surf dtoid with 
Rising (10+)
People you follow
Posters at the Conduit 2 board at GameFAQs attempted their own Amazonbomb of the book. I don't know if they account for the first negative reviews or the later bump, but some of the ones that participated say that they started it and not HVS.
There are also posters at that board who agree with the attempted bombing even if they didn't participate, and like the idea that HVS took the low road. And a few who are claiming that the negative reviews were posted by anti-HVS people in an attempt to make HVS look like bad guys.
There are also posters at that board who agree with the attempted bombing even if they didn't participate, and like the idea that HVS took the low road. And a few who are claiming that the negative reviews were posted by anti-HVS people in an attempt to make HVS look like bad guys.
These stories always make me wonder if certain developers pay zero attention to the rest of the goings-on in the industry.
Nearly every single time that this happens the stupid fucks get caught and the bad press and counter-measures persist.
Does there really need to be a 'Don't be a fucktard.' clause placed into any contracts signed when people are hired? I mean, sure, be an asshole...I can respect that...but this is just plain dumbassery.
Nearly every single time that this happens the stupid fucks get caught and the bad press and counter-measures persist.
Does there really need to be a 'Don't be a fucktard.' clause placed into any contracts signed when people are hired? I mean, sure, be an asshole...I can respect that...but this is just plain dumbassery.
The gang over at High Voltage is understandably upset, but at the same time they really don't take themselves too seriously--they're a great bunch that are still cranking out decent work after quite a long time for a dev studio--and another that's NOT based in CA for a change.
Murdock was thoroughly unprofessional--and all they did was give him a good ribbing for it.
Murdock was thoroughly unprofessional--and all they did was give him a good ribbing for it.
@Karutomaru
Everything in the review seems believable to me. It seems most people think the voice acting is bad, even some of the HVS fans. The ending is laughable, though it does have some logic to it if you know the backstory.
Wii remote controls is a personal area. Some hate them while others love them. Some Conduit fans don't like Conduit 2 because it took away some options. Worse, there are bugs in the game that affect aiming, which the reviewer might have encountered. As for CCP support, HVS admitted they didn't put much work into that, and didn't want it in the first place.
Graphics is iffy. Some people praised Conduit 1, while others thought it was pretty bad. Conduit 2 has some things that look nice, but others again look bad. Level design I can't comment much upon, but level design in Conduit 1 was terrible. After it was released, HVS claimed they didn't have time to make good levels. But HVS has a bad reputation and a history of poor games, so it is as believable that they just don't know how to make a good one.
The only problem with the review is the knock against the multiplayer, and that only because he knocks it for the same things that other multiplayer games do with their equipment unlock systems.
Mind, if he had played the multiplayer mode more, his review might have included some of the many other bugs that the game shipped with, like respawning in the sky to fall to your death, the walk outside the map glitches, the texture color glitches, or any of the rest. Or played Invasion split-screen to experience enemies spawning under the map or in other nearly unreachable areas, or its game-stopping lock-ups. Or just general split-screen to see how shoddy its implementation is, where players 2-4 can't even pick their own colors or have their own profiles.
Everything in the review seems believable to me. It seems most people think the voice acting is bad, even some of the HVS fans. The ending is laughable, though it does have some logic to it if you know the backstory.
Wii remote controls is a personal area. Some hate them while others love them. Some Conduit fans don't like Conduit 2 because it took away some options. Worse, there are bugs in the game that affect aiming, which the reviewer might have encountered. As for CCP support, HVS admitted they didn't put much work into that, and didn't want it in the first place.
Graphics is iffy. Some people praised Conduit 1, while others thought it was pretty bad. Conduit 2 has some things that look nice, but others again look bad. Level design I can't comment much upon, but level design in Conduit 1 was terrible. After it was released, HVS claimed they didn't have time to make good levels. But HVS has a bad reputation and a history of poor games, so it is as believable that they just don't know how to make a good one.
The only problem with the review is the knock against the multiplayer, and that only because he knocks it for the same things that other multiplayer games do with their equipment unlock systems.
Mind, if he had played the multiplayer mode more, his review might have included some of the many other bugs that the game shipped with, like respawning in the sky to fall to your death, the walk outside the map glitches, the texture color glitches, or any of the rest. Or played Invasion split-screen to experience enemies spawning under the map or in other nearly unreachable areas, or its game-stopping lock-ups. Or just general split-screen to see how shoddy its implementation is, where players 2-4 can't even pick their own colors or have their own profiles.
ya know what? I'm actually gonna side with High Voltage here because people who spoil shit, no matter what game/book/movie it is piss me off to no end
remember a couple of years ago when endless amounts of assholes tried to spoil the last two Harry Potter books for everyone?
remember a couple of years ago when endless amounts of assholes tried to spoil the last two Harry Potter books for everyone?
For entertainment value, I suggest going to Conduit 2's GameFAQs board and reading the bug report threads.
As Conduit 2 supports game patches (though a bit clumsily in execution), HVS looked to the board to report bugs. At first, bug reports were scattered in separate topics. HVS started a single bug report thread and asked all bug reports to be files there, the reason given was to make them more visible. The thread quickly grew in size, and HVS eventually asked people to post new bug reports in their own threads, the reason given was to make them more visible. (Although board activity is still high enough that individual bug reports tend to get lost between the other posts. The main thing the policy change seems to do is downplay the existence of a massive bug report thread, and make new reports quickly fade from view.)
Mind, HVS also initially encouraged people to post YouTube videos of reported bugs, and link to them in their bug reports. Fairly recently, with people *still* finding new exploits and bugs, HVS has asked people to stop posting YouTube videos.
As Conduit 2 supports game patches (though a bit clumsily in execution), HVS looked to the board to report bugs. At first, bug reports were scattered in separate topics. HVS started a single bug report thread and asked all bug reports to be files there, the reason given was to make them more visible. The thread quickly grew in size, and HVS eventually asked people to post new bug reports in their own threads, the reason given was to make them more visible. (Although board activity is still high enough that individual bug reports tend to get lost between the other posts. The main thing the policy change seems to do is downplay the existence of a massive bug report thread, and make new reports quickly fade from view.)
Mind, HVS also initially encouraged people to post YouTube videos of reported bugs, and link to them in their bug reports. Fairly recently, with people *still* finding new exploits and bugs, HVS has asked people to stop posting YouTube videos.
I'd feel more sympathy if the book was actually any good. The book is actually blander and more stereotypical than the story of the game the guy is criticizing.
Yes, I have read it but don't own it.
Yes, I have read it but don't own it.
What is with all of the "Both sides are wrong" comments? Uh, no. Bullshit. The reviewer did, what tons of other people do. REVIEW THE GAME. It's not his fault that High Voltage got their panties in a bunch over his less than high opinion of Conduit 2 (which sucked IMO). I've seen the review, the complaints are pretty valid to me. So they respond by attacking his book. That is unprofessional and stupid. Worse than what the guys who made Hydrophobia did.
The critic acted like a jerk in his review and the plug he did for his book at the end was a bit tasteless, but that doesn't give High Voltage an excuse to do this.
There is a difference between voicing your opinion and acting like an inconsiderate asshole. And doing so all in the name of "clicks". Making ones living off of others hard work is pathetic enough. Of course his fellow video game reviewers are goi g to side with him. It seems some writers forget what it's all about. They only have jobs because of the people who create games. They do something that they are not able or not creative enough to do. There are plenty of people a writer should be calling out in this industry but lack the balls to do it. In fear they might lose future interviews or exclusives. You can bet your ass if it was a high profile developer who created a bad game they would have not been treated with such disrespect.
There is a difference between voicing your opinion and acting like an inconsiderate asshole. And doing so all in the name of "clicks". Making ones living off of others hard work is pathetic enough. Of course his fellow video game reviewers are going to side with him. It seems some writers forget what it's all about. They only have jobs because of the people who create games. They do something that they are not able or not creative enough to do. There are plenty of people a writer should be calling out in this industry but lack the balls to do it. In fear they might lose future interviews or exclusives. You can bet your ass if it was a high profile developer who created a bad game they would have not been treated with such disrespect.
Wow, what a dick bag. I understand that your game is your baby, but acting like this is just unprofessional.
High Voltage is a developer i will not be looking to support anytime soon.
High Voltage is a developer i will not be looking to support anytime soon.
Did anyone actually read his review. It is, by far, one of the worst I've ever read. The man sucks at his job as a journalist and should not be reviewing games. The HVS people are just as qualified to review his book as he is to review their game.
He said that Perfect Dark on N64 has better graphics. Now what ever else may be true, that is outright bullshit. I haven't played either Conduit nor do I condone what one employee at High Voltage did, but that reviewer is a hack.
I too hope he didn't get paid and the editor should also be ashamed.
And to people comparing his review to one of Jim's. Jim may be "controversial" if by controversial you mean occasionally giving a lower score than other critics to big name games but I've never seen anything flat out wrong in his reviews.
I too hope he didn't get paid and the editor should also be ashamed.
And to people comparing his review to one of Jim's. Jim may be "controversial" if by controversial you mean occasionally giving a lower score than other critics to big name games but I've never seen anything flat out wrong in his reviews.
@HaVoK
It's one thing to defend yourself in a blog, and another to completely trash some guy's book that the dev probably never read. The reviewer actually played Conduit 2, and he thought it sucked.
Also, I absolutely loath developers who cannot take criticism. I've seen it in a lot of places - the Hydrophobia devs stalked review outlets and tried to push people to give their game a better score - Two Worlds II had a major debacle involving a similar issue - Gearbox Software literally banned people who had legitimate complaints about Borderland's [many] launch issues and glitches (EA did the same thing with Dragon Age II naysayers).
The key here is that we have freedom of the press. The guy didn't like the game - so he said so. If developers start taking away our freedom to, you know, review things, out of fear of reprisal, that's...borderline illegal.
It's one thing to defend yourself in a blog, and another to completely trash some guy's book that the dev probably never read. The reviewer actually played Conduit 2, and he thought it sucked.
Also, I absolutely loath developers who cannot take criticism. I've seen it in a lot of places - the Hydrophobia devs stalked review outlets and tried to push people to give their game a better score - Two Worlds II had a major debacle involving a similar issue - Gearbox Software literally banned people who had legitimate complaints about Borderland's [many] launch issues and glitches (EA did the same thing with Dragon Age II naysayers).
The key here is that we have freedom of the press. The guy didn't like the game - so he said so. If developers start taking away our freedom to, you know, review things, out of fear of reprisal, that's...borderline illegal.
This is the internetz. You have the divine right to trash everything for the reasons will want. Some people make a career of this.
Murdock:
Posted attention-getting negative review like critics do. (+1)
Posted a spoiler which is marked in the review. (0)
Wrote some discworld-type generic fantasy novel. (yea, good point, -1)
Corso:
Made a Wii FPS. (-1)
Come to think of it, made any FPS without mouse/keyboard. (-1)
Mad a sequel to "The Conduit." (-1)
Tried to fight negative criticism Kevin Smith style. (-1)
Advantage Murdock. Look, you take down one of the thousands of quasi-employed individuals reviewing games online, and you're only going to open up that space for another one. And they all don't like the Conduit.
Posted attention-getting negative review like critics do. (+1)
Posted a spoiler which is marked in the review. (0)
Wrote some discworld-type generic fantasy novel. (yea, good point, -1)
Corso:
Made a Wii FPS. (-1)
Come to think of it, made any FPS without mouse/keyboard. (-1)
Mad a sequel to "The Conduit." (-1)
Tried to fight negative criticism Kevin Smith style. (-1)
Advantage Murdock. Look, you take down one of the thousands of quasi-employed individuals reviewing games online, and you're only going to open up that space for another one. And they all don't like the Conduit.
Of course, any news exposure, even controversy, is probably helping the game find an audience.
But I would urge people to watch a youtube or a quicklook or something before diving in.
But I would urge people to watch a youtube or a quicklook or something before diving in.
I think spoilers have no place in reviews unless they're specifically stated to contain them. For instance, if I'd been spoiled on Silent Hill: Shattered Memories through a review, I would have been pissed. I also think that it's odd he'd plug his book in the middle of a review.
That being said, it's completely unprofessional to go and trash his book just because he didn't like the game. That's quite nearly as bad as bribing someone to review your game positively.
That being said, it's completely unprofessional to go and trash his book just because he didn't like the game. That's quite nearly as bad as bribing someone to review your game positively.
follow
