Bad "Amy" reviews are a big, sloppy egg on journalists' faces

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?

[Hufandpuf]

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.

[dedicatedtogamers]

A quick and easy Google search of "Skyrim PC bugs" or "Skyrim 360 bugs" will yield plentiful results. There are plenty of other ostriches sticking their heads in the sand, assuming the PS3 version was the only version riddled with bugs.

I played the game on PC and was very upset that the reviewers didn't have the decency to tell me about all of the quest-breaking bugs. Then of course the early patches only made things worse.

[Hufandpuf]

Thanks, if you had detailed your experience on the PC version of Skyrim in your blog it would've been even better. Just some tips!

[Bladesfist]

Thats wierd. I have not experienced one game breaking bug on PC.

If i was a reviewer how would I mention that there are game breaking bugs. I have played 100 hours and found none.

[coolbeans]

"There are plenty of other ostriches sticking their heads in the sand, assuming the PS3 version was the only version riddled with bugs."

Reviewers aren't denying that bugs don't exist between all three versions, some are just denying that they themselves have experienced any-or many-of them. Reviewers aren't meant to scour youtube videos to talk about the game's profusion of bugs. They're only meant to talk about their own experiences with the game's performance.

[SilentNegotiator]

@coolbeans

Skyrim bugs are especially bad after 50 hours of playtime. And then you have to question; did the reviewers even play the amount of time that they hyped the game to be good for, if they didn't face these bugs that are obviously very common after 50H or so of playtime? Or did they rush through the main story, play a side mission or two, and then rush out their review?

[JaredH]

I played Skyrim for 100 hours on 360 and never encountered any huge bugs. I encountered just as many as I did in Bethesdas other games and to me the amount is never enough to take away from the game experience.

[coolbeans]

@SilentNegotiator

I certainly applaud the idea of us holding reviews more often to the fire like that, but I don't see the results having much of an effect. There's already two other posters on here who "say" they haven't encountered any "huge bugs" (I imagine that's quest bugs, etc.). The problem is in the form of someone questioning where the interrogation ends.

We already have multiple reports, from both average users and reviewers, of where they don't notice 'huge bugs' so it would be safe to just leave it at that, unless some news report comes out that brings possible liars to light.

[fooxy]

You should visit Bethesda xbox technical section then and read about how many quests are broken and other issues

http://forums.bethsoft.com/...

[arnyftw]

They may be a lot of broken quests, but they dont ruin the game. I've played for over 50 hours and have have not quest bugs. The only bugs I had were fixed by a 24 hour wait. The only bug that really annoys me is that my bounty for the reach will never go down because I did the forsworn quest.

[MidnytRain]

I can't debate or relate to the Skyrim hate. Maybe it was ill-fate for any given mate at any given rate. I got the game kind of late on a holiday date, so all I can say is the game is great. The worse bug I've seen is a skeever frozen mid-gait with its mouth agape. In conclusion, this game RAPES.

[Kiriel]

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.

[JellyJelly]

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? ($$$)

[JonahNL]

That is bullshit. I am a reviewer myself and it's incredibly difficult to preview a game. Developers usually tend to give you a very polished (or presumably good looking) part of the game. It's normal that a website is then positive, because the part of the game they've played made them believe the full game could be very good.

It can also be the other way around, where a preview of the game doesn't really impress, but the full game becomes mind blowing.

[Blastoise]

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...

[TheDareDevil]

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.

[therealminime]

I think it is ridiculous to call these journalists idiots because they saw previews that made the game look good and then deemed it shit when they played it entirely. Previews of games are chosen very specifically to impress those whom they show it to. Developers/Publishers go to extremes to make any and all previews of every game look as good as possible. If a game turns out to be shit after very positive previews it means that the developer/publisher did a great job of tricky advertising to game journalists.

I'm not a fan of IGN or Gamespot, but calling them idiots because of this is quite idiotic.

[admiralvic]

The irony in this all is that different people wrote those posts. I still don't see how were judging writer A's opinion + writer B's opinions = writer C at fault?

[triplethreatattack]

Listen, don't get pissy with the journalists because they made bad judgements, over a 15 minute preview. Dont act like they have half the game played before they write a preview. They dont know what the outcome will be, thats why previews arent susspossed to be taken with more than a grain of salt. Dont be an asshole when your the one that took the preview seriously in the first place.

[triplethreatattack]

The reason is that the previews are usually based off of 5-15 minute playthroughs, and the publisher/developer will refine and glorify that specific part of the game to make it seem much better than it actually is. Thats why Amy got good hype when IGN and Gamespot, among others, wrote previews for it. Basically, publishers try to get enough good hype to have websites and some of the general public excited, and then either deliver, or break the trust they established.

[Soldierone]

Don't agree entirely. As a smaller website we get early glimpses at times, and no it isn't always the full game. Sometimes, yes it is. However you can also play these games at E3 and other events, and Amy was fully playable and even being shown in its entirety.

If the game is in production then you note "it has potential" and websites do that. However go and read the linked articles, they didn't say it "would have potential" then said "it IS awesome" Either their writers completely disagree, or this blog is right about advertisements floating their boat.

Not only that, also look at the complaints. A lot of it is technical issues or things are not polished...Skyrim has these exact issues. Technical bugs, unplayability, repetitive moments and yet its getting nearly perfect scores all across the board. Im not one to say that game is horrible, but it shouldn't be getting HIGH reviews if another game is getting degraded for almost the same flaws.

This reminds me of when IGN reviewed Medal of Honor. Bashed it for having a short campaign, not doing anything to re invent the FPS genre, and it felt to much like Battlefield. Yet a few weeks later they praise COD for having a "short but epic" campaign, not ruining the game mechanics and keeping things the same, and didn't once state it was the same game from before.

[Pozzle]

I don't fully agree. I mean, most of Amy's reviews are pretty scathing...the controls are clunky, the glitches are annoying, the graphics are average and the voice acting is laughable. These are all things that would be noticeable in even a 15 minute demo.

Hell, I myself noticed a couple of issues with the game within the first ten minutes of playing. The most glaring example being the clunky controls and how difficult it is to reposition Lana (and how easy it is for her character model to get stuck on random objects and debris). These are things that would (and should) have been noticed in the preview copies.

[Fairchild Channel F]

Good article.

This is why you should take review scores with a grain of salt. They are given out by pseudo-journalits who many times hold no degree in journalism not to mention any kind of professionalism. Many have not played the game to completion upon writing the review. They dangle from the sack of large companies and gloss over glaring problems, terrified to anger the fanboys with an awful 8.5 score. They write flame bate articles to keep their precious ad revenue flowing in. Hell, most can't even proof read their articles for sentence cohesion, grammar & spelling. These are the people who supposedly LOVE gaming. Guess what? They don't. In fact, they're a cancer to it.

Guys look. If your like me you watch the videos. You know the developers. You know the companies track records. Most of all you know what YOU like! Don't let these dumb shits sway you one way or the other with their inept scores. Be brave and make up your own mind because game sites are not to be trusted. And that's a shame.

[SynGamer]

Am I the only person who feels the OP is wrong? Previews are often short sections of a game, completely detached from the final experience. It's why preview trailers for movies often look good and get great praise, only to be reviewed terribly once the full movie comes out.

If anything, the developers/publishers are to blame for essentially pushing the best of the game during previews, and then hoping that those shining moments are enough to keep reviewers from posting terrible reviews.

That said, I will concede that IGN, GameSpot, and just about every other gaming "blog" out there has completely destroyed the review scale in the past 10 years. You know it's bad when a developer complaints that their game received an 8/10. Worse, there doesn't appear to be any indication that reviews will revert back to their once-reliable scores. Where gamer's would see a 7 or 8 and think "I should get this". Now, 7 or 8 is a killing blow in the gaming industry.

[jthamind]

not sure if anyone else said this, but there's a problem with your ign examples. two different people wrote those previews for ign, and neither one of them are the same as the guy who reviewed the game. you kinda fell into the trap that "ign is one big person," like the people who act like every single game reviewed by ign is reviewed by the same person with the same scale. it's not.

i'm not defending Amy at all, because it looks like a crappy game and i won't be playing it, but just because two people previewing it said good things about it doesn't mean the reviewer has to like it.

[gloubiglou]

Amy is a french game, unfortunately that doesn't help it getting some good reviews in my opinion! furthermore the french publisher didn't pay major campaign of advertisement, that doesn't help too. It can't be that bad, and if you think of the price, you can't help but thinkin the reviews are suspiciously bad...