The Game Magazine Industry Bribed?! No say it aint so!!! LOL

legion_stxds

legion_stxds

CAGiversary!
Not that bias reviews never cross our minds... but check this out: Link!!!
"Gaming mags taking bribes for early code? - briefly
(hx) 07:05 PM EDT - Jun,21 2004 - Post a comment / read (1)
TheInquirer is reporting that the forums user, who identifies himself as "Jell," states that gaming companies are supplying UK magazines with videogames in exchange for high review scores. He claims that the current big culprit is Atari with their newest super-hyped videogame, DRIV3R. Allegedly, there are demands for at least a 9/10 score in exchange for early review copy code.
I work for a UK magazine. What seemed like a few errant public relations agreements is turning into a wider problem in the UK games media, with shocking score agreements being implemented before any reviewer has seen final code.

In the race to splash "Exclusive first review" on the front cover, editors are now agreeing to grant high scores to titles irrespective of quality, in what is perhaps the most distasteful abuse of reader trust imaginable.

The culprit right now is Atari with DRIV3R, with reports coming in today of demands for at least 9/10 score in exchange for early review code. Although the build with magazines at the moment is described as being "two or three weeks away from being final," it has not lived up to expectations with certain press contacts. However, in order to obtain the code, a score of nine has been demanded by Atari's PR team.

Other culprits of late include Sonic Heroes, which Sega's European PR office demanded scores of at least 8/10 in exchange for code, a shoddy state of affairs indeed. As you may remember, all early scores were 8/10 for Sonic. Strange huh?

Tomb Raider was another game for which it was demanded that a certain score must be granted before review coverage was agreed. Impressively, 10/10 was the requested score, though as you know, various editors bartered this down.

Another is Devil May Cry II, for which Capcom demanded 8/10 for the exclusive. Turok Evolution also came pre-decorated with an eight score.

If any other readers know about this, drop the culprits in here!

Jell. "
Click to expand...
 
This is why I like EGM, they seem to be dead on with most of their reviews. Also, they aren't the type to just give the auto 10's to every game they see, its actually pretty rare to see one.
 
[quote name='DenisDFat']coughGameInformerAndRiddickcough[/quote]

Or maybe they actually liked the game, like the other 25 or so reviewers that gave it a 90% or better.
 
[quote name='DenisDFat']coughGameInformerAndRiddickcough[/quote]

considering Gamespot gave it a score in the same range I would not say that.

IGN I think was investigated for doing this with early Xbox games.
 
[quote name='goldengraham']This is why I like EGM, they seem to be dead on with most of their reviews. Also, they aren't the type to just give the auto 10's to every game they see, its actually pretty rare to see one.[/quote]

EGM overrates lots of games, including Mario Kart: Double Dash.
 
I'm so sick of reviews!

These days for a game to get a bad review is has to be seriously bad or hit a bad nerve of the reviewer/editor because otherwise most games will get praised as a good game.

What really makes me sick is when games, mainly pc games, have serious performance issues or bugs and the reviews still praise the game and ignore the issues.

Also sequals should only be reviewed by people who have actually played the previous games in the series and not some idiot who never heard of the game before. I hate it when people praise sequals that suck because they never played the previous games.

And as far as reviews being "bought" -- it is not that difficult to see how reviews are heavily influenced by early copies of games or special previews. If I give you a special sneak preview and you bash the game don't expect anymore special sneak previews.

So for the most part reviews are shit - you have to learn how to filter the important info that relates to you and what games you like, and by all means necessary ignore game ratings or scores. I can't tell you how often games get bad reviews but still get an 8.0
 
I trust EGM the most and gamepro the least. Gampero definitely rides any hype a game has. I am always reminded of their SWG review where they say something like, " still even with tons of content missing and a large number of bugs..." and proceed to give it a 5.
 
The culprit right now is Atari with DRIV3R, with reports coming in today of demands for at least 9/10 score in exchange for early review code. Although the build with magazines at the moment is described as being "two or three weeks away from being final," it has not lived up to expectations with certain press contacts. However, in order to obtain the code, a score of nine has been demanded by Atari's PR team.
Click to expand...

Check Gamerankings...2 UK mags with 9/10 scores.
 
"Official" Xbox Magazine is bad about giving high reviews. I can't bring myself to trust a mag that is focused on only one console, it's like built in bias. I agree with others in this thread that EGM is pretty good about their scores and Gamespot is decent as well. For PC games you can't touch PC Gamer. All I have to say is thank heavens for gamerankings.com.
 
I'm having mixed issues with reviews in general right now. I'm really into Champions of Norrath and the game got 8's and 9's. While I love the game to death, when it works, it is by far the buggiest console game I have played in ages and the online aspects are horrible. There's no excuse why launching a cut scene should lock up everyone online (The raft on the ice level.), there is no reason trying to turn off the game music locks the game, I should never have collected all 7 curiosites only to be told I need to find two more.

None of these issues were ever brought up in any review I've read. Neither was the obvious duping method which I don't mind but should have been brought up. Last but not least how did not one reviewer find the level 20 glitch? I mean it's so basic to execute. I realize that games like CoN, PSO, Everquest are impossible to review in depth. Staff's can't afford to have someone play a game 150 hours to find stuff like this.

Wow, I got really kinda OT. Yeah, asking for review scores to justify an exlusive is really slimy. However look at GamePro's credibility with reviews. They've never had it with hardcore gamers and they don't care and it hasn't put them out of business. So why blame the PR people? If magazines are going to give them scores in exchange for exclusivity in the long run it's them that suffer.

Boy, I sound like my parent's all those nights I wanted to play my NES instead of do homework.
 
[quote name='DenisDFat']coughGameInformerAndRiddickcough[/quote]

Sorry DDF, but Riddick got high marks at E3 by everyone, press and gamers alike. Whatever GI gave them was well deserved.
 
[quote name='King Bahamut'][quote name='goldengraham']This is why I like EGM, they seem to be dead on with most of their reviews. Also, they aren't the type to just give the auto 10's to every game they see, its actually pretty rare to see one.[/quote]

EGM overrates lots of games, including Mario Kart: Double Dash.[/quote]

Mario Kart is freaking sweet. Once you get into the changed play mechanics, I believe it reveals itself to be the best kart racing game ever. No other game has caused so much joy and anger in my life. It deserved the 10.

And Riddick is amazing, too. Sure its short, but not all games need to be 40 hours. And I much prefer no multiplayer to a really half-assed multiplayer.
 
Anyone check out Toys R Us' RZONE mag? That's the most skewed mag around. They only have 3 different ratings (according to their rating key):

5 (Rzoney things) = awesome
4 (Rzoney things) = very good
3 (Rzoney things) = pretty good

No 2s or 1s. Now that's funny, but I guess we don't want to upset the manufacturers. The magazine's free so if you're at Toys R Us, go into their RZone and pick one up for a good laugh.

* Interesting side note: I see here that Yu Gi OH Falsebound Kingdom actually received a 2 Rzoney from them in the April issue. Probably a typo, not because the game's good but they don't even have a 2 Rzoney rating.
 
My argument has always been why waste space on reviewing shitty games?

I guess that's more of a question than an argument.

Seriously, it annoys me to no end to see a magazine waste a whole page, sometimes two pages, reviewing a game to which they end up giving less than 70% or equivalent score. Bad games shouldn't be in the magazines at all. Show me the ones you think are great and tell me why. Relegate all the bad games for one issue to one or two pages total and give me a short reason why it's bad. You can do this for just about any bad game.
 
True. But give me my quote, instead of golden graham. That fight mode was terrible. The rest of the game wasn't exactly stunning, but that mode made me bleed through my eyes.
 
I think that EA is always involved in some kind of payolla. They really put out some garbage sports games, but yet they ALWAYS, ALWAYS get high scores. I can't trust a review of an EA Sports game anymore - this holds particuliarly true for the underwhelming Madden football series, over the last 3 seasons at least. Remember NHL 2003? Most reviewers gave it high scores, and then those same reviewers bashed it months later (or in the next season's reviews). Are they that shameless?
 
[quote name='PsyClerk']My argument has always been why waste space on reviewing shitty games?

I guess that's more of a question than an argument.

Seriously, it annoys me to no end to see a magazine waste a whole page, sometimes two pages, reviewing a game to which they end up giving less than 70% or equivalent score. Bad games shouldn't be in the magazines at all. Show me the ones you think are great and tell me why. Relegate all the bad games for one issue to one or two pages total and give me a short reason why it's bad. You can do this for just about any bad game.[/quote]

Actually I think it's important that they devote significant space to negative reviews if the game is one that has a lot of hype or a big following. I don't care if the latest Mary Kate and Ashley Olsen game sucks, but I do care if something like Driv3r sucks and I do want to know why.
 
Game Informer gave Enter the Matrix an 8.5 back when it was released, and I figured a kickback of some kind was responsible for this score. I guess I was right.
 
I simply don't trust online reviewers. I find that for the most part they're reviews suck. I can't name any specific examples, but more than once I've played a game that I love, and go to see w/ they gave it and it's something rediculously low. That being said I trust EGM the most. They seem the least corrupt of all the gaming mags and will bullshit me less. As for the Madden games, I personally can't stand them, but I know that many love the damn series, so thats they're problem if they can't see that they're basicly getting the same game every year. Hey, it's not my money they're wasting.
 
A more interesting scam is when publishers hold back a game for review, so the game hits the shelf before we know it stinks.

Eidos tried it with Tomb Raider last year . . .
 
[quote name='msdmoney']I trust EGM the most and gamepro the least. Gampero definitely rides any hype a game has. I am always reminded of their SWG review where they say something like, " still even with tons of content missing and a large number of bugs..." and proceed to give it a 5.[/quote]

I hate gamepro and gameinformer. EGM and XBN i love. PSM is awful. they gave the MOH with pearl harbor a 7 or an 8 and egm and xbn gave it 5-6. PSM loves giving high scores to make ps2 look good. EGM is the best except when it come to nintendo classic remakes, new metriod, mario kart, etc. they like making those a point to high. Gamepro and Gameinformer Suck, hell they blow, you know what they both suck and blow at the same time. Gamepro loves putting excusives on games, you know the ones that are going to suck when they come out, the new x-men game, mortal kombat rpg, those games are not all over other magaizines cuz they have better games to talk about. EGM is more willing to say, this game sucks you get a 3. or yeah it was good but it's no 9 , you get 8. I'm currently p.o. cuz all i'm getting now is gamepro, my egm electronic is gone and my home sub hasn't kicked in.

anyways, We all want honest reviews. not some shat on how cool it looked. from now on i'm going on instinct, if the game looks good and seems to play well i'll get it, if not i'll pass, i was iffy on Great Escape, picked it up cheap. It kills conflict DS. it uses the same engine and being that out of 18 levels only 4 have guns, though they are long and fun. the awful system doesn't bug me. playing conflict is awful, i'm either dead in a second or a killing machine, walking through levels.

I hate EA. All of there games get great reviews and of the few i own are all crap. AFTER i purchased MOH frontline, i heard that it was developed by EA not the other company that does the pc one. ea publishes each of them and has there name on each of them. Well MOH frontline sucks compared to it's pc conterpart. the pc game rocks, that's why i bought it.
Their james bond game are some of the worst FPS. the new one sucks to. i couldn't aim at the freak, oh, i'm supposted to run, let the cpu aim, fire, Agent under fire, feels like Confidential Mission, a light gun, i felt like i was moving at firing at guys that looked like they were out of a light gun game. jumping on screen and aiming. EA puts out crap games and EA fanboys insist it's the best, nintendo has fanboy issues too, but at least the games are only bumped up 3 points at a most.

Advice, you want crappy hype every month pick up Gamepoop(pro) GameDeciver(informer) you want the most honest stuff, XBN and EGM

*edit* tommorow morning i'll start a poll of game magazines, which one is the best and another for the most hated. PM me if you have a game mag i left out,

Nintendo Power, Xbox Nation, Playstation Magazine, Official Xbox Magazine, Official Playstation Magazine, Game informer, Gamepro, Electronic gaming monthly.

I'm not going to put gamestar cuz it just came out.
 
[quote name='Tromack'][quote name='King Bahamut'][quote name='goldengraham']This is why I like EGM, they seem to be dead on with most of their reviews. Also, they aren't the type to just give the auto 10's to every game they see, its actually pretty rare to see one.[/quote]

EGM overrates lots of games, including Mario Kart: Double Dash.[/quote]

Mario Kart is freaking sweet. Once you get into the changed play mechanics, I believe it reveals itself to be the best kart racing game ever. No other game has caused so much joy and anger in my life. It deserved the 10.[/quote]

Oh god I hate Mario Kart: Double Dash...I got it the day it came out, thought it was going to be a great game, and got a game that can't hold its salt at all compared to any of the previous Mario Karts. I sold my copy on EBay because I was so angry at such a waste of cash...the item unbalance went insanely horrible (getting hit by two spiny shells in a row and a red shell right after should hint something). I had about mastered the play mechanics early on, yet in 1P GP races on 150 CC I've had some ultra cheese happen to me while in first place for most of the races. And multiplayer...that was the biggest garbage ever.

I'm so damn glad that IGN had the balls to rate this game down, they were even lenient in their review of it too (and most accurate by far).
 
I feel the same way about Mario Kart. IGN got criticized like crazy for the 7.9 but I even think that was too high. Like you mentioned, the weapons really ruined the game with the way you could get hit 3 times in a row. I thought the track design was too simple. And this is coming from someone whose favorite game of all time is Super Mario Kart on SNES.
 
[quote name='Kaijufan']Game Informer gave Enter the Matrix an 8.5 back when it was released, and I figured a kickback of some kind was responsible for this score. I guess I was right.[/quote]

I knew someone was going to bring this up, and there lies the problem if you're just gonna look at the score. If you've actually read the review, GI criticizes the game deeply. Here's an excerpt:

"The gameplay is riddled with flaws as well. For every strength that the game showcases, a weakness counteracts it. Pro: The hand-to-hand combat is explosive, fluidly animated, and overflowing with impressive Matrix-inspired maneuvers. Con: The combat is limited to two buttons, a sparse number of moves, and blindly flailing works just as well as any strategy that you can concoct."

This pattern of pros and cons continue on for the next paragraph, and finally, the review concludes with:

"In a purely gaming sense, Enter the Matrix is mediocre at best. At most, it's a 7.5 out of 10. This type of game has been done better numerous times over. On the other hand, if you are a diehard fan of the films, it doesn't get much better than this. It's a 9.5 out of 10..."

Now, lemme ask you this: have you actually played the game, or did you give into all the negative media hype? I have, and by all accords, it's just merely an okay game. If you look at GI's scoring system, a 7 ("unless you're a fledging gamer, you've probably seen everything this game has to offer") is worth renting and an 8 is worth playing ("still a great game, but arguably so"). So if you were one of the millions who were disappointed with the last two movies, the game falls into the middle of these two, and I think it's dead-on.

Fireball343, quick question for you. Why does Game Informer "suck and blow"? You provided weak arguments for why you liked and disliked other mags, but you excluded GI entirely, which is ironic if you find fault in their reviews. As for Gamepro, I hate it as much as the next guy, but I hate it even more when people just throw false accusations. To their credit, they've only been getting better these past couple of months. If you compare their recent reviews to those of last year's, it doesn't take a genius to see that they've made at least a little improvement. And about their exclusives - two of their latest were Spiderman 2 and Doom 3 - I don't think those games are gonna suck when they come out. And personally, I'd love a new X-Men game. As for the new "mortal kombat rpg", I see no mention of it. If you're referring to Deception, that's purely a fighting game unless you consider a puzzle and chess mini-game as RPGs. If you're gonna bash something, at least get your facts straight.

I forgot who mentioned this, but I'd also personally like to see reviewers already familiar with a game to review its sequel. But you have to weigh in the fact that a lot of people wouldn't have played the original, and to them, the sequel is the first game of the series that they'd play. At the very least, a good reviewer will compare it to other similar games if not its predecessor, and I've already seen that in a lot of mags.

Last point: don't forget that reviews are all subjective. I'm not saying that there isn't any under-the-table transactions going on, but the opinion of a game is merely the writer's and not the whole magazine's. Even if it was, you could simply have different tastes than those of the mag's. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. Instead of persecuting those who freely express theirs, defend your own.
 
whitereflection, you do realize that it could have been just an excuse to rate it high to meet expectations of the deal.
 
If you use reviews to determine what games to play/buy, instead of using it as a general barometer, then you need to be punched in the face. I'm sick of going into work, and having some douche come up to me and say "I NEED to buy this, man, it got 8's and 9's in EGM!!" What the hell is wrong with people like that?
 
Reality's Fringe]If you use reviews to determine what games to play/buy said:
If that wasn't the case then publishers wouldn't be giving perks to reviewers to give their games good reviews and scores. :wink:
Click to expand...
 
Full Spectrum Warrior is a solid, solid game, but it isn't one of the top 25 games for XBox, like IGN has it as. (9.2) By the way, IGN's FSW review beat everyone else's by a week.
 
[quote name='Akuma']"Official" Xbox Magazine is bad about giving high reviews. I can't bring myself to trust a mag that is focused on only one console, it's like built in bias. I agree with others in this thread that EGM is pretty good about their scores and Gamespot is decent as well. For PC games you can't touch PC Gamer. All I have to say is thank heavens for gamerankings.com.[/quote]

They are the shaq-fuing worst! Man, the give mediocre scores to BAD games and have dissed some GOOD games too.

I get the magazine for free..but w/o the disc. Sometimes if I want the disc I can usually score it from somewhere or someone (no...not steal.). I also get Gamepro for free...which is so bad, it's not even worth being free. Game Informer is good...EGM is best. 3 Different reviewers....the best idea.
 
[quote name='whitereflection'][quote name='Kaijufan']Game Informer gave Enter the Matrix an 8.5 back when it was released, and I figured a kickback of some kind was responsible for this score. I guess I was right.[/quote]

I knew someone was going to bring this up, and there lies the problem if you're just gonna look at the score. If you've actually read the review, GI criticizes the game deeply. Here's an excerpt:

"The gameplay is riddled with flaws as well. For every strength that the game showcases, a weakness counteracts it. Pro: The hand-to-hand combat is explosive, fluidly animated, and overflowing with impressive Matrix-inspired maneuvers. Con: The combat is limited to two buttons, a sparse number of moves, and blindly flailing works just as well as any strategy that you can concoct."

This pattern of pros and cons continue on for the next paragraph, and finally, the review concludes with:

"In a purely gaming sense, Enter the Matrix is mediocre at best. At most, it's a 7.5 out of 10. This type of game has been done better numerous times over. On the other hand, if you are a diehard fan of the films, it doesn't get much better than this. It's a 9.5 out of 10..."

Now, lemme ask you this: have you actually played the game, or did you give into all the negative media hype? I have, and by all accords, it's just merely an okay game. If you look at GI's scoring system, a 7 ("unless you're a fledging gamer, you've probably seen everything this game has to offer") is worth renting and an 8 is worth playing ("still a great game, but arguably so"). So if you were one of the millions who were disappointed with the last two movies, the game falls into the middle of these two, and I think it's dead-on.
[/quote]
I did play, and beat Enter the Matrix, and based on GI's rating scale I would have given it a 5, but only because of the movie scenes filmed for the game in it. I loved the first Matrix movie, but I did not like the second and third part of the trilogy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top