By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - does every game get dropped down in average by unknown sites?

Gnizmo on 06 July 2008
brute said:

 

 but why is it that all the reviews that come out late,are the lowest ones?

 Least affected by release hype, more time spent with the game and thus more time to find the flaws. less likely to view the game favorably due to recieving a free copy and other swag, or maybe you are just noticing those reviews more and that particular correlation doesn't exist. Honestly, without an actual detailed analysis of the situation you can't say the late scores are always the lowest. What normally lowers a games review average is a slew of reviews right in the middle of the highs and lows pulling it a bit closer to reality.



Starcraft 2 ID: Gnizmo 229

Around the Network
brute on 06 July 2008
Fishie said:
brute said:
^i wasnt talking about all sites,just the ones that put reviews for traffic

 

 How do you know who does what?

 

For instance in order to get early acces to MGS4 you had to sign a contract stating you were not allowed to talk about certain story points(thats fair so far), you were not allowed to talk about the install times(wait a sec that is getting a bit weird now innit?) nor talk about certain gameplay mechanics that tied into parts of the story(now we are getting into seriously silly territory, oh so wxe cant even fucking mention rumble related shit now?) etcetera.

Media who reviewed/reported on it early had to sign an NDA several pages long and quite retarded too I might add with Konami even stating you couldnt talk about levels and certain gameplay mechanics so in order to get a timely review out you had to bend over and say fuck me in the ass now like the little bitch I am please Konami or not get access at all so yeah you think those big site early reviews of MGS4 were more of an honest oppinion then the ones posted on smaller sites?

 

 im guessing the ones that review it way after its release



tag:"reviews only matter for the real hardcore gamer"

Fishie on 06 July 2008
brute said:
^they always release the review late

 

 I just replied to that even before I saw your post.

If it was reviewed late it was because the site/mag/whatever either didnt sign the Konami NDA or because they werent even invited to get early access to begin with.



brute on 06 July 2008
Gnizmo said:
brute said:

 

 but why is it that all the reviews that come out late,are the lowest ones?

 Least affected by release hype, more time spent with the game and thus more time to find the flaws. less likely to view the game favorably due to recieving a free copy and other swag, or maybe you are just noticing those reviews more and that particular correlation doesn't exist. Honestly, without an actual detailed analysis of the situation you can't say the late scores are always the lowest. What normally lowers a games review average is a slew of reviews right in the middle of the highs and lows pulling it a bit closer to reality.

 

 or that could be the reason why they give it a lower score,cause they dont receive those,and want to for the next game though



tag:"reviews only matter for the real hardcore gamer"

Gnizmo on 06 July 2008
Riachu said:

They only gave MGS4 an 8/10.  I think the game is better than that

 

 The guy who reviewed it for Eurogamer would disagree. Unless you can cite some inaccuracy with his review, or incongruence between the review and the score I don't see your point. Just because someone gave a score lower than what you would have does not make it an invalid review.



Starcraft 2 ID: Gnizmo 229

Around the Network
brute on 06 July 2008
Fishie said:
brute said:
^they always release the review late

 

 I just replied to that even before I saw your post.

If it was reviewed late it was because the site/mag/whatever either didnt sign the Konami NDA or because they werent even invited to get early access to begin with.

 

 well since they didnt get early access doesnt that mean that their not popular and not professionals



tag:"reviews only matter for the real hardcore gamer"

Fishie on 06 July 2008
brute said:
^well we all know a good gmae should be high,and the bad ones shouldnt,what im saying is that when they were reviewing gmaes back then there werent to many reviewers and they were all professional,now some site goes and gives a game a low score to get noticed and it does it months after the release(they never get the review copy this late).
if the company doenst send a site a review copy then we know that site isnt professional
plus i think alot of games should beat the older ones but they dont,this case being soul calibur 2 being better then the original

 

 Oh so for instance EGM/1up is not a profesional magazine/site because Ubisoft amongst others have refused to send them Assassins Creed for example for review in a timely manner because they were pissed because some of their shitty games received shitty scores?



brute on 06 July 2008
Gnizmo said:
Riachu said:

They only gave MGS4 an 8/10.  I think the game is better than that

 

 The guy who reviewed it for Eurogamer would disagree. Unless you can cite some inaccuracy with his review, or incongruence between the review and the score I don't see your point. Just because someone gave a score lower than what you would have does not make it an invalid review.

but in this case eurogame reviewed it before the game was released so we know its not just to get some traffic like the ones that review em very late

 



tag:"reviews only matter for the real hardcore gamer"

brute on 06 July 2008
Fishie said:
brute said:
^well we all know a good gmae should be high,and the bad ones shouldnt,what im saying is that when they were reviewing gmaes back then there werent to many reviewers and they were all professional,now some site goes and gives a game a low score to get noticed and it does it months after the release(they never get the review copy this late).
if the company doenst send a site a review copy then we know that site isnt professional
plus i think alot of games should beat the older ones but they dont,this case being soul calibur 2 being better then the original

 

 Oh so for instance EGM/1up is not a profesional magazine/site because Ubisoft amongst others have refused to send them Assassins Creed for example for review in a timely manner because they were pissed because some of their shitty games received shitty scores?

 

 no,we know that egm/1up have done good reviews before and release them on time,not like some noname sites that do it just to get attention



tag:"reviews only matter for the real hardcore gamer"

Gnizmo on 06 July 2008
brute said:

 

 or that could be the reason why they give it a lower score,cause they dont receive those,and want to for the next game though

 Lemme see if I follow you here. The reviewer is mad because they didn't get a free copy, so they post a negative review which will potentially hurt the sales of the game. Doing this somehow is supposed to make the owner of the game that now has lower sales like this reviewer enough to send him a free copy of the next game. I don't think your theory holds a lot of water.



Starcraft 2 ID: Gnizmo 229