Support NeoGAF

[Dr. Wilkinson]

Honestly who cares, we all know the game’s not gonna do well. IGN is more of a fan site now than a journo site, anyway.

 

[ManaByte]

This is the person who will review the game for IGN. The negative preview was written by Destin.

 

[Phase]

You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. We all know that's how the vast majority of gaming review websites and channels work. That's why we either find the rare reviewer who thinks like us and/or strictly watch gameplay after it's out.

 

[MikeM]

Unprofessional of IGN so they get treated unprofessionally by WB.

How so?

I agree with you, but the hit piece they put out was unprofessional and they could have shit on the game when they put the actual review out

I don’t understand. A preview is not marketing. Its an opinion on the game.

 

[cyberheater]

Unprofessional of IGN so they get treated unprofessionally by WB.

Yep. Fuck them. They’ve been trash for years.

 

[ManaByte]

I don’t understand. A preview is not marketing. Its an opinion on the game.

Exactly. You don't understand. The REVIEW is the opinion. A preview IS pretty much marketing.

 

[MikeM]

Exactly. You don't understand. The REVIEW is the opinion. A preview IS pretty much marketing.

I see a preview as playing the first few hours and providing an opinion on the game thus far. If I wanted marketing, I’d watch a trailer.

 

[ManaByte]

I see a preview as playing the first few hours and providing an opinion on the game thus far.

Ok, but you're wrong. That's not how reporting on video games has worked for nearly 50 years.

 

[StereoVsn]

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Yes, gaming journos are not pros anymore. They are mostly shills / casual gamers / ideological activists expelled from culture sections. They are so bad that is difficult to ascertain when they are acting in bad faith.

However, for this particular case, WB is wrong unless they are getting some payback from Hogwarts Legacy. IMO an outlet should be vetoed only when:

- They have a track record of purposefully lowering the scores of a publisher/developer: the case of Stevivor with Sony.

- They have manifested personal opposition towards the game/developers: Hogwarts Legacy boycott case.

I doubt Suicide Squad falls into either of these categories. Anyway, everyone knows the game is gonna suck, no matter MC.

What Hogwarts payback? IGN was one of the few outlets who properly reviewed it.

Basically WB didn’t like IGN not hyping up their upcoming dumpster fire for preorders.

Actually are they even distributing review codes before release at all? I would be surprised unless it’s an outlet that will give 8/10 or higher to the game.

 

[StereoVsn]

They gave a verdict on the game in the headline.

They played stupid clickbait games and won no prize.

Yes, WB expected a glowing preview to push sales for this upcoming $10 bargain bin game.

IGN actually for once expressed their honest opinion. But yes, let’s defend WB trying to push those pre-orders.

 

[ManaByte]

Basically WB didn’t like IGN not hyping up their upcoming dumpster fire for preorders.

No, they objected to IGN using a preview event to post a verdict on the game in the headline for a preview.

Now IGN is going to wonder why they don't get review code for the Hogwarts sequel and cry on Twitter like Kotaku did when Nintendo blacklisted them from TOTK due to them telling people to pirate Metroid Dread.

 

[Clear]

Honestly, I think the game isn't going to be that bad. I mean, getting past the relentless bad publicity, worst case scenario is that its just going to be disappointingly ordinary for a RockSteady game.

It seems to me that this is one of those cases where people are so hung up on what the game isn't, they aren't giving it any credit for what it is.

I'm not defending the whole GaaS approach, and I'd absolutely be way more interested in another Batman/Arkham release, but I doubt the game is an unmitigated disaster after all this time.

As to WB sticking it to IGN, well, if you consider what happened with Hogwarts Legacy, should they be concerned with what reviewers say about their games or if they cover them at all?
That's a consequence the activist journo's don't seem to have considered; they've just handed the AAA industry an example proving that if the IP is big enough critical reception and coverage is utterly irrelevant.

 

[StereoVsn]

No, they objected to IGN using a preview event to post a verdict on the game in the headline for a preview.

Now IGN is going to wonder why they don't get review code for the Hogwarts sequel and cry on Twitter like Kotaku did when Nintendo blacklisted them from TOTK due to them telling people to pirate Metroid Dread.

Aha, sure, they objected to the verdict. At least IGN ket the customers know that the title is likely to be a like if crap and they shouldn’t pre-order.

But let’s celebrate amazing WB business practices instead.

 

[ManaByte]

As to WB sticking it to IGN, well, if you consider what happened with Hogwarts Legacy, should they be concerned with what reviewers say about their games or if they cover them at all?
That's a consequence the activist journo's don't seem to have considered; they've just handed the AAA industry an example proving that if the IP is big enough critical reception and coverage is utterly irrelevant.

Website advertising is drying up and Google's SEO has killed search, so sites have to result to sensationalist tactics to get their clicks and ad revenue.

 

[YCoCg]

Well at least IGN get to do more reports on this game when RockSteady is closed down a few months after this drops.

 

[StereoVsn]

Honestly, I think the game isn't going to be that bad. I mean, getting past the relentless bad publicity, worst case scenario is that its just going to be disappointingly ordinary for a RockSteady game.

It seems to me that this is one of those cases where people are so hung up on what the game isn't, they aren't giving it any credit for what it is.

I'm not defending the whole GaaS approach, and I'd absolutely be way more interested in another Batman/Arkham release, but I doubt the game is an unmitigated disaster after all this time.

As to WB sticking it to IGN, well, if you consider what happened with Hogwarts Legacy, should they be concerned with what reviewers say about their games or if they cover them at all?
That's a consequence the activist journo's don't seem to have considered; they've just handed the AAA industry an example proving that if the IP is big enough critical reception and coverage is utterly irrelevant.

Again, IGN was one of the very few outlets to put out a proper Hogwarts review. Of all the review sites you are barking up the wrong tree.

Hogwarts Legacy Review - IGN

In almost every way, Hogwarts Legacy is the Harry Potter RPG many have always wanted.

www.ign.com

Yea, they have the stupid disclaimer so the crazy purple haired crowd doesn’t go after them. However, this is a positive well done review that gave the game 9/10. So once again IGN did their proper job there.

Yes, IGN has their faults like all the major review sites. However they haven’t been too bad overall. WB on the other hand is a shit show.

 

[Panajev2001a]

Previews are generally neutral, they always wait til review to slate a product. Previews are opinion and subject to change. Reviews are a finished product. Im not backing IGN or WB they're both dicks in the situation lmao

Previews are often just pre-order drivers and publishers use the access to early material as a stick to game bloggers who do not play ball. Previews should call a spade a spade…

 

[Clear]

Again, IGN was one of the very few outlets to put out a proper Hogwarts review. Of all the review sites you are barking up the wrong tree.

It doesn't matter which sites did or didn't boycott/editorialize against Hogwarts when even after MANY did, they still shifted 24 million copies. Your argument doesn't hold unless your position is that IGN coverage is somehow uniquely, disproportionately significant, and I don't believe there's any evidence to support that.

My criticism was that activists created a perfect demonstration of how media coverage *generally* isn't worth a damn if the IP is strong enough. And that being the case, why would AAA publishers kowtow to the enthusiast press for *any* reason?

 

[zenspider]

Did they know they wouldn't be getting review code in time for the release, or is this move by WB because of feedback from the preview event?
If known, I think it's admirable that they told people this game was not looking good to cut off sales at the pass.... that said I totally agree with GAFers saying that the journos have to make a blood sacrifice every once in a while, to appease the losers who still read gaming media and it's good for their morale as paid shills to dogpile a on a game once or twice a year.

 

[Zathalus]

Never thought I'd see people defending WB over this. Was IGN supposed to lie in the preview to make them feel better?

 

[xrnzaaas]

Ok let me give you a recent example. The final preview code for Guardians of the Galaxy was absolutely not as polished as the final released game. It was missing RT, had a lot of framerate issues, some pretty annoying bugs, etc. It was feature complete and enough to review the game coming right off of a preview, but all of the issues in the preview code are fixed in the final gold master review code and day 1 patch. Square even provided the patch information to reviewers to let them know that stuff was already fixed. What IGN did was equal to saying "Fuck you, I'm reviewing the preview code. Eat shit." and posting it with a sensationalist clickbait headline to farm rage clicks and "engagement".

I won't argue here, because I don't read their previews or reviews (minus some rare exceptions). I was referring to game journalists and gaming sites more like in general. They shouldn't be afraid to talk negatively in the previews if the game truly sucks and if they feel it's unfixable with future patches (unlike the technical issues & bugs you've mentioned which can always be resolved).

 

[Solarstrike]

Fk ign anyway. They mad because the game doesn't have enough woke heroes prob

 

[StueyDuck]

Never thought I'd see people defending WB over this. Was IGN supposed to lie in the preview to make them feel better?

Neither deserve defending..
Ign is hot shit and an embarrassment to journalism (like all games media) and WB are a big corporation and aren't anyone's friends.

Anyone in here "defending" either side have a serious personal agenda and to me that's the most embarrassing part of this thread.

The adult response is, boo hoo IGN and either buy or don't buy the game when it releases, and that's it.

 

[StereoVsn]

Neither deserve defending..
Ign is hot shit and an embarrassment to journalism (like all games media) and WB are a big corporation and aren't anyone's friends.

Anyone in here "defending" either side have a serious personal agenda and to me that's the most embarrassing part of this thread.

The adult response is, boo hoo IGN and either buy or don't buy the game when it releases, and that's it.

You and other WB defenders are basically this. I don’t particularly care about IGN and usually don’t read their stuff, but on good them to actually be straight with their audience.

 

[stn]

If only they could be this neutral and professional all the time.

 

[StereoVsn]

If only they could be this neutral and professional all the time.

I think they have gotten a bit better. I was pleasantly surprised by a fair review of Hogwarts for example.

 

[Gambit2483]

You and other WB defenders are basically this. I don’t particularly care about IGN and usually don’t read their stuff, but on good them to actually be straight with their audience.

Agreed. How many times have been cried foul when previews were either glowingly positive or hell, just left out the less-than positive parts, only to find out the game has major issues??

I'd rather a preview be honest and upfront about a games issues than have another Cyberpunk 2077 situation, which caused millions to preorder in good faith only to find out the game is a complete mess or has multiple issues

 

[StueyDuck]

You and other WB defenders are basically this. I don’t particularly care about IGN and usually don’t read their stuff, but on good them to actually be straight with their audience.

Lol... is it hard to read?

The fact you think I'm either team says alot about your personal agenda

 

[StereoVsn]

Lol... is it hard to read?

The fact you think I'm either team says alot about your personal agenda

I don’t have any agenda except for strongly disliking anytime large corpos they to pull a fast one and get their pre-orders in before most people realize game has issues.

I.E. Avengers, Cyberpunk, Anthem and so on.

 

[StueyDuck]

I don’t have any agenda except for strongly disliking anytime large corpos they to pull a fast one and get their pre-orders in before most people realize game has issues.

I.E. Avengers, Cyberpunk, Anthem and so on.

Fun fact

Ign is a large corpo too and they are shit...both companies are shit and neither deserve defending.

Any adult knows this is a nothing event in the grand scheme of life. IGN burnt bridges and they aren't owed anything. WB are a company and don't want their bottom line affected

Fun fact the reason IGN has made the statement is because they too don't want their bottom line affected. If you think it's cause they are just a bunch of good mates and being honest cause of how altruistic they are then you are pretty gullible

 

[Toons]

Honestly, I think the game isn't going to be that bad. I mean, getting past the relentless bad publicity, worst case scenario is that its just going to be disappointingly ordinary for a RockSteady game.

It seems to me that this is one of those cases where people are so hung up on what the game isn't, they aren't giving it any credit for what it is.

I'm not defending the whole GaaS approach, and I'd absolutely be way more interested in another Batman/Arkham release, but I doubt the game is an unmitigated disaster after all this time.

As to WB sticking it to IGN, well, if you consider what happened with Hogwarts Legacy, should they be concerned with what reviewers say about their games or if they cover them at all?
That's a consequence the activist journo's don't seem to have considered; they've just handed the AAA industry an example proving that if the IP is big enough critical reception and coverage is utterly irrelevant.

100% agree.

This game will probably be perfectly fine for what it is intended to be. I mostly have kept out of discussion of the game and haven't really followed its development that closely snd I still see a bunch of cross firing and potshots about it in completely unrelated discussions. This is looking like one of those anti astroturfed sorta things where everyone just decides something is going to suck and kinda just follows the bandwagon on that. Its a wirrd thing I see happen a lot lately.

 

[Draugoth]

 

[ManaByte]

He's comparing a bad review to using a preview as a review.

 

[hybrid_birth]

So ign Is getting punished for free speech?

 

[Arachnid]

Never thought I'd see people defending WB over this. Was IGN supposed to lie in the preview to make them feel better?

Seriously. It almost feels like bad faith, like a PR recovery campaign lmao. I can't fathom anyone who has nothing to gain from it defending this. There was nothing "unprofessional" about it.

I'm in the "gaming journos aren't real journalists" camp, but that article actually showed some integrity. Why would they hype a product that failed to hook them at all with previews? That's the point of previews. To give others a sense of the game and generate hype. This failed.

Good on IGN.

 

[solidus12]

This game will be DOA and say this as a HUGE Arkham fan.

 

[ManaByte]

IGN: "The Flash is too fast!"

WB: "Uh, you're too stupid to review this game."

 

[SJRB]

IGN: "The Flash is too fast!"

WB: "Uh, you're too stupid to review this game."

Room temperature IQ if your takeaway from that video was "IGN thinks Flash is TOO fast"

 

[HerjansEagleFeeder]

Thanks WB. Now everyone knows exactly what to think of any preview published anywhere about any of your products.

 

[Crayon]

Hey wait a minute....

Was this a plot by ign to get some cred for a change?

 

[TheThreadsThatBindUs]

I don't get why people have to throw so much shit to this game. Just don't buy it and done. There's a lot of effort put on these projects by people who have no agency in WB's corporate decisions.

Yes, but the people who do have agency in WB corporate decisions do actually listen to what gamers are saying about their unreleased game, using analytics metrics from platforms like Twitter.

So throwing shite at the game incessantly online is not only well deserved, it's not only a fun pastime, it can actually get through to the heads at WB that gamers and DC comics fans don't want any more Suicide Squad horseshit. The movies tanked and I don't think the comics set the house on fire... but for some reason someone up there in WB's ivory tower just has such a hard-on for the property.

When you're the house that own the likes of Batman, The Flash, Wonder Woman, Aqua Man and the Green Lantern, the fact that they wasted a full AAA dev budget and (even worse) they squandered the incredible talent of Rocksteady Studio to work on this shite... it's a crime against humanity.

 

[YeulEmeralda]

Are these sites supposed to be independent or subservient to the publishers?

They're part of the hype machine.

 

[Thabass]

Again, no they didn't. A verdict has ALWAYS been meant to be saved for the Review. Destin put the verdict in the preview headline. It was a review based on a preview event and not the entire game.

Fair point. And also, it's Destin, so I'm not at all shocked that he got the ire of the developer. Dude gets the ire of everyone.

 

[Edgelord79]

IMO if a game code gets sent to a news outlet then it should be fair game for critique. It shouldn’t be expected that the preview is only to get the word out or to get a positive article. Why even send it then they aren’t allow to give impressions.

It’s a little bit like when someone gets a code then reviews it and brushes off the negatives with “it’ll be fixed in the day 1 patch”. If we expect reviews to have to include day 1 patches then half the crap wouldn’t get reviewed.

Too bad. Company gives the code out, it should be fair game unless they sign an NDA. WB shouldn’t have sent the code unless they were ready for critique. IGN could have been more diplomatic but at the end of the day if it sucked at the time of trying it well… it is what it is.

Here is the original article if anyone cares to read it:

Suicide Squad: Kill the Justice League Preview – We Played It and Didn't Like It - IGN

While there is a story here that makes me wonder where the heck all this is going, I was less optimistic about Suicide Squad: Kill the Justice League when I stopped playing than when I started. Here’s hoping it wins me back when it releases on February 2nd.

www.ign.com

 

[ManaByte]

IMO if a game code gets sent to a news outlet then it should be fair game for critique.

They didn’t get code. They went to a preview event and reviewed that.

 

[Larxia]

I'm confused about this here, they said all this but... they don't even know if other reviewers received their codes, so, wut?

 

[Edgelord79]

They didn’t get code. They went to a preview event and reviewed that.

Was there an nda or any agreement made that should preclude any impressions written?

 

[Halo is Back]

I agree with you, but the hit piece they put out was unprofessional and they could have shit on the game when they put the actual review out

Giving an honest impression is now considered a "hit piece"

 

[ManaByte]

Was there an nda or any agreement made that should preclude any impressions written?

The implication of a preview event is that it isn’t used to review the game before release.

 

[Edgelord79]

The implication of a preview event is that it isn’t used to review the game before release.

Ok so they don’t actually get people to sign an nda or agreement saying they won’t post impressions. Wonder why not then? Would solve this type of issue.