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.
Edge didn't like it very much...
Mr ED209
Registered User new member
Registered User new member
So it's got 4/10 in the UK's Edge magazine. No reference whatsoever to Ron Gilbert's involvement and mostly they didn't like the 'hit Space bar to block' mechanic, saying it rendered all the battles as trial and error experiences until you worked out the right time to block, rinse and repeat.
/cancels pre-order lol
/cancels pre-order lol
Mr ED209 on
0
Posts
I guess Edge isn't fond of RPG style games. I imagine the game will play just fine.
1. Make official statement?
2. Slate Edge publicly?
3. ???
4. Profit!!!
Please note: 3 is probably "release game"
I thought maybe it doesn't show subscriber only articles, but it did show me some I couldn't access.
I wouldnt worry about EDGEs scores that much - they are sometimes rather random.
They have been running since... oh... forever, and while they are the only print magazine whos reviews I really trust (I've been reading since Issue 0), they look more for things pushing technical bounds and things nobody has done before (Halo 3's online features and level of integration for example), rather than if it is fun or not.
Obviously, like anything Penny-Arcade related, and as Gabe said in his newspost (hi Gabe!), the humor here is more of an aquired taste than most. I fully expect the game to be rather good, even after the review.
Anyway, my copy arrived today, so unless someone has a scanner and a copy, I'll type up the review (its quite short) in a bit.
Weird.
Oh, and for the record, Eurogamer and PA are the other two sources I really trust...
I think I am going to jump in on this one--in short, no it is not. End stop.
However, I was particularly upset on how all this went down so if you want to know more, here you go:
Before the launch of a game, especially a PC game, any developer that wants to stay in business is going to by hyper sensitive about any code going out. Hothead sent out specially built and coded versions for each person and publication that was going to look at the game--it was a short list. The reviewers name and the publication name is in that code. They are not free to pass it along which would breach any semblance of professionalism. To be truthful, had it been a high score, I probably would not have lost as much sleep as I did last night thinking that somehow a leak had occurred. Because of the time difference, I was able to discover this morning that it was in fact the same reviewer.
To be absolutely clear, we sent that code to that reviewer explicitly for PC Format. Edge asked us for a review copy and we denied them which makes this all the more curious. We said no because 1) we were slammed getting the game done and had already sent out the copies we were going to send, and 2) I believe Edge's audience has more of a console focus and we wanted to get them a Xbox version--especially since the Xbox version had a ton more polish and love at that given time because we had a huge lead time to go through the Microsoft process. Again, another reason we were very careful how many people and who got to look at the PC version at that time.
Once a game is released, we can't control who gets the game or if they are going to do a review but it is generally accepted in the industry that pre-release, a publisher does have the right of control--not of what the reviewers are going to say but in who sees it and what magazines or websites get coverage and when the coverage hits. The game did not go Gold until yesterday so essentially, they did a review on code from March. If Edge was so hell-bent on covering the game, they could have talked to us again telling us their intention and we could have sent them updated code which may or may not have affected their opinions but at least Hothead would have been able to put our best efforts forward. The fact of the matter is that if Hothead had the advertising clout of an EA or Ubisoft, the score may or may not be different but Future Publishing would not have treated us in this manner.
Only 3 levels really?
I wonder how big they are .... It seems like Edge may be making mountains out of mole hills.
I'd like to read the other review that's out.
Thanks for typing that up
you'd be amazed at the number of people that don't give them reviews copies, and while this particular game is obviously different, it's rarely stopped them from accessing review copies. most of the content contributed to the magazine is done so by those who work for other magazines/web sites. its dedicated staff is actually quite small(or at least that has always been my understanding). so its possible that they got their copy/review from someone reviewing it for another mag/site.
Not a Space Giraffe fan I take it?
I think the reason that you are so bothered about it is not so much the score itself, but the fact that they reviewed it without permission. It appears not to be good form, but at the end of the day EDGE have fallen out with people before, and still got hold of games to review. I am though somewhat bemused as to why you gave OXM a copy, and denied EDGE on the basis of them having a console audience. Also, how different is the March code from the Gold disc? Significant enough change the review text?
As far as EDGE not liking RPG games goes, Crisis Core got a 6 in the same issue, so make of that what you will.
On to the actual score, if you have never read EDGE, you will have completely the wrong impression from the score. 4 is not as bad as you are thinking. It actually works out to roughly the same score as the 68% PC Format gave. Many publications give 7, or 7.5 as the 'average' mark (depending on scoring systems), whereas EDGE put that at 5. A game getting a 4 is seen as being below average, and often scores much higher elsewhere, but they effectively receive the same score.
For the record, here are some other EDGE 4's with game rankings scores:
Alien Vs Predator (73.8%)
In Cold Blood (69.3%)
Parasite Eve 2 ( 79%)
Primal (76.8%)
Yoshi's Universal Gravitation (60.7%)
Should you wish to amuse yourself, you can visit the EDGE score database here, though it is somewhat out of date going up to I think E166.
Doesn't that imply you didn't put your best effort forward for the PC Format review..?
Someone should point that out to Gabe:
That is the whole point--no, we did not. We put the best of what we had at the time. But with long lead times of magazines, you don't always have that option. Magazines have different lead times as well. This is why we went with a couple of publications in the US and a couple in the UK. One was Xbox and the rest were PC. We wanted to do more Xbox but all our focus was just getting the game through Microsoft certification which is a ton of work. When you are in the thick of it, fixing bugs and creating new bugs by fixing bugs, it is a very chaotic process--it is not easy to just start sending out builds left right and center. Instead, we put our head down to get the game done as soon as possible for the fans and once through that process, send out the Gold build for all the rest of the reviews. There were a lot of other publications that asked for a build as well and we asked them to wait--they did.
i could see why you'd be so upset if the Edge review slated that game over bugs there were unlikely to be present in the release version(or at least the XBL Version). but the only real problem with the game pointed out in both the Edge and PC Format review(s) was to do with the blocking system. something that is apparently a huge aspect of the game(at this point i only have those reviews to go by, and am eager to find out for myself).
i think we can all agree that there are many flaws in the way that games are previewed and reviewed. however, isn't it also possible that the game is also flawed in its own way? that perhaps it didn't turn out at well as it could have(as well as we'd all hoped)? again, i'm only speculating on the back of a review(or two, depending on how you look at it), and am still intend to buy the game as soon as possible, but is this issue as big as we're all making it out to be? i can't really begin to imagine what its like to have your work/creation ripped apart like this(if thats truly what you feel has happened), but i do think its something that might benefit from some time, some reflection, and perhaps a more open dialogue between those of you at Penny Arcade/HotHead and those at Edge.
I can't say if it would have changed that particular reviewers mind but I will give you two guesses of what we worked on in a very focused way for the final month? People will be totally free to judge for themselves whether the system works for them, especially with the final changes and tuning. There will be a demo for all platforms so they can do that judging at no cost whatsoever.
I would never presume to say that the game has no flaws--it is a rare game, movie, book (pick your entertainment) that does not. You can also ask the team and they would be the first to say that I am very honest and forward when it comes to pointing out that something is wrong or flawed . . . perhaps too forward and too honest. I can say that I am very proud of what we have accomplished and my belief is that some people are going to hate it and some are going to feel as if it were made just for them and they are going to love it as a result.
It is probably not as big an issue and probably not worthy of me writing more posts but while the score is disappointing, it is truly the manner in which it occurred that upsets me. I love Edge. Heck I used to collect it and until we started Hothead, I had a subscription. I have even visited them in Bath at their offices and went for beers with some of the guys that worked there at the time. So for me personally, it is just . . . disappointing. The last game of mine they reviewed was Hulk: Ultimate Destruction and they gave it a 6 with a rather "we didn't like it" writeup. That game averages 85% on Gamerankings, was nominated for game of year by different publications and was listed by IGN as the best superhero game of all time. Edge's score was the lowest out of over 60 publications and I don't believe I wrote a post about it . . . .
was the review harsh? well, we'll just have to wait and see, though since only a single flaw has been mentioned, it could be that they've blown it out of proportion. again we will just have to wait and see(and i'm guess we wont be waiting too much longer).
however, on a slight side note, i don't think the poor review was(entirely) down the the reviews dislike of Penny Arcade. certainly it doesn't suggest the out and out hatred usually expressed by those who aren't fans, though it neither does it betray the feeling of a rabid fan(as might be found round these parts). perhaps we've stumbled upon that rare person that hasn't given the comic enough time to have formed a strong opinion either way, and while noticing the main traits(the distinctive art/writing style), hasn't been overly offended/amused by either.
hell, at the very least it's given call to debate over the review practices of magazines and web sites and how those relate to the developers themselves. while its unlikely that any huge changes will come from it, at the very least it may allow those of us not involved in the industry an insight into how this aspect of the biz works.
To be expected though. Bioshock 8 and all that. Rather annoyingly, I don't have E153, so can't read the review, but I'm not a great fan of the game, and couldn't really disagree with the score. XBM UK and a couple of others also gave it a 6, which suggests they liked it less.
On the subject of the PA game though, would you say that the blocking system has improved greatly in the last month, to the point that the guy that wrote the review might change his mind? Also, you mentioned the 360 version being a lot more polished, due to having to jump through Microsofts hoops. Do you think that the 360 version is significantly better than the March PC code EDGE reviewed? If you absolutely honestly believe so, I'm willing to drop the points on day one.
Wraith, the review suggests that the blocking system is fundamentally flawed, and as it takes up such a big part of the game, although it's only one flaw, tying that into the lack of area's, and other things to do mean that it is game crippling. If thats the case, it certainly isn't being blown out of proportion. As things stand though, it looks like we'll be getting a far more tweaked system than the reviewer, so even if it's not perfect, it could drastically change how good the game is as a whole.
i've got my copy of PC Format here so i know whats said, and it certainly suggests that the majority of the game is spent in combat, mostly due to the blocking systems flaws. however, my last post was meant as an admition that until we play the game(or at least get some more reviews) we don't know just how bad it is.
i've said it bofe and will say it again, i still plan on buying the game as soon as possible, and if the blocking system is as poor as suggested then hopefully it'll be fixed by Ep.2.
Depending on the reception of this game, would you be prepared to delay Episode 2 in order to fix any perceived issues? Would you even be prepared to go as far back as the proverbial drawing board for the 2nd game?
We delayed episode one to make sure it was a great experience for the PA fan so I think we have already shown what we are willing to do to make sure fans are satisfied. Having said that, I am done with this thread until post ship and once you guys have had a chance to judge for yourselves. Talk to you soon--got to get back to work and make final preparations so that can happen.
Sorry Dante, missed your post before writing my last. The key is that blocking is essential to the combat system--it is not optional. If you don't block at all, you could conceivably finish the game but it would definitely be a long slog. I believe the changes we made make all the difference but you will have to learn how to fight each enemy. The 360 version was most definitely better than the March PC code on many fronts besides just the blocking aspect of combat and those changes subsequently made their way back into all the PC versions just recently ie. not in any PC code that I recall that we sent to any PC reviewers.
I will come back the week of launch to see what you guys think about this issue and any others. Looking forward to it.
I suppose the key here will be how quickly you can learn. One of the points in the review was continual deaths due to to missing the blocks. I don't mind dying if it's my fault, but there is nothing worse than a dying because of a poorly designed game.
Some people enjoy the whole having to face the boss 18 times before you can vaguely stand a chance of defeating him. I'm not one of them. I like to be able figure out fights on the fly, and if I die due to not having done so, then it doesn't bother me. So your comments are encouraging, and I look forward to the game.
To be fair, the review itself isnt' the most informative either, with the guy seemingly obsessed about the horrors of pressing the space bar over and over again, but he does say the game is humorous, so he liked(or tolerated that part).
I dunno, I guess Gabe's post just gave off the whole "you just don't get it" vibe. At least to me.
However unless their system has changed since I stopped reading, all their reviews are anonymous. So did you have to phone them up and ask them who reviewed it?
They could just write "It's not for you!" in the blurb.
I actually don't think it is that big a deal either way. I read what he wrote more like: Reviews vary on the majority of the work they produce. This is true in regards to the game and it will probably work out in the same way that it has on the comic, the books, etc.
With respect, if you think that then I think you misread it. He said that people either love or hate Penny Arcade, and that he thinks the scores seen so far show the same thing will happen to the game.
Seems to me to be a pretty sensible acceptance that not everyone likes what you do.
If you're proud of how the final product turned out, then you should be happy.
Being a long time fan of both PA and EDGE I am a bit torn in this matter.
I read the review during the weekend as I'm a subscriber and was actually gonna start an thread about it had Mr ED209 not done it.
While I do think it's in a way unfair to print a review of a pre-release version on the other hand it's hardly the magazine which is at fault but rather the reviewer - after all information needs to be free. What bugs me a little is knowing the review is based on a pre-gold version without the review stating that fact.
What bugs me a hell of lot more is that a pre-release version was release for reviews in the first place. I think it stinks and it stinks even more when the pre-release state is brought up as part of response to an less than favorable review. I really though PA was beyond commercial moves like that :!:
Tell us what use is it knowing the review copy was a pre-release:?:
Without a list of things changed between that version and the gold one we can't use that info for making a call on how valid or not the review is. The pre-release version could have had major tweaks coming or it could be localization of the installer and other none-gaming work missing. We need facts otherwise the pre-release thing is just a bad excuse.
Oh and the whole conspiracy theory on how the score may or may not have been different had it been EA or UBISOFT behind the game is a low blow. It may ring true for a lot of media but I have never seen a score in EDGE which seem like they were sucking up or something. Future Publishing is NOT like FOX or CNET:evil:
I am still a PA fan and an EDGE fan. However I must say that I did lose some of my love for PA today. I can not help wonder and fear if PA is becoming so big a business that it is starting to change into what is wrong with the industry rather than being the gamers voice. Maybe it is just a reflex defense reaction to the bad review but putting out the pre-release version in the first place was wrong and making accusations towards EDGE just looks sad!
And then: Phew, for a second I thought it was a publication that actually mattered!
edit: That said, I don't necessarily agree with the philosophy that reviews should be controlled in any manner. Having written them for years (for online publications), that kind of philosophy makes me very uneasy.
The problem, though, primarily lies with how broken the gaming market is, and all the relationships that exist within between reviewers, publishers, PR, developers, editors, advertisers and so on. Sometimes you feel like you have to walk on eggshells even to get review code. I'm not suggesting that a publisher/developer actually OWES anyone pre-release code to review, but I think the whole point of review is that no one but the reviewer controls anything. Granted that opinion takes a blind eye to the concerns Vlad has put forth, concerns which are valid and exist with other publishers, but...ultimately I don't think anyone has a right to "control" what, and most importantly who, can review what.
edit 2: I'm confused. Did they actually steal/borrow this code from someone else?
Would like to remain quiet and just put my head down and get back to shipping the game but I have to respond on a few points.
Hothead owns this entirely. We are the developer and publisher. Our job is to commercialize the game so that we can continue making more of them. Don't blame PA about this as it was our responsibility and more specifically, my responsibility which is why I was all the more pissed on how it went down. We should never have sent out the code to Future in the first place. We are an indie developer and publisher, not some giant machine but we still have to interact with how business gets done in this industry.
I am human and given that what happened is unprecedented in my 10+ year career, I think I had a right to be pissed. This sort of crap never happened when I worked as part of a major publisher with big ad dollars and a huge PR firm behind us. Now that I have calmed down, I am going to chalk it up as rushed deadline/miscommunication on Edge's part and move on. We are not called Hothead for nothing . . . .
As far as releasing pre-release versions, because we are digital and there is a long, long press lead time, we have been in a bit of a bind. Usually with retail based games, you have a ton of time after going Gold to when the manufacturing is complete until the game actually hits the shelves. That time delta helps coincide with the magazine lead times to help games that get reviewed are very close to if not final versions. With Xbox, as I explain in previous posts, we essentially had that delta because of their process but not with PC. We don't have that long of a lead time between going Gold and launching. We really want the game to be a success because of many reasons. Yes, Hothead wants to make money to pay back the time, sweat and money that we poured into this game series. No, Hothead does not have a ton of cash for marketing hence the need and desire to get some PR coverage to help get the word out that the game exists and is about to ship. We did not go crazy despite widespread interest--I believe we had one Xbox and one PC review in the US and three PC (official) ones in the UK. You will notice we refrained from doing any online reviews whatsoever to ensure what they received was absolut Gold. We are having a lot of fun working on these games and we want to keep doing it. If you want to be pissed, aim the blame at me, not PA.