PC Gamer(UK) 96% Bought?

[Feath]

It's incredibly over the top for a non-bought review, so it feels to me like $$$ was involved somewhere. Tell-tale sign is that for the most part it's not so much a game review as a breathless string of superlatives. It could have been written just by looking at the screenshots - I'm not even convinced they've played it.

When the *real* reviews start coming out we'll see a more objective picture. I'm hoping it's going to be a great game, but considering how linear it is I'm expected a little backlash somewhere.

Jim Rossingol writes his reviews like that. I recently read his review of Unreal 2 and I honestly couldn't tell you what happens in that game. He set out to avoid spoilers and he did. I have no doubts he played the game.

It's nice that people are basing PC Gamer off one review. It's great that they got the review illegally. "I think PC Gamer is morally wrong, now excuse me whilst I download more scans of their magazine".

 

[koopa]

Yes but it's written like that because they don't want to spoil things. If they had said "this was a really interesting scene" and had gone on to describe it, the review would instantly appear more credible.

That's why I'm so sceptical. If you or I had written the review it would probably have been a lot more detailed. Games reviewers are always being accused of collusion, and it would have been so easy to dispel that allegation by being a little less gushing.

It's nice that people are basing PC Gamer off one review. It's great that they got the review illegally. "I think PC Gamer is morally wrong, now excuse me whilst I download more scans of their magazine".

How people obtained the review has no relevance to the legitimacy of the review, which is the topic we're discussing. I'm not intending to slur PC Gamer, but I at least will look back at that review in the same way as some of the similarly effusive Doom 3 ones. It's possible he just got carried away with enthusiasm, but as piece of writing it's pretty much useless IMHO.

 

[Incitatus]

Why would that be illegal or morally wrong??

Simply a business practice, no one gets hurt

 

[[]D | |V| []D]

Why would that be illegal or morally wrong??

Simply a business practice, no one gets hurt

the customers(thats us) get hurt because they dont get an objective review

 

[ukfluke]

well they gave doom 3 90% lol that game sucks ass. If i was invited to valve for Milk, cookies & a shot of Hl2 for a week- id come back with 99.9999% (no game is perfect ) . so ill reserve judgment until playing it myself.

 

[Feath]

well they gave doom 3 90% lol that game sucks ass. If i was invited to valve for Milk, cookies & a shot of Hl2 for a week- id come back with 99.9999% (no game is perfect ) . so ill reserve judgment until playing it myself.

90% is quite lower than some magazines gave it. And it talked about it's issues in the review.

They liked a game that you didn't is no reason to claim that a magazine is biased in any way.

 

[Zerox]

PCGameplay is a bunch of dickheads. They gave Half-Life 2 90% and Far Cry 93% but in the mag they said Half-Life 2 is better then Far Cry.

 

[lans]

The mag I trust the most myself is PC Gameplay, they never promote with 'world exclusive OMGWTF!~!!!1' are not afraid of giving genuine criticism (HL2DM thingy, debatable, but criticism nontheless) and never seem overly hyped about something (unlike some mags who seem to have a 'best game ever' in every new issue).

What Valve does do, is demanding an x amount of pages and a cover story otherwise you can't go on the trip. But that isn't buying anyone and doesn't affect the credibility of the (p)review.

Indeed.

PC Gameplay did seem to be strict with HL2 on the MP matter - that's prove enough that the magazine was not "bought". Similarly I expect PC Gamer US and UK to rate HL2 higher as they consider the game's quality and uniqueness over the quantity. You'll see Gamespot giving it a lower score (compartively) since they think MP is important too.

 

[CatBOne]

Really OT, but when does UK PCGamer come out?

Also, the guy who made this thread is either a bad joker or has a really quick wrist.

 

[lans]

Really OT, but when does UK PCGamer come out?

Also, the guy who made this thread is either a bad joker or has a really quick wrist.

On 5th october.

But the subscribers have got the copy, already.

 

[Feath]

Do PC Gameplay give multiplayer games lower scores for not having single player? This is a serious question.

 

[CatBOne]

On 5th october.




Thanks, that's a wednesday? Innit?

 

[Soundwave]

If I just read the review text without knowing it was in PCGamer, I would think it was one of those PR ads for a game that acts like it's a review. It's basically an 8-page long advertisement, no real information.

 

[B_MAN]

Don't be so cynical! From everything we've seen of the game, I doubt it would have needed to be bought!!

true, i believe the game will live up to the hype
but he has a point, cynical's the only way to be these days my friend

 

[Feath]

If I just read the review text without knowing it was in PCGamer, I would think it was one of those PR ads for a game that acts like it's a review. It's basically an 8-page long advertisement, no real information.

What "real information" were you after?

 

[Feath]

On 5th october.




Thanks, that's a wednesday? Innit?

Tuesday.

 

[Sprafa]

I'm glad "no" is winning.

 

[Uh-Oh]

Everybody is happy except the consumer that doesnt have an objective review of the game.
?

"An objective review"
Think about what you just wrote.

Hint, there is no such things has obective reviews...
There is no such thing has an unbiased opinion.

The word subjective applies to both.

 

[duality]

do you think they gave it a 96% because they didn't care whether it had multiplayer or not? The whole idea behind Half-Life 2 is the mood and atmosphere, as well as playability, fun factor, etc.

I know when the first Half-Life was reviewed (it got 97% in PC Gamer US for anyone who didnt already know), they didnt even speak about multiplayer... whether it was added or not wasn't their concern.

Half-Life is known for its outstanding singleplayer so I think that reviewers will tend to review it in that aspect.

 

[Malarkee]

why wouldn't they pay the other exclusive magazines to give over 90%

why just one?

ie: NO

 

[Gunner]

both have benefits, an exclusive story sells more magazines and a good review sells more games

your bollocks theory is bollocks too ... in democracy the mayority wins but that under no circumstance surely means that the mayority is right, as for the paranoid bascet cases one could say the others are blind braiwashed zombies who believe everything they are told to believe

It's a video game, not a boxing match. They don't "fix" reviews in this industry, have you ever heard or read in a newspaper of a publisher or developer which paid cash for a guaranteed good review?

 

[PvtRyan]

Do PC Gameplay give multiplayer games lower scores for not having single player? This is a serious question.

Part of the 'gameplay' score is longevity the magazine states, and I assume that this is where they took the points from, they don't consider a rehash of a popular game a proper multiplayer and it's not really incorporated into the review or score, so the longevity of the singeplayer is, like all singeplayers, not eternal.

PCGameplay is a bunch of dickheads. They gave Half-Life 2 90% and Far Cry 93% but in the mag they said Half-Life 2 is better then Far Cry.

Far Cry got a 91%, I don't know where people are getting this 93% from.
And did find HL2 better than FC and Doom 3, stating that this is the first true next gen FPS, but it didn't score so high because of the lack of MP. How hard is that to understand? It's the way the magazine feels about games and MP.

That 90% is an amazing score when you see how low PCGP ratings normally are and how they talk about the lack of MP like they're reviewing only half of the game, and then still receive 90% is really amazing.

 

[koopa]

It's a video game, not a boxing match. They don't "fix" reviews in this industry, have you ever heard or read in a newspaper of a publisher or developer which paid cash for a guaranteed good review?

Yes. With the amount of money in this industry do you really think developers want truly honest reviews? Don't you think something is odd when Driver gets >90% despite being hugely buggy and generally acknowledged as pretty average. How about those reviews which mention features which aren't even in the game?

 

[Mountain Man]

Anybody who thinks corporations casually buy reviews and magazines are quick to be on the take obviously has no understanding or appreciation for the news industry and is clearly ignorant of trade laws.

I'm not saying it never happens, just that iy doesn't happen nearly as often as some people suggest.

 

[Bongfarmer]

Oh yeah? then explain how gigli advertisments had newspapers saying "2 thumbs way up!"

 

[koopa]

... obviously has no understanding or appreciation for the news industry and is clearly ignorant of trade laws.

Interesting position. Do you want to explain the news industry and trade laws to us?

 

[PedroTheLion]

I've been reading PCGamer for at least 6 years now, and have found the writers to be very fair. Sure they hype up games alot in the previews, but when it comes time to review them, they don't hold back. Unlike other mags, they don't review patched versions of the games, they review the way that they are out of the box.

And did any of you see the preview for Ghost Recon 2? They hammered it. And I can't imagine a company like Red Storm not having the money to throw at them to give their game an outstanding preview.

Plus, do you really think that Valve has spent the last 6 years developing a game that needs a fixed review? If it's a good game, then it will get a high score. It didn't get a 97% like HL1 did, so was the HL1 review fixed? Or Alpha Centuary getting a 98%, that HAD to have been a bought review. Just because it get's a good score does not mean that it was purchased. Look at all the no-name games getting good reviews. Geneforge 2 got an 80% rating, which is still really good. And then huge name companys like Activision let Spider-Man 2 get a 25% rating. If they wanted the game to have a good score, they easily would have the money to do so.

Given all this, I'd say that PCGamer has a pretty good record of dishing out fair reviews, and I have no doubt whatsoever that the HL2 review was completely fair.

 

[Soundwave]

It's a video game, not a boxing match. They don't "fix" reviews in this industry, have you ever heard or read in a newspaper of a publisher or developer which paid cash for a guaranteed good review?

Actually I have to disagree on this. It's a well-known fact that publishers shop around their reviews, trading exclusive reviews for a guarantee of a high score and nonstop praise.

Gamespot even has/had a section of their website explaining why they don't do exclusive first reviews, because the company offering it expects good scores in return.

If you really think this doesn't happen, well you are wrong. Take a look at Game Informer's 9.5 review of Star Wars Galaxies 2 months before it was even released. It was an unplayable mess upon release, imagine how bad it was 2 months (more really, considering the time it takes for the magazine to be completed and put on shelves) prior to that.

EGM was offered the exclusive review for Fable under the condition that it get a great score. They didn't actually mention the game by name, but one of the reviewers for the mag (Che) more or less confirmed it when I mentioned it on the Gaming-Age forums.

It's happened for a long time, and will continue to happen. Even though I really like Doom 3, I don't doubt for a second that PCGamer were influenced by iD or Activision to give it that high of a score.

I should also add that I don't doubt HL2 is deserving of such a high score, but I DO doubt that it would have gotten anything lower than a 95 even if it had some huge flaws. Personally, I would have docked it down to a 90 at the highest for no real multiplayer, but I suppose that's just me that feels that way.

 

[Warbie]

If I were the reviewer I would have given it 100%, stopping short of 110% because of the missing multiplayer mode.

That's why you'll never be a reviewer

Personally i'm dubious of the first few reviews to come out, prefering to wait for a few weeks/month for an Edge review.

There have been many games that i'd have rated highly after only a week of playtime - only to then get bored, uninstall, and never touch again (Doom 3/Far Cry being good examples). You need a few weeks to get over the initial excitement to properly judge a game (imo) - and even longer to see how great it really is (when ppl are playing a game years after release you know it's special )

I'm not saying HL2 isn't great but will wait untill the hype has settled down before claiming it as the second coming. (I'm certainly not going pay any attention to a pc gamer review :/)

 

[Gunner]

Gamespot even has/had a section of their website explaining why they don't do exclusive first reviews, because the company offering it expects good scores in return.

There's a difference between say expecting a good review and bribing the magazine.

But it doesn't matter anyway, HL² deserved that score no matter what

 

[Soundwave]

There's a difference between say expecting a good review and bribing the magazine.

But it doesn't matter anyway, HL² deserved that score no matter what

When I say expecting, I mean it as in the company basically says "Ok, you get to review Game X first. However, only if you give us front page/10 page review/score of 95% no matter what". I'd say that's pretty much bribing the magazine.

 

[The Last One]

Actually I have to disagree on this. It's a well-known fact that publishers shop around their reviews, trading exclusive reviews for a guarantee of a high score and nonstop praise.

Gamespot even has/had a section of their website explaining why they don't do exclusive first reviews, because the company offering it expects good scores in return.

If you really think this doesn't happen, well you are wrong. Take a look at Game Informer's 9.5 review of Star Wars Galaxies 2 months before it was even released. It was an unplayable mess upon release, imagine how bad it was 2 months (more really, considering the time it takes for the magazine to be completed and put on shelves) prior to that.

EGM was offered the exclusive review for Fable under the condition that it get a great score. They didn't actually mention the game by name, but one of the reviewers for the mag (Che) more or less confirmed it when I mentioned it on the Gaming-Age forums.

It's happened for a long time, and will continue to happen. Even though I really like Doom 3, I don't doubt for a second that PCGamer were influenced by iD or Activision to give it that high of a score.

I should also add that I don't doubt HL2 is deserving of such a high score, but I DO doubt that it would have gotten anything lower than a 95 even if it had some huge flaws. Personally, I would have docked it down to a 90 at the highest for no real multiplayer, but I suppose that's just me that feels that way.

Exactly. Myself and few buddies actually started a now defunct local gaming paper. The few companies that sent us games threatened to stop if we didn't keep reviews above a certain score! Some of them would even send us "outlines" of what MUST be covered and praised. To say this never happens in this industry is ridiculous.

 

[PvtRyan]

When I say expecting, I mean it as in the company basically says "Ok, you get to review Game X first. However, only if you give us front page/10 page review/score of 95% no matter what". I'd say that's pretty much bribing the magazine.

They can demand a certain amount of pages or a cover story, that isn't bribing that's advertising because it doesn't affect the quality or independence of the review.

But rest assured, PCGP thought the singeplayer was as good as PC Gamer thought it was, and PCGP is independent and doesn't involve itself in world exclusive bullshit. Not that I say PC Gamer would, but I don't know that mag well enough.

 

[[]D | |V| []D]

It's a video game, not a boxing match. They don't "fix" reviews in this industry, have you ever heard or read in a newspaper of a publisher or developer which paid cash for a guaranteed good review?

lol, what u dont read in newspapers doesnt exist

 

[Alzxul]

From my experience, PC Gamer is usually unbiased and is a trusted medium for the correct scores. If they had thought it wasn't worth 96% I'm sure they would have had no problem giving it whatever score it deserved.

 

[ukfluke]

para how can u say HL2 deserved 96% when u havnt even played it lol?