Evidently, Gamepro Australia may have accepted an undisclosed (but assumedly large) sum of money in return for printing a negative review of Supreme Commander, the newest RTS game from Gas Powered Games.
Electronic Arts is releasing Command and Conquer 3: Tiberium Wars at the end of the month. Supreme Commander is out now. Since EA isn't exactly known for its generosity, and since C&C 3 would essentially be their flagship RTS title, it's not inconcievable that the ubiquitous corporation would bribe Gamepro into giving Supreme Commander a 50/100 just to divert attention from Gas Powered's RTS to their own.
It's a shame, too, because MetaCritic has compiled an average reviewer score of 88/100 for Supreme Commander: by all accounts, it seems to be a pretty good game. And yet, Gamepro's unabashedly negative review can only cite "framerate issues" as their main reason for giving the game a 50/100. If you don't believe me, read it for yourself -- the reviewer talks about all the innovative things the game does well, but keeps coming back to performance issues, deems the game "unplayable," and awards it a 50/100. Not to mention that Gamepro's review was one of the first to hit the community, and may have legitimately swayed many consumers away from the product.
So, what do you think? Was EA was really corrupt enough to offer a bribe? Was Gamepro Australia spineless enough to accept it? As is usually the case with corruption in video game journalism, we'll probably never get a straight answer. But we gamers aren't stupid. And we don't forget.
[Via GWN]
Update:
Evidently, the whole thing was just a hoax.
Contest:
10:30 PM on 03.07.2007
| 
fuck !!!
It's nothing new. In GI's case, they're owned by GameStop, and as such, (I believe) have obligations to keep major titles in the spotlight (like EA's releases). Especially those that garner a lot of preorders/sales. Same reason NBA Live 07 recieved a 7, ONE point under NBA 2K7,(with said review citing NONE of the game's problems) despite being universally and critically panned by fans and critics alike as the worst game in the series.
GamePro hasn't been good since '98 though....does anyone REALLY listen to what they have to say anyhow?...
ALERT THE MEDIA!
SOUND THE ALARMS!
There is a reason I read reviews from community sites now, or hell just commentary, fuck reviews.
And which makes this even WORSE is that a friend of mine still GETs gamepros, and actually goes by what THEY say! Fucker has a computer and everything, and doesnt know shit about games, but goes out and buys a PS3 because gamepro said too.
DAMN YOU GAMEPRO!
DAMN YOU EA!
DAMN YOU SUMMA!
Gamepro FTL.
-Jeff
http://alinktothefuture.com
Exclusivity and new news are the only things keeping rags like GamePro and Game Informer afloat at this point. If they start being frank with their reviews and start bashing what needs to be bashed, the publishers are not going to give them exclusives and the magazines lose money. Of course, the same thing goes for movies, music, and any other media. So remember to have your giant grains of salt handy when reading reviews.
And lo and behold, look at the edit at the bottom the source article. Big surprise, the whole thing was a lie. This article doesn't even have any place in your news archives.
|
|
Lameness
Um, last time I looked at the title is said, "may be taking bribes" which means its a possability which implies its a rumor.
I stopped listening to GamePro a long time ago when Eidos released a craptacular game called "Ninja" and it received somewher around 4-4.5 out of 5 score. I rented the game trying to trust their opinions but I found it to be the craptacular game I thought it would be. GamePro has never been trustworthy.
Even with all settings on their lowest in 800x600 the game staggers on at a maximum of 4-7 FPS. Meanwhile C&C3 runs way above 30fps in 1280x1024 on medium/high settings.
So yeah, it can be unplayable and therein not fun which = bad score.
Some optimization could be worth looking at since the FPS with all settings on high in 1280x1024 for me, was around 1-3 FPS, it's actually not that much of an improvement to lower the settings from "Ultra" to "Low" which in most games makes an unplayable game playable.
Now this is of course only for me, so I guess it could be my computer but as I mentioned, C&C3 runs fine with way higher setting and that's the "competition" in this case i guess. :)
That said, given EA's reputation for sucking, anything they did that was unethical or possibly even illegal wouldn't surpise me at all.
"Was EA was really corrupt enough to offer a bribe? Was Gamepro Australia --was-- spineless enough to expect[accept?] it?"
Bah, I'm just being a little overly bitchy I guess. I usually like the articles around here anyway(most definitely better then some of the 'elite game journos'.)
(BTW, There are probably an equal amount of mistakes on my previous comment, heheheh.)
Now I was wondering if you'd be interested in a small amount of thin, green gift in exchange for perhaps an unfavorable review of....Nah, nevermind. Gamepro's probably cheaper.
They're trying to run it on the same computer they bought for Total Annihilation back in '97!
Silly GamePro!