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.
He/Him |
"A boat is always safest in the harbor, but that’s not why we build boats." | "If you run, you gain one. If you move forward, you gain two." - Suletta Mercury, G-Witch
Posts
SE++ Map Steam
Im getting out of here before this thread explodes in a mushroom cloud of blind hatred. Someone will die in the melee.
Shogun Streams Vidya
Battle.net: Fireflash#1425
Steam Friend code: 45386507
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?"
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.
If it is a chore I hope that guy never plays an MMORPG. He'll go to work the next day and commit suicide.
Shogun Streams Vidya
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.
Shogun Streams Vidya
I found it pretty awkward, TBH.
The only parts I liked involved using the bow.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
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.
Conspiracy or not, I think we can all agree that it's a shitty review.
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.
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!~
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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
Didn't read your post. I hope this is true cause otherwise the LOLSony IS too good to be true.
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.
I remember alot of people talking like that back then...
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).
Steam / Bus Blog / Goozex Referral
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...
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.
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.
The "sponsored by" is gone in the review, now. I think they may have found out they were caught..?