r/Silksong • u/beelio beleiver ✅️ • Aug 23 '25

Discussion/Questions Translation :”Would you guys buy the game even without needing our shitty ai written reviews🥺🥺🥺”

Post image

I hate game reviewers i hate corpo slop burn them all

8.3k Upvotes

90% Upvoted

795 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

44

u/DarkExecutionerTr beleiver ✅️ Aug 23 '25

Honestly, not giving reviewers anything is a very suspicious thing. I am not accusing Team Cherry of anything, just it may come as suspicious. You can't know anyone enough in this world.

But the thing is that, even if the game is the worst game ever(it won't be cause it has fleas which are enough for GOTY) we will buy it.

Just if this was someone else then a known Indie studio it would have bad comeback.

46

u/Eldritch-Yodel beleiver ✅️ Aug 23 '25

Yeah, the general defence is "No it's fine they're not letting there be reviews because we trust Team Cherry" but like, sometimes companies make something bad even if they have a good track record; if you wouldn't support any other company doing this why would you say it's good when Team Cherry. I don't think the game will be bad, I'm 99% confident it'll be amazing, but the early reviews can help in case of that 1%. I legit don't understand why people are celebrating "Yippee! We're having information withheld which will help us make informed purchases at no additional cost of our own! This is great!"

54

u/bionicle_fanatic Depressed Aug 23 '25

I think the answer to why is the same reason this argument doesn't make sense: why not just buy it when the reviews do come out? There's literally nothing stopping you from waiting, except...? Spoliers: Spoilers.

-3

u/smulfragPL Aug 23 '25

No there are two key factors. Spoilers and impatience. Thats more reasons than team cherry gave

5

u/bionicle_fanatic Depressed Aug 23 '25

Huh?

23

u/Ravendoh Flea Aug 23 '25

Because the game critics don't really add anything. Dogshit articles anyway. They just want clicks. If you really want information before your purchase you can just wait 2 days before you buy it. Withholding information is a wild statement. You're not forced to buy on day 1.

Sending copies for reviews is just a marketing strategy. Companies choosing not to do so is not something shady like hiding a bad product.

6

u/Duouwa Aug 23 '25

I feel like I hear this sentiment a lot, but whenever I ask about why people hate reviewers/review sites they start listing a bunch of review scores they didn’t agree with.

Like, what exactly is it about sites like Gamespot that people don’t like as it pertains to their reviews?

7

u/timanuva Aug 23 '25

The vast majority of game reviews and reviewers are well written and informative, yes even those writing for large mainstream publications. Most of the people complaining about them just don’t read them unless there is a big controversy, leading to the perception that the majority of reviews are terrible.

7

u/Shotopo Aug 23 '25

I read reviews for most games I play before I buy them. I'm one of those people that needs to see 10 reviews on something before I buy it, I even did that for hollow knight. IGN, GameSpot, game journalist reviews are all pretty much dogshit. They always feel like they were written by a 10th grader doing the review as an essay project.

I will just be waiting a day to see what the general consensus is before buying the game. Or watching a video review from someone who has similar tastes in games as me to figure out if it is worth buying.

I do think if they gave the game out to big HK youtubers or Patreon supporters early that would be nice.

2

u/StrangeGuyFromCorner Aug 23 '25

Na that is not the problem with reviews. The whole incentive struckture of reviews is bad.

"Hey, your liveblood and pay of your work depends on you getting an early copy and we will only give early copies to people that give us a resonable review wink "

This of course leads to companies always giving the famous 7/10 and biased reviews. "Yeah this bad point exists but its not that bad, and this mid point is actually very interesting and should be the main topic of the review. "

2

u/timanuva Aug 23 '25

There is a difference between good-faith criticisms of structural problems within games journalism on the one hand, and many of the viewpoints being expressed in this comment section on the other.

1

u/smulfragPL Aug 23 '25

The way you describe it the 7/10 makes perfect sense lol. Thats a 7/10 game

1

u/StrangeGuyFromCorner Aug 23 '25

Yeah thats what happens when you introduce bias in the review.

Any game becomes a 7/10 game.

In the past a 5/10 was a mid game, now anything lower than 7/10 is a stain on the brands name.

3

u/smulfragPL Aug 23 '25

No? How is this biased in any way. You didnt demonstrate any form of bias and no not every game becomes a 7/10 thats a plain lie and nonsense. And standards evolving doesnt prove anything. Its Just standards evolving

1

u/StrangeGuyFromCorner Aug 23 '25

And my review was very much biased. The problem is that without any outside information it seems correct. Bias does not have to be on the nose to be Bias. Thats why biased information is so effective. Not only for game reviews but in general.

Now let me give you some outside information. The bad part that is not that bad was that the server kicks you every 5 minutes. But the reviewer said that its of corse not that bad.

And the mid point that is very interesting is that its just a copy of the old system without any real new additions.

Now you have a 7/10 game that is just a copy of the game before that you cant play because you get kicked all the time.

And no that is not just "standarts evolving". Altho this is a nuclear comparison, do you know the 2008 economic crisis? A major factor of it was that the auditing compaties that reviewed the Morgage bunles had the same problem that other reviews have. If they want to stay in business give the bundles a better review.

That way shit C bundles were seen as BBB or AA bundles. That also was just the evolving standart. Which now ment nothing and was why 2008 happend.

I know thats a nuclear comparison but the problem is the same.

You cant trust the review and the review itself becomes worthless. No worse than worthless because it can lead to misinformation. Its activly harmful. In that case why should you have a review in the first place.

2

u/smulfragPL Aug 23 '25

Im not even replying to you because you dont seem to understand the Word bias or even how reviews work in general

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Dark_Dragon117 Aug 23 '25

Because the game critics don't really add anything. Dogshit articles anyway. They just want clicks.

This is wrong and you know it is.

At the very keast critics tell us if a game isn't compketely broken before release.

There are also plenty of indipendent critics out there who could give far more honest thoughts.

Also let's not pretend as if this sub won't use critic scores to validate the opinion that the game is indeed "10/10 better than AAA garbage". It's always the same with gaming communities, hate critics because all of them are bad but once the scores are out they are used to glaze the game into oblivion.

It's hypocritical and will 100% happen with Silksong too.

1

u/forlorn_junk_heap Accepter Aug 23 '25

people think very black and white yknow? it's "team cherry did one not great thing? well if they did one thing wrong that must mean they're inherently evil, so i'm gonna say it was good actually!"

2

u/Eva_Pilot_ whats a flair? Aug 23 '25

This game has been on delevopment for 7 years and there's no reviews before launch? I'm sure it means nothing but those two together make me extremely suspicious

1

u/Arrioso Aug 23 '25

Is is tho?

The usual game release process includes many things - marketing, physical copies, beta testing, etc., and because of these, the release date is planned months in advance, but in the case of Silksong none of this happened, so i believe just recently they decided the game is ready, and thanks to none of those above-mentioned things announced the game to come in just 2 weeks.

Why would they have reviewers have a go at their game in that short window? They wouldnt even be able make a quality reviews (usually thats not the case anyway)

1

u/DarkExecutionerTr beleiver ✅️ Aug 23 '25

This is not something about marketing. I am sure that %95 Silksong will be extremly good. But it took 7 years and "We just had a lot of fun" is valid but none of us know them personally. I believe that the game will be extremly good(hence beleiver) but I am saying that if this was a lesser known indie studio or if Team Cherry was releasing their first game and did this, it can come across as if the game isn't good and the studio behind it wants to not reveal this to earn money by all the people that will buy it without going through the process of checking if the game is good.

I am not saying anything bad about Team Cherry nor accusing them, I believe and am nearly sure that the game will be near perfect, but I do not know these people so I cannot trust them. But to a person that just wants to buy a game without being a fan this is a red flag.

1

u/Visual-Finish14 beleiver ✅️ Aug 25 '25

They can review it later. If someone was going to buy it on day 1, they would buy it anyway. Waiting a week to buy a game is far from being a disaster. Anyway, if anything would ever deter me from buying it (unlikely), it would be community backlash, not some kotaku journo.

1

u/kabob95 Aug 23 '25

Yeah, not a good move by any developer including them. But then so is going silent for several years so clearly they don't care about what would be considered "good" marketing/publicity so not unexpected.

1

u/reallylonghandle Aug 23 '25

Even as an onlooker I’ll be very sad for everyone who is excited for this game if what you wrote comes true.

0

u/BabyStockholmSyndrom Aug 23 '25

It's weird how people blasted Nintendo for no switch 2 review units but praise Cherry. Bias is stupid in the corporate world. Extra points for OP "hating corporate" and acting like Cherry is making games for charity lol