Riachu said:
Fishie said:
shio said:
Riachu said:
shio said:
brute said:
looking at mgs4 it is now down to 92.5,i remember it was over 94,then some sites went and rated it lower,does this happen to all the games and why?
|
If you checked, the 2 most reputable reviewers actually gave the lowest scores on MGS4: Eurogamer and EDGE.
Also, Imo less popular sites/mags are more honest since they aren't as pressured or moneyhatted by publishers.
|
There is no concrete proof that reviewers are pressured to give a game a high score. Ever heard of Advent Rising and Killzone? Both of those games received a lot of hype yet you did see them getting high review score.
|
I never played Advent Rising and barely heard of it, so I don't know. But Killzone was nowhere near a good game, and it still got an average of 73%.
My 4 most reputable reviewers gave to Killzone:
Gamespy: 6/10
EDGE: 6/10
gamesTM: 6/10
Eurogamer: 5/10
Well below the average.
But yes, there's no concrete proof of publisher pressure.
|
Yes there is, I gave a few specific examples in this very thread.
|
Both Advent Rising and Killzone had a lot of hype yet there was no pressure to give them high scores
|
Well, first off how do you know there was no pressure? There are (approximatly) the same number of reviews for Killzone that are below 60% that are above 90%; putting pressure on some of the main sites may have prevented them from giving it a score below 60% ...
Beyond that, the other question is (as a publisher) where would you put pressure on reviewers; would you pressure them to give a below average game an average score, or would you pressure them to give a good game a great score?
