flem1 wrote...
Orkboy wrote...
There's no way in hell a reviewer is going to bad mouth a game that a publisher like EA is hyping up to be the second coming.
And that's why it won every players' poll GOTY under the sun!
The "it's bribes!" theorists are hilarious. Every big release gets pushed. Not every big release gets a 94 Metacritic -- making it, in fact, the #2 RPG of all time and the top in the 11 years since BG2 was released.
It's not a theory, it's actually very well established fact.
-There's numerous well documented reports out there about how Previews are dictated to sites via terms.
-Gamespot was nailed firing a reviewer for giving an advertiser a bad score.
-Independent parties (Such as Anandtech) have done pieces on how the press is willing to sell certain "Benefits" to even a no-name company, which indicates what they'll do for a big name.
-The "Fuzzy math" they use to compute player scores is all too obvious. A number of sites eliminate "Outlier" scores, which once translated means low scores. If you go through ratings on sites you'll find that the low scores somehow don't exist for big name products. IIRC, I think metacritic was caught using this algorithm. Which is why player reviews are convienently so close to the reviewers.
In fact, let me tell you a story about one of these fine upstanding companies (Not EA, another big name)...
The company decided it was going to release a well known title, in a new format. The title had a well established fan base, resistant to the changes they were making. The company had no interest in the built-in fanbase, or their opinions, and as a matter of course eliminated the well known figureheads associated with the community.
Then came the company's "Big push" at E3. During E3, suddenly, all of those debating against the direction of the project suddenly became banned for some of the most ridiculous of reasons. I was banned for "Spam posting because my posts sounded too similiar". Another member was banned for "Asking rhetorical questions". Essentially, if you weren't on the bandwagon, the company banned you. Just fine you think? The company has a right to do that?
Think about that for a moment. The company was intentionally manipulating the perception of it's product in order to boost sales through subversive means. Rather than make any overture to the established fanbase, the company excised them in order to make it's forums appear "More positive" through eliminating those who argued the projects direction wasn't inline with the product's history.
An astute observer would have noticed that suddenly during this timeframe an enourmous number of new positive posters appeared, a truly astute observer would've noticed that sometimes these new posters forgot which screenname they'd posted under. They would respond under a different screenname later in a thread taking credit for an earlier post. Someone was running multiple accounts to increase the number of "OMG it's the greatest thing ever!!!!" posts.
So if company's are willing to manipulate their forums to that extent, why would you not believe that they were willing to manipulate the reviews and the scores?
(Please don't bother PMing me on the subject, this is as specific as I'm getting. If I get any more specific, I could become victim to lawsuit I'm sure).
As far as it being #2? That's a shamefull embarassment. Fallout, Fallout 2, Planescape: Torment, Baldur's Gate 2, Final Fantasy 2, Final Fantasy 7, Diablo, Diablo 2, and so many others. Mass Effect 2 shouldn't even be on the list, mainly because it's not an RPG. Putting the letters on the box still doesn't make it an RPG. Dialogue doesn't make it an RPG either, Wing Commander 3 had dialogue with choices that affected the outcome, and no one would dare suggest that's an RPG.
So why are we doing it here?
Hmmm,I think Mass effect 2 is the best reviewed game under EA.This is a publisher which was known for a complete lack of creativity or quality up until 2-3 years ago.EA doesn't have an history of having most of it's game being reviewed all that well so critics have never been afraid to give mediocre scores to any game published under the EA brand.
Actually, technically speaking, EA's history is not only of the most IPs, but also of the industries best and widely regarded classics.
M.U.L.E.
Wastelands
Ultima 1-9
Wing Commander series
System Shock series
Alice
Crusader series
Need for Speed
Simcity
The Sims
Command and Conquer series
Starflight series
Archon
Bards Tale series
...And ones you won't know, but during their time were regarded as AAA titles...
Alternate reality, Clive Barker's Undying, Dungeon Keeper, The Immortal, Magic Carpet, Populous, Racing Destruction Set, Seven Cities of Gold, Alpha Centari, Syndicate.
EA's history is rife with success, on an order a great deal larger than anything ME2 mustered. EA is one of the founding fathers of modern gaming (Sierra, Infocom, Interplay, Activision are the others).
It's only recently that EA's aquired it's current reputation, used to be a badge of quality. EA made the error of trying to ride marketing fads and paying little attention to quality, it stopped trying to aquire quality games in favor of riding rapidly developed sequels to currently "Hot" titles to rapid revenue streams.
Thing is though, this is why EA's in danger of going under in the near-term. The gaming market's is contracting, as revenues have shown, the public's getting sick of knockoff games and the barrage of "I'm a shooter too!". It's only going to get worse in the next couple of years, I'd venture that once you take out WoW, GT5, and Starcraft from the sales figures for last year the actual revenues are probably frightening. EA's lack of variety and dependence on fast market fad sequels make it a prime canadate for a industry shaking fall.
Retour en haut
