IGN review of InFAMOUS is exclusive... Why ?

I am not crying on behalf of GS or trying to defend any one. What really kills me is that Sony gave permission to IGN and IGN only to review and publish the score of inFamous. Other websites who reviewed it, got warning letters from Sony and demanded explanation of how they got a pre-release copy.

I don't get it, if Sony is secretive about the reviews of their new exclusive, then I think they have something to hide. There is absolutely no reason for them to go after the small websites that reviewed it. I can't understand that.

What about you ? do you think that choosing an exclusive reviewer is fare ??

take a look at this: http://www.cgreviews.com/site/blogs/blog1.php/2009/05/11/an-infamous-review

maybe they had a deal with ign that meant they could review the game first? i doubt they would hold back reviews for no reason, its looking to be a great game, so it's probably some kind of exclusivity deal, like alot of websites get with videos, information etc.

I'm sure InFamous was grossly overrated by IGN. However I'm sure it's still a great game.. I'll wait and see what GS has to say.

wow not even a link to back up ur obsurd claim....campzor

IGN was paid or something, they had whole page dedicated to Infamous, something they havent done before and they hyped it like mad....when review came out they barely talked about the story missions coz they know story missions are reptitive. all they said was "wow zomg u can climbz and u canz act bad or good, tis right here is 9.2 worthy......and when u iz in fightz sometimes civilians come into ur ways which is not problem at allz even though if this happened in some other gamez, the dumb A.I would have been blamed but since dis is infamous we forgives"

IGN was paid or something, they had whole page dedicated to Infamous, something they havent done before and they hyped it like mad....when review came out they barely talked about the story missions coz they know story missions are reptitive. all they said was "wow zomg u can climbz and u canz act bad or good, tis right here is 9.2 worthy......and when u iz in fightz sometimes civilians come into ur ways which is not problem at allz even though if this happened in some other gamez, the dumb A.I would have been blamed but since dis is infamous we forgives"

sikanderahmed

IGN was paid or something, they had whole page dedicated to Infamous, something they havent done before and they hyped it like mad....when review came out they barely talked about the story missions coz they know story missions are reptitive. all they said was "wow zomg u can climbz and u canz act bad or good, tis right here is 9.2 worthy......and when u iz in fightz sometimes civilians come into ur ways which is not problem at allz even though if this happened in some other gamez, the dumb A.I would have been blamed but since dis is infamous we forgives"

sikanderahmed

Except EVERY preview of Infamous has been just as glowing.... EVERY podcast has spoken just as positive. The game is good, get over it. Also, you fail, GS has a launch center for Infamous also... that wasn't exclusive to IGN.

Exclusive can mean "only". (IGN is the only review - not likely)

Exclusive can mean "only" - for a certain time period. (IGN is the only review - for now - likely)

Exclusive can mean "first". (IGN is the first published review, print or otherwise - also likely)

I like alleged conspiracies ..... but I guess the questions should be directed at IGN (and Sony) about how exactly exclusive reviews come to fruition. I would go IGN'sforums , call out Greg Miller or ChrisRoeper, and have them talk about why their are exclusive reviews and the details involved. Ask them to talk about it on podcast beyond this week.

This is nothing new. It is in fact, a carryover from print media. Exclusive reviews suck, but that's the business. I ignore the very first exclusive review for this very reason.

[QUOTE="sikanderahmed"]

IGN was paid or something, they had whole page dedicated to Infamous, something they havent done before and they hyped it like mad....when review came out they barely talked about the story missions coz they know story missions are reptitive. all they said was "wow zomg u can climbz and u canz act bad or good, tis right here is 9.2 worthy......and when u iz in fightz sometimes civilians come into ur ways which is not problem at allz even though if this happened in some other gamez, the dumb A.I would have been blamed but since dis is infamous we forgives"

haze_blaze

Except EVERY preview of Infamous has been just as glowing.... EVERY podcast has spoken just as positive. The game is good, get over it. Also, you fail, GS has a launch center for Infamous also... that wasn't exclusive to IGN.

previews are always glowing even for sucky games. GS has launch centre for alot of games not just one, go to infamous.ign.com it looks like a whole website dedicated to infamous. IGN reviews barely talked about story missions which pretty much shows that story mission will suck. they think being able to climb and having teh electricity and the ability to act good or bad is all thats needed to make the game good. they dont talk about story missions, whether they are cool missions or boring or repetitive? nope it seems they just want people to buy the game just to run around and climb stuff and kill people with electric powahz.

Heaven or hell forbid that the PS3 actually can have yet another high scoring quality exclusive....impossible. Afterall, it is just a blu ray player, right?

I'm sure InFamous was grossly overrated by IGN. However I'm sure it's still a great game.. I'll wait and see what GS has to say.

Samox

InFamous does seem like an amazing game. Ive played through the demo and had a blast. I don't think they were far off with their review.

[QUOTE="haze_blaze"]

[QUOTE="sikanderahmed"]

IGN was paid or something, they had whole page dedicated to Infamous, something they havent done before and they hyped it like mad....when review came out they barely talked about the story missions coz they know story missions are reptitive. all they said was "wow zomg u can climbz and u canz act bad or good, tis right here is 9.2 worthy......and when u iz in fightz sometimes civilians come into ur ways which is not problem at allz even though if this happened in some other gamez, the dumb A.I would have been blamed but since dis is infamous we forgives"

sikanderahmed

Except EVERY preview of Infamous has been just as glowing.... EVERY podcast has spoken just as positive. The game is good, get over it. Also, you fail, GS has a launch center for Infamous also... that wasn't exclusive to IGN.

previews are always glowing even for sucky games. GS has launch centre for alot of games not just one, go to infamous.ign.com it looks like a whole website dedicated to infamous. IGN reviews barely talked about story missions which pretty much shows that story mission will suck. they think being able to climb and having teh electricity and the ability to act good or bad is all thats needed to make the game good. they dont talk about story missions, whether they are cool missions or boring or repetitive? nope it seems they just want people to buy the game just to run around and climb stuff and kill people with electric powahz.

[QUOTE="haze_blaze"]

[QUOTE="sikanderahmed"]

IGN was paid or something, they had whole page dedicated to Infamous, something they havent done before and they hyped it like mad....when review came out they barely talked about the story missions coz they know story missions are reptitive. all they said was "wow zomg u can climbz and u canz act bad or good, tis right here is 9.2 worthy......and when u iz in fightz sometimes civilians come into ur ways which is not problem at allz even though if this happened in some other gamez, the dumb A.I would have been blamed but since dis is infamous we forgives"

sikanderahmed

Except EVERY preview of Infamous has been just as glowing.... EVERY podcast has spoken just as positive. The game is good, get over it. Also, you fail, GS has a launch center for Infamous also... that wasn't exclusive to IGN.

previews are always glowing even for sucky games. GS has launch centre for alot of games not just one, go to infamous.ign.com it looks like a whole website dedicated to infamous. IGN reviews barely talked about story missions which pretty much shows that story mission will suck. they think being able to climb and having teh electricity and the ability to act good or bad is all thats needed to make the game good. they dont talk about story missions, whether they are cool missions or boring or repetitive? nope it seems they just want people to buy the game just to run around and climb stuff and kill people with electric powahz.

Choosing your path is linked to both big decisions, called Karma Moments, and small choices you make during missions. In a Karma Moment, a situation is presented, the game pauses, and Cole audibly weighs the pros and cons of each pick -- when a passerby asks for help and offers a reward, Cole can do the right thing and lend a hand or just fry the guy and take the reward without doing the work; when a bunch of food gets dropped in Archer Square, Cole can let the masses get their fair share or zap the people so he and his friends are taken care of; etc. What I dig about the Karma Moments is that most of the time Cole justifies why he'd pick the bad option, which makes it not seem that bad; I mean, why wouldn't you want to zap the police from a crowd of protesters so that you have more people fighting alongside you rather than having it be one-on-12? Sure, that's the cowardly choice, but at least it makes sense in the story....

That might sound like an easy enough task, but you have to understand how powerful Cole's powers can get. As you're completing missions and taking out bad guys on the streets, you're earning XP. This can then be exchanged for upgrades to most of your superpowers, some of which have three upgrades of awesomeness. When I maxed out my Shock Grenades as a good guy, the little balls of explosive energy automatically began restraining enemies after hurting them. This was great at banking me XP for the non-lethal takedowns, but when I faced off against a bunch of foes, I peppered the area with Shock Grenades, the first wave tied guys down, and then the second wave killed the bound baddies. This counted as an Execution; it banked me XP, but it also registered as an evil act. Even though I was fighting the good fight and protecting some medical supplies, I ended that mission with negative Karma...

The characters evolve and make interesting decisions, and they serve not only to give you reasons for taking on the various missions, but they play a key role in the story, what happens to Cole and, most importantly, why Cole goes through what he does. There are no throwaway and unimportant characters here, which is extremely refreshing. ...IGN

Dunno about you, but from that Story missions sound pretty good to me.

I am not crying on behalf of GS or trying to defend any one. What really kills me is that Sony gave permission to IGN and IGN only to review and publish the score of inFamous. Other websites who reviewed it, got warning letters from Sony and demanded explanation of how they got a pre-release copy.

I don't get it, if Sony is secretive about the reviews of their new exclusive, then I think they have something to hide. There is absolutely no reason for them to go after the small websites that reviewed it. I can't understand that.

What about you ? do you think that choosing an exclusive reviewer is fare ??

take a look at this: http://www.cgreviews.com/site/blogs/blog1.php/2009/05/11/an-infamous-review

I am not crying on behalf of GS or trying to defend any one. What really kills me is that Sony gave permission to IGN and IGN only to review and publish the score of inFamous. Other websites who reviewed it, got warning letters from Sony and demanded explanation of how they got a pre-release copy.

I don't get it, if Sony is secretive about the reviews of their new exclusive, then I think they have something to hide. There is absolutely no reason for them to go after the small websites that reviewed it. I can't understand that.

What about you ? do you think that choosing an exclusive reviewer is fare ??

take a look at this: http://www.cgreviews.com/site/blogs/blog1.php/2009/05/11/an-infamous-review

[QUOTE="haze_blaze"]

[QUOTE="sikanderahmed"]

IGN was paid or something, they had whole page dedicated to Infamous, something they havent done before and they hyped it like mad....when review came out they barely talked about the story missions coz they know story missions are reptitive. all they said was "wow zomg u can climbz and u canz act bad or good, tis right here is 9.2 worthy......and when u iz in fightz sometimes civilians come into ur ways which is not problem at allz even though if this happened in some other gamez, the dumb A.I would have been blamed but since dis is infamous we forgives"

Except EVERY preview of Infamous has been just as glowing.... EVERY podcast has spoken just as positive. The game is good, get over it. Also, you fail, GS has a launch center for Infamous also... that wasn't exclusive to IGN.

previews are always glowing even for sucky games. GS has launch centre for alot of games not just one, go to infamous.ign.com it looks like a whole website dedicated to infamous. IGN reviews barely talked about story missions which pretty much shows that story mission will suck. they think being able to climb and having teh electricity and the ability to act good or bad is all thats needed to make the game good. they dont talk about story missions, whether they are cool missions or boring or repetitive? nope it seems they just want people to buy the game just to run around and climb stuff and kill people with electric powahz.

Remember how Kojima put restrictions on what could and could not be said about MGSIV before release, and gamespot choose to wait until after the restriction period.....and it still got a 10. Just saying.

[quote="IGN"]Choosing your path is linked to both big decisions, called Karma Moments, and small choices you make during missions. In a Karma Moment, a situation is presented, the game pauses, and Cole audibly weighs the pros and cons of each pick -- when a passerby asks for help and offers a reward, Cole can do the right thing and lend a hand or just fry the guy and take the reward without doing the work; when a bunch of food gets dropped in Archer Square, Cole can let the masses get their fair share or zap the people so he and his friends are taken care of; etc. What I dig about the Karma Moments is that most of the time Cole justifies why he'd pick the bad option, which makes it not seem that bad; I mean, why wouldn't you want to zap the police from a crowd of protesters so that you have more people fighting alongside you rather than having it be one-on-12? Sure, that's the cowardly choice, but at least it makes sense in the story....

That might sound like an easy enough task, but you have to understand how powerful Cole's powers can get. As you're completing missions and taking out bad guys on the streets, you're earning XP. This can then be exchanged for upgrades to most of your superpowers, some of which have three upgrades of awesomeness. When I maxed out my Shock Grenades as a good guy, the little balls of explosive energy automatically began restraining enemies after hurting them. This was great at banking me XP for the non-lethal takedowns, but when I faced off against a bunch of foes, I peppered the area with Shock Grenades, the first wave tied guys down, and then the second wave killed the bound baddies. This counted as an Execution; it banked me XP, but it also registered as an evil act. Even though I was fighting the good fight and protecting some medical supplies, I ended that mission with negative Karma...

The characters evolve and make interesting decisions, and they serve not only to give you reasons for taking on the various missions, but they play a key role in the story, what happens to Cole and, most importantly, why Cole goes through what he does. There are no throwaway and unimportant characters here, which is extremely refreshing. ...bdum_pshhh

Dunno about you, but from that Story missions sound pretty good to me.

wow youcan either be good or bad depending on ur actions....thats all I get from that. IGN Aussie reviewer talked about story missions a bit....and it seemed they werent impressed, they even warned of alot of reptitive missions. i dont know why people just check the review score and think the game will be awesome. this gamesounds like crackdown but with no driving so if crackdown got a 7.8 (or was it 7.9) then this will probably get a 8.0

damage control. conspiracies = damage control. it got a good score, let it be. besides other reviews and previews are very positive.xxThyLordxx

I am not crying on behalf of GS or trying to defend any one. What really kills me is that Sony gave permission to IGN and IGN only to review and publish the score of inFamous. Other websites who reviewed it, got warning letters from Sony and demanded explanation of how they got a pre-release copy.

I don't get it, if Sony is secretive about the reviews of their new exclusive, then I think they have something to hide. There is absolutely no reason for them to go after the small websites that reviewed it. I can't understand that.

What about you ? do you think that choosing an exclusive reviewer is fare ??

take a look at this: http://www.cgreviews.com/site/blogs/blog1.php/2009/05/11/an-infamous-review

Sony offers an exclusive review and information for a certain amount, IGN accepts. Done. Thats how business works.

Anyway there are other reviews than IGN out there right?

Not exactly exclusive.

Sony offers an exclusive review and information for a certain amount, IGN accepts. Done. Thats how business works.

Anyway there are other reviews than IGN out there right?

Not exactly exclusive.

skrat_01

From that it seems like those small sites had something they weren't supposed to have :| which is a big deal because if Sony only sent out a review copy to IGN then the small sites either magically got a copy, someone in IGN leaked it, or they're reviewing the demo.

Did anyone else get the feeling that the review was written in a really casual fashion? I mean is it just me or does it come off as rather ameturish? Mabye it's just the style I don't know, but I don't like it regardless. I'll find some examples if anyone wants them.

Exclusive reviews are a bit of a problem though. Gamespot don't even do exclusive reviews because the staff know that publishers will try to sway them, and Gamespot can't really afford to lose anymore credibility either. IGN do quite alot of exclusive reviews, and they are almost allways positive and allways very long. I can't help but feel that their final review scores are some what augumented by the publishers efforts.

Edit: Speaking of bad writing....

From that it seems like those small sites had something they weren't supposed to have :| which is a big deal because if Sony only sent out a review copy to IGN then the small sites either magically got a copy, someone in IGN leaked it, or they're reviewing the demo.

Tiefster

i doubt thats what happened, but if it is somehow, they certainly picked the right site, considering the massively overrate most games, especially ps3 games.mtradr43

[QUOTE="mtradr43"]i doubt thats what happened, but if it is somehow, they certainly picked the right site, considering the massively overrate most games, especially ps3 games.XanderZane

[QUOTE="mtradr43"]i doubt thats what happened, but if it is somehow, they certainly picked the right site, considering the massively overrate most games, especially ps3 games.XanderZane