-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
1up deducting points from Warhawk beause of price?
- Thread starter dralla
- Start date
DCharlie
And even i am moderately surprised
agreed it makes a difference, but i can see the point that the pack is pretty decent value -i`m just wondering if they maybe DO know the price of the download PSN version at 1up?
Anyways - to use Shadowrun as an example - i picked it up for under $20 out here in Japan (the joy of second hand US version games) and i think it`s a decent enough game for that price.
If i`d paid $60 for it? i`d be seething at how few options there are.
I`d actually be interested to know though how many people bitching about Shadowrun have actually played it - or whether they are going on hearsay about the game?
From the Shadowrun review:JB1981 said:
"First and foremost, Shadowrun is a game of ifs. If you can justify paying full price for a multiplayer-only game ($60 on 360, $50 on PC), if you have a Live gold subscription (360 requires it, PC only requires it to play cross-platform), if you can set aside preconceived notions about the pacing and complexity of first-person shooters, and if you can find a cooperative and communicative group of regulars to play with...you'll have a hell of a lot of fun."
Metalmurphy
Member
[CFD] El Capitan said:
He wants the game to drop a full point if its over $30. Shadowrun had a 8/10 priced at $60.
That pretty much says it all...
Son of Godzilla said:
...
...
Wait....
What? :lol :lol :lol :lol
Imperial Hot
Banned
You can't take away points from a review based on the games pricing. It should be solely based upon how much fun you are having. The reader should then take the score and then put it against the price to see whether he wants to pay that much for a game.
Taking points off of a review if the price is too high is ridiculous.
Taking points off of a review if the price is too high is ridiculous.
JB1981 said:
Uh... I should mention that that isn't actually a quote from the WarHawk review. I was suggesting that Ziff use a reviewing tactic they've used in the past:
http://www.1up.com/do/reviewPage?cId=3160101
I'm not extremely familiar with 1up's reviews, but given their review of Killzone Liberation, I can be rest assured that whatever they have to say doesn't hold a lot of water. You may say that is unfair to base them off of 1 review. Well, I say the review was unfair and poorly managed (the whole stealth edit thing). And the other thing that got my attention was the editing of their article for the Killzone two unvieling, to say that Gears looked better. Based on those two instances (and their apparent disliking of the Killzone franchise) I can not take them seriously.BenjaminBirdie said:
And c'mon, it's not like many reviewers do a good job. Most seem to pick up the game, go through a couple paces, possibly explore a bit more, but that's it. And the sad thing is, most people probably don't get too far form the main menu. And for what is a easy job, that's not right or fair to the game makers and game buying public.
BenjaminBirdie
Banned
DCharlie said:
I would love to hear this.
BenjaminBirdie
Banned
Madman said:
Ha! **** Pauline Kael because Gene Shalit's a hack, right?
ToyMachine228
Member
Same thing happened to Shadowrun. Lost points for it's price despite the reviewers not having to pay that price. Granted that they are reviewing the product for the consumer so if they choose they can take price into account. Whether I agree with that or not...Different story.
The funny thing is that games that ship with awful single-player, but great multiplayer usually get good scores. But if you ship multiplayer only, then you get deducted points because you didn't tack on some sort of crappy single-player. See: SOCOM, SOCOM 2, SOCOM 3 vs Shadowrun and Warhawk
The funny thing is that games that ship with awful single-player, but great multiplayer usually get good scores. But if you ship multiplayer only, then you get deducted points because you didn't tack on some sort of crappy single-player. See: SOCOM, SOCOM 2, SOCOM 3 vs Shadowrun and Warhawk
miyamotofreak
Banned
I know for a fact GI doesn't take value into account. I'd really be surprised if this was anything more than a joke.
DancingCactus77
Member
I will stop reading EGM for free at Chapters if EGM actually carries out the point deduction.
~Devil Trigger~
In favor of setting Muslim women on fire
itsgreen said:
still the same taste
the price does'nt make the fries taste better or worst. Let me(the fat ass consumer) deal with the price.
Reviewers need to tell us...um...just how...good the fries..are?
AltogetherAndrews
Member
AstroLad said:
I honestly don't think there is anything reasonable about taking price into account in a score when simply providing a descriptive and informative review would not only have the same effect but would also cause the review to remain relevant independent of current and future pricing conditions. Of course this assumes three things: that the readers are capable of determining what is a good value to them based on information, that the writer is skilled enough to provide said informative and descriptive review, and that the format allows for a review of that standard. Now I know the first one is an non-issue; it's a human instinct to spot a good value. It's the second and third points that are the real problems, and the only realistic remedy here is to either work to elevate the standards of the current writers and format, or simply hire writers that possess the necessary skill and talent as well as change the format to facilitate this higher standard.
BenjaminBirdie
Banned
ToyMachine228 said:
I think we're missing the most important development. When you read Shadowrun and Warhawk quickly, it looks like Shadowhawk, which we can all agree is the worst comic book ever.
KevinRo said:
What's driving this thread, though, is the typical fanboy motivator (and really the juice that keeps this forum moving at such a brisk pace)--what effect will this injustice have on sales? People argue that it's unfair and wrong because they're afraid a lower score will negatively impact the game's sales and reduce the likelihood of similar games in the future. I don't think anyone up in arms about the idea would actually claim that it will have a direct effect on their own decisions.
Like I said in the other thread, I understand the rationale behind factoring price into the review of the game's value (even though I personally prefer they don't do this) but if it's really that important to an organization like 1up/EGM to factor price into the review score, then where exactly is the precedent coming from that Warhawk can only achieve it's highest rating at $30 or less - what games that originally sold for $40 are regarded as significantly better values such that Warhawk at the same price would have to have it's score docked?AstroLad said:
This is just seems ridiculous and unprofessional. I'm really surprised at how so many are defending this, but i guess that just goes to show how opinions can vary so much.
But just to chime in, I for one do not want price factored into a review. It makes no sense to me at all and just breeds inconsistency. Is a used copy of a game that's $5 cheaper somehow better than the new copy?
What's so hard about reviewing a game for its content and then giving a simple
~Buy|Rent|Avoid~ foot note at the bottom or something?
But just to chime in, I for one do not want price factored into a review. It makes no sense to me at all and just breeds inconsistency. Is a used copy of a game that's $5 cheaper somehow better than the new copy?
What's so hard about reviewing a game for its content and then giving a simple
~Buy|Rent|Avoid~ foot note at the bottom or something?
AltogetherAndrews
Member
Dr_Cogent said:
The review is supposed to be a buyer's guide first and ego-fueled opinion piece second.
snack said:
Then the same would apply to framerate, jaggies etc etc? hrmm?
I see this as being good for gamers if the reviewers give a game a lower score because of price. It will put pressure on publishers to maybe think about the price first before just automaticly assuming $59.99!
Woo-Fu said:Is there anybody with a PS3 who doesn't want Warhawk?It doesn't even need reviews.
:lol :lol Very true!
BenjaminBirdie
Banned
Madman said:
Yes my wee and fragile heart will crumble if I find out someone doesn't like the game. Please. You already backhandedly gave your verdict in this thread, might as well own up with a few more detailed sentences as to why you think it's garbage in any way that's relevant to the current discussion (and there are several).
Ploid 3.0
Member
It's a good thing we had a beta and we all know how good warhawk is and don't really need a review (just need word from the dev that it no longer freeze and what tweaks they made). It don't feel like a 30-40 dollar game to me. It hangs in with the full priced games as far as fun factor go. In Socom I forced my way through single player to unlock skins. It was fully ignored after, in warhawk I get skins for obtaining medals/ribbons + total points. There's always people playing and so many entitlements (achievements) to obtain in the game. You can make a game of obtaining them all (doubt anyone will lol). Man I miss warhawk.
Multiplayer only games last longer in replay than single player only games. Soon they will pack enough content to be judged for being a darn game.
Multiplayer only games last longer in replay than single player only games. Soon they will pack enough content to be judged for being a darn game.
BenjaminBirdie
Banned
AltogetherAndrews said:
Unless you're reading Consumer Reports, you've got that backwards.
VonGak! said:
Hey, **** you! All I did was post the damn thing since it's relevant to the god damn topic. I've not put my piece of what I think here at all.
I personally don't think it should be affected by price because if it does get great reviews - and it is marketed at a price I don't care for, I'll find time or place where I can get it at a cheaper cost. I'm a bargin gamer at heart.
I'm not going to buy Halo 3 at the $120 price they're asking for it here in Australia, I'm going to find that place which bought shitloads of copies and buy it at $80AU or whatever it ends up being down at Big W. If I DID have a PS3 and the download price for Warhawk was too much, I'd wait a month or so and pick it up with headset for the equivelant of $40US or whatever the **** it is.
~Devil Trigger~ said:
Meh. that is kind of true, but aren't reviewers also giving advice to consumers?
Games are products where you don't know exactly what you are getting when you pay them. It can differ so much. How would you feel if you walked in for Batman Begins or something and the movie was only 5 minutes. Still 5 very good minutes of movie. And I payed 10$ for that? I would feel fckd, and that is why reviewers of movies and games should incorporate the cost/value balance in their review.
AltogetherAndrews said:
Price itself, certainly not, value perhaps. I think a few people in this thread have made decent points about how discussions of value in reviews have helpfully guided their decisions. What's so difficult about this is that it's so subjective--the obvious and correct point that many (me included) have made: from what viewpoint is the reviewer looking at value? Kid using his allowance money? Teenager using his summer job money? Investment banker? These are all big markets and readers of game reviews.
Any sort of objective value anaysis is literally impossible, so really all you have left is a relative assessment of value, which is what I think most reviewers implicitly do. Where this breaks down a bit is the level of materiality of relative value to different audiences, but it's game reviewing, and there are a lot of other things we could nitpick first.
I should also be clear that this is referring to the practice of including value in reviews, and not the details of this particular application of the practice.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll