Check out the latest from the OPM review saga.
and never thought of corruption, maybe because I am a multiple platform owner and not a fanboy. It was nice to see the reviewers defense and based off the first game I do not question his score for the upcoming title. I sense some major crow eating in a few days when the embargo lifts and this game gets huge review scores.
The only thing that bothers me is reviewing the entirety of a game you haven't completely played. It makes no sense to me. I don't care about deadlines or whatever excuse they try to use. It's wrong and shouldn't condoned or excused.
i agree with you but that's the way it works. it has always been that way with reviews they just don't talk about it often
i understand at what you are saying but i really doubt it that people will play the whole game through then review it, its just impossible
I don't understand. It takes you the whole game to figure out it's a good game? Did you want spoilers or something? you can probably find that within hours of the game's release.
What about 70-80 hour RPGs?
I agree, a review should be just that- a review of an entire product, not just the first few hours or so and a couple of rounds of multiplayer. It's terribly misleading, not to mention half-assed, as it can ignore entire aspects of gameplay that aren't present in the first part of the game while also ignoring potential flaws, like wild difficulty spikes and uneven pacing, that can be present later on. Critics should instead post first impressions of the game, then full reviews after they have completed it. This way, even if readers are too excited about a game to wait for the full review, they'll have a good enough sense of its quality that they can make a reasonable decision as to whether they should spend their money on it.
Not entirely true. The only people seeing this as possible is the FPS crowd thats used to 4 or 5 hour single player. Saying this is like stating "oh you gotta wait til your prestige 5 times in COD" Games like Batman have a repetitive nature, and everyone knows that for a fact. Once you unlock the gadgets, do a majority of the moves, and see a majority of the game you have a really good grasp of what the game is. The only thing you really can't comment on are the later battles, bosses, and storyline moments. However if the game is sub-par to not good up until that point....then its still not a good game. Fact of the matter is its a business. The man with the first review will get a crap ton more hits and readers than the guy that waits a week or two to finish the game. Along with that each reviewer probably has about 4 or 5 games sitting on his desk each week.
And if the game is hyped it will get a 10/10
@MAiKU Look, I didn't go see Fellowship of the Ring, watch 40 minutes of it and decide it was good. Games are a complete package, they aren't just the early stages of gameplay. Personally, I take into account the story, the gameplay, and is it fun. All of that has a bearing the entire game. I'm not asking for a play by play detail of every level, boss, spoiler, etc. I'm asking what the people that play entire games and review them currently do - review the game, not the dev or the hype. @LOGICWINS What about a 70-80hr RPG? If you're going to review it, REVIEW it. If there's a story in that 70-80hrs, I'd like to know if it's worth the investment, not just the first 8hrs. @Soldierone "Saying this is like stating oh you gotta wait til your prestige 5 times in COD" Not at all. Leveling up in the MP of a game is entirely different from playing the entire SP of a game and reviewing it. I can wait for a separate MP review. I'd prefer to wait and get honest reviews, than sit through the lunacy of this generation.
@yesmynameissumo This reviewer got pissed off because he was being attacked for something he didn't do. It is fair to say that he had the right to defend himself in a way that protected his reputation as a journalist. I totally agree with you, there should be no excuse for not finishing the game. Someday they have to take a reality pill and understand that the reason they are being payed money is because they play videogames and tell people what grade it deserves. I absolutely think it's a necessity to finish the game before labeling a grade in their magazine. You can't just use the excuse "it's the reality.. we don't have enough time for playing these games". Then you shouldn't tell your boss you finished playing the game and you have a verdict ready. It's not corruption for being such a high score. But atleast finish the godamn game. I mean damnit, you have the best job in the world, and you're to lazy to finish the game? It's like getting to test drive super cars and saying "yeaaah, i didn't want to do an extra lap to test the suspension" Stupid.... just plain and simply stupid.
Yeah... there are plenty of people in the world who are not given sufficient time in which to complete assigned work. If they tell their boss, I need more time, their boss will probably fire them and find someone who can work faster, will work in off hours without pay, or will simply lie about having work done. I don't really agree with it, but I'm sure the reviewer would rather keep his job and maybe skimp on a couple hours of the game than either not get paid for work or get fired for not working quickly enough. Although very clearly it's accepted practice to not finish a game, or he wouldn't say so in a public forum. Hell, they're probably given specific guidelines for how much of a game played is sufficient for review.
Let's keep it real, people are mad they gave a multiplat a 10.
i bet most of the reviewers today havent finished Dark Souls yet. but they still gave it a high score.
Dude, reviewers get the game weeks before the embargo. They usually get to play the game two weeks before it ships so that the review will be done in time. Only an idiot would spend two weeks on a game and not finish it and the review in time. That, or he's missing of both his thumbs.
yesmynameissumo So let me get this straight. After playing a game for half a day, you can't tell me that it has good gameplay, graphics, story, battle system? (only 3 of which really matter to a gamer) Like i understand the movie BS of an example you gave but this is a video game, not a movie. That wasn't even a reply. Ok? It doesn't require an entire play through to realize "wow this game has good graphics. The gameplay is solid!" What do you derp throughout the first couple hours of gameplay and start to pay attention after the credits roll on through? Don't give me that crap. In fact, tell you what. I'll find out the ending for you for the story, just cause that's the only apparent thing you're missing from his review. I'll send you exactly what happens THROUGHOUT the entire game as soon as i beat it and then you can figure out if you'll buy it. Well actually you've probably figured out you'll buy this game anyways so i'll just sit here and realize how dumb it was to even respond to you.
One thing about reviewing on deadline though: a review goes for more the feel and quality of a game. They want to tell you how the game plays, how the story goes and then a general idea of how other features work. You do not necessarily have to complete every side quest, find every secret, or play every multiplayer map to get an a strong feel for the game to where you can write a review.
@MAiKU Haha, what's up with the hostility? Did I shit in your bed or something? I'm not a game reviewer, but if I were, I would play the entire game before reviewing it. Of course the realization a game is "good" or not is different when an unpaid consumer is playing it for half a day. There are plenty of games that have rough beginnings and turn around later in the game. Alan Wake, Heavy Rain, Heavenly Sword, Fallout 3, Assassin's Creed 2, Fable 2 (to name a few) all fall in this category for me personally. Is there something you're not understanding in that regard? You're comparing paid reviewers to people who buy or rent the game. It's completely different. Movies or games, it doesn't matter. They're both forms of entertainment, that you judge after experiencing. Since you missed it in my last reply here it is again. Read it slow or have someone read it to you. Maybe draw it out in crayon? - "I'm not asking for a play by play detail of every level, boss, spoiler, etc. I'm asking what the people that play entire games and review them currently do - review the game, not the dev or the hype. " Reviewing a game you've fully played isn't some new, crazy idea. C'mon. Derp.
This is part of the reason i never bother with early reviews, they are early because they are always going to say good things about the game, it's part of the deal with the publisher, it's the only reason the magazine gets the early review in the first place. It doesn't matter if the game is godlike or sh!t, never depend on early reviews.
yesmynameissumo Look, your assumptions on what it should be are completely biased. Not practical. There is nothing about most of those games you mentioned that kept me skeptical enough to keep me from formulating whether or not it is a good game after playing them a couple of hours in. Those "rough beginnings" didn't keep me away, they kept me playing it because after 3 or 4 hours i thought they were fantastic. People who can formulate an articulate opinion piece of a video game with that amount of time, not a movie, deserves to be a gaming journalist. Btw, there are famous movie critics who walk out on bad movies and do a review on bad movies, who are right about being the movie being horrible, that earn more money than you can ever hope to make in your life time. So don't bring that up. You're absolutely right, you're not a gaming journalist. You don't need to play an entire game to realize there is great gameplay, music, graphics, etc. IF it's taking you that long then it's a pretty bad game. If you are yearning to play more and even finish the game, safe bet it's a great game. You better do some research before you tell what someone should do in a profession that is not yours next time. Or you can choose to ignore his article and find a guy who says he finished it and read his review.
I agree tbh. If I'm reading a review about a game like Batman, I want to know about the ENTIRE product. For example, a lot of people were disappointed with the final boss and thought it detracted from the entire game's experience. That's something some gamers might want to know. It probably wouldn't put anybody off buying the game, but many people want to know details like that. Not just info about the beginning half. Though I've heard of many reviewers being unable to access multiplayer modes in games before their release, and since they are expected to release reviews by a certain time, they should definitely say whether or not they are reviewing an entire game, or just single player mode or the first half of a game.
Guys, use your brains please. Do you honestly think a reviewer wouldn't complete a game if he had sufficient time to do so? When a reviewer gets a game, the publisher of the magazine he works for sets a deadline. This guy had 2 days to play the game AND write a review about it. Clearly that's not enough time to complete a game as big as Arkham City, so he did what every other reviewer does, and submitted a review about everything he did know about the game after his playtime. And in the end, it's not really going to make that much of a difference, because if the first 10 hours of a game rock, it's very unlikely that the next ones don't.
Looks like this guy wanted to give it an "11" when he did finally finish it :-)
@MAiKU Some genres do require more than 4-5 hours , especially if their gameplays truly unlock over time . Clocking hours also prevent looking like an utter morons claiming the IA in GT5 is sh*t , when you havent gone past lvl 10 , namely the beginner areas . And as a general rule of thumb , finishing or advancing in deoth through the game , at least prove that the reviewer , whatever his opinion , is not some dude doing a rush job , but actually giving you accurate details and doing his job . Let's not kid ourself , even the dumbest of the dumbest fighting games and/or even anime based fighting games needs you to play more than a mere few hours to get a comprehensive geist of it . If we dont need them to actually play the games and just clock 2-4 hours to get it ? Then by their own admissions reviewer are useless , and gameplay feed are more informative .
Oh men the stupidity of the this.. Score with a 10 a game you didn't even finish..
I expect a lot more reviewers will feel as he did about the game and give it high marks as well. I know I can't wait to play it for myself and have been hyped for it since it was announced. Also everything that has been shown about the game so far just looks like Rocksteady really has improved everything that was great in AA. I am glad this reviewer is standing up for him self as well.
"Reviewing" a game without fully playing through the experience is not a legitimate review. You could give a pretty credible preview of the final build and your impressions(be it negative/positive) up to that point, but NOT a final say on the product. Imagine if movie reviews were like this, CD reviews, etc..
It does not take that long to figure out if a game is good or not. Do you really think a reviewer needs to get to the end to figure out if a game is worth playing?
I agree, it doesn't take that long to figure out if the game is "good or not". But that is where a "preview" comes in and tells us how great the game is so far. NOT how great it is in full, as he/her hasn't played the game in its entirety to give that opinion. This is a perfect example as to why Video Games Reviews written in the magazine medium are antiquated. The review had to be published by a certain date to be printed, thus he couldn't write a proper and fully realized/credible review.
To be fair it typically doesn't take 8-80 hours to watch a movie or listen to a CD. I say 8-80 because the differences in game lengths are massive, variable and unpredictable. I'd gander that the reviewer played it nonstop for those two days he had and still didn't finish it. In an odd way it might be a testent to the game's size.
And let's not forget that he didn't just have 2 days to play the game - he had just 2 days to play it AND write the review in time for publishing. That's quite a deadline.
By your logic I guess we won't see a review for Skyrim until early next year since the developers have come out and said there are hundreds of dungeons and 300 hours of gameplay. Comparing an hour long music CD or a couple hour movie to a game that will take roughly 40 hours to finish doesn't make sense, sorry.
Clearly listening to a CD is less time demanding than an 80 hour RPG. What I am saying is, you don't listen to half of it and determine its worth. You don't play half a game and give it a score, you give it a "so far I really like it/hate it" I really liked FF13 for the first 10-20 hours, but after I continued through to the end I realized it wasn't a good game(in my opinion) Had I reviewed the games based on my 10-20 hour play through it would have been drastically different from my final review.
So are you then saying that all RPG reviews are null because the reviewers didn't have enough time to play through the full games?
Bullshit. It doesn't take 300hrs to play through the story quests to the end. I'd be surprised if it took 30hrs, if you just follow the main quest path. The quality of the story and whether or not the ending is halfassed (this can be stated w/o psoilers, btw) should be part of the review. Not finishing, at a bare minimum, the main story is a halfassed non-review.
@badjournalism That is called "double standards" how is it BS? Just like the comment above where "multiplayer doesnt matter" because he couldn't come up with a logical explanation to my comment about how long it takes to "complete" that. You are reviewing a GAME and people are mad that he didn't review the FULL GAME, by those standards the side quests are a part of the FULL GAME. Either you want it or you don't. Saying the side quests don't matter doesn't make sense based on these arguments. They still add something to the game and still have a storyline to them. You as a gamer would never breeze through the main storyline and call it complete would you?
By using that logic Star wars the Old republic can never be reviewed so as it has no ending.
Hey there dumb ass. Would you like to know something? After he wrote the article he finished the game. He sent his editor a text asking(after he finished the game) if he could change it from 10/10 to 11/10. Still think its not a review?
Yes, yes I do still think it's not a review. If he would have just beat the game before he wrote the review he could have given it the 11/10 in the first place.... Sincerely, Dumb Ass. P.S. *hugs*
Once you decide to let someone else tell you if a game is good or not, rather than buy the game for yourself, you can't complain if their way of playing the game isn't to your standards. You have given them that power over your purchase, and have let others decide for you if a game is worth your time. "Reviewers help us to save money on horrible games!" might be the rebuttal. Well, ok. But as the industry gets bigger and bigger, and there are more and more games being made, which are also bigger and bigger, it's inevitable that we will get lamer and lamer reviews. As review sites compete with each other to get that first review out, there will be less and less time to truly examine a game. As a result, you have a game like Arhkam City given a review based on an unfinished experience. Is this the standard by which we should spend our money? It will turn out that the best way to figure out if a game is good is through word of mouth...the old fashioned way. 12
"Once you decide to let someone else tell you if a game is good or not, rather than buy the game for yourself, you can't complain if their way of playing the game isn't to your standards. You have given them that power over your purchase, and have let others decide for you if a game is worth your time". Excellent point and well communicated
I don't really care either way - this shit happens all the time - but I found this pretty funny... "I’ve been taken on junkets and plied with free booze and t-shirts. But one thing I have never done, and never will do, is let PR dictate my opinions." This dude isn't really selling me on his integrity.
I didn't even play the game and I'm giving it a 10/10. The good news is, I don't get paid for reviews...
Reviews are paid for and sold all the time, this is nothing new. Publications do not get exclusives without paying for them or negotiating deals 90% of the time.
There is, of course, a huge difference between payment and negotiation. A paid-for review is absolutely unacceptable. But a coverage deal? That's cool. As long as the deal doesn't stipulate what sort of review a game can get, and as long as money doesn't change hands in a way that could compromise integrity, it's just doing business.
True but I have yet to see one negotiated deal where the game got less than an 85% rating.
@Garethvk That's because a publication wouldn't bother trying to strike a deal with a publisher whose game it wasn't fairly certain it was going to love. There's nothing in it for anyone.
nice, although i dont belive any reviewers crap or other people on the net, i go out and try the product myself, if its great cool if not i just sell that crap straight back, there really need to be a change in the gaming in industry regarding reviews, i think they should really stop adding a pointless score to the games and just focus on the review instead, and gamers need get there arse kicked for needing some score out 10 bullshit in order for them to be picking up these game, the reviews should be enough to make you want the game or not, no some lame number
I loved the first game and am gonna love this game more due to it being an open world an all. Cant wait to be batman jump and fly around the roofs lol
This is too funny. Does it matter though? I doubt anyone is waiting for reviews on this game to buy it. Anyone who liked Arkham Asylum is buying it. If you aren't sure ait for gamers to say what they think. Arkham City was great so I'm sure Arkham City will be too.
Let's not forget these games are given to them only weeks/sometimes days before it gets released to the public. The whole point of a review is to give them an explanation of the gameplay, sound, visual fidelity and story and then rate it based on how each of these area perform. I don't need to play an entire WRPG or sandbox to find out if a texture quality is bad knowing I would run back and forth in the same area MULTIPLE TIMES. As for the story (which requires a completion) is only been given a basic premise or summary in order not to have any spoiled moments. This is why we have TEXT in the reviews, a feature that is severely OVERLOOKED by the masses. Ironically they all complain about score and wonder how it got there in the first place. It is as if text was just meaningless banter to sum up the reviewers ego and is entirely unrelatable to the score. Well it pays to read the review to see if it adds up. So far, from what I've read there's nothing I've seen that doesn't justify the review score.
How would you review something like The Usual Suspects then? Are you saying that seeing the first half of it is enough to make a judgment?
Watching a 2-hour movie is a far different experience than reviewing a game, which can take many hours (25+ in this game) to experience in it's entirety. Do I have to eat every item on a restaurant's menu before I review it in the weekend newspaper? If I don't, people will complain that I'm not reviewing the ENTIRE restaurant--only the dishes I bothered to sample.
"Are you saying that seeing the first half of it is enough to make a judgment?" As I have mentioned earlier, the whole point of a review is to give the DETAILS of the game/book/movie. If you wanted a whole part of the said product, then you must be looking for a walkthrough or a novel. The best kinds of review are the ones that gives the most relevant points without revealing too much. For example, I can say: "Uncharted 2 is a beautiful game with a action-pack story with gameplay that can make you feel as if you are part of set-action piece in a movie. Fans of the action-adventure would definitely want to pick this up" There, that alone can be considered a small sample of a review. Notice I did NOT HAVE TO REVEAL ANYTHING other than points relevant to the game. That is what expected buyers need to know. As a gaming consumer, I don't want to know the whole aspect of the game knowing it comes with spoilers. Here are the points I need to KNOW in reviews: - Is it fun? - Are the controls simple or troublesome? - Are the graphics consistent, artistic, or messy/buggy - Is there ANYTHING that can be improved upon? That's it, I really don't NEED an epic 10+ page review of how it's the "|BESSTEST THINGTZZ EVURRZZ, check out my leetz composition skilzzz", but if that's your idea of a review, then you should ignore scores altogether.
Raise your hand if you decided you were going to buy Arkham City long ago, regardless of what reviewers said. Raise your hand if any reviews you read before a game comes out only nudges you, and doesn't make the decision for you. Raise your hand if you don't feel the need to respond to anonymous complainers who have nothing better to do than moan about someone else's opinion.
I can't wait for this game... I'm almost sure this game will be MY game of the year. Let the haters hate, I hope you get that print on the back of the box... I don't have to play a game all the way through to know it's fvcking awesome before I finish it.
Anybody whose played the first game would clearly see why it getting a perfect score is a no brainer. The first one was awesome and should be expected from the sequel.
I've never played Arkham and yet due to reviews and forums i'm pretty sure that the first one was great and that the second one should live up to that or surpass it. Theres no bound in stone rule that "thou shalt take everything a reviewer says as 100% correct" simply because its an opinion maybe a bought one or not bought its still an opinion and if it tweaks every cynical bone in your body, rent the product and try it out. Until you've worked in the print industry and worked to a print deadline you can voice your thoughts to the roof you dont mess with a deadline for an product that your magazine has paid for exclusive first review. Print media is generally in decline due to rising costs and higher internet global access so wasting time and money is commercially stupid. (all my opinion)
I always thought a review was to review the whole product not just tell us if its good or not. most gamers want to know game length, control scheme and feel, graphics, music, feel of the game how it compares to previous games in the series. what bugs if any or downsides to it. plus throw in the reviewers own opinions and spin on things and you have a review. also its a service for gamers so that they can trust in spending their 40 - 50 notes on said game as that is why most people read reviews to help with their purchase. but sadly more and more latley it does feel like gaming journalism is reviewing the hype and company P.R than the actual game its self. not that arkham asylum isn't going to be awesome anyway.
I'll be getting both games at the same time soon enough...I'll make up my own mind.
Preview = first few hours... Review = complete game... You're welcome!!
Well here's how I see it, the review in particular may be giving his own honest opinion of the game, but there's a good chance Warner chose his outlet for the review first because they know he loved the series and batman and would give a favorable review. Why would publishers agree to use his outlet as the first review? It's not like OPM Australia is going to outbid IGN. Yes everyone has a right to question credibility, it's ridiculous that this guys getting all hurt about it, we all know there is good reason to question credibility in games journalism.
Game looks brilliant, why don't we all just wait and experience it for ourselves before jumping all over this guy and crying wolf.
You know what? If this were Kane and Lynch 3...I'd probably call shenanigans. The only people that want to see Batman AC score lower than a ten are the people that failed to make a half decent superhero game like all of those crappy Spider-Mans....
It might not be corruption, but there is still some sort of problem for it to be given a perfect score.
Arkham Asylum is an amazing game. I have no doubt that Arkham City will be as amazing as Arkham Asylum ^^ So, i don't care even the reviewers will gave it 0/100 score. I will buy & play it as long as i like!
"Games journalism doesn’t have a sterling record of quality and integrity" I see what you did there.
Where did all this controversy come from? He gave a game a great review?