Companies Bullying Media to Review Games Higher

[PatrickRes9]

Not so long ago there was a post in the "News" Section of EvAv, stating that one of the guys at 1up made a statement suggesting Sony, and a few other companies were trying to bully them into scoring their games higher. Considering my only real factor in deciding whether I buy a game at launch or not are multiple overall reviews at various websites, its an extremely disapointing idea to me.

Anyway, I was just over at IGN checking reviews and I noticed Castlevania:Symphony of the Night re-release on the PS3 got a 9.5. IGN gave the same exact game a 9.0 on the 360. To me, even if the main menus are different, the entire game is the same. I know the 360 version doesn't suffer from slowdown or glitches. I have it. What could merit a .5 difference? Maybe Im nitpicking, but after watching Assassins Creed get a 9.0 over at Gamespot, when in reality, that games as basic as they come, speaking from a gameplay standpoint.

My point is, and yes I think I have one somewhere, has anyone else noticed any oddities in any of the major web-based videogame reviews?
It would be a real shame if this were a legitimate problem.

[Evil Avatar]

How do we get in on this thing where publishers pay us for a good review? :D

[GrinR]

Bully, yes. Buy, FUCK NO.

[LongStepMantis]

How do we get in on this thing where publishers pay us for a good review? :D

Wait for the payphone to ring in the corner of the Denny's off the interstate at 9:22 p.m. on a night of a full moon.

The codeword is "Oh, what a lovely tea party."
And make it sexy. ;)

[Karmakin]

My guess?

Different reviewers.

[PatrickRes9]

How do we get in on this thing where publishers pay us for a good review? :D

hehe right?

An audio clip from a tapped EvAv phone line:

...its not that big! You can do it, Miyamoto! You're responsible for creating Mario and youre telling me you cant fit a....Yes, yes I know, but Ill give youre new game a 10! Okay, good. Then we have a deal. And remember. Extra spit, boots without laces, and a ski-mask. Yes, behind Chuck-E-Cheese. Bring the bowling pin. DONT let me down. *click*

[PatrickRes9]

My guess?

Different reviewers.

Could be, but if thats the case, they should pay attention to things like that. You make a good point, though. I remember a while back, reading a gamespot review, the reviewer gave a racing game I was looking foward to, cant remember which, in the 6 range, then openly admitted it could be a low score because he hates racing games.

[Hatchetforce]

First I want to see proof of a publisher paying for a review. In many ways I can't blame them.

I received a new issue of EGM yesterday - free subscription, I wouldn't pay for that rag. I go to the reviews section. AT the end of the review section they have a part for games that were either too late in arriving at the office to be properly reviewed or else such games were too bad. One of the games they briefly discuss in the review section is Haze. They say it isn't the PS3's answer to HALO. It needs some polish here and there as well. Then after several more negative remarks they state it is an incomplete build and not a final version. THEN WTH IS IT DOING IN THE REVIEW SECTION?

Dan Hsu can got straight to hell for crap like that. It was placed in the review section, clearly in the review section. Inexcusable. It's a preview build, alright ass clown? If you don't know the difference then you shouldn't be receiving copies of titles to write about. Welcome to the freezer.

[PatrickRes9]

First I want to see proof of a publisher paying for a review. In many ways I can't blame them.

I received a new issue of EGM yesterday - free subscription, I wouldn't pay for that rag. I go to the reviews section. AT the end of the review section they have a part for games that were either too late in arriving at the office to be properly reviewed or else such games were too bad. One of the games they briefly discuss in the review section is Haze. They say it isn't the PS3's answer to HALO. It needs some polish here and there as well. Then after several more negative remarks they state it is an incomplete build and not a final version. THE WTH IS IT DOING IN THE REVIEW SECTION?

Dan Hsu can got straight to hell for crap like that. It was placed in the review section, clearly in the review section. Inexcusable. It's a preview build, alright ass clown? If you don't know the difference then you shouldn't be receiving copies of titles to write about. Welcome to the freezer.


Whoa man. No need to get emotional. I dont have any proof, as Im not trying to prove anything. Was just wondering if anyone had noticed any off the wall reviews on games that didnt merit them. Its an interesting idea, I think. Especialy for the gamer who counts on honest reviews. I dont know if this is legitimately the case, one way or the other. I was just curious as to what the EvAv community thought about the idea. You make a good point though, about them reviewing what isnt a final build.

[Hatchetforce]

Ha ha, not emoting. I make those remarks after the public cryfest Hsu had. He acts as if that article is going to change things. He is making them worse.

EGM is bleeding money like a stuck pig. 1Up does turn a profit but not the rest of the properties and they have been trying to find a buyer that will take all the associated network but buyers only want 1Up. At this rate they will be a bygone too and wind up somewhere else that suits his skills. Like ditchdigging.

He doesn't strike me as the kind of person with the moxy to do what Rob Smith did. After all, look where Smith eventually wound up after leaving his associate producer job at OXM.

[Darkbase]

First I want to see proof of a publisher paying for a review. In many ways I can't blame them.

I received a new issue of EGM yesterday - free subscription, I wouldn't pay for that rag. I go to the reviews section. AT the end of the review section they have a part for games that were either too late in arriving at the office to be properly reviewed or else such games were too bad. One of the games they briefly discuss in the review section is Haze. They say it isn't the PS3's answer to HALO. It needs some polish here and there as well. Then after several more negative remarks they state it is an incomplete build and not a final version. THEN WTH IS IT DOING IN THE REVIEW SECTION?

Dan Hsu can got straight to hell for crap like that. It was placed in the review section, clearly in the review section. Inexcusable. It's a preview build, alright ass clown? If you don't know the difference then you shouldn't be receiving copies of titles to write about. Welcome to the freezer.

Don't they usually give a more in depth review for noteworthy games in the next issue after that? I know they did it for Mario Galaxy and I think for Assassin's Creed too.

[Hatchetforce]

Don't they usually give a more in depth review for noteworthy games in the next issue after that? I know they did it for Mario Galaxy and I think for Assassin's Creed too.

Yes they do...when it is a legitimate review copy - a final build that they just received. But it wasn't. They do not state it was a beta they just received either. So after talking trash about it for a paragraph, they then say it isn't a final build. They also do not clarifiy how old the beta was. Fact is it comes down to nothing more than a cheap shot.