Rich Stanton on Future's dodgy dealings - GTA4's [10] bought

Pedz wrote:
$ilva $hadow wrote:Dude I don't know what score the game is worth, except that it's not worth a 10/10 based on all the other games that get awarded high scores for being a game from a big publisher.

Are you saying that big games published by big publishers aren't allowed to get 10's, as no big game published by a big publisher is ever worthy of it? Or have I read that wrong?

You've read it wrong.

melatonin wrote:
Prototype wrote:Edge.

It had a map editor Melly. A map editor! You can't get much more innovative.

Tineash wrote:Silly or serious, GTAIV is dull to play.

What is this /v/ stuff ?

Dblock wrote:What is this /v/ stuff ?

Seriously?

/v/ is the 4ch*n board for talking about games. vidya.

Dblock wrote:What is this /v/ stuff ?

7256930752

Silva, who do you think pays for things like Dishonoured to get good reviews, the small time dev or the publisher who 'let' the Fallout games get middling reviews in Edge?

If all big games that get good reviews are paid for why did Resi 6 reviews so poorly?

Hime wrote:Silva, who do you think pays for things like Dishonoured to get good reviews, the small time dev or the publisher who 'let' the Fallout games get middling reviews in Edge?

If all big games that get good reviews are paid for why did Resi 6 reviews so poorly?

What are you asking me these questions for? You know my views on this already.

Big publishers have so many different ways of putting pressure on reviewers giving them good scores. Do I have to break it down for you?

First off, the competition between the reviewers, gaming sites and all. They get sent goodies and early code to review or preview, without a good score, the publisher can cut off access. Secondly you have ad related revenue, no advertising revenue if you give out gooseberry fool scores. Other ways you can be pressured is that in the future you will have access cut off to the big devs.

It doesn't take a genius to work out that reviews are going to be hugely influenced by those factors, and thus why I instantly disbelieve any amazing scores for a game until it's been out for awhile and other gamers have given their opinion on it.

You know I can't really say for sure why Resi 6 got a bad reviews, but I think if reviewers had continued to lie to their userbase about how 'amazing' Resi 6 was, it would have become a problem. There could be other factors at play but when games get lower scores, I don't really question it, people aren't pressured to give low scores, they're pressured to give high scores.

7256930752

If the publishers were prepared to pay for the Dishonoured reviews why didn't they do the same for the Fallout games?

I don't get you man. You bitch about games being linear and lacking creativity and hold Deus Ex as a benchmark to judge these games you deem to be bad, yet when a game comes out that is trying to evoke the gameplay style of DE you want to take a gooseberry fool on it before playing it. If critics were happy to dump on Resi 6 I'm sure they would have done the same to Dishonoured had it been a bad game.

Hime wrote:If the publishers were prepared to pay for the Dishonoured reviews why didn't they do the same for the Fallout games?

It's not the Fallout games. It's New Vegas specifically. And in that case, that was farmed out to Obsidian, who had bonuses attached to higher Metacritic scores. Obsidian missed out on those bonuses by a single metacritic percentage.

I'm not saying that they did or didn't get involved in score manipulation, but with New Vegas, arguably there was a certain conflict of interest between review scores and advertising. Bethsoft could be fairly sure that New Vegas would sell well just off the back of Fallout 3, so advertising wasn't a massive priority, especially not when higher scores would result in bonuses becoming payable.

All I know is the lack of those bonuses put Obsidian in a pretty bad way until Wasteland 2 (and then Project Eternity) showed up to save their keisters.

Hime wrote:If the publishers were prepared to pay for the Dishonoured reviews why didn't they do the same for the Fallout games?

I don't get you man. You bitch about games being linear and lacking creativity and hold Deus Ex as a benchmark to judge these games you deem to be bad, yet when a game comes out that is trying to evoke the gameplay style of DE you want to take a gooseberry fool on it before playing it. If critics were happy to dump on Resi 6 I'm sure they would have done the same to Dishonoured had it been a bad game.

Now you're making the mistake that you think I want to gooseberry fool on Dishonoured, or that I want it to be a bad game.

Go back and read my posts and you will see that I say "I don't strawberry floating believe the game is a 10/10 based on past events and obvious scandals in which gooseberry fool games get amazing reviews that don't actually match the game".

If you want to use Resi 6 having a bad day with the reviews as an example of why Dishonoured is apparently the greatest game in the world, go ahead, go ahead and believe the reviews. I however feel that the numerous examples of games getting inflated scores, based on pressure and hype is far more likely than what your approach seems to be.

I don't for one second believe Dishonoured is a 10/10 game based on that logic. Tough gooseberry fool for you if it's upsetting, but the evidence is far more geared towards the game overhyped. Not only that but other sources such as the RPS video transcript, I used that to also support my belief that Dishonoured may be good, but it sure as hell ain't 10/10 worthy, especially if the guys at RPS think it isn't better than the Thief series, or that the storyline is still lacking.

What more do you want? I've made sensible conclusions and used numerous sources to say why I do NOT believe Dishonoured really is a 10/10 game. I would strawberry floating love it if I was wrong, but industry practices seem to indicate that Dishonoured being an actual 10/10 quality game is a far cry from reality.

I find a 10/10 for GTA:IV far more believable, than say, any of the scores the Halo franchise gets. I've always questioned the Halo 3 scores.

I never trust reviews either. Of anything. Whether it's for a videogame or a mobile phone.

BID0 wrote:I find a 10/10 for GTA:IV far more believable, than say, any of the scores the Halo franchise gets. I've always questioned the Halo 3 scores.

I never trust reviews either. Of anything. Whether it's for a videogame or a mobile phone.

Exactly. Especially the reviews for every Sony product ever. Glowy knows the deal on Sony reviews, 9 times out of 10, it's always a positive review no matter how gooseberry fool the product is for some reason.

Prototype wrote:
melatonin wrote:
Prototype wrote:Edge.

I know Rik is reading this and just dying to post.

any other Edge [10]'s not earn it?
Nope, the rest are kosher. GTAIV was bent

Rik wrote:
Prototype wrote:
melatonin wrote:
Prototype wrote:Edge.

I know Rik is reading this and just dying to post.

any other Edge [10]'s not earn it?
Nope, the rest are kosher. GTAIV was bent

lmao couldn't help yourself.

Dan Griliopoulos (Former reviews editor, Xbox 360) wrote:Not PC Gamer, in my time, nor PC Format. & we got PR gooseberry fool on OXM for 'underscoring' exclusives

I know he's talking about Halo 3 & Gears of War in particular (9/10). I think it was made worse by the fact Future had some sort of Halo special magazine coming out, & the review was going to be used in that.

Sad state of affairs when a 9 isn't considered good enough.

Too easy, Rik. :lol:

Prototype wrote:Too easy, Rik.

Edge Innovation award hits weak point for massive damage :lol:

Talking of EDGE, I've only just noticed their website has had another overhaul. It's now using the same template as the majority of their other websites (i.e. it's a blog).

Rich Stanton on Future's dodgy dealings - GTA4's [10] bought

Who is online

Affiliates