• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Sonic Boom review copies not being sent out; SEGA forcing journos to buy their own

Given how generic it looks (TV tie-in 3D platformer) if it was not Sonic outlets would not even bother to review it and would not miss it at all.

It sounds like you've all made up your minds with the "worse than Sonic 06" mantra so you don't need the reviews. Maybe they've got a point in not bothering.

Did anything like this happen with '06?
I don't think so. Also what was weird is one outlet gave it a high score so from that I'd say it is worth the risk...but maybe that was plan, allow an outlet to discredit themselves then make the consumer not trust the review.
 
Does it really matter, though? I'd personally rather a reviewer buy the copy with no embargoes, restrictions or NDAs and all that bullshit and review the game for what it is. No strings attached, as it were.

If a publisher doesn't want to send a review copy, sure it doesn't really fill anyone with confidence, but it's their choice to make.

I'd rather live in a world were publishers stop sending out copies for review than a world were publishers attach a bunch of strings for the promise of early review copies.

Yup. I don't think this is inherently a bad thing from that perspective.

As for the game itself, I don't think anyone expected anything other than hot garbage.
 
Yep this game is going to be total garbage. Not that the footage we have been getting would have left any doubt about that.
 
Summary of all the reviews I've read so far:

ZvHSM2o.gif

haha that reminds me of my old trash game series from back in the day

nmhtrashkhslj.png

nightstrashloliusyy.png

fftacrapwwswq.jpg
 
They want to delay the 38 Metacritic score. Big Red Button are terrible. This is the first plaformer I ever played that does not save when you collect collectibles.
 
did they release a version of NMH where you didn't have to trudge through the worst open driving experience ever in world history to get to places and missions? ;P
 
I think they said it on the Bombcast last week. Embargos day of release aren't too weird. It's when they don't send them at all that you know the publisher knows the game is crap.

It's mindnumbing how you can accept that as reality. It's more than weird and should've been your first red flag.
 
I can't believe SEGA got Sanzaru to make the 3DS game while they left the WiiU game to a team of unknowns.
I would loved to have played a Sanzaru console Sonic game.
 
They want to delay the 38 Metacritic score. Big Red Button are terrible. This is the first plaformer I ever played that does not save when you collect collectibles.

There are probably some 90s platformers of n which that also happened. Still by modern gaming standards absolutely inexcusable.
 
did they release a version of NMH where you didn't have to trudge through the worst open driving experience ever in world history to get to places and missions? ;P

Is next to the one that dosn't forces you drives to the place to get missions, grab the mission again and drive back to the place it takes place everytime you fail it.

They want to delay the 38 Metacritic score. Big Red Button are terrible. This is the first plaformer I ever played that does not save when you collect collectibles.

WAT
 
It's pretty funny that just a few days ago Giant Bomb on their podcast were talking about conspiracies relating to embargos and review copies, and they did a pretty good job debunking all of that, but at the end added: "Unless they don't send out review copies, in which you know the game is dogshit"

Hilarious this happens just after :p
 
"You, review our game? Ha, you are too weak! And why are you weak? Because of your loyalty to your pathetic readers!"

- sega
 
This is what I was trying to say. Review copies are nice, but they come with a lot of baggage. Not offering them just puts the press on the same level as normal consumers in some instances, which isn't exactly an atrocity; some people think that reviews would change for the better if the people writing them had to think about a game's value proposition the same way anyone else would.

To draw a parallel to another medium, some films aren't screened for critics. This tips a lot of people off to the fact that those films are probably junk that critics would hate, but it doesn't need to inspire the kinds of reactions we see in this thread; the same Universal Pictures that distributed the never-screened R.I.P.D also distributed Zero Dark Thirty. Doesn't make Universal a bunch of evil scumbags, just a big company that deals in a variety of different movies.

I think the film comparison is apt. It doesn't mean they are evil or anything, but it does indicate they probably don't have a lot of confidence in reviews, which is OK. Everyone releases a stinker sometimes. Why would they want to effectively advertise that it stinks ahead of time?

Anyhow, I think the value proposition point you made is really important. If reviewers were forced to buy the game, maybe they'd consider whether it's worth full-price or not more? Or if it was, for example, a budget title, they'd review it a little lighter knowing that they are getting it for less than a full-priced game? It's an interesting dynamic that reviews rarely ever get into, because they are most of the time provided the copy in advance. It's one of the reasons I think youtube reviews are becoming more popular: the reviewers had to buy it, and are inclined to review the value, which the average on-the-fence consumer would absolutely like to know about.
 
Top Bottom