I'm sorry but bringing it back to me with "You shouldn't listen to reviewers to decide game choices for you" is a total cop out. How I make my game purchases is beside the point. Gamespot "should" inform their consumers if said products are broken. That's all there is too it.The following are facts:
Most Bethesda games are buggy.
The PS3 often gets the worst version of third-party games.
The PS3 was intentionally made hard to program by Sony.
Now, here's an opinion:
You shouldn't listen to reviewers to decide game choices for you; it was only a few days before the internet found out the PS3 version was jacked up.
If you knew all the above, you should feel betrayed by no one but yourself.
Shame-usBlackley
abonsabo's forum posts
[QUOTE="abonsabo"]And it is a game reviewers responsibility to tell me that... if they prefer to be taken seriously that is.foxhound_foxNo. :| The responsibility is on you to make the informed decision. If you trust a reviewer, then that is on you if it didn't turn out like you want it to. Why are you not blaming Bethesda for releasing a "defective product?" Why is it the reviewer's responsibility to tell you everything about a game when they are just giving an impression of THEIR experience with the game. Question: Have you sent Bethesda an angry email containing about their "defective product?" What you are doing is akin to b****ing about a car reviewer who doesn't foresee a recall.What kind of review would you expect a car reviewer to give a car if it broke down everytime halfway through his test drive? If you want to draw meaningless comparisons that one would probably be the most accurate. I'm not sure what kind of world you live in or want to live in to assume that we shouldn't be told whether or not our games are defective by reviewers, but I don't want any part in it.
It's Gamespots responsibility as credible journalists to go back and fix their review.abonsaboGamespot reviewers are NOT journalists. They are not "reporting" on facts... they are giving their personal impressions about a game that allows the consumer to make a more well-informed decision (giving them a perspective they may be able to relate to, or to identify things they may find interesting). It is YOUR fault for trusting the review. Period. Stop denying your blame in this. I've made plenty of bad game purchases in my life (Dead Space for $40 a week before it dropped to $20, and on top of that, I hated the game)... but I don't blame Gamespot or other review sites for "misleading" me. Blame here resides with three entities: 1. You, for making an un-informed purchase. 2. Bethesda, for releasing a game with game-breaking bugs and not using enough quality control. 3. Zenimax, for allowing Bethesda to release the game in what is essentially a shined-up Beta stage. You keep citing examples of games you bought based on reviews but didn't simply didn't like. I'm citing an example of a game that DOESN'T WORK, it's a defective product. If you fail to see the difference then I can't help you And it is a game reviewers responsibility to tell me that... if they prefer to be taken seriously that is. Especially the one game reviewer who had more than enough time to play the PS3 version of the game given the extra week wait for the review.
I'm Sorry but how can you not notice your game chugging down to single digits, freezes, conversation dialogue no longer working ect. after playing though a portion of the game? Bethseda has acknowledged the problem and a patch is apparently on the way, but it's likely BS PR talk like how they were supposed to fix Fallout and Oblivion. It's entirely unrealistic they could hope to fix a problem of this magnitude with a patch and would have done so before launch if they could have.Has Bethesda at least acknowledged the problem? Because if they haven't, then that's who you should be putting the blame on. Reviewers can only talk about what they see. If they don't encounter any sort of bug like that, then they don't mention it. Simple as that. If you're expecting that reviewers purposefully look for bugs and glitches while reviewing, then you're asking for too much out of them. They aren't game testers. It isn't their job to point out technical errors (or, at least, not a mandatory part of it).
c_rake
[QUOTE="abonsabo"]So then what are the point of game reviews?foxhound_foxReading about other people's experiences with the games. Its like talking to friends, just it is a one-sided conversation. Had I based my game purchases off of reviews this generation, I would have missed nearly all of the games that I've find to be the "best," most memorable and/or "fun" experiences. Mirror's Edge (7), Odin Sphere (7.6), Nier (5), Castlevania: Curse of Darkness (6.8), Excite Truck (6.8), Cursed Mountain (7.5), Skate 1 & 2 (7.5), P.N.03 (5.1) and Vampire: The Masquerade Bloodlines (7.7). Granted... I've enjoyed critically well-received games as well (though, the majority of the "AAA" 9+ titles have been largely disappointing)... but had I just bought the highest rated games, I wouldn't have enjoyed myself this generation nearly as much. Hell, my top-3 games of the gen has two from that list on it (Nier and Mirror's Edge).I agree with you but game breaking bugs are in a different stratosphere than differing tastes in games and it's the reviewers duty to mention them. I simply don't believe that this only happened to some, or a lot of PS3 gamers. The bug, like all bugs, exists in all copies of the game and if the reviewer had put the time in with the PS3 version of this game it would have become painfully obvious. So the question is... why didn't he put the time in? Or if he did, why didn't he feel it was worth mentioning?
Log in to comment