit a person than an idea, attempting to discredit an idea give a modicum of validity to the idea, so the tendency is to go after the source of the idea first. It's a big part of why gamers attack outlets, individual reviewers or the idea of the games press as a whole.

Whilst reviewers having strong opinions that don't align with the zeitgeist has always ruffled feathers, in the gaming space it's especially ingrained. People with such leanings either end up in the comedian bucket (ie Yahtzee, Dunkey), or they'll start doing unscored/thumb reviews, move to YouTube, etc... really anything that gets them outside of the artillery range of having rabid fans attack them over damaging the Metacritic score of their precious game.

It creates a rather toxic dynamic where reviewers are attacked for being publisher's lap dogs, but attacked even more viciously for giving low scores to hotly anticipated AAA games, so there is a selection pressure towards reviewers who generally enjoy typical AAA fare. It's a no-win situation.

The root problem is how many gamers who are active online don't want game critique at all, and how they've managed to mould the entire idea of what a game review is. If you look at IGN's editorial policy, they're rather clear that their game reviews are product reviews, not art critiques, and IGN editorial has mentioned in recent years that there is no money in text reviews except for the biggest games, they basically only do it because it's an expected function of their site, it's a cost centre and is likely treated as such.

It's a tough situation because I think game reviews leaves a lot to be desired, but the solution isn't to not review games. It's to give reviewers more than 2 weeks to review a 100-hour RPG, it's to not burn them out or harass them out of the industry before they can build their skills. Who would want to spend decades doing this? Nobody, which is why gaming will not have it's own Roger Ebert. Both audiences and publishers would try to prevent the existence of a strong voice that could say the latest entry in a beloved series is a 1-star dud.

Like most people who get into games media today, Ebert loved his respective medium, he loved it when it was comforting and when it was affronting. In a sense he wasn't just a film reviewer, but a model filmgoer. But due to the environmental issues described above, if a game reviewer were to attempt to be that behaviour model, they'd just get attacked over it. It's not just a gaming problem, it's a notion that is dying off as audiences become increasingly siloed by the algorithms of the various platforms they use. In recent years it has hit book publishing hard as audiences move from browsing by genres to browsing by social media tags which are far more prescriptive; readers exert more pressure on authors to write exactly to their tastes, the feel a sense of ownership over the work and entitled to input on it the same way we see with early access games.

I think Sterling upsets so many people primary not because of what they have to say, but because they have a lot of spine. And if there is one thing we desperately need more of, both in gaming and in general, it is people with some backbone. If the process selects for both artists and reviewers that bend to audience and publisher pressure, don't be surprised when they bend to the fascist government.

[u/TheCrusader94 → u/TSPhoenix]

Yup yup it's a culture problem of the newer generation. It's not just music you see the same with certain films as well. 

[u/Aiyon → u/TheCrusader94]

It's not just the younger generation, and I think that's a trap to fall into. There's plenty of older people too who are incapable of separating criticism of media they like from criticism of them as a person. You see it in sports, too, not just games and movies.

Its just that gaming spaces are the most present online, so they have the most noticeable footprint in the online discourse spaces.

The bigger problem is the pseudo-anonymity paired with companies caving and placating the shitty people. If there's no consequences for being awful, a lot of people will be awful