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?

flames_of on 06 July 2008
brute said:
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

What determines whether they are professional? After all it's opinions involved...

Larger sites are given bonuses to give nicer reviews and thus result in further stealth marketing... Generalization I suppose

 



flames_of - "I think you're confusing Bush with Chuck Norris."

 Wii: 80-85 Million end of 2009 (1.1.09)

Around the Network
brute on 06 July 2008

guys read this review and tell me its professional and not made just to get traffic
http://www.gamerankings.com/itemrankings/launchreview.asp?reviewid=819704



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

brute on 06 July 2008
Gnizmo said:
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.

no what im saying is they might have reviewed it lower just cause they were getting avoided

 



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

brute on 06 July 2008
flames_of said:
brute said:
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

What determines whether they are professional? After all it's opinions involved...

Larger sites are given bonuses to give nicer reviews and thus result in further stealth marketing... Generalization I suppose

 

well the more professional sites have a group of reviewers and review aroun 97% of the games that get released

 



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

Gnizmo on 06 July 2008
brute said:

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

 

 Giving it a bad review early would actually have far more of an effect than reviewing it late. Most games get the bulk of their sales from the first few weeks. Almost all of the people who read internet reviews will buy the game in the first 2 weeks. The games are then forgotten by the hupe machine before the end of the month, and the next big things is moved onto. Reviewing a game a month late will not ever get you more website traffic, because no one will care anymore.



Starcraft 2 ID: Gnizmo 229

Around the Network
brute on 06 July 2008
Gnizmo said:
brute said:

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

 

 Giving it a bad review early would actually have far more of an effect than reviewing it late. Most games get the bulk of their sales from the first few weeks. Almost all of the people who read internet reviews will buy the game in the first 2 weeks. The games are then forgotten by the hupe machine before the end of the month, and the next big things is moved onto. Reviewing a game a month late will not ever get you more website traffic, because no one will care anymore.

thats not what happened when halo3 received a 7,the site crashed down cause its servers couldnt hold all the traffic

 



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

brute on 06 July 2008

did people even check this
http://www.gamerankings.com/itemrankings/launchreview.asp?reviewid=819704



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

Fishie on 06 July 2008
brute said:
Gnizmo said:
brute said:
^thats the thiung gamerankings shouldnt allow those sites though,like ow we look at Oot 10 years later we look at it being so high,but when we will look at these new games we will see how there not as high as there supposed to be cause some site reviewed it months later gave it a good core and got some traffic

 Why shouldn't it be allowed? They will not get any traffic because the game was reviewed high or low. All the internet hype of a game dies within a month of its release. Even GTA4 is getting forgotten and it was supposed to be the greatest game ever made. If the game is being reviewed that late then it is probably an honesy opinion. Why should their review be any less meaningful just because it was released late?

 

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

Let me give you an example, in order to get early access for review purposes for GTAIV you had to sign an NDA and play the game at the Rockstar offices, you didnt get a review copy to take away with you to your website or magazine or whatever.

Nope you had to play the game at their offices over the course of one or two work days so basiclly the reviewers had a maximum of 16 hours with the game with a Rockstar employee constantly watching over their shoulder telling them how awesome feature A or feature B was and how great it would be if they would go bowling now or try a stunt jump or whatever.

this is of course not the way a game is ussually played so the access and play was altered to favour the game instead of the enjoyment of the player.

refuse the contract and you simply didnt get any access to the game.

 

Then sites who either refused or didnt even get invited to get early access actually BUY the game and play it without time constraints or a PR person looking over their shoulder telling them how awesome the game is and what they should do next and suddenly the REAL, HONEST and UNINFLUENCED oppinions come out and you call that a BAD thing?

 



Fishie on 06 July 2008
Riachu said:
Fishie said:
Riachu said:
Fishie said:
Riachu said:
Fishie said:
brute said:
^these unknown sites that give good games low sores for nothing

 

Give us specific names of sites

I think he means those UK video game sites, am I correct?

 

Yeah, but which ones?

 

 

Eurogamer, Netjak. Forgot the name of the others though. Just look at the lowest score recorded for MGS4 on gamerankings ofr the rest of the sites

 

Eurogamer is one opf the biggest most respected sites out there, why should they be barred from metacritic and gamerankings?

 

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

 

They gave Gears an 8 as well

 



brute on 06 July 2008
Fishie said:

Let me give you an example, in order to get early access for review purposes for GTAIV you had to sign an NDA and play the game at the Rockstar offices, you didnt get a review copy to take away with you to your website or magazine or whatever.

Nope you had to play the game at their offices over the course of one or two work days so basiclly the reviewers had a maximum of 16 hours with the game with a Rockstar employee constantly watching over their shoulder telling them how awesome feature A or feature B was and how great it would be if they would go bowling now or try a stunt jump or whatever.

this is of course not the way a game is ussually played so the access and play was altered to favour the game instead of the enjoyment of the player.

refuse the contract and you simply didnt get any access to the game.

 

Then sites who either refused or didnt even get invited to get early access actually BUY the game and play it without time constraints or a PR person looking over their shoulder telling them how awesome the game is and what they should do next and suddenly the REAL, HONEST and UNINFLUENCED oppinions come out and you call that a BAD thing?

 

are you sure,i think thats thecase with just a few games,usually alot of sites say they received there review copys,and while playing them in their offics they sometimes put videos up,previews etc

 



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