People often imply that the first reviews are biased because they assume that the establishment getting somewhat preferential treatment from the publisher will engender feelings of good will toward them. The result is a higher review score. And others will assert that bribery has taken place. I have to say, the scores do seem higher during the first wave, just as the later reviews seem to be abysmally low to generate hits. I usually read and watch reviews from people I trust and I also like reviews that don't give scores, instead relying on letting the reader or viewer make up their own mind given the reviewer's comments.
Look at RE6...the first bunch of reviews were very positive...then the truth comes out
I'm not denying TR isn't a good game or doesn't look it BUT I'm really getting sick of reviews taking a well known franchise which seems to of moved away from it's roots, basicaly what made the game what is was, then give it a near perfect score despite the game not being once what it was. Look at dmc...high scores yet non of the reviews gave evidence to why they give it that score and why it was better then the previous instalments, when, lets be honest, the new dmc is inferior .
New IPs...fair enough give them the benefit of the doubt, it's a new game with nothing to match up to but an old franchise which looks more like Uncharted then Tomb Raider...come on.
i remember when homefront came out and most of the first reviews that were "leaked" or just came out before the embargo was lifted were good it was getting a few 8s and alot of 9s....
It's a sad state of affairs that people see a first review high score and ultimately pass it off as them being overly generous for having the privilege of being the first reviewer. Sadly though,with the amount of money involved in the games industry and it's not hard to see why publishers would want to stoop this low. I've seen it in the consultancy industry, where people who are looking for exposure offer free services and expect their clients to post reviews and they'll demand the clients email them the reviews before posting them.
Sadly it probably is best to take first reviews with a grain of salt and wait until more come in for a more accurate general opinion on the game.
Aren't the first reviews of any game always generally really high? I can't remember a game getting a terrible first review. If someone can cite an example, please do. Excluding Duke Nukem Forever lol.
There was nothing wrong with RE6. Best laugh ive had playing a game in ages. Yeah it has probs (mostly fixed in patches) but so does new Dead Space and I'm loving it.
DMC is a reboot and while not my thing I still found it fun.
@JP1369 I agree with you, Now while I do enjoy the reviews from Gamespot, pre 2006 IGN, 1up etc the problem I have with them is their use of numerical scores the problem is it crestes a system of what should defines a 10/9/8/7 game, the problem is how should you define a 10, or a 9 ?
I remember a game came out on the Wii years ago called The Conduit, Jeff Gerstman from Giant Bomb reviewed it he brought up the saying "pretty good for a wii game" The Conduit was an FPS on a console that had hardly any, or any worth mentioning to say the least. In the case of that game considering the platform it's on it's a pretty good game but compared to the shooters on the ps3/360/PC it was pretty mediocre.
The problem was do you judge it for a Wii game in that case it would be great (9-8), or for an overall game in that case it would be mediocre (5-7), this also goes back to how do you define a quality game ? do you have to factor in the console platform, as well ? that's nonsensical because Super Mario Galaxy would be a 10 if it was on the 360/PS3/PC as well as the Wii, to call that game pretty good for a Wii game is just unfair, and it undermines the qualaties of that game that would be outstanding on any platform.
This is why i love Classic Game Room like JP1369 said "I also like reviews that don't give scores, instead relying on letting the reader or viewer make up their own mind " look at their review of Timesplitters 2 what kind of game does that look like to you ?
First reviews are to be taken with a grain of salt. It has become common knowledge that early ratings are commonly inaccurate.
Dead Space 3 is a recent example. The first review(game informer) it received was 10/10. On Metacritic today, the game has a 76 average without any other perfect scores.
tinfoil hat? I'm sorry, Squeenix has a history of crooked behavior with early reviews. Remember Dues Ex? Squeenix basically said the following, "If you want early access to our game for reviewing them, you have to give us a 90% or higher." I kid you not. Go read up on it.
"First reviews are to be taken with a grain of salt. It has become common knowledge that early ratings are commonly inaccurate."
Commonly inaccurate? According to who? How can someone's opinion be inaccurate?
Who's to say that the person who reviewed Dead Space 3 and gave it 10/10 actually thought it was good enough to warrant a 10/10 score? Is that so hard to believe? Not every game gets perfect scores, in order to back up the conspiracy theories EVERY first review for EVERY game would need to receive a 9 or a 10.
No, I think the commonly known thing is that tinfoil hat wearing folk believe that everything positive is the result of a large bag of cash and that everything negative is someone just being honest. Please.
Yes maybe Game Informer thought it was a perfect game. The point was, to take early reviews with a grain of salt because of how often games are originally overrated. There are countless occurrences where the first scores on games are substantially higher than what their averages become. The Dead space example was to show how often it happens, because that game was JUST RELEASED. WE KNOW that some publishers will green light early reviews only if the content is overwhelmingly positive.
I never suggested "everything positive is the result of a large bag of cash". You put words in my mouth. Your Pie in the Sky ideals sound good, but their formed around Naivety.
It's been shown that early reviews can be "bought." Eidos did when they told reviewers that the only way they could get their review (I believe it was for Deus Ex: HR) on the box cover was if they scored the game high. It was also said that Tameem Antoniades thanked a site for giving DmC a 9 on twitter even before the review went out.
There is justification for suspicion as publishers have tried many methods to buy favourable scores.
Believe it or not, an opinion can in fact be inaccurate. It's just a matter of how the opinion is formed and more importantly how is it backed up.
There are countless examples, but it all comes down to whither or not your fact is actually factual. Like Metal Gear Rising has Wigs, but you're not made aware of their existence till you collect 10 officer hands. If someone was to look at Rising and not work at this collectible, then they would probably think there aren't any wigs.
Another example would be the hidden raid boss in Borderlands 2. A lot of people didn't know Verm existed till a week after release, so if someone complained that there was only 1 raid boss was lame, then they would be incorrect. On the other hand, sometimes people make a gross assumption that leads to an incorrect perception. Like Shin Hokuto Musou (Ken's Rage 2) has roughly 5 unlockable costumes, so if you played 2 characters and unlocked 2 costumes, then you might view costumes as favorable without knowing they're actually limited.
Ultimately any event that can lead to a misconception could lead to an inaccurate opinion. Not every reviewer is going to have time / desire to do every aspect in the game and sometimes people aren't going to bother with something they think is pointless. While I don't hold anything against these people (or reviewers as long as they have a respectable time in / completed the title in question), any opinion based off an incorrect assumption can be deemed as inaccurate. So long story short, yes an opinion can be inaccurate / wrong if it's based off something that is inaccurate or wrong.
GamesMaster aren't bias, nor are they bought. Their scores have often been the first released, yet have been absolute, acting as a true indication of the games quality:
"Sitting back exhausted we were left with just one question dribbling forth from our gaping jaws. How on earth are they going to top this in the sequel? Because of one thing there can be no doubt. Lara is back"
Can't freaking wait! i have been waiting for this game for so long!
Glad i'm not the only one who is sick of the stupid ads on the mobile site. 'Oh you want to click that article do you, well you can't because i'm just going to float here in your way.'
Tomb Raider took it's inspiration from Indiana Jones and was originally meant to have a male protagonist but was changed to attract a larger chunk of the target audience, teenage to mid twenties males. Most people think Uncharted is completely different to Tomb Raider just because the one is a man and the other is a woman. In actual fact, Uncharted was just the natural progression in evolution for Tomb Raider, and as Studio-YaMi rightly pointed out, Tomb Raider was the natural progression in evolution of the Pitfall formula.
Seriously Uncharted fans (of which I am one), stop deflecting the fact that Uncharted borrowed heavily from Tomb Raider, it's so obvious that the very fact that you argue it is embarrassing.
In case you haven't noticed Uncharted is a game. A game that follows the template that was set by TR in 1996. Like it or not TR is one of the most influential games this industry has seen and inspired many games. Uncharted is one of those games.
@ yami Uncharted was heavily inspired TR, MGS, RE4 and killswitch. There isn't an ounce of originality in that game.
One thing is for sure, with them lifting the embargo a week before the game releases they are showing a lot of confidence in the game. Looking forward to getting my hands on it the 5th.
i was thinking the same. the sequel to this would no longer be a scared girl slowly becoming a badass it would be an experienced Lara Croft. Thats the main appeal of this game, you feel the vulnarabilty and fear because your controling an uncofident inexperienced Lara.
I forgot this game is coming out soon. I stoped being interested since they nnounce that horrendous looking multiplayer. Someday I'll play the Single player though. :)
Got the chance to play the demo over here in EXPO 2012 Australia and have to say first impressions - definite positive high marks, it is a damn fine game indeed!
240°
60°
90°
90°
Ad 
300°
20°
30°
30°
30°
Ad 
20°
Nothing to see here.
um...why?
again...why?
but what happened to FF vs 13? will it come on ps3 or ps4? its been 7 year or so and the talk is still on it.
the game looks badass anyway. watch episode 3 http://www.youtube.com/watc...
http://www.abload.de/img/to...
Very well said
Look at RE6...the first bunch of reviews were very positive...then the truth comes out
I'm not denying TR isn't a good game or doesn't look it BUT I'm really getting sick of reviews taking a well known franchise which seems to of moved away from it's roots, basicaly what made the game what is was, then give it a near perfect score despite the game not being once what it was. Look at dmc...high scores yet non of the reviews gave evidence to why they give it that score and why it was better then the previous instalments, when, lets be honest, the new dmc is inferior .
New IPs...fair enough give them the benefit of the doubt, it's a new game with nothing to match up to but an old franchise which looks more like Uncharted then Tomb Raider...come on.
Sadly it probably is best to take first reviews with a grain of salt and wait until more come in for a more accurate general opinion on the game.
There was nothing wrong with RE6. Best laugh ive had playing a game in ages. Yeah it has probs (mostly fixed in patches) but so does new Dead Space and I'm loving it.
DMC is a reboot and while not my thing I still found it fun.
I agree with you, Now while I do enjoy the reviews from Gamespot, pre 2006 IGN, 1up etc the problem I have with them is their use of numerical scores the problem is it crestes a system of what should defines a 10/9/8/7 game, the problem is how should you define a 10, or a 9 ?
I remember a game came out on the Wii years ago called The Conduit, Jeff Gerstman from Giant Bomb reviewed it he brought up the saying "pretty good for a wii game" The Conduit was an FPS on a console that had hardly any, or any worth mentioning to say the least. In the case of that game considering the platform it's on it's a pretty good game but compared to the shooters on the ps3/360/PC it was pretty mediocre.
The problem was do you judge it for a Wii game in that case it would be great (9-8), or for an overall game in that case it would be mediocre (5-7), this also goes back to how do you define a quality game ? do you have to factor in the console platform, as well ? that's nonsensical because Super Mario Galaxy would be a 10 if it was on the 360/PS3/PC as well as the Wii, to call that game pretty good for a Wii game is just unfair, and it undermines the qualaties of that game that would be outstanding on any platform.
This is why i love Classic Game Room like JP1369 said "I also like reviews that don't give scores, instead relying on letting the reader or viewer make up their own mind " look at their review of Timesplitters 2 what kind of game does that look like to you ?
Related video
Nothing to see here."
What a lovely tinfoil hat you're wearing!
I really hope the game turns out well. Then they can make another Legacy of Kain. ^^
Dead Space 3 is a recent example. The first review(game informer) it received was 10/10. On Metacritic today, the game has a 76 average without any other perfect scores.
Commonly inaccurate? According to who? How can someone's opinion be inaccurate?
Who's to say that the person who reviewed Dead Space 3 and gave it 10/10 actually thought it was good enough to warrant a 10/10 score? Is that so hard to believe? Not every game gets perfect scores, in order to back up the conspiracy theories EVERY first review for EVERY game would need to receive a 9 or a 10.
No, I think the commonly known thing is that tinfoil hat wearing folk believe that everything positive is the result of a large bag of cash and that everything negative is someone just being honest. Please.
Yes maybe Game Informer thought it was a perfect game. The point was, to take early reviews with a grain of salt because of how often games are originally overrated. There are countless occurrences where the first scores on games are substantially higher than what their averages become. The Dead space example was to show how often it happens, because that game was JUST RELEASED. WE KNOW that some publishers will green light early reviews only if the content is overwhelmingly positive.
I never suggested "everything positive is the result of a large bag of cash". You put words in my mouth. Your Pie in the Sky ideals sound good, but their formed around Naivety.
There is justification for suspicion as publishers have tried many methods to buy favourable scores.
Believe it or not, an opinion can in fact be inaccurate. It's just a matter of how the opinion is formed and more importantly how is it backed up.
There are countless examples, but it all comes down to whither or not your fact is actually factual. Like Metal Gear Rising has Wigs, but you're not made aware of their existence till you collect 10 officer hands. If someone was to look at Rising and not work at this collectible, then they would probably think there aren't any wigs.
Another example would be the hidden raid boss in Borderlands 2. A lot of people didn't know Verm existed till a week after release, so if someone complained that there was only 1 raid boss was lame, then they would be incorrect. On the other hand, sometimes people make a gross assumption that leads to an incorrect perception. Like Shin Hokuto Musou (Ken's Rage 2) has roughly 5 unlockable costumes, so if you played 2 characters and unlocked 2 costumes, then you might view costumes as favorable without knowing they're actually limited.
Ultimately any event that can lead to a misconception could lead to an inaccurate opinion. Not every reviewer is going to have time / desire to do every aspect in the game and sometimes people aren't going to bother with something they think is pointless. While I don't hold anything against these people (or reviewers as long as they have a respectable time in / completed the title in question), any opinion based off an incorrect assumption can be deemed as inaccurate. So long story short, yes an opinion can be inaccurate / wrong if it's based off something that is inaccurate or wrong.
Those magazines gives 9/10 last 2 years almost for every populary game.
Btw i never liked TR games...
Guess you're just a BIG FAT PHONY!!!
HURRR HIGH MURRRKS, ERT BER TEH BIUS!!! BUSSSS BIUASS!!
Really....see that's suspicious to me because everything we've seen for it so far...and I mean EVERYTHING, there's been a ton of quick time events
I like the look of the game, it looks playable but it reminds me too much of Uncharted
Oh and I getting sick of this
"See how see became a legend crap"
THIS LARA....ISN'T THE REAL LARA...the one we grew up with. She's a totally different Lara
If they stuck with the original Laras backstory then fair enough
Oh by the way N4G readers, have you seen the first comment on the article by "N4GSucks" apparently we are all PS3 fan boys ¬¬
Most people buying the new Tomb raider will be about that age as well, so they did'nt grow up with her.
On a happier note, at least she nearly legal:)
Batman Arkham Asylum: http://m.computerandvideoga...
Nintendo Land/New Super Mario Bros. U: http://m.computerandvideoga...
DmC: http://m.computerandvideoga...
This game could get 0 scores across the board and I still buy this game day 1.
http://n4g.com/news/1179888...
I guess we will eventually know how true the review is in the following days.
Yeah I'm always weary of first game reviews, but you never know.
Can't freaking wait!
i have been waiting for this game for so long!
Remember we have The Last of Us, Beyond: Two Souls and GTA V.
Really excited .. Hope the multiplayer is GOOD.
Right rant over I'm really looking forward to this game, it sounds like something to get really lost into for a few days.
It's very difficult to close the advertisement without actually just opening it up. Though I'm sure that was *done* intentionally.
Not only do I now enjoy my time here less, I also spend less time here. It's not worth the constant agitation.
Ot: I love games that have games that can't be beaten in a single normal sitting.
I'll get it new, just not full price. Looks good!
Good to see a good Tomb Raider game come out again.
20 glorious hours!!
Naughty Dog took a Genre to a HEAVY new level,take notes son!
Seriously Uncharted fans (of which I am one), stop deflecting the fact that Uncharted borrowed heavily from Tomb Raider, it's so obvious that the very fact that you argue it is embarrassing.
@ yami Uncharted was heavily inspired TR, MGS, RE4 and killswitch. There isn't an ounce of originality in that game.
Not sure where you got $36 from. Clarify?
So freaking glad to read this!
Thank goodness. Glad there are some extra things to do on the side as well. Day one for sure !
The old Tomb Raider games were nothing like Uncharted.
First of all, Tomb Raider was not a shooter. Tomb Raider focused more puzzles than combat. Tomb Raider did not have a cinematic feel.