177 réponses à ce sujet

[Ebenezer]

I dont think EA bribed the reviewers from these sites, BUT I do think since there are so many competing sites they slobber over big releases from big companies thinking "Maybe if we always say nice things about their games they'll give us some early demos and maybe an exclusive interview or two!"

So no I dont really think EA or any other company actively goes to sites and hands out bribes. But I do think sites are so desperate that they hand out high scores expecting/hoping they'll get something in return out of it.

[viverravid]

I think it's more a case of gaming journalists being very reluctant to give AAA titles bad reviews if they can find some saving graces.

Also they care less about core rpg mechanics and faithfullness to DA:O than we do. IMO it's a pretty good game, just a bad Origins sequel.

[FedericoV]

I think that DA2 review are mostly honest and not influenced in any way. Infact, the review are not looking so good or unanimous. They seem mostly sincere and there is a lot of open and constructive criticism.

On the other hand, I think that DA:O review were not so honest and were in some way influenced. Especially the consolle's one. I play on the PC but from what I hear from consolle players and friends, DA:O was not ported well (some say it was a real disaster on the PS3) and if I remember correctly, only the Eurogamer review pointed out the shortcoming of that game on the consolle. And honestly, that's suspect.

Modifié par FedericoV, 11 mars 2011 - 09:48 .

[Preliatus]

Another approach, though this support suggestion is whacking off my first opinion of bribing.

Back in the old days of PC Gaming when Blizzard just released Warcraft 2 the reviewer build had extra voices for units. Having them spout things like "I hope you give a good review!" and such.

Though now with current reviewers they seem too young and confused on what different game genres are. Its like telling someone which bucket of ****** is the right one for attracting a shark and which is the one for your fish bait.

Ofcourse I'm starting to hit sleep depravesion, and I realised the above post made no sense, just ignore this for now. Once I get an adequet amount of sleep I'll post with intelligence!

[Abstract]

I love how any good opinion of this game is considered paid-off. *Gasp*, is it possible that...no, it couldn't be, some people actually disagree with you and liked the game? Insanity.

Modifié par Abstract, 11 mars 2011 - 09:52 .

[AlanC9]

Ari87 wrote...

I'd wager the scores have nothing to do with bribes but rather with reviewers not knowing what RPG means and/or playing on casual.

Or knowing what RPG means and not caring. Enforcing RPG traditions isn't a reviewer's job.

(Anyone seen Sylvius lately? I was about to post that most RPG traditions are mistakes, but that's his line)

Modifié par AlanC9, 11 mars 2011 - 10:03 .

[Abstract]

Ari87 wrote...

I'd wager the scores have nothing to do with bribes but rather with reviewers not knowing what RPG means and/or playing on casual.

Dictionary.com defines Roleplaying as:

Roleplaying-method of instruction or psychotherapy aimed at changing attitudes and behavior, in which participants act out designated roles relevant to real-life situations.

By definition, every game is a role-playing game. Just because you don't like some elements they changed, doesn't mean reviewers not knowing what RPG means or/playing on casual.

Modifié par Abstract, 11 mars 2011 - 09:56 .

[Alexus_VG]

Reguarding the OP:

Do feel it's possible or likly bribes are involved in the marketing of a huge and wealthy company's products? Ofcourse but I don't think there really is a point of speculating on the matter. I could not care less in fact what the official critics rate this game. I have a perfectly good mind of my own to evaluate quality with and that is what I rely on before purchasing anything. Googling random review sites to make a decission on what to spend my money on is not on my list to do.

[Xaltar81]

I used to write for a review site and the site owner often would get hate mail from companies that had sent me stuff for review. I reviewed honestly and without compromise but I do know for fact that a lot of review sites are not as unfussed by hate mail and threats as my old boss was. Often one of the only things getting hits for your site and thus generating profit are the big name exclusives. Most of them are in it for the money. They don't NEED to be bribed, you do it for the developers by linking gamesite's bogus reviews everywhere and saying how unfair they are or how unaccurate, thus generating intrest and from there hits and from there profit. Its a simple formula, make a bogus review, gloss over negative points, rate high, keep the big name happy and generate controversy which gives you money. MM sinister plot? No, just business.

Its sad but my old bosses attitude of "Don't want a bad review? Don't send me S#$#" is not common these days.

Modifié par Xaltar81, 11 mars 2011 - 10:13 .

[Ari87]

Abstract wrote...

Ari87 wrote...

I'd wager the scores have nothing to do with bribes but rather with reviewers not knowing what RPG means and/or playing on casual.

Dictionary.com defines Roleplaying as:

Roleplaying-method of instruction or psychotherapy aimed at changing attitudes and behavior, in which participants act out designated roles relevant to real-life situations.

By definition, every game is a role-playing game. Just because you don't like some elements they changed, doesn't mean reviewers not knowing what RPG means or/playing on casual.

Maybe you should look up a definition of "Definition" before throwing things like this out there.

[Lycidas]

Gaming mags have been denied access to pre release copies of some titles for refusing to give high scores in the past. I'm not saying this happened here. At the end people like different things for different reasons.

[Eledran]

There are a lot of reviews out there. It is entirely unlikely that they bought all of them and nothing would ever leak out.

Let's launch another theory: some people are just out there to hate on the game for whatever reason, specifically people who just joined the forums to spew their bile and who don't even have it registered.

Modifié par Eledran, 11 mars 2011 - 11:16 .

[silver-crescent]

The big difference between the professional reviewers and the people who are busy trolling the game around these parts (and no, I'm not talking about the people who say the game has flaws, I'm talking about the people who say it's 0/10, worst game ever, death of Bioware, etc), is that the reviewers actually base their scores on how good they think the game is, not on how unlike DA:O it is, or how different it is from how they had idealized it.

[chosef]

It's not that reviews are paid. 8/10 is actually a bad score for such a game

This picture represents what official review numbers actually mean for AAA titles:

http://img863.images.../i/scoring.png/

[chosef]

dat double post. The forum delayed the original one again.

Modifié par chosef, 11 mars 2011 - 11:27 .

[AkiKishi]

Bribed is a strong word. But I'm sure they incentivised them to come up with those scores.

Did EA bribe you into buying Sig copies on faith ? No
Did they promise you stuff if you did ? Yes

That's why you see such a large spread after the rewiew embargo is over. Anyone reviewing before then has to follow certain "rules".

[ErebUs890]

It's discussions like this that really make me look down on gamers...

[kawacatoose]

You can't bribe them all.

[Teh Chozen Wun]

Uhmm... comparing DA2 and DA:O, I'll have to say DA2 has a far more epic story. It's not a story about some hero that's destined to save a world which has been done over and over. It's a story of a ordinary man dealing with a catastrophe. While it might not have the grand scale of DA:O it still is a great story.

[sreaction]

"It's clear that the idea behind any junket [a promotional trip made at another's expense] is to curry favor with the
reviewer," said Woods of the Poynter Institute. "The more substantial
the entertainment, the clearer the intent of the host."  Because of the potential conflict of interest, most game publications, including Computer Gaming World, PC Gamer
and Official PlayStation Magazine and some online sites such as
GameSpot and GameSpy have policies against taking free trips and
accepting gifts worth more than $25 to $100. "We have to pick up the tab
pretty much everywhere we go," said Amer Ajami, senior editor at
GameSpot, a San Francisco-based online game news site owned by CNet Networks.
The policies, however, are unevenly enforced, according to several
junket organizers. Often, the rules don't apply to freelancers, who work
independently and sell their articles to a variety of publications.  But freelancer or not, no writer will admit to being swayed by the extravaganzas"

Old article but pertinent to subject.
Pham, Alex.
Los Angeles Times [Los Angeles, Calif] 08 Apr 2002: pp. A.1.

Modifié par sreaction, 11 mars 2011 - 11:54 .

[moilami]

AlanC9 wrote...

So when a review comes in where someone thinks it should the reviewer is honest, and if it's above someone got bribed.

The great thing about this theory is that it's completely impervious to disproof.

Show me one really independent thinker and I show you Jesus.


Edit: In case you did not know common business logistics in reviewing business I can show it.

Good reviews -> good sales -> more advertisers -> profit.

Modifié par moilami, 11 mars 2011 - 11:53 .

[isual13]

It's a solid game to some extent. It is not as thought provoking or engaging as older CRPGs such as Baldur's gate/Planescape, but I do believe DA2 does it's job as being a solid game. More of an action rpg than an oldschool CRPG which many of the PC gamer's are irate about.

[Aurgelmir]

I don't think bribe is the word. If sites give an EA game a bad score, EA won't be too pleased and the site/magazine will be at a disadvantge for future EA releases, by that I mean they wont get advanced copies, they wont get exclusives, interviews, basically things that drive traffic or sales.

[AtreiyaN7]

If you hate a game and/or have some sort of rabid/irrational hatred of a company, that's fine. It doesn't mean that just because you hate the game or company, any critic who liked the game got bribed. This conspiracy crap is ridiculous.