Currently Online 
| forevercloud3000 said:
The myth of biased journalism Throughout the ages professional reviewers have been accused of bias. Worse yet, often the conspiracy theorists claim you get paid by manufacturers and advertisers to write favourable reviews for their products. While I’m sure things like that have happened I have always defended your motives against the accusers. However, while we were all waiting for the Call of Duty:Declassified reviews something strange happened… IGN tweeted: “For those interested: No sign of COD: Black Ops Declassified in the @IGN office. Review will be late; proceed with caution.” Pocketgamer opened their review with “We didn’t get a review copy of the game in before launch, or even on launch day. We had to go out and buy our own copy”
While CoD:BOD is by no means a stellar title and is in fact a rather mediocre game, it didn’t deserve the 20%-30% ratings that it received by the big review sites. Benchmarked against the scores of truly awful Vita games, Declassified should have easily made it into the 50%-60% range. This makes one wonder what else happened behind the scenes that we as readers did not get a glimpse of… Anyway, can we now assume that when publishers don’t give you guys free perks you punish them? I was going to compare this to diva behaviour, but there’s an even better analogy: protection rackets; a tried and tested mafia tactic. Manufacturers and publishers have to ‘please you’ so nothing ‘bad’ will happen to them. Classy. |
Apparently Activision didn’t bother to send out review copies of the game to your popular media outlets. You retaliated by roasting the game, giving it one of the lowest Metacritic scores in the history of video gaming.What a joke.
Keep wearing that tinfoil hat and drinking rainwater cos the gaming press puts anti-Sony mind control serum in the water supply, fanboy.
