RUMOR: EA bribed Australian Gamepro

Mattigus

Mattigus

Newbie
Joined
Sep 13, 2003
Messages
970
Reaction score
0
http://www.gwn.com/news/story.php/id/11566/GamePro_Review_Score_Bribery_Scandal.html

For those who don't feel like reading, the rumor is that EA bribed Australia GamePro to give Supreme Commander an incredibly harsh score (5 out of 10). This was possibly done to promote C&C3.

Leave it to EA to **** up a game. Despite EA sucking, C&C3 managed to look like a good game. Yet the EA marketing people still found a way to tarnish the C&C franchise.
 
EA/Sony bashing is old. It's not funny anymore.
 
Yeah no matter what EA do, they still produce good games.
 
EA doing something dumb. Doesn't seem like news to me.
 
I've never heard of that magazine.

we put this up against the kind of hardware most of you poor bastards will only ever dream about.
Click to expand...

See right about there is when you stop reading something. Calling your readership poor bastards is retarded.
 
Oh please, if that offends you then you should probably find a new hobby

Qonfused, all I meant is that he wasn't trying to be funny, just stating something he learned that may or may not be true
 
He's right about how it runs though. It doesn't look nearly good enough to justify how much of a hog it is, especially on low settings.
 
I don't know... bribing a single Australian magazine isn't an impressive tactic. If we're to believe that EA was actively discrediting the game, you would have thought they'd put a little more effort in. Unless of course, THQ managed to slip even more money to the other reviewers :P
 
Possibly the guy who reviewed it, you know, didn't like it?
 
Jintor said:
Possibly the guy who reviewed it, you know, didn't like it?
Click to expand...

I'd agree with this if I hadn't read the review and found it terribly written. But hell I was probably looking for guilty-style writing.. is there such a thing?
 
Well, maybe they put a crap RTS reviewer on it. Reviewers do have their specialties, you know.

I'm waiting for the PCPP Verdict, but I'm still buying it regardless.
 
B_MAN said:
i hope you're joking
Click to expand...

no. you saying the battlefield, fifa, ssx, nfs, nhl, nfl, sims etc and even crysis are crap/going to be crap???

maybe not develop them but atleast be involved in the projects. come on.
 
I vote that EA DIDN'T bribe them. oh shit, someone gave a game a low score, THE COMPETITOR BRIBED THEM! *sigh* I can see why people don't enjoy the game, though I don't agree, it's there.
 
not a big deal? when reading a review I trust that the reviewer will at least be honest to a degree (80-90% for mainstream) ..if money changes hands in order to inflate a score that's dishonest and hurts the crediblity of all gaming press (which doesnt have much to begin with) ...are we really ok with gaming press pandering to the big publishers? if so we might as well drop the veneer and just admit they're no better than advertisements without a shred of honesty. But this is obviously not the case or else it wouldnt have happened in the first place: obviously ratings do mean something and gamers do care about scores ..apparently some of you just dont care if the score is legitimate or not


anyways it's a rumour till proven true
 
CptStern said:
not a big deal? when reading a review I trust that the reviewer will at least be honest to a degree (80-90% for mainstream) ..if money changes hands in order to inflate a score that's dishonest and hurts the crediblity of all gaming press (which doesnt have much to begin with) ...are we really ok with gaming press pandering to the big publishers? if so we might as well drop the veneer and just admit they're no better than advertisements without a shred of honesty. But this is obviously not the case or else it wouldnt have happened in the first place: obviously ratings do mean something and gamers do care about scores ..apparently some of you just dont care if the score is legitimate or not


anyways it's a rumour till proven true
Click to expand...

Personally, I don't give scores too much of my attention. I vote a game's good by if I like it or not. I'll play a demo or download the game before buying it, because too many times would I buy a game and hate it...Like Company of Heroes. EVERYBODY loves that game, rates it best RTS ever...not my style I guess. I just couldn't get into it at all...good thing I didn't buy it, personally.
 
CyberPitz said:
Personally, I don't give scores too much of my attention. I vote a game's good by if I like it or not. I'll play a demo or download the game before buying it, because too many times would I buy a game and hate it...Like Company of Heroes. EVERYBODY loves that game, rates it best RTS ever...not my style I guess. I just couldn't get into it at all...good thing I didn't buy it, personally.
Click to expand...

ya but you're not the norm ..most people read reviews before buying a game ..I know I do, and I'm willing to bet most of the people here do too ..sometimes there's no demo, you dont feel like pirating, or the game hasnt come out yet, and you only have advance reviews to help us decide whether we should spend $60 on a game that could turn out to be a buggy incoherent mess for all we know; surely you'd expect not to be outright lied to. I mean if 2 days before the launch of an anticipated game advance reviews gave the game a glowing 98% wouldnt you take it at face value? what if when you finally did play the game and it was a steaming pile of turd that didnt deserve a 10% much less a 98% wouldnt you be pissed off that you were decieved? I know I wouldnt trust anything they said from that point onwards (which is exactly what happened when IGN gave Jade Empire a 9.9/10 when all other sites were giving mid to low 80% ..to this day I still dont believe anything IGN says)

bottom line is if we want to be taken seriously as an artisitic medium we cant have publishers spitting out payola money to whomever gives out the highest score.
 
Bit of a non-discussion, this:

Update: We're happy to report that the person who started the bribe rumor on the Gamespot forums has admitted it was a lie, so we've removed mention of the rumor from this story. Their rumor post has also now been removed at Gamespot, and mention of it on the Gas Powered Games forum has also gone.
Click to expand...
 
what? this started because of a rumour on gamespot forums? are they retarded? why would anyone accept anything said on public forums as truth? why would they even bother running this story? **** all parties involved are equally retarded
 
Too bad they erased most of their article. At the end, they talk about how terrible it is to see journalistic integrity going down the toilet. I would have liked to still be able to see that, then have them admit they write their articles based on rumors they find on gamefaqs. GAMEFAQS!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top