Payola?

[cephalo]

It's interesting that metacritic comes up with an 85 score from reviewers while the metacritic users rate it 4.7 out of 10. That's a pretty wide gap.

http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/pc/spore

This isn't the first time I've seen some highly suspect reviews. It seems to be more and more common in the game industry in the last few years. Never trust a review that is written before the game is released. How did the reviewer get an early copy? Why would a publisher give an early copy to someone who might rate it poorly? I would think that they would have to know what the result will be to take that chance.

I bought the galactic edition because all the regular copies were sold out. Now I'm feeling buyers remorse. I suppose the DRM rules out selling it used on ebay?

[SimonL]

Originally Posted by cephalo

It's interesting that metacritic comes up with an 85 score from reviewers while the metacritic users rate it 4.7 out of 10. That's a pretty wide gap.

http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/pc/spore

This isn't the first time I've seen some highly suspect reviews. It seems to be more and more common in the game industry in the last few years. Never trust a review that is written before the game is released. How did the reviewer get an early copy? Why would a publisher give an early copy to someone who might rate it poorly? I would think that they would have to know what the result will be to take that chance.

I bought the galactic edition because all the regular copies were sold out. Now I'm feeling buyers remorse. I suppose the DRM rules out selling it used on ebay?

Yep, and we got that whole Gamespot fiasco some months ago, can't remember what game it was about, but basically they fired a writer who gave an average review to a new game that was currently advertised on the site. So the website had these huge banners for the game, and the review gave a score of.. I dunno, 77/100 or something. The guy lost his job I think. And then there was gamer outcry against this craziness. But yeah, it's not like Gamespot is the only culprit. Can't quite trust anybody except other users. And even then, I heard things like Amazon.com user-reviews were plagued by fake reviews from paid employees or I dunno what. I'm sure large firms have employees to attack wikipedia, amazon.com, gamefaqs.com and metacritic with their propaganda

[cephalo]

Computer Gaming World magazine used to be one you could always trust, but then they got bought by Microsoft and became Games for Windows, with predictable results for the quality of reviews. I've been led astray a few times by them since then. You really can't trust reviewers in this climate.

[JtheJackal]

Early reviews didn't help Space Siege, but anyway from my point of view it isn't the reviewers who are giving biased scores. What I mean is that the difference between what reviewers are focusing on and what people who have said the game isn't good are focusing on. Reviewers are focusing on what the game is, many others are focusing on the game they imagined or hoped for (or worse based on the game using DRM).

[Dale]

SecureROM and DRM are important issues to some people. The "protections" that EA put on the game handicap the game for some people.

EG:
1. I can't have separate logins for me, wife and kid.
2. The 3 install limit would have been hit very quickly by me (I format all our computers 1-2 times a year to keep them running at 100%). Yes, the latest from EA does help to avoid this now.
3. EA deliberately ripped half the game out to sell as XP's at $40 each. For some people that leaves a very dirty taste in the mouth.
4. A lot of people have had extremely bad experiences with SecureROM, technical problems caused by the SecureROM, the fact SecureROM is effectively MalWare, opening an unathorised connection to an external server to transmit unauthorised data about your personal computer usage to them, and that SecureROM remains after the game is uninstalled.

There is very legitimate reasons for people to be angry with the measures put in place by EA.

[cephalo]

The DRM is absolutely no issue for me, as one install is all that I will want to waste my precious time on, ever. The gameplay here is non-existent. I can go to armorgames.com and get more compelling gameplay from any one of those free flash games. This is an obvious stinker. The 4.7 rating from the users is about right on the money. The only thing that might stink more are those reviews giving this a 90 or 100 rating. Yep, somethin stinks.

[PreLynMax]

Originally Posted by cephalo

The DRM is absolutely no issue for me, as one install is all that I will want to waste my precious time on, ever. The gameplay here is non-existent. I can go to armorgames.com and get more compelling gameplay from any one of those free flash games. This is an obvious stinker. The 4.7 rating from the users is about right on the money. The only thing that might stink more are those reviews giving this a 90 or 100 rating. Yep, somethin stinks.

Amen to that, bro.

[Dale]

^^^^ Ditto. DRM is a side issue as the game stinks anyways.

[cubsfan6506]

The publisher sends out early copies to review magazines os they can ahve the reviews quicker and the unse them in commerical. For instance When commercials say "EGM 8/10".

[SimonL]

I really disagree with people who say that DRM should not be considered in reviewing a game. It's part of the product. Just like glitches and a load of incredible bugs should be mentioned in a review.

[Dell19]

I haven't got the game and have pretty much only read the comments on this sub forum and it sounds like a 7 would be a reasonable review. The DRM is an issue but EA apparently unluck it if you phone - not sure if they will do this in five years time? The game works, a reasonable chunk of posters seem to enjoy it and the backlash seems to be from people who brought the game expecting it to live up to the hype without waiting for a decent number of reviews.

[Macha]

AFAIK There was a company that was blackmailed by Sony to improve a rating. They published the poor rating anyway along with Sony's threat (they were warned they would be made give their preview PS3 back [This was before it was out]). I heard about this when my favorite games magazine posted an artice congratulating the other magazine for publishing. Strangely enough that issue had 50% less ads.

[Dale]

Originally Posted by Dell19

I haven't got the game and have pretty much only read the comments on this sub forum and it sounds like a 7 would be a reasonable review. The DRM is an issue but EA apparently unluck it if you phone - not sure if they will do this in five years time? The game works, a reasonable chunk of posters seem to enjoy it and the backlash seems to be from people who brought the game expecting it to live up to the hype without waiting for a decent number of reviews.

Problem is, there IS a decent number of reviews. That's the point of this thread, the reviews are extremely misleading, giving the impression of false scores. That's what this thread is about.

As for the game, yes a lot of people like it, but everyone says the same thing. The game lacks real depth, it's EXTREMELY repetitive, there are many bugs, and they are unsure how long it will amuse them to play. A lot of people feel ripped off too as a lot of stuff that was guarenteed to be in the game are not (eg: water phase, flora editor, cell editor, breakdown of stats on your creatures in other player's galaxies, etc).

That's why people are complaining. DRM is just another problem on the pile of stinking horse . .. .. .. . that is Spore.

[GoodGame]

It is pretty interesting especially since the users listed # 823 and the critics listed # 43. Those are pretty big samples for both. I wouldn't automatically say it was that the critics were bribed or something, just that the standards of a professional critic and those of the average user were widely different.

My own opinions tend to agree with metacritic so I tend to use it buy games myself.

Originally Posted by cephalo

It's interesting that metacritic comes up with an 85 score from reviewers while the metacritic users rate it 4.7 out of 10. That's a pretty wide gap.

http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/pc/spore

This isn't the first time I've seen some highly suspect reviews. It seems to be more and more common in the game industry in the last few years. Never trust a review that is written before the game is released. How did the reviewer get an early copy? Why would a publisher give an early copy to someone who might rate it poorly? I would think that they would have to know what the result will be to take that chance.

I bought the galactic edition because all the regular copies were sold out. Now I'm feeling buyers remorse. I suppose the DRM rules out selling it used on ebay?

[Lord_Iggy]

Okay, calling Spore a 'stinking pile of horse****' is going way too far, even if it is sarcastic.

[Dale]

It isn't going too far, and I wasn't being sarcastic.

[GVBN]

Originally Posted by cephalo

How did the reviewer get an early copy?

Publishers tend to give review sites early copies

Originally Posted by cephalo

Why would a publisher give an early copy to someone who might rate it poorly?

Bribes. There's a reason why every review site gives perfect scores to games like Halo 3. The game gets hype, the site gets money, everyone benefits

[Catharsis]

PrinceScamp found an interesting article about this sort of thing a few months back. Here it is:

Game Reviews: the ugly path from publisher to publishing

So probably not 'bribes', then. Or 'payola'. Just a few... subtle hints. If you're reviewing this much-hyped EA game, you're not going to pan it too much, are you - they might remove you from the 'exclusive' list. Also 'new-game syndrome' probably plays a part.

[Dom Pedro II]

Originally Posted by Catharsis

So probably not 'bribes', then. Or 'payola'. Just a few... subtle hints. If you're reviewing this much-hyped EA game, you're not going to pan it too much, are you - they might remove you from the 'exclusive' list. Also 'new-game syndrome' probably plays a part.

Sounds like Washington or [insert your capital here]

[cephalo]

Originally Posted by Catharsis

PrinceScamp found an interesting article about this sort of thing a few months back. Here it is:

Game Reviews: the ugly path from publisher to publishing

So probably not 'bribes', then. Or 'payola'. Just a few... subtle hints. If you're reviewing this much-hyped EA game, you're not going to pan it too much, are you - they might remove you from the 'exclusive' list. Also 'new-game syndrome' probably plays a part.

Yeah, this article outlines the circumstances that I suspected. What this means is that in general, professional reviews are worthless these days and should be ignored in favor of user reviews. It's a real shame too because that was not always the case.