[QUOTE="Flam3Thr0w3r"][QUOTE="cutmaclass1"]Go here. Eidos has denied it, but I'd believe it. Look at the Kane & Lynch fiasco. The only reason this review was published was because it was higher than 90%. This could be the case. If you think about it though, if GamesMaster had to give the game a score of 90% or over for the review to be published, and the game really wasn't that good at all, wouldn't they have given it lower than 96% and have been far less positive in the actual review? There's always the chance that they did think it was a genuinely amazing game. On the other hand, there's always a chance that they forced themselves to like the game to the point where it was no longer "good" but rather "amazing". Or perhaps they thought it was good enough so that they could get away with giving the game a near-perfect score without arousing too much suspicion from other critics. Regardless, it doesn't bode well that every other reviewer has a code and isn't coming out and saying how great of a game it is. I'd think it's safe to say that this review isn't quite indicative of the reviews that will follow. Unless every other gaming publication releases flowery reviews of the game today :P
I can wait until I hear more, although I've been sold on the game already. From what I've seen, it looks to be pretty decent at least and excellent at best.
[QUOTE="cutmaclass1"][QUOTE="Flam3Thr0w3r"][QUOTE="cutmaclass1"]Go here. Eidos has denied it, but I'd believe it. Look at the Kane & Lynch fiasco. The only reason this review was published was because it was higher than 90%. This could be the case. If you think about it though, if GamesMaster had to give the game a score of 90% or over for the review to be published, and the game really wasn't that good at all, wouldn't they have given it lower than 96% and have been far less positive in the actual review? There's always the chance that they did think it was a good game. There's always a chance that they forced themselves to like the games as much as they did. Regardless, it doesn't bode well that every other reviewer has a code and isn't coming out and saying how great of a game it is. I'd think it's safe to say that this review isn't quite indicative of the reviews that will follow. Unless every other gaming publication releases flowery reviews of the game today :P Yeh, I agree with you bro. It makes you wonder, because if the game really was that good, wouldn't sites like Gamespot , IGN and Gametrailers all be awarding it scores of 9.0 or over? :p
[QUOTE="wstfld"]If this game was good, there would be a ton of reviews out already. IGN is obviously scoring this lower than AAA, because they are quite punctual with their reviews. Who knows about GS; is there even a BlazBlue review yet?bobbetybob
It doesn't come out for another month why would there be a ton of reviews? Most games this year even big ones haven't had the reviews up until a few days before. All reviewers have the review code. They are not allowed to release a review before August, unless its AAA.
Actually, there was some article, I don't remember from who, that said if you see any magazines bust out with the score early, with an AAA score, and have the game on the cover, it's a sign that Eidos really did some bribing. I know someone remembers what I"m talking bout. It was a rumor, but it was that edios told magazines if they scored batman a 9 or higher they could have it on the cover. They talked about it on epicbattleaxe.com on their last skirmish(podcast) 2 weeks ago.
[QUOTE="cutmaclass1"]Go here. Eidos has denied it, but I'd believe it. Look at the Kane & Lynch fiasco. The only reason this review was published was because it was higher than 90%. The fact that the game was actually featured on the cover basically verifies the "rumor" from the Kotaku article. Reviewed games don't aren't typically primarily featured on covers of issues in which their reviews are located. But wasn't that more of CNET's issue? Remember that the review and the score for Kane and Lynch score remained the same. Eidos didn't sack Jeff.
[QUOTE="cutmaclass1"]Go here. Eidos has denied it, but I'd believe it. Look at the Kane & Lynch fiasco. The only reason this review was published was because it was higher than 90%. The fact that the game was actually featured on the cover basically verifies the "rumor" from the Kotaku article. Reviewed games don't aren't typically primarily featured on covers of issues in which their reviews are located.biggest_loser
But wasn't that more of CNET's issue? Remember that the review and the score for Kane and Lynch score remained the same. Eidos didn't sack Jeff. No but they did threaten to pull the advertisements off of GameSpot....
[QUOTE="biggest_loser"][QUOTE="cutmaclass1"]Go here. Eidos has denied it, but I'd believe it. Look at the Kane & Lynch fiasco. The only reason this review was published was because it was higher than 90%. The fact that the game was actually featured on the cover basically verifies the "rumor" from the Kotaku article. Reviewed games don't aren't typically primarily featured on covers of issues in which their reviews are located.DarkGamer007
But wasn't that more of CNET's issue? Remember that the review and the score for Kane and Lynch score remained the same. Eidos didn't sack Jeff. No but they did threaten to pull the advertisements off of GameSpot.... But I've always wondered: is this all well-known FACTS or speculation? Because there was a lot of speculation. And if they did threaten to take the ads off why didn't they say 'change the review'?
Actually, there was some article, I don't remember from who, that said if you see any magazines bust out with the score early, with an AAA score, and have the game on the cover, it's a sign that Eidos really did some bribing. I know someone remembers what I"m talking bout. I indeed do remember and this is a perfect example
Log in to comment