Lies/contradictions told by repeatable games sites/reviewers

[QUOTE="Requem"]

Good thread.

In the review of Wii verson of The Legend Of Zelda Twilight Princess it says in the "Bad" section: "Graphics and sound sometimes go from nostalgic to dated." Now we know that graphics of a game rated based on the graphic capabilities of the system it's on. So there won't be something ridicilous as comparing ps2 graphs with Xbox 360 visuals. It is somewhat true considering TP is a fundementally a GC game so no problem here.

The problem is, when we look to GC review of the game, same complaint is still there. So what the hell! TP's visuals are great for a last gen game for a GC game. It should be evaluated on the standarts of it's system which is Gamecube and it looks great for the Gamecube standarts goes. It looks far better than any Ps2 game out there but it's still dated? If it's dated because now there are next gen games, shouldn't all the ps2, GC and Xbox games that came after the launch of Xbox 360 considered as having dated visuals because of the Next-gen games?

Where is the logic of this please someone explain.

Tragic_Kingdom7

I looked at the review and I came to this conclusion: in the Bad Section "they said graphics and sound can be dated" but in the review they said that the visuals are mostly great with a few rough edges. So, yes, those two things don't exactly line up, but the remark in the Bad Section was one freaking line! In the review, they mostly gave the visuals compliments! How can that be biased?

So that remark and the actual text didn't match as well as they could have! Big deal.

The sound complaints are valid. No voice acting and sythesized sound is dated.

I never said it's a big deal. Hell the reviews alone is not a big deal. Yet the topic is about contradictions and thats a clear contradiction because as you said reviewer actually complimented the visuals in the text but it contradicts with the bads section.

Also I said nothing about sound. Only visuals.

I never said it's a big deal. Hell the reviews alone is not a big deal. Yet the topic is about contradictions and thats a clear contradiction because as you said reviewer actually complimented the visuals in the text but it contradicts with the bads section.

Also I said nothing about sound. Only visuals.

Requem

Actually, it's not a clear contradiction, simply because they don't trash the visuals in the Bad section, they only say that they can be dated. It seems to me that is a surrogate terms for the jaggies and the dated texture work. Perhaps they weren't clear in their terminology and should have gone right out and said "jaggies" and "dated textures", but that's not exactly a contradiction now that I come to think of it.

[QUOTE="Requem"]I never said it's a big deal. Hell the reviews alone is not a big deal. Yet the topic is about contradictions and thats a clear contradiction because as you said reviewer actually complimented the visuals in the text but it contradicts with the bads section.

Also I said nothing about sound. Only visuals.

Tragic_Kingdom7

Actually, it's not a clear contradiction, simply because they don't trash the visuals in the Bad section, they only say that they can be dated. It seems to me that is a surrogate terms for the jaggies and the dated texture work. Perhaps they weren't clear in their terminology and should have gone right out and said "jaggies" and "dated textures", but that's not exactly a contradiction now that I come to think of it.

What I'm trying to say is "jaggies" or "bad textures" shouldn't be considered as "dated" for a game on a last-gen console. There are tons and tons and tons of ps2 and GC games with jaggies and bad textures for todays standards but thats normal because it's last-gen.Every game should be rated based on their respective systems capabilities.

I hope I explained my point this time :) .

What I'm trying to say is "jaggies" or "bad textures" shouldn't be considered as "dated" for a game on a last-gen console. There are tons and tons and tons of ps2 and GC games with jaggies and bad textures for todays standards but thats normal because it's last-gen.Every game should be rated based on their respective systems capabilities.

I hope I explained my point this time :) .

Requem

I think it's obvious that they thought the texture work wasn't up to par with GC games of that time frame, making those textures dated. I think they are working under the perception that the GC at that point in time could produce much better texture work.

*waits for somebody to post the entire Metroid Prime 3 review thing :P*Video_Game_King

I think it's obvious that they thought the texture work wasn't up to par with GC games of that time frame, making those textures dated. I think they are working under the perception that the GC at that point in time could produce much better texture work.

Tragic_Kingdom7

Well I have a GC and never ever seen a game with better visuals than TP on it. It's not dated for a GC game please have you played the game? I'm sure you would agree with me if you have played. Maybe that was a mistake. Maybe they didn't think about it that much while copying it over from the Wii review I don't know. But it sounds unlogical to me.

[QUOTE="Tragic_Kingdom7"]

I think it's obvious that they thought the texture work wasn't up to par with GC games of that time frame, making those textures dated. I think they are working under the perception that the GC at that point in time could produce much better texture work.

Requem

Well I have a GC and never ever seen a game with better visuals than TP on it. It's not dated for a GC game please have you played the game? I'm sure you would agree with me if you have played. Maybe that was a mistake. Maybe they didn't think about it that much while copying it over from the Wii review I don't know. But it sounds unlogical to me.

Yes, I did say that the word usage was sloppy. They should have said "some jaggies and textures are dated" in the Bad Section to make it better line up with the actual review, where largely they complimented the game's visuals.

There's no faulty logic in the review, merely sloppy word usage in the Bad Section remark.

[QUOTE="Tragic_Kingdom7"]

I think it's obvious that they thought the texture work wasn't up to par with GC games of that time frame, making those textures dated. I think they are working under the perception that the GC at that point in time could produce much better texture work.

Requem

Well I have a GC and never ever seen a game with better visuals than TP on it. It's not dated for a GC game please have you played the game? I'm sure you would agree with me if you have played. Maybe that was a mistake. Maybe they didn't think about it that much while copying it over from the Wii review I don't know. But it sounds unlogical to me.

It sounds Unlogical...hmmm...That statement seems illogical.

In the end, these sites really are no better than us.They are just men and women with opinions and nothing more, I think an aggregate of review scores better reflects a games quality, but even then, it's by no means a standard I judge it by. At that point, I try it out for myself.

No matter how great some sites says a game is, it doesn't mean I may like games in that genre.

GS's GT5 : Prologue review

7.5

Bad: Only a prologue to the real thing :lol:

One of my favorite reviews here

Great thread. I am sure there are more acts of stupidity from review sites.

Let's face it, EVERYONE is a fanboy someway or another.

GS's GT5 : Prologue review

7.5

Bad: Only a prologue to the real thing :lol:

One of my favorite reviews here

Mongo-Boss

You're taking that out of context.

The reason reviews are written are so that people can get an informed opinion on whether a game is worth their money. The reviewer thinks this one being a prologue is not enough value for the money, thus the 7.5, which it was lucky to get. That is why they mentioned it being a prologue.

This was not the act of idiocy you're trying to make it out to be.

It sounds Unlogical...hmmm...That statement seems illogical.

In the end, these sites really are no better than us.They are just men and women with opinions and nothing more, I think an aggregate of review scores better reflects a games quality, but even then, it's by no means a standard I judge it by. At that point, I try it out for myself.

No matter how great some sites says a game is, it doesn't mean I may like games in that genre.

SolidTy

I agree with your post. I'm not making a big deal of reviews just pointing out something for the sake of the topic. Also I'm aware that there could be mistakes or slopyness because they are human too. I'm just pointing out the "mistake" thats all.

Maybe it's just my way of thinking that finds it illogical (yea I'm a human and I make mistakes too :) ) I'll just let it go. I just would liked to point that out.

(Pointing out my obvious grammer error with a sense of humour rather than insults has made you earn my respect)

[QUOTE="Mongo-Boss"]

GS's GT5 : Prologue review

7.5

Bad: Only a prologue to the real thing :lol:

One of my favorite reviews here

Tragic_Kingdom7

You're taking that out of context.

The reason reviews are written are so that people can get an informed opinion on whether a game is worth their money. The reviewer thinks this one being a prologue is not enough value for the money, thus the 7.5, which it was lucky to get. That is why they mentioned it being a prologue.

This was not the act of idiocy you're trying to make it out to be.

[QUOTE="Delsage"]

Very good post man, I and many others have known about all these contradictions of those review sites, but I have said nothing. There are a lot of people who know about the bias against systems (Mainly the PS3) but it does not stop.

I don't know why these reviewers are doing this, and probably never will understand. But I do know that I have seen comparisons done in person and got to say that a lot of games on the PS3 are just as good if not better.

Only on the games where the developer was sloppy are the graphics better in comparison on the 360, hence Splinter Cell.

Tragic_Kingdom7

Don't you think you're getting ahead of yourself claiming bias without establishing a motive?

And haven't you been reading the thread? Alot of these premises supporting claims of bias have been reffuted.

The thread is about contradictions and how the majority of them seem to be at the PS3s expense. whilst this continues to happen to just the one console nothing has been refuted.

[QUOTE="peaceful_anger"]The MP3 review is riddled with contradictions.

First the reviewer gives the game a Great Sequel Emblem which states "Games may be the only medium in which the sequel is routinely better than the previous installment--but just tweaking a few things and adding two moves isn't enough to merit this commendation. Sequels that make significant, exiting improvements are what we're looking for." But then he turns right around in the bad section and says it "doesn't do much different than the previous two Metroid Prime games."

The reviewer also states the game "feels less like a probing adventure than a regular shooter", but then turns right around a few paragraphs later and says "But this is Metroid, so of course you'll need to use your wits as much as you use weapons that turn alien scum into goo. Environmental puzzles are generally as good in Corruption as they've ever been, and you'll need to survey your surroundings carefully to find the path to your next goal". That last statement sure sounds like Prime 1 and 2 to me, instead of just a regular shooter. which is pretty much what the reviewer categorized the game as all through the review.

But if the reviewer really thinks the game's gameplay has turned to much into a FPS, then why in his closing argument does he say "In the end, you may not be able to shake the feeling that you've done all this before."

The reviewer gives the game a Sharp Control Emblem as well which reads "Modern games that earn the Sharp Control medal do for their respective games what Super Mario Bros. did for midair control. In the end , it just feels right." But then turns right around in the bad again and says, "some of the contextual actions don't control all that well." He then goes on to say that the "streamlined controls make things a little too easy and a little less adventurous."

Another thing I can't stand is that Gamespot reviewers have been real critical of Nintendo for not adding voice acting to their games, but when they actually did, this is what gets said. "The voice acting is fine, though its presence does reinforce just how effective the ghostly silence was in the first two Prime games."

So in the end, the reviewer states that it doesn't feel like previous Prime games, but then deducts points because it is too much of the same. One hell of a messy contradictory review.

Now even if you agree with the reviewer about the game feeling more like a shooter and on some of the other points I mentioned, you have to at least admit he did contradict himelf.Tragic_Kingdom7

I do think that review is sloppy and there does seem to be contradictions, but that doesn't indicate bias. It only really indicates lazy reviewing.

I think you might be taking one of the points out of context. Just because some of the actions don't control well doesn't mean the game can't feel "right" in the end.

I think people have a reason to claim bias some times (not all the time)

The Halo 3 review was a joke 10/10 NO WAY

and not to mention the $800 swag bags, bungie was sending to the HALO 3 reviewers as gifts

"Game journo Dean Takahashi with The San Jose Mercury News showed off his big $800-plus bag of Halo 3 propaganda sent to him by Microsoft.

He's sending back the free stuff, which he called "nothing less than a bribe to try to get me to be favorably inclined to accepting the idea that Halo 3 is 'the entertainment event of the year.'"

Included in the huge personalized duffel bag of goodies are Xbox 360 controllers, a Halo 3 Xbox Live headset, a displayable Master Chief helmet and a $400 Halo 3 limited edition Xbox 360, not to mention a first aid kit and some UNSC-issued food."

http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=7262&Itemid=53

this seemed to have worked for microsoft

I have no problem with the score I just like the statement, I think anyone picking up the game would be able to tell it's a prologue. Mongo-Boss

But alot of time it's the reviewers job to state the obvious. Alot of the time, reviews have to provide information that we might take for granted or laugh at, but might be useful to a casual gamer.

And yes, there are alot of casual gamers that use the site for reviews. I actually know some parents that use the site to buy games for their kids.

Also, prologues are rare in videogaming, so a person wouldn't automatically think that prologue=demo. This might be embarrasing, but I didn't know there were such things as video game prologues, so when I first heard the title GT5 Prologue, I had no idea why they titled it that until I recieved further information.

I think people have a reason to claim bias some times (not all the time)

The Halo 3 review was a joke 10/10 NO WAY

and not to mention the $800 swag bags, bungie was sending to the HALO 3 reviewers as gifts

http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=7262&Itemid=53

this seemed to have worked for microsoft

anthonydwyer

A 10/10 review is never a reason to claim bias and I think people that claim that this deserve to sit in the corner and wear the stupid helmet.

There is simply no way that you can prove that that wasn't their bonified opinion of the game.

And so what about the gifts? Maybe they're just tokens of appreciation for taking time to review the game.

[QUOTE="PBSnipes"][QUOTE="anthonydwyer"]GTA4 is overated on a gamesite that has high standards I would of expected it to get a 8 or 9 not a 10anthonydwyer

yes I understand what you are saying but this review is done by the same person, if the review was done by two different people I would agree 100% with you.

But like you said IGN use a decimal point hence the 9.1 and EG dont making it impossible to give it the same score. However as a human being I dont think the same reviewer would make such a drastic change in score just because EG is tougher human error would mean that on EG it got a 9 because the reviewer was the same person and you cannot tell me they played though the same game again to do two seperate reivews. the both reviews would have been written based on the same play though.

Yer obviously he wouldn't have played through it twice, he would have just made notes on alot of the games various features. You can say a review is someones opinion, but it isn't that simple. There supposedly a professional review and are making an opinion with a professional manner based on the site/magazines guidelines.

[QUOTE="anthonydwyer"]

I think people have a reason to claim bias some times (not all the time)

The Halo 3 review was a joke 10/10 NO WAY

and not to mention the $800 swag bags, bungie was sending to the HALO 3 reviewers as gifts

http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=7262&Itemid=53

this seemed to have worked for microsoft

Tragic_Kingdom7

A 10/10 review is never a reason to claim bias and I think people that claim that this deserve to sit in the corner and wear the stupid helmet.

There is simply no way that you can prove that that wasn't their bonified opinion of the game.

And so what about the gifts? Maybe they're just tokens of appreciation for taking time to review the game.

Where is the£800 swag bag for the loyal gamers who spent actual cash on the game, where is their token of appreciation for taken the time to play the game.

Yeah right, if you want to believe that you go right ahead

*waits for somebody to post the entire Metroid Prime 3 review thing :P*Video_Game_King

I don't feel like digging it up, even if it was on my thread.

We dont tknow which reviewer it is yet, but someone is lying about the length of the MGS4 cutscenes.

There either are 90 minute cutscenes or there arent, its not a matter of opinion. How different review sites seem to continuously debunk and restate this is beyond me, its not a hard thing to figure out.

anthonydwyer,

1) I never said I believe that. I said it was a possibility. In fact, I do think the amount of gifts is a little bit fishy, but there's not enough info to start making definitive claims.

2) There's a difference between taking the time to review a game and "loyal gamers" (how corny) merely playing it.

3) I'm sure they were trying to get the reviewers into a better mood when they reviewed the game. This does not seem abnormal.

4) Why in the world would they give millions of customers gifts that costed money to produce/buy? That would compromise profits.

[QUOTE="Dreams-Visions"][QUOTE="MetroidPrimePwn"]

Nice post. I also love how GameSpot said that LostWinds "lacked personality", yet they gave it an emblem for being "unique".

-

EDIT: Oh, and of course...

Nintendo_Ownes7

Blue - 100% correct. I just beat the game a couple weeks ago. Did little differently than Prime.

Red - 100% correct. Train controls? fail. Pulling out energy cells? wierd. Other similar actions also feel tacked on.

Green - I personally disagree. It was adventerous enough and I did not find fault in the controls for that. Could have had more variety and it could have been more adventerous, but I wouldn't have suggested it was the fault of the control scheme.

The controls were good enough to be awarded the "achievement". But some smaller, less significant aspects are not really well done. Those awards don't mean games are flawless in a particular category by every possible measure; only that those are things that OVERALL are good.

the issue here is how people are interpreting things; not the presentation of them. I have 0 problem interpreting things that this guy felt he had to point out with bright colors.

It's a failure to understand what GS was trying to communicate; not a contradiction.

anthonydwyer,

1) I never said I believe that. I said it was a possibility. In fact, I do think the amount of gifts is a little bit fishy, but there's not enough info to start making definitive claims.

2) There's a difference between taking the time to review a game and "loyal gamers" (how corny) merely playing it.

3) I'm sure they were trying to get the reviewers into a better mood when they reviewed the game. This does not seem abnormal.

4) Why in the world would they give customers gifts that costed money? That would compromise profits.

Tragic_Kingdom7

Just because somebody writes a few pages about a game after playing it does not mean they are something special.

Getting to play one of the biggest games of the year before anyone else should put you in a pretty good mood without the $800 bag.

they would not give the customers the gifts because as the reviewers states it was nothing more than a bribe by MS to give halo a good review. the reason why he is sending the bag back

The MP3 review is riddled with contradictions.

First the reviewer gives the game a Great Sequel Emblem which states "Games may be the only medium in which the sequel is routinely better than the previous installment--but just tweaking a few things and adding two moves isn't enough to merit this commendation. Sequels that make significant, exiting improvements are what we're looking for." But then he turns right around in the bad section and says it "doesn't do much different than the previous two Metroid Prime games."

The reviewer also states the game "feels less like a probing adventure than a regular shooter", but then turns right around a few paragraphs later and says "But this is Metroid, so of course you'll need to use your wits as much as you use weapons that turn alien scum into goo. Environmental puzzles are generally as good in Corruption as they've ever been, and you'll need to survey your surroundings carefully to find the path to your next goal". That last statement sure sounds like Prime 1 and 2 to me, instead of just a regular shooter. which is pretty much what the reviewer categorized the game as all through the review.

But if the reviewer really thinks the game's gameplay has turned to much into a FPS, then why in his closing argument does he say "In the end, you may not be able to shake the feeling that you've done all this before."

The reviewer gives the game a Sharp Control Emblem as well which reads "Modern games that earn the Sharp Control medal do for their respective games what Super Mario Bros. did for midair control. In the end , it just feels right." But then turns right around in the bad again and says, "some of the contextual actions don't control all that well." He then goes on to say that the "streamlined controls make things a little too easy and a little less adventurous."

Another thing I can't stand is that Gamespot reviewers have been real critical of Nintendo for not adding voice acting to their games, but when they actually did, this is what gets said. "The voice acting is fine, though its presence does reinforce just how effective the ghostly silence was in the first two Prime games."

So in the end, the reviewer states that it doesn't feel like previous Prime games, but then deducts points because it is too much of the same. One hell of a messy contradictory review.

Now even if you agree with the reviewer about the game feeling more like a shooter and on some of the other points I mentioned, you have to at least admit he did contradict himelf.peaceful_anger

And yet, they make perfect sense to me. It's just how some of you are thinking about these things.

[QUOTE="Dreams-Visions"][QUOTE="MetroidPrimePwn"]

Nice post. I also love how GameSpot said that LostWinds "lacked personality", yet they gave it an emblem for being "unique".

-

EDIT: Oh, and of course...

MetroidPrimePwn

Blue - 100% correct. I just beat the game a couple weeks ago. Did little differently than Prime.

Red - 100% correct. Train controls? fail. Pulling out energy cells? wierd. Other similar actions also feel tacked on.

Green - I personally disagree. It was adventerous enough and I did not find fault in the controls for that. Could have had more variety and it could have been more adventerous, but I wouldn't have suggested it was the fault of the control scheme.

The thing isn't that those are wrong, it's that they contradicted each other. He said that the game did little differently than the first two Metroid Prime games, yet they gave it a medal for being a great sequel. He said that some actions didn't control well, but he gave it a medal for sharp control. And of course, the green part said it was fun to explore, but also that it wasn't adventurous.

You people are too caught up in looking for or expecting perfection. You'll not find it.

Yes, a game can get a graphics medal and have some graphical flaws.

Yes, a game can get a controls medal and have some control flaws.

Yes, a game can get a sound medal and be less than 7.1 LinearPCM-encoded sound.

Yes. The sooner people absorb that simple truth (that medals don't mean absolute perfection on every level) in both medals and game scoring, the sooner you people will stop thinking everything is a conspiracy and everything is a contradiction.

Again, this is an issue of people trying to hard, thinking too hard, and looking for perfection where no perfection is to be found.

People really need to get some perspective in their system.

[QUOTE="Tragic_Kingdom7"]

anthonydwyer,

1) I never said I believe that. I said it was a possibility. In fact, I do think the amount of gifts is a little bit fishy, but there's not enough info to start making definitive claims.

2) There's a difference between taking the time to review a game and "loyal gamers" (how corny) merely playing it.

3) I'm sure they were trying to get the reviewers into a better mood when they reviewed the game. This does not seem abnormal.

4) Why in the world would they give customers gifts that costed money? That would compromise profits.

anthonydwyer

Just because somebody writes a few pages about a game after playing it does not mean they are something special.

Getting to play one of the biggest games of the year before anyone else should put you in a pretty good mood without the $800 bag.

they would not give the customers the gifts because as the reviewers states it was nothing more than a bribe by MS to give halo a good review. the reason why he is sending the bag back

1) Your opinion of what is "something special" is irrelevant. Companies do give reviewers stuff for reviewing the game. That is true. The fishy thing here is the sheer amount of stuff.

2) Customers should not get gifts because IT WOULD COST TOO DAMN MUCH. Why in the world would they give the customer something extra unless he pays extra? The customer company-relationship ends at the customers exchanging cash for the game.

3) That reviewer in question felt is was a bribe, which could very well be true. That doesn't mean it IS true. And that doesn't negate the fact that reviewers/=/customers.

They're not contradictions. And I said why. Those "medals" do not have to mean perfect down to every little detail.

You people are too caught up in looking for or expecting perfection. You'll not find it.

Yes, a game can get a graphics medal and have some graphical flaws.

Yes, a game can get a controls medal and have some control flaws.

Yes, a game can get a sound medal and be less than 7.1 LinearPCM-encoded sound.

Yes. The sooner people absorb that simple truth (that medals don't mean absolute perfection on every level) in both medals and game scoring, the sooner you people will stop thinking everything is a conspiracy and everything is a contradiction.

Again, this is an issue of people trying to hard, thinking too hard, and looking for perfection where no perfection is to be found.

People really need to get some perspective in their system.

Dreams-Visions

I agree with you, and think you're one of the more sensible people in the thread, but I think the reviewer of MP3 should have made his thoughts clearer. I shouldn't have to think about the review so much. I actually did think some of these things were contradictions until I gave them further thought.

I don't think there's contradictions now that I think about it, but I don't find the review very well written, even if it does bring up valid points.

[QUOTE="anthonydwyer"][QUOTE="Tragic_Kingdom7"]

anthonydwyer,

1) I never said I believe that. I said it was a possibility. In fact, I do think the amount of gifts is a little bit fishy, but there's not enough info to start making definitive claims.

2) There's a difference between taking the time to review a game and "loyal gamers" (how corny) merely playing it.

3) I'm sure they were trying to get the reviewers into a better mood when they reviewed the game. This does not seem abnormal.

4) Why in the world would they give customers gifts that costed money? That would compromise profits.

Tragic_Kingdom7

Just because somebody writes a few pages about a game after playing it does not mean they are something special.

Getting to play one of the biggest games of the year before anyone else should put you in a pretty good mood without the $800 bag.

they would not give the customers the gifts because as the reviewers states it was nothing more than a bribe by MS to give halo a good review. the reason why he is sending the bag back

1) Your opinion of what is "something special" is irrelevant. Companies do give reviewers stuff for reviewing the game. That is true. The fishy thing here is the sheer amount of stuff.

2) Customers should not get gifts because IT WOULD COST TOO DAMN MUCH. Why in the world would they give the customer something extra unless he pays extra? The customer company-relationship ends at the customers exchanging cash for the game.

3) That reviewer in question felt is was a bribe, which could very well be true. That doesn't mean it IS true. And that doesn't negate the fact that reviewers/=/customers.

I have already said they would not give the customers a bag and I never expected them to, but since the reviewer gets the game for free in the first place why should they be treated to a $800 bag?

games site are meant to be impartial so recieving gifts just before a review is done shows that inspite of what people want to believe gamesites are bribed and because the gifts are excepted cannot be seen as impartial.

If the guy that just recieved the £800 bag could see it was a bribe, It should not be to hard for anyone to see it.

I dont believe the customers should get a bag, because I agree it would not be viable. that is my point just because a reveiwer had written a few pages about the game does not justify him getting an $800 gift, especially when thats his job, It is obvious it is nothing more than a bribe.

Any website that excepts gifts from games companies just because they are reviewing a game cannot be seen to as impartial as it contradicts the whole point of an unbiased review.

I have already said they would not give the customers a bag and I never expected them to, but since the reviewer gets the game for free in the first place why should they be treated to a $800 bag?

games site are meant to be impartial so recieving gifts just before a review is done shows that inspite of what people want to believe gamesites are bribed and because the gifts are excepted cannot be seen as impartial.

If the guy that just recieved the £800 bag could see it was a bribe, It should not be to hard for anyone to see it.

I dont believe the customers should get a bag, because I agree it would not be viable. that is my point just because a reveiwer had written a few pages about the game does not justify him getting an $800 gift, especially when thats his job, It is obvious it is nothing more than a bribe.

Any website that excepts gifts from games companies just because they are reviewing a game cannot be seen to as impartial as it contradicts the whole point of an unbiased review.

anthonydwyer

In a perfect world....

This kind of stuff happens constantly. It's a given that companies will try and butter up reviewers. I agree that Microsoft went overboard and it seems fishy, but then again, it also seems like politics. It seems like common practice for reviewers to get stuff and it usually done as a "token of appreciation." This happens with books and movies too. So, yes, there's probably always a bribe element, but it's just so commonplace that it's hard for me to put on my tinfoil hat.

[QUOTE="SolidTy"]

It sounds Unlogical...hmmm...That statement seems illogical.

In the end, these sites really are no better than us.They are just men and women with opinions and nothing more, I think an aggregate of review scores better reflects a games quality, but even then, it's by no means a standard I judge it by. At that point, I try it out for myself.

No matter how great some sites says a game is, it doesn't mean I may like games in that genre.

Requem

I agree with your post. I'm not making a big deal of reviews just pointing out something for the sake of the topic. Also I'm aware that there could be mistakes or slopyness because they are human too. I'm just pointing out the "mistake" thats all.

Maybe it's just my way of thinking that finds it illogical (yea I'm a human and I make mistakes too :) ) I'll just let it go. I just would liked to point that out.

(Pointing out my obvious grammer error with a sense of humour rather than insults has made you earn my respect)

That's good, because I really was just responding to your point with a bit of fun. :)As far as the reviewers go, The message was to be more universal, hopefully some here see that these guys are fallable.

About the Microsoft gift bag: There's a difference between a clear bribe and trying to get the reviewer in a "good mood."

If they said to a reviewer, "give our game a 10 and we will give you this______," that would be a clear bribe.

But if they give a reviewer stuff before that reviewer reviews the game, then that would not be the same if for only the reason that the reviewer still has the option of giving the game a bad score anyway.

It's a subtle form of bribing, but there's still distinctions.

[QUOTE="Dreams-Visions"] They're not contradictions. And I said why. Those "medals" do not have to mean perfect down to every little detail.

You people are too caught up in looking for or expecting perfection. You'll not find it.

Yes, a game can get a graphics medal and have some graphical flaws.

Yes, a game can get a controls medal and have some control flaws.

Yes, a game can get a sound medal and be less than 7.1 LinearPCM-encoded sound.

Yes. The sooner people absorb that simple truth (that medals don't mean absolute perfection on every level) in both medals and game scoring, the sooner you people will stop thinking everything is a conspiracy and everything is a contradiction.

Again, this is an issue of people trying to hard, thinking too hard, and looking for perfection where no perfection is to be found.

People really need to get some perspective in their system.

Tragic_Kingdom7

I agree with you, and think you're one of the more sensible people in the thread, but I think the reviewer of MP3 should have made his thoughts clearer. I shouldn't have to think about the review so much. I actually did think some of these things were contradictions until I gave them further thought.

I don't think there's contradictions now that I think about it, but I don't find the review very well written, even if it does bring up valid points.

They don't write reviews to cater to the rabid fanboy community that will hang on every word, you know? And they never will. It would require too much time and effort.

About the Microsoft gift bag: There's a difference between a clear bribe and trying to get the reviewer in a "good mood."

If they said to a reviewer, "give our game a 10 and will give you this______," that would be a clear bribe.

But if they give a reviewer stuff before that reviewer reviews the game, then that would not be the same if for only the reason that the reviewer still has the option of giving the game a bad score anyway.

It's a subtle form of bribing, but there's still distinctions.

Tragic_Kingdom7

I agree, they could make it clearer. At the same time, it's hard to always anticipate what people will be confused by sometimes.

They don't write reviews to cater to the rabid fanboy community that will hang on every word, you know? And they never will. It would require too much time and effort.

Dreams-Visions

All very true.

hey good thread, i think more people should add to this.

ratchet and clank was said to have too much variety when theres a merit for having lots of variety and games are often praised for that.

Arjdagr8

They also gave Ratchet less points for being too last-gen gameplay-wise ...but Halo 3 on the other hand, ...yea.

The burnout one is interesting too, i forgot they said the PS3 version was crisper at first.

[QUOTE="Arjdagr8"]

hey good thread, i think more people should add to this.

ratchet and clank was said to have too much variety when theres a merit for having lots of variety and games are often praised for that.

shadyd1717

They also gave Ratchet less points for being too last-gen gameplay-wise ...but Halo 3 on the other hand, ...yea.

The burnout one is interesting too, i forgot they said the PS3 version was crisper at first.

You really need to rethink that comparison. Really hard. It shows you have no clue what Halo 3 was.

[QUOTE="Arjdagr8"]

hey good thread, i think more people should add to this.

ratchet and clank was said to have too much variety when theres a merit for having lots of variety and games are often praised for that.

shadyd1717

They also gave Ratchet less points for being too last-gen gameplay-wise ...but Halo 3 on the other hand, ...yea.

The burnout one is interesting too, i forgot they said the PS3 version was crisper at first.

The review never said anything about R&C being too "last-gen". You made that up.

Also, the Burnout thing was addressed. The graphics comparison that the PS3 version was cleaner in some areas, which was probably what the orginal reviewer was referring to.