Read on Sweetpatch TV instead

The media's effect on FIFA & How we can compete

For the last couple of years I've been growing more and more disillusioned with the way that the media has been approaching FIFA. When the latest round of 'press impressions' rolled out with E3, combined with some interesting discussion on the FSB podcast, and the ShackNews podcast about the way that journalists and reviewers conduct themselves, that was the final straw and I decided that I'd try to shine a light on the media.

So, I'm going to look first at two groups in great detail which have come under some fire for their pieces on football games over the last few years, IGN (both UK and US), and CVG. I'm also going to run through much more briefly another handful of other big outlets. I will try not to criticise areas where the reviewer has stated something which is his honest opinion, but I will criticise areas where reviewers are making objective statements. While I cannot criticise a reviewer for saying that he likes something or finds it fun, if he states that something is realistic then it is a factual statement which I will be happy to pick on. It is far too often said on the forum that this is all about opinions - but it isn't. FIFA is advertised as a football simulation - and therefore there is a right and a wrong way for it to work. It is possible to look at a part of the game and objectively analyse whether it is good or bad.

Why is this important? Well, because the gaming media is a very large part of what makes the games industry run the way it does. People want to know what games to buy, people want to know about games, and therefore there is a market for people selling that information. It is easy to see, considering how interested EA have been over the last few years at hitting a high metacritic, that EA care about reviews, and that EA aim to get high reviews. That's not a criticism - that is a fine goal and it should be a goal which encompasses making a great game. The problem is, this isn't what happens. Reviews are often inaccurate, they often miss things out, and they often give a false view of a game. If that happens, and it happens on a widescale and it happens often, then it has enormous implications. The metacritic soars, and sales surely follow - and this will start to affect our game too. Firstly, in that EA are aiming to create the game which reviews well (which in that case may not be the best game they can make) and, that it will be less and less obvious what is actually wrong with the game. So it matters, and it matters a lot. I believe firmly that if FIFA is to get over this current stagnation, that the media needs to have less effect on what EA is doing: because right now the media is simply not doing it's job, and that is what I am going to prove to you.

IGN UK

FIFA 10 Review - Link
Reading the FIFA 10 review from IGNUK's Martin Robinson starts off like reading a eulogy. It takes 'til the fourth paragraph before they state anything resembling fact: their big claim - that FIFA 10 is "the most faithful take on the sacred sport yet". Further than that, it makes a "mockery" of the previous bests (PES 5 for example). They go onto detail to the genuinely revolutionary change of 360 dribbling, but then go onto praise factors which seem alien to my memory of the game. Since when, for instance, did FIFA's player urgency, defensive AI and attacking off-the-ball runs make it a game which behaves "exactly as you'd expect a real game of football to play out." This, may I remind you all, is the game where the problems of ping pong passing and pressure really came to the fore, and became this communities biggest bugbears. A game where pressure was so suffocating that every single play was broken up by someone sprinting into you like a lunatic - where the game resembled pinball just as much as it did football. The game where every top player had to become a 'master' of holding one-two pass, pinging the ball up the pitch, regardless of the team they used.

Yet this, according to IGN UK, is "exactly" the same as real football. Don't worry though, they go on. They go on to praise the representation of top players and top teams, as well as the "equally" impressive representation of low-league football. But of course, this is surprising when just a year after EA felt that the personality was so lacking in FIFA that it necessitated Personality+. In FIFA 10 low league players would continually show off magical touch and trapping, and they were almost as capable of ping-pong-passing as those in the Premier League.

IGN describe the practice arena, and the set-piece-creator (which they seemed to think was something more than a gimmick), before going back to the unbounded praise. FIFA 10 apparently delivered a game "unprecedented in its scope, its authenticity and flexibility working together [...] helped by EA's veneer of polish and professionalism". Polish? Interesting one - because if I remember rightly, FIFA 10 was the game where a huge proportion of the userbase couldn't even play the most popular game mode (outside of kick-off). A game with the manager mode more or less broken is not what I'd call 'polished' - hell, it's not what anyone would call polished. Manager mode is in fact described by EA as "at long last [presenting] a lasting single-player proposition with the errors of logic and unlikely scenarios that betrayed it in previous incarnations ironed out"... but wasn't this the year before EA almost went back to the drawing board with Career Mode, ripping out all but the bare bones to re amalgamate it with Be a Pro?

IGN couldn't go without some criticisms. Maybe in the last paragraph before the conclusion they would right the wrongs of their article? Well, they did (understandably) complain about the presentation - mentioning that it is slick (interesting term for the sluggishness of what I remember) but dull. They also mention some bugs, but we shouldn't worry, because they are few and minor - like a small commentary or visual glitch.

In closing, IGN UK, state that FIFA 10 "perfects the formula", making it "one of the most refined, polished, and compelling takes on the beautiful game - and arguably of any given sport". On pitch action is described as "superlative". IGN manage to pose just one question: how could they ever improve on the brilliance of FIFA 10.

OVERALL 9.3

The review reads almost like a press release from EA. It mentions the vast majority of the things they'd have wanted, even using the same phrasing in most cases. Praise varies from the ridiculous to the incredible. The critical content is almost nonexistent, and there is frankly almost nothing of use at all. If EA read this review, they'll get the impression they've nailed it. It's an awful review.

ACCURACY: 3/10
CRITICAL CONTENT: 1/10
INSIGHT: 1/10

FIFA 11 Preview - Link

Between the release of FIFA 10 and FIFA 11, IGNUK published a few previews, again by Martin Robinson. The first look, published in early June, starts off by posing the question "How do you make the best football game better? EA Sports knows...". It's an interesting place to start. Firstly, your game is the best, and secondly, EA know exactly how to make it better. It's a ridiculous bit of rhetoric, but it sums up everything about IGNUK's coverage, it's submissive, and it's sycophantic. It's exactly what EA would have written had they been allowed to write the piece. It doesn't sound like he's actually played it at this point (though, without reading between the lines it wouldn't be hard to assume that he had).

A month and a bit later and a hands on preview backs up the previous claims with assurance - again, no criticism in sight. This preview ends somewhat ironically "looks like we'll be dishing out the hyperbole once again come October".. if you know it's hyperbole, why the hell are you writing it? Does this man see his job as being hyperbole writing? There is also mention of a "Be a Referee" mode in a picture caption. I hope he's joking, but if he wasn't, it would explain quite a lot: he is a casual fan who has little to no interest in gameplay realism... which begs the question why is he writing about it in the first place? The final look preview before the release is full of big claims which turned out to be pretty debatable, but the most ridiculous has to be that "there's none of the dumb-headed positioning from your AI partner". Thing is, about a fornight before when I had got my hands on a preview opportunity, I specifically described problems with the AI

If there is one place I really was disappointed, it was defensive AI. It has improved, players mark closer, and they definitely do try to hold the line more, and better, and usually they do this well - but on occasion I did find them being broken up bizzarely. More rarely than before, but still a feature is the problem where a defender will try to always stay a few yards off his attacker, even if this means falling back from the defensive line (and therefore allowing the OT to be broken easily).

On one particular occasion my line seemed to be pulled out horribly - a left back being 15 yards further back than the next defender easily. The players seem to have a bit of a problem with letting a player go goal side of them - or even to have a striker a yard away. Returning to FIFA 10 after the event, I noticed the differences more clearly. In FIFA 11 they definitely do mark tighter - but the occasional slips can be all the player against you needs. I would recommend that the players are made even more conscious of their line, and to stop this silly system of the player wanting to constantly give space to attackers, which seems to be the main cause of the all the problems. If the player is to fall back - the line needs to follow.

And that, in a sentence, is the difference between critique, and Robinson's reviewing.

FIFA 11 Review - Link

Moving onto the review of FIFA 11, we see a slightly less positive tone. The reviewer describes that FIFA 11 has "no grandstand new features to dazzle, and no major upheavals to the existing formula, but that doesn't stop it from being the best FIFA yet and by extension perhaps the best football game there's ever been". The reviewer lauds as the biggest improvement a "profound tweak" to the way crossing works. Crosses he says are "now more effective [...] and they're more often met with spectacular results".

It's an odd comment really. There is no doubt that the heading changed a lot, in some ways for the better, but in many ways it changed for the worse: crossing and heading is something many in this community have labelled as overpowered, and, personally I see it as a random and pre-determined battle between one defender and one attacker.

He goes on to talk about Pro Passing, which "[emphasise well weighted passes] with it now easier than ever to under or overpower the ball", and more spuriously still he claims that "there is no point trying to lay off a first touch pass to a player you've got your back to, as it'll only ever end up with your * on the grass." That is not only a massive claim, it's also downright untrue. When listening to the FSB podcast, Adam Bhatti of WENB/FSB/Kitana Media, describes some of the things said as "borderline lying". I will for this case go one step further: to claim that first time, 180 degree passes will not be successful and rather embarrassing, is a straightup lie.

He goes on to describe the misfiring Personality+ in very much the same way he described FIFA 10's personalities. With the FIFA 10 review he lauded the way that the "quality on the pitch shines through ... Nani and Zhirkov bound down the side-lines... Drogba and Berbatov anchor themselves in the box", and then FIFA 11 which "convey[s] the twinkle-toed runs of Ronaldo, and the sturdy grace of Drogba". This doesn't really add up to what I felt about the game. Though Personality+ made some difference it certainly doesn't go as far as PES when it comes to differentiating between players. Physical attributes, especially strength, are by far the most important as we know.

That's it for Martin Robinson's gameplay insight for this review. He follows into praising the level of immersion, admitting that the graphical upgrade is extremely minor. He says that "crowd noises are noticeably beefier, more atmospheric", before criticising once again the occasional commentary glitch in the "largely brilliant double act" of Tyler and Gray. He describes the custom chants feature as "falling flat" (which is pretty much true, for once). Onto career mode, he seems overly cautious: "seasons play out with verity [...] it's all kept in check with a redesigned front end that's as slick as it is efficient" before criticising that "campaigns too soon becoming a lifeless trudge through the fixture list [...] there's much more ground to be covered".

Finally he devotes a couple of paragraphs to Be a Goalkeeper: "what could have been a throway addition is in fact quite enjoyable [...] it does little to save single player keeping from being a novelty - albeit a novelty that's been very well implemented." Well implemented?! Interesting, because well implemented is not the way I'b describe a feature where being brilliant involves holding down LB and mashing the A button to do every single save (from what he wrote I'm not sure if he realised this is how assisted keeping works). Finally he mentions 11v11, which I can only assume he never played, given that he says absolutely nothing about it. I can only hope that Robinson is being sarcastic when he says that "[IGN are] holding out for controllable linesmen and refs" but given the tone of the rest of the article it really wouldn't surprise me.

He closes off by repeating that FIFA is "superlative" and that it is "notably superior to its predecessors".

OVERALL: 9.5

A pretty similar review to the first. Low insight, a lack of accuracy and a massive lack of depth and breadth. Critical content is negligible for a game which I wrote nearly 30,000 words criticising without touching Career Mode. Some claims are downright false, others are laughable. Interestingly the score breakdown is identical in everyway, except that the presentation has been bumped up from a ridiculously high 8.5 to an even more ridiculous 9.

ACCURACY: 2/10
CRITICAL CONTENT: 2/10
INSIGHT: 1/10

IGN US

FIFA 10 Review - Link

The IGNUS review of FIFA 10, written by Nate Ahearn, doesn't mince its words. It starts off with the subtitle and ballsy claim that FIFA 10 is the greatest soccer game ever made, and it pretty much goes on from there. Nate describes in depth Virtual Pro, which made its debut in FIFA 10, before moving onto manager mode, which he says "doesn't disappoint". His only criticism is the "wall of statistics", and he praises the implementations of transfers, scouting, team upgrades, and board expectations. This is pretty much it for his views on manager mode - and it does beg the question of whether he's ever played either Master League, or, more relevantly, a proper management title. The Manager Mode in FIFA 10, aside from being horribly buggy, is lacking a massive array of features which are really quite important to being a manager. It's fraught with ridiculous transfers, and a bizarre form system. Nate Ahearn may not be disappointed - but almost every person on this forum who played it was.

The second page gets onto the gameplay, which praises the "subtle, yet sweeping changes" such as 360 dribbling, the skill move system, and advances in physical play. He complains about feeling out of control when a player is stumbling, and then goes onto criticise the AI. AI is "solid, but [...] still slightly lacking in certain areas", but it does apparently make "excellent sprinting runs to the goal". Not sure about that one personally, as each and every FIFA game has managed little more than obvious straight runs, usually which you have to tell it to do yourself. He praises improvements to goalkeepers, while criticising its decision making, but he fails entirely to mention the goalkeepers tendency to run off the line and leave you to be chipped every single time.

Overall: 9

ACCURACY: 5/10
CRITICAL CONTENT: 3/10
INSIGHT: 5/10

A generally much better review than the UK one. It's very light on criticism, and focuses a lot less on the gameplay than I would like. Comments about manager mode are fairly fishy. I disagree with his review on many points, but these tend to be subjective issues rather than objective ones. It's on the positive side, but, unlike Martin Robinson's UK review, it's on the positive side of reality, rather than the positive side of of fairyland.

FIFA 11 Review - Link

IGN US's FIFA 11 review is also written by Ahearn. He starts off by saying that "FIFA has always been about delivering the most realistic depiction of the sport of soccer", which is pretty questionable given the PS2 era - but I'll let that slide. He first gets onto talking about Personality+, which generally I think is over positive. He claims that "players that you know and live will look, run, shoot, dribble, and react to physical interactions authentically". The truth is, that Personality+ on many levels does not succeed in recreating players to the same extent that the review implies. While Personality+ did start to bring in changes to differentiate dribblers, it was still nowhere near the level of personality that PES has been famous for, and it is massively lacking in areas like passing, and mental stats. Once you get down to less known players too, Personality+ becomes almost invisible, which Ahearn recognises: "some of the lesser-known players don't get the same treatment".

He repraises the physicality which he liked from FIFA 10, not hinting towards the backlash against too much physicality that has become a popular notion within this community. He goes on to talk abut the Pro Passing system, describing it as one that "allows you to hold the pass button to target a comrade further down the field", which is absolutely not what Pro Passing does, and holding down the button more for a pass to a further player is something which has been part of FIFA's passing for a while. He found issue when he "sometimes wanted to make a hard quick pass to the teammate closest to me, but the passing system thought that my elongated button press meant I wanted to pass the ball further down the field". That line is a good example of someone who has seen a problem, who will explain the problem, but doesn't have the understanding of FIFA to really explain what's happening. As he clearly doesn't know what Pro Passing is, it's not that suprising. That is all he has to say about Pro Passing too, and that's pretty lacking.

He then goes on to criticise the AI with a lot more ferocity than in his FIFA 10 review, even though he states none of these issues are in anyway new. His criticism is pretty vague unfortunately: "Players also aren't all that aware of what's going on around them unless they're directly interacting with another player on the field". For me, FIFA 11 represented a serious backwards step in terms of AI - defensive AI is in FIFA 11 almost impossibly broken, to the point where it's almost impossible to stop your defence breaking down of its own accord.

Considering these criticisms, I would not have thought he'd go onto state, as he does, that the core gameplay is "extremely solid", and that "there's no denying that FIFA presents some of the best flow in terms of gameplay that you'll find in a sports game". Actually Nate, I'll deny that one.

He criticises Be a Goalie as 'not very fun', and talks briefly about Career Mode. There is basically no criticism of Manager Mode at all (though there isn't any praise either), but he does wish for a more streamlined Be a Pro experience which would take less time to get to a "reputable level".

Overall: 8.5

ACCURACY: 4/10
CRITICAL CONTENT: 6/10
INSIGHT: 4/10

In some ways this is a better review than the FIFA 10 one, but it does highlight an inability to really nail the criticism. While he has complaints, his descriptions of those complaints are near useless. He fails again and again to stick the knife in where it really should be.

That's it for IGN's FIFA reviews, and that was it for their FIFA 11 coverage. Even though, by the time the game released there was evidence of MAJOR problems with Clubs, IGN as a whole did absolutely nothing. While they seem eager to talk FIFA up, they seem completely anonymous when it comes to saying anything negative about them, even when it must be of huge importance to many of their readers eager to try out FIFA 11's revolutionary mode.

FIFA 12 preview - Link

Onto FIFA 12 then, and one preview in particular, from Hilary Goldstein, who was until recently Editor in Chief at IGN - he has now left so that he can take a more hands on approach in the games industry, and I wish him well in that.

His preview of FIFA 12 then, would have been one of the last things he wrote, and maybe his standards had slipped, because this article is one of the biggest loads of * I've ever read. I say this in a premium position, because I have played the exact same build of FIFA 12 as him, and I've played it a lot more than him. Hilary had played a whole of two matches, from which he managed to spawn over 750 words of unending praise for FIFA 12. Hyperbolic is an understatement, as Goldstein starts off by claiming that "once you play FIFA 12, it's impossible to go back to FIFA 11", and that "FIFA 12 is an incredible improvement over FIFA 11". It is at this point, as per usual, that they criticise things about previous games which they've never criticised before, so that they can justify the improvements in FIFA 12. For example, "turning was an odd thing. Players circled as if they were in a car" is used as an introudction for the Precision Dribbling improvement. Apparently "momentum impacts a player" in terms of dribbling too, which isn't something I found very apparent.

Onto the really criminal stuff, and Goldstein begins by praising FIFA's old defensive system. "I've always been a fan of FIFA's simple defensive system. Hold a button and you bear down on the ball." "But it can also leave you exposed, since you go right for the ball handler. FIFA 12 solves this". Where do you start really? Even if we ignore the fact that he thinks FIFA 11’s defensive system is good, it’s absolutely bizarre that he thinks the problem with it was that it could leave you exposed. To claim that FIFA 12 solves this? Well it's simply untrue. I doubt he's lying, I think he's totally clueless. The reality is that FIFA 11's defensive system is primarily bad because it's far too easy to just hold down A, charge into every tackle, and not actually do anything whatsoever. It's being changed so that you have to take a more active and realistic role in defence. The problem of leaving you exposed did not need to be solved, and FIFA 12 does not solve it!

At the end Goldstein commits what I can only call Game Journalism's Cardinal Sin: "If EA can deliver, FIFA 12 will leapfrog FIFA 11's gameplay. At this point, the only real competition for EA is last year's FIFA." In one fell swoop, the Editor in Chief at IGN, has handed the crown to FIFA. Not only is it disgustingly dismissive of PES, which is nowhere near as far away from FIFA 11 as Hilary seems to believe, but it's the worst message in the world to give to EA. It's rude, it's fundamentally unfair and untrue. It is ridiculous at this stage, before playing PES 2012, to dismiss it entirely, but that is exactly what Goldstein did.

That's it for IGN, probably the biggest gaming website on the internet, and on this evidence they simply don't deserve it. There isn't a single review which I could term as good, and the UK side stuff (as well as some of the previews) is simply appalling. Downright lying at times, and completely out of their depths at others, if IGN is representative of the rest of the media, then something needs to change and fast. The inconsistency between reviewers makes an absurdly contradictory message. IGNUK seems to love FIFA to the extent where they didn't do a PES review. The FIFA review of IGNUS seems to think FIFA is best, and the editor in chief concurred, but then the PES review contradicts that, and awards PES a better review score than the other reviewer gave FIFA! It's simply out of control.

Who benefits from this? Well, it certainly doesn't benefit us. We get poor reviews which misinform us about the quality of the games, we get taken on a hype train every single year, and at the end of it, they fail utterly to question EA on their failings. Not a single article, not a single mention, of any of the problems which have thwarted FIFA 10 and 11 since release. Do EA benefit? Perhaps in the short term, while their mistakes are skated over and their games are advertised by supposed critics. But in the long term, they are unlikely to benefit from this. It is possible they are being sold a false sense of security by reviewers like IGN, who allow them to feel comfortable even with Konami snapping eagerly at their heels and excelling them in multiple areas. If you look at the things EA are doing this year and last, do any of the reviews suggest these changes? Are they any criticisms of the collision system? Any of them criticising the way dribbling works? What about some criticisms of the tackling system? No? Well, maybe someone pointed out that FIFA 10 lacked player personality, or passing error? No. They didn't. IGN fails on every possible level in every possible way.

ComputerandVideoGames.com

FIFA 10 Review - Link
CVG, or ComputerAndVideoGames.com is another metacritic endorsed gaming website, they do a lot of reviewing, previewing, and news, and some of the stuff they've done on FIFA over the last couple of years has really raised my eyebrows, so I thought it would be good to stick them under the spotlight a bit more. Fortunately the reviews are pretty short, but they are packed full of gems.

CVG starts by claiming that FIFA 10 manages to produce "unforgettable" moments again and again, night after night, and follows this up by saying it's the "most competent ball game on the 360". They big up how well FIFA differentiates between good teams and bad (in an almost identical manner to IGNUK's review) and the new skilled dribble function, though they admit that there occasionaly is a "slight delay of a pass or shot until the player's finished", as well as praising the ability to double tap Y (triangle) to keep the keeper on his line. It would be unfair perhaps for me to state that they're just making stuff up from the first few paragraphs, but when they praise the double Y tap, you know they're barely even testing the game. Everything I've ever read/experienced about that feature implied that it was more or less broken, barely making any difference to the keepers positioning at all, and generally doing nothing to stop him charging off his line and being chipped near enough every time.

Towards the end of their short review, they utter words of warning: "If there's one thing we've learned about footy games it's that the real game-breaking quirks only ever appear after many months of testing[...] FIFA 09 stood the test of time. We're sure FIFA 10 will be similarly steadfast but [...] there's always a chance. Yet we've ploughed hours and hours into all its modes, and aside from a tendency for crosses to go long (easily fixed by changing the settings from 'auto' to 'semi' or 'manual') nothing has cracked. Between classic, manager mode, Be a Pro, and Virtual Legend and everything else lots could have gone wrong for EA. For now though, it's all slotted neatly into place."

It's an interesting passage, because in one sense it's quite cautious and pretty wise. Problems in games like these often don't become clear immediately. It is however ridiculous to say that the only real issue with FIFA 10 is that 'crosses can go long!' on assisted. Funnily enough, out of the reviews I've looked at so far this was the only one to mention the assistance settings. He also invented a new mode called Virtual Legend, and seemed to have none of the major bugs with manager mode appear for him even if they did for half the forum.

Overall: 9

A very vague review, not saying a huge amount either way. Criticism is almost non-existent. A high score with a 9/10, and apparently there are no 'downers' whatsoever. At times it seems that he's just going through the things which were supposed to have changed and creating examples of how this effected his game.

ACCURACY: 3
CRITICAL CONTENT: 1
INSIGHT: 1

FIFA 11 Review - Link
If the FIFA 10 review was basically useless, the FIFA 11 one is offensively bad. It begins in a manner which is drippingly reverent, bowing down to EA's supposed brilliance: "FIFA is quickly becoming the hardest franchise to review in the entirety of the videog ame galaxy. Basically, it's been making us look like mugs ever since FIFA 09." Confused? Well, they explain: "The revamped entry - whichc ame after the slug-fest [read: almost a sim] that was FIFA 08 - made critics stand up, applaud and declare console football back on track. FIFA 10 trotted out of the tunnels a year later, bringing the likes of 360 dribbling with it. [..] 'The definitive football game' we all called it. But we were premature [...] There are only so many times critics can say, 'This is as good as it gets,' before being shown something better the following year. It hurts our ego." Wow. If this review was transformed into an act between two people it would be too explicit to write down. It's a corporate * at best.

After about 5 paragraphs of lauding EA's every fart, they get onto talking about FIFA 11. The "flagship tweak" is Personality+. At first they seemed not to be overawed: "Players still all seemed to have roughly the same feel to them. For a while we were wondering whether Personality+ had any real effect at all." "It was then that we witnessed Theo Walcott attempt to tackle Zat Knight - and bounce right off the big man. With our eyes opened, we started to look for more evidence; and noticed Lee Chung Yong [...] flail his arms to keep balance as he scrambled around a left back on the wing." They don't overstate Personality+ much, saying that "In terms of most players, Personality+ won't have a massive effect on your game. That could be a criticism; but, then again, how much worth really is there, for exammple, in studying how John O'Shea moves?". Essentially, they realise that Personality+ didn't do much, but say that it doesn't need to, so it's OK!

They go on praising the player likenesses enormously, crowd sounds, and keeper AI. They mention that penalties can now be conceded by a poor standing tackle, as "having a defender clip our heels when we were one-on-one with the keeper, only to see the ref look on as if nothing had happened, was absolute madness" which is strange, because you'd have thought they'd have mentioned that problem in the FIFA 10 review (it is a different reviewer to be fair). He praises the defensive AI, which is strange because the defensive AI in FIFA is "boring", but that it works fine "aside from a few balancing issues" (it is not mentioned what these are).

They do say there could be some complaints though: "the only qualms we can see cropping up for FIFA 11 will be from the hardcore PES faithful". They start scratching around for criticisms (at least they are trying), and complain about the pass-across-goal being too common and easy, and they also criticise the sound effect when the ball hits the post. This was done clearly to illustrate just how amazing and flawless FIFA 11 is "Can you see we're getting desperate here?".

They conclude that "apart from a few incredibly minor tweaks, we can't think of anything else EA Sports can do to improve their game on the pitch. We'll feel like right mugs when they reveal all next year."

Overall: 9.7

In some areas it's reasonable - it didn't go over the top praising Personality+, which is bang on because Personality+ was one of the least tangible back-of-the-box features I can remember. They didn't even mention Pro Passing. In fact, most of their article is a waffly * of sycophantic praise. It is funny that they struggle to find criticisms with FIFA 11, because I remember writing almost 30,000 words detailing around 50 criticisms of FIFA 11, without even going into the offline game modes. It seems that the writer for CVG does not know how EA can improve their title - well you know what? I do. So do most of the people in this community. We are doing their jobs for them, complaining and criticising FIFA, constructively (sometimes) and giving the feedback which is directing changes to the game. Did this review mention anything which would lead to the Impact Engine, tactical defending, precision dribbling? Of course not. These people are charlatans.

ACCURACY: 2/10
CRITICAL CONTENT: 2/10
INSIGHT: 2/10

It's hard to know quite why the coverage is quite so ridiculous, and why it's over the top. Is it bias? Well, perhaps. Tom Pakinkis is harsh on PES in some areas (well, at least he is harsh compared to how lenient he is with FIFA), and seems to attribute quite a few pluspoints to FIFA when in reality they are clearly unrealistic elements of the game. You have to remember that this guy truly does believe that FIFA is essentially perfect on the pitch.

That's FIFA, the game which has basically no tactical depth. FIFA, the game where the defensive AI pulls itself to bits of its own accord every 5 seconds. FIFA, where you can make passes while spinning through 180 degrees to players you can't see. FIFA, where every single attacking run is a straight line. FIFA, where players have no momentum or inertia. FIFA, where every single piece of defensive play is a homing missile style tackle. It's not that FIFA is necessarily a bad game, but there is a long way between 'great' and 'perfect', and FIFA is absolutely not perfect.

None of this matters (or occurs) to CVG's reviewers, instead there is an obsession with the aesthetics, match day experience and so on (they don't really mention that PES has much stronger/more varied match-day cutscenes). They state the gameplay is perfect because presumably they can't tell - afterall, they think that PES's passing is totally unassisted, which is a bigger gaffe than Martin Robinson's 180-degree-pass assertion/lie.

This is the game he considers to be 'pretty much perfect on the pitch'. So it could be bias, or it could be just a complete lack of understanding when it comes to how football works. It doesn't really matter - it's just another organisation, like IGN, which can barely produce anything of merit.

Gametrailers - Link

GameTrailer's review starts off with some fairly questionable comments, and continues in that manner. In describing Personality+ they talk about the 36 attributes and 57 traits behind the scenes (as if these are in any sense new - some of the traits are but barely any of the attributes are) which are compiled by "top tier soccer scouts". This, and I mean no offense to the data reviewers who may be reading this, is an outright lie: the data compilation is done primarily by volunteers from the community who are in no way professional, top tier, or scouts.

Personality+ apparently works well (no examples), and this they say extends to keepers noticeably. Moving onto gameplay, they talk about Pro Passing which apparently allows for "modified crosses and swerve passes", and passing outcomes are apparently "more to do with player skill than AI". The first quote is an utter fantasy - modified crosses and swerve passes predate FIFA 11 and are not part of what Pro Passing does, and the second part is * too. Unbelievably, I did then hear a couple of gameplay criticisms - the game occasionally misinterprets your passes, and team AI apparently misreads passes more than they'd like. FIFA 11 is a game which apparently turns away from "pinball like passes" and sums up that FIFA is "overall a more methodical game of soccer , ""approach leans towards the realistic". Presentation comes up again, and this time gets a round of applause. Custom celebrations (which actually made their debut over a year before) are talked about as if they'd never been there before, improved menus (ie, a change of font). Crowd visuals are criticised, as are some player models and some odd animations keep FIFA 11's presentation "short of fantastic."

GameTrailer's review is almost entirely uncritical, only managing to bring out criticisms when talking about presentation. Some parts would make you wonder whether they've actually played the game, or watched a game of football recently. I don't know whether they actually pay someone to write that review, but I'd do it for free and I'd do a much better job.

The Telegraph - Link

I thought it would be quite interesting to see how the mainstream print media does when it comes to reviewing games. The FIFA 11 review starts off with a pretty big claim - FIFA 10 players and PES fans should go out and buy FIFA 11, and that is an emphatic suggestion Nick Cowen. Gameplay criticism is low on the ground - well, almost all criticism is low on the ground actually. Gameplay is termed as "superb" and the career mode is apparently "fantastic". FIFA 11 is apparently the "most complete package fans of football video games could want."

It's the kind of review which is more or less worthless to any real gamer. Unless you are the type who would never dare go on a gaming site, I can't see what exactly Cowen's review would provide - vague descriptions of gameplay changes and absolutely no idea what is good or bad. It's detailess, far too positive, and almost entirely lacking in negativity. It's hard to see why he didn't give it a 10 from what he wrote.

GameSpot - Link

As gaming sites go, GameSpot is beaten in the popularity stakes only by IGN - so lets see if they can manage more than IGNs poor standard. Unfortunately, their review couldn't be any more predictable. They love the increased physicality unreservedly, not in anyway concerned by what has been seen by many as too much physical play, and praise Personality+. Career Mode is they mention as a downer in the review summary, saying that it "lacks realism", but this isn't expanded upon at all in the main review. Praising at the core key improvements to gameplay, FIFA 11 is the "best and most addictive version of the game yet".

It's just more of the same. Another review with quite literally no negative comment. Some might say that this isn't a problem, but I disagree heavily. With any praise there must be mention of the limitation - else it sounds quite literally like something is perfect. It's absolutely impossible to know how well Personality+ does, or doesn't work from GameSpots reviews, they use a couple of examples of what it does do, and leave the rest unsaid. You are undoubtedly meant to assume it does more outside of what they explained, but without any more detail it's entirely up to you to guess - and that's Gamespots review all over. There is nowhere near enough depth to know anything about the game. You are expected to take it for granted that, if the reviewer says its a 9, it is a great game worthy of 'Editors' Choice.

Game Informer - Link

Game Informers review of FIFA 11 follows CVGs precedent, claiming that on the pitch FIFA is in "excellent form". However, it is surprising to see him be quite negative about player personalities: "I'm not sure how much the player personalities come out in the gameplay. I can't speak to the personal style of every ffamous soccer star around the world, but I don't think teams and players differentiate themsevles very much. The AI's attack isn't creative of aggressive; it often runs out ideas outside the box and refuses to unleash shots while in space from further out." Sorry to quote such a long bit, but I felt like a desert wanderer coming across an oasis. Where the hell did that come from? There's more too!: "Furthermore, you can dictate play with the jostling command, which is too effective". I have to read between the lines a little here but I'm pretty sure that he's talking about the press buttons, because there is no 'jostling command'. If that is what he means, then this would be the first review I've gone through which even touched on the idea that there was something wrong with the tackling. Maybe this is wishful thinking from me however. On career mode he is also not exactly that positive, bashing the decision to remove the form system: "Removing the ability to improve players by playing them on their club's reserve squad, is odd. This hampers the effectiveness of the new growth system, where you're expected to put certain players in the starting 11 or loan them out to gain experience. What manager in his right mind would allow a 67-rated player to [start] for Chelsea? Isn't he supposed to get a seasoning int he reserves first?" Again, spot on.

This is the first review which I'd say is of acceptable quality. It's the first one to really criticise, and the first to actually back up the criticism with some depth. Whilst it's not in anyway perfect, and while it misses out a lot, it breaches territory that the aforementioned reviews don't get close to. It's the best of a bad bunch, failing primarily in some slightly unjustified conclusions.

Eurogamer - Link

Eurogamers review is a lengthy take on FIFA 11, and it starts off by going through the issues with FIFA 10. Not many of these were actually mentioned in their own review of FIFA 10 at the time, but a broken Manager mode, idiotic keepers, and clockwork precision passing were the main things they wanted solved. Pro Passing is massively over praised - they seem to believe that it somehow removes "crazy videogame" passing and the ping-pong, which it clearly did not. Career mode is termed as dull, and celebrations are "ridiculous." They conclude that FIFA 11 has lost some of the heart from FIFA 10. The changes to make it more realistic (like passing) have made sure that some players find"matches [to be] a slog". "FIFA 10 may have had zippy sci-fi passing, moments of madness and goals from the halfway line, but you felt like you knew the rules and quirks and the latter gave it a likeable personality. FIFA 11 is more realistic and less predictable tahn ever, but ti turns out this doesn't make it much more fun.", "In its battle to be more varied and realistic [FIFA] has lots some of its momentum.

If any review is seriously dangerous to the future of the FIFA franchise, this one would have to be it. It's reasonably critical (though typically not in the right way) but it concludes worryingly: implying clearly that FIFA becoming more realistic is something this reviewer is against. In fact, he fairly clearly praises the unrealistic situations of the past, arguably urging EA to go back to it. If there is anything worse than being uncritical, perhaps its this: actively criticising the drive to be more realistic on the grounds that (half-cocked) changes like Pro Passing didn't pay off. While I would say that Pro Passing does make passing unrealistically lethargic, it also fails to realistically kerb silly passing. This the reviewer fails to pick up on, and then uses to attack simulation football gaming in general.

1UP - Link

For my final review then, 1UP, who gave FIFA 11 one of the joint-lowest scores it got, giving it a B, which metacritic surmises as a 75/100. This is one of the hardest hitting, and ends its introduction by stating that "after watching this summer's thrilling World Cup, I'm convinced the current version of FIFA is past its sell-by date." Harsh words indeed. What's his main irk? Well he thinks that, although the game "flows very much like an actual soccer match -- this year's passing game feels especially nuanced [...] -- but it simply doesn't exploit the skills of the top players on the pitch." He's clearly disappointed at the lack of personality in FIFA, even with Personality+. He's also especially critical when it comes to presentation. Be a Pro is deemed 'tacked on', and Career Mode is, as a calendar-email-turner, dull (as this is pretty much the model that Football Manager brilliantly uses, I'm not sure the calendar, email cycle is the problem). He is wise to mention the possibility of bugs he hasn't/couldn't have noticed, like online issues or gamebreaking bugs, which he notes were present in the previous game (and, voila, were present in FIFA 11 too). All in all he doesn't seem too happy with FIFA 11, wanting it to make a big jump next year.

Just because a review has managed to get down towards the score I'd personally give FIFA 11, doesn't mean it's right, and this is a good example of that. Though he's right to criticise personality, it's all very vague and over-generalised. To say that FIFA lacks the star-player personalities only scratches the surface, and that's really all he managed in terms of gameplay issues. It lacks badly when it comes to insightful comment.

Conclusion

So that ends my examination of many of the biggest groups in games journalism. I've looked very closely at what is coming out of IGN, both the US and UK branches, and CVG, as well as a quicker run through of GameTrailers, Gamespot, Eurogamer, 1UP, Game Informer and The Telegraph. I hope you will agree that the standard of reviewing is really poor. It's hard to know how damaging this is to FIFA in terms of us getting the game we want, but I'd imagine it makes quite a big difference. Clearly, they are getting review scores which tend to be too high, and the content of the reviews often implies things which are thoroughly misleading when it comes to feedback.

There is sometimes a fairly clear disconnect between the worded part of the review and the summary, Game Informer's review impressed in that it was much more rigorous in its look on gameplay, but popped out a score of 8.75 which seems incongruent with the tone of the review which attacks more elements of the gameplay than it praises and rips into Manager Mode, as well as Be a Goalkeeper.

Why are reviews so poor?
There are a huge number of reasons why reviews are like this - a myriad of problems combine to make sure that good reviews are almost nonexistent. While some reviewers may be somehow incapable of producing good reviews, there is clearly something more general at work here. I'm fairly assured that there is no large scale bias or corruption going on. There are certainly examples of potential bias in CVGs review, and corruption is something which has been cited with other games over the last few years, where review copies were given under conditions and so forth, but without any evidence there is no good reason to believe this is happening with FIFA. So what is happening?

What are they looking for?
The first issue is what exactly the reviewer is looking for in the game. FIFA is advertised as a football simulation, and, a football simulation is what I personally want and it's what I think most of the core FIFA community want too. However, some reviews, and the Eurogamer one in particular sticks out in particular, seem to be arguing from a perspective which would say that a sim is not what should be made. As EA advertise FIFA as a football sim, this is certainly what it should be judged against. When looking at gameplay, things should be judged as to whether they are, or aren't realistic, and, if they are not realistic, whether or not they fit in well as a game. I don't think its right that Eurogamer could criticise things in the way they did, implying somewhat that by becoming more realistic with Pro Passing, FIFA had gone backwards.

Lack of football knowledge
A key factor is whether or not the reviewer really knows his stuff. The 1UP and GameTrailer reviews are certainly questionable on that, but to be honest I'd look fairly sternly at quite a few of these reviewers, who seem to believe quite a few things are fine/realistic when they patently are not. To judge a football sim, you no doubt have to have a good understanding of what it's supposed to be simulating.

Lack of FIFA knowledge
Another issue is one of whether they have a good understanding of the series itself. A reviewer who has never played FIFA 10 would not be a particularly good reviewer of FIFA 11, given that it would be hard for them to know what had changed, what had improved, and what had not. Pro Passing was one of the first things we found out about in the run up to FIFA 11, yet so many of the reviewers seem not to understand its purpose.

Pressure from the reader
There seems to be quite a lot of pressure on reviewers to review in a specific way. Many of the reviews have comment sections below, and those usually turn into exactly the kind of cesspit you'd imagine, whinging about the review being too low, or too high for every fanboyish reason under the sun. I suppose I can't really talk given the above, but, I think the abuse which can be railed at a reviewer could well encourage them to toe the moderate line, rather than coming out with any particularly unique view. Rocking the boat is a big no-no, and when the status quo is not on the right tracks, that makes it very hard to produce a great review.

Other pressures
While I don't think there is any evidence of straight up corruption, I do think that there is perhaps a case of there being far too many good reasons to praise a game. Any gaming company is heavily dependent upon the things they get told, exclusives they get given, and events they get to go to, and advertising put on the site. It is entirely impossible for a review to be done in decent time (ie, before release these days) if you don't get a preview copy. There is a clear conflict of interests between giving an honest review/preview, and getting to do a preview again. The relationship between the game maker and the writer is often a bit too cosy to be a good habitat for fair reviews.

The Hype Cycle
Journalism is very often sensationalist and games journalism is up there with football journalism (ironically enough) when it comes to it. There is a continual and very powerful self fulfilling prophecy at work. You will see it clearly with IGN. Start off with FIFA 08, which IGN rated at a 7.7. It's one of the most brutal reviews I think I've seen IGN ever come out with. Afterall, that year, they were still hyping up PES 2008 which they gave a 9.2. All changed next year, when FIFA 09 came out and IGN changed from the PES loving and FIFA hating reviewer to the Martin Robinson we know and love. From there it's been a constant cycle of the preview saying it's amazing, and the review having to agree. They are bound hugely by not contradicting themselves. They have to keep boosting the ratings, and keep agreeing with the hype which they themselves are creating!

The whole way that games journalism works is flawed, and it makes it very difficult to get fair and honest reviews/previews. I've found an article which was written a fair while back, but does a great job of outlining the issues with reviews in general, it's a long read but for anyone interested here it is: link

There are so many problems with the reviewing industry - and a lot of them are nearly unresolvable simply massive changes. The problem is obvious but the status quo is set in stone. What is clear is that the people doing the reviews are often not best placed to do so, the various pressures and issues are leading to a huge number of these reviews and previews giving false impressions of the games.

Revolution?
I think there is something which has been changing over the last few years which gives us the opportunity to get a more fair system in place. A wildcard has been thrown into the mix with the increase in opportunities for the community to play the game early. While IGN and the Hilary Goldsteins of the world used to be able to make their comments with no one to question them, there is now a new group in town. That group, is us. Representatives of our community (and I'm lucky to call myself one of them) have been given opportunities to play the last few FIFAs early in the development cycle and give our impressions. While this is a new, and changing situation, it's one which could potentially prove very powerful when it comes to making FIFA the strongest game it can be.

While we used to perhaps have a problem making our feelings known to EA, our challenge is now one more of persuasion - we need to convince EA that what we think is right for the game is the right path, rather following the calls of the masses or the indications of the reviewers. Telling EA what we think in detail is half the battle and its something I think we're doing pretty damned well. I am a firm believer in the potential of this community to make its own fortune here. We need to stop confining ourself to the cynical deep of forums and start extending our reach as far and wide as possible. We need to get our impressions out there, make our beliefs and arguments known, and start persuading the wider community that much better can be done with FIFA, and with that we can bolster our persuasiveness.

For with EA's generosity and courage to give some in the community the opportunity to play FIFA early, in return for the feedback and buzz it creates, we have the vital resource we need to compete with the professionals - because we're much better placed to make the comments: We know FIFA inside out, we know its good parts and its bad parts, we know football, and perhaps most importantly we know what it is to be an outsider. Problem is, the previews which came out of the community on the forums and blogs receive a miniscule amount of attention relative to the professional reviews. We have valuable expertise, and now, we have the valuable information too. Armed with this we can extend our reach to try to prove the popularity of maxims like Love Simulation, Hate Arcade.

Maybe I'm young, naive, and overly optimistic, but I think it's absolutely feasible for this community to become more of a factor in FIFA's development, and one of the biggest hurdles to that, is the mainstream gaming media.

Nice write up but this hardly a new thing or indeed a FIFA thing. Everyone knows the BS that come out of some know-nothing games critics that in the end we just assume the games company has obviously stuck a brown envelope to the front of the game box along with some class A drugs.

You could do with this with every single high profile game going. Read a review after you've played the game comphrehensively and you'll find yourself thinking they've played a different and much superior installment of it.

Does it really make that much difference at the end of the day? Do people really buy games whilst justifying their purchase solely on the review from a few magazine critics?



I don't think ignorant game reviews are damaging to an extent to be concerned about. It's been happening for 20 years.

I agree very much with Sweetpatch writers, but we have to take into consideration one thing: these journalists they have to sell their magazines and need sensational titles, that's something journalist do in every aspect, not only videogames... Just see what they say about real summer transfers, how much they make absurd thoughts, make strange hypothesis, etc...
But the most important thing is that they have to judge the game (every game they make the review for) based on few matches, they are not like us that we can try the game for almost one year and see all the bugs and flaws the game has...
I would be really surprised if they can do more than 10 matches with the release version of the game!!!

That said, the problem are not directly journalists or not only: the problem is EA SPORTS that should care more about our moanings, moanings of those who play the game ONE YEAR LONG, not caring about sensational titles and features ("impact engine" rules this year, last year was "personality plus")

This should be a sticky!!

Nice write up fella.

I think most of the FIFA fans know not to read too much into the media and to listen more to sites like FIFAscoeerBlog, the FVPA, UltimateFIFA, Sweetpatch.tv etc

At the end of the day the best reviews will come from those who want the game to be better because they play it.

ahh, very good writeup, rare to find nowdays.

Thank you so much for posting this. I'm sick of all the * that's floating about in the media

Can barely wait to get my hands on Fifa 99 hd v.12 or Fifa 12 as they call it.

proen wrote:Can barely wait to get my hands on Fifa 99 hd v.12 or Fifa 12 as they call it.

Oh come off it. Yes the game has its faults and maybe hasn't moved forwards much in the past few years, but to compare it to a 'HD' version of Fifa 99 is nothing short of moronic.

Interesting stuff, OP.

ign are the worst for games reviews anyways i never read any reviews on fifa i play it myself and have my own opinion of the game which will be same as every fifa yes sum bugs here and there but if u love football then fifa has no compition to a real football sim.

But fifa 12 gotta admit sum real nice stuff they have so cant wait for more to get me even more hooked. might be as far as get a gun and hold a store hostage just to get it early will give my early review in prison

Xaor wrote:At the end Goldstein commits what I can only call Game Journalism's Cardinal Sin: "If EA can deliver, FIFA 12 will leapfrog FIFA 11's gameplay. At this point, the only real competition for EA is last year's FIFA." In one fell swoop, the Editor in Chief at IGN, has handed the crown to FIFA. Not only is it disgustingly dismissive of PES, which is nowhere near as far away from FIFA 11 as Hilary seems to believe, but it's the worst message in the world to give to EA. It's rude, it's fundamentally unfair and untrue. It is ridiculous at this stage, before playing PES 2012, to dismiss it entirely, but that is exactly what Goldstein did.

So true!! For these people there is nothing on this earth KONAMI can do right on their PES game. And it sickens me, to be honest.

Interesting xaor.. interesting what the talk about eurogamer

"FIFA 11 is more realistic and less predictable tahn ever, but ti turns out this doesn't make it much more fun."

In my point of view, this line is mere a marketing stuff. No critique at all. The tag line is more realistic and less predictable.

When ppl read this line it seems that many would think..
"ow jeez eurogamer such an arcade player.. i am gonna buy it because they said it is more realistic and bla2 which they dont prefer"



and about how we can compete.. who do you mean by "we" ? is it people that don't see the flaw or see it at glance but dont really bother with the flaw from lets say DEMO or "we" that try to analyze in detail aspect about football match and its fundamental then compare it with DEMO to make decision to purchase it or not ? Even the latter still mostly buy it, right ?

"so what does profit means for EA indirectly? = you agree with what they offer, period."

For me it's not about gaming site, it is about us the customer. we just cant stand not seeing new feature that FIFA offers by buying it.

Let me say like this xaor, assume, an ideal solution to represent sim football match has been suggested by community and implemented by EA very well. But majority of the customer does not like for what the offering. They stop buying it. So do you think EA will sacrifice that money without any money guarantee from gamechanger ppl (for example), NO way.

Yes, compared to FIFA 07, FIFA next gen has evolved in many department. Yes, the developer still try to do what they can to deliver a good football game. But what is more important ? It is public perception of unreleased game and how to make them cant stand not to buy one for whatever reason.

I'll try to finish your write up though but i'll drop my conclusion for what'm trying to say :

If 5 million people shout that "we will not buy the game if EA does not show this and this improvement during our test in the DEMO no matter how they are trying to deliver their ads and features they implement in final version". Thats when we will expect a revolution in user-feedback-based approach in game development.

wait you ppl may try make a poll that goes more ore less like this :

If FIFA 12 demo does not show 3 out of 5 improvement especially gameplay related you wish to see regardless amount of licensed, career mode, or new feature they offer in final version, do you still buy it ? and state exactly your 5 spesific wish to see on gameplay-related.

a. Yes
b. No
c. It has to be 5 wish of mine to be well implemented, then i'll buy it.

Just look at the result

A majority of 'casual/mainstream' gamers will probably agree with what 'casual/mainstream' media will have to say, therefore they're delivering the right verdict at their target audience (you only have to go through the user scores of Gamespot to prove this). When it comes to in depth review from individual gaming communitys it will always have more critique and depth and that's why fans of those games search out those communities to get the more qualified opinion of the game that they want to buy.

I think it's slightly condescending to assume that anyone at EA doesn't have the intelligence to be aware of the gushing praise that comes out of mainstream media. I'm pretty sure they know how it is, if they didn't why would they bother asking the community to playtests. They do it because they know where the more informed opinion is going to come from.

So in that respect, I don't think it's massively damaging to Fifa's production at all.

silas28 wrote:Nice write up but this hardly a new thing or indeed a FIFA thing. Everyone knows the BS that come out of some know-nothing games critics that in the end we just assume the games company has obviously stuck a brown envelope to the front of the game box along with some class A drugs.

You could do with this with every single high profile game going. Read a review after you've played the game comphrehensively and you'll find yourself thinking they've played a different and much superior installment of it.

Does it really make that much difference at the end of the day? Do people really buy games whilst justifying their purchase solely on the review from a few magazine critics?

I don't think ignorant game reviews are damaging to an extent to be concerned about. It's been happening for 20 years.

I think you'll find it makes a tremendous difference to people's buying habits. Maybe not ours, but to most people it is very important. Why else do EA value their metacritic so highly? They would have to do it on either the account that they believe the metacritic rating is a fair judgement of their game, or, the account that is vastly beneficial to their sales going forward: I think it's patently obvious which one of the two it is.

The number of times EA over the last few years have referred to the reviews, or metacritic ratings they get are enormous, whether it was Peter Moore complaining that FIFA didn't get into EuroGamer's top 50 games with FIFA 09, or Gary Paterson explaining away the neglect of manual, or many of the recent interviews with David Rutter recently: they talk up their game from the point of view it is talked about by the media. I think it's massively naive to imagine that it doesn't matter hugely: EA prove constantly that it does.

You are right to point out that this isn't something which specifically happens to FIFA, and yes, it happens to most big games (it happens significantly less to smaller games). The way games like, for example, Call of Duty, are reviewed very much matches this. There are more honest reviews though - generally of smaller games. It's often quite interesting to see the difference in the nature of a review for an indie game. Has this been going on for a long time? Yes, to an extent it has, but I'm adamant it's getting worse.

More replies on the way.

PC Gamer tore Black Ops a new one.