Notice how they are all online/GaaS type model games. Gotta read between the lines on that front. Show's how backwards they are when it comes to their main focus is, well...their only focus...
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Mike Ybarra, Corporate VP of Xbox, says critics of an Anthem area are “whining” and it is “embarrassing to review with such a lack of knowledge”
- Thread starter Proven
- Start date
Notice how they are all online/GaaS type model games. Gotta read between the lines on that front. Show's how backwards they are when it comes to their main focus is, well...their only focus...
I mean, does the streamer being paid make their gameplay look better or something? He never said to listen to the streamer, but you can at least watch the gameplay to see if it is something interesting.
Like if literally anybody else had given the advice: "watch some gameplay, talk to any friends that have played it, and maybe try a demo before buying" would we be shitting on them? Seems like pretty good advice since (like he said in the same tweet) people have different tastes and reviews are subjective.
The tweet calling people whiners is a bit poor taste for a executive, but the tweet about doing your own research into the game instead of just relying on reviews is fine and people are trying way too hard to get in on the circlejerk.
Nah. I don't think anyone disagrees that his first tweet was pretty stupid and in poor taste. But his 2nd tweet about watching gameplay, talking to your friends, and trying a demo is legitimate advice.
I can't say what I think about the sheer ignorance of this bloke without getting in big trouble on here.
I don't think has that much to do with the marketing deal, rather than discredit reviews that Xbox exclusive have received lately.
I do agree that reviewers should be better at videogames for being able to give the full spectrum of a game. For example, bast majority of reviewers are terrible at fighting games, so they can't give a proper review about how the mechanics really play out. But is also true that people who like fighting games don't give a damn about those reviews.
I do agree that reviewers should be better at videogames for being able to give the full spectrum of a game. For example, bast majority of reviewers are terrible at fighting games, so they can't give a proper review about how the mechanics really play out. But is also true that people who like fighting games don't give a damn about those reviews.
In a vacuum you're right, but those tweets came in tandem which gives the advice one additional context. Together, the ultimate message is 'reviewers are bad' which is a pretty juvenile take by an exec.
Yea I realize his position makes it tricky. And I'm all for criticizing his criticism too. But some people on this forum are extremely toxic. It's just as bad as GAF here sometimes. The comment I had quoted was just a unnecessarily stupid jab.
Streaming and culture don't honestly belong in the same sentence. The chat feeds alone are where dreams go to die.
I did play the demo, thought it was terrible. How all these loot shooters fail to imbibe the same buzz of joy that Borderlands gives from getting new gear is beyond me.
That's nonsense. It's not embarrassing. Critics and streamers have commented on the combo nonsense, including multiple posters on this page.
It is possible to watch gameplay without the need of a streamer or, at the very least, one who has been paid by the company selling the product. I am not saying a review is the only way to be informed about a game.
I think it's perfectly his place to do so. He's defending a game his company has rocks in (from what I understand reading that thread). It's a strategic move from him, regardless if it's good or bad.
Also baffling about the "it's out on Friday" tweet is that EA Access definitely didn't advertise last Friday's 10 hour trial release as anything but the final game.
I dont know? Wasnt talking about that nor do I care. This guy tweeted that watching streams, playing the game and guaging the game with friends is a "modern review" and people are bending over backwards to ignore the last two parts and shit on the first one. Just seems idiotic.
Congratulations, you have partaken in a modern review.
I haven't seen anyone say they were paid to play it, and at least on Twitch, you have to put that you're sponsored in the title.
On the bright side things can only get better next gen.
And Rise of the Tomb Raider, that was really not worth getting exclusivity for a year on.
Those two are always up to get some wars going on... Especially retweeting Fanboys posts...
Agree. But thats a thing for years now imo. I still remember the Giantbomb review for Quantum Break. Or recently the IGN review of RE2.
Maybe its because we get so many games reviewers have alot of games to review and are on a tight schedule.
Well if you don't like CD3 you just don't know how to have Fun™
I don't think any reviewer should be forced to play an entire game in its entirety. If a reviewer stopped playing a game because a specific issue was dire enough, like a game-breaking bug, a very poorly designed feature or a specific scene that disturbed them (like RDR 2's rape scene), I don't think that makes their review less valid than someone that fully completed it. It would be less informative for some people of course, but not less valid or less important, so I don't agree with you at all.
Lets suppose I follow a reviewer, whose opinions I tend top agree with, that is specialized in racing games and he stops playing an upcoming racing game he was reviewing because of some issue. That is immensely relevant to me. That informs that that I might not appreciate the game because of the same issue. Now, that won't be the only review I'll read or watch, but it will help inform my opinion and compare it with other reviewers.
I agree with you that it might be less informative, but I completely disagree that it isn't valid or is less important than the review of someone that completed the game.
Last edited:
I don't even disagree with him on watching a game gives you a good enough idea on if you'll like it or not. I very rarely need to read reviews to be sold on a game or know it's not foe me. But really not smart of him to kick that hornets nest given his position and MS' investments in 2 recent critical duds.
I do agree that some complaints seem overstated. Repetition-related tasks frustrations are something I've noticed in a few reviews, but those kinds of things are endemic to the genre. As are getting items with bad rolls when a system relies heavily on RNG. Just comes with the territory but is definitely noted as a negative. Also, you'd like to think that someone would have put enough time into the game to know how to do combos. Whether the game explicitly explains them or not, I'd like to think a good reviewer would do the necessary due diligence to have learned how that works at some point before tendering a final review.
That being said, whether the repetition feels bad or not is generally a function of the core gameplay loop (overall engagement and design). If enemies aren't interesting to fight, repetition will begin to feel tiresome and frustrating within a few days. One of Destiny 2's saving graces, IMO, is that enemies tend to be pretty unique in how they fight and the best ways to kill them. As such, you can play Destiny 2 for a thousand hours and not get terribly tired of repetitious activities like Public Events and raids. Same goes for something like Path of Exile, while Diablo 3 succeeds by having massive swarms of enemies which keeps it all entertaining. After the demo, I can't say I got the impression that many enemies *felt* different to fight and there wasn't the quantity of them to make up for that lack of design quality. I mean, sure you had the annoying snipers, the annoying guys with shields, the occasional enemy Storm type character, and the annoying flying guys with miniguns. But everyone else felt the same and were dispatched the same way. Not much in the way of AI intelligence. That could be a major problem for this game and how much time a player can expect to get out of the game before it feels grating.
Also, the complaints about the bugs I've watched should have been ready as a patch on the 15th when the game came out, not on the 22nd. If the game wasn't going to be in a proper state on the 15th, it shouldn't have released on the 15th. Whether this big upcoming patch fixes some of the massive issues I've watched and read about (audio cutting out, people not being able to see or hear critical cut-scenes, not being able to complete missions because targets get stuck in walls and you literally cannot progress, people dropping through geometry, 95% bugs, etc) remains to be seen.
Xbox leadership commenting in this fashion is not only disappointing, but it makes me worry about the brand as a whole. This cannot be the kind of mentality driving decision-making at Xbox if their goal is to do better than they've been doing. Blaming players and reviewers for having poor opinions of the game is unacceptable. If feedback is negative and commonly negative at that, the response isn't to say the players are wrong.
That being said, whether the repetition feels bad or not is generally a function of the core gameplay loop (overall engagement and design). If enemies aren't interesting to fight, repetition will begin to feel tiresome and frustrating within a few days. One of Destiny 2's saving graces, IMO, is that enemies tend to be pretty unique in how they fight and the best ways to kill them. As such, you can play Destiny 2 for a thousand hours and not get terribly tired of repetitious activities like Public Events and raids. Same goes for something like Path of Exile, while Diablo 3 succeeds by having massive swarms of enemies which keeps it all entertaining. After the demo, I can't say I got the impression that many enemies *felt* different to fight and there wasn't the quantity of them to make up for that lack of design quality. I mean, sure you had the annoying snipers, the annoying guys with shields, the occasional enemy Storm type character, and the annoying flying guys with miniguns. But everyone else felt the same and were dispatched the same way. Not much in the way of AI intelligence. That could be a major problem for this game and how much time a player can expect to get out of the game before it feels grating.
Also, the complaints about the bugs I've watched should have been ready as a patch on the 15th when the game came out, not on the 22nd. If the game wasn't going to be in a proper state on the 15th, it shouldn't have released on the 15th. Whether this big upcoming patch fixes some of the massive issues I've watched and read about (audio cutting out, people not being able to see or hear critical cut-scenes, not being able to complete missions because targets get stuck in walls and you literally cannot progress, people dropping through geometry, 95% bugs, etc) remains to be seen.
Xbox leadership commenting in this fashion is not only disappointing, but it makes me worry about the brand as a whole. This cannot be the kind of mentality driving decision-making at Xbox if their goal is to do better than they've been doing. Blaming players and reviewers for having poor opinions of the game is unacceptable. If feedback is negative and commonly negative at that, the response isn't to say the players are wrong.
Most of what he said here is super dumb and ill advised, but why are so many people here shitting on the idea of watching streamers before buying games?
There have been loads of times where I'll watch my favorite streamer play a game that I otherwise wouldn't have interest in and decide to buy it. What's wrong about Ybarra saying that? I'd trust the word of this streamer over a random IGN review.
There have been loads of times where I'll watch my favorite streamer play a game that I otherwise wouldn't have interest in and decide to buy it. What's wrong about Ybarra saying that? I'd trust the word of this streamer over a random IGN review.
I love Jeff, he and giant bomb are the best things in game media out there. Although the weirdly it was the GB quick look that made me decide to order the game.
Honestly, for video games, in my opinion, written reviews are not worth reading, cause u can't visualize what the person is saying, you only have your memory of the game itself on reveal instead of the full game in your hands.
I think reviewers should change things slightly. Make a video of a specific section of the game they hate and write a small paragraph on the issues presented in the clip, then make a specific section where the game was an amazing experience. At least when I as a gamer look at the review, I can at least see the problem in one part of the clip. Instead of saying its a buggy mess, I can actually see that, and judge that I should hold of or something.
I think games like Destiny and Anthem, and Multiplayer centric games might benefit from something like this. Single Player games are exempt.
I think reviewers should change things slightly. Make a video of a specific section of the game they hate and write a small paragraph on the issues presented in the clip, then make a specific section where the game was an amazing experience. At least when I as a gamer look at the review, I can at least see the problem in one part of the clip. Instead of saying its a buggy mess, I can actually see that, and judge that I should hold of or something.
I think games like Destiny and Anthem, and Multiplayer centric games might benefit from something like this. Single Player games are exempt.
Nice to see that Microsoft still supports HD Ready TVs in 2019. ;-)Xbox is comarketing Anthem
Or it's because it's an obtuse system the tutorial of which is buried and you're pretty unlikely to actually encounter during regular play, as people who have actually played the game without working for the company who is paying for marketing of the game are saying 🤷♀️
But maybe your thing actually is somehow relevant to the thread.
Indeed.
Funny thing is I actually like Crackdown 3 and was considering writing a review for it. Not sure if there's a point now if Mike thinks I ain't shit.
Xbox's marketing pickups have been less than stellar recently (from BFV to Fallout 76 and now Anthem).
Understandable from a business perspective that they may be trying to control the Anthem situation somewhat before the general release, even if I don't agree.
Understandable from a business perspective that they may be trying to control the Anthem situation somewhat before the general release, even if I don't agree.
Exec from MS on twitter always remind of this greatness:
That's amazing lol
I imagine the PR folks at Xbox aren't big fans of Mike.
Apparently.
I don't understand how people are missing the point people are arguing; Mike really should've just said nothing regarding reviews. I bet money he'll be the first the parade the scores of Gears and Halo if they are great.
Mike Ybarra claiming it's not even out yet as a defense to his tone deaf remarks is quite a statement considering users on his platform (both platforms, actually) have access to the full game right this very second.
If you've looked through the thread it seems you can call him pretty much anything you want.
Reviewers are only bad if they shit on the reviews you like folks. So are the streamers.
That said, there's some problems here and there with stuff like the crap IGN reviews but taking that, and use it as the tell all proof that all reviewers are crap is not a hill anyone should die on.
That said, there's some problems here and there with stuff like the crap IGN reviews but taking that, and use it as the tell all proof that all reviewers are crap is not a hill anyone should die on.