The XBLA/PSN game called Amy never really caught my attention. At least, not until I began seeing some of the lowest review scores that I had seen in a long, long time.
Having seen a few trailers for the game, it didn't impress me that much. It struck me as yet another zombie game. Big whoop. We get one of those every few months.
But for some odd reason, I was compelled to do a bit of digging. "Wasn't this the game that IGN said was 'like ICO, but with zombies'?" I thought to myself. Indeed, as I looked into the past, I found a great number of glowing previews for the game. Destructoid, IGN, Gamespot, and many other sites all had very nice things to say about this game.
IGN had these two articles on the game last year:
Amy is ICO with Zombies and it's brilliant-
http://ps3.ign.com/articles...
Amy Makes Fighting Zombies feel fresh again-
http://ps3.ign.com/articles...
Gamespot did a preview on the game, too, praising its atmosphere and gameplay:
http://www.gamespot.com/amy...
If you're so compelled, you can look up other previews on other gaming sites, too.
My point is that Amy was getting a fair amount of hype. It had positive previews from pretty much every big-name gaming website.
And then the reviews hit.
2/10. 4/10. 1.5/10. Horrible, horrible, horrible scores. IGN called it "horrifyingly bad". Wait. Hang on a second, folks. I thought this game had "incredible atmosphere". I thought this game was "a breath of fresh air into the zombie genre". Now you're telling me it's a bad game? It would be one thing if they were a bit apprehensive in their previews, but no. These gaming sites unabashedly shower the game with praises. They don't say "well...I hope they can work out the bugs, because the game has potential" or "I think there are a few neat things, but let's wait until we see the final product". No. Nothing like that. It was eager preview one after another.
To me, this situation clearly exposes the motivations of so-called "gaming sites". "Advertisement hubs" is more like it. I've always lived by the mantra "there's no such thing as a bad preview", and Amy is a shining example of that philosophy. Think of the gamers who watched trailers, read previews, and expected a great, unique zombie game. They got shafted. They relied on honest previews and instead got thinly-veiled advertisements.
I'm not saying these journalists were bribed.
I'm saying these journalists are all idiots who couldn't tell a good or bad game if it punched them in the face. These journalists flip-flop in their opinions like a dirty politician.
It was bad enough when gaming journalists showered Skyrim with wonderful reviews when all three versions on all three platforms suffered from some pretty serious bugs. But this thing with Amy is just...bad. If we can't rely on gaming "journalists" to deliver honest previews, why should we trust their reviews, or anything else they say?
We were expecting problems with mod support, but there are a lot of other issues.
Not accidental, they want modders to stop modding their older games to force them to mod Shitfield.
Over 14 GBs and doesn't change much at all? What? Taking up that much drive space for a pathetic 'remastering' is shameful.
Par for Bethesda.
As of right now, there are no monopolies in the games industry, and for the sake of the medium as a whole, they never should either.
And yet the biggest tech companies in America are essentially that. They buy up all the small comps only to kill them off and steal what they have, and if they can't buy em they bleed them to death.
A voice actor from The Coalition's third-person shooter series, Gears of War, has hinted at a new game announcement coming in June.
Really good post. But, When you used Skyrim as an example I was a little put off. Yes Skyrim has bugs and yes people reported game breaking glitches and immersion breaking issues. But A LOT of those reports came from the PS3 version. So far (on xbox) I have not experienced a game-breaking glitch and the same MAY apply for the PC version.
"It was bad enough when gaming journalists showered Skyrim with wonderful reviews when all three versions on all three platforms suffered from some pretty serious bugs."
I think you should put some sources into that.
You're totally right, though I do think there's some nuance required here.
I know from experience that it's not always easy previewing a game. Technically a game you are previewing is not finished and things could change before release. Even if you are playing a preview build 2 weeks ahead of release, chances are that you are playing a version that is less advanced than what the devs are working on, or have sent to be gold mastered.
So, what do you do if there's a lot that you like but there are obvious points that need to be fixed before release or the devs risk a total turd?
The devs will be telling you that these things will be fixed in the final release, and sometimes they are, but just as often they're not. That doesn't make it any easier.
When this happens to me, I'll try and write a more factual preview rather than an excited sounding one.
Previews are essentially advertisements. 99% of them are positive, which doesn't make any sense. Most of us who have been gaming for a while can spot a turd by watching trailers of it. Why can't journalists do the same? ($$$)
Its crazy how many people paid £7.99 for this on PSN. Its got a rating of 4.50 something out of 5. I feel bad for those people who are clearly kidding themselves that they bought a good game...
Previews of games are conducted in a very controlled environment. A very specific portion of the game is shown, false promises are (probably) made. The journalists are treated like stars. Most of the previews of games I read are positive.
I know for a fact that on Gamespot, the editors that preview games don't review them, so that there is no element of bias in the review.
Yes, the difference in previews and reviews of this game make the website look bad but I guess this is just how the industry works at the moment.