DriftSpace wrote...
Also: reviews can be BOUGHT.
Firky wrote...
DriftSpace wrote...
Also: reviews can be BOUGHT.
Proof, or it didn't happen.
(Having 4 years of experience reviewing games for a print mag, I've never seen anything resembling bribery or pressure to score highly/review positively. So, if you have, that's fine. But, prove it.)
DriftSpace wrote...
soccerchick wrote...
I'm still kinda wondering where some of the more... virulent, for lack of a better word, haters for the game got the idea that their trust has been betrayed. Perhaps more specifically, why they believe that their faith in Bioware was lost after DA2. So ONE "mediocre" (to some) game is released after a never-ending string of good games, and all of a sudden, you can never trust Bioware again? What? How do you reconcile that?
If you didn't bother researching the game, or even waiting for peer reviews, then it's your own fault. It's your wallet. Not Bioware's.
Plus, I'm almost certain that most retailers give full refunds within the first week of buying a game, so if you didn't like it in that time period, you didn't get "ripped-off".
I, personally, had quite a bit of fun playing DA2. That said, it was seriously flawed, and I really hope Bioware can amaze me for DA3.
If you can't respond civilly to my post, please send me a PM instead. I'd rather not have Mr. Woo or Epler close this thread. Thank you.
I don't think there's any lack of civility here; seems pretty good so far.
You make some good points; it is one game in a pantheon of many, and I sure did play the demo and think to myself "oh crap, this game is going to suck, what have I done by paying for the game in-full before it was released?" but whether or not that's my fault or the fault of a company -- who, by yor own admission, has a good track record "ONE 'mediocre' game" -- which I trusted. Gray area, I think; it's at least not becoming of a consumer to
defend a company who (again, by your own admission) released something "seriously flawed".
Additionally: I think it's more responsible of me to complain about a product which I don't like -- stating specifically why I am dissatisfied -- instead of simply returning the game (if that were possible) to an uninvested retailer with no explanation. How does that make for better games?
What else ... oh yeah, where can I return software that's been opened? I used to work for a record store which sold games and movies, and I also used to work for EB Games and GameStop, and let me tell you: if people came in with open games (or any media) requesting a return because they "didn't like it," they would have-it-out with the manager, who would either deny the return -- saying that they can only exchange open software for the same thing because of pirating and copyright concerns -- or give store credit in RARE cases. I also never said "ripped-off," so I don't know why that's in quotes. GameStop even has something called a "performance guarantee" for which gamers pay extra, and that extra cost up-front specifically allows gamers to return games because they don't like them; it's about the same as a rental fee. If you don't pay for the "performance guarantee" you don't get to return the OPEN game because you didn't like it.
So you are welcome to be "almost certain," but as someone who has worked in the industry and who still works in the consumable media industry: the ability to return open (copyable) media to a retailer is not something which many stores (except Costco) practice, and is not a sustainable business model.
As far as "researching" a game goes: the only information available to gamers -- before a demo is released, or before retail copies are disseminated for review -- is what the COMPANY makes available to the gamers, and why would EA release information that would make DA2 seem as different than it is from DA:O? Answer: they would not. Also: reviews can be BOUGHT. Case-and-point: go to metacritic and check out the number of glowing "professional" reviews as compared to the amount of disparaging "player" reviews.
There is no judging a game until you play it yourself; this is just a fact. If anyone judges anything without directly experiencing it then not only are they fools, but they obviously don't value (or lack) the ability to make judgements of their own accord ... "soccerchick."
Firky wrote...
Proof, or it didn't happen.
(Having 4 years of experience reviewing games for a print mag, I've never seen anything resembling bribery or pressure to score highly/review positively. So, if you have, that's fine. But, prove it.)
Whatever the case: you're lucky. Game store employees do make a horrendous amount of exceptions for ladies (assuming you are one from your handle), but we don't need to elaborate on why we think that happens.soccerchick wrote...
And that's really odd with the returning thing, because my Gamestop always lets me return a game in the first week for a full refund. Geographical difference?
Modifié par Firky, 05 octobre 2011 - 02:19 .
Some have been caught red handed.Firky wrote...
DriftSpace wrote...
Also: reviews can be BOUGHT.
Proof, or it didn't happen.
DriftSpace wrote...
Whatever the case: you're lucky. Game store employees do make a horrendous amount of exceptions for ladies (assuming you are one from your handle), but we don't need to elaborate on why we think that happens.soccerchick wrote...
And that's really odd with the returning thing, because my Gamestop always lets me return a game in the first week for a full refund. Geographical difference?
DriftSpace wrote...
Second: I've had my fair share of journalistic experience as well -- even reviewing games -- but advertising is advertising, and it's not a secret that companies provide incentives to the media to make themselves look better. Game reviews are media, and media subsist solely on advertising from corporations. This isn't a stretch of the imagination, and if you worked for a successful publication you probably know where most of the budget came from: advertising. If there are corporate lobbyists who influence the presence of certain people in governments, why is it such a stretch to assert that corporations wouldn't make the same efforts to paint a positive image of themselves through the media?
Did you see "The Greatest Movie Ever Sold?" In seeking funding from corporations, the filmmaker was required to sign lengthy contracts saying that he would not disparage the corporation or the corporation's products. Do you really think the corporate game world doesn't work the same way?
RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...
http://en.wikipedia..../Jeff_Gerstmann
Companies with lots of money have lots of leverage to effect the perception of the general public.Firky wrote...
But I contest that if this practice were happening on a large scale, it would be impossible to hide.
There you go: if you're a freelancer then you're intentionally left-out of the business-end of the magazine. Pay-for reviews are usually handled by staff writers who are under more stringent contractual terms than freelancers. In a word: you never would have been assigned a product for review which had been paid-for.Firky wrote...
Then our experience varies. I have no idea what our mag even advertises, I'm a freelancer. (I do read it, but advertising rarely makes any impression on me in any kind of media. I'm just oblivious to it.)
Still, if your experience was to feel under pressure to score/review a certain way, I respect that that was true. I never have, which is a credit to the mag and the people I work with.
Modifié par DriftSpace, 05 octobre 2011 - 02:34 .
Thank you; it's important to think critically like this.The Executioner wrote...
There isn't alot of media that doesn't engage in spin . The media has been bought for the most part by one interest or another.
Modifié par DriftSpace, 05 octobre 2011 - 02:35 .
DriftSpace wrote...
There you go: if you're a freelancer then you're intentionally left-out of the business-end of the magazine. Pay-for reviews are usually handled by staff writers who are under more stringent contractual terms than freelancers. In a word: you never would have been assigned a product for review which had been paid-for.
This also makes you lucky, because you didn't have to contribute to corporate smoke-screening because someone waved a big check in front of your face.
Firky wrote...
With respect, that's still an assumption, not proof. (And I don't believe that for a second, by the way. Our editorial staff are amazing.)
We only have a couple of writers on staff and they are usually so busy they just ask us freelancers what we want to do. As the RPG girl, I reviewed DAII and Witcher 2, both important titles. Pretty much any big title you could name over the last 4 years have been hadled by freelancers, from memory.
Sure, it's just one example, and I could be a creepy old guy lying my ass off, I suppose, but - like I said, it's still assumption, not proof. Fairly logical sounding assumption, but not proof. Believe me, if there were proof of this on a wide scale I'd love to see it.
Anyway, I think I've made my point. My experience is not universal, but these kinds of gaming rumours, how true or not they actually are, should be worth proving properly, IMO, and challenging.
Every time I see Bioware say the game was commercially successful, it reminds of the banner on the front of the middle school I drive by on the way to work. "Adequate yearly progress. Three years in a row!!!" It's celebrating mediocrity. Maybe it's for employee morale. *shrug*ElitePinecone wrote...
They're saying it's a commercial success, though. Clearly it sold well enough to make up for the cost of development.
DriftSpace wrote...
Just remember that lack of proof is not proof of anything itself either. However, given how most corporations respond to (and invest in) their public image, I think it's less of a stretch to assert that this happens than to assert that it is an exception. Seriously: the entire US government is basically run by corporations paying to support candidates who support their goals. Oil, cars, banks ... this is the reality of the corporate world.
If you have not: I highly recommend seeing "The Greatest Movie Ever Sold."
Modifié par Firky, 05 octobre 2011 - 02:45 .
Modifié par Yrkoon, 05 octobre 2011 - 02:47 .
The Executioner wrote...
Please let's not wade into Politics were not there but were getting close it won't end well trust me . I haven't seen any of that madness here on this forum let's keep it that way.
In the interests of fairness death to the Tea Party now hopefully we can leave it at that.soccerchick wrote...
The Executioner wrote...
Please let's not wade into Politics were not there but were getting close it won't end well trust me . I haven't seen any of that madness here on this forum let's keep it that way.
OBAMA IS THE ANTI-CHRIST!!!1
Ok, I'm sorry, but it had to be done.
The Executioner wrote...
Please let's not wade into Politics were not there but were getting close it won't end well trust me . I haven't seen any of that madness here on this forum let's keep it that way.
So you got back from a temp ban and willing to get another one?great i shall get something to drink at the time.csfteeeer wrote...
TheJediSaint wrote...
The problem is that a lot of people on Bioware social are like comic book fans, they think any kind of change is bad and must be reverted.
This argument more and more retarded every time i read it.
Retour en haut