Samba de Amigo IGN Review

[ramuji]

yushire said:

Actually, the one who says the game was good was IGN themselves. And its their own opinion. Of course Im anger with the reviewers, after saying in their own opinion the game was good they give the game a mediocre score? PUH-LEASE... The one tht hype the game was IGN themselves, not SEGA...

 

In general, I assume that a review is a more balanced, thorough, and accurate opinion of a product, and therefore give it much more credence than a preview. Therefore, in my opinion, the preview 'hype' is the better target for complaints than the review.

In this case of IGN and Samba de Amigo, Daemon Hatfield wrote in his 15 April preview: (http://wii.ign.com/articles/866/866500p1.html)
"We got to shake a couple Wii Remotes to the rhythm game at Nintendo's Media Summit and found it looking good and playing well."
"It might take some getting used to for seasoned Samba players, but we found the control scheme worked well."
"We definitely miss the sound of the old maraca controllers, but the Wii Remotes perform just as well otherwise."
"What we saw was still very early, and it seems most of the development effort is going into making sure the Wii version controls well. But Samba fans shouldn't be too worried."

Then, in Mr. Hatfield's 16 September review: (http://wii.ign.com/articles/910/910586p1.html)
"This version attempts to recreate that shaking feeling with two Wii remotes or a remote and nunchuck, and kind of succeeds. The motion controls aren't perfect and on harder difficulties they won't recognize many of your moves."
"The problem is you'll find your shakes aren't always recognized, and the game will mistake other movements for shakes."
"This Wii version puts all its hopes on the remote's accelerometer and it turns out it's not up to the job."

 

So, I wonder, how could Mr. Hatfield's preview hype have been so good when his own review contradicts it totally?

Clearly the problem is not that the review does not provide a score that agrees with the preview; rather, it seems that the preview was completely inaccurate or exagerrated.