On one hand I can see the issue, but on the other it's like were probably paying for these reviews. Like I purchase magazines, but I also check out websites. In a way we are added to their revenues by seeing/clicking their ads.

The way I see it they should serve us first. Far to often reviewers get chummy with game companies who churn out crap.

On one hand I can see the issue, but on the other it's like were probably paying for these reviews. Like I purchase magazines, but I also check out websites. In a way we are added to their revenues by seeing/clicking their ads.

The way I see it they should serve us first. Far to often reviewers get chummy with game companies who churn out crap.

fncking ay.

Oh, reviewers? You mean those guys that paid by developers to tell me how great the games are?

Let's be fair about something - this wouldn't seem so rediculous had reviewers not relied upon the now infamous 7.9-10 scale of review scores (I'm looking at you, IGN).

Reviews are also completely subjective and offer a mere opinion on whether a game is good or not. If a reviewer pukes all over the game I slaved over for 5 years and truly believed in I would get a bit defensive about it too.

There are more less-than-credible reviewers out there than ones I respect, ones who just like to stir up controversy to get page views. The whole system is broken really, I'm surprised game companies send out review copies at all anymore.

@Vishuh

Subjective? Doesn't seem too subjective to me when I see GTA4 getting all 10s in every category. Seems like more and more the score is just a measure of how much money was included with the review copy.

Blah, PR people. I have no use for them as a gamer. They spin, lie and bullshit their way to more sales of a game they probably never played themselves.

I think reviewers in general aren't harsh enough. I understand its hard for them to be when they rely on those same developers for inside stories and advanced copies but I'm so sick of terrible games getting a pass. If a game sucks, say so and state all the reasons why in a giant rant. Let the chips fall where they may and then deal with it is what I say. But then again... my livelihood isn't dependent on relationships with game companies so its easy for me to say.

Let's just be perfectly honest here:

- They make a game
- They know as much as anyone if it's shit or not.
- Do you send it out for review before release? Well, no. in order to sell more, make more money and, in turn, keep the industry going.

Is anybody really surprised that this happens? They are just trying to do as well as possible and I can't blame them really. OK, so maybe they shouldn't make shit games but sometime people have less of a budget, new staff and not 4 years like Rockstar.

Still doesn;t mean they can't go home to their wives and say "I'm proud of my work and I'm not going to let some smug geek who could never quite make it into my position tell me any different".
-

@Rockvillian I think what it is is the word of mouth power those who would pick it up since they don't read reviews might listen to a friend who says it sucks. It becomes a wider and wider known fact that it sucks as each person tells the next.

Funny, kinda like how they usually don't screen terrible movies. I guess we can take a cue from it and start worrying if the reviews don't show up around the launch date?

@Jim Sterling:

please change the picture...
I feel sick..
<pukes>

Yes, more Katie Price pictures and less penis looking rodents.

This is alarming cause it means legal means of fair warnings by independent blogs like this might become even more rare. The publishers need to learn that this will only backfire on them and actually slow down and decrease their sales: everybody will turn cynical on guys like "cashwh0re" and the days of massive opening days and tons of preorders will eventually be over after the gamers have been burned out one too many times.

Then again gamers nowadays seem too stoned themselves to really care and buy based mostly on hype so a part of me is scared that they think little of the average gamer cause there really is little to think about them...

If someone slaves over a game for 5 years and it turns out to be a pile of crap, they should probably look into a different line of work.

Completely unfair comment towards the majority of people who work on a game. There are but a handful of people who make the decisions that determine the quality of the game. Much of the others deal with changing requirements, flip-flopping concepts, and trying to just get their job done to the best possible when it typically is never enough.

Many of the people who work on a game can do the best job possible, but the result can still suck because they're only doing their job and not making any of the decisions or ensuring that everyone else is turning in as good of work as they are.

Alright, how did you get a picture of my scrotum and why is it on the front page?

maybe there should be a set of reviews that are meant to be seen by the general public which are made up of 10/10s and 11/10s, and another secret set of reviews for us ultra elite hardcore gamer dudes and dudettes.

i dont know very many casual gamers who actually go online and read reviews tho. they mostly walk into a game store and buy something almost arbitrarily.

but hey, maybe if really shit games get awesome scores they'll make even more of those gems! we'll never go hungry for shit games again!! ^_^

@ Wootex

It does if you remember the Kane & Lynch fiasco from a few months back.

Not all that shocking from a PR company standpoint. Its their job to try to ensure the product given to them does the best it can. Is it detestable, yea, but its what a PR company does. I'm not saying that's how it should be, and that it shouldn't change, but having dealt with PR people before this doesn't shock me that much.

The games industry should follow the movie industry's example: the standard is to give early copies to reviewers, but if the movie is shit, they hold back. Once a product is in the hands of a reviewer, the publisher shouldn't have a say in the verdict.

Yay Rufus

@Leathersoup

Unfortunately, this is rarely the situation. The problem more often than not is with those in decision-making positions not knowing their ass from a hole in the ground. These people think they know what's best for the game in terms of appeal and sales figures but they really don't. They end up calling for changes large and small without understanding anything about how it might affect the gameplay, story, pacing, etc. and end up screwing up the game - which then gets blamed on the main developers when reviews come in.

It's the same with movies, too. Say a skilled director, cast, and crew create a great film for a big company - they still have to deal with big producers, studio heads, and other people of high authority who want to make asinine changes to the film during all stages of production in order to make it more appealing to the masses (i.e. dumb it down). As someone with this sort of experience, it's infuriating beyond belief to watch your hard work and creativity tainted by such clueless morons - and let's not even get into "focus groups."

I think anyone who has had to work under an incompetent boss or superior gets the idea.

Anyway, this is not always the case, but it does happen more often than we hear about.

not surprised.

also no surprised. they're out to sell a game. they're just trying to boost sales. It's their job. And reviewer's job is to give an honest response on the quality of the game, regardless of when the review is posted.

Just don't apply this rule to all of the Brain Age and Nintendogs ripoff shit on the DS. Those don't sell copies.