Displaying 121–140 of 198
Wow! Good to know... I'd like to know the names of those groups.
I wonder if Adam is talking about the BOMB that is FFXIV...
Great episode of soapbox!I was kind of growing suspicious of Sony because of the absence of "The Shoot" review scores on Metacritic, when the game already came out yesterday. Normally there is at least some site that has had hands on time with a game about a week before its launch; at least it seems to me, so I'm thinking maybe after all the other Move launch titles weren't reviewed very favorably, Sony has been with withholding "The Shoot" from review sites.I think from here on out Sony is going to withhold the rest of it's lineup that is specifically meant to cater to the Move, and I can't help but wonder if Microsoft is going to do the very same with it's Kinect lineup.
Might this also have anything to do with G4's reviews not showing up on Metacritic anymore? I know I'm not crazy and I remember a time (a few years back) when G4 was tallied into a game's aggregate score.
im sure plenty of people base their purchases of games on reviews and sometimes i do as well like other M i had to pass on because of it but for the most part i think gamers can tell what games are gonna be good and bad so if publishers are doing this to to get more sales come on you cant hide that a game is just not good.
I have several points to hit on here in no particular order here goes:#1 In the case of the game review not coming out and you blaming the site or company, according to Adam that's just annoying cut it out. I saw this happen just today on IGN where the Fallout: New Vegas review timing failed in some people's eyes. It was complete anarchy.#2 You have to see it from both points of view, there have been several instances where reviewers could have sparked the juvenile behavior Adam spoke of, look at Medal of Honor there was a dip in stocks following the reviews of the game. If a simple review (which is essentially an opinion with numbers attached) can sink ships then hesitation on the publishers side is understood. So if a previous game was critically reviewed then yes you're going to see some hesitation in further early releases to reviewers. It is true that everyone is entitled to his/her opinion but when you're opinion carries such weight then you need to be careful what you say.#3 Here's an idea G4, I saw this on Amazon.com recently that if you own the product, you could submit a review based on your experience with said product. How about you allow select user based reviews especially in the case when you guy's can't get a copy of your own in time for an early review. Because there's always going to be that person out there who's going to buy early.And lastly, please oh please people open your minds, if a review on one site doesn't please you go to another site and see what's up. DO NOT accept first opinions as gospel. I am a current owner of Metriod Other M, for whatever reason I didn't see the game review before buying and playing it, when I finally saw the G4 review I was like " This never be the same game I am enjoying right now" so I went to IGN when I saw their review I was like "Ok then". Get second opinions, unless you're one of those persons who would go to a doctor with a cold and accept getting recommended for open heart surgery just like that. The internet is big people go out and see it, and for those who take everything one site throws out (not calling any names) as the holy word, stop that remember that the people doing these reviews are in fact human beings and can make mistakes in judgement.
I blame game stop for having pre-order deals
Nice Adam. Nice.
is it really important to have the review before the game comes out? we don't have to buy all our games on day 1 of release! ...just saying
I agree on your statement but just want to add every game franchises start as single name games. No one ever played God of war before, so if it was bad,it not wouldn`t have a sequel. If a game wants to become triple A it needs to release a game that's good at the start no matter what.I guess it falls under peoples how much the company,publisher believes it to be good and the programmers talent, passion and creative freedom allowed. When a game is bad, trying to hide facts is unacceptable.The company might as well come out with the facts instead of trying to make an illusion that its good. In the end it hurts the company more doing this than the game itself
I'm glad you got that out Adam.
Sessler, you said, paraphrasing-ly, - "videogames aren't held in the same regard as other media because of the way they're reviewed." - I partly agree. - You later said how this is also done with movies, Saw specifically. You contradicted yourself. That unprofessional tactic is not exclusive to games; it also done with movies and anything else that has a chance of sucking. This is a bit off-subject. I really don't care if Ebert thinks games aren't art. I care about how games are criticized and dissected within the community that cares for them. I applaud your rant for it's semi-directness. I would like to see this passion during previews, when the developers are still molding their game. I'm not saying all previews are coated with candy-drops and fudge, but whenever I watch or read developer interviews, the journalist hardly ever questions the quality directly; they always ask questions the developer has already addressed in a generic press-release. I'd like to see aggression that's more often seen in political pundits.If game journalists would stop their penis-sucking performances and asked real questions, videogames would be held in higher regard.
I kinda dig the lack of screen in the background. Enhance the importance of this soapbox.
As a game developer myself I notice that there is a lot of pressure from the publishers to get a product on the shelf by a certain date and sometimes developers have to release a product that is not yet ready for the audience. One reason why publishers let this happen is because the developer is under a financial obligation to ship on a certain date and if they don't then the publisher will have to give them more money and with patches being so accessible they would rather go gold and when the game gets put into the machine it downloads that patch. Also as a developer I can only appreciate what the publisher is doing by withholding the game because they feel uncomfortable by the press it might receive before the game hit's shelves. Both the developer and publisher are counting on that game being a good seller and the publisher should do everything they can to get that game to sell well so they can earn a profit and the developer can continue to make games. I hate to say that Sessler made a bad comparison with the Saw movie franchise because when they have held back the movie from the press it has still made a great deal of money in the box office. I really think that you would be partially correct in saying that the publisher isn't confident enough with the product that they are holding back the game from being reviewed but just know that the main reason is money. This is a market where very few games are triple A titles and more and more people are buying games because of the name and familiarity, look at how many people are going to buy the next Call of Duty game compared to the recently released Vanquish. Also most of the best selling and contenders for game of the year are triple A sequels like God of War 3, Mass Effect 2 and Red Dead Redemption. We are also at a time where most people will stick to a review like glue and if it doesn't get a 4/5 or better than it isn't work their time. No matter how much the reviewer expresses that the game that got below a 4/5 might still be a good game to check out if you like the genre or the franchise that it is based on it still turns away a large amount of potential buyers that don't want to feel like they will be wasting their $60. I can think of a few games that recently bombed because the reviews where horrible for the game like All Points Bulletin and Developers from Realtime Worlds lost their jobs because the game didn't meet the standards already in place for a great MMO. Not every developer has the privilege of pushing back the release date to polish their game to perfection like Gran Turismo 5 because the publisher doesn't want to spend more money on a game that may not make money.
I figured one out. Rise of the Six String, anyone? See, all of you forgot because, like me, none of you are going to buy it. Therefore, I guess it doesn't need to have a review because it would just waste everyone's time.
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say this may have something to do with the Kirby's Epic Yarn review being late. It would make sense after they were one of the few people to give Metriod Other M a lower score then most. Not defending Nintendo or anything. They can go screw themselves if they think its right to single out gaming websites or publications because they're afraid of a bad review. Sorry if I'm wrong though.
Another great soapbox. This is one form of news media that I can tolerate lol
I have a question for ya! I know between me and my friends we all are regulars on several different game reviewing sites and there are lots of reasons for this, but one of the major one i've found is certain sites are geared towards different games. I know i'm not very into FPS games and some sites i've been to seem prefer FPS games over say RPGs and it shows in their review scores. Do you think this may also play into developers picking certain sites not because of a grudge or feud against g4 or perhaps because they think they'll either get a better score or even a more fairly given score. I know a friend of mine thinks g4's reviews can be way off, so he doesn't fallow the site very much. (he's crazy!) Just a thought.
Posted: March 29, 2012
23,574 Views | 03:24
Posted: March 19, 2012
15,842 Views | 04:13
Posted: March 13, 2012
44,915 Views | 05:34
Posted: March 6, 2012
19,491 Views | 05:38
Posted: February 28, 2012
21,724 Views | 05:23
© 2012 G4 Media, LLC. All rights reserved.