Originally posted by abhaigh

 

Originally posted by Azanth

 

---

These reviews dont tell the whole truth and just want to support sales of this product, its not always free journalism rather often just marketing support.

---

 

I call BS on this. Sure there are some whore critics out there, but when the majority of respected gaming sites give the game a good review, I think its getting an accurate assessment.

Gotta challenge you on this idea.

 

If the gaming site is accepting any advertising money for a game that they review, the review is tainted, pure and simple.

You may want to argue the toss for the impartiality of the reviewers, but ask yourself, who's going to bite the hand that feeds them? You can bet that any majorly negative reviews of any game handing over cash for advertising space will be re-edited in a more positive light, just to keep the ad money rolling in.

Show me a documented incident of a gaming site that shades its reviews based on ad money. Any instance of this happening would be a disaster for that reviewer, if not the site. I agree with the BS call. Got any other conspiracy theories?

Another TR review - 8.6

http://pc.gamezone.com/gzreviews/r21955.htm

---

Originally posted by abhaigh

---

Originally posted by Azanth

---

These reviews dont tell the whole truth and just want to support sales of this product, its not always free journalism rather often just marketing support.

---

I call BS on this. Sure there are some whore critics out there, but when the majority of respected gaming sites give the game a good review, I think its getting an accurate assessment.

---

Gotta challenge you on this idea.
If the gaming site is accepting any advertising money for a game that they review, the review is tainted, pure and simple.
You may want to argue the toss for the impartiality of the reviewers, but ask yourself, who's going to bite the hand that feeds them? You can bet that any majorly negative reviews of any game handing over cash for advertising space will be re-edited in a more positive light, just to keep the ad money rolling in.

---

That's an overly jaded and simplistic view, and also doesn't take into account how a lot of advertising works.

First, ad views = exposure. If a site is getting tons of readership, the ads are going to be placed there regardless of whether or not they review their games positively. If companies restricted their advertising only to sites that give positive reviews, those sites would lose readership (because of their tendency to skew reviews) and so the game gets less exposure. Its counter-productive.

Second, many of these game sites use outside services to serve their ads, and these services serve their ad content to many sites, not just that particular one. So are you saying the game publisher tells the ad agency only to send ads to sites with positive reviews? Even if they could do that, they'd be stupid to. Ad agencies want as many views and click-throughs as possible. That's how they get paid. You don't get that by restricting yourself.

Again, I will point out the Hellgate:London example. Gamespy had advertising for that game plastered all over the place for months before release. They had previews and developer blogs, and had a week's worth of features the week the game came out. But their final review was still a 3/5, and it was pretty critical.

I'm not saying there aren't whore critic sites out there, of course there are. That's why you should read several sites and try to get an average rating, instead of just trusting one site. But to condemn all reviewers as shills for the game companies is dishonest. That's like saying all newspapers or magazines are beholden to their advertisers which, judging by a lot of the critical content you find in that media, is certainly not the case.

all the gaming sites accept advertising from the games they review. So of course their is no integrity there.

The reviews people give on these forums are much better than those sites.

Originally posted by Dreadlich

Originally posted by abhaigh

 

Originally posted by Azanth

 

---

These reviews dont tell the whole truth and just want to support sales of this product, its not always free journalism rather often just marketing support.

---

 

I call BS on this. Sure there are some whore critics out there, but when the majority of respected gaming sites give the game a good review, I think its getting an accurate assessment.

Gotta challenge you on this idea.

 

If the gaming site is accepting any advertising money for a game that they review, the review is tainted, pure and simple.

You may want to argue the toss for the impartiality of the reviewers, but ask yourself, who's going to bite the hand that feeds them? You can bet that any majorly negative reviews of any game handing over cash for advertising space will be re-edited in a more positive light, just to keep the ad money rolling in.

Show me a documented incident of a gaming site that shades its reviews based on ad money. Any instance of this happening would be a disaster for that reviewer, if not the site. I agree with the BS call. Got any other conspiracy theories?

Look, of course most reviews have quality like those you mentioned already in this thread for this game and any game which will be released. The content of such reviews express in general the big positive points of games, content, graphics & style, gameplay and more, the press releases has a certain sheme or layout.

However, what they dont tell you really details about ingame problems after release or during beta, they more or less give only some hints.

In gamer forums you will find more infos from gamer behind the szenes, but also here you have to be careful and better get your own opinion with trying yout the game byyourself. Product Tests, Interviews, Game Reviews, History, Statistics, Press or Tv, Politics or whatever are in general often manipulated or you get manimpulated from it, thats not conspiracy those things are facts - thats business and real life facts and not BS,  which you see more and more with life or job expiriences.

What i wanted to say with my first post, is the fact that of course the reviews show that Tabula Rasa has excellent content and gameplay in general, but thats currently not the whole story, furthermore i tried to  give directions to last hypes of games which were only a bubble and hope as well reviews far away from reality....well lets see and wait for the first patches for Tabula Rasa , iam still positive.

Originally posted by spizz

These reviews dont tell the whole truth and just want to support sales of this product, its not always free journalism rather often just marketing support.

Reviews are based on opinion, that's their nature, if you don't happen to share the reviewer's opinion, that DOES NOT  mean that they're working marketing.

Seriously, you're attacking the integrity of people you don't know. Criticism is fine, but you've made a huge accusation without any actual follow-up or proof.

Originally posted by Stradden

 

Originally posted by spizz

These reviews dont tell the whole truth and just want to support sales of this product, its not always free journalism rather often just marketing support.

Ya know, just because you didn't like the game, that really isn't a good reason to make an offensive blanket statement like that. Seriously, you've just off-handedly accused a large number of members of the games media of being "marketing support".

 

Reviews are based on opinion, that's their nature, if you don't happen to share the reviewer's opinion, that DOES NOT  mean that they're working marketing.

Seriously, you're attacking the integrity of people you don't know. Criticism is fine, but you've made a huge accusation without any actual follow-up or proof.

First, i do like the game like i wrote already and iam still positive about future changes as a pying customer of TR and second i did talk in general about game reviews as well big hype for game releases. However from my own job expiriences, i know that often magazines and press releases "can" be used as a marketing instrument. I dont know if such companies how did write these reviews get used as marketing support instrument, but the facts still stay that their "opinions", doesnt matter if someone share it or not, dont combine every aspect especially about currently or former ingame problems or at least their layout doesnt analyze it detailed and are limited to the time when the layout was produced. Facts about ingame problems ist not an opinion, but thats why we have such Forums here where we can discuss it.

Originally posted by Stradden

 

Originally posted by spizz

These reviews dont tell the whole truth and just want to support sales of this product, its not always free journalism rather often just marketing support.

Ya know, just because you didn't like the game, that really isn't a good reason to make an offensive blanket statement like that. Seriously, you've just off-handedly accused a large number of members of the games media of being "marketing support".

 Reviews are based on opinion, that's their nature, if you don't happen to share the reviewer's opinion, that DOES NOT  mean that they're working marketing.

Seriously, you're attacking the integrity of people you don't know. Criticism is fine, but you've made a huge accusation without any actual follow-up or proof.

Its just the nature of your business Stradden...... you are tasked with reviewing games that are produced by the very people who buy ads in your magazine or on your website.  Games for Windows (fka CGW) has always fought criticism like this because their survival depends on the ads....and they freely admit at times they've gotten pressure from those companies to ease up on their reviews.  They claim they've always been above board and honest..... but one never knows in this cynical world we all live in.

 There's a reason Consumer Reports doesn't accept advertisements, it allows them to claim impartiality to the products they review.  Of course, payouts could happen other ways.... but regardless, their model isn't really practical except in their unique subscription model.

If the gaming site is accepting any advertising money for a game that they review, the review is tainted, pure and simple.

Wow... ok, fair enough. I would like top point out though, that this isn't the case in many of the news outlets. I'm not saying that there aren't some out there who work this way, but, with all due respect - that's just not how it works.

Never once since coming to work here at MMORPG.com have I or any reviewer been influenced by the fact that any given title was advertising with us. In fact, as far as MMORPG.com is concerned, our editorial office (the one in charge of putting stuff on the site, including reviews) is in Halifax, Canada while our Business office (where ads are handled) is in Hawaii. Here in Halifax, half the time we don't even know who's running ads on the site at any given time.

If my word isn't enough for you, which is fine, I would like to point out the fact that the single worst review that we have ever given was given to RYL  (I think it was a 3.7 or something. anyway, it's now defunct and removed from the list). At the time RYL was a major advertiser.

I think the important thing to remember here is that MOST game companies wouldn't pull advertising because of a sub-par review. It wouldn't be in their best interest. Likewise, it isn't in the long-term best interest of the websites doing the reviews to allow this to happen. Advertising relies on traffic. Why would a website jeopardize their traffic in the long term to satisfy an advertiser in the short term... It really doesn't make any sense.

Hope that clears things up.

Originally posted by Kyleran

 

Its just the nature of your business Stradden...... you are tasked with reviewing games that are produced by the very people who buy ads in your magazine or on your website.  Games for Windows (fka CGW) has always fought criticism like this because their survival depends on the ads....and they freely admit at times they've gotten pressure from those companies to ease up on their reviews.  They claim they've always been above board and honest..... but one never knows in this cynical world we all live in.

 There's a reason Consumer Reports doesn't accept advertisements, it allows them to claim impartiality to the products they review.  Of course, payouts could happen other ways.... but regardless, their model isn't really practical except in their unique subscription model.

Do many of the gaming sites rely on advertising to keep us afloat? Sure we do. Does that mean that thsoe sites / journalists will sacrifice both personal and professional integrity to satisfy advertisers? God, I hope not. I know I wouldn't, it's just not worth it.

Ok, really people.  That is why you need something called 'Balance'.  Don't purely base your sole decision on one editor review from one website.  Nor should you base it off of a few editor reviews from several websites.  You need, not only that, but also player feedback from the game.  Face it, players are brutal, and they don't hesitate to voice their opinions on a game.  I'm not saying you should read every one, but there are enough player reviews that you are easily bound to get a good perspective from some of them.

Take it for what it's worth, but don't waste your time taking up space ranting about how a company works when you have no evidence to back you up. You are simply wasting your own time when you could be having some fun playing a different game!

Game on people! Take care!

Originally posted by Torak

You know, generally speaking, I'm an ass when it comes to MMO's lol. I really bashed this game when I got in beta. I mean, I ripped it a new one. And it was a mess in june / july, no doubt.

But I saw it in the store the other day and having read some of the positive propaganda you guys are writing, I picked it up, I am big enough to admit when I am wrong. It turned out pretty good. I actually like it now and may even add it to my little picture show. We will see once my 30 days are up. If I actually pay for it, then it makes the list.

I was in beta as well last June/July as well and felt the same way.  The way people are now talking about this game now they must have made some major changes.  Personally, I absolutely hated the game.  I mean there was absolutely nothing I liked about it. 

1) Combat was extremely boring for me.  Combat felt exactly like SWG/NGE, just more simplified.  I'm not saying that just to piss people off.  That is just exactly what it felt like to me.  I can put cross-hairs over target and hold mouse button only so many times before I lose my mind. 

2)  Character creation was very bland with not many options. 

3)  I also didn't feel like I was logging into a world.  It seemed more like a bunch of people playing a single player game together(if that makes any sense).  Can't really put my finger on it but it just didn't feel like a MMO to me.

4)  I had to keep going back to buy ammo.  Seemed like a pointless money sink to me.  Not sure why they just didn't have infinite ammo.  Didn't mind the reload too much, was kind of a cool effect. 

There were some performance issues as well but that is to be expected during beta.  If there were some remarkable changes please let me know and I might give it another shot.  I by no means want the game to fail.  We need to strengthen the sci fi MMO market.  The game just wasn't for me.  I wasn't too surprised I didn't like it to be honest since this is my third NC Soft game I've tried and not liked. 

---

I think the important thing to remember here is that MOST game companies wouldn't pull advertising because of a sub-par review. It wouldn't be in their best interest. Likewise, it isn't in the long-term best interest of the websites doing the reviews to allow this to happen. Advertising relies on traffic. Why would a website jeopardize their traffic in the long term to satisfy an advertiser in the short term... It really doesn't make any sense.

---

Hi Jon, thanks for hopping into this one. This is actually something that concerns far more than TR, though. Maybe you should write a piece for MMORPG.com about it? :)

You are absolutely right though, and that's something many people here don't seem to understand. Running a site like this is a business, and in business you don't make short-sighted decisions that affect your long-term prospects. If you do, you don't stay in business very long! Any short-term gain that might come from skewing a review would be far outweighed by the damage to a site's credibility. It's kind of sad actually, that people would trust ranting on a forum from some person who could have an agenda or just not know what the heck they are talking about, instead of a published reviewer that has a professional reputation to uphold.

In general, I've found professional reviews to paint a far, far more accurate picture of a game than message boards. Message boards are filled with either blind fanbois who rate their game far too highly, or angry haters who rate a game too low just based on their dislike of the game/publisher/whatever and without considering all factors.

In general, I've found professional reviews to paint a far, far more accurate picture of a game than message boards. Message boards are filled with either blind fanbois who rate their game far too highly, or angry haters who rate a game too low just based on their dislike of the game/publisher/whatever and without considering all factors.

I agree with you.  I've seen examples of ratings manipulations on these boards for other games.  In fact, posters admitted to manipulating ratings AND tried to incite others do so.  I know of one poster in particular who created multiple accounts to lower a game's rating because he felt it was rated too high.  Other posters claim that they base their ratings on how the game stands as compared to other games they believe are "better" or more deserving of higher scores, which is wrong.  The ratings should be based on a combination of two factors:

1. The game's own merits or detriments, not how it compares in a list to other games.
2. The overall rating should come from an average of several honestly rated categories (balanced scorecard approach)

Unfortunately, that isn't always the case (one might argue that it's rarely the case on these boards). 

~Ripper

Originally posted by Stradden

 

[snip]

the lady doth protest too much, methinks

Originally posted by Azanth

 

---

These reviews dont tell the whole truth and just want to support sales of this product, its not always free journalism rather often just marketing support.

---

 

I call BS on this. Sure there are some whore critics out there, but when the majority of respected gaming sites give the game a good review, I think its getting an accurate assessment. Think they rate all over-hyped games well just to boost sales? Check out the reviews for Hellgate:London on GameSpy and IGN. It was pretty much panned across the board, and that's an EA game that was probably hyped more than this was.

I think 4/5 is a fair assessment. The game is fun and stable and has a lot of potential. It's not perfect, but hardly any MMO is on release. Don't let the end-game rushers dissuade you from trying out something you might find enjoyable. Every MMO release is the same. A few people rush-grind to the end, complain about the lack of end-game content, and condemn the entire thing. They are most definitely not representative of the whole player base.

I'm sorry, but i believe there is almost NO major review site or gaming magazine out there that dares tell the whole truth. A few years back there was a pretty good gaming magazine here in the Netherlands that spilled the beans on publisher/reviewer relations, and it was pretty nasty. Basically, when you start writing unfavorable reviews, you are informed (often informally) that it's too bad how they have to re-evaluate your reviewer status - too many others out there, costs too high, yada yada - and that they will be unable to provide you with reviewer copies/beta access/access to the latest inside news from now on. This went so far, the magazine felt it wasn't able to give fair reviews, and closed it's doors. They had written evidence to support their story (letter from someone at a major publisher's office), which they published in one of their last issues.

As to TR in specific: they rushed to polish the low-end content in Beta, which is another reason why reviewers may give it a thumbs up, but the mid-level and high-end content was pretty much neglected. As soon as you got to Torden (20-22-ish), you started running into some pretty nasty issues, and it got worse after 30. A lot of the problems I reported in beta still haven't been addressed, from what I've seen in the patch notes. Keep in mind, this is MID level stuff.

Linna

......intersting article shhht

www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2007/11/30/hack-fired-negative-game-review

the review:

www.gamespot.com/xbox360/action/kanelynchdeadmen/review.html

Originally posted by Centhan

My opinion on TR?  I played beta, it didn't do anything for me, and was probably the most repetative and uninspiring game I've played in a while.  However, don't take my word for it   Go try it for yourself and you may find it's the best thing since sliced bread. 

So, like the poster here sayed. Try it.

He may ment it as sarcastic joke, but I don't.

Originally posted by spizz

These reviews dont tell the whole truth and just want to support sales of this product, its not always free journalism rather often just marketing support. If you are playing around lvl 30, you will be shocked how broken this game is at the moment. Performance problem is the main issue, after lvl 25 you wont find any instance or dungeon without latency, lag spikes, memory leaks but in addition you will see that loads of quests are bugged, AI scripts problems and  lower Intelligence quality of AI in general. I have really problems to believe the devs can fix these problems within a month - seen enough betas already and what most companies can really do within short time, seems like this game was releases to early like Vanguard & Co., it has a similar hype and people as well reviews dont tell the whole truth.

Most of the gamers who are only positive and fascinating ingame are not even lvl 20, when you ask them in the chat...around lvl 30 you will find more and more players who agree that the game has serious issues which agree that in the next weeks it will decide if this game goes top or flop.  Besides the big list of problems which include also pvp balance in general and even class skill bugs, there is no endgame content at all which has to be patched as well if this game will be successfull. If they dont really change something dramatically in the next 2-3 weeks, lots of players will cancel for sure.

Yes the whole pve action is quiete exciting and love it, but iam fet up with hype and only half true reviews of new game releases and pure hopes of gamers without any reality, lots of big game releases in the last 2-3 years on the mmorpg market were just big bubbles and reviews, aswell big hopes and excitement of gamers were just a part of the big show...its quiete similar with this game, even it ist not as bad as Vanguard or Dark & Light it stays for me as an beta product and has not release quality. I want that this game succeeds, but you have to stay in realtiy.

AMEN - game magazine reviews are treated like the "holy bible"....

Originally posted by bananajoe

AMEN - game magazine reviews are treated like the "holy bible"....

So in the last year or so, PC Gamer, among other popular review sites/mags have really hyped and reviewed favorably the following games:

Hellgate London

Tabular Rasa

Age of Conan

Warhammer Online

Two of them have been shut down, or announced to shut down in the first two months of 2009.  The other two are not doing as well as expected, though there are mixed feelings about their quality and potential success (they may go the way of EVE and slowly build a larger user base over time).

We all have to start questionning these rags we read.  After playing Hellgate and TR (because of reading such OUTSTANDING reviews for them), I was completely let down.  PC Gamer, among others, has completely lost all credibility with me as a reviewing entity.  They are bought and paid for; nothing more than an advertisement mailing.