Support NeoGAF

[reptilescorpio]

On The Record: GFWD(ead Rising)

So it seems like RPS cannot get Off The Record running on PC to do a review. Both review code and retail code.

These aren’t glitches or a lack of keybinding, they are issues which prevent the game from even loading – no title screen, no developer logos. Nothing. Not even an error message. Quite why Off The Record should object so strongly to my machine when its previous incarnation plays just fine, I don’t know, but the fact that the game has made me jump through so many hoops is bad enough, the fact that it still doesn’t work is unacceptable.

Yesterday, I installed the retail version of the game and tried to run it, only to receive exactly the same error, which is to say no real error at all – no message, no details, just an abrupt return to the desktop. The internet informs me that some dedicated folks have been identifying the problems with the port and attempting to find fixes. It’s just a shame that no one at Capcom decided to look at these things before selling the game. Adjustments to speaker sound quality in order to run an application? Crashes if the game isn’t installed to the C: drive? I don’t know if either of those things are necessary in all cases, but they have seemingly made a difference for some people.

The fact that there are only 2 reviews on Metacritic, one in German and a one reference in a console focused Giant Bomb review, makes me wary of picking this up any time soon even though a lot of the reviews on 360 I have read have been positive.

Guess who is going to go see QI live tomorrow night

Congrats dude. Would love to go see it.

 

[Dead Man]

Triple J is a great promoter of music across most genres and even do their best to help out the little guys.
A way can be found. I know it can work.

JJJ is great, two of my friends bands have benefited from their Unearthed programmes.

 

[HolyCheck]

JJJ is great, two of my friends bands have benefited from their Unearthed programmes.

Yes! I know a few people who have very much benefited from it, including some bands on my mums label!

 

[Fogz]

Congrats! Make sure to do something stupid to celebrate.

I went to an all you can eat buffet and had lots of cake, I think that was pretty silly

Back on the diet tomorrow

 

[Planet_JASE]

Calories don't count on your birthday, silly.

 

[EatChildren]

I'm beginning to think Mario Kart 7 wont see the light of day in Australia until next year.

 

[Jintor]

I went to an all you can eat buffet and had lots of cake, I think that was pretty silly

Back on the diet tomorrow

Fuckin' ate a garlic and herb thingy on the way back home today.

Should have eaten it.

 

[reptilescorpio]

Fuckin' ate a garlic and herb thingy on the way back home today. Should have eaten it.

The bakery around the corner from work sell these in ball form. So damn good, really hit the spot. This town is making me fat with all their damn baking. Very fine foods. No Japanese though which really sucks.

 

[Kerrby]

I'm beginning to think Mario Kart 7 wont see the light of day in Australia until next year.

How come? Not that I'm getting it anyway, Mario Land for me .

 

[HolyCheck]

I'm beginning to think Mario Kart 7 wont see the light of day in Australia until next year.

I really should play some games.. after zelda which I loved and xenobore I just havent touched anything I don't know what it is.. I'm just too happy sitting here watching the GSL.. i'm hoping skyward sword gets me hooked.

 

[Planet_JASE]

I'm beginning to think Mario Kart 7 wont see the light of day in Australia until next year.

I don't particularly care for Mario Kart but I don't care for that statement, either.

If Nintendo can't deliver their two AAA first party games for Christmas this year they might as well give up.

Edit: For 3DS, I mean.

 

[EatChildren]

How come? Not that I'm getting it anyway, Mario Land for me .

I just don't like Nintendo's silence on it, given the confirmed release dates for Skyward Sword, 3D Land, and now some new crap too. Though I guess they could be waiting until the former two are out/closer to release before they confirm where MK7 is at.

 

[midonnay]

I don't know where you got that from. His "whole argument" seems to be that content owners are doing such a terrible job at distribution that piracy has naturally arisen.

they make alot money from content deals with foxtel and the FTA stations. They can't very well set up a netflix for aussies and continue as such.

yeah, we all hate ads....but the reality is...thats how these shows are being paid for. Enjoy it while it last I guess >_>

 

[Salazar]

Hearing someone else watching The Slap in the next room.

Caught some dialogue:

"In pussy ?"

"Fuck your mouth"

Could be worth tuning in, fellas. Or not.

 

[midonnay]

yeah, heard about it.....not sure if worth watching....

I think the premise was there was some slapping going on at a bbq and then they go all "Rashomon" on it...or something

 

[roosters93]

So Al Jazeera is saying Gaddafi is dead. oh snap

 

[Rahk]

For anyone still looking for BF3, GamersGate now has it for about $54 AUD.

On The Record: GFWD(ead Rising)

So it seems like RPS cannot get Off The Record running on PC to do a review. Both review code and retail code.




The fact that there are only 2 reviews on Metacritic, one in German and a one reference in a console focused Giant Bomb review, makes me wary of picking this up any time soon even though a lot of the reviews on 360 I have read have been positive.

That's unfortunate.

Ridonk and I have had no problems, apart from initially trying to join a co-op game. I think Choc has been playing it too.

 

[Choc]

ok perhaps i am about to unleash a flame war on myself but

reading that EA thing with norway what exactly is wrong with that. If its a case of if a A is guaranteed they get it, then yes absolutely shonky. But basing whether someone should receive a game or not based on past review habits and reviews is quite frankly the companies right.

There is no media in the world who has a right to receive a game to review. The company chooses who it wants to let review the game or have a review of the game early. There is NOTHING to stop that company buying the game at release and panning it but what i think many people fail to see is that game reviews at least those who get them early are an instrument of the video game publisher PR machine.

If a company does not want to give a review copy to a magazine/site then so be it. If it will only give it early if an A is promised, then yes bullshit. But companies have the right to choose who they give the game to review or not. It's that simple.

EA regularly do not send out NBA (when its around) and The Sims to publications. Why? because EA knows they are going to slam those games so whats the point. THQ refuses to send WWE to Jeff Gerstmann, for the same reason

As a company why would it be in your interest to spend YOUR money (review copies cost money) to allow someone to shit on your game early. Assuming they would do it might be a mistake, but its a mistake that EA and any pbulisher for that matter has the right to do.

 

[Ruthless_Barbarian]

So Al Jazeera is saying Gaddafi is dead. oh snap

I just saw the news, they're saying they captured him? Dead or captured?

 

[reptilescorpio]

As a company why would it be in your interest to spend YOUR money (review copies cost money) to allow someone to shit on your game early. Assuming they would do it might be a mistake, but its a mistake that EA and any pbulisher for that matter has the right to do.

So the government should only give access to information to media outlets who won't shit on them? Any media outlet that will give a non-glowing review to something should not exist? The world should be a sea of 9/10 or 10/10?

 

[roosters93]

I just saw the news, they're saying they captured him? Dead or captured?

Yeah most places just saying he's been captured and shot in the leg but al jazeera posted this:

https://twitter.com/#!/AJELive/status/126989111696429056

The next tweet said unconfirmed reports.

 

[Rahk]

So the government should only give access to information to media outlets who won't shit on them? Any media outlet that will give a non-glowing review to something should not exist? The world should be a sea of 9/10 or 10/10?

They are free to purchase their own copies to review.

 

[Choc]

So the government should only give access to information to media outlets who won't shit on them? Any media outlet that will give a non-glowing review to something should not exist? The world should be a sea of 9/10 or 10/10?

Freedom of information laws prevent that in democracies, but that is because the government is elected by the people and represents the people

since when does a game company

1. get voted in by the people

2. represent the people?

its there to make profit. Why do something that can affect profit. This is NOT JUST LIMITED TO GAMES either. Movie companies do this ALL THE TIME, one hundred billion times more often then game companies to be honest.

and yes they can buy their own fucking game and review it. FOI exists becaues you cant just walk in and buy government documents

 

[reptilescorpio]

They are free to purchase their own copies to review.

I would argue that everyone should pay for review copies but that is another discussion separate to what Choc has raised.
EA have canvassed the Norwegian media to work out who will give a high score. They also worked out who are likely to give MW3 a higher score. They are going to give everyone else a copy to review ahead of schedule. I don't think that is a positive way to engage the media for the industry. They are basically saying, "Give us a fucking 10 or you get to post your review 2 weeks after all your competitors who are willing to suck at our teat."

Movie companies do this ALL THE TIME, one hundred billion times more often then game companies to be honest.

So that makes it okay? As long as our business practises are only as shitty as other forms of media? Okay.

 

[Choc]

Sorry but canvassing the media, there is NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT. What would be wrong would be OK if you guarantee an A you can have it


Asking them if they like COD, realising they shat on previous battlefield games and deciding not to give them a copy is the right of the company. As i said, there is no media in the world who have a RIGHT to a review copy. Zero, Zilch, none. Getting a free review copy is a privillege not a right.

and i don't say this just because i am in the industry. I felt this was the case when i was a journo as well. I reckon Gaz will agree on most points with this.

FWIW this has NOT happened in Australia. It's being provided to every one who will review it.

 

[Yagharek]

ok perhaps i am about to unleash a flame war on myself but

reading that EA thing with norway what exactly is wrong with that. If its a case of if a A is guaranteed they get it, then yes absolutely shonky. But basing whether someone should receive a game or not based on past review habits and reviews is quite frankly the companies right.

There is no media in the world who has a right to receive a game to review. The company chooses who it wants to let review the game or have a review of the game early. There is NOTHING to stop that company buying the game at release and panning it but what i think many people fail to see is that game reviews at least those who get them early are an instrument of the video game publisher PR machine.

If a company does not want to give a review copy to a magazine/site then so be it. If it will only give it early if an A is promised, then yes bullshit. But companies have the right to choose who they give the game to review or not. It's that simple.

EA regularly do not send out NBA (when its around) and The Sims to publications. Why? because EA knows they are going to slam those games so whats the point. THQ refuses to send WWE to Jeff Gerstmann, for the same reason

As a company why would it be in your interest to spend YOUR money (review copies cost money) to allow someone to shit on your game early. Assuming they would do it might be a mistake, but its a mistake that EA and any pbulisher for that matter has the right to do.

Here's the problem choc. (Your initial premise is fine btw - there is no obligation).
1. Big name game is shit and the publisher knows it
2. Reviewer is told to review a game favourably or else not get it early (losing 'Exclusive Review' traffic/sales
3. Customers buy mag and game based on review
4. Subsequently hate it
5. No longer buy games from publisher or magazines from reviewer

So you're right, there is no obligation on EA's part. But they are fucking morons for doing it.

 

[reptilescorpio]

Sorry but canvassing the media, there is NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT. What would be wrong would be OK if you guarantee an A you can have it


Asking them if they like COD, realising they shat on previous battlefield games and deciding not to give them a copy is the right of the company. As i said, there is no media in the world who have a RIGHT to a review copy. Zero, Zilch, none. Getting a free review copy is a privillege not a right.

and i don't say this just because i am in the industry. I felt this was the case when i was a journo as well. I reckon Gaz will agree on most points with this.

FWIW this has NOT happened in Australia. It's being provided to every one who will review it.

The thread was about Norwegian media, not Australian media Choc.
Basically people are pissed because it shows that EA want to inflate the worth of their game in the eyes of consumers. People would prefer to get the whole picture. They want to see reviews that treat the game in a critical manner so they won't get pissed off that they didn't like the game even though every review said it was the best FPS of all time.
Has nothing to do with a right to a free copy of a game.

 

[Choc]

Here's the problem choc. (Your initial premise is fine btw - there is no obligation).
1. Big name game is shit and the publisher knows it
2. Reviewer is told to review a game favourably or else not get it early (losing 'Exclusive Review' traffic/sales
3. Customers buy mag and game based on review
4. Subsequently hate it
5. No longer buy games from publisher or magazines from reviewer

So you're right, there is no obligation on EA's part. But they are fucking morons for doing it.

i'd argue the journalist is the biggest villain in this instance for agreeing to sully their journalistic ethics

This is not a case of this i don't think. If it is, i agree its ridiculous. I think this is the caes that EA norway has decided not to give them the game based on past history and their liking for COD. There is nothing wrong with that.

If its you dont get it if u dont give an A, thats ridiculous. And the magazine is pissed off so decided to try and get a public uproar over nothing.

 

[Choc]

The thread was about Norwegian media, not Australian media Choc.
Basically people are pissed because it shows that EA want to inflate the worth of their game in the eyes of consumers. People would prefer to get the whole picture. They want to see reviews that treat the game in a critical manner so they won't get pissed off that they didn't like the game even though every review said it was the best FPS of all time.
Has nothing to do with a right to a free copy of a game.

I apologise for EA PR people actually doing their job.

That is the job of PR my friend. Like it or loathe it, thats the PR job. In any industry

 

[Yagharek]

i'd argue the journalist is the biggest villain in this instance for agreeing to sully their journalistic ethics

This is not a case of this i don't think. If it is, i agree its ridiculous. I think this is the caes that EA norway has decided not to give them the game based on past history and their liking for COD. There is nothing wrong with that.

If its you dont get it if u dont give an A, thats ridiculous. And the magazine is pissed off so decided to try and get a public uproar over nothing.

theyre both culpable, but the power balance is tilted firmly in the publishers favour so they are worse.
Neither deserve any money though.

 

[reptilescorpio]

i'd argue the journalist is the biggest villain in this instance for agreeing to sully their journalistic ethics

This is not a case of this i don't think. If it is, i agree its ridiculous. I think this is the caes that EA norway has decided not to give them the game based on past history and their liking for COD. There is nothing wrong with that.

If its you dont get it if u dont give an A, thats ridiculous. And the magazine is pissed off so decided to try and get a public uproar over nothing.

If they don't want to give review copies to COD fansites and shitty gaming media who do a shitty job that is one thing. To say to a Norwegian media company that just because they gave Black Ops a high score they won't get access to the game before retail hits is low.

I apologise for EA PR people actually doing their job.

That is the job of PR my friend. Like it or loathe it, thats the PR job. In any industry

You asked why people loathed. I answered. Do you not agree that people hate being misled?

 

[Choc]

the scenario you provided vince is disgusting yes

publisher choosing not to give outlet game because they felt it will get a bad review, is a valid thing to do. Black ops getting a high score = no bf3 is a bit dumb i agree

but its still not unethical

unethical is the 'A' situation

 

[Choc]

also just so you are claer, am not only arguing this because EA is involved. I would hav defended activision doing the same with MW3

 

[Rahk]

Woo.

 

[Dead Man]

Sorry but canvassing the media, there is NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT. What would be wrong would be OK if you guarantee an A you can have it


Asking them if they like COD, realising they shat on previous battlefield games and deciding not to give them a copy is the right of the company. As i said, there is no media in the world who have a RIGHT to a review copy. Zero, Zilch, none. Getting a free review copy is a privillege not a right.

and i don't say this just because i am in the industry. I felt this was the case when i was a journo as well. I reckon Gaz will agree on most points with this.

FWIW this has NOT happened in Australia. It's being provided to every one who will review it.

The point is, that when the manufacturer of a product seeks to influence reviews of the product 2 things happen. Those reviews are seen as untrustworthy, and people dislike the companies involved. Is it ethically wrong? Maybe not. Do consumers seem to hate the idea? Yep.

 

[reptilescorpio]

Woo.

lol
Both EA and Activision win in that scenario! Plus I can play both campaigns!

 

[Yagharek]

the scenario you provided vince is disgusting yes

No, the scenario I described is Driver 3.

 

[Choc]

ok

Modern Warfare 3 is going to be reviewed no doubt at a hotel locked up with room service all services paid including flights for media


that will clearly artificially boost review scores (i dont give a fuck what journalists say about it, it does, because its subconscious)


you could argue thats just as bad

 

[Jintor]

lol
Both EA and Activision win in that scenario! Plus I can play both campaigns!

Retailer-driven scenario

 

[Jintor]

ok

Modern Warfare 3 is going to be reviewed no doubt at a hotel locked up with room service all services paid including flights for media


that will clearly artificially boost review scores (i dont give a fuck what journalists say about it, it does, because its subconscious)


you could argue thats just as bad

So are publishers essentially holding journalists hostage? Either come with us and subconsciously have your opinion of our game influenced by free plane trips, luxury hotel and boozing with PR, or have all your competitors release ahead of you and still have to pay for your damn game?

 

[Choc]

So are publishers essentially holding journalists hostage? Either come with us and subconsciously have your opinion of our game influenced by free plane trips, luxury hotel and boozing with PR, or have all your competitors release ahead of you and still have to pay for your damn game?

yep but hidden behind the 'oh we cant risk it leaking on the net so we cant send it to you' email

 

[Dead Man]

ok

Modern Warfare 3 is going to be reviewed no doubt at a hotel locked up with room service all services paid including flights for media


that will clearly artificially boost review scores (i dont give a fuck what journalists say about it, it does, because its subconscious)


you could argue thats just as bad

Yes.

 

[reptilescorpio]

Modern Warfare 3 is going to be reviewed no doubt at a hotel locked up with room service all services paid including flights for media

you could argue thats just as bad

Why do we have to compare shitty situations? Why can't we just want all games to be reviewed based on their merits?
I know it isn't the way of your industry or the way things are done, but until they are people will complain about these practices.

I know it happens and I bitch about it when it arises. I have my own idea of what is ethical and what isn't. You are entitled to your own as well.

 

[Yagharek]

ok

Modern Warfare 3 is going to be reviewed no doubt at a hotel locked up with room service all services paid including flights for media


that will clearly artificially boost review scores (i dont give a fuck what journalists say about it, it does, because its subconscious)


you could argue thats just as bad

Of course it is. But CoD is also 'review proof'. Everyone knows what to expect: the same as last time with inspiration drawn from Series 5 of 24 instead of Series 4. You either want to get it for playing multi with the same people as last year, or youve had enough.

Reviews for CoD dont matter - they dont even need to exist.

But yes Ill say this much: MS, EA, Actvision, Ubisoft, Warner Bros, Sony etc are all guilty of the same shit. And they rightly get called out on it when they try and ramp it up.

Short version: I dont trust a single review outlet.

edit: how could I forget the biggest offenders, Atari and Take 2.

 

[Choc]

Jintor, if the leak internet thing is right, why can't Activision just have someone in the AU office for 2 days playing it

why get on a jet, fly halfway around the world, spend it in a 5 star hotel and get everything paid for

 

[guidop]

golfham those Super Mario 3D Land japanese commercials are so hype. Australia we are now Mario approved

 

[Yagharek]

choc it goes deeper than that. The entire tone of discussion in mags/websites and thus, via infection - on forums - is all paid for by platform holders. Some more so than others like when they give away free systems at e3, hypothetically.

We all know how long it takes before bad news stories actually get reported. Meanwhile, any slight perception of a misstep by any competitor is jumped on before it even happens.

 

[Jintor]

Jintor, if the leak internet thing is right, why can't Activision just have someone in the AU office for 2 days playing it

why get on a jet, fly halfway around the world, spend it in a 5 star hotel and get everything paid for

That's true, that is excessive, it's a pretty clear media junket situation. I don't know what's actually going on with that, I'm not privy to the details if we have them. But for the journalist at least I'm saying that kind of thing is a binary choice that the publisher is largely in control of. Obviously that doesn't absolve journalists from blame in regards to their choices, but it does have an effect.

 

[Ruthless_Barbarian]

The last game I bought after reading reviews was

Spoiler

Jade Empire

 

[Yagharek]

The last game I bought after reading reviews was

Spoiler

Jade Empire

That company proves reviews are meaningless.