YEAH BOMBA!!
Shit, not yet ... Patience Sethos, patience.
That explosion is wonderful
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Medal of Honor Warfighter review codes being sent on day 1?
- Thread starter Messofanego
- Start date
That explosion is wonderful
MR BLACKMAGIK
Member
Not going to stop me from buying it. I liked the beta and I liked the last MoH game.
Their job isn't "reviewing the game". The job of a commercial journalist is to produce content that their audience cares about. People who come to gaming sites appreciate reviews that appear before release day, because the reviews help them make informed purchasing decisions. But they don't care as much about late reviews, because by then they've probably already made up their minds one way or the other.
By not delivering review copies, EA makes it harder for those game reviewers to do their job right, because any reviews of MoH: Warfighter will be later than they should be, and as such will be less relevant to their readers. Or, if they rush the review in order to be first, it will be of lower quality, and less useful.
It's not EA's job to cater to the whim of every journalist, but it's not the game reviewer's job to shut up and say nothing when a publisher makes moves designed to suppress critical opinion of a game on release day. A reviewer of a heavily marketed product in any other industry would say the same thing in a similar situation.
Then I expect to hear a lot of bitching over the Black Ops 2 review event happening soon. Those events are made exactly for the reasons you just stated. Rockstar does them as well. Where is the snark there?
not_so_special
Banned
whatever,their job is to review the game period.if they want free games they can make a kickstarter
They don't want free games, just the game before the release date. So that the reviews will be relevant.
test_account
XP-39C²
Why isnt the review relevant after release date?
starchild excalibur
Member
I can't say that I really mind, but that may be because I don't tend to buy most games at launch.
SJRB
Gold Member
Because reviews are a pre-release hype mechanism, especially for the bigger titles.
test_account
XP-39C²
That is true if the the reviews are good, but i mean for people who want to read the reviews.
BurnOutBrighter
Banned
#humblebrag
ii Stryker
Banned
EA is probably trying to avoid the "its good but Black Ops 2 and Halo 4 will be better" quotes most reviewers wil be throwing out there. Its an inevitability.
This guy gets it! I'm amazed no one's talked about multiplayer. I can't count the number of reviews of multiplayer focused games that did not feature multiplayer because the servers weren't up and ready to go. This is probably more about EA trying to avoid reviewers saying the game is buggy as shit when the final server bugfixes aren't up or just out-and-out complaining that they can't get on when this stuff will be wrapped up on launch day. The mulitplayer is solid, and it's looking to be supported longer than not, so I'm interested. In fact, I'm preloading.
On an only slightly related note, is anyone making the Warfighter OT? I might like to reprise the last one I did. I can see it now: "Medal of Honor Warfighter |OT| The ReBeardening"
nhlducks35
Member
Same as Battlefield 3, basically.
Canis lupus
Member
Its better like this.
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
To this day I have no idea how they were able to clean up that buggy beta in time for launch. It seems like there were more bugs fixed between beta and launch than launch and now.
^This. Seriously this is all it is, most every time this happens with a release on this scale and there's really no reason to suspect any better or worse.
From EA's perspective: Why would you want pre-release gossip to be you should probably wait like a few days and get Halo 4/wait a few more and get CoD. And all three games are spaced out better than that. I'm being facetious with "a few days", but still.
nhlducks35
Member
The beta was from an old build; DICE said that they had fixed most of the problems in the beta before it came out.
I'd imagine that a review that comes out after the game is already released also gets less clicks/views.
And it's only sort of an isolated case. It happens once in a while that a developer sends out the review copies to late and sometimes none at all. If it had consequences for the developers/publisher they might refrain from doing it
PepsimanVsJoe
Member
Most games do the majority of their sales in the first week.
The people that haven't bought the game either aren't interested or they're waiting for a price-drop. They're past caring about what reviews say. At this point the only possibility that they'll buy the game in a time-frame that benefits the publisher the most is due to good word of mouth.
And are we already back to crying about free games? Becoming a reviewer isn't all that difficult folks. If you can string a few paragraphs together and know someone that knows someone you too are well on your way to becoming a reviewer.
EA is welcome to distribute games in whatever manner they see fit. They can even not send us code. We'll do the review if it's a game we think our audience wants to know about. There's no reason to boycott them. We're not holding a knife to their throat. But my intention, and I probably speak for some others with this, is to let the audience know why a review won't be up on release day, because that is unusual.
test_account
XP-39C²
It could be, but a later review brings in more clicks than no review
True, but i dont see any reason why reviewers should "blackmail" publishers. I think that the publisher are entitled to chose if they want to send out or not. The publishers sends out review copies because they want exposure. If they dont want exposure (or limited exposure) for whatever reason, i think they should be free to choose this. This doesnt stop anyone from buying the game and review it then of course, but i feel sending out review copies should be a choice that the publishers should be allowed to do.
EDIT: In this specific case, i dont think that it is to hide that it is a bad game. Otherwise they wouldnt need to send out any review copies at all. People will know about 1 week later anyway, or even earlier when concidering word to mouth.
That is true for many games indeed, but if a review come one week before release day and say "this game is amazing", and a review comes out one week after release day and says "this game is amazing". If people wont buy a game just because of this delay, then they most likely werent very interested in the game in the first place. Then it comes more down to word to mouth as you mention.
That is fair.
You so don't get it.
That is still different from automatically concluding "so it must suck" like Invisible Walls did. How can you trust people's opinion when they already draw a conclusion based on when they receive a game? Movie critics did the same for Psycho by the way. One of the highest rated movies on Rotten Tomatoes opened to mixed reviews because of it. Compare it to GameSpot's answer: quick, to the point, and no judgement.
Feel free to explain it though. Or feel free to explain to me why I need to think the same as everyone and only complain about one of the two issues of the situation in the OP.
TUROK
Member
Lol at the people who rely on a numeric score to lead their purchasing decisions.
Also, lol at me for taking anything you have to say seriously.
TUROK
Member
Not at all. I've nothing invested in the game. I haven't even played the one before it.
I just find the notion that a developer not sending out pre-release review copies being an indicator of quality to be beyond silly.
I also find the notion that people not criticizing this decision are "EA drones" to be silly as well.
Furthermore, notion is an awesome word.
My calc teacher calls everything a notion.
I mostly agree with you as well. BF3 wasn't ready until day 1 and it turned out just fine.
FlutterPuffs
Member
Problem is that it's often an indicator of quality.
Why won't EA have first day reviews of the game? It's something that's expected out of AAA titles, and even more so when it's something EA has spent millions into.
Now yes, it's too early to tell if the game will suck (the first had a good story! MP was meh) but I understand why some are jumping the gun. Can't remember the last time a AAA game wasn't given even a day one review copies, and got good reviews in the process.
Does anyone know?
Battlefield 3.
I'm the same, having the option to return it really helps though.
XANDER CAGE
Member
I definitely agree that it's not necessarily an indication of a game's quality. I received Need For Speed: The Run early last year, so it's not like they make a habit out of not sending out obviously less-than-stellar games early.
Let's put it this way: if their goal is to avoid people badmouthing the game before release, this was a silly idea because now people think they have something to hide. Catch-22, I guess.
FlutterPuffs
Member
You got me there D:
XANDER CAGE
Member
Keep in mind that was only the PC version though, which is doubly weird.
Remember that the two versions of the game were quite different in the MP, so it's reasonable to see why only one version needed some fixes that weren't ready until launch.
No, it was the console version according to GameSpot. They believed it was possible for them to get the PC version a couple of days in advance with the patch. ( http://www.gamespot.com/news/battlefield-3-review-delayed-6341065 )
See also the difference in tone. No judgement on the quality of the game based on the fact the review copies are coming in late.
Smart move by EA. RE5 should have done this. played the MP on 360, pretty meh, dont think frostbyte 2 is a very good console engine. But maybe some PC players will like it.
I can wait 2 weeks for halo and cod to get my shooter fix.
also AC3 comes out in just over a week.
the only downside to this game not having reviews ready for launch, is i have to wait longer to see this game get shredded by the media, this game just smells of corporate and marketting directives.
Not to mention how "authentic it is", guys remember that one time in the iraq war were one solder killed thousands of enemies, survived a helicopter crash, got shot probably over 100 times, and had explosions going off around him at all times?
I can wait 2 weeks for halo and cod to get my shooter fix.
also AC3 comes out in just over a week.
the only downside to this game not having reviews ready for launch, is i have to wait longer to see this game get shredded by the media, this game just smells of corporate and marketting directives.
Not to mention how "authentic it is", guys remember that one time in the iraq war were one solder killed thousands of enemies, survived a helicopter crash, got shot probably over 100 times, and had explosions going off around him at all times?
Backfoggen
Banned
Bet this game is gonna be great.
XANDER CAGE
Member
Oh yeah, you're right, I remember that. I just went back and checked my emails from 2011 and I got the exact email they're talking about. I think my console copy arrived the Monday before release, and the PC version didn't unlock until the actual release date.
So it did arrive "early"... sort of.
AHA-Lambda
Member
Hmm, so why are EA bothering to send review codes at all then? =/
Well since the vast majority of reviews aren't worth the ink (virtual or real) they are printed on this really isn't an issue for me. In the end I only really care about 2 magazines, and 2 sites for opinion. Games TM, Edge, Giant Bomb, and Eurogamer.
Plus being an adult with disposable income while I enjoy reading a review if I fancy playing a game I will no doubt still pick it up regardless.
Plus being an adult with disposable income while I enjoy reading a review if I fancy playing a game I will no doubt still pick it up regardless.
TheContact
Member
Yes this game is going to suck.
Speaking in generalities, developers send out games they're confident in early to build as much buzz with reviewers as possible. Positive reviews correlate with higher sales. Ironically, even negative reviews tend to correlate with higher sales. Historically speaking games that show up on release day aren't very good. Battlefield 3 is the only exception I can think of off the top of my head, and even that had some reviews up on release day.
Correction: Diablo 3 and Starcraft 2 were also release day.
Speaking directly to Medal of Honor, I would point out a couple of things:
- Word of mouth on the multiplayer beta has been really bad. You might like it, but the consensus has been pretty negative.
- It's frostbite 2.0 on consoles, which has had serious issues on current gen consoles. Even Battlefield 3 had major problems with scripting in the campaign.
I don't know if Warfighter is bad. I wasn't able to make the last preview event. But this doesn't bode well for it.
You know, I've been hearing that the word of mouth on the multiplayer beta was bad, but I've mostly heard good things from the people I've been talking to and the videos I've been watching. I mean, I don't know anyone who's over-the-top excited like I've seen for Blops2 or AC3 or Halo 4 or anything like that, but I've always heard positive things. The thing I get the impression from the few negative opinions is that it's not CoD or it's not Battlefield and just ends up fulfilling some sort of confirmation bias against it. EA's doing their best to hide it, but Warfighter looks to have an appeal that sets it apart from its competition.
The main problem here isn't the game, which I do believe is solid with some interesting meta-elements and thoughtful multiplayer gameplay mechanics. the problem is EA and their Godawful marketing department. I would like nothing better than to fire every idiot who's responsible for marketing and brand development in that company, because they have dropped the ball on so many games that they become unpalatable by the gaming public. They've so far failed to play up the strengths of the game, and while this move isn't helping anything, I think the game is solid and that this whole idea of battle-buddies works great in a game like this. Too bad they're not hyping that part up.
Laughter 7
Neo Member
Pretty obvious this game is a load of w*nk and EA are trying to maximise early purchases before people realise the turd they have on their hands.
The little bit of PC gameplay footage I saw looked bad. Even just graphically, it's bad. Same engine as BF3 and a year newer, and it looks way worse somehow.
The little bit of PC gameplay footage I saw looked bad. Even just graphically, it's bad. Same engine as BF3 and a year newer, and it looks way worse somehow.