All the big gaming websites and magazines are fuelled by money, the companies pay them to talk about it and give it a good score. Not only that, but these so called "reviewers" are not experts nor are they capable of writing a good review, let alone analyse it properly.
Originally Posted by alastair john jack All the big gaming websites and magazines are fuelled by money, the companies pay them to talk about it and give it a good score. Not only that, but these so called "reviewers" are not experts nor are they capable of writing a good review, let alone analyse it properly.
how little do you know about the gaming industry? companies dont "bribe" their way to good reviews with money. its even to the point where most reviewers dont even get swag from a game company of which they are reviewing a game for. the only sway a game company has is WHO can review their game. if theyve gotten bad reviews in the past, and are dicks about it, they arent obligated to send out a review copy. and even then, all that means is that whoever wasnt sent a review copy has to wait until the commercial release. some if not most of these so called "big gaming websites and magazines" have made it very clear that games get the review and score that they deserve, however high or low. 1up in particular. even game informer has its "second and third opinion reviews" which are right next to the main review. sometimes the contrast is heavy. a game that "officially" recieved a 9 to a 10 out of 10 sometimes gets a second opinion of 8.5 or 7.5 or even below. dont give me that "oh they pay them to give good reviews" shit.
"Not only that, but these so called "reviewers" are not experts nor are they capable of writing a good review, let alone analyse it properly. "
most of the people in the games industry that i listen to are MORE that capable of analysing and writing excellent reviews about a game. this is their JOB after all. and what about independant reviewers, freelancers, etc. area5, the geekbox, and rebelfm all have little to gain by giving a game a positive review (they dont score either, its pure review). they do it because its their passion.
It was just an observation, most reviews I've seen (from sites such as gamespot etc. etc.) offer very basic/shallow criticism and consist mostly of facts like a wikipedia article rather than a critical analysis.
I just have high standards though.
Hmm. Don't take this as trolling, as I only just learned that there's some kind of Alan Wake vs. Heavy Rain fan rivalry, but after reading this I was going to mention Alan Wake as an alternative for those who want more of an actual game and less of a movie (in a sense; it looks like it'll be a very cinematic game).
It recently became 360-exclusive, though, so I guess most of those who won't be buying Heavy Rain probably won't be able to get AW either...
Anyway, that's my two cents. They both look cool, but I'd definitely go with Alan Wake. I loved Max Payne and I didn't even get to play it (only watched my brother playing it on occasion).
Originally Posted by alastair john jack All the big gaming websites and magazines are fuelled by money, the companies pay them to talk about it and give it a good score. Not only that, but these so called "reviewers" are not experts nor are they capable of writing a good review, let alone analyse it properly.
how little do you know about the gaming industry? companies dont "bribe" their way to good reviews with money. its even to the point where most reviewers dont even get swag from a game company of which they are reviewing a game for. the only sway a game company has is WHO can review their game. if theyve gotten bad reviews in the past, and are dicks about it, they arent obligated to send out a review copy. and even then, all that means is that whoever wasnt sent a review copy has to wait until the commercial release. some if not most of these so called "big gaming websites and magazines" have made it very clear that games get the review and score that they deserve, however high or low. 1up in particular. even game informer has its "second and third opinion reviews" which are right next to the main review. sometimes the contrast is heavy. a game that "officially" recieved a 9 to a 10 out of 10 sometimes gets a second opinion of 8.5 or 7.5 or even below. dont give me that "oh they pay them to give good reviews" shit.
"Not only that, but these so called "reviewers" are not experts nor are they capable of writing a good review, let alone analyse it properly. "
most of the people in the games industry that i listen to are MORE that capable of analysing and writing excellent reviews about a game. this is their JOB after all. and what about independant reviewers, freelancers, etc. area5, the geekbox, and rebelfm all have little to gain by giving a game a positive review (they dont score either, its pure review). they do it because its their passion.
I'd actually agree with Alastair here, there is a degree of reviewer cowardice; I wouldn't go as far as saying the game companies pay money to get good reviews, but there are definitely incentives for the big game sites to give games good scores - if you give Company A's new game a shit review, they're going to withhold the review copy of their next game, which obviously dents visits to the review site and the advertising revenue that goes with it.
Your independent, not-for-profits though pretty much can be trusted to give an honest review, even if it isn't always a good one.
Of course companies don't throw vast wads of cash at review sites to get good reviews, They just threaten to pull advertising, if they've actually paid for ads that is.
There was a lot of talk about game reviews here when Jeff Gerstman got fired from Gamespot after the Kane & Lynch fiasco. In that thread I cited a story on Joystiq about journalists being sent.. various incentives to boost the scores of certain games.
Metacritic isn't perfect but since I don't put much trust in any one particular website, it's useful to see an average of all reviews scores. I tend to ignore the top few, which are invariably always Official [Console Name] Magazine Monthly.
It's possible that a publisher could have sent money to every single reviewer on the Metacritic list, but I don't think Sony has that much money to be throwing around anymore, and I don't think they'd spend it on such a niche game anyway.
Personally I find only the reviews on TDC to be trustworthy. Scores of 0, 1, 9 or 10 FTW.
They actually made some good points for someone who just picked up the game and didn't know what to expect. I'd imagine that many other people will feel the same way if they rent Heavy Rain "just to see what all the fuss is about", then get frustrated because it's not Mass Effect 2.
On the other hand, this is not the attitude any reviewer should have upon playing a game. It's a terrible review. Things that take getting used to, like the game's controls and pacing, are instantly labelled as game-breaking problems "within seconds". Also, notice that there was no mention of the main feature of the game, which is that your choices affect the story and have consequences. I wonder if the reviewer even knows. I'm surprised it even got a 4 if he treated it like a linear game with quicktime events.
I'd encourage everyone to read the reviews - plural.
http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/ps3/heavyrain
Even after factoring in this score, the average is 88%. Teletext's Gamecentral looks like the spoiled kid sitting at the bottom of the list.
I have to say the reviewers in Edge and Gamecentral (teletext post, above), for me, tend to be the most accurate to my own tastes. However i've not played the game myself so haven't actually judged it.
Interesting though that the 2 reviewers i tend to listen to were the lowest scorers on Metacritic for Heavy Rain.
I also find it interesting that many of the reviewers on Metacritic gave a game based upon "quick time events" perfect 100 scores; a little dubious, i think. Also of note, many of the reviewers who scored it 95+ said that it wasn't actually a game as such or was more like an interactive movie (ImpulseGamer, Everyeye.it, Game Informer), which might explain the low GameCentral score if they were rating the gameplay experience as most important.
I have to say the graphics and apparent storyline interest me. Alas, i don't actually own a PS3 so will maybe never play it
I just got this game at the weekend and I'm pretty blown away by it. I thought the demo was pretty meh. You really need time to get to know the characters. That first hour is perfectly paced and not at all unnecessary.
I wouldn't recommend it to anyone, but if you enjoy dramas (24, Prison Break) and don't mind playing a different sort of game then you'll probably get into this. I have a ton of respect for Quantic Dream for trying something that no one else had the balls to try, and making such a fine job of it. In a lot of ways it feels like an indie game with commercial quality production values.
Originally Posted by Marko I also find it interesting that many of the reviewers on Metacritic gave a game based upon "quick time events" perfect 100 scores; a little dubious, i think.
It's not "based upon" quicktime events; it's based upon decision making and telling a story that's affected by those decisions. Also, and this is a loose point, but even within some quicktime segments you have choices to make (this way or that; escape or fight)
I'm not seeing what the big deal is with quicktime events anyway. What are games, if not dressed up reaction and decision making tests?
Has anyone else played it? I'd like to hear what you think of it, although I probably won't check back here until I've completed the game.
For the record, i HATE quick time events in games. Also for the record, i think Heavy Rain looks great and if i had a PS3 i'd buy it. As a 360 owner i do plan to buy Alan Wake (if it ever comes out) and i hope it's as good as i hear Heavy Rain is.
Also, my mate bought Heavy Rain and he said it was boring, where you do nothing but "press a button here and there". But then again he used to go on and on about Terminator 3: the Redemption on the PS2, and i played it and thought it was pretty bog-standardly average.
Advertisement
Post Reply
Edited by alastair john jack
