mjk45 said:
QuintonMcLeod said:
Danman27 said:
QuintonMcLeod said:
Danman27 said:
The scores don't surprise me, but this game is doing a lot better than titanfall regardless. I think this might be related to people just being tired of reviews. |
But how could people be tired of reviews if reviews for Destiny are under an embargo from Activision? This is a very dishonest and dirty tactic to hide the fact that their game is mediocre.
|
Maybe games shouldn't be reviewed day one. There is a lot about to be said about how you can't truly appreciate a game until you've played it for a while. And also, look at what people are saying. It's clear a lot of people are tired of reviews.
|
Your logic is a bit backward. You don't need to put in 100 hours into a game to determine whether its good or not. It only takes a few to figure out whether you're having fun or not. A lot of the user reviews are based on those who've sunk 10 - 15 hours or more into the game. With that much time dedicated to the game, I believe that's more than enough to formulate an opinion on whether a game is good or not.
Ordinarily, the press has access to a game weeks or even months before they hit store shelves. From there, they create a review - often times - a few days to a week in advance of the game's release. This is normal. Activision prevented this because they did not want day-one buyers knowing about the quality of the game before purchasing it. They've realized that gamers are very informed consumers, and to pull the wool over their eyes, censored reviews so they'd get the highest turn out. This is a dirty and dishonest business tactic, and speaks volumes on Activision's concern for quality - which is zero. This is the second time a publisher has done this. Now, I'm afraid more publishers will do this to sell terrible games.
|
It's a bit hard to give reviewers pre access to a online game that functions best with a community of players they said themselves they thought about how they could populate the game for reviews but the shear number of players to make it viable .
Activision isn't the only ones to have an embargo on reviews it has become a common occurence these days one that in my opinion is over done , I think it has mostly to do with timing , in days past a magazine would do a review ahead of time to have it ready for future publication , which was usually the months edition closest to the games release , now with the internet and the proliferation of review sites blogs etc, the old ways have collapsed and rightfully or wrongfully this is seen as a way to control the timing of reviews.
|
1) It's not difficult to have your servers online a week or two before release. Saying, "Oh, the servers won't be populated" is an excuse. What are they afraid the reviewers are going to say? That the worlds are barren? Well, of course they'd be if there are no users on the servers. Reviewers aren't stupid. What Activision did had everything to do with trying to hide the fact that they had a crappy game.
2) Don't find excuses for this crap. When companies over-hype their products and completely rely on the first week of sales, setting an embargo a week *after* the game's release is crooked, and it doesn't help you as a consumer. It helps no one.
