132 réponses à ce sujet

[The_mango55]

A problem for people who want the car in manual/want auto attack.

But not a problem that should make you think he hasn't played the game (the parts of the game he says he's played, rather than the feature he didn't test)

[Paul Sedgmore]

TJPags wrote...

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?

I agree that it was wrong for the reviewer to give a difinitive statement rather than something like "Bioware have stated that this will be available in the final product" and yes it does bring into question other possible issues that wern't mentioned or stated as fact rather than a "we are told" way because of promises which comes down to the reviewers style.

[Grunk]

Why is it hard to believe review copies and retail copies are different? That's common industry practice. They probably put it on the review copies, screwed up and didn't put it on the retail, and therefore, we have a screw-up.

The review was probably done before the info about the auto-attack came out re: the retail copies. The real issue is that reviewers get special copies that aren't retail copies, even if they're intended to be. But publishers/dev houses want early reviews to generate sales and review outfits want reviews for hits/subs.

My conclusion is that we have a flawed gaming review system, not that Bioware is teh devilz and this review is entirely untrustworthy. But I'm also a person that generally reads a ton of reviews, but really goes more by gameplay videos than anything I see in a review.

[TJPags]

@the_mango:

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

For the record, I don't follow game previews/reviews. I watch some show on G4 now and again (don't even remember the name of it) but that's it. So I have no idea who this reviewer is, how reliable he usually is, or anything like that.

I don't think he's a bad guy for this. I don't think he wrote a scam review. I don't think he was paid off. I don't think there's a conspiracy. I think he relied on information he was given by Bioware, which turned out to be wrong.

However, I do think that where there's one mistake, there may be others.

I do think, for his own integrity, he should correct that review. Because his review says there are features in the game which are not there.

Modifié par TJPags, 08 mars 2011 - 02:45 .

[Geniasis]

TJPags wrote...

@the_mango:

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

For the record, I don't follow game previews/reviews. I watch some show on G4 now and again (don't even remember the name of it) but that's it. So I have no idea who this reviewer is, how reliable he usually is, or anything like that.

I don't think he's a bad guy for this. I don't think he wrote a scam review. I don't think he was paid off. I don't think there's a conspiracy. I think he relied on information he was given by Bioware, which turned out to be wrong.

However, I do think that where there's one mistake, there may be others.

I do think, for his own integrity, he should correct that review. Because his review says there are features in the game which are not there.

Or it could simply be that the master copies were sent off before the review copies were made, and thus the feature that was mistakenly left out of the mass-produced copies was present in the copy given to him.

[TJPags]

Geniasis wrote...

TJPags wrote...

@the_mango:

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

For the record, I don't follow game previews/reviews. I watch some show on G4 now and again (don't even remember the name of it) but that's it. So I have no idea who this reviewer is, how reliable he usually is, or anything like that.

I don't think he's a bad guy for this. I don't think he wrote a scam review. I don't think he was paid off. I don't think there's a conspiracy. I think he relied on information he was given by Bioware, which turned out to be wrong.

However, I do think that where there's one mistake, there may be others.

I do think, for his own integrity, he should correct that review. Because his review says there are features in the game which are not there.

Or it could simply be that the master copies were sent off before the review copies were made, and thus the feature that was mistakenly left out of the mass-produced copies was present in the copy given to him.

True, this could be the case.  In which case this guy is blameless.

I've seen a lot of back and forth about review copies being pressed before retail, or after, or separately, etc.  I don't know how it works, so I can't express an opinion.

But if this feature - which Bioware did hype as a feature - made it into the review copy, but not the retail, I think it makes Bioware look even worse.  Especially since they still haven't made an official announcement.  The only thing we have is the Chris Priestly post from the other thread.

[Ploppy]

The problem is that retail and review copies shouldn't be different anyway. I realize it's normal in the industry, but it's completely useless to review a different copy of the game than the one you can get in stores.

[panamakira]

Conflicting information. I'm sure Chris cleared up the console auto-attack as they left it out by mistake but this review said he had it for the Xbox?

Confused....

[JoshPloof]

Anyone that rates on a 5 star scale sucks.

[Sam-_-Fisher]

Nice review.

[Blacklash93]

JoshPloof wrote...

Anyone that rates on a 5 star scale sucks.

I guess most movie reviewers must be terrible and unreliable, then.

[Paul Sedgmore]

Grunk wrote...

Why is it hard to believe review copies and retail copies are different? That's common industry practice. They probably put it on the review copies, screwed up and didn't put it on the retail, and therefore, we have a screw-up.

The review was probably done before the info about the auto-attack came out re: the retail copies. The real issue is that reviewers get special copies that aren't retail copies, even if they're intended to be. But publishers/dev houses want early reviews to generate sales and review outfits want reviews for hits/subs.

My conclusion is that we have a flawed gaming review system, not that Bioware is teh devilz and this review is entirely untrustworthy. But I'm also a person that generally reads a ton of reviews, but really goes more by gameplay videos than anything I see in a review.

People find it hard to believe because they are not aware that games can change drastically so close to release and how early some reviewer get the review code. 

The review system is far from perfect the same as any other system where a person judges something and even if you can accept that a review is someones opinion the only way to make sure that the code is the same as retail is to not review games until after retail which is unlikly to happen as people want to know what a game is like before it is released.

[didymos1120]

TJPags wrote...

Especially since they still haven't made an official announcement.  The only thing we have is the Chris Priestly post from the other thread.

That counts as official. He's the community coordinator.  If he's posting about it here, then it's been cleared to be talked about.  No, it's not a formal announcement, but it is an official one.

[TJPags]

didymos1120 wrote...

TJPags wrote...

Especially since they still haven't made an official announcement.  The only thing we have is the Chris Priestly post from the other thread.

That counts as official. He's the community coordinator.  If he's posting about it here, then it's been cleared to be talked about.  No, it's not a formal announcement, but it is an official one.

Fair enough, you're right.

I was talking more about an announcement in the announcement section, or even making the other thread a sticky - the kind of thing a casual visitor can notice.

[didymos1120]

Ploppy wrote...

The problem is that retail and review copies shouldn't be different anyway. I realize it's normal in the industry, but it's completely useless to review a different copy of the game than the one you can get in stores.

Mountain. Molehill. In this specific instance, it's a single file's difference; the result of a simple mix-up, and a difference that wasn't intentional.  It's really got nothing to do with general industry review practices.  And the fact of the matter is, it should be the review, because it will almost certainly be in the console versions, as intended, within a few days at most:  they're already working on distributing a fix.  They just have to jump through the MS/Sony hoops.

[didymos1120]

TJPags wrote...
Fair enough, you're right.

I was talking more about an announcement in the announcement section, or even making the other thread a sticky - the kind of thing a casual visitor can notice.

Yeah, agreed: they probably should, though I would imagine they're hoping they can get an emergency title update out so they can just announce it as a problem solved. 

[Dragmeire]

Interesting review. I can't wait to try the full game out myself.

[Wrath of Bong]

vilnii wrote...

I don't believe anyone was paid off...Bioware and EA cannot afford a scandal of that magnitude.

If they did something like that and people found out, they will never live it down

Gamespot and Eidos are doing fine even with the whole Kane & Lynch/Jeff Gerstmann firing incident. Btw, not saying Bioware or EA paid off reviews, just saying companies can move on even with such scandal.

Can't wait to play this but I didn't like how the review described the combat as a combination of Fable series & WoW, seeing as I'm not a big fan of both games. What's the deal with stating Dragon Age II being "the pinnacle of computer role playing games", when he reviewed the XBox version? Oh well, the wait isn't long now.

Modifié par Wrath of Bong, 08 mars 2011 - 06:04 .

[Darji]

PsychoWARD23 wrote...

I just read the closing paragraph, sounds good. AND it's based on the 360 version so apparently button-mashing isn't a problem.

Yeah because his version apparently had auto attack.,

Also wasnt there a review embargo? How the hell should we think about that Bioware? you should it either close ore admit that it can stay because it is such a positive rweview.  But I guess the later will be the case right?

[Darji]

vilnii wrote...

I don't believe anyone was paid off...Bioware and EA cannot afford a scandal of that magnitude.

If they did something like that and people found out, they will never live it down

Ubisoft did it. Eidos did  it even Rockstar did it only to name a few

[RohanD]

didymos1120 wrote...
No, what Priestly actually said was it wasn't in the initial certification build.  It was then finished in time to make it in to the masters.  But they goofed and left out that one, single file.

Hmm yeah what else is he going to say?

didymos1120 wrote...
Logic: the manufacturing masters would have gone out before the review copies, because mass production of millions of copies takes far more time than cranking out a few hundred for reviewers. That's almost certainly done on the Bioware premises.  So, not only not "impossible that this feature was present in the 'review' copy", but in fact highly likely.

What you said could be true. But, in all honesty, have you ever heard of a game review talk about features that were not in the game which you paid money for? I mean like EVER? 

Sure I've heard them say "This feature is not included but will be patched in later" but this is not what he said. He made a definitive statement about it being there, and the same goes for the PC Gamer podcast regarding AoE spells and the detachable camera for the PC. 

[Jazharah]

Closing comment:
"Dragon Age 2: the pinnacle of RPG's ...at least until Skyrim comes out"

Despite the fact I'm not looking forward to another Bethesda game, this did make me chuckle a lot.

[Chob]

Nice review. I'm sure the game will get mostly favorable reviews.

[Buffy-Summers]

I love how he insults every single person who likes the way origin plays

Calling RPGers - mentally ill with OCD.

Tito probably is 19 and loves gears of war and that darn awesome button