«

[xoopx]

Originally posted by Borodin+Jan 11 2005, 05:11 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Borodin @ Jan 11 2005, 05:11 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-xoopx@Jan 10 2005, 08:56 PM
i think it was because funcom isnt a very big company and cant afford the advertising and bribes to magazines and websites

I don't think it's advertising that drives the presence of reviews in magazines, but regular, sustained attempts to contact the press. Many developers, especially those that aren't located in the a magazine's home country, have difficulty doing this. When I wanted to do a review of The Longest Journey, my contact was the company owner. He was very genial, but told me Funcom didn't maintain a database of reviewers or magazines. I received a copy from overseas, and reviewed it, but he expressed no interest in the content to use for future promotion.

By contrast, the big game companies are aggressive in getting their products under the eyes of magazine editors and reviewers. They don't have to buy advertising to do this. They only have to enthuse a few people about their game. I've known sober editors in my day who turned into little kids upon being shown playable demos of some games.

Finally, stating that magazines do or don't do reviews on the basis of bribes is both harsh, and the kind of accusation that screams for proof when it's made. If you have proof, state it. If you don't, maybe you ought to consider how that kind of unsubstantiated accusation reflects upon you before making it. [/b][/quote]
the "proof" i need is when terrible games get 9/10 ratings. ive seen magazine slate a game that wasnt terrible, because they had arguments with the game company over previous things (amiga power and team 17 springs to mind)
frankly, i dont need to PROVE anything related to my opinion to you or anyone else. if you dont like it, thats not my problem.

[edlglide]

Originally posted by xoopx@Jan 12 2005, 11:08 AM

the "proof" i need is when terrible games get 9/10 ratings. ive seen magazine slate a game that wasnt terrible, because they had arguments with the game company over previous things (amiga power and team 17 springs to mind)
frankly, i dont need to PROVE anything related to my opinion to you or anyone else. if you dont like it, thats not my problem.

Well........the only place I ever really read reviews on is IGN.com, and I've yet to disagree with any of their reviews. Occasionally I've thought a game deserved slightly higher or slightly lower, but never anything drastic. So I certainly don't agree with your opinion regarding that particular site -- never have I seen them give a bad game a good score.

[Omuletzu]

Gamespot does a pretty good job at reviewing games k:

[edlglide]

Originally posted by Omuletzu@Jan 12 2005, 07:12 PM
Gamespot does a pretty good job at reviewing games k:

I'm not really a big fan of Gamespot -- but it's not necessarily because I think they do a bad job reviewing. I don't check their reviews much so I wouldn't know..........I just vastly prefer the site layout on IGN to the one on Gamespot. And since they generally do a good job at IGN I don't have to bother checking out other places.

[BlackMageJawa]

Revolution is supposed to be making Beneath A Steel Sky 2 at the moment.

Out of those ones though, I'm going to have to say that Vampyre Story looks coolest. It's going to be a retail game though, right? I just hope it makes it to the UK.

[xoopx]

Originally posted by edlglide+Jan 12 2005, 07:08 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (edlglide @ Jan 12 2005, 07:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-xoopx@Jan 12 2005, 11:08 AM

the "proof" i need is when terrible games get 9/10 ratings. ive seen magazine slate a game that wasnt terrible, because they had arguments with the game company over previous things (amiga power and team 17 springs to mind)
frankly, i dont need to PROVE anything related to my opinion to you or anyone else. if you dont like it, thats not my problem.

Well........the only place I ever really read reviews on is IGN.com, and I've yet to disagree with any of their reviews. Occasionally I've thought a game deserved slightly higher or slightly lower, but never anything drastic. So I certainly don't agree with your opinion regarding that particular site -- never have I seen them give a bad game a good score. [/b][/quote]
heh im talking about paper magazines, not internet ones. you modern kids!

[Fawfulhasfury]

It will be in the U.K. It will be in the us and france and italy and many other countries. Yes it is retail.

[Borodin]

Originally posted by xoopx@Jan 12 2005, 11:08 AM
the "proof" i need is when terrible games get 9/10 ratings. ive seen magazine slate a game that wasnt terrible, because they had arguments with the game company over previous things (amiga power and team 17 springs to mind)
frankly, i dont need to PROVE anything related to my opinion to you or anyone else. if you dont like it, thats not my problem.

Had you said some of their reviewers were simply bad, without any critical sense, or without any knowledge of their fields going back more than a year or two, I suspect there'd be general agreement. Because we all know of reviews that show little thought or organization, or simply, mindlessly repeat PR blurbs that make as little sense in a reviewer's mouth as they did when they were first put to paper. There are also obvious cases where reviewers were simply pressed for time, played an hour or two, and related their immediate, very positive impressions though the products were truly dogs. I've seen that happen too often, in magazines from Compute! and PC Games (in the old days) to PC Gamer and CGW. Being on a tight schedule really doesn't justify poor journalism, in my opinion.

A claim of bribery is more serious. You or I could be accused on occasion of thoughtlessness or poor organization. Probably true, too, over any decent lifetime. But accusing either of us of bribery is an allegation of a very specific act, unlike generalized thoughtlessness. It's easy to fling around, especially on the Web, where people often talk trash without having a single fact to back it up. But in order for our opinions to be worth something, they have to deal with at least a semblance of facts. If they don't, they cheapen us, not their intended targets.

[Borodin]

Originally posted by xoopx@Jan 12 2005, 07:38 PM
heh im talking about paper magazines, not internet ones. you modern kids!

I second this. When I first started writing, there were still magazines for Kaypro users. And even as late as the late 1980s, PC Magazine did a roundup of word processors (under DOS, the only PC-based operating system at the time): 28 in all. How things have changed, now! We have one word processor that supposedly fits all needs, and endless game reviews on the Web that often show no knowledge of grammar, critical facility, or any product more than two years old.

When I first joined GameBanshee, a new member wanted his review of Baldur's Gate 2 judged. He treated it as though RPGs were a new phenomenon, and said the first ever made was Diablo. :blink: With reviews like that, I'm afraid less is more.

[edlglide]

Well, I used to get Computer Gaming World.........I have a stack of 2 or 3 years worth at my parent's house from the mid or late 90s I think. The best one was their list of the 100 greatest computer games -- whether I agreed or not wasn't the point; I just love looking at lists. But yeah, I only use IGN.com now because there's no reason to buy a paper magazine when I can get constantly updated information from the Internet.

EDIT: Also, I wouldn't even call Diablo an RPG. It's really just a third person action game.