I said that HL would get average reviews at best because it was gonna be a janky game, and that there would be two camps in the user reviews: reactionaries who barely play the game so they can stick it to the LGBT community, and the other camp who will play the game and just admit that it’s not super good.
I was wrong on the fact that the reviews would be average; the press loved this game – I underestimated how much they loved the HP franchise. But I was right that the game was criticised for some jankiness.
Anyway our own co-admin @ksynwa@lemmygrad.ml was right about it when he told me that the game would get an 85 on metacritic – it’s sitting in at 84!
One, your comment is poetry.
Two, it’s the same in almost every similar industry, like fiction, movies, and series. They all coexist. Production and distribution, including marketing (i.e. the ‘reviewers’) are all owned by the same people, even if they appear to be separate entities. Real critics don’t get close to the widely distributed and promoted publications because that is not their purpose.
Once the head has decided that something will be a success, they will spend a proportionate amount of effort and money ensuring that it succeeds. There’s no way they even go into production today with something related to Harry Potter without a plan that is about as close as possible to guaranteeing it’s success. This can involve trickery. But by the time they critical people notice, it will be too late. Some negative press will be allowed to appear in the mainstream (like when we hear about a box office flop), but only after they’ve reached their sales targets (unless, like with a box office flop, it’s clear that the truth can’t be hidden).