Kazunori Yamauchi Responds to Gran Turismo 7 Fan Outrage

[Tornado]

Reviewbombing is such a pathetic form of protest, I've no idea what people seek to achieve, other than affirming they are the shortsighted petulant children that months of market research already showed they are.

This is the kind of thing done by people who put wayyyy too much stock in the internet, and i'd hazard a guess the same kind of people who keep telling me Attack on Titan is a galactically important entertainment event, and not the absolute mess of a thoroughly overwritten anime it is. Uhh, /tangent.

Y'all get what I mean. I think it's really, really weak. Luckily, no one outside of metacritic takes any stock of the user score, as it's been nothing but a form of limp wristed protests (variously ranging from "I don't like your game's economy" to "I thought your game had too many women in it compared to how I would've written it") for years now.

Try not to cut yourself.

 

[MaxAttack]

It's fine if you're too blind to see the game's glaring problems but you're not going to make 1000s of pissed off consumers take your point of view. The fact they changed this after launch is what's vile and disgusting. Even pre launch it would be just as bad.

"Review bombing" as you see it is the only outlet we have to vent our frustrations to what appears to be now an extremely greedy company that just scammed everyone by releasing an $70+ unfinished game with MTX and grinds worse than a F2P game. I've been playing since GT1. Spare me the theatrics and BS because you don't want to believe what you are seeing. It's happening. If someone that's as big of a PD famboy as I was can come out and criticize them then you can too.

You are the one that's acting like a "petulant child" because you don't think people that spent their hard earned money on a game that wasn't released as advertised don't have a right to an opinion. Almost Every single person's complaints is regarding the economy and grinds. Nobody is complaining about the actual gameplay because of course it's good, it's a GT game.

Let other people have their opinions and don't call them a "petulant child" just because they say things that your blind self can't see. That's being by very definition not only ignorant, but also a "petulant child."

Jumping the gun slightly?

You'll notice I took great pains not to actually leave an opinion on the state of the game itself... Just the mindlessly petty practice of tanking user scores which has happened with bad releases in gaming ad nauseum, very, very rarely achieving anything at all.

I know this is a painful truth... A disappointing product sucks and you want to complain about it - if dropping your bucket of salt into the growing metacritic ocean of unmatched salinity is what you feel you have to do, be my guest, but don't expect it to achieve anything, is my only advice.

Yeah I don't actually represent the opposition to everyone who is review bombing... The content is thin and the economy is not good. I hope it's not too mind blowing that I can agree with those things and not agree with a pointless circle jerk over how much we are achieving leaving stupidly weighted reviews with no intent of actually reviewing the game, only seeking the smug satisfaction of seeing it score far far lower than any sane reviewer would dare score it.

Of course you and everyone has a right to an opinion on the game - I see nowhere I have disputed it, and I have the right to my opinion too. It is simply deeply exasperating to watch the same pointless methods of protest from gamers, who, as an aside, are quickly garnering a reputation as a stupidly entitled and quick to agitate group of consumers.

I am not saying PD do not need to be better. The point is a little disappointment in the early weeks, however serious, is really no cause for throwing our toys out the pram and trying to besmirch the reputation of the product and company. All I read in this thread is a lot of people understandably getting very very excited for the new game and experiencing a bit of a crash down as the realities of the game present itself. But everything in gaming is an absolute and becomes us Vs them instantly, a rhetoric that helps no one when it comes to fixing the game.

Like I say, it really is water off my proverbial duck's back as I put little enough faith in professional reviews without stopping to the absolute bottom of the internet barrel that is user reviews - they really are as inconsequential as a thing can possibly be - but it does make my eyes roll, how predictable the methods of outrage are, when things like this happen in gaming. No patience, no discourse, no context, just vitriol.

 

[787B GT4]

Jumping the gun slightly?

You'll notice I took great pains not to actually leave an opinion on the state of the game itself... Just the mindlessly petty practice of tanking user scores which has happened with bad releases in gaming ad nauseum, very, very rarely achieving anything at all.

I know this is a painful truth... A disappointing product sucks and you want to complain about it - if dropping your bucket of salt into the growing metacritic ocean of unmatched salinity is what you feel you have to do, be my guest, but don't expect it to achieve anything, is my only advice.

Yeah I don't actually represent the opposition to everyone who is review bombing... The content is thin and the economy is not good. I hope it's not too mind blowing that I can agree with those things and not agree with a pointless circle jerk over how much we are achieving leaving stupidly weighted reviews with no intent of actually reviewing the game, only seeking the smug satisfaction of seeing it score far far lower than any sane reviewer would dare score it.

Of course you and everyone has a right to an opinion on the game - I see nowhere I have disputed it, and I have the right to my opinion too. It is simply deeply exasperating to watch the same pointless methods of protest from gamers, who, as an aside, are quickly garnering a reputation as a stupidly entitled and quick to agitate group of consumers.

I am not saying PD do not need to be better. The point is a little disappointment in the early weeks, however serious, is really no cause for throwing our toys out the pram and trying to besmirch the reputation of the product and company. All I read in this thread is a lot of people understandably getting very very excited for the new game and experiencing a bit of a crash down as the realities of the game present itself. But everything in gaming is an absolute and becomes us Vs them instantly, a rhetoric that helps no one when it comes to fixing the game.

Like I say, it really is water off my proverbial duck's back as I put little enough faith in professional reviews without stopping to the absolute bottom of the internet barrel that is user reviews - they really are as inconsequential as a thing can possibly be - but it does make my eyes roll, how predictable the methods of outrage are, when things like this happen in gaming. No patience, no discourse, no context, just vitriol.

I see what you are saying. For this reason I haven't given the game a score myself and I probably won't ever because I don't feel like I need to because eventually a GT game always becomes a 10/10 for me if it isn't at launch.

Atleast you aren't blind and understand the issues. I respect that. The way you worded your post though could easily make people think that you're a mindless PD defender which is fine I suppose. Everybody has their style of post.

The reason gamers are so easily pissed off is also because we're one of the easiest groups of people to take advantage of. The amount of greedy publishers, dev's that don't care and the same BS of Day 1 unfinished games have finally pushed gamers to the point of completely quitting gaming or joining this "cancel culture" we see now. The millions that have been stolen by greedy publishers through methods extremely similar to this have people saying "enough is enough"

The problem is that this is one of the last games anyone would expect to pull a stunt like this. This isn't an EA, Blizzard or Activision game where people expect this garbage going in. So I think based on that fact as well it's also angered a whole group of consumers that have never experienced this in a game because they don't play games like that.

I understand your feelings about "review bombing" but the fact of the matter is that the game was reviewed before the MTX was live and the economy altered. I GUARANTEE had the game been in the state it is now at review that would be reflected in the critic scores. That's another thing. Critic reviews are a joke and basically don't matter at all because they've been known to be paid off for reviews for decades now.

So the users that you hate for "review bombing" are actually probably the most honest reviews you'll get even if they don't do it for a living. Hate them all you want. But if you blame people for voicing their anger at a game that's basically just an unfinished GT mode with a F2P level grind you are being delusional.

$70 minimum deserves alot better than what we got at launch. Regardless of the fact more content will be added. We have different opinions and we'll agree to disagree on that.

We atleast can both agree the game needs improvement.

 

[Cayit]

In few weeks everything and everybody will calm down and everything will go back to his cycle...Believe me!
...that's why JUST wait and see what will happen in the next few weeks(from PD side)...

 

[Lomic]

It is simply deeply exasperating to watch the same pointless methods of protest from gamers

So what do you suggest ? How are we supposed to voice our concerns ?

For the part of "no intent of actually reviewing the game" you must not have read any reviews. Yes there are some users that just spill their rage without reviewing anything but you can ask yourself why, in my opinion they are not GT haters, but most probably disappointed and frustrated players.
But most of reviews are listing what they find wrong with the game and that's the point of a website like Metacritic. Why do they only point out the wrong and not the good ? May be there is too much of wrong and that's the only way they found to express it.

If you have better ways to give feedback to PD, we are all ears.

We all want a better game and we know they can do it, because we are playing GT since 25 years. Some choices they made are not good signs and do not indicate that the future and hypothetical fixes will transform the game in what it could have been from day one.

I understand that we may have to wait until we get a "full" game, as it is now a norm in video game releases, but there are mechanics in that game that are well implemented which won't be fixed by adding content.

 

[abrahamx]

i dont know, I love the game. I have no problem with anything. All I ever hear is complaining about gran turismo in general and this is the forum for people who like the game I would have thought. Turns out its the complaint dept. Personally I never "grind" for anything. I just play the game when I feel like it and have a lot of fun doing it. Ofcourse I would never pay for a "micro transaction" in any game ever. So no worries here. I dont even know how many credits I have and could care less about buying any car. The ones I have got since playing are providing me pleanty of fun. To "grind" just to get credits to buy a particular car is ones prerogative but buying and collecting cars is not even in my radar. I just like to race and play the game.

 

[Lomic]

In few weeks everything and everybody will calm down and everything will go back to his cycle...Believe me!
...that's why JUST wait and see what will happen in the next few weeks(from PD side)...

sure... the economy of the game will be fixed and we won't be handed the MTX solution at every step, and we shouldn't say a word because PD have only our best interest in mind, please people stay still and silent, thanks

I have no problem with anything.

me no have problem so nobody should

those pesky players, never happy

 

[MaxAttack]

I see what you are saying. For this reason I haven't given the game a score myself and I probably won't ever because I don't feel like I need to because eventually a GT game always becomes a 10/10 for me if it isn't at launch.

Atleast you aren't blind and understand the issues. I respect that. The way you worded your post though could easily make people think that you're a mindless PD defender which is fine I suppose. Everybody has their style of post.

The reason gamers are so easily pissed off is also because we're one of the easiest groups of people to take advantage of. The amount of greedy publishers, dev's that don't care and the same BS of Day 1 unfinished games have finally pushed gamers to the point of completely quitting gaming or joining this "cancel culture" we see now. The millions that have been stolen by greedy publishers through methods extremely similar to this have people saying "enough is enough"

The problem is that this is one of the last games anyone would expect to pull a stunt like this. This isn't an EA, Blizzard or Activision game where people expect this garbage going in. So I think based on that fact as well it's also angered a whole group of consumers that have never experienced this in a game because they don't play games like that.

I understand your feelings about "review bombing" but the fact of the matter is that the game was reviewed before the MTX was live and the economy altered. I GUARANTEE had the game been in the state it is now at review that would be reflected in the critic scores. That's another thing. Critic reviews are a joke and basically don't matter at all because they've been known to be paid off for reviews for decades now.

So the users that you hate for "review bombing" are actually probably the most honest reviews you'll get even if they don't do it for a living. Hate them all you want. But if you blame people for voicing their anger at a game that's basically just an unfinished GT mode with a F2P level grind you are being delusional.

$70 minimum deserves alot better than what we got at launch. Regardless of the fact more content will be added. We have different opinions and we'll agree to disagree on that.

We atleast can both agree the game needs improvement.

Appreciate the level post, dude. I'm quite insistent on posting my opinions pretty unfiltered especially where a thread is skewing hard in one direction, if I genuinely believe the opposite I think there's some value to coming in with it pretty unapologetically. I recognise being called childish is perhaps a touch too far in that regard.

Yeah I definitely agree with you people didn't expect these extremes from PD where we are pretty desensitized to them from other developers, which I guess goes some distance to explaining the level of vitriol we are seeing here.

I'm definitely not blind and as someone who enjoys getting people together for organised online races the state of the lobby system is absolutely appalling and really needs to be addressed as it's difficult for us even to work around so many missing features. But I guess as a person I try to focus on the brighter side of things and so far I've had plenty of fun just enjoying the driving and the insane visuals of GT7. The charm never lasts forever of course but I have other games (and other things) in my life to enjoy so I don't need 15 hours of entertainment daily from GT7, it more than scratches the itch as it stands.

There's a lot that needs to come in but I think a lot of it (further single player content, "end game" races and payouts) you can pretty much guarantee is on the way and much of the rest of it is just making the game fatter much like we went thru with GTS which started off unreasonably skinny but fleshed out considerably over it's life. I'm just trying to stay open to that view rather than make my final judgement of the game in the first couple of weeks.

Launch is obviously really important commercially but I do think we as gamers put too much weight on some games having a perfect launch and everything being there right away - I miss the PS2 days of finished games too but I think we are long past accepting those days are done - I at least have faith PD will do all the work they can which I can't extend to less niche developers or guys like EA/Ubisoft that we mentioned above. I'm more interested in what the state of the game will be once its lifespan is fully rolling, with full length championships and new content coming into the game (which I expect will happen semi regularly as with the GTS silhouette tweets and stuff, that was a lot of fun engagement we've had none of on this new game yet).

Apologies for the essay but yeah, that's where I sit - just presenting a hard counter. In any case, "hate" is too strong a word for me concerning review bombers. Do they disappoint me? Yeah. Do I think it's a bit sad? Yeah. Can I or would I do anything about it? No, not really.

 

[wheelhp]

Reviewbombing is such a pathetic form of protest, I've no idea what people seek to achieve, other than affirming they are the shortsighted petulant children that months of market research already showed they are.

This is the kind of thing done by people who put wayyyy too much stock in the internet, and i'd hazard a guess the same kind of people who keep telling me Attack on Titan is a galactically important entertainment event, and not the absolute mess of a thoroughly overwritten anime it is. Uhh, /tangent.

Y'all get what I mean. I think it's really, really weak. Luckily, no one outside of metacritic takes any stock of the user score, as it's been nothing but a form of limp wristed protests (variously ranging from "I don't like your game's economy" to "I thought your game had too many women in it compared to how I would've written it") for years now.

You should at least suggest an alternative then....? People go where they think it will work. Review bombing gets noticed, now other YouTube channels are reporting on it, the situation is getting noticed. How else is that going to happen, what do you suggest?

 

[Scaff]

Reviewbombing is such a pathetic form of protest, I've no idea what people seek to achieve,

Given the lack of otherwise viable options It's one of the few available to people.

Publishers have managed to get consumer laws in many countries re-written to exempt digital storefronts from refund and cooling off periods, some stores do it for themselves (Steam for example). However, the one in question here doesn't in the vast majority of markets. As such mass-refunds aren't a viable route, nor are in-person protests.

other than affirming they are the shortsighted petulant children that months of market research already showed they are.

This is the kind of thing done by people who put wayyyy too much stock in the internet, and i'd hazard a guess the same kind of people who keep telling me Attack on Titan is a galactically important entertainment event, and not the absolute mess of a thoroughly overwritten anime it is. Uhh, /tangent.

Arguably more than ad-hominin, off-topic general attacks do.

You've raised some very valid points in your posts on the subject, most of which are significantly undermined by your un-needed attacks on others.

Y'all get what I mean. I think it's really, really weak. Luckily, no one outside of metacritic takes any stock of the user score,

Untrue, the gaming media, and at the point we are at now, wider media outlets do. A strong argument exists that without the review-bomb this story would either not have started to be talked about, or would have had a far smaller amount of attention.

as it's been nothing but a form of limp wristed protests (variously ranging from "I don't like your game's economy" to "I thought your game had too many women in it compared to how I would've written it") for years now.

It's been a mixture of both valid and invalid complaints, which side you fall on depends utterly on an individuals position on those subjects.

Critic reviews are a joke and basically don't matter at all because they've been known to be paid off for reviews for decades now.

I do hope you have some hard evidence to back that up, given that you've just levelled quite a claim against both myself and others I know?

Poor practice from a minority of outlets a good number of years ago doesn't make a universal truth, and the broad-strokes you've used also colour those of us who put our own money, time and effort into reviewing products as fairly and independent as we can.

 

[787B GT4]

Appreciate the level post, dude. I'm quite insistent on posting my opinions pretty unfiltered especially where a thread is skewing hard in one direction, if I genuinely believe the opposite I think there's some value to coming in with it pretty unapologetically. I recognise being called childish is perhaps a touch too far in that regard.

Yeah I definitely agree with you people didn't expect these extremes from PD where we are pretty desensitized to them from other developers, which I guess goes some distance to explaining the level of vitriol we are seeing here.

I'm definitely not blind and as someone who enjoys getting people together for organised online races the state of the lobby system is absolutely appalling and really needs to be addressed as it's difficult for us even to work around so many missing features. But I guess as a person I try to focus on the brighter side of things and so far I've had plenty of fun just enjoying the driving and the insane visuals of GT7. The charm never lasts forever of course but I have other games (and other things) in my life to enjoy so I don't need 15 hours of entertainment daily from GT7, it more than scratches the itch as it stands.

There's a lot that needs to come in but I think a lot of it (further single player content, "end game" races and payouts) you can pretty much guarantee is on the way and much of the rest of it is just making the game fatter much like we went thru with GTS which started off unreasonably skinny but fleshed out considerably over it's life. I'm just trying to stay open to that view rather than make my final judgement of the game in the first couple of weeks.

Launch is obviously really important commercially but I do think we as gamers put too much weight on some games having a perfect launch and everything being there right away - I miss the PS2 days of finished games too but I think we are long past accepting those days are done - I at least have faith PD will do all the work they can which I can't extend to less niche developers or guys like EA/Ubisoft that we mentioned above. I'm more interested in what the state of the game will be once its lifespan is fully rolling, with full length championships and new content coming into the game (which I expect will happen semi regularly as with the GTS silhouette tweets and stuff, that was a lot of fun engagement we've had none of on this new game yet).

Apologies for the essay but yeah, that's where I sit - just presenting a hard counter. In any case, "hate" is too strong a word for me concerning review bombers. Do they disappoint me? Yeah. Do I think it's a bit sad? Yeah. Can I or would I do anything about it? No, not really.

I too am hopeful that it will get better and heavy agree on the lobbies. I do agree that Sport turned out to be a really great game for being a "side game"

I'm not giving up hope in the slightest and I agree 100% with your opinions on the gameplay and visuals even though I'm only on a PS4 Pro. I guess I'm just extra disappointed because my PC will be down for the foreseeable future and don't really have a fallback currently so I was really hoping they'd get it right on launch and the game would keep me busy for months like previous GT games.

But I guess given the launch of 5, 6, Sport and now 7 they haven't learned and will just continue this for the foreseeable future. I think what makes it so bad is the fact that there's never been this much content lacking from a mainline GT game. 5 and 6 might've been sort of bare bones at launch but atleast every type of event was there. In 7 we are missing many different types of events and car classes.

But yeah not giving up hope. Good chat.

I do hope you have some hard evidence to back that up, given that you've just levelled quite a claim against both myself and others I know?

Poor practice from a minority of outlets a good number of years ago doesn't make a universal truth, and the broad-strokes you've used also colour those of us who put our own money, time and effort into reviewing products as fairly and independent as we can.

I do. It's quite obvious that Elden Ring reviews were bought, even if it's a good game. So many 10/10s that it's suspicious.

Welp: Looks Like Elden Ring Has Bought Off Every Single Reviewer

Nothing is more important than the social contract between video game reviewers and video game players.

hard-drive.net

IGN also gave COD: Ghosts an 8.8/10... One of the most universally hated COD games. They gave AW a 8/10.. The most hated COD game.

I'm not saying I don't trust any single critic. It's just known that many of them get paid to not even play the game and then leave a review. So I trust users more than critics. I'm sure you do your job as you described, but not all in your field do. So don't be shocked when someone says a true fact that critic game reviews have indeed been bought for years. Because they have.

 

[MaxAttack]

You've raised some very valid points in your posts on the subject, most of which are significantly undsermined by your un-needed attacks on others.

Just following the Internet Discourse Manual of Style

If I can speak without offhandedly disparaging large groups for a moment - allow me a few edits to achieve it...


...is it OK to lament review bombing and other aspects of the customer-developer relationship in gaming (in both directions) without offering an alternative? In an ideal world I wouldn't have user reviews, I wouldn't have user ratings, yelp wouldn't exist, and professional criticism would be subject to rigorous regulation (to stop bought reviews). None of this is very realistic at all, and much of it informed by my own low opinion of the babblings of the unqualified, but it is how I would have it - however I am not so utterly without awareness as to suggest it with a straight face.

Of course in a perfect customer/developer relationship we would have no means of complaint as we would be already perfectly understood by the developer - but I think in that reality there's so much DMT being injected directly into our brains that we probably don't play GT anymore.

What I think really needs to happen is wide culture change on both sides - developers need to be less beholden to financial pressures, given the time to make finished products, and monetise them based on the value of their content as comes in the box, and not what's promised in the future. By the same token gamers need to take a little longer to assess things and shouldn't expect every game to cater to their every wish and niggle (I am not saying everything people are wishing for GT7 is poppycock but plenty of it is oddly specific to individuals, like very certain cars or tracks).

That is to say for all the effort developers put into catering for and understanding the playerbase, the potential playerbase should return in attempting to understand the developer, the pressures on them, and real world factors that affect the shape of a game.

In short, developers should be forthcoming about limitations, instead of promising the world; gamers should be understanding about limitations, instead of expecting the world.

I recall some wisdom from the hospitality business - only unhappy customers communicate. Most happy customers just plug away with the product (or enjoy their dinner, pay up and go home). So while you of course as a business owner need to cater to those unsatisfied people, one should be acutely aware that quite a few people will have come in, been happy, paid and left without a word. So on that basis I feel tanking a review score to the basement based on quite a personal gripe (I can't acquire all cars in a week, or whatever else you don't like) is disingenuous and just turns user reviews into what they are: a remarkably poor indicator of whether the game is actually any good. And that stain will remain past the point they fix any of this, even to the point the game has so much extra content as to be almost unrecognisable (see - launch Vs 2021 GTS).

It should be noted that very few of my above suggestions are in any way realistic, and I hope that might excuse to some my initially having brought no alternative - there sort of isn't one, tho in my case I might rather have nothing at all, and everyone just sort of have to suck it up, that won't be popular, but it is what it is - this site would be more pleasant in launch times for a start

 

[Scaff]

I do. It's quite obvious that Elden Ring reviews were bought, even if it's a good game. So many 10/10s that it's suspicious.

Is it?

You will have no problem supporting that claim with evidence that the vast majority of outlets and reviews were purchased.

Critics can, and are, at risk of being hyped up and biased in the reviews they provide, and reviews themselves are subjective creations. That can lead, along with time pressures, to reviewers getting caught up in that hype as well, they are after all gamers, but that's quite a leap to then accuse, without evidence, the majority of being bought. This is often compounded when the game is from a studio that has a track record of solid titles, you see that in the Elden Ring reviews, you see it in GT 7 reviews, constant referrals to past titles in both series within the reviews. These are not products that are being reviewed in isolation, and had GT 7 been a new IP, I'm sure the scores would have been lower, but series long issues are sometimes excused as a result of legacy, you don't just see it in reviews either. The exact same effect is plain to see on the posts here at GT Planet, now this is without a doubt a bias, but it's got nothing to do with being 'paid-off'.

I'm aware of the risk in my own reviews, which is why I also put out both an initial look one, based on my first thoughts, and then follow it up around a week later, with a more measured one. I know this costs me potential views, but I'm happy to take that hit if it helps me get a more measured review out. The thing is I don't have the commercial pressures (not the same as being bought) of getting a review out on time that the majority of the gaming media does.

Welp: Looks Like Elden Ring Has Bought Off Every Single Reviewer

Nothing is more important than the social contract between video game reviewers and video game players.

hard-drive.net

IGN also gave COD: Ghosts an 8.8/10... One of the most universally hated COD games. They gave MW a 8/10.. The most hated COD game.

I'm not saying I don't trust any single critic. It's just known that many of them get paid to not even play the game and then leave a review. So I trust users more than critics. I'm sure you do your job as you described, but not all in your field do. So don't be shocked when someone says a true fact that critic game reviews have indeed been bought for years. Because they have.

Users can be just as biased as critics, often more so, confirmation bias plays into users feedback as well.

You've made quiet a few rather large claims about reviewers being paid off, what you've not done is provided any actual evidence of it.

 

[TS050]

I do. It's quite obvious that Elden Ring reviews were bought, even if it's a good game. So many 10/10s that it's suspicious.

Welp: Looks Like Elden Ring Has Bought Off Every Single Reviewer

Nothing is more important than the social contract between video game reviewers and video game players.

hard-drive.net

IGN also gave COD: Ghosts an 8.8/10... One of the most universally hated COD games. They gave AW a 8/10.. The most hated COD game.

I'm not saying I don't trust any single critic. It's just known that many of them get paid to not even play the game and then leave a review. So I trust users more than critics. I'm sure you do your job as you described, but not all in your field do. So don't be shocked when someone says a true fact that critic game reviews have indeed been bought for years. Because they have.

Hard Drive is a satirical publication my guy

 

[MaxAttack]

Elden Ring is a 10, especially if you write a review in the first 48 hours while it's still tantalising you with its vastness.

As a user, however, I think blood builds are way OP, SoNaF can be found way too early, the bosses are too easy except where they beat me and the game is obviously broken in those aspects, also this one time I failed to login to the servers from the main menu and had to press X again. 1/10 why did From LIE to us.

Alright, that hurt to do, just for those without the best sense of sarcasm, I didn't mean any of that.

 

[787B GT4]

Is it?

You will have no problem supporting that claim with evidence that the vast majority of outlets and reviews were purchased.

Critics can, and are, at risk of being hyped up and biased in the reviews they provide, and reviews themselves are subjective creations. That can lead, along with time pressures, to reviewers getting caught up in that hype as well, they are after all gamers, but that's quite a leap to then accuse, without evidence, the majority of being bought. This is often compounded when the game is from a studio that has a track record of solid titles, you see that in the Elden Ring reviews, you see it in GT 7 reviews, constant referrals to past titles in both series within the reviews. These are not products that are being reviewed in isolation, and had GT 7 been a new IP, I'm sure the scores would have been lower, but series long issues are sometimes excused as a result of legacy, you don't just see it in reviews either. The exact same effect is plain to see on the posts here at GT Planet, now this is without a doubt a bias, but it's got nothing to do with being 'paid-off'.

I'm aware of the risk in my own reviews, which is why I also put out both an initial look one, based on my first thoughts, and then follow it up around a week later, with a more measured one. I know this costs me potential views, but I'm happy to take that hit if it helps me get a more measured review out. The thing is I don't have the commercial pressures (not the same as being bought) of getting a review out on time that the majority of the gaming media does.

Users can be just as biased as critics, often more so, confirmation bias plays into users feedback as well.

You've made quiet a few rather large claims about reviewers being paid off, what you've not done is provided any actual evidence of it.

How do you get any concrete "evidence" of a review being paid off? You don't because then that would defeat the purpose of the review because everyone would know it's phony. You can clearly see it through titles like the latest COD and yearly franchise games though. Games that have endless complaints from users year after year yet continue to get high marks.

I understand that "legacy" does play a role and everyone does have a bias that is somewhat unhidable. My point is not to attack critics it's to get people to take everything they see with a grain of salt. Yes I understand that users tend to be more biased.

However I also have the time to sit and read the good user reviews that I can tell try to be as unbiased as possible and treat the game fairly. I do like Metacritic alot because they seem to be the most fair, but I stay away from anything else and stick with what i know besides that. That's the best method I've found so far in terms of getting reliable reviews. Metacritic and YouTube.

From what you described it sounds like you do your job very well and with some dignity which I respect. My goal isn't to attack you, but just because not everyone does it doesn't mean it hasn't happened or still doesn't happen. You won't find evidence either because obviously publishers would have a PR nightmare if It was discovered that reviews were bought. This is all done quietly. You should know this as a critic.

Again respect for reviewing games fairly and I'll read any reviews you put out because I respect your responses as an honest critic. But as someone who's been burned over the years by critics reviews, I do believe I have a way to feel this way.

Of course I should have done more research for myself and made sure the game was actually worth my time, but that's the point I'm trying to make is that blind following of review scores is sometimes not an 100% accurate representation of a game. GT7 is a prime example of that currently and wish the reviews could be changed, The game now is much more tedious than when reviewers were giving their opinions on it pre launch.

Hard Drive is a satirical publication my guy

How am I supposed to know this? It shouldn't be classified as actual news under Google then. Thanks for pointing that out though.

 

[Scaff]

Just following the Internet Discourse Manual of Style

Which you know we don't use here.

If I can speak without offhandedly disparaging large groups for a moment - allow me a few edits to achieve it...


...is it OK to lament review bombing and other aspects of the customer-developer relationship in gaming (in both directions) without offering an alternative? In an ideal world I wouldn't have user reviews, I wouldn't have user ratings, yelp wouldn't exist, and professional criticism would be subject to rigorous regulation (to stop bought reviews). None of this is very realistic at all, and much of it informed by my own low opinion of the babblings of the unqualified, but it is how I would have it - however I am not so utterly without awareness as to suggest it with a straight face.

Just about every suggestion you have made would lead to significantly anti-consumer practices becoming the norm. That rigorous regulation would lead to more bias reviews, not less, who do you think has the money and lobbying power to ensure it working in their favour? It's not he buying public.

What's needed is a better understanding of how reviews work for the public, that they are not monolithic entities, and need to be viewed as a collective of views, with extremes at each end, the possible truth lying in the mid-point, and most importantly, as subjective.

Of course in a perfect customer/developer relationship we would have no means of complaint as we would be already perfectly understood by the developer - but I think in that reality there's so much DMT being injected directly into our brains that we probably don't play GT anymore.

What I think really needs to happen is wide culture change on both sides - developers need to be less beholden to financial pressures, given the time to make finished products, and monetise them based on the value of their content as comes in the box, and not what's promised in the future. By the same token gamers need to take a little longer to assess things and shouldn't expect every game to cater to their every wish and niggle (I am not saying everything people are wishing for GT7 is poppycock but plenty of it is oddly specific to individuals, like very certain cars or tracks).

That is to say for all the effort developers put into catering for and understanding the playerbase, the potential playerbase should return in attempting to understand the developer, the pressures on them, and real world factors that affect the shape of a game.

In short, developers should be forthcoming about limitations, instead of promising the world; gamers should be understanding about limitations, instead of expecting the world.

I agree somewhat, it does however have to be a symbiotic relationship, and let's be honest when studios/publishers put mechanics into a title that don't further both sides of that relationship, then backlash should be accepted.

I have to be honest, I've looked at a lot of the comments on the review-bombs, and I've not come across one asking for a specific car/track.

They fall into three areas:

• It's not for sale in Russia (early and easily the smallest group)
• Always On-line
• Microtransactions and an economy based around these

The first is geo-political and also the smallest, the later two are the vast, vast majority, and were made worse, and the time-line is clear on this, by the server outage and then tone-deaf response to MTXs that Kaz/PD put out.

Far from being surprised, the back-lash was actually quite predictable given the communication that was put out.

I recall some wisdom from the hospitality business - only unhappy customers communicate. Most happy customers just plug away with the product (or enjoy their dinner, pay up and go home). So while you of course as a business owner need to cater to those unsatisfied people, one should be acutely aware that quite a few people will have come in, been happy, paid and left without a word. So on that basis I feel tanking a review score to the basement based on quite a personal gripe (I can't acquire all cars in a week, or whatever else you don't like) is disingenuous and just turns user reviews into what they are: a remarkably poor indicator of whether the game is actually any good. And that stain will remain past the point they fix any of this, even to the point the game has so much extra content as to be almost unrecognisable (see - launch Vs 2021 GTS).

It should be noted that very few of my above suggestions are in any way realistic, and I hope that might excuse to some my initially having brought no alternative - there sort of isn't one, tho in my case I might rather have nothing at all, and everyone just sort of have to suck it up, that won't be popular, but it is what it is - this site would be more pleasant in launch times for a start

While broadly true, what also needs to be taken into account is that GT7 isn't a title in isolation, GTS didn't get review-bombed in this manner, which raises the question as to why.

A number of factors, the limited nature of it's content and focus was clearly communicated, it was priced accordingly as a result, it's micro-transactions were introduced later in it's life and the in-game economy was not as focused around them.

Consumers require a voice, and should one not be directly available, then they will find one, as they have in this case.

 

[AttackDickie]

GT7 is just a crowdfund for Kaz so he can live out his fantasy of collecting classic cars:
"the pricing of cars is an important element that conveys their value and rarity, so I do think it’s important for it to be linked with the real world prices."

 

[MaxAttack]

Consumers require a voice, and should one not be directly available, then they will find one, as they have in this case.

And perhaps this is the root of my frustrations - that with everything else provided for in this industry, there's no way, agreed upon between the developers and customers, for us to send our voice back to them (some games do have things like official forums but I think asking the people who use them you'll find many of the same frustrations as user reviewers, as they're largely complaining to "community managers" at best).

I wonder if this is as irksome for the folks at PD for us - they have no reliable way to disseminate that score, seperating true gripes they can do something about from the grumblings of those regretting the server outage - which was annoying and unfortunate but really nothing PD can address now and IMO nothing worth dragging them over the coals for - it's new for GT but it happens, or those who already have an agenda against Kaz/PD/Sony in general and have no real specific points to make regarding bettering GT7.

Appreciate the sound replies.

 

[Scaff]

How do you get any concrete "evidence" of a review being paid off? You don't because then that would defeat the purpose of the review because everyone would know it's phony. You can clearly see it through titles like the latest COD and yearly franchise games though. Games that have endless complaints from users year after year yet continue to get high marks.

I understand that "legacy" does play a role and everyone does have a bias that is somewhat unhidable. My point is not to attack critics it's to get people to take everything they see with a grain of salt. Yes I understand that users tend to be more biased.

However I also have the time to sit and read the good user reviews that I can tell try to be as unbiased as possible and treat the game fairly. I do like Metacritic alot because they seem to be the most fair, but I stay away from anything else and stick with what i know besides that. That's the best method I've found so far in terms of getting reliable reviews. Metacritic and YouTube.

From what you described it sounds like you do your job very well and with some dignity which I respect. My goal isn't to attack you, but just because not everyone does it doesn't mean it hasn't happened or still doesn't happen. You won't find evidence either because obviously publishers would have a PR nightmare if It was discovered that reviews were bought. This is all done quietly. You should know this as a critic.

Again respect for reviewing games fairly and I'll read any reviews you put out because I respect your responses as an honest critic. But as someone who's been burned over the years by critics reviews, I do believe I have a way to feel this way.

Of course I should have done more research for myself and made sure the game was actually worth my time, but that's the point I'm trying to make is that blind following of review scores is sometimes not an 100% accurate representation of a game. GT7 is a prime example of that currently and wish the reviews could be changed, The game now is much more tedious than when reviewers were giving their opinions on it pre launch.

Oh paid reviews have happened, and evidence does exist for that...

Gaming The System: How A Gaming Journalist Lost His Job Over A Negative Review

Video Kane & Lynch: Dead Men (Photo credit: Wikipedia) Over at Kotaku, Luke Plunkett has an interesting post up on the sort of conflict of interest some gaming journalists and websites face when penning honest reviews of video games. To briefly summarize, long, long ago in a galaxy far away...

www.forbes.com

...and a widescale change resulted within the industry. Now certainly publishers do (and more so pre-covid) to great lengths to try and get positive coverage of a new release (unsurprising) and questions do exist over paid trips to launch events, even the practice of supplying review keys is questionable. If this happens it should be disclosed, and a good number of outlets do just that, but the later still needs to happen if people want reviews before launch.

Speaking of which, one of the measures I use, and it does work quite well, for dev/publisher confidence in a title, is when does the review embargo lift? The longer before launch, the better, on launch day or the day before raises alarm bells for me.

You're right that Metacritic is a valuable source, for both scores, and a range of reviews needs to be looks at.

However I do feel that people get trapped into a what they think titles are scoring, CoD's Metacritic trend is mid '70s, if I was paying I'd want a damn sight better than that.

 

[Scaff]

And perhaps this is the root of my frustrations - that with everything else provided for in this industry, there's no way, agreed upon between the developers and customers, for us to send our voice back to them (some games do have things like official forums but I think asking the people who use them you'll find many of the same frustrations as user reviewers, as they're largely complaining to "community managers" at best).

I wonder if this is as irksome for the folks at PD for us - they have no reliable way to disseminate that score, seperating true gripes they can do something about from the grumblings of those regretting the server outage - which was annoying and unfortunate but really nothing PD can address now and IMO nothing worth dragging them over the coals for - it's new for GT but it happens, or those who already have an agenda against Kaz/PD/Sony in general and have no real specific points to make regarding bettering GT7.

Appreciate the sound replies.

It can be done better, it's just rarely done.

Within the likes of the racing genre, Kunos and Reiza engage well with the audience, using their own forums in a reasonable way to engage and discuss issues, it's far from perfect, but it's better than radio silence. Don't get me wrong studio forums can range from the blandly useless (Codemasters) to the utterly toxic and biased (Project Cars*), for Sony and PD, they do however have GT Planet, which provides them with an insight into the minds and views of the 'core' players without the need to engage or pay anyone, how much of it they actually listen to is, however, open to question.


*Off-topic factoid, while allowing threads for the discussion of other games, the official Project Cars Forum has no thread for GT 7, it's as if it doesn't exist.

 

[787B GT4]

I

Oh paid reviews have happened, and evidence does exist for that...

Gaming The System: How A Gaming Journalist Lost His Job Over A Negative Review

Video Kane & Lynch: Dead Men (Photo credit: Wikipedia) Over at Kotaku, Luke Plunkett has an interesting post up on the sort of conflict of interest some gaming journalists and websites face when penning honest reviews of video games. To briefly summarize, long, long ago in a galaxy far away...

www.forbes.com

...and a widescale change resulted within the industry. Now certainly publishers do (and more so pre-covid) to great lengths to try and get positive coverage of a new release (unsurprising) and questions do exist over paid trips to launch events, even the practice of supplying review keys is questionable. If this happens it should be disclosed, and a good number of outlets do just that, but the later still needs to happen if people want reviews before launch.

Speaking of which, one of the measures I use, and it does work quite well, for dev/publisher confidence in a title, is when does the review embargo lift? The longer before launch, the better, on launch day or the day before raises alarm bells for me.

You're right that Metacritic is a valuable source, for both scores, and a range of reviews needs to be looks at.

However I do feel that people get trapped into a what they think titles are scoring, CoD's Metacritic trend is mid '70s, if I was paying I'd want a damn sight better than that.

Interesting. Thanks for the insight and replies. And that's the exact reason I use metacritic is because like you said the games like COD aren't getting pampered treatment and are being reviewed for what they are which is why i use meta.

And I'll need to read that article. I knew it was happening I just must've missed that story somewhere along the lines. And that's a good method to use with embargo's. I haven't thought of it like that before but it makes perfect sense.

Again, I can tell you're passionate about reviewing and try to be as objective as you can which I immensely respect. I would assume most have changed with that scandal you posted too. This is good to hear. I want to be able to trust people obviously. It doesn't make me feel good when I lack trust, but I believe your inside knowledge has made me feel a bit better. Thanks 😁

 

[Lomic]

So what do you suggest ? How are we supposed to voice our concerns ?

As far as I can tell, it goes like this :

Review bombing by fans -> Reactions of influencers/youtubers -> News on gaming related websites -> News in mainstream websites -> News in mainstream media

And all along this road, we see how the developper reacts (or not) and its editor.

If someone as a better option to reach out to PD...

 

[gkgamer]

lmao You think corporate suits and billionares buying 20 millioin dollar cars at auctions are the same thing, grow up

Dude, I know you tried hard to make a sentence but I genuinely don't understand what you're trying to say.

 

[EceliN]

mayb they change it if everyone brings the game back

 

[787B GT4]

Dude, I know you tried hard to make a sentence but I genuinely don't understand what you're trying to say.

Hey it's my man gk from PSN! (It's Reiko) Nice to see you on GTPlanet gk. This man is crazy fast on a GT game let me tell you!

 

[wheelhp]

I wonder if this is as irksome for the folks at PD for us - they have no reliable way to disseminate that score, seperating true gripes they can do something about from the grumblings of those regretting the server outage - which was annoying and unfortunate but really nothing PD can address now and IMO nothing worth dragging them over the coals for

It's not that difficult to find a bug in a game and fix it, or even to look at past GT titles and replicate that economy, which is exactly what everyone's been asking for. It's not rocket science at all

 

[Eggstor]

Considering the cap wasnt increased in GT Sport unless you paid for the Hamilton DLC - i suspect they will treat this broken game mechanism the same way.

Wouldn't surprise me, especially if one (or more) of the three Le Mans trophies gets the over-20 million treatment. Can't have anybody platinuming the trophies for less than $400 </sarcasm?>

 

[VoidhawkRD]

I’ll have another attempt at replying as I must have broken some forum rule in my initial post. This was unintentional and was just venting my frustration.

As a gamer who is fed up with games like Forza throwing cars at you left, right and centre, I’ve always respected and appreciate the Gran Turismo grind. Even at my ripe old age (nearly 56), I have no issue with the payouts in the game. I therefore pointedly disagree with the majority of views expressed in this post.

I do, however, agree that there should be far more events than there are. Career is lacking.

Perhaps the game should have been released at around £19.99, to take into account the grind or real money purchase FTP style.

I hope PD don’t swing too far in the opposite direction making cars too easy to obtain (like Forza).

Perhaps the best solution would be to allow everyone to be able to set a race awards multiplier from x1 to x10. That way each person could have the level of grind that personally suits them.

 

[TotosaLoko]

It's not that difficult to find a bug in a game and fix it, or even to look at past GT titles and replicate that economy, which is exactly what everyone's been asking for. It's not rocket science at all

This is the point, they can, but they don't want to..