PC Gamer 94/100 (Yeah. PC Gamer. Not Console Gamer)

[ZhugeLiang]

for those of you saying it was being dumbed down for consoles.. lets look at PC gamer! you know, that magazine that gave Black Ops a 60 something because it was a BAD PC GAME. So here we are, a few days prior to launch.... and heres the qoute they gave out.

"The best RPG combat ever. Not gaming's best story, but maybe its best storytelling. Darker, sexier, better. [Mar 2011, p.64] "


http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/dragon-age-ii

[schnitzeljaeger]

there was already a discussion about this... IMHO 94% is just ridiculous and points to bought review but let's wait and see.

[Mogan]

TC, its useless to post these things.
People who have already decided they don't like the game are just going to say, "Oh, EA just paid for that review" or, "PC Gamer has to give good scores to keep getting early reviews." Same for folks who've decided the game is good.

Positive reviews of games I like = Quality, honest reviews.
Positive reviews of games I don't like = Reviewer was bribed.
Negative reviews of games I don't like = Proves I was right.
Negative reviews of games I like = Reviewer doesn't know anything/mad he wasn't bribed/was bribed by another publisher.
Its a ridiculous double standard that covers up any actual shady business by accusing EVERY review of being shady because there's always someone who disagrees.

I think I'll wait until I've actually played the game before I decide if I agree with PC Gamer's opinion or not.

[ZhugeLiang]

I always look at reviews for a game I am excited about before it comes out. For example Medal of Honor I thought would SWEEP. ended up being mediocre, i think it was a BIT better than reviewers made it out to be, but overall a C+ experience.... while if its CoD even if it blows it's gonna get 90's (thank god Black Ops averaged in the mid to low 80's) and PC Gamer was the mag with the balls to give it a real low score so ... PC gamer always looks at the PC crowd first, thus the review is good with me.

[klorgas]

I usally keep looking at metacritic, i find that score to often reflect my thoughts.

[HorrorScope]

I'm actually happy the series is making a clear stance on what it is, either way (tactical or action). That said, I can't trust any publication. Too many stories of being on the take. It seems that just certain publisher's get the consistent high scores. It's all hype blah blah. Hard to pass up easy $$$ I'm sure. I'll just take the player's consensus, someone that actually had to give up dollars to share their opinion. Thanks Steam Forums for letting the people talk!

Like we need a publication these days to tell us what we like and should buy. That's so pre-internet.

[schnitzeljaeger]

TC, its useless to post these things.
People who have already decided they don't like the game are just going to say, "Oh, EA just paid for that review" or, "PC Gamer has to give good scores to keep getting early reviews." Same for folks who've decided the game is good.

Positive reviews of games I like = Quality, honest reviews.
Positive reviews of games I don't like = Reviewer was bribed.
Negative reviews of games I don't like = Proves I was right.
Negative reviews of games I like = Reviewer doesn't know anything/mad he wasn't bribed/was bribed by another publisher.
Its a ridiculous double standard that covers up any actual shady business by accusing EVERY review of being shady because there's always someone who disagrees.

I think I'll wait until I've actually played the game before I decide if I agree with PC Gamer's opinion or not.

too true ;) I'm more than willing to let the game convince me that it deserves its 94% but based on what we got to see until now such scores seem just crazy. In general, when I read: "Best RPG combat ever" or similar over the top appraisal, the reviews mostly want to distract from other letdowns. The exception proves the rule :)

[Clock King]

I think I'll wait until I've actually played the game before I decide if I agree with PC Gamer's opinion or not.

You were making sense until this line. Why read a review at all, if you buy anyway? Just to see if your impressions match some random dude being bribed by EA / random dude being bribed by Bethesda (delete as appropriate)?

[Dazzled]

I played the demo(and dozens of other RPGs) and now I read that PC Gamer called that... thing "The best RPG combat ever".

Question: who am I supposed to trust that review or my own experience?

[Mogan]

You were making sense until this line. Why read a review at all, if you buy anyway? Just to see if your impressions match some random dude being bribed by EA / random dude being bribed by Bethesda (delete as appropriate)?

I'd read the review because I wanted info on the game, not the score at the end. I need info on the game to decide if I want to buy it. I don't need opinions on the game, I can form those myself. If the opinion I form, based on the info I gather, is that Dragon Age 2 is worth what it costs, then I'll buy it. If I buy it, then I'll see if my opinion is right or wrong and if I agree with PC Gamer.
I can't agree or disagree with PC Gamer's opinion right now, because they've played the whole game and I haven't, but I'm not going to run out and buy it just so I can see if they're right.

The key here is that saying "the game has the best RPG combat ever" doesn't help me, because I have no idea what the combat is like from reading that statement, and I might not agree with it if I did. But explaining how the combat works helps me decide if I'm interested or not.
So, ultimately it doesn't matter if I agree with PC Gamer's opinion or not. If their description of what the game IS is accurate, and I decide I'd like a game like that, and then it turns out I was right and it was worth paying for ... then having "the best RPG combat ever" isn't important because I bought a game I liked, even if its for different reasons or not as much as PC Gamer.

[syrupwontstopem]

You were making sense until this line. Why read a review at all, if you buy anyway? Just to see if your impressions match some random dude being bribed by EA / random dude being bribed by Bethesda (delete as appropriate)?

You mean Bioware?

And in any case, I still look at reviews for games I bought. Usually yes, it is to see if my impressions match a website. If I find a website that consistently gives reviews that match my own values for a game, I'll look to that website's reviews in the future for games I'm not sure about buying.

[lyravega]

TC, its useless to post these things.
People who have already decided they don't like the game are just going to say, "Oh, EA just paid for that review" or, "PC Gamer has to give good scores to keep getting early reviews." Same for folks who've decided the game is good.

Positive reviews of games I like = Quality, honest reviews.
Positive reviews of games I don't like = Reviewer was bribed.
Negative reviews of games I don't like = Proves I was right.
Negative reviews of games I like = Reviewer doesn't know anything/mad he wasn't bribed/was bribed by another publisher.
Its a ridiculous double standard that covers up any actual shady business by accusing EVERY review of being shady because there's always someone who disagrees.

I think I'll wait until I've actually played the game before I decide if I agree with PC Gamer's opinion or not.

tehehe nice list.

And PC Gamer doesn't even critisize ONE THING. All praises and alike. Total BOOL♥♥♥♥

[Mogan]

As far as PC Gamer being bribed goes ... I think I'll wait until there are more reviews out. If 94% is well off the average, then yeah, maybe they were worried EA would never give them an early review again, so they traded their integrity for safety. But if Dragon Age 2 averages in the high 80s - low 90s, then I won't think there was any bribery going on ... not unless I'm supposed to believe that EA bribed the MAJORITY the outfits that rated the game, even the little no name sites that don't effect sales, and that NONE of them came forward to say they were bribed.

I've read PC Gamer for a long time, and I listen to their podcasts (UK and US) regularly, so I feel like I have a pretty good handle on the folks that work there. They seem genuine to me. I don't always agree with their scores, but scores are just opinions so its not like mine are any more right than theirs.

[HorrorScope]

I played the demo(and dozens of other RPGs) and now I read that PC Gamer called that... thing "The best RPG combat ever".

Question: who am I supposed to trust that review or my own experience?

Bioware say's trust the review. You are just misdirected at this time.

[Zamav]

Do you honestly believe that any publication that receives a pre-release review copy is capable of saying anything but good things about the said game?

Really?

[Clock King]

I played the demo(and dozens of other RPGs) and now I read that PC Gamer called that... thing "The best RPG combat ever".

Question: who am I supposed to trust that review or my own experience?

BioWare have repeatedly said that the demo is an old buggy beta. Of courser you should trust PC Gamer.

[Dazzled]

Bioware say's trust the review. You are just misdirected at this time.
Misdirected by what I have seen with my very own eyes. I always suspected those things were defective. I mean if Bioware is saying something that objective reality contradict it's obvious that I'm seeing wrong.
Oh, and 2+2-5 btw.

[Dazzled]

BioWare have repeatedly said that the demo is an old buggy beta. Of courser you should trust PC Gamer.

So they decided to release an old, beta, buggy version of a finished product to showcase how awesome and perfect their game is? I admit I fail to see the logic in this.

[ZhugeLiang]

Xbox magazine gave it a 90, so it seems to be ranging in that range. thus far.

[OurSacrifice]

TC, its useless to post these things.
People who have already decided they don't like the game are just going to say, "Oh, EA just paid for that review" or, "PC Gamer has to give good scores to keep getting early reviews." Same for folks who've decided the game is good.

Anyone that has followed any reviews over the past few years knows that the first review for a "big" release is ALWAYS advertising paid. Basically, the publisher gives review site dollars in advertising for a certain score value. This is why you can NEVER listen to the review that hits shelves far in advance of the release date.

While the PC Gamer review wasn't "far" in advance, their review itself was written at least six weeks ago. Which means they were reviewing a game that wasn't gold, and was seven weeks or so away from gold master quality.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but it has nothing, absolutely NOTHING to do with hating on the game. It has everything to do with common knowledge of the modern era of reviews.

[DTKT]

Anyone that has followed any reviews over the past few years knows that the first review for a "big" release is ALWAYS advertising paid. Basically, the publisher gives review site dollars in advertising for a certain score value. This is why you can NEVER listen to the review that hits shelves far in advance of the release date.

While the PC Gamer review wasn't "far" in advance, their review itself was written at least six weeks ago. Which means they were reviewing a game that wasn't gold, and was seven weeks or so away from gold master quality.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but it has nothing, absolutely NOTHING to do with hating on the game. It has everything to do with common knowledge of the modern era of reviews.

You have to be careful with the "gold" standard.

Usually, the last few weeks/month of dev time is entirely dedicated to improve the stability and performance of the game. All the content is inside(textures, audio files, animations and models), every cell links properly. The combat works, everything syncs properly.

But the game can crash every 4 hours from an OOM and they still cant call it gold! If you send such a build to the reviewer and say: "Yeah, we know, it's going to crash every 4 hours, we are fixing it." can't he still review it and get an experience that would be similar to someone buying on release day?

That might be why PC Gamer had access to earlier builds that were not ready for printing because of severe crash/stability issues but the full content was available.

[Mogan]

Anyone that has followed any reviews over the past few years knows that the first review for a "big" release is ALWAYS advertising paid. Basically, the publisher gives review site dollars in advertising for a certain score value. This is why you can NEVER listen to the review that hits shelves far in advance of the release date.
While the PC Gamer review wasn't "far" in advance, their review itself was written at least six weeks ago. Which means they were reviewing a game that wasn't gold, and was seven weeks or so away from gold master quality.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but it has nothing, absolutely NOTHING to do with hating on the game. It has everything to do with common knowledge of the modern era of reviews.

So you can prove this, I assume. Since its common knowledge after all.
As I mentioned before, if PC Gamer's 94% ends up being significantly higher than the average score after Dragon Age 2 has received all the many reviews it's sure to get over the next couple weeks, then you could be right.
If the average DA2 review score is in the upper 80s or above, then there's nothing to indicate the score is anything other than than the opinion of someone who genuinely liked the game.

[Hagen]

While the PC Gamer review wasn't "far" in advance, their review itself was written at least six weeks ago. Which means they were reviewing a game that wasn't gold, and was seven weeks or so away from gold master quality
Do you imply that notation should have been better than 94/100 if PC Gamer reviewed a Gold Master version of DA2? ;)

[Mogan]

That might be why PC Gamer had access to earlier builds that were not ready for printing because of severe crash/stability issues but the full content was available.

Last I heard, PC Gamer's stated policy was that they do not review games unless its the same version that will be put on store shelves.

[DTKT]

Last I heard, PC Gamer's stated policy was that they do not review games unless its the same version that will be put on store shelves.

If that is the case, the review they just put out is a direct violation of that policy.

Or that other option, is that the game had gone "Gold" way before the public announcement.

[Mogan]

If that is the case, the review they just put out is a direct violation of that policy.
Or that other option, is that the game had gone "Gold" way before the public announcement.

When was the public announcement? I just renewed my subscription to PC Gamer and I'd be curious to know if they're still saying that's their policy. I might try writing them a letter about it, see if I get published.

[DTKT]

When was the public announcement? I just renewed my subscription to PC Gamer and I'd be curious to know if they're still saying that's their policy. I might try writing them a letter about it, see if I get published.

http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/260/index/6011608

I guess you can take the topic creation date as a wild guess.

[chokke]

Wonder how much he got payed for that.

[Mogan]

So that'd be ... February 11th? Ish? That's the same date as the PCG review announcement on their website. Hmmm. That IS strange.
I believe I will write them a letter about this and see if they respond.

[OurSacrifice]

So you can prove this, I assume. Since its common knowledge after all.
As I mentioned before, if PC Gamer's 94% ends up being significantly higher than the average score after Dragon Age 2 has received all the many reviews it's sure to get over the next couple weeks, then you could be right.
If the average DA2 review score is in the upper 80s or above, then there's nothing to indicate the score is anything other than than the opinion of someone who genuinely liked the game.

I'm not going to dig articles up for you, if that's what you are asking. There have been dozens of articles written across several large internet publications discussing advertising revenue and how it contributes to review scores.

There have been reviewers that quit their jobs because of publisher push back on scores lower then what they paid for. There have been publishers that pulled advertising because a game didn't get the score they wanted.

There have also been reports detailing how advertising revenue and first review publishing rights is outlined by a tiered review/release system. If you score a game within a certain bracket (say the 90+ for example), you can publish your review "x" days in advance. If you score the game within a certain bracket (say 95+ for example), you can then publish your review even further in advance.

Oh, and BTW: "upper 80's" and mid 90's don't equal out.

[lonewolf1044]

too true ;) I'm more than willing to let the game convince me that it deserves its 94% but based on what we got to see until now such scores seem just crazy. In general, when I read: "Best RPG combat ever" or similar over the top appraisal, the reviews mostly want to distract from other letdowns. The exception proves the rule :)

I agree as well being what one person may dislike, another may love.

[Mogan]

I'm not going to dig articles up for you, if that's what you are asking.

Well, without proof I don't believe I'll put much stock in your claim. Not that it matters, scores are why reviews are important.

Oh, and BTW: "upper 80's" and mid 90's don't equal out.
Obviously, but if the average score for DA2 is 88 or 89 and up, then PC Gamer's 94 wasn't a misleading stat.

[JKflipflop]

I don't get why everyone is so bent out of shape over the combat - it's almost exactly the same as DAO. You pause time, tell everyone what to do, then unpause and they do it. You tell them where to stand and what powers to use. The system is identical.

[Kanten]

TC, its useless to post these things.
People who have already decided they don't like the game are just going to say, "Oh, EA just paid for that review" or, "PC Gamer has to give good scores to keep getting early reviews." Same for folks who've decided the game is good.

Positive reviews of games I like = Quality, honest reviews.
Positive reviews of games I don't like = Reviewer was bribed.
Negative reviews of games I don't like = Proves I was right.
Negative reviews of games I like = Reviewer doesn't know anything/mad he wasn't bribed/was bribed by another publisher.
Its a ridiculous double standard that covers up any actual shady business by accusing EVERY review of being shady because there's always someone who disagrees.

Or people find it shady because you know...the review came out BEFORE THE GAME WAS EVEN FINISHED.

[DTKT]

Or people find it shady because you know...the review came out BEFORE THE GAME WAS EVEN FINISHED.

Im just going to repost what I wrote earlier:

Usually, the last few weeks/month of dev time is entirely dedicated to improve the stability and performance of the game. All the content is inside(textures, audio files, animations and models), every cell links properly. The combat works, everything syncs properly.

But the game can crash every 4 hours from an OOM and they still cant call it gold! If you send such a build to the reviewer and say: "Yeah, we know, it's going to crash every 4 hours, we are fixing it." can't he still review it and get an experience that would be similar to someone buying on release day?

That might be why PC Gamer had access to earlier builds that were not ready for printing because of severe crash/stability issues but the full content was available.

[Mogan]

Or people find it shady because you know...the review came out BEFORE THE GAME WAS EVEN FINISHED.

Yes, I know. Its been discussed.

I sent a letter to PC Gamer, asking for their input on why the review was written before the announcement of DA2 going gold, and what kind of relationship games journalists have with publishers.
I don't know if it'll get a published, and I'm sure the folks who have already made up their minds about DA2 and PCG's review wont change them, but it'd be nice to hear what the journalists have to say about this. Because "CONSPIRACY!" gets shouted by gamers everytime a big name site or mag gives a big name game a nice review.

[Mivo]

I generally shiver a little when reviews claim that an aspect is "the best ever" in a genre. I actually don't mind the combat in DA2, based on the demo, and I find it enjoyable enough, but it still seems fairly generic to me for a faster paced, party-based CRPG with a touch of H&S. It didn't feel overly innovative to me, or even extremely responsive. And to me, a combat system has to be really responsive to be considered "best".

But anyway, while the demo made me think "console port", I nevertheless enjoyed it. I preferred DA:O's approach, but I'll have fun with DA2.

[Kanten]

Im just going to repost what I wrote earlier:

That still begs the question as to how PC Gamer was the only publication to get a review done in that timespan. Let's assume they did get a review copy before the game even hit gold status, I'm pretty sure that wasn't just done out of the good graces of EA, there had to be some kind of arrangement, I don't really picture EA as being in the charity business.

[Sonris89]

I don't get why everyone is so bent out of shape over the combat - it's almost exactly the same as DAO. You pause time, tell everyone what to do, then unpause and they do it. You tell them where to stand and what powers to use. The system is identical.

Because the animations are differnt and its slightly faster, But you are right. Aside from the option to use overhead camera which I barely used unless I had trouble targeting a spell from third person, the combat is in essence the same. YOu pause, regulate orders un pause, squad performs orders. The abilities are better defined the combat is faster. Overall the combat is a definite jump forward compared to what it was in my opinion, especially the early taunt, the tank was able to tank in the tuturorial, instead of waiting for levels and levels to get bravery taunt and the shield spec talents. I was so happy when my tank could tank without relying on force field spam for the first third of the game.

[Sonris89]

That still begs the question as to how PC Gamer was the only publication to get a review done in that timespan. Let's assume they did get a review copy before the game even hit gold status, I'm pretty sure that wasn't just done out of the good graces of EA, there had to be some kind of arrangement, I don't really picture EA as being in the charity business.

No doubt, it was released to PC gamer obvious because its one of the bigger PC game magazines out there. And while a review would immediately stink to skeptics alot of people get their first exposure to new games via PC gamer.

[DTKT]

That still begs the question as to how PC Gamer was the only publication to get a review done in that timespan. Let's assume they did get a review copy before the game even hit gold status, I'm pretty sure that wasn't just done out of the good graces of EA, there had to be some kind of arrangement, I don't really picture EA as being in the charity business.

It depends. I dont know the numbers for PC gamers but if the magazine is still around, it might be considerable. In EA mind, it might be a good first marketing push. There's nothing better than a great first review.

I have no doubt that they send it to a specific reviewer knowing they would score it well. They tend to know which outlet prefers certain types or even the person reviewing the game.

Or EA might have given them the code early because of some prior relationship.

And for course, you are free to see sellouts and crooks taking moeny from the thieving and evil corporations but that's not a healthy mindset to have all the time. :D

Either way, we will never know! ;)

[Mogan]

^PCG is supposed to be the #1 PC gaming magazine around. They (PCG US) also combined with PC Gamer UK (which is actually the original PC Gamer magazine) the other year, so they're as big as anything when it comes to PC games. PCG gets a lot of "world premier" reviews of big games. The ones I can remember off hand are all positive ... but that's likely because the games were all good.

[DTKT]

^PCG is supposed to be the #1 PC gaming magazine around. They (PCG US) also combined with PC Gamer UK (which is actually the original PC Gamer magazine) the other year, so they're as big as anything when it comes to PC games. PCG gets a lot of "world premier" reviews of big games. The ones I can remember off hand are all positive ... but that's likely because the games were all good.

Well, here you go I guess. That might just explain why EA had given them first access to DAII.

[Kanten]

^PCG is supposed to be the #1 PC gaming magazine around. They (PCG US) also combined with PC Gamer UK (which is actually the original PC Gamer magazine) the other year, so they're as big as anything when it comes to PC games. PCG gets a lot of "world premier" reviews of big games. The ones I can remember off hand are all positive ... but that's likely because the games were all good.

The thing is that many people are always going to be skeptical of reviews as long as publications continue to derive a huge majority of their income from the very same people whose products they review. It's fair to say that reviews for video games are nowhere near as reliable as those for other media for that very fact.

The PS3 version of Black Ops has developed a dubious reputation for being bug-ridden and nearly broken in comparison to its 360 counterpart, yet it got a 9+ from all of the major publications.

The Kane & Lynch fiasco really ripped the whole thing apart and showed just how sketchy things can be behind the scenes at gaming publications.

[iTimmeh]

I've read the PCG review and there is not one single criticism of Dragon Age 2, not one flaw or poor choice pointed out to add balance. Even when the reviewer mentions being disappointed at the lack of variety in locales (most of the game is set in Kirkwall), he soon spins it into a positive.

Either this game is completely flawless, or this is less of a review and more a promotional piece.

[omninakago]

Last I heard, PC Gamer's stated policy was that they do not review games unless its the same version that will be put on store shelves.

That was their policy, but they retracted that about a year ago (I have the issue about the it somewhere).

The editor basically stated that she felt the quality of their reviews were suffering because they were being rushed to keep in sync with a game's release. She also said that the difference between a review copy and a gold copy was insignificant for the most part, as the game was pretty much done at the point. The most important aspect to them was to give their readers a concise review on time with the release of a game, and not have something half-assed.

[Neverpleased]

Just of the top of my head I can think of a critique for this game

Moving and attacking is tied to the same button. This means that if you miss a click you'll MOVE to that location. In tense fights that's a ♥♥♥♥ing death sentence. They could have simply separated those movements from each other. You know left mouse button, right mouse button.

I got a mouse with 13 buttons! Pick one Bioware.

PC gamer doesn't even attempt criticism.

[Azriel77]

They are bribed, the demo was underwhelming and just proved to me that this is just a generic FPS wannabe, with some RPG, that has removed everything that made DAO what it was.

[Brandon Spikes]

I played the demo(and dozens of other RPGs) and now I read that PC Gamer called that... thing "The best RPG combat ever".

Question: who am I supposed to trust that review or my own experience?

They played the full game, You played a demo that was out since Jan in kiosks.

[HorrorScope]

I don't get why everyone is so bent out of shape over the combat - it's almost exactly the same as DAO. You pause time, tell everyone what to do, then unpause and they do it. You tell them where to stand and what powers to use. The system is identical.

Why pause?

[GirlPower23]

Why pause?

Cause when you are playing Nightmare mode and going gungho = immediate death?

[m4dvillain]

They are bribed, the demo was underwhelming and just proved to me that this is just a generic FPS wannabe, with some RPG, that has removed everything that made DAO what it was.

you played the demo, and you're calling DA2 a FPS? lolwut, way to take a stand

[omninakago]

They are bribed, the demo was underwhelming and just proved to me that this is just a generic FPS wannabe, with some RPG, that has removed everything that made DAO what it was.

You're comparing the tutorial level in a demo to the whole of DA:O. Think about that for a moment. :rolleyes:

Actually, go back and play an Origin story on normal and tell me how deep and profound you felt the experience to be.

[Mogan]

Think about that for a moment. :rolleyes:

That may be asking a lot. :p

The thing is that many people are always going to be skeptical of reviews as long as publications continue to derive a huge majority of their income from the very same people whose products they review. It's fair to say that reviews for video games are nowhere near as reliable as those for other media for that very fact.

That's the real problem isn't it? And I don't think there's much for it, because these sites and magazines wont be able to survive without advertizing money, and the most ready sources is, obviously, game makers.
The argument that these reviewers are bribed/pressured into giving good reviews would be a lot more convincing if it were for people like Azriel77 up there, who claim conspiracy the instant a review runs counter to their own opinion. It happens so much its hard to take the rational folks seriously.

[Mivo]

The argument that these reviewers are bribed/pressured into giving good reviews would be a lot more convincing if it were for people like Azriel77 up there, who claim conspiracy the instant a review runs counter to their own opinion. It happens so much its hard to take the rational folks seriously.

It's much more subtle. A publisher doesn't come to an editor and says, "Give us a good review or you don't get any more games before release." Even semi-journalists like game writers have a tiny bit of pride. It is, however, implied. If you run a print magazine, you not only compete with other publications, but you also, and especially, face online media which have a much shorter production cycle. An article for a print magazine is finished at least two weeks before people read it, and that is really pushing it and only applies to last minute material and not usually to larger stories that take up more space.

What this means is that if you want to stay truly competitive, you need to get preview versions of games. If your game review is published a month after a game's release, it's not really much of a buyer magnet anymore. People will have read other reviews already, especially the much faster online ones. So, if you upset a publisher too much, you won't get preview versions anymore, though that would be extreme as publishers also want coverage. Particularly, not before everyone else gets them, and if you get it when everyone else gets it, you don't have an edge and are still behind online publications. This is why "exclusive" stuff is so desirable, and again, you don't get it unless you're either extremely important and/or on good terms with the publisher.

As for the whole ads thing: The way it usually works is that once the content for an issue has been put together, a list is sent to the advertisement department. These folks then contact the marketing departments of the reviewed games' publishers and ask if they want to place an ad in the same issue. It helps tremendously to sell these ads if you can say that the review will be favourable. There is a line, though. If you hype obvious duds, you lose readers and subs, and game publishers know that and don't expect that every game is hyped.

In short, all of this is more of a mutual giving and taking, not so much a "conspiracy". This was done the same way even twenty years ago when there were no online publications (not in the way we have them today). You still wanted to be able to review games before your competitors did. (This is what led to the silly trend at times when September issues came out in late July.)

This is just a general take on the topic, not specific to the PC Gamer. There is also the aspect of reviewers being quite human, often gamers themselves, and preferences do play into it. It's often better to follow a specific reviewer than a publication.

[armyfreak221]

if by some chance i AM looking at how well the game was rated i look at the PUBLICS reviews, i trust them much more then a company anyday. because in the end there ones who have to fork up the cash to buy a game to, but even with that thought ill do my own research then just take somones word for it.

[OurSacrifice]

You're comparing the tutorial level in a demo to the whole of DA:O. Think about that for a moment. :rolleyes:

Actually, go back and play an Origin story on normal and tell me how deep and profound you felt the experience to be.

The story, acting and atmosphere are vastly superior in Origins in an Origin story vs demo situation.

There's more "life" in the human noble story line - hell wait, there's more life in the first conversation with your mother in Origins then there is in the whole entire DA2 demo.

While the combat is no more difficult, the combat is far more enjoyable and realistic from a fantasy perspective.

[WalkenOwns]

there was already a discussion about this... IMHO 94% is just ridiculous and points to bought review but let's wait and see.

I'd say being ridiculous is calling a review of a game you haven't played inaccurate.

[WalkenOwns]

Do you honestly believe that any publication that receives a pre-release review copy is capable of saying anything but good things about the said game?

Really?

Apparently you didn't read their pre-release multi page review of F.E.A.R 2 that was advertised on the cover.


Heres what they said

"F.E.A.R. 2 fails to innovate, which would make it merely a respectable but forgettable shooter if not for some good scares."

They gave it a 72%.



Ohhhhh, darn. Your claim was baseless and stupid.

[WayTwoFast]

well look at grand theft auto 4, this was a fantastic game no doubt, but the game was no way a 10/10 gamespot gave it.

[Clock King]

Apparently you didn't read their pre-release multi page review of F.E.A.R 2 that was advertised on the cover.


Heres what they said

"F.E.A.R. 2 fails to innovate, which would make it merely a respectable but forgettable shooter if not for some good scares."

They gave it a 72%.



Ohhhhh, darn. Your claim was baseless and stupid.

Warner brothers didn't agree to pay for enough "advertising". So FEAR 2 got trashed.

[WalkenOwns]

Warner brothers didn't agree to pay for enough "advertising". So FEAR 2 got trashed.

Yeah, thats an excellent point. When the score is good, it means the review was paid for. When it isn't, it means they didn't bribe the reviewer.

Your logic is sound and your argument is foolproof.

[d0nk3y]

Yeah, thats an excellent point. When the score is good, it means the review was paid for. When it isn't, it means they didn't bribe the reviewer.

Your logic is sound and your argument is foolproof.

You write a poor review that pisses off Monolith Productions/ WB games? whoopeedo.

You write a poor review that pisses off EA/ Bioware? bye bye any future exclusives from the biggest gaming company in the world for your publication.

[-GLiTcHeD-]

You write a poor review that jaratees off Monolith Productions/ WB games? whoopeedo.

You write a poor review that jaratees off EA/ Bioware? bye bye any future exclusives from the biggest gaming company in the world for your publication.

Nonsense. I work for a gaming site and we get review copies even though we trashed one of their previous games.

Dante's Inferno, Army of Two and a couple of others got bad scores yet EA does not hold this against us and we still get invitations to events and the regular review copies.

EA is not the devil incarnate you know...

[d0nk3y]

Dante's Inferno and Army of Two are not AAA blockbuster titles who pull in hundreds of millions of revenue for EA.

[thyco1]

I dont trust website reviews such as ign, gamespot, g4 etc and i sure as hell do not trust reviews from gaming mags like OXM and its playstation counter part due to the extreme bias that is found in them.

Many many many times Ive played games which ign and the like would call terrible yet i had more fun in those games than in the latest epic crapfest or CoD Clone. Hell there was one Ign review that i read lately where they had an obvious FPS fan review an rpg. needless to the say the game was given a piss poor review, and the comments section just went ape♥♥♥♥ at the reviewer for being so spastic.

Lately ive found the only way to get a good understanding of a game is go to good ole youtube and watch someone play it. One more thing, Ill take a bug filled game from the old soviet block over the latest piece of churned out ♥♥♥♥ wanking from the states.

[DTKT]

I dont trust website reviews such as ign, gamespot, g4 etc and i sure as hell do not trust reviews from gaming mags like OXM and its playstation counter part due to the extreme bias that is found in them.

Many many many times Ive played games which ign and the like would call terrible yet i had more fun in those games than in the latest epic crapfest or CoD Clone. Hell there was one Ign review that i read lately where they had an obvious FPS fan review an rpg. needless to the say the game was given a jarate poor review, and the comments section just went ape♥♥♥♥ at the reviewer for being so spastic.

Lately ive found the only way to get a good understanding of a game is go to good ole youtube and watch someone play it. One more thing, Ill take a bug filled game from the old soviet block over the latest piece of churned out ♥♥♥♥ wanking from the states.

Which game was reviewed by a "FPS" player?

[Mogan]

And here I thought this topic was passed all the tinfoil hat conspiracy rantings.

[WalkenOwns]

You write a poor review that jaratees off Monolith Productions/ WB games? whoopeedo.

You write a poor review that jaratees off EA/ Bioware? bye bye any future exclusives from the biggest gaming company in the world for your publication.

And you know this for any other reason than you just made it up?

[sfade]

I don't trust professional reviews for anything other than technical information (screenies, specs, recs and benchmarks) , not because of any conspiracy theory stuff but as a result of the basic understanding that there is an open conflict of interest when you rely on revenue from the very companies you might be critical of.

A very basic and realistic realization, in my opinion. I'll rely on peers (actual acquaintances) and independent sources for input on quality and game-play satisfaction and other such subjective material.

TLDR:

Professional reviews good for technical details.

Independent and peer review good for more objective opinions on subjective experiences.

[WalkenOwns]

not because of any conspiracy theory stuff but as a result of the basic understanding that there is an open conflict of interest when you rely on revenue from the very companies you might be critical of.


They rely on magazine subscribers for revenue, not game developers.

If we're talking about PCGamer anyway.

[Mogan]

^PCG relies on advertising from game publishers for money as much as anyone else.

[WalkenOwns]

^PCG relies on advertising from game publishers for money as much as anyone else.

Which wouldnt be affected by a bad (or in this case not amazing) review . Advertisers will place ads wherever they can get the most views by potential buyers. PCGamer will always be one of the best outlets for that as long as they have a strong subscriber base.

[jmrwacko]

there was already a discussion about this... IMHO 94% is just ridiculous and points to bought review but let's wait and see.

Face it, DA2 is a great game and you were wrong. Time for you to go troll the Crysis 2 forums, I heard that was the next big "consolfied POS" release on the horizon.

[sfade]

They rely on magazine subscribers for revenue

Are you serious? You can't be, I hope. LOL

If your statement was true, the subscription cost would be absolutely preposterous.

[MJEdens]

Do you honestly believe that any publication that receives a pre-release review copy is capable of saying anything but good things about the said game?

Really?

Yes.

I must have more faith in humanity.

I find that the majority of those that don't have much faith in humanity, are the ones not worth putting that same faith in.

[WalkenOwns]

Are you serious? You can't be, I hope. LOL

If your statement was true, the subscription cost would be absolutely preposterous.

Fine. Subscribers + Advertisements + Rack sales + Word of Mouth if I have to be super literal.

The point is that the notion that a non-sterling review of a AAA game would result in a loss of their revenue is unsubstantiated by anything in the real world, and only exists in the minds of whiny gamers.

[sfade]

The point is that the notion that a non-sterling review of a AAA game would result in a loss of their revenue is unsubstantiated by anything in the real world

It has been demonstrated in a few incidents actually, but I'm not here to argue with someone who chooses to be just as blind and outspoken about it as those they are condemning.

I've wasted enough time on it already, I'll quite happily abide by my own decision to tread a middle ground by choosing who I deem credible with my own intelligence, those who see it as a black and white issue are blinded by one or the other.

[WalkenOwns]

It has been demonstrated in a few incidents actually, but I'm not here to argue with someone who chooses to be just as blind and outspoken about it as those they are condemning.

I've wasted enough time on it already, I'll quite happily abide by my own decision to tread a middle ground by choosing who I deem credible with my own intelligence, those who see it as a black and white issue are blinded by one or the other.

The few incidents that you cant name, I see.

[Mogan]

Wahey! I got a response from Dan Stapleton himself ... even if he did get my name wrong. :p

Here's what I wrote:
"Dear PC Gamer,
The notion that positive professional reviews are "bought" by major game publishers has gained a lot of popularity on gaming message boards in the last several years. That positive reviews from major sites and magazines are simply the results of publisher compensation for buying ad space, or allowing early access to a review copy of a game, is often called "common knowledge". I've always dismissed this idea as a cynical conspiracy theory from disgruntled gamers, and I generally still do, but after a debate on the Steam boards over PCG's review of Dragon Age 2, I decided that it would be nice to get the input of the reviewers themselves.
Your review was one of the first DA2 reviews available and came under a lot of fire for being too complimentary. The 94% score and a quote claiming Dragon Age 2 had the "Best RPG combat ever" seemed proof enough for some that this review was simply reimbursement for EA granting an early review to your magazine. It was also pointed out that the announcement of the review on pcgamer.com<http://pcgamer.com> and the announcement of Dragon Age 2 going Gold on Bioware's own forums were made on almost the same day (Feb. 11th), indicating the the PCG review was made based on code that was still undergoing testing."

And PCG's response in the next post.

[Mogan]

"Hi Morgan,

I'll start off by getting this out there in no uncertain terms: PC Gamer received no money or promise of ad purchases from EA in exchange for a positive score for Dragon Age 2. The reviews that we publish are the opinion of the reviewer, and we have never instructed a reviewer to give a positive score to any game in order to secure an exclusive review. As far as ads, reviewers themselves seldom have any knowledge of what advertisements will appear in the magazine until after it comes back from the printer, and we have a strict church/state separation between the editorial and business sides of the magazine to prevent exactly the kind of situation you're concerned about.

Your instinct is dead-on: any time certain readers see an opinion that they disagree with (even if it's a game they've only played a demo of), the immediate reaction is that that reviewer must've been bought off. This happens for literally every highly reviewed game ever. People accused us of being bought off for our reviews of Half-Life, Deus Ex, Half-Life 2, StarCraft 2, Crysis, Civilization IV, World of Warcraft, Diablo II, you name it. But all of our reviews explain in detail exactly what we liked or didn't like about them, and it's impossible for anyone to say, "No, you're wrong, you didn't enjoy that." It just doesn't work that way.

The thing is, people have different opinions on games. Somewhere out there, there's a whole bunch of people who hate your favorite game. Not just didn't get it, but actively hate it, and they're dying to spew that hate all over any message board they can find. Those people are SO SURE that their opinion is the only correct one that the only scenario they can imagine in which someone would not see things their way is for them to have been paid to lie - and their only evidence of this is that disagreement. Case in point: a lot of people like Call of Duty, a lot of people don't. Has a reviewer who thinks that Black Ops is "the best game evar" been bought off, or does he simply enjoy that type of game more than you do?

As for the whole "going gold" thing, yes, the code we reviewed was not yet "gold." We review a game when a publisher tells us it's ready to be reviewed.(We'd attempted a "gold-only" review policy a few years back, and it only resulted in us being late with a bunch of reviews.) In any case, the "gold" label pretty irrelevant these days. All it means is that it's the version that's gone to replication, but in the era of forced, zero-day patches, you'll probably never play the exact version they dubbed "gold." BioWare didn't stop making changes to Dragon Age 2 on 2/11, and they won't stop tomorrow, either. It's not something gamers need to worry about if they're concerned about scores being too high, anyway. Reviewing pre-gold code can only work against a game - it means we're more likely to encounter bugs or incomplete features, and we don't cut any slack for bugs.

I hope that answers your questions. Thanks for writing, and thanks for reading PC Gamer!"

[Mogan]

I don't expect that's going to change anyone's mind ("Of course HE'D say that!"), but its nice he took the time to respond. I wasn't aware that their Gold Only policy had changed, but if EA is willing to send the game out to be reviewed then I've got to assume they feel like its condition wont negatively impact the score.

Ultimately I guess it doesn't matter what the final score is, so long as the description of the game is accurate enough for folks to get a handle on whether or not is sounds fun to them.

[sfade]

I wasn't aware that their Gold Only policy had changed

Yeah, they basically couldn't get reviews out there with the 'gone gold only' policy, it was too restrictive - as by the time they did do a review all the blogs, independents, etc had been out there for a while. You end up losing a lot of readership that way, and in turn ad revenue drops.

It was nice of them to get back to you, fairly quickly as well. :)

I still don't trust professional reviews as a source of objective information on quality, but as I said I form my decisions based on peer review and overall reception. You really can't go wrong with that method, probably one of the reasons metacritic has become somewhat ubiquitous.

[Mogan]

^I like professional reviews over "reader reviews" myself. Mostly because professional reviews are generally well written and descriptive. Their opinions about quality aren't as important to me as their description of the game in question. I've been playing games a while, so I'm getting pretty good at picking out which games sound good to me.

I sent another email in response, asking if PCG ever catches any publisher flack for negative reviews, and how they deal with threats of pulling coverage. I'll post that one too, if I get a reply.

[sfade]

^I like professional reviews over "reader reviews" myself. Mostly because professional reviews are generally well written and descriptive.
Don't mistake what I've said. To be clear I never said I don't like professional reviews, I just don't really trust them to be objective. I read many of them, as I said I find them to be a great source of screenshots, technical details, etc.

Quality of writing depends on the source of the review. I don't pay any attention to reader reviews either, many of them are too immature for my taste for one thing. When I say peers I mean people with whom I associate in some way or another (the majority of my acquaintances game a fair bit). They tend to be pretty well written and know a good deal about the subject matter and what I might expect as far as quality of game play.