Top
Your disagrees simply feed my Bubble Count
CRank: 14Score: 0

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?

The story is too old to be commented.
Hufandpuf1659d ago

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.

dedicatedtogamers1659d ago

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.

Hufandpuf1659d ago

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!

Bladesfist1659d ago (Edited 1659d ago )

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.

coolbeans1659d ago (Edited 1659d ago )

"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.

SilentNegotiator1659d ago (Edited 1659d ago )

@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?

JaredH1659d ago (Edited 1659d ago )

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.

coolbeans1659d ago (Edited 1659d ago )

@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.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 1659d ago
fooxy1659d ago (Edited 1659d ago )

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

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

arnyftw1657d ago

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.

MidnytRain1657d ago

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.

Kiriel1659d ago

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.

JellyJelly1659d ago

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? ($$$)

ZidaneNL1657d ago (Edited 1657d ago )

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.

Blastoise1659d ago

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...

TheDareDevil1659d ago

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.

Show all comments (27)
The story is too old to be commented.