The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Ya seriously... so according to EGM if you were staring at MX vs. ATV and Assassin's Creed... and wondering which is the better game... MX vs. ATV it is!
Are there people who do this? I hate to break it to you guys but - YES! As many times as I tell 2 people very close to me to ASK ME about games before they buy them they tell me the same story about how they looked up review scores on their iPhone and went with that.
I'd be more sympathetic for EGM if they didn't seem to love this situation. It's one thing for a magazine to have integrity; it's something else entirely when a magazine spouts off every chance it gets about having integrity.
I remember about a year or so ago when Shoe's editorial had something about how they were denied a cover story for a certain game because they refused to give the game a certain score. He then said the cover story was taken to the competition. That story, combined with this, and the fact that in reading EGM you'll find at least fifteen references to their rumor-mole guy (Quartermann) being right about something in the past (even though he's quite wrong plenty of times), well...it just makes me think that the guys at EGM are incredible attention whores, plain and simple.
I'd be more sympathetic for EGM if they didn't seem to love this situation. It's one thing for a magazine to have integrity; it's something else entirely when a magazine spouts off every chance it gets about having integrity.
I remember about a year or so ago when Shoe's editorial had something about how they were denied a cover story for a certain game because they refused to give the game a certain score. He then said the cover story was taken to the competition. That story, combined with this, and the fact that in reading EGM you'll find at least fifteen references to their rumor-mole guy (Quartermann) being right about something in the past (even though he's quite wrong plenty of times), well...it just makes me think that the guys at EGM are incredible attention whores, plain and simple.
Well it is a business and right now it seems they are marketing themselves by doing the look were not gamespot routine. Which quite honestly works for me. Wouldn't you want to beat the we are honest drum with all the bullshit that has been going on lately? Shit Tycho has been doing it more lately too.
Why are people still comparing this to the Gerstman 'debacle'. the situation is different in every possible way.
Seems to me it is about publishers putting pressure on gaming mags to get the results they want. One publication caved and one hasn't. Is this correct?
game companies need to realize that they cant get away with piece of shit games anymore. the bar has been raised by many hot titles and developers need to pull it together and rise to the occasion or not charge me 60 bucks for an average game.
Why are people still comparing this to the Gerstman 'debacle'. the situation is different in every possible way.
Seems to me it is about publishers putting pressure on gaming mags to get the results they want. One publication caved and one hasn't. Is this correct?
Well, one is supporting a site massively with ad revenue -- thus providing it with much of its lifeblood, and thus making it much more pliable to actual pressure, while the other is just retracting (from what we can tell) early builds. Both can be seen as a form of pressure, I suppose, though I'd argue the second is just "you don't like us so we're taking our ball and going home". Not so much pressure as a business decision to avoid negative press.
Either one sucks, of course, but for different reasons and very different contexts.
FireWeasel on
AC:CL Wii -- 3824-2125-9336 City: Felinito Me: Nick
What's the standard for other critics, I wonder? I mean, let's say a movie critic is very down on everything a particular studio releases, or something. Does that critic stop getting screener DVDs, or something?
In addition to review builds of games... big pubs like EGM/1up get exclusive coverage and access that other pubs just don't have... so for example a publisher will invite them to come see early builds of the game... grant interviews... provide early screenshots/videos (like the Street Fighter 4 coverage).
This is great for pubs like EGM because not only do they have to do less leg-work... they get things other pubs don't which ups the readership.
I'm sure Ubi will still send EGM what everyone else gets... review builds... PR screenshots etc.
I think this has lot of similarities to the Gerstman thing. There's GFW Radio podcast (which happens to be on 1up/EGM's site heh) had a great discussion about this subject.
As for critics for other media, I know studios don't screen some movies because they know they'll do bad with reviews. I'm not sure if studios out right blacklist reviewers for bad scores though.
"You gave Batman a bad review? Well we're not gonna let you view movies coming from Warner Bros. anymore!"
For the record, I thought Assassin's Creed was horse shit.
What's the standard for other critics, I wonder? I mean, let's say a movie critic is very down on everything a particular studio releases, or something. Does that critic stop getting screener DVDs, or something?
No other media format gets anywhere near as much early preview material as video games. Which makes this whole scenario annoying to me.
the developers and publishers are under no obligation to provide EGM with any material before launch. In fact, many believe this kind of constant trickle of content is the death knell of a lot of games (the whole Dyack affair thing)
EGM is just pissed that they no longer get free stuff. Just comes off as whiny to me, and trying to play this situation up as though it is even in the same league as the Gerstman affair is them just trying to get the community on their side for no reason other than they have nothing else.
Plus, its only, what, 3 development houses. Its not like EA have suddenly dropped EGM from their mailing list or anything.
EGM can still review the games, and can still preview them. Just not with any exclusive materials before launch, like a whole shitload of other, in my opinion higher quality, publications.
Being in the position to get preview media well in advance of the ship date isnt a right, its a privilege. They had every right to pull the drip feed away.
Whether their motives were good or not, ie if they did this because of low review scores or pissy previews, is irrelevant. The fact is this exact situation happens all the time, companies flip flop between letting publications on their mailing lists and taking them off. the only difference here is Dan Hsu whining about it publically instead of getting on with his job.
If I come off as abnormally pissant at this whole deal its just because so much ignorance plagues the EGM readership and this whole thing smacks of taking advantage of them. Hsu from what I have read on both sides of this has kinda twisted the situation back so that his magazine appears to be the good guy and the publishers are evil. This isnt true.
Publishers cant 'buy' a review score. But they certainly can defend their products from poorly written and often innaccurate reviewers, in this case EGM. Its not that they want 9s across the board, its that they dont want 4.5s which is, frankly, not just a bad opinion but wrong on all accounts. Creed wasnt amazing, but it was better than a 4.5. And its not just that, if you compare the score (even the average of 6) to other games it is clear it was lowballed.
Problem here is you cant 'defend' the publisher or the developer who is taking this action without being seen as either a corporate shill or an EGM 'hater'. this is the effect twisting the scenario around has by 'outing' these companies.
There is nothing to 'out'. They havent attempted to disguise the fact that they no longer provide preview materials to EGM, nor is there anything uncommon or uniquely strong about these actions.
Perhaps now that EGM doesnt have the luxury of time sensitive exclusives and must compete on a level playing field it will improve its quality. Im not alone in this opinion either, the falling sales of EGM and smaller distribution show this also.
I always hate it when someone gets all whiny and bitchy when their favourite toy is taken away from them, then try to make it out like they are some victim in the whole situation. This would probably not have happened if they had been not 'higher' with their review scores, because that would be breaking any integrity they have, which they still do have. But 'fairer'. I think the publishers have every right to ask at least a review is fair and honest, and accurate. Their response may seem harsh but its really all they can do.
Ya seriously... so according to EGM if you were staring at MX vs. ATV and Assassin's Creed... and wondering which is the better game... MX vs. ATV it is!
Are there people who do this? I hate to break it to you guys but - YES! As many times as I tell 2 people very close to me to ASK ME about games before they buy them they tell me the same story about how they looked up review scores on their iPhone and went with that.
MX vs ATV: Untamed shows a 75% at GameRankings compared to Assassin's Creed's 83%, both 360 versions, so it doesn't seem like some outrageous comparison. Metacritic shows MvA:U with a 74 and AC with an 82. GameSpy and Worth Playing also scored MvA: U higher than AC.
Game reviews arent supposed to 'tell' you how good a game is, they are supposed to advise you on what about it makes it good for that specific reviewer.
Which means representing the game fairly and without bias is one route to take, or taking a super biased yet accurate review is another. You cant just mix all these together.
Also, reading nothing but the arbitrary review percentage at the end will doom you. I liked it when GFW and for a time EDGE did without scores altogether. The backlash was incredulous though.
Man, and here I thought reviewers wrote reviews based on their own opinions.
Sure, if you like AC, then you can say it's ridiculous that it got such a low score.
Apparently, one reviewer didn't like it.
That is his opinion.
I just finished it a few days back, and yes, 4.5 is a decent score for the game.
Maybe a bit high, actually. Of course, that's only if you look past the great visuals and animations and realize that there really isn't much game there, at all.
That's beside the point, though, because that's just my opinion.
Just like that 4.5 was Crispin's(?) opinion of the game. The opinion he gets paid to share with us.
Ubisoft is most certainly the dick, here. If you get a bad review, you could just
a) Shrug it off, because it's selling well anyway, and other people enjoy it
or
b) Work hard on the next game to prove them wrong
Aye indeed. But like I said, there is nothing wrong with presenting your opinion as long as it is made fairly. Reading the review and also going off of reviews from other sources, including the same magazine, you can see the game was misrepresented, there were factual errors and debates over the authenticity (ie, sometimes reviewers dont finish games)
I have nothing against a 4.5 at all, as long as the review can justify the score. The publishers obviously felt that it didnt, or that there was systematic repetition of inaccurate reviews over a period of time. You cant really pin it on the 4.5 because then its becoming another 8.8 scenario which this isnt.
I dont know why they decided to cut off EGM at the teet. What I am kinda pissed off about is EGMs reaction to this, as though it is a case of 'Hey man, Im motherfucking EGM!' and their are 'owed' preview materials. Which they arent. Coupled with the declining quality of the magazine I can see this as a good thing for EGM, as it will force them to gain sales through quality, not timed exclusives.
No other media format gets anywhere near as much early preview material as video games. Which makes this whole scenario annoying to me.
Huh?
The movie review industry is pretty much built on early screenings. Hell, for my birthday present one year, a buddy of mine who managed a theater let me watch Return of the King about a week and a half early.
Secondly, I write music reviews for a magazine. I have albums that still aren't even scheduled for release. I also own a boutique small print record label. People send me album rehearsals and demos of albums that are months, even years, away. Point is, I'm not even that important a player in the scene and I get preview builds of stuff all the time.
Basically, I don't necessarily think your statement is true.
If I come off as abnormally pissant at this whole deal its just because so much ignorance plagues the EGM readership and this whole thing smacks of taking advantage of them. Hsu from what I have read on both sides of this has kinda twisted the situation back so that his magazine appears to be the good guy and the publishers are evil. This isnt true.
As a long time EGM reader, I can agree that the quality of the magazine has declined over the years.
But I don't see how this excuses Ubi from acting like pricks because someone didn't like their game.
And I'm not sure it has anything to do with EGM thinking they 'deserve' exclusives, or anything like that. Shoe has written several editorials on the industry, pay offs for review scores, etc. This is just another one of those, just a bit more personal. In addition, I think it would be his duty to explain to the readership what is happening, and why they won't be having previews of Ubi games.
in reading EGM you'll find at least fifteen references to their rumor-mole guy (Quartermann) being right about something in the past
Man, I love that rumor mole guy. I was flipping through an issue a little while back (got a free subscription, makes for 1/2 decent bathroom material), and he was bragging about being right. I paraphrase, but it was something to the effect of, "I said Square-Enix was going to make an announcement about Kingdom Hearts, and they announced a new game in the series! Amazing, right?" Wow, another installment to a successful franchise? You've got the gift.
In the same article, he was saying something like, "I have it on good authority that we should be seeing Gears Of War 2 and God Of War 3 by the end of '08." Holy fucking shit! Wildly popular franchises getting sequels about 2 years after the last ones? How can he be so accurate?!
I think Dan Shu's reaction to this is warranted. For a magazine like EGM it takes months ahead of time to get the magazine finished. They need those early review builds to get their reviews timed with the release of the game. Ubisoft holding out those review builds would definitely hurt them, especially considering how fast information about games are coming from the internet these days.
in reading EGM you'll find at least fifteen references to their rumor-mole guy (Quartermann) being right about something in the past
Man, I love that rumor mole guy. I was flipping through an issue a little while back (got a free subscription, makes for 1/2 decent bathroom material), and he was bragging about being right. I paraphrase, but it was something to the effect of, "I said Square-Enix was going to make an announcement about Kingdom Hearts, and they announced a new game in the series! Amazing, right?" Wow, another installment to a successful franchise? You've got the gift.
In the same article, he was saying something like, "I have it on good authority that we should be seeing Gears Of War 2 and God Of War 3 by the end of '08." Holy fucking shit! Wildly popular franchises getting sequels about 2 years after the last ones? How can he be so accurate?!
Was this before or after Microsoft announced that Gears of War 2 was coming in 08?
This is a topic that speaks to my heart I guess. I've been doing game reviews, previews, and for too long. Outlets get material quite a while in advance of their release. I'm playing a few games myself that will not be out till late Feb and early March. Of course, these are preview builds, and what's funny is sometimes these builds are sent along with printed material saying what you are encouraged to mention, and those features you are told not to talk about. Not following this will likely get you cut from getting future games. Most times this is not a problem, after all what I am playing is a work in progress. This has come across as annoying a few times though, when supposedly unfinished builds cross my desk with notes to not talk poorly or at all about feature X, when the game is set to ship in, say 2 weeks. More times than not, these fail are just as prevalent in the version you pay $50 for at retail than they were weeks prior when I was pulling my hair out playing on the debug.
I'm not saying other media journos don't face similar issues, I'm sure there are ills in all facets of this industry. I can just speak for my experiences, and it can certainly be a case study in lines bluring and walking on eggshells.
This is a topic that speaks to my heart I guess. I've been doing game reviews, previews, and for too long. Outlets get material quite a while in advance of their release. I'm playing a few games myself that will not be out till late Feb and early March. Of course, these are preview builds, and what's funny is sometimes these builds are sent along with printed material saying what you are encouraged to mention, and those features you are told not to talk about. Not following this will likely get you cut from getting future games. Most times this is not a problem, after all what I am playing is a work in progress. This has come across as annoying a few times though, when supposedly unfinished builds cross my desk with notes to not talk poorly or at all about feature X, when the game is set to ship in, say 2 weeks. More times than not, these fail are just as prevalent in the version you pay $50 for at retail than they were weeks prior when I was pulling my hair out playing on the debug.
I'm not saying other media journos don't face similar issues, I'm sure there are ills in all facets of this industry. I can just speak for my experiences, and it can certainly be a case study in lines bluring and walking on eggshells.
Reminds me how things went with some of the old Amiga mags. Especially Sensible World of Soccer, and constantly being told a problem was fixed for the retail version of the game, when in fact, it wasn't.
in reading EGM you'll find at least fifteen references to their rumor-mole guy (Quartermann) being right about something in the past
Man, I love that rumor mole guy. I was flipping through an issue a little while back (got a free subscription, makes for 1/2 decent bathroom material), and he was bragging about being right. I paraphrase, but it was something to the effect of, "I said Square-Enix was going to make an announcement about Kingdom Hearts, and they announced a new game in the series! Amazing, right?" Wow, another installment to a successful franchise? You've got the gift.
In the same article, he was saying something like, "I have it on good authority that we should be seeing Gears Of War 2 and God Of War 3 by the end of '08." Holy fucking shit! Wildly popular franchises getting sequels about 2 years after the last ones? How can he be so accurate?!
Was this before or after Microsoft announced that Gears of War 2 was coming in 08?
:-P
Well, it was like 2 or 3 issues back. When did MS make a formal announcement?
in reading EGM you'll find at least fifteen references to their rumor-mole guy (Quartermann) being right about something in the past
Man, I love that rumor mole guy. I was flipping through an issue a little while back (got a free subscription, makes for 1/2 decent bathroom material), and he was bragging about being right. I paraphrase, but it was something to the effect of, "I said Square-Enix was going to make an announcement about Kingdom Hearts, and they announced a new game in the series! Amazing, right?" Wow, another installment to a successful franchise? You've got the gift.
In the same article, he was saying something like, "I have it on good authority that we should be seeing Gears Of War 2 and God Of War 3 by the end of '08." Holy fucking shit! Wildly popular franchises getting sequels about 2 years after the last ones? How can he be so accurate?!
Was this before or after Microsoft announced that Gears of War 2 was coming in 08?
:-P
Well, it was like 2 or 3 issues back. When did MS make a formal announcement?
Well into last year.
Something about, "Halo and Gears will release opposite of each other. Fo the years without Halo, we'll have Gears and vice versa".
Speaking of which, etoy, make sure not to talk about the loli tentacle gangbang in our next game, okay? We want that to be a surprise.
I'm neck-deep in Atlus' Baroque right now...nothing you can pull out can wierd me out as much as I am with this game. Wait, maybe I should not dare you. :P
Speaking of which, etoy, make sure not to talk about the loli tentacle gangbang in our next game, okay? We want that to be a surprise.
I'm neck-deep in Atlus' Baroque right now...nothing you can pull out can wierd me out as much as I am with this game. Wait, maybe I should not dare you. :P
I'm sure you can't say much, but how is it? I saw a review for it in a Japanese gaming mag and wanted to look into localizing it, but I think Atlus already had it locked down by that point.
Speaking of which, etoy, make sure not to talk about the loli tentacle gangbang in our next game, okay? We want that to be a surprise.
I'm neck-deep in Atlus' Baroque right now...nothing you can pull out can wierd me out as much as I am with this game. Wait, maybe I should not dare you. :P
You have Wii or PS2 version?
I imagine that's what that FedEx package sitting in my living room is.
Sheep on
0
Clint EastwoodMy baby's in there someplaceShe crawled right inRegistered Userregular
edited January 2008
Who gives a damn, EGM is a rag of a magazine anyway. I personally would rank them about as low as Game Informer. Maybe even a little bit lower considering the overall feeling of elitism that comes from EGM's editors and reviewers.
PS2 version, as my Nintendo relations are not what they used to be and a Wii debug is not in my hands. It's one of the most different games I have played in a long time. This is taking this topic off track, but it's sort of like a roguelike, but sometimes even more frustrating if that's possible. I thank that many times to a camer that feels like it's on tank treads at least as much as the game's actual difficulty (which ramps at a decent pace). The problem I have with it is a mix of confusion and a story that feels like it was pieced together on post-it notes, which I'm sure makes no sense to anyone but the voices in my head.
Who gives a damn, EGM is a rag of a magazine anyway. I personally would rank them about as low as Game Informer. Maybe even a little bit lower considering the overall feeling of elitism that comes from EGM's editors and reviewers.
Yeah, I am constantly rolling my eyes when I actually read some of their comments. In their review of Mario Galaxy, they couldn't just praise the game for what it does well and mention some areas where it could've been better (ya know, like a review), they had to take pot shots at Mario Sunshine, and complain about how "gay" Mario has gotten over the years. Classy.
Dirty on
0
The Black HunterThe key is a minimum of compromise, and a simple,unimpeachable reason to existRegistered Userregular
edited January 2008
I don't look at review sites, I see what the people here say.
Since there is always confusion about what scores mean why can't they always put the score with a remark on what level it is. Like for AC write "4.5 - average". Wouldn't that simple step reduce a lot of confusion and arguing? The constant reminder about what is really an average score would do everyone good.
Since there is always confusion about what scores mean why can't they always put the score with a remark on what level it is. Like for AC write "4.5 - average". Wouldn't that simple step reduce a lot of confusion and arguing? The constant reminder about what is really an average score would do everyone good.
in the 1up previews of the game LAIR, they said that the controls were nice, then in the review they said the main draw back of the game was the shitty controls. I love EGM but shit like that shouldn't happen.
granderoho on
0
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
edited January 2008
I'm pretty fucking upset to see this. If a developer wants a good review, they need to fucking earn it. As was already brought up, the Gerstmann episode and this go hand in hand. Hopefully this doesn't pick up in frequency (something I said during the Gerstmann shit).
I'm pretty fucking upset to see this. If a developer wants a good review, they need to fucking earn it. As was already brought up, the Gerstmann episode and this go hand in hand. Hopefully this doesn't pick up in frequency (something I said during the Gerstmann shit).
I think the issue they have is that by all accounts they DID 'fucking earn' at least a 7 from everywhere else... even on EGMs scale.
Then some dude looking to make a splash picks their game to torpedo to get people saying "well so-and-so said..."
Posts
Are there people who do this? I hate to break it to you guys but - YES! As many times as I tell 2 people very close to me to ASK ME about games before they buy them they tell me the same story about how they looked up review scores on their iPhone and went with that.
I remember about a year or so ago when Shoe's editorial had something about how they were denied a cover story for a certain game because they refused to give the game a certain score. He then said the cover story was taken to the competition. That story, combined with this, and the fact that in reading EGM you'll find at least fifteen references to their rumor-mole guy (Quartermann) being right about something in the past (even though he's quite wrong plenty of times), well...it just makes me think that the guys at EGM are incredible attention whores, plain and simple.
Well it is a business and right now it seems they are marketing themselves by doing the look were not gamespot routine. Which quite honestly works for me. Wouldn't you want to beat the we are honest drum with all the bullshit that has been going on lately? Shit Tycho has been doing it more lately too.
Seems to me it is about publishers putting pressure on gaming mags to get the results they want. One publication caved and one hasn't. Is this correct?
Well, one is supporting a site massively with ad revenue -- thus providing it with much of its lifeblood, and thus making it much more pliable to actual pressure, while the other is just retracting (from what we can tell) early builds. Both can be seen as a form of pressure, I suppose, though I'd argue the second is just "you don't like us so we're taking our ball and going home". Not so much pressure as a business decision to avoid negative press.
Either one sucks, of course, but for different reasons and very different contexts.
Steam BoardGameGeek Twitter
This is great for pubs like EGM because not only do they have to do less leg-work... they get things other pubs don't which ups the readership.
I'm sure Ubi will still send EGM what everyone else gets... review builds... PR screenshots etc.
As for critics for other media, I know studios don't screen some movies because they know they'll do bad with reviews. I'm not sure if studios out right blacklist reviewers for bad scores though.
"You gave Batman a bad review? Well we're not gonna let you view movies coming from Warner Bros. anymore!"
For the record, I thought Assassin's Creed was horse shit.
No other media format gets anywhere near as much early preview material as video games. Which makes this whole scenario annoying to me.
the developers and publishers are under no obligation to provide EGM with any material before launch. In fact, many believe this kind of constant trickle of content is the death knell of a lot of games (the whole Dyack affair thing)
EGM is just pissed that they no longer get free stuff. Just comes off as whiny to me, and trying to play this situation up as though it is even in the same league as the Gerstman affair is them just trying to get the community on their side for no reason other than they have nothing else.
Plus, its only, what, 3 development houses. Its not like EA have suddenly dropped EGM from their mailing list or anything.
EGM can still review the games, and can still preview them. Just not with any exclusive materials before launch, like a whole shitload of other, in my opinion higher quality, publications.
Being in the position to get preview media well in advance of the ship date isnt a right, its a privilege. They had every right to pull the drip feed away.
Whether their motives were good or not, ie if they did this because of low review scores or pissy previews, is irrelevant. The fact is this exact situation happens all the time, companies flip flop between letting publications on their mailing lists and taking them off. the only difference here is Dan Hsu whining about it publically instead of getting on with his job.
If I come off as abnormally pissant at this whole deal its just because so much ignorance plagues the EGM readership and this whole thing smacks of taking advantage of them. Hsu from what I have read on both sides of this has kinda twisted the situation back so that his magazine appears to be the good guy and the publishers are evil. This isnt true.
Publishers cant 'buy' a review score. But they certainly can defend their products from poorly written and often innaccurate reviewers, in this case EGM. Its not that they want 9s across the board, its that they dont want 4.5s which is, frankly, not just a bad opinion but wrong on all accounts. Creed wasnt amazing, but it was better than a 4.5. And its not just that, if you compare the score (even the average of 6) to other games it is clear it was lowballed.
Problem here is you cant 'defend' the publisher or the developer who is taking this action without being seen as either a corporate shill or an EGM 'hater'. this is the effect twisting the scenario around has by 'outing' these companies.
There is nothing to 'out'. They havent attempted to disguise the fact that they no longer provide preview materials to EGM, nor is there anything uncommon or uniquely strong about these actions.
Perhaps now that EGM doesnt have the luxury of time sensitive exclusives and must compete on a level playing field it will improve its quality. Im not alone in this opinion either, the falling sales of EGM and smaller distribution show this also.
I always hate it when someone gets all whiny and bitchy when their favourite toy is taken away from them, then try to make it out like they are some victim in the whole situation. This would probably not have happened if they had been not 'higher' with their review scores, because that would be breaking any integrity they have, which they still do have. But 'fairer'. I think the publishers have every right to ask at least a review is fair and honest, and accurate. Their response may seem harsh but its really all they can do.
MX vs ATV: Untamed shows a 75% at GameRankings compared to Assassin's Creed's 83%, both 360 versions, so it doesn't seem like some outrageous comparison. Metacritic shows MvA:U with a 74 and AC with an 82. GameSpy and Worth Playing also scored MvA: U higher than AC.
Which means representing the game fairly and without bias is one route to take, or taking a super biased yet accurate review is another. You cant just mix all these together.
Also, reading nothing but the arbitrary review percentage at the end will doom you. I liked it when GFW and for a time EDGE did without scores altogether. The backlash was incredulous though.
Sure, if you like AC, then you can say it's ridiculous that it got such a low score.
Apparently, one reviewer didn't like it.
That is his opinion.
I just finished it a few days back, and yes, 4.5 is a decent score for the game.
Maybe a bit high, actually. Of course, that's only if you look past the great visuals and animations and realize that there really isn't much game there, at all.
That's beside the point, though, because that's just my opinion.
Just like that 4.5 was Crispin's(?) opinion of the game. The opinion he gets paid to share with us.
Ubisoft is most certainly the dick, here. If you get a bad review, you could just
a) Shrug it off, because it's selling well anyway, and other people enjoy it
or
b) Work hard on the next game to prove them wrong
They went with c) Act like a spoiled child.
I have nothing against a 4.5 at all, as long as the review can justify the score. The publishers obviously felt that it didnt, or that there was systematic repetition of inaccurate reviews over a period of time. You cant really pin it on the 4.5 because then its becoming another 8.8 scenario which this isnt.
I dont know why they decided to cut off EGM at the teet. What I am kinda pissed off about is EGMs reaction to this, as though it is a case of 'Hey man, Im motherfucking EGM!' and their are 'owed' preview materials. Which they arent. Coupled with the declining quality of the magazine I can see this as a good thing for EGM, as it will force them to gain sales through quality, not timed exclusives.
Huh?
The movie review industry is pretty much built on early screenings. Hell, for my birthday present one year, a buddy of mine who managed a theater let me watch Return of the King about a week and a half early.
Secondly, I write music reviews for a magazine. I have albums that still aren't even scheduled for release. I also own a boutique small print record label. People send me album rehearsals and demos of albums that are months, even years, away. Point is, I'm not even that important a player in the scene and I get preview builds of stuff all the time.
Basically, I don't necessarily think your statement is true.
Care to share some of your findings, please?
ahem Zero Punctuation ahem. . .
But I don't see how this excuses Ubi from acting like pricks because someone didn't like their game.
And I'm not sure it has anything to do with EGM thinking they 'deserve' exclusives, or anything like that. Shoe has written several editorials on the industry, pay offs for review scores, etc. This is just another one of those, just a bit more personal. In addition, I think it would be his duty to explain to the readership what is happening, and why they won't be having previews of Ubi games.
Man, I love that rumor mole guy. I was flipping through an issue a little while back (got a free subscription, makes for 1/2 decent bathroom material), and he was bragging about being right. I paraphrase, but it was something to the effect of, "I said Square-Enix was going to make an announcement about Kingdom Hearts, and they announced a new game in the series! Amazing, right?" Wow, another installment to a successful franchise? You've got the gift.
In the same article, he was saying something like, "I have it on good authority that we should be seeing Gears Of War 2 and God Of War 3 by the end of '08." Holy fucking shit! Wildly popular franchises getting sequels about 2 years after the last ones? How can he be so accurate?!
Was this before or after Microsoft announced that Gears of War 2 was coming in 08?
:-P
I'm not saying other media journos don't face similar issues, I'm sure there are ills in all facets of this industry. I can just speak for my experiences, and it can certainly be a case study in lines bluring and walking on eggshells.
Reminds me how things went with some of the old Amiga mags. Especially Sensible World of Soccer, and constantly being told a problem was fixed for the retail version of the game, when in fact, it wasn't.
Well, it was like 2 or 3 issues back. When did MS make a formal announcement?
Well into last year.
Something about, "Halo and Gears will release opposite of each other. Fo the years without Halo, we'll have Gears and vice versa".
I'm neck-deep in Atlus' Baroque right now...nothing you can pull out can wierd me out as much as I am with this game. Wait, maybe I should not dare you. :P
You have Wii or PS2 version?
I imagine that's what that FedEx package sitting in my living room is.
I don't have a debugged Wii either, but I've never gotten a burned title from them. I guess it's the PS2 one I have too, then.
Yeah, I am constantly rolling my eyes when I actually read some of their comments. In their review of Mario Galaxy, they couldn't just praise the game for what it does well and mention some areas where it could've been better (ya know, like a review), they had to take pot shots at Mario Sunshine, and complain about how "gay" Mario has gotten over the years. Classy.
I would like to check it out. Sigh.
Can anyone run off a list of average games?
I think the issue they have is that by all accounts they DID 'fucking earn' at least a 7 from everywhere else... even on EGMs scale.
Then some dude looking to make a splash picks their game to torpedo to get people saying "well so-and-so said..."