P.R. agency responsible for DNF threatens reviewers...
#1 Posted 15 June 2011 - 09:23 AM
They said they will not send them games to review in the future again, for those that gave it a score lower than 5.
http://www.escapistm...ver-Bad-Reviews
http://twitter.com/#.../therednergroup
This post has been edited by Alithinos: 15 June 2011 - 09:24 AM
#3 Posted 15 June 2011 - 09:34 AM
#4 Posted 15 June 2011 - 09:50 AM
#5 Posted 15 June 2011 - 10:11 AM
It was pretty clear to me - sites that were excessively unreasonable or harsh in their reviews wouldn't be getting new games to review.
I've seen a lot of unfounded complaints about the game, and a lot of excessively negative reviews.
You know what? DNF isn't a bad game. It's too short, yes, but graphically and gameplay wise I enjoyed it, especially compared to most games from the last few years.
#6 Posted 15 June 2011 - 10:32 AM
technically off-topic, voted Quote of the Day by Randy
http://www.shacknews...anchor_26098147
#8 Posted 15 June 2011 - 10:42 AM
Mikko_Sandt, on 15 June 2011 - 10:41 AM, said:
Yep, but I could not resist. You are sharp!
#10 Posted 15 June 2011 - 11:21 AM
I'm having fun in the 2-3 hours I've played the game so far. I just wanted a fun game and I got it.
#11 Posted 15 June 2011 - 11:32 AM
Engel220, on 15 June 2011 - 10:53 AM, said:
They really had no choice. The Stocks are still falling, and shit like that is the last thing Gearbox or 2K needs. Oh, well, next.
#12 Posted 15 June 2011 - 12:02 PM
So, even though this guy made the mistake of getting pissed off and publicly announcing these idiots would be blacklisted from reviewing future games, I'm pretty sure that blacklisting isn't going away. People who just want to make stuff up to bash a game because reviewing it poorly is the popular thing to do can blow it out their ass.
#13 Posted 15 June 2011 - 12:08 PM
#14 Posted 15 June 2011 - 12:12 PM
If you develop a videogame, there will be reviews, also bad ones. Much like if you are a candidate for president the midia will be after you and bash you if say something inappropriate.
And seriously, only for those who gave them game a review lower than 5? They really expect to increase their rating on reviews with that?
This post has been edited by Fox: 15 June 2011 - 12:12 PM
#15 Posted 15 June 2011 - 01:01 PM
TX, on 15 June 2011 - 12:02 PM, said:
So, even though this guy made the mistake of getting pissed off and publicly announcing these idiots would be blacklisted from reviewing future games, I'm pretty sure that blacklisting isn't going away. People who just want to make stuff up to bash a game because reviewing it poorly is the popular thing to do can blow it out their ass.
I simply can't agree more - bashing a game because it's "in" it's shitty...
I'm wondering how much money costs that each new call of duty doesn't get any lower mark than 8/10...
This post has been edited by Honza: 15 June 2011 - 01:01 PM
#16 Posted 15 June 2011 - 03:19 PM
This post has been edited by Mikko_Sandt: 15 June 2011 - 03:20 PM
#17 Posted 15 June 2011 - 03:55 PM
Hank, on 15 June 2011 - 10:32 AM, said:
For me g0nk's post is the true post of the day: "If there was no previous "Duke" what would everyone be saying now? Like, if this was the 1st Duke game, no one had heard of Duke before, and dognose never said it would 0wn. What would everyone thoughts on it be?"
Fox, on 15 June 2011 - 12:12 PM, said:
If you develop a videogame, there will be reviews, also bad ones. Much like if you are a candidate for president the midia will be after you and bash you if say something inappropriate.
And seriously, only for those who gave them game a review lower than 5? They really expect to increase their rating on reviews with that?
Quoted for truth.
#18 Posted 15 June 2011 - 04:57 PM
Honza, on 15 June 2011 - 01:01 PM, said:
It's not like I won't believe there is some money involved with the rating of games like Call of Duty, but I believe most of it is because it suits the standards of the public for modern games. Of course the standard of the average audience may not be the best, in most cases it's the opposite
This post has been edited by Fox: 15 June 2011 - 04:58 PM
#19 Posted 15 June 2011 - 08:43 PM
TX, on 15 June 2011 - 12:02 PM, said:
Because that's how it works. Movie studios are having press screenings for that purpose alone. So that they review the movie. Although, some movies(especially horror) don't have those. It's just the way it is with media releases. So that the magazine could have a review right when the game/movie/album is released and not several days/weeks later.
Quote
And where would you draw a line then? Who's review is inaccurate and who's not?
#20 Posted 15 June 2011 - 09:20 PM
Helel, on 15 June 2011 - 08:43 PM, said:
And where would you draw a line then? Who's review is inaccurate and who's not?
I hate the game because it is shit is not a review, and that is what a good portion of reviews are out there right now, and the issues they do bring up are in games like L.A. Noir, and Call of duty they are just being super selective about which games they rate higher. There are two sides to this some sites might review based on how much they get paid by the publisher * COUGH COUGH gamespot*
#21 Posted 15 June 2011 - 10:16 PM
Helel, on 15 June 2011 - 08:43 PM, said:
I've seen more than one review straight up make shit up just to make the game sound even worse. The line definitely needs to be drawn at stuff like that. There are also cases where otherwise reputable sites gave the game to people completely outside the game's intended target audience to review.
It's akin to having someone who reviews romantic comedies and cringes at the sight of blood review the latest gore filled horror film. What's the point? Of course they're going to give it a bad review, they decided they didn't like or couldn't handle the subject matter before the specific title was ever even part of the picture, and that's really the problem here. Just like I would have no business reviewing the latest Barbie Sissy Funhouse game, people who inherently dislike content such as is found in Duke Nukem Forever have no business reviewing it. They're entitled to their personal opinions of it of course but parroting them as fact is just plain wrong.
If reviewers can't force themselves to be objective they have no business writing reviews.
#22 Posted 15 June 2011 - 11:56 PM
That's a much more fair review that some of the bullshit we've been seeing over the last few days.
This post has been edited by randir14: 16 June 2011 - 12:01 AM
#23 Posted 16 June 2011 - 12:31 AM
TX, on 15 June 2011 - 10:16 PM, said:
It's akin to having someone who reviews romantic comedies and cringes at the sight of blood review the latest gore filled horror film. What's the point? Of course they're going to give it a bad review, they decided they didn't like or couldn't handle the subject matter before the specific title was ever even part of the picture, and that's really the problem here.
Are you talking about that gay reviewer? That's just bullshit. He made one remark about women in review yet you still condemn him for disliking the game just because he's gay.
Quote
Who's parroting opinions as facts?
#24 Posted 16 June 2011 - 12:49 AM
MusicallyInspired, on 15 June 2011 - 12:08 PM, said:
I agree, the industry seems to care about profits more than genuine results in their hands that will go on to being "legends" like 3DRealms Duke3d. Those days of great games that the developers can't wait to sell to us giving us everything we want and more than we expect are gone. Duke3d came with an editor & not to mention it had many levels, secrets including afew memorable secret levels. Everything felt right, it does to this day i can safely still put DN3D over DNF as pure brilliance.
One thing, it is sad to hear the industry is going south when i am in the stages of studying to get into game design, doing Certificate 4 in design at the moment & planning on buying Maya or 3d Studio Max to use at home and learn like the back of my hand.
I can draw, & i want to do concepts etc, maybe be a concept artist exept i still need the 3d side of things which is why i study. I would like to think the Game Industry here in adelaide is more down to earth than some others around the world. And for me it's deffinately NOT about money, i love games.. always have since i got the Intelivision! Who here knows what that is?? Very very old game console. i remember i had dungeons & dragons' for that and a soccer game, then i went onto the Pc Pet* commodore 64* sega megadrive* etc etc. i know what we like in games, and i plan on being a part of an company that will deliver the best games possible.
Only i probably will not be going overseas to do so as i can't leave my girlfriend & our kid back here.
But when i make it big, ill let ya guys know
#25 Posted 16 June 2011 - 02:19 AM
Yatta, on 15 June 2011 - 11:21 AM, said:
TX, on 15 June 2011 - 12:02 PM, said:
So you are saying that is very much ok in princible for companies to choose only reviewers they know will give them favourable reviews? =D So you actually want the companies to lie to you through controlled reviews? Being a Duke fan is one thing but supporting a company behind such actions (and company is just a group of people doing bussiness, no need to tangle duke into it in any way) only because they publish Duke is blind following.
#26 Posted 16 June 2011 - 03:34 AM
Distorting the general critical response on the Duke4 mainpage wasn't enough?
#27 Posted 16 June 2011 - 03:36 AM
Twig, on 16 June 2011 - 02:19 AM, said:
No it's not. But if you are a troll and call yourself a critic, you should be eliminated from the privilege to critic by a critic panel, or peers.
#28 Posted 16 June 2011 - 03:39 AM
X-Vector, on 16 June 2011 - 03:34 AM, said:
Distorting the general critical response on the Duke4 mainpage wasn't enough?
That tells me that neither fans not troll should be in the critic business.
If you can not critic something outside your personal taste, find another profession.
#29 Posted 16 June 2011 - 03:47 AM
This post has been edited by Twig: 16 June 2011 - 03:55 AM
#30 Posted 16 June 2011 - 03:54 AM
Hank, on 16 June 2011 - 03:39 AM, said:
Meaning you should only review it if you like it? Not review it because the reviewer has interest in the medium and DNF is a part of gaming medium? A good reviewer reviews everything everything the medium he or she is interested in offers. The bad reviewers are exactly the niche reviewers who review everything from one single point - just like cod-reviewers missing the iron-sight in Duke game it's also bad to judge game positively only because it has Duke in it.