NinajHeartless
Member
Hitler Stole My Potato said:
Play Magazine: "You simply can't ask for more out of an action game. Mission accomplished. Sonic is born anew."
Oh god....that is just...fucking terrible
Play Magazine (US) April Issue reviews etc
- Thread starter Community Forum
- Start date
Oh god....that is just...fucking terrible
Classic_Gs
Member
This mag really loves giving out high scores.
TheCardPlayer
Likes to have "friends" around to "play cards" with
Condemned 2 sucks now GAF? Right. I learned not to trust you folks anyway. :lol
Shitty scores all around anyway. They gave Curse Of Darkness a 9.
Shitty scores all around anyway. They gave Curse Of Darkness a 9.
PepsimanVsJoe
Member
*scratches head*
So uh...now what?
So uh...now what?
The Hermit
Member
*Ignores thread*
Whoa Okami and Dragon Swords got 9.5!
Whoa Okami and Dragon Swords got 9.5!
DevelopmentArrested
Banned
Pedobear said:
Have you played it? It's certainly nowhere near a 9.5. Or 8.5. Maybe a 6.5.
Stumpokapow said:
No, that's not what I said. Before Play, before GameFan, before the other magazines I've written, I've always had the exact same opinion as I do now: a magazine is a collection of people. It's a collection, but it's still PEOPLE. People are different, and as such, Play is not me, and I'm not Play. I'm a part of the magazine, but I'm one part.
Or, even better, we can expect people to actually take a moment to find out who it was that said what they said. Sorry, but I don't agree with the excuse that just because somebody is part of an organization, you're free to trash the entire organization just because you're too lazy to bother checking which person you should be directing your comments at.
Simple fact is, we disagree on this - but I'm not saying that Play shouldn't stand behind what its staff says in a review (or whatever). Play should absolutely support the staff giving their honest opinion in a review, and it does. Play - as a magazine - is there to give those who are employed by it a platform for what they have to say.
What is then said, however, does not come from "Play". It comes from people. And Play as a whole should no more get blanket attacks just because somebody disagrees with a review score as EGM, GamePro, Game Informer, or any such publications period should.
If you don't like something to come out of the government, you don't just say "the government sucks!," you take up your argument with the person who put forward the bill or whatnot. If you think the dialog in a movie sucked, you don't blame the guys on lighting, you blame the scriptwriter.
Honestly, I'm used to being part of the general attack on a magazine, even if I had nothing to do with anything, because I was part of GameFan, and the negative comments Play gets are NOTHING compared to what we got back then. Doesn't make it right, and doesn't mean I have to stop having an opinion on the matter just because I work for a magazine.
TheCardPlayer
Likes to have "friends" around to "play cards" with
Yup. It's a 8.5 for sure. If not a 9.DevelopmentArrested said:
JonathanEx
Member
Someone may not agree with the opinion of a fellow writer, but that doesn't mean they don't stand up for it as being the honest opinion of that person: and the general expectations are people within the same publication will always stand up for them, otherwise the trust the readership has with the publication is significantly reduced.
However, a review is published as part of the publication, representing it. And different publications have different target audiences. If you don't find consensus with the general views put forth by one publication, then fine.
Personally, the opinions put forth in several Play reviews and the overall range of scores given means that I have an extremely low trust in the reviews of it. And I think that's fair.
However, a review is published as part of the publication, representing it. And different publications have different target audiences. If you don't find consensus with the general views put forth by one publication, then fine.
Personally, the opinions put forth in several Play reviews and the overall range of scores given means that I have an extremely low trust in the reviews of it. And I think that's fair.
DevelopmentArrested
Banned
Pedobear said:
Ugh no. Thankfully, GAF is right on this one.
Mega Man's Electric Sheep
Member
And who could forget the perfect score Play gave Devil May Cry 2.:lol Easily Halverson's worst review ever, and I quote: "Lucia's tale alone, a cruel sonnet of self realization wrapped in a story steeped in religious overtones, is reason enough to buy this game."
TheCardPlayer
Likes to have "friends" around to "play cards" with
:lolMega Man's Electric Sheep said:
Roxas said:
I bet you, if I thought for a moment, I could come up with a game where my review score was WAY higher than everybody else. (Rule of Rose instantly came to mind, but I wasn't as far above other mainstream publications as I thought I might be. Next possible example would be the 94% I game to SamSho IV way back in the day.)
Thus, I'm sure I could come up with a perfect example for my firing as well. Unless, of course, you're willing to accept the fact that sometimes, people really like a game that many other people don't.
Anyhow, my reviews were:
Mana Khemia: Alchemists of Al-Revis (PS2) 7.0
Rondo of Swords (NDS) 8.0
So if anybody wants to kick some ass for either of those, you know who to blame.
I'm not even going to chime in on any side of this debate.... But I gotta say, about that "your editor should tell you to lay off the crack pipe" comment: Considering who runs the magazine, that would be the MOTHER of all IRONIES.
Oh, the glory days... when Halverson got wacked out on acid (or was it shrooms) and wrote a wonderfully rambling review of Cybermorph for the Atari Jaguar.
Oh, the glory days... when Halverson got wacked out on acid (or was it shrooms) and wrote a wonderfully rambling review of Cybermorph for the Atari Jaguar.
Hero of Legend
Member
Hey shidoshi, got anything to say about Sonic Unleashed as there have been reports of one of the artwork's file name referring to Play Magazine?
Or are you NDA'd?
Or are you NDA'd?
I think Play just needs to have their writers sit on their reviews for awhile to think "real hard" if the score is appropriate.
Not sure if rushing to publication and to completion marked up the scores that high, but wow, I couldn't believe my eyes when I first came in here to see the 9's thrown around.
Glad I am not the editor looking at the plethora of 9's in front of me -- I wouldn't know what to do with myself.
So, Play, make sure you sit down your writers and have them fully explain why these scores are so high because, seriously, those are ridiculously high compared to the general consensus.
Not sure if rushing to publication and to completion marked up the scores that high, but wow, I couldn't believe my eyes when I first came in here to see the 9's thrown around.
Glad I am not the editor looking at the plethora of 9's in front of me -- I wouldn't know what to do with myself.
So, Play, make sure you sit down your writers and have them fully explain why these scores are so high because, seriously, those are ridiculously high compared to the general consensus.
shidoshi said:
You reviewed an unfinished product and gave a score based on the promise that the devs would fix the problems with no knowledge of how successful they'd be. Whatever you way you slice it, it was a crap reason that shows how skindeep your credibility is.
:lol
What a load of bullshit. Whatever happened to accountability? Even gamespot has all the editors ok the scores put forward, hence why everyone stood by gerstman's low K&L score.
Hero of legend said:
100% honest answer: I know nothing about it. My dealings with the mag (content wise) are pretty much in regards to what I'm working on for the month, and otherwise I don't bother to check into other game stuff we're covering unless it's something I'm directly interested in.
So, for example, I know that we're breaking the news about the U.S. release of Persona 4, since that's something I'm really interested in. Sonic, I haven't been much of a fan of since Sonic 1 and Sonic CD.
Okay, seriously, the above paragraph is a complete and total lie.
Mamesj said:
If you bother to check out the entire truth behind the story, I'm afraid it's nowhere near as exciting or "explaining."
Zenith said:
Uh what? Editors SHOULD NOT be okaying a score. If they think the score is way off base, they can talk to the editor and make sure that editor is sincere about the score and why they gave it. But if you've got editors approving or denying scores, that's a seriously bad position for a publication or website to be in (in my opinion).
And that has nothing to do with the Gerstman situation. They stood by his right to give the score what he thought it deserved, just like I support Casey for giving Lair the score he thought it deserved.
sonicspear64
Member
Yup. Something about some pissed off asian-looking dude in pimp attire. :lolDanielsan said:
Mega Man's Electric Sheep
Member
Play also originally gave Sonic 360 a 9.5, which was amended to an 8.5 after it was released because Halverson says the developers told him the looooong loading times wouldn't be in the final game.
"I was told that my ROMs horrendously long load times were being addressed, but playing through the retail version thats sadly not the case. With any luck, the PS3 version will address some of the most puzzling load times Ive ever encountered. Why load 10-15 seconds into a single line of dialogue and then 10-15 out? It wasnt mentioned in my review because I was told it was indicative of the build I reviewed. It does effect the game enough to shave a point off the score."
So...he was reviewing how awesome it possibly could be...or something.
"I was told that my ROMs horrendously long load times were being addressed, but playing through the retail version thats sadly not the case. With any luck, the PS3 version will address some of the most puzzling load times Ive ever encountered. Why load 10-15 seconds into a single line of dialogue and then 10-15 out? It wasnt mentioned in my review because I was told it was indicative of the build I reviewed. It does effect the game enough to shave a point off the score."
So...he was reviewing how awesome it possibly could be...or something.
yankeeforever2
Member
They gave Devil May Cry 2 a 10!!!!
You guys better have given 1 and 3 fuckin 100's then.
edit: DMC2 deserves at most a 5, and I just re beat DMC2, replaying the first 3 games again after beating 4.
You guys better have given 1 and 3 fuckin 100's then.
edit: DMC2 deserves at most a 5, and I just re beat DMC2, replaying the first 3 games again after beating 4.
Byakuya769
Member
Amir0x said:
But it's ok when Obama is liberal, huh? Hypocrite.
Actually though, I don't think its a big problem if they review games higher than other people.. long as they actually like the games that much. Consistency is most important when it comes t reviewing.
SuperSonic1305
Member
SHOTEH FOCK OP said:
wat
AltogetherAndrews
Banned
Byakuya769 said:
I don't have a problem with high scores and positive reviews, lord knows there needs to be a counter-weight to all the jaded and cynical critics who barely seem to even enjoy these games and act as if these are important world issues that should always be inspected with a brutally critical eye. But I take issue with reviews that ignore serious flaws and issues, as that is dishonest and serves as a disservice towards those who use reviews as buyer's guides. Play isn't alone there though; Eurogamer, a generally "respected" site, has been proven to be full of shit too, which is a shame.
Cosmonaut X
Member
AltogetherAndrews said:
Care to expand? I've seen you make these kind of comments in other threads, but I'm not sure what Eurogamer are supposed to have done...
Anasui Kishibe
Banned
Guy Legend said:
SEGA IS BORN ANEW
AltogetherAndrews
Banned
Cosmonaut X said:
Have you ever played a game called Resistance? Eurogamer, in two separate reviews no less, referenced the impact a certain weapon had on the online matches of said game. Now this would be fine, if said weapon hadn't been exclusive to the single player campaign and thus not available in online matches. That might not seem like a big deal, but it certainly makes it hard to take whatever they have to say about games seriously.
Zenith said:
I didn't play the game, I've never touched Sonic 360 period, I have absolutely no knowledge of the review of that game other than when I put it up on the site. So, I'm sorry, but there's absolutely nothing I could tell you about that situation that wouldn't be me just making shit up.
That said... the fact of the matter is, unless you're playing a retail copy that you picked up from your local Best Buy, unfortunate situations sometimes occur. I remember a couple of examples (not what exact games, but the fact that the situation existed) at GF where we were given a reviewable copy of a game, reviewed the game based on what we were told was a 100% reviewable copy, only to then find out the retail version was different in some way.
The closest I could come to the Sonic situation (from how I understand it) is when I was reviewing Persona 3. I had a copy of that game that was completely reviewable except for a few untranslated parts and some spelling/grammatical errors. If I had reviewed the game off of that copy, I would have asked Atlus, "Hey, are these spelling errors going to be fixed?" If they told me yes, I would have believed them and then done my review based on the assumption that those issues would be fixed.
Not exactly the same thing, I know. But it's the best personal example I could give you off of the top of my head. So much can change between the review copy you're given and the final version that issues like this can (and have) happened to nearly everybody. I wish I could speak on the Sonic issue, but I can't, because I simply have next to no knowledge on what the facts behind the situation were.
Personally... if I had my own mag, I'd want to only review copies that we bought ourselves from a retailer. It would mean reviews would be later, but at the same time, I'd be certain that what we were reviewing was the exact product that customers would be buying. (Plus, that way you could get a proper feel for games where online is important.)
DevelopmentArrested
Banned
AltogetherAndrews said:
EGM misspelt a few words in last issue, too.
Mistakes are mistakes. A 9.0 score for a 4.5 game is completely different.
Similar threads
- Locked