The_mango55 wrote...
TJPags wrote...
Here's my problem - he is reviewing the game, giving us his impression of it. Based on, what? A few minutes of gameplay? Or based on the features of the game, the story, the combat, etc . . .everything the game has.
I'd hope it was #2, everything the game has. However, if the reviewer didn't check what the game has, then how can he review it? Using what criteria? What it should have, could have, or may have? The how is it a review of this product?
What other features did this reviewer not use? What other portions of the game did he not play? Would any of that have changed his review?
That's why this whole review is suspect.
And what does tactical have to do with anything? Personally, I never use pause and play, which seems to be what most people consider tactical. Regardless, it's completely irrelevant to this discussion.
If I like to use standard controls on an FPS, and I don't bother to check whether or not the inverted controls work, does that make my review suspect?
He did review all of the content in the game, he didn't test out all of the control styles.
If you're writing for standard controls on an FPS, nothing is wrong with your review. If you don't mention inverted controls, nothing is wrong with your review. If say the inverted controls are great, and never used them, or say they exist, without checking, then there's a problem, IMO.
We don't know he reviewed all the content. We don't know he played the whole thing. We don't know what he did. He mentioned one control that doesn't exist - based likely on what Bioware told him - how do we know that he didn't do that with anything else?
Paul Sedgmore wrote...
untoldsarcasm wrote...
TheCreeper wrote...
It really pisses me off how quick people are to accuse a reviewer of being paided off, That is a Very Very serious accusation to level at a reviewer and the game company in question. The Reviewer could have made a mistake or had a slightly different verison (which is very likely considering it sounds like an issue with production) but noo you guys have to declare this game the worst game in the world (despite the fact you haven't played it) and anyone who disagrees with you is clearly a stooge of EA.
Honestly, that's all in the hands of the reviewer. It wouldn't look suspect if the reviewer did their job right and got their facts straight.
As for possibly having a different copy of the game... my respect for Bioware will really take a hit if that is the case. Reviewers should have the same game that consumers will be given on release.
Sometimes it just isn't possible with review deadlines if they want the review up before release due to production reasons, If this is the case reviewers get pre-release code and notes from a developer about known issues that should be fixed in the final code. In my opinion it was a mistake for the reviewer to mention that it was in the game when he couldn't confirm it.
For those that say that the reviewer didn't research it then you have to think about the fact that we know it isn't in there because the Devs have stated that very recently and this information wasn't available before the deadline for the review - it was still a mistake to say it based on a promise but claiming that they didn't research it because information came out after the reviewer wrote the review is just rude.
Exactly part of the give and take I referred to above. He didn't have time to do it all, because he - or his magazine, more likely - wanted it out before the game releases. Which Bioware would like, too. Which is why Bioware probably gave him a cheat sheet about what features it has, so he wouldn't have to spend extra time checking everything.
But because he didn't check, he said there was a feature there actually isn't. So, what else did he perhaps not check, and only take Bioware's word for?
Example - Car & Driver says "the available 6 speed automatic on this new car is very responsive". The car does not have an available 6 speed automatic. Do you see a problem with this?
Retour en haut
