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.