Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Sony-sponsored Galaxy Review (possible spoilers)

AthenorAthenor Registered User regular
edited November 2007 in Games and Technology
BlazeHedgehog linked this over at Platformers, and I figured it was worth talking about. I didn't see any comment about it in the first few pages.


Nsider has found a Variety review of Galaxy. It's pretty negative, although having not played the game I have no clue how justified it is. The spoilers marker is there just in case.

But what's shocking is that the column is "sponsored by Sony." It also references Ratchet & Clank as the better game, and then says it is on the PS3.

It really, REALLY feels bad. And awkward. Yes, I know, Variety isn't a huge name in gaming... But it is a huge name in entertainment.


Here is a link to the entire original column, with notes of negative phrasing marked.


edit: People have a tendancy to not read more than the OP and post, so I'm reposting from below. I don't want to get in trouble for flame bait, so please keep this on topic.


This is one of the best cases I can see of a game review being paid for by a company. Now granted, usually it's the other way, paying for a favorable review. But this can't be good for the industry, can it?

And as was said, many of his points are defensible. So why does it need to be "sponsored?"



Edit2: Some notes. The "sponsored by Sony" part isn't showing up for some people now, although I've got confirmation from others that it was present last night. I've discovered (on page 2) that the "presented by Sony" thing is a header for a specific type of page, and can be applied to any review/article that Variety uses. This does not mean the article was published with or without the header, but more that it is a generic header and not specifically paying for the ad, only the category. It is a live ad, though.

Athenor on
fCew0YJ.jpg
Steam & NNID - Athenor // 3DS: 3883-5283-0471
«134567

Posts

  • Dorktron9000Dorktron9000 Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Most of what is said in that article is true, or at least defensible.

  • MistaCreepyMistaCreepy Registered User
    edited November 2007
    lolsony.

    Im getting out of here before this thread explodes in a mushroom cloud of blind hatred. Someone will die in the melee.

    PS3: MistaCreepy::Steam: MistaCreepy::360: Dead and I don't feel like paying to fix it.
  • paco_pepepaco_pepe Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    laugh out loud sony?

    Paco+Pepper.png
  • ShogunShogun Hair long; money long; me and broke wizards we don't get along Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
  • FireflashFireflash Montreal, QCRegistered User regular
    edited November 2007
    I can't beleive he finds collecting starbits is a chore! I'm addicted to collecting starbits!

    PSN / XBL: PatParadize
  • AthenorAthenor Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Okay, maybe I should have been more clear.

    This is one of the best cases I can see of a game review being paid for by a company. Now granted, usually it's the other way, paying for a favorable review. But this can't be good for the industry, can it?

    And as was said, many of his points are defensible. So why does it need to be "sponsored?"

    fCew0YJ.jpg
    Steam & NNID - Athenor // 3DS: 3883-5283-0471
  • meatflowermeatflower Registered User
    edited November 2007
    Most of what is said in that article is true, or at least defensible.

    Especially the point where he said that the Wii's control setup was poor for a 3rd person game, specifically citing Zelda: Twilight Princess. Because that game was just atrocious to control.

    I hope you're being as sarcastic as I am.

    archer_sig-2.jpg
  • ShogunShogun Hair long; money long; me and broke wizards we don't get along Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Fireflash wrote: »
    I can't beleive he finds collecting starbits is a chore! I'm addicted to collecting starbits!

    If it is a chore I hope that guy never plays an MMORPG. He'll go to work the next day and commit suicide.

    steam_sig.png
  • Captain CrunchCaptain Crunch Registered User
    edited November 2007
    Hahahaha wow.

  • TzenTzen Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Eh, I have to agree with most of their critiques. I played it in a GameStop this weekend and I was surprised at the lack of motion controls; it felt like Mario 64 or Sunshine with the controller split in two.

    Someone is trying too hard to find a conspiracy where there isn't one.

  • ShogunShogun Hair long; money long; me and broke wizards we don't get along Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Tzen wrote: »
    Eh, I have to agree with most of their critiques. I played it in a GameStop this weekend and I was surprised at the lack of motion controls; it felt like Mario 64 or Sunshine with the controller split in two.

    Someone is trying too hard to find a conspiracy where there isn't one.

    It is hard to call it a conspiracy when it is so blatant. I'd call it more like a slap to the face.

    steam_sig.png
  • ZombiemamboZombiemambo Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    meatflower wrote: »
    Most of what is said in that article is true, or at least defensible.

    Especially the point where he said that the Wii's control setup was poor for a 3rd person game, specifically citing Zelda: Twilight Princess. Because that game was just atrocious to control.

    I hope you're being as sarcastic as I am.

    I found it pretty awkward, TBH.

    JKKaAGp.png
  • RakaiRakai Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    What makes this review so atrocious is not that he gives a negative review but the fact that it spends maybe one paragraph on the game it self, and the rest is just saying how the Wii sucks.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]XBL: Rakayn | PS3: Rakayn | Steam ID
  • syndalissyndalis Getting Classy On the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Products regular
    edited November 2007
    Yah, Twilight princess on the Wii really didn't wow me control-wise.

    The only parts I liked involved using the bow.

  • shrykeshryke Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Wow, that's pretty blatant there Sony.

    Although, I admit I agree with alot of the review. But then again, I don't really like Mario games. To me, it reads like a review by someone who doesn't like Mario games in the first place, with some "PS3 is Awesomer!" plugs thrown in due to money hatting.

    To Clarify: I agree with the "the story is dumb and silly (like in all Mario games) and the 2 player mode is superfluous". And also with alot of his positive comments, about the physics and such. Of course, I don't think story or 2-player really matter in a Mario game, so I don't think that's a big hit.

    Basically, he hated the controls, thought they didn't use motion sensing enough and thought the graphics were sub par. From this, he decided the game wasn't worth it.

  • ChenChen Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    20050513h.jpg

    Conspiracy or not, I think we can all agree that it's a shitty review.

    l8kt.png
  • The_ScarabThe_Scarab Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Mario is like Halo and Pokemon.

    Its utterly pointless to even discuss review scores because

    A: They are always high anyways

    B: Even if they got 6s they would sell 2 million day one.

    scarab you have mental problems
  • TzenTzen Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    I'll buy a Wii when I can use a lightsaber/The Force or Indy's whip with motion controls.

    How hard would it be to make the best Indiana Jones game ever for the Wii? Punch dudes. Shoot dudes. Whip dudes. Swing over stuff.

    Not hard.

    Edit: Who is surprised that a videogame review in Variety isn't very good? But even still, the guy is just plain right about some of the stuff. I wasn't impressed with the graphics in Galaxy, either. There was some observatory or some such that needed power. How was this represented? Black textures. Yup. I can deal with lower poly counts or not-ultra-uber-high-super-res textures, but the game just looks kind of weird and uninspired. But I guess there's no convincing some of you that it isn't TEH BEST GAEM EVAR!~

  • NocturneNocturne Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    If the first and only game you had ever played was Halo 3, and you were using it as a ruler to measure every other game because you thought it was the best thing to ever happen to gaming, then this review might make sense to you.

    Halo 3 was just an example there, it could be replaced by any game defined by shiny graphics, action packed violence, and hardcore multiplayer.

    And no, those points aren't defensible because none of them are bad things unless you expect every game to be the same. That review didn't actually review Galaxy as a game in and of itself, but instead compared it to things it's not supposed to be.

  • Dorktron9000Dorktron9000 Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    meatflower wrote: »
    Most of what is said in that article is true, or at least defensible.

    Especially the point where he said that the Wii's control setup was poor for a 3rd person game, specifically citing Zelda: Twilight Princess. Because that game was just atrocious to control.

    I hope you're being as sarcastic as I am.


    No I'm not. That is a defensible statement. Have you honestly never heard anyone say that lacking a dedicated camera stick (a once touted Nintendo feature) is less than ideal or that having half a controller in one hand and half in another is less than ideal?

    Does what is being said here even make sense? No reasonable GAME company would PAY their own MONEY to talk about a GAME on another console.It's not exactly a scathing review, and variety is not game journalism.

    Nobody here knows how the ad revenue for Variety is distributed, do they? I mean, Sony could have an existing advertising contract, perhaps with a specific clause that their logo will only be shown on the one gaming tidbit Variety happens to have. I think the article reads biased only out of journalistic ignorance.

  • PingPongPingPong Registered User
    edited November 2007
    The WORST part is that it says sponsored by Sony. That just invalidates everything he said, cause you know he;s being paid for it. If he said IT SUCKS, but that's just me, FINE. But he said it SUCKS with the Sony logo on top and a Rachet and Clank reference. Horrible.

  • Captain CrunchCaptain Crunch Registered User
    edited November 2007
    The review is basically just this:
    This game is ass
    Wii sucks dog balls
    Ratchet and Clank Future is the best.
    PS3 gives you free blow jobs.







    I can't believe Sony would actually pull something like this.

  • Spacehog85Spacehog85 Registered User
    edited November 2007
    very awkward. awkward like your parents catching you whacking it to pictures of animals mating, with you

  • jothkijothki Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    This reminds me of the review that kept saying that Shadow of the Colossus is better than Twilight Princess and it's a shame that Nintendo fans aren't playing that instead. I think that was ordinary idiocy, though.

  • Dorktron9000Dorktron9000 Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    PingPong wrote: »
    The WORST part is that it says sponsored by Sony. That just invalidates everything he said, cause you know he;s being paid for it. If he said IT SUCKS, but that's just me, FINE. But he said it SUCKS with the Sony logo on top and a Rachet and Clank reference. Horrible.

    Again:
    Nobody here knows how the ad revenue for Variety is distributed, do they? I mean, Sony could have an existing advertising contract, perhaps with a specific clause that their logo will only be shown on the one gaming tidbit Variety happens to have. I think the article reads biased only out of journalistic ignorance.

    I am not saying I know shit, I'm just saying this is almost too lolsony to be true.

  • RakaiRakai Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    The WORST part is that he spends little time talking about the game and simply uses the review as a platform to discuss how the wii sucks and is inferior to the PS3/360.

    Also I would put more on the reviewer just being stupid rather than Sony paying someone for a bad review. However, you always tend to side with the guy who writes your check.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]XBL: Rakayn | PS3: Rakayn | Steam ID
  • jothkijothki Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    or that having half a controller in one hand and half in another is less than ideal?

    Please tell me the review didn't say that. Splitting up the controller alone would make the Wiimote the best controller of this generation, even if it didn't have all of its additional functionality.

  • MistaCreepyMistaCreepy Registered User
    edited November 2007
    meatflower wrote: »
    Most of what is said in that article is true, or at least defensible.

    Especially the point where he said that the Wii's control setup was poor for a 3rd person game, specifically citing Zelda: Twilight Princess. Because that game was just atrocious to control.

    I hope you're being as sarcastic as I am.


    No I'm not. That is a defensible statement. Have you honestly never heard anyone say that lacking a dedicated camera stick (a once touted Nintendo feature) is less than ideal or that having half a controller in one hand and half in another is less than ideal?

    Does what is being said here even make sense? No reasonable GAME company would PAY their own MONEY to talk about a GAME on another console.It's not exactly a scathing review, and variety is not game journalism.

    Nobody here knows how the ad revenue for Variety is distributed, do they? I mean, Sony could have an existing advertising contract, perhaps with a specific clause that their logo will only be shown on the one gaming tidbit Variety happens to have. I think the article reads biased only out of journalistic ignorance.

    I actually didn't think about this... its a good point. But try not to spoil the conspiracy fantasy going on here... it makes for great discussion... :|

    PS3: MistaCreepy::Steam: MistaCreepy::360: Dead and I don't feel like paying to fix it.
  • ChenChen Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    No I'm not. That is a defensible statement. Have you honestly never heard anyone say that lacking a dedicated camera stick (a once touted Nintendo feature) is less than ideal or that having half a controller in one hand and half in another is less than ideal?
    While the designers usually put the camera in the best position possible, it’s inevitable that gamers will sometimes wish they had a better view.
    Reads like extreme nitpicking to me.

    l8kt.png
  • khainkhain Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Did anyone actually see this? Because I visited the site and I can't find a single article that has a sponsored company in the corner like in that picture. Admittedly I don't actually read the site so this is just a quick glance.

    Does anyone else find it odd that the banner with the V DVD/ (covered) is different than what is actually shown when you visit the review?

    link: http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117935396.html?categoryid=1023&cs=1

  • PingPongPingPong Registered User
    edited November 2007
    PingPong wrote: »
    The WORST part is that it says sponsored by Sony. That just invalidates everything he said, cause you know he;s being paid for it. If he said IT SUCKS, but that's just me, FINE. But he said it SUCKS with the Sony logo on top and a Rachet and Clank reference. Horrible.

    Again:
    Nobody here knows how the ad revenue for Variety is distributed, do they? I mean, Sony could have an existing advertising contract, perhaps with a specific clause that their logo will only be shown on the one gaming tidbit Variety happens to have. I think the article reads biased only out of journalistic ignorance.

    I am not saying I know shit, I'm just saying this is almost too lolsony to be true.

    Didn't read your post. I hope this is true cause otherwise the LOLSony IS too good to be true.

  • ZackSchillingZackSchilling Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Imagine if Nintendo payed this guy for reviews of PSX games back in 1997.

    This game looks like blocky garbage, just like every other game on the PlayStation. Crippling load times of a minute or more hider the action at every turn. The d-pad simply cannot deliver true 3D control. The lack of camera buttons found on the N64 make controlling games unruly. This system simply cannot do 3D, 3rd person action games. The multiplayer support is abysmal. How am I supposed to have a party with only two controller ports?

    Edit: I'm not saying that Sony paid for this, just the legitimate faults can be found in even the best of systems. The review is utterly worthless because it's negative for mostly stupid reasons you could find for any system. It's like giving a 360 game a bad review because its not on a high-capacity Blu-Ray disc or in 1080p. It's like giving a PS3 game a bad review because the system that it's on used to cost too much or has mediocre online support. It's like giving a PSP game a bad review because the thumb nubbin is uncomfortable and the battery life is crummy and the loading times are longer than you'd like.

    The point is, this review is worthless because it says virtually nothing about the actual game or how fun it is.

    ghost-robot.jpg
  • MistaCreepyMistaCreepy Registered User
    edited November 2007
    Imagine if Nintendo payed this guy for reviews of PSX games back in 1997.

    This game looks like blocky garbage, just like every other game on the PlayStation. Crippling load times of a minute or more hider the action at every turn. The d-pad simply cannot deliver true 3D control. The lack of camera buttons found on the N64 make controlling games unruly. This system simply cannot do 3D, 3rd person action games. The multiplayer support is abysmal. How am I supposed to have a party with only two controller ports?


    I remember alot of people talking like that back then...

    PS3: MistaCreepy::Steam: MistaCreepy::360: Dead and I don't feel like paying to fix it.
  • EinhanderEinhander __BANNED USERS
    edited November 2007
    This is IGN's Wild Metal review for the Dreamcast

    The worst example of a review being bought for a terrible, terrible, game.

    Also, just because Variety's video game review section is sponsored by Sony doesn't mean the individual review was swayed. There is a chance that the reviewer just doesn't like Mario Galaxy. I doubt we could take this review with anything other than a grain of salt, it's obvious that the reviewer isn't a gamer (which doesn't really seem to matter to Variety).

  • ChopperDaveChopperDave Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    I get really annoyed, as a rule, with any reviewer who docks a game down because it doesn't have a) graphics/controls/whatever that the system can't technically accomplish or b) features that they would have added if they designed the game.

    Just comes off as spiteful and biased, regardless of Sony sponsorship. Grade a game on the merit of it's home system, not on how much better it would be on others or is in your head. This happens with so many reviews, and not just for Wii games either...

    3DS code: 3007-8077-4055
  • PingPongPingPong Registered User
    edited November 2007
    I checked two other reviews, totally random (Zack and Wiki, Assassin's Creed) and none of them have any sponsored by tags.

  • UndefinedMonkeyUndefinedMonkey Registered User
    edited November 2007
    The whole article reads like someone handed the writer a memo that said "Need X words worth of snark on the new Mario game. Camera angle and motion control are pretty subjective, so make sure you hammer on that. Oh, and take a few potshots at the graphics, since the Wii is the most underpowered of the big three." Any review that goes out of its way to say "this is one of the greatest platformers ever.... now here's why you should hate it" is meant to agitate and annoy, and nothing else.

    At worst, there's a huge ZOMG CONSPIRACY at work here. At best (and far more likely), they're just trying to be a dissenting voice in the hopes that it garners a few more page hits for their site.

    This space intentionally left blank.
  • AthenorAthenor Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Hm. Yes, the header is different, but the game is listed under the correct heading.

    I've turned off Adblock, to better see if the ad is really there. I don't see it.

    Then again, "Presented by Sony" could be the tagline of an ad, a contest, whatever. Variety seems to have a lot of small ads. Still, if it were something like that Sony would still be paying for it.

    fCew0YJ.jpg
    Steam & NNID - Athenor // 3DS: 3883-5283-0471
  • ShadowfireShadowfire Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    khain wrote: »
    Did anyone actually see this? Because I visited the site and I can't find a single article that has a sponsored company in the corner like in that picture. Admittedly I don't actually read the site so this is just a quick glance.

    Does anyone else find it odd that the banner with the V DVD/ (covered) is different than what is actually shown when you visit the review?

    link: http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117935396.html?categoryid=1023&cs=1

    The "sponsored by" is gone in the review, now. I think they may have found out they were caught..?

    steam_sig.png
    WiiU: Windrunner ; Guild Wars 2: Shadowfire.3940 ; PSN: Bradcopter
«134567
Sign In or Register to comment.