Top
570°

Play reviewed Lair knowing framerate & controls would be fixed

The Play journalist who wrote the Lair review for their magazine (he gave it a 9/10) makes his face known on neogaf, stating that they reviewed the same build as other journalists. This review copy had a poor framerate, and other bugs - but they were assured by Factor 5 that this would all be fixed for release - they thus reviewed it in this knowledge:

"We (Play) received the same review copy that I assume all the other mags did, which had optimized frame rates in the earlier missions, but poor frame rates in the last few missions and several bugs. We contacted Factor 5 and asked for all known issues and Julian himself replied with a detailed list, promising that the later levels were being optimized for frame rates, the bugs were being fixed, and that one aspect of the control would be improved. They said they would have a gold master candidate ready by our ship date, so I wrote the review on the assumptions that their promises would be kept, got the gold master candidate right before we went to press, and played that version for a few hours to confirm that they had addressed the issues. That gold master candidate was dated roughly a month ago, and as far as I know represents the game's final optimization.

I'm not sure what version the OP played-ours were never labeled "Preview Code", but a print mag's Review Code is sometimes a web site's Preview Code. Our last-received version of the game does not run at a rock-solid 30 fps, but I did not consider the frame rate problems to be an issue at all. I don't mind a few frame rate dips into the 20's here and there, if it's for the purpose of making an otherwise amazing looking game. I'm certainly not as sensitive to frame rate issues as the OP, but I don't think the average game enthusiast is either.

Just something to point out to the people who want to hate on Lair here-Sony and Factor 5 went all out to make sure the print mags got review copies as early as possible and frequent updates so that they could have reviews out before the game's release (which was at that point supposed to be August 8th, I think). Companies do NOT do that when they don't have a lot of faith in their games, so clearly both Factor 5 and Sony thought they had a critical hit on their hands, and any suggestion that they're trying to bury it or "send it out to die" is absurd. And having written the 9 review, I (obviously) agree."

The story is too old to be commented.
testerg353707d ago

That's as bad as reviewing an early build and giving it bad scores. So what happens if all the issues aren't fixed? Play will look stupid.

tplarkin73707d ago

Your right. This is what Denis Dyack of Silicon Knights was complaining about. Journalists give too much slack to certain companies. The Play reviewer is not only wrong, but extremely ignorant for revealing that he excused the bugs in the game. Honestly, if Halo 3 ran at 15 FPS, how could you examine the gameplay fairly? The game would be completely different at 30 FPS.

Rama262853707d ago

as pointed out by timmyp53 further below, the reviewer from Play did IN FACT get the final build of the game and the issues highlighted WERE fixed. What's the problem?

nasim3707d ago

listen to FULL MOONS 1up PODCAST.

you bots are now worried since LAIR would get fabulous scores based ion the RECENT BUILD REVIEW

Tommie3707d ago

You can't give the game a higher rating because you 'assume' that the problems the game suffers will be fixed when its in stores. I'm sorry but thats just wrong. Don't sent out the review copies if the game is not ready.

risk3707d ago

READ THE ENTIRE 3 PARAGRAPHS. they explain everything on how the guy contacted factor5, received the FINAL BUILD OF THE GAME, with ALL ERRORS GONE. THEN they published the review of Lair.

bung tickler3707d ago (Edited 3707d ago )

"Our last-received version of the game does not run at a rock-solid 30 fps"

no not all the things were fixed they said the framerate still dropped below 30fps. so if that wasnt fixed by his admission, there may be other things he missed too since he said he only played it for a short bit before the review shipped.

Tabasco3706d ago

more detail is put into each frame if there less. The same thing is going on with utIII.

techie3707d ago (Edited 3707d ago )

No that's how all journalists SHOULD review if they are kindly giving early code so the magazines can hit their deadline....instead of marking it down for issues that were to be fixed - that's back stabbing, bad journalism.

Plus Play "got the gold master candidate right before we went to press, and played that version for a few hours to confirm that they had addressed the issues." - So they were fixed, and didn't publish the review before they knew this.

Leave the Lad alone - he did a good job.

timmyp533707d ago (Edited 3707d ago )

"
Julian himself replied with a detailed list, promising that the later levels were being optimized for frame rates, the bugs were being fixed, and that one aspect of the control would be improved. They said they would have a gold master candidate ready by our ship date, so I wrote the review on the assumptions that their promises would be kept, got the gold master candidate right before we went to press, and played that version for a few hours to confirm that they had addressed the issues. That gold master candidate was dated roughly a month ago, and as far as I know represents the game's final optimization. "

mccomber3707d ago (Edited 3707d ago )

But that bit right there definitely made me think he had a list of issues, contacted Factor5, and was later sent a version that showed those issues had been fixed before his review went out. Seems fair enough to me.
I bet that we'd be surprised at how often reviews aren't written based on the final code of games that we actually end up playing. As he says "a print mag's Review Code is sometimes a web site's Preview Code."

Mr Murda3707d ago (Edited 3707d ago )

Well, they shouldn't review unfinished games at all. Get a finished game and then review it. Critics don't review movies that are missing the last half of it, and it shouldn't be any different with games. If Sony sent out unfinished copies early to be sure reviews made it out before the game did, then they shouldn't be shocked if the reviews are negative. Likewise, people reviewing a game shouldn't assume anything and should review what they have at that time...I don't care what game or company it is.

jtmill073707d ago

I totally agree with you on that. If a game is not finished then way review it. I mean come on people wake up…..