Support NeoGAF

[Dash Kappei]

I don't have an issue with reviewers not completing certain specific titles, as long as they play it extensively... and it doesn't sound that's the case here to be honest.

Also

"I must retract the score 'cause no way this game deserved a 9, look at all this annoying shit I've just found out, except I stand by everything I wrote which explained how this game deserved a 9, you know that 9 that I wanna retract... and oh, also I won't actually give it a new score either"

damn, psxetreme really let me down, where will I go for my daily dose of reviews now

 

[ZeroX03]

Only two require actual MP

Revive a partner in Co-op.
Perform 10 Co-op sync kills.

Everything else can be done by yourself.

Multiplayer still required for them. Doesn't change my point at all. You don't need to jump to Ubisoft's defense for everything. Multiplayer is required for completionist/trophy hunter's sake, then there's mobile companion stuff if you count that too.

so why should anybody take this guy's reviews seriously from now on? he is going to have the same time constraints and other problems when reviewing new games. can we really trust that he won't continue giving undeserved scores?

All reviewers have these time constraints.

 

[Mooreberg]

It is commendable that he admits the faults in how the review was originally delivered. But it would be a lot more beneficial to point out how many problems the game has at the time of release. The damage is already done in terms of a publisher seeing returns on junk that was pushed out the door to hit an annual schedule. The Total Biscuit video detailing how much of a mess the game is was a lot more helpful than a correction nine weeks later. Stop rushing to publish reviews that do not accurately evaluate the product.

 

[Doukou]

I'm fine with reviewers giving reviews mid-game, just please point this out everytime it matters. Even if it does get repetitive like you end up saying it every other time. Or just delay your review. But I understand that it is a job that might end up in time constraints and unfortunately most reviews are only read on release day I'd imagine.

Personally, I question the reviewers motives as I can see him changing it to match the public's opinion on AC Unity. Especially since he didn't give out a new score to reflect the game. Of course that is only a possibility not a fact.
If he did do it out of his conscience, good on him and always remember not to do it again.

 

[Crossing Eden]

Dude, you're doing it again. Tag is well deserved.

Anyway, I'll make sure to avoid this guy's reviews in the future. If I'm buying a full game, I want to know how good the full game is.

Providing accurate information instead of false info? Yes I do tend to do that. Would you prefer that I didn't provide correct info?

 

[Madness]

When you write for a gaming website, you really have to produce reviews quickly if you want to remain competitive; whether gamers don't understand this or don't wish to accept it, I don't know. And it's irrelevant, anyway.

We understand and have accepted it. We know what the deal is. It's why we also know most large scale releases, regardless of their quality, will rarely if ever receive below an 8 or 9. Reviews are all but meaningless these days. How anyone can play a multi-player game for 5 days with a few other journos or devs and then tell fans it's the next evolution of multi-player without ever playing it for a month in the wild I don't know.

Either way, it's good to see reviewers at least change scores after the fact rather than leave them as is.

 

[Night Angel]

Providing accurate information instead of false info? Yes I do tend to do that. Would you prefer that I didn't provide correct info?

You seem to enjoy missing the point as well.

 

[Crossing Eden]

Multiplayer still required for them. Doesn't change my point at all. You don't need to jump to Ubisoft's defense for everything. Multiplayer is required for completionist/trophy hunter's sake, then there's mobile companion stuff if you count that too.

One or two instances of MP.

Multiplayer still required for them. Doesn't change my point at all. Multiplayer is required for completionist/trophy hunter's sake, then there's mobile comnanion stuff if you count that too.

It doesn't change your point but the way the blog and your post were worded made it seem like there were a good amount of trophies that require MP.

The original point was

You seem to enjoy missing the point as well.

AFAIK you need to do MP, in response to me asking what would be the point of side content that doesn't have skill points, money, and useful gear as rewards. I corrected that person by stating that everything all content in the game can be completed solo. Which another user pointed out that the trophies can't be earned without MP, which to a lot of people, would make it seem like there would be a ton of trophies that actually required MP, which is why I specified the number of trophies that require another player to be there for completion. While you decided to add absolutely nothing to the discussion by stating "Tag well deserved."

 

[Archaix]

Nice to know I shouldn't trust his reviews in the future. Never heard of him before, now I know that he doesn't bother playing the game enough to judge it before giving it a nice huge score.

Whether you think the job of a review is to provide critical analysis or consumer advice, he failed miserably at his job. He has no credibility. Particularly because he brushes his failure aside as though it wasn't his own fault. There's no reason to expect that he won't do this in future reviews.

 

[theecakee]

This happens a lot, especially when a reviewer has to cover multiple large games in a short time-frame.

Yeah, and also when they probably have another job along with writing these reviews.

 

[chromatic9]

Not sure about the skill points thing or how important it is but you pretty much see all the stuff locked out like chests and tons of equipment and need of DLC from the outset. I was quite disappointed a couple of hours in and still haven't done any companion app, club comp, initiate things.

Seems as though that 9/10 is just a little embarrassing for him?

 

[ghibli99]

I'm cool with that. I actually did this with NES Remix... I went in with certain expectations, and when they weren't really what *I* wanted, I gave it a relatively low score. Later, I played and loved NES Remix 2, and decided to go back to the first game, and while I liked a lot of features of the sequel better, my mindset going back to the first game had changed, and I ended up really enjoying it, so I re-reviewed it. Different circumstances, I know, but I don't see anything wrong with doing this (for better or for worse) as long as you explain why.

 

[ZealousD]

All of the random side crap, microtransactions, boosts, initiaties, club competitions, etc, all really bring this game down. Paris is easily the most impressive city in the series to date and I've really enjoyed the main story so far. Some of the new additions like the murder mysteries and the enigma puzzles or whatever they're called are interesting. But all of this random crap being designed by men in suits trying to squeeze dollars and "loyalty" out of us just weighs the game down.

Like, I actually even liked the companion app for Black Flag. It felt like I was playing the game even when I wasn't at the console. But the companion app for Unity is a serious piece of fucking garbage. The glyph puzzles are annoying, not fun. The ransomware bullshit of waiting up to 24 hours for a mission to finish is stupid. All of the legendary gear that's locked behind club competitions is stupid. The fact that there's three types of currencies is stupid. The fact that you can't see all the chests on the map is stupid.

God Ubisoft, Assassin's Creed 2 was a fantastic game. Why can't you ever make a game that good again?

 

[Danneee]

Who cares, he already gave the game a good review and now when a lot of people already have come to terms with it being crap writes a text about him agreeing.

 

[Conflict NZ]

Holy shit the righteous indignation of this writer that he shouldn't have to finish a game is incredible. First he says he shouldn't have to play 50 hours despite AC Unity being easily finishable in 15-20, then he says he didn't play enough to see the bugs, despite the major bugs showing up as soon as you start the game.

 

[Sendero]

The problem is not that he didn't finish the game -most reviewers don't and statistics show that neither the majority of players.

No, the problem is, that in whatever time he spent on the game, he could not pick up the inherent issues, like the bullshit requirements to unblock chests, or complaining about how parts of the city could not be accessed without DLC, or the boring story, or the repetition, etc.

None of that required hundred of hours to notice. And he still does not acknowledge the myriad of technical issues and bugs the game clearly has. So, this show his methodology is suspect -at the very least.

Finally, he is really not changing the score or at least proposing an unofficial one.
It's like in his mind he is trying to apologize, but he is actually saying: "you see, it's not me, it's you.. and perhaps her, but totally not me".

 

[Minion101]

Honestly I don't see a problem with people changing their mind. In fact I think having that ability is a plus.

 

[ZeroX03]

One or two instances of MP.

It doesn't change your point but the way the blog and your post were worded made it seem like there were a good amount of trophies that require MP.

All I said was that multiple achievements and trophies required multiplayer. I wasn't wrong. You do not need to downplay every single little criticism of Unity, and if you read into my comment that it would be heaps of trophies that was your own mistake.

 

[megamerican]

I honestly don't see why he decided to embarrass himself over this game, especially months after release. I mean was he so racked with guilt that he just couldn't function? Otherwise seems like you're just branding yourself in a really insular industry.

 

[Artorias]

Reviewer Guy:

Personally, I don't believe I should have to play a game for 50 hours before I start questioning things. But regardless of my beliefs and how I approach my reviews, I'm in the wrong. When you write for a gaming website, you really have to produce reviews quickly if you want to remain competitive; whether gamers don't understand this or don't wish to accept it, I don't know. And it's irrelevant, anyway.

His reasoning makes sense, but starting the article with the bullshit strawman above is a bit insulting. After the strawman, he seems to blame his readers a bit for wanting a legit review, then halfheartedly admits blame for his own writing.

I mean I guess his heart is in the right place, but apparently he's kind of a fucking baby. I have no issue whatsoever with people changing a review score when they realize they wrote a shit review, but this guy is a whiny fucking coward.

 

[Drazgul]

and yeah, I can see reviewers getting 80% through a game and then penning a review.

80%? Heh.

 

[MrxDemix]

The "be first or fade to irrelevancy" push in reviews is the worst. It's never too early to ask questions, but it can be too early to propose conclusions.

I know someone who gave Titanfall a 6/10. He played the game for 1 hour 45 minutes.

Yes, it's on Metacritic.

This is very common, sadly.

 

[Bitmap Frogs]

I like how in the same text he both admits he's doing a piss poor service to gamers and at the same time telling them to suck it.

In a nutshell his usual rush job was a shame to him and the outfit he's working for so he's putting this piece out. But of course nothing will change.

Bonus points for handwaving away how broken the game was at release. So like, broken game? Totally a 9, fuck yeah.

 

[Crossing Eden]

All I said was that multiple achievements and trophies required multiplayer. I wasn't wrong. You do not need to downplay every single little criticism of Unity, and if you read into my comment that it would be heaps of trophies that was your own mistake.

I don't even see how two trophies requiring MP in a gam that was heavily marketed with co-op features is a criticism but ok.

 

[NateDrake]

I know someone who gave Titanfall a 6/10. He played the game for 1 hour 45 minutes.

Yes, it's on Metacritic.

This is very common, sadly.

I assume you are referring to this review? http://www.gamerevolution.com/review/titanfall

 

[KiefbladeMaster]

That is ridiculous. I didn't really touch multiplayer and was able to purchase all the skills I needed without much effort. Only did a fraction of side quests too. You can't expect to unlock everything immediately.

You are in no way required to play coop and I even managed to do a few on my own.

 

[ZeroX03]

I don't even see how two trophies requiring MP in a gam that was heavily marketed with co-op features is a criticism but ok.

You just you interpreted it as me saying there was lots of multiplayer trophies. Is there anything you won't try and spin as a positive toward this game?

 

[Cave Johnson]

I use to go to psxtreme years back but the lack of focus on their reviews has always put me off. Seeing this recent update only vindicated my feelings towards the site to begin with. It is, YOUR responsibility to review it to the best extent as possible. If find ironic that a games site lack the awareness that there is no standard to which gaming adheres to. The medium is evolving, changing often with different rules and standards than the ones preceding it. The fact that he arrived to this conclusion right now is pathetic all things considered.

No, he gets no awards for pointing out the obvious - it's a clear case of crying over spilled milk. There is no fallback other than not to repeat the same mistakes again.

 

[RedAssedApe]

almost seems like he was swayed by the opinions of others and felt the need to change his review to be more in line with other outlets. how could you not see those "flaws" if you played the game as much as he claims?

in regards to finishing a game...yeah my opinion of a game can usually change to varying degrees during a playthrough...so i think you should at least complete a playthrough if you're tasked to review something. some games it might make less sense (the ones where its MP-focused) but for SP experiences, its not like you need to do all the sidequests either. i don't really buy the didn't have enough time to finish the game excuse. if you're gonna post a review before you're done just to "compete" then you should openly mention that its i review in progress and post updates.

 

[Karak]

80%? Heh.

Not defending them but steam stats can take forever to update and sometimes never seem to. I have 11 games that have over a 1000 hour discrepancy on steam alone and totally borked achievements some as recent as last weekend. And those are just the few I noticed. My favorite is Dead Island at 5 hours. I have 45 hours recorded alone. Still not sure why that one never updates Actually looks like Skyrim is at a whopping 43 minutes lol and my 9th savegame is at 66 hours Maybe I am running too many workshop mods.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

I'm not usually one to question thread-worthiness, but if every no-name dude on the Internet writing reviews of video games starts getting a thread just for changing their mind (but not really), we're going to be knee deep in bullshit threads.

 

[Squire]

PSX Extreme?

Seriously?

.............................

Guys, seriously?

 

[baphomet]

At least put this idiots name in the op so I don't have to click the link.

 

[OraleeWey]

At least put this idiots name in the op so I don't have to click the link.

Your wish is my command

 

[Gen X]

So he wrote his original review before completing the game, mmmm

I was rarely able to finish a game before I had submitted a review, worst case I ever had was Halo 2. Was given the game by MS at the midnight launch and they expected a review written and published by 8am on release day.

 

[CanUKlehead]

Whenever these sorts of games and their reviews come out (a game critics give a high score to but a loud segment of gamers crush the game), I always think of Shawn Elliot asked on the Brodeo once: how is it that the audience for a game are more critical than the reviewers?

Sometimes you do end up with just a small but vocal group on the audience, or you hve the audience coming in with very strong biases and never really give the game a fair shake, but I do wonder why some professional reviewers gloss over details or aren't as critical of games as we sometimes are.

I look over the reviews for ACIII for instance--metacritic in the mid 80s--and I always wonder why there's a disconnect.

Not saying reviews aren't useful, but you definitely learn to read a lot of them or at least look for things you care about in reviews and check biases

 

[Juicy Bob]

You think all these 50+ hour and online games are getting completed/played as extensively as they need to be in the timeframe they have to publish a review? There just aren't enough hours in a work week and these people have other tasks, no site can pay people to be idle for 2 weeks while they do nothing but play a single game and they can't do it all on their own time.

Back when everything was 10-20 hours (30 for a super long epic rpg) and only had 1 or 2 modes it was a reasonable expectation. It's just not feasible anymore.

Good on this reviewer for taking a principled stand rather than just sweeping it under the rug and moving on like most did, honestly.

I agree. In an ideal world, sure, all reviewers would play through an entire game before penning a review, but that's not always possible or reasonable.

 

[matrixman92]

I thought writing a review before finishing a game(especially long games) was pretty common...is it not?

While I think the stuff with Unity was blown way out of proportion, its no 9/10 imo

 

[Deleted member 17706]

I look over the reviews for ACIII for instance--metacritic in the mid 80s--and I always wonder why there's a disconnect.

Getting paid to play and review a game makes it a lot easier to overlook the flaws that game might contain.

Not to mention the strong desire from a certain segment of reviewers to not offend the publisher that put the game out for hope of a possible PR/community manager position in the future.

 

[fedexpeon]

Come on guys, you know this is very common.
And some games are so bad within 2-3 hrs that you don't need to finish it to know it is bad.

In this case though, I have no idea how he gave AC: U a 9.
The game was bad on the technical side, and Uplay stuff was common knowledge.
You don't need 50hrs to know the game was bad.
I would have accepted a 6/10 from him if he wanted to complain about glitches, frame rate, and DLC/microtransaction.
/Shrug, probably a blacklist PR pressure on him if he didn't pretend the game was good.

 

[pinkurocket]

This kind of back paddling is ever more embarrassing than the original review completely ignoring bugs, dubious unlockables and questionable controls. You don't need to play 50+ hours to notice these things when, as a reviewer, you should've been looking for these things from the second you booted up the game. That said, I think it's great he speaks up about this, and realizes where he failed as a reviewer. Hopefully this'll influence him and others to step up their game a bit.

 

[flipswitch]

Sorry, posted in wrong thread.

 

[Zaventem]

Isn't this what you guys wanted? People make fun of polygon for doing redos of scores, but since that driveclub fiasco launching the game in a terrible state everybody wants a second chance for their game to be reviewed. I don't see how someone owning up and being honest is a bad thing.

 

[Panajev2001a]

The "be first or fade to irrelevancy" push in reviews is the worst. It's never too early to ask questions, but it can be too early to propose conclusions.

This is the case where consumers should be blamed, the game magazines/website put no stock in customers to reward real journalism and accurate non rushed reviews as they have observed their rabid customer base well.

 

[Dryk]

Ya know.... Id prefer a full on complete review of a game even if the review is published a bit after release, than all this bs that goes on to get clicks or appease companies

And if more people did then we wouldn't be in this situation. If he took that advice and played games to completion the site would put out less reviews weeks after release, which would be great for the quality of those reviews for a while. But then the site will go broke because nobody visits it anymore and another site that rushes out reviews will step up to fill the gap.

As long as the sites that do this are the ones that stay in business over ones that don't this will never change.

 

[May16]

So he wrote his original review before completing the game, mmmm

Famitsu would welcome this reviewer with open arms.

 

[skullmuffins]

Isn't this what you guys wanted? People make fun of polygon for doing redos of scores, but since that driveclub fiasco launching the game in a terrible state everybody wants a second chance for their game to be reviewed. I don't see how someone owning up and being honest is a bad thing.

Eh. Usually when we're talking about redos of reviews or scores, it's because something substantial changed, for better or worse, after the review was written. Major patches, servers that don't stand up to a wide launch, etc. Everything this dude criticizes was present since the beginning, it doesn't really compare.

 

[daninthemix]

It's good that he explained why, but I don't understand how Unity deserved a 9 in the first place.

I just finished AssCreed 3 and I can't for the life of me imagine what Tom Bramwell was smoking when he gave that a 9.

 

[Recall]

So he wrote his original review before completing the game, mmmm

Honestly you would be surprised how common this is. The reviewer here gave it 9/10 based solely on the brands/series' reputation rather than the individual product.

 

[Czigga]

Man lol the poor guy is trying so hard to save face. He's so concerned with community backlash.

What have we done. I just feel bad for the guy.

I feel like he should be able to just say "I'm sorry I was wrong about the game it has a lot of problems I should have been more critical of and I scored it too high" and leave it at that

Instead he just drones on and on about his justifications and forces the issue so hard, just overdramatizing the whole situation