Reminder that video game media was always corrupt...

Yeah but they were still fun to read even if they were talking bullshit out the ass.

Now you can't even have that

Oh okay, that's pretty shitty.

True as this may be, its a very different ball game now. Video game devs literally buy the time of "influencers" and advertisers, no one trusts video game journalist nowadays anyway. Getting extra press and a few shitty awards back in the day is nowhere near as scummy as the viral ad campaigns; the self inflicted controversies that game devs spin around themselves to get attention by pandering to various groups didn't exist before this decade and modern social media, and there were no "influencers" telling millions of kids what games to ask for.

i never even played bubsy 3d til that shit was a dollar. it was trash and no number of awards could've convinced me otherwise.

Attached: 1561211177868.png (960x960, 1001K)

Dew it

The ideological corruption is entirely different. How do game Journos go from the 90s where you write to your readers like you are their friend bro, who is confident in their knowledge of games to now, where you come of as some 10 years olds parents and recommend him some non offensive, personal improvement games, instead of something cool? Games aren't supposed to teach people how to be good members of society, but actual parents are. Games are just entertainment.

They were there just in hiding. The good thing about social media is knowing your enemy

Reminder that Mario 64 only got successful and 10/10 GOTYAY and is still praised by morons because Nintendo fucking paid off reviewers at the time to lie about that shitty fucking game with horrible controls and a laughable camera.

A later example but GMR was given a early copy of fable and gave the game a high score through what was essentially a beta

Attached: F322DA63-93BF-4402-97FD-517FA50BAE02.jpg (260x299, 23K)

link?

>x clusive
>box reviews
What DID they mean by this?

Listen the early 2000s were fucking weird

At least niggas could beat the games they were paid to review back then.

Attached: cuphead and bird.webm (640x360, 2.32M)

FOUND IT!
Amiga Power 1995.

Attached: Ur6Ot.jpg (1999x1499, 598K)

Based

a brit mag, of course

the mags i read were unofficial like gameplayers and PSM

very good find, user. the more things change, the more they stay the same

Attached: 1501418740999.png (474x311, 151K)

I feel like I heard waffle reviews a million times back then.

>gameplayers
They were fun, until they tried to be a "serious" magazine.

Good shit remember the number 73

that's because everyone left for PSM and Xbox later on. gameplayers and ultra gameplayers were fine, game buyers was just 4 issues and that was that.

It wasn't the same back then. I'm speaking from experience. I was a games journalist back in the 2000s. I worked freelance and mostly wrote for smaller sites, but did some work for the big ones as well.

Something changed in the corporate online media about a decade ago give or take. It was nowhere even remotely close to as corrupt back then. There was always shenanigans, up to and including outright bribery for actual cash, but most reviews didn't work like that. For about the last decade or so everything has been much more insular. They don't use freelancers as much as they used to. Now they only hire their friends or (sometimes literal) faggots who they think they can trust to push their political agendas. "Bribery" isn't really even necessary anymore because everything is so controlled that no site is going to talk shit about any game that their sponsors make. There are still "incentives" given for positive reviews (the most common of which is free vacations), which is why you should never trust anyone (including youtubers) who gets advanced copies for "review purposes".

Not at all true. There were way more asians in my day. And the most influential game reviewer of all time is Scorpia, a (notorious) PC gaming reviewer from 25-35 years ago who was the first to push actual "critical reviews" for the medium instead of just "this game has good graphics and gameplay lol" style reviews. She was pretty talented even if her tastes were awful lol.

That's the biggest change. There wasn't political shit then. That definitely changed in the last decade.

Reminder: when bubsy3D came out, it was one of maybe 10 titles even available. If it got a favorable review, it's because there really wasnt anything to compare it too. also, havesex OP

>Reminder that Next Generation was the only actual legit gaming mag from the 90's, and they never hesitated to call anything shit.

Delusional. GamePro was more or less honest, but they were so focused on fluff that they couldn't really give strong opinions. Those dudes were pretty cool though and never took themselves seriously. Nintendo Power, believe it or not, was also pretty straight down the line in its early years. Their only serious rule was that their writers weren't allowed to write anything unrelated to the actual games (which is a GOOD rule). It didn't really go full fluff until the SNES era and especially the N64 era. By the time the Gamecube came along they were a joke and totally irrelevant.

>It's a "Neopotism and politics ruin everything" episode
It's the re-run that never ends

Attached: 1557398542729.jpg (1440x1292, 218K)

when in the 00s?

early 00s? this is important, name names too, asshole. i need fucking proof. what games did you review? had to have reviewed SOMETHING i played and i played EVERYTHING.

>Reminder that video game media was always corrupt. Magazines would offer better reviews and more coverage for exclusive scoops and early copies back in the 90s

That is true. But at least they weren't ideologically opposed to having fun things in games. THAT is brand new.

I agree that early Nintendo Power was a good mag, but they were a straight advertisement and I could tell that even as a kid.

>Reminder: when bubsy3D came out, it was one of maybe 10 titles even available. If it got a favorable review, it's because there really wasnt anything to compare it too.
Released earlier that month was Jet Moto, Twisted Metal, Tekken, Warhawk, and Wipeout. There was a lot of other games, and many better. Nice LARP about a time you weren't even born.

Here's my thoughts on this:

>Dark Underbelly 1
Any review that's about the reviewer and not the game is worthless.
>Dark Underbelly 2
Don't agree with this. Games are so subjective that it's a bad idea to say "I don't like [genre] so this sucks because it's [genre]." You really need to be objective about this stuff and not judge by your own taste alone. You're writing a review, not a blog.
>Dark Underbelly 3
This doesn't really even apply now.
>Dark Underbelly 4
Yeah, if you get free plane tickets then you're compromised. NEVER trust a review if the reviewer got free shit. This is increasingly becoming a problem with even youtubers.
>Dark Underbelly 5
You actually should rent before buying if possible. This is stupid.
>Dark Underbelly 6
It's a joke in the industry that anything in the 7/10 range is saying "mediocre, but I don't want to piss off the fanbase too much".

Most of the rest of decent enough.

People still know my name and have my contact info. I'm not giving anything away that could identify me.

This guy is 100% right. The "agendas" (whether it's black dick obsessions or pro-censorship propaganda or whatever or trying to pressure devs to put "press X to skip gameplay" modes into everything) weren't a thing then.

then everything you say is bullshit if you can't do something simple like tell me ONE game you reviewed 20 years ago

faggot faker.

>everything you say is bullshit if you can't do something simple like tell me ONE game you reviewed 20 years ago

Yes, that's completely logical. It's also incredibly important whether or not a random Yea Forums poster approves of the stories of an ex-journalist.

Attached: thumb_congratulations-yontre-retarded-well-done-youve-passed-6816623.png (200x166, 25K)