Wrong. The rest did unranked lists and most (if not all) of them included non-playable games in their list.
Credible? When was the last time you read a gaming review on this website? :lol:
Not to everyone. That's what they picked amongst their staff. A secondary pick, to me, is pretty useless. "We picked game X as the best but since you have such and such rules, we pick game Y". lol, that's credibility (GCA) down the drain lol
I'm talking about the other critics in your list. They chose one winner, which was playable. That says it all.
As many times as I read Time magazine's game reviews, which is on Metacritic. Regardless, both are well ahead of Wclickclicktech :lol:
lol so just you, then. Anyone not running a narrative to support their favorite game would actually appreciate the hands-on stipulation GCA has in place.
Not "such and such rules", but ones that make perfect sense. Only a hands-on session can give a journalist a feel for the gameplay. For example, I don't believe the sites that were disappointed with Cyberpunk's gunplay just as much as those that liked it. It's impossible to tell without having someone from outside the studio play it. Thanks to this stipulation, I'm confident that the press thinks that the FFVII Remake not only looks great, but plays great as well. Same goes for the other 'best of show' nominees.
It says nothing. What about all the other ones which didn't pick a playable game or the ones which had separate categories for it?
So you don't read Entertainment Clickly afterall. That says it all about GCA's credibility :lol:
Which is why I did include them in the 'list', and it makes sense to count it as a "playable" category, just like I did with the other critics. Unless you want 64 bullet points for each judge, I'm afraid that doesn't make any sense, since many of them had already picked their winners lol
The other noteworthy ones didn't pick any single game, rather an unranked list as you said. But they participated in GCA anyway, which means they did pick a single game ultimately w/ one added stipulation.
I've seen some of their game reviews, and they're pretty decent actually. They'd easily be on Metacritic if they added scores to their reviews lol.
When over half of the critics in your list are on the GCA panel, they are the 'list' lol. Your issue is with their hands-on stipulation. Give me one good reason why such a stipulation shouldn't be in place?
Actually, it's "Hey IGN, I'd respect your pick if you had actually played the game, like you (hopefully hopefully) do when you review games" :hah:
So now its about "only the ones that fit my narrative are noteworthy critics" lol
Except that you don't need to score reviews to be on Metacritic anymore. Says a lot by their quality of game reviews and GCA's credibility by extension.
When they have already picked their winners regardless of playability, their picks for the GCA become secondary.
lol I actually don't have any issue with that stipulation at all. The way I see it, if that stipulation is of utmost importance to me, I wouldn't trust any publication handing out awards to non-playable games. Period.
Nah, I mean the other critics that didn't pick a single winner on their site, but were part of the GCA jury. Way to spin my words to suit your narrative, though, Mr. Cyberpunk :hah:
On the contrary, it says a lot about Metacritic's credibility if they're certifying sites like Wclickclicktech.
Did any one of them actually say this though, or is it more of an assumption on your part?
This is pretty much my stance on the matter.
10 mins of hands-on with Anthem would undoubtedly give me a better idea about the implementation of its game mechanics. It may not inform me as much about the game's dynamics and systems (the public reveal footage should already have done some of that), but I'd be able to tell people how well it plays. But even then, this is an exaggerated scenario. People had more than GCA's minimum requirement of 5 mins (even more than 10 mins) of hands-on time with each of the nominees. An hour long developer controlled presentation just isn't the same thing.
Can we assume you won't be taking screen shots or quoting Metascores/Opencritic (WclickclickTech also certified there) anymore?
Many of the judges from the GCA panel picked a non-playable game as their winner. "Notable" ones that didn't pick a single winner listed non-playable games in their unranked lists too. What does that tell you? Why is their opinion suddenly valuable to you when they are stipulated to pick from a limited subset of games? Couldn't they have done that on their own website if it really mattered to them?
I doubt it since you don't agree with the 'list' lol
A 10-20mins hands-on demo is no more valuable than an hour long live developer demo. Both can effectively showcase different things. This is also the stance of pretty much every publication out there which is why you don't see non-playable games disqualified from discussion/awards.
Both Metacritic and Opencritic have their own set of flaws. Awards conducted by a panel such as DICE, BAFTA, TGA, and GDCA have always held the highest credibility for me. The situation is no different for E3 awards.
Some of the ones in your list did make the distinction of separating playable and non-playable picks. USGamer, for example.
I don't doubt the credibility of sites that picked playable winners, but the cumulative pick is ultimately the big winner, as it's not just limited to their respective staff.
On the contrary, it's far more valuable. It gives us meaningful information about the most important aspect: the gameplay. A developer-controlled demo is no different from watching a pre-recodeded gameplay video. Any information the press extracted from it is the same information we'll also be able to get when we see the demo footage for ourselves.
Good example indeed. The press was able to play The Outer Worlds and judge it based on their hands-on session. Whether there's an embargo on when they can share impressions with the public doesn't really matter as far as GCA's credibility is concerned. Their hands-on session was factored into their decision, and it won the award for 'best original game'.
Only two. And even they did not ignore non-playable games altogether. That is exactly how the GCA awards gets represented: as a separate category. All the ones which are handing out awards to
Neither did GCA. They have special commendations for graphics, innovation, and sound design. These are things you can tell about a game without actually playing it.
The body governing them i.e. GCA, gives credibility to their picks by setting that one rule in place. Just as it's important for a journalist to play a game and not watch someone else's playthrough before reviewing it or nominating it for GoTY (although it's questionable whether IGN even does this lol), it's also important to play unreleased games before considering them for 'best of E3'.
Cyberpunk got robbed by a remake 2 years in a row
And that vote is counted, can't you see? Not sure what you're still complaining about. Primary picks by the critics are also important. Selectively ignoring that is the definition of accepting what conforms to your own narrative.
Yes totally their loss for sweeping E3 two years in a row lol
You ought to be playing the wrong games :laugh1:
In a list filled with votes that are given to a non-playable game? Can't you see?
Selectively ignoring non-playable games is the basis for sound judgement. Hence, accepting what makes sense.
By your definition perhaps lol. Every gaming site reports about GCA. It has the biggest impact as far as E3 awards are concerned. Has been this way for over 2 decades.
I never referred to Druckmann or Kojima as okay directors lol.
I haven't played the Shadowkeep expansion. Journalists got hands-on, therefore their word is better than mine. You're only further proving my point lol.
The sound judgement the GCA jury didn't make on their own website. But lets accept the second round pick when it conforms to your favorite game. Makes sense lol
2013
2014
2016
2017
2018
:lol:
That's where GCA comes in.
Begs the question why CDPR could do an hour long controlled demo, yet couldn't let journalists play CP2077 for as much as 5 mins lol.
It's well-known that the Houser brothers, or Rockstar as a whole, stopped attending game conventions after the GTA 'hot coffee' controversy.
http://www.gamecriticsawards.com/2015winners.html (console game of the show 2015: UC4)
And that's where the critics lose their credibility. Had they also picked a playable game on their website and disqualified non-playable games, GCA picks would have more credibility.
lol @ console game. Losing out to Fallout 4 (a game you thought would be fighting for GoTY 2015 lol), explains why the poor chap is so heartbroken. Wouldn't be surprising if the Houser brothers and Truckman share their sob GCA stories over a hot cup of coffee lol
Necrokiller:
You reap what you sow. This is what happens when you take away choice from consumers. Even with 88% split going to developers, they can't recoup costs. Meanwhile, Helldivers 2 is a massive hit for Sony thanks in big part to Steam.iampasha said:
iampasha:
faraany3k:
Necrokiller:
Necrokiller:
www.pcgamer.com
EternalBlizzard:
faraany3k:
why you are paying american rates in Pakistan. Search cheaper region like Turkey. 13k for 13 months. Ms does not careShadowdragoo said:
faraany3k:
Necrokiller:
There are no such thing as "bad design" bro, its all "artistic vision" nowEternalBlizzard said:Is it just me or people lately seem to defend every bad game design decision made by the devs and try to give bullshit reasons for that? Or perhaps it's because I'm on reddit and discord
EternalBlizzard:
Necrokiller:
Alan wake 2 is yet to recover it's development costs. Due to no physical release and no steam...
