test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
HELM! Damage Control!
System
Member, NoReporting Posts: 178,019 Arc User
So at the point the game had been released (read after the 2nd) there WERE 38 reviews on GameStops website that averaged the game at 6.4 out of 10.
Flash forward to today.... There are three reviews with an average of 8.0
Seriously, I guess a lot of people would'nt notice when something like that happens so it does not surprise me that it can be gotten away with but really?
Flash forward to today.... There are three reviews with an average of 8.0
Seriously, I guess a lot of people would'nt notice when something like that happens so it does not surprise me that it can be gotten away with but really?
Post edited by baddmoonrizin on
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
I have a huge problem with that. When a company can control the independent review then on the other hand pay the industry sites for a good review the consumer gets shafted.
Why?
It isn't the fact that this game feels initially underwhelming early in gameplay. It isn't the fact that space exploration feels a little chunky or "gated." It's the simple things such as actually being able to log in and experience these short sights that's going to kill it. Now imagine the labor of trying to log into the game, only to find out that the exciting experience of the tutorial session is not as often repeated throughout the early portions of the game as would be initially expected.
Those of us who have been playing the game for awhile know that it doesn't really take off until you hit Commander and up. To fanbois of the game, that makes the progress of the game much more thrilling. To hardcore gamers and those with knowledge of the market and actual game design, it's sloppy character development. It is, I'm afraid.
Now put yourself in the shoes of someone whose job it is to submit a review for CNN, Gamepro, GameInformer, IGN, or Gamespot.com and have it on the desk of their editor by the morning. Today you've been faced with countless login failures, only to discover that once you do finally login, you are faced with a tedium of grinding and unimaginative quest lines through Lieutenant and Lieutenant Commander. Reality check - MOST game critics dulled by such a game aren't going to play past LC. The only positive reviews you'll see of this game will stem from those who are easily pleased (and lack any real game design knowledge) or ones who play all the way through to Commander and are able to see that light at the end of the tunnel.
I'm not ripping on this game by any means; I am only stating the facts as they'll be presented across websites all week long. I am not a trekkie, either - but I do largely enjoy sci-fi films and games. I am disappointed I bought a lifetime sub for this game, however. From a quality of business standpoint, I should be able to actually PLAY the game for which I paid. Aside from The Old Republic and maybe Jumpgate Evolution, there wasn't a single gaming experience I was looking forward to more. Now that I'm here, that experience is marred by not even being able to experience it.
Yeah, it'd be a good idea for Cryptic to go on some Obama-style damage control and at least SHOW the masses something palpable to keep them subscribed. Otherwise, I wouldn't even be the least bit surprised to see lifetime subbers e-baying their Admirals in a month to hardcore trekkies who don't want to actually do the work.
Just my two cents on the matter.
I firmly agree with your position but customers offering opinions either in support of (or against) a product does not make a company controlled shrill (99.999% of the time).
Anyway, sadly enough there are about a dozen reviews on Amazon now - monumentally pathetic to say the least a week after release! The lack of reviews is what would worry me if I worked for Cryptic and not the neutral or negative ones but my background is in PR so maybe I think differently than most.
Really, that's quite fair. Reviews of beta should not be kept around as the game was known buggy, and unstable. Launch day forward is all that matters in the history books. Beta was just that, and should be forgotten after launch.
you don't 'review' a beta product after all, you 'preview' it.
First, don't go to Gamestop for any gaming need, review or games. Use your own eyes get a free trial or go to a buddy's house to see if you like a game. I find penny-arcade has good articles & they don't get compensated for good reviews unlike some. Kotaku.com is pretty good.
You either don't work in the market, don't know anyone in the market, or otherwise know nothing at all. I want to be fair and go with the former two, as I'm not typically an a-hole with e-rage on the internet.
Gamespot.com has long since learned from their Kane and Lynch debacle. If you know nothing about which I write, consider my next words wisely. Gamespot.com had an advertising rights scandal that nearly guaranteed a flawless review of Kane and Lynch on their website. When the truth broke and Jeff Gerstmann instead gave an honest review of a game that was as accurately flawed as the reviewer put it, it all hit the fan.
The review was still published, the scandal broke silence, and Gamespot.com's reputation was all but crushed. Jeff Gerstmann may have been fired for his actions, but his subsequent blog furor was no less reprehensible, and was highly unprofessional. Nevertheless, he claimed a bit of a following. Luckily, it wasn't long after CBS bought Gamespot.com that they went in and "cleaned house." It came to a point that their name was "far too big" to let their reputation go to waste. After all, Gamespot.com may be a huge name in gaming news; but like other websites reporting on the media of electronics and gaming, they're owned by "somebody else.
Penny-arcade's writers do not get ad-compensated because they're a small business founded and run by its owner. They're not owned by a media group of any kind. This is a reason to like them, but not a relevant piece of evidence in your argument. An independent firm is just as capable of scandal as one owned by a major proprietary group. Gamespot.com is owned by CBS. CBS also owns the IP to Star Trek; yet the staff blog behind STO's review in progress seems to confirm the many fears we've all had about it since the beginning. How does their exemplary display of honesty in any way validate your argument against GameSpot?
As for Kotaku.com? Ahh, Kotaku.com...
..you know, the moment I saw your mention of that site, a little, evil Commander Shepard-like voice echoed in my head "he's another one of those fanbois." Really though, I'm going to spare you the flames, this time, and educate you on a few things. Kotaku.com possesses a non-commercial license. Why? Everything they publish on their site is from third party information. Ever notice how most of their "contributing" columnists have "second jobs?" Or are they their first jobs? Sorry, excuse my sarcasm. Third party information: what does that mean exactly? This means they possess no media license of any kind. This is also because they're a non-profit organization. Noble, but less credible by standards compared by PA or GS. So why is this a threat for compiling "facts" about games? Because the righteous columnists at kotaku.com can blog about WHATEVER. THEY. WANT. I'm also pretty sure I'm not the only one who remembers how many times they reported their "suspicions" that SOE was losing their license to develop Star Wars Galaxies. Not that I think they shouldn't, but you didn't see me write five articles in the past six years claiming they did.
Again, none of this was a deliberate flame against you. I just felt you needed to know the facts.
Here are just a few references; for your attention.
http://www.gamespot.com/news/6183666.html?tag=result;title;0
http://www.gamespot.com/users/thatguy0130/show_blog_entry.php?topic_id=m-100-25236423
http://www.gamespot.com/news/6249723.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=picks&tag=picks;title;2
http://kotaku.com/about/
I agreed only with your "use your own eyes" comment. There's no better review than that, but do not admonish a cadre of individuals about which you clearly know so little.
And one last thing for the inevitable wave of Jeff Gerstmann fanbois: A "real" professional doesn't go on a campaign of hate blogging on their old boss. If there was any weight to his whining post-termination, the real media wouldn't let something like that go. After all, the things of which he was accusing his former employer is a little thing called "fraud." Stuff like that involving a major media site typically ends up becoming major news, not posted on a 3rd party blog site.