Victory Game Center

Arnold Bennett wrote: If you chance to read Hazlitt on Chaucer and Spenser, you will probably put your hat on instantly and go out and buy these authors; such is his communicating fire! I need not particularise further.

Adrian Chmielarz wrote: Remember the good old times when the idea was that the journalists and critics are the illuminated ones, who, thanks for their education, knowledge and dedicating their lives to the craft, reveal things to us? Offer a different, but cohesive perspective? Unveil the hidden truths, depths, and layers?

Those times seem to be gone now. Today in the gaming world it’s not weird, but actually expected that the comments section will be more reasonable and more knowledgeable than anything above it.

TotalBiscuit wrote: Whatever the case, this is a ground-based real-time strategy. We don't get a lot of those, and we certainly don't get a lot with the pedigree of Homeworld. The question is, Does it live up to past expectations? If you're going to call your game "Homeworld", then you are attaching some fairly high expectations from people, I think. And that's fair. If you're going to exploit the name of a story, and critically acclaimed franchise, you'd better damn well do it right. Did they? Well, I'll tell you. First things first. Over to the options menu.

Alex Proyas wrote: NOTHING CONFIRMS RAMPANT STUPIDITY FASTER...

Than reading reviews of my own movies. I usually try to avoid the experience - but this one takes the cake. Often, to my great amusement, a critic will mention my past films in glowing terms, when at the time those same films were savaged, as if to highlight the critic's flawed belief of my descent into mediocrity. You see, my dear fellow FBookers, I have rarely gotten great reviews… on any of my movies, apart from those by reviewers who think for themselves and make up their own opinions. Sadly those type of reviewers are nearly all dead. Good reviews often come many years after the movie has opened. I guess I have the knack of rubbing reviewers the wrong way - always have. This time of course they have bigger axes to grind - they can rip into my movie while trying to make their mainly pale asses look so politically correct by screaming "white-wash!!!” like the deranged idiots they all are. They fail to understand, or chose to pretend to not understand what this movie is, so as to serve some bizarre consensus of opinion which has nothing to do with the movie at all. That’s ok, this modern age of texting will probably make them go the way of the dinosaur or the newspaper shortly - don't movie-goers text their friends with what they thought of a movie? Seems most critics spend their time trying to work out what most people will want to hear. How do you do that? Why these days it is so easy... just surf the net to read other reviews or what bloggers are saying - no matter how misguided an opinion of a movie might be before it actually comes out. Lock a critic in a room with a movie no one has even seen and they will not know what to make of it. Because contrary to what a critic should probably be they have no personal taste or opinion, because they are basing their views on the status quo. None of them are brave enough to say “well I like it” if it goes against consensus. Therefore they are less than worthless. Now that anyone can post their opinion about anything from a movie to a pair of shoes to a hamburger, what value do they have - nothing. Roger Ebert wasn’t bad. He was a true film lover at least, a failed film-maker, which gave him a great deal of insight. His passion for film was contagious and he shared this with his fans. He loved films and his contribution to cinema as a result was positive. Now we have a pack of diseased vultures pecking at the bones of a dying carcass. Trying to peck to the rhythm of the consensus. I applaud any film-goer who values their own opinion enough to not base it on what the pack-mentality say is good or bad.

John Walker wrote: In this mess people have lost sight of what a review is for. It’s not a world-leading gaming expert explaining how they’re best at it – it’s a regular gamer who is hopefully an expert writer, eloquently describing their experience of the game. The farther a person drifts from this criteria, the less useful the criticism becomes to the largest number of readers

Gary Steinman wrote: At Bethesda, we value media reviews.

We read them. We watch them. We try to learn from them when they offer critique. And we understand their value to our players.

Earlier this year we released DOOM. We sent review copies to arrive the day before launch, which led to speculation about the quality of the game. Since then DOOM has emerged as a critical and commercial hit, and is now one of the highest-rated shooters of the past few years.

With the upcoming launches of Skyrim Special Edition and Dishonored 2, we will continue our policy of sending media review copies one day before release. While we will continue to work with media, streamers, and YouTubers to support their coverage – both before and after release – we want everyone, including those in the media, to experience our games at the same time.

We also understand that some of you want to read reviews before you make your decision, and if that’s the case we encourage you to wait for your favorite reviewers to share their thoughts.

Graham Smith wrote: Bethesda know that even the most popular reviewer or review outlet cannot compete with people’s love of their games

Graham Smith wrote: If you do care, what can you do about it? Stop pre-ordering for starters, since to pre-order is to willfully abandon your ability to make a fully informed purchasing decision. Wait for reviews from genuine sources, even if they arrive a week after a game’s release date.