Gamble_STARS wrote:
Hold up lol. I love me soccer! So u have to get every Fifa game even if its a roster update hahaha.....its an addiction.
Oh lord don't think I forgot when you said you would pay $100 for Fifa 13 on the Vita.. Haha.. but it's ok that isn't really the point of any of this. Whether you enjoy the crap out of any soccer game is up to you really, what you want to spend on it. I feel it's not worth it but that is my personal opinion.
I am just speaking about the principe of it all and how it's unfair to let games like that slide by while others whine and complain about something else which isn't nearly as much as a rip as that was, just the truth.
I mean there was never anyone trying to sue EA for that, no one made a threads here saying let's sue EA for releasing a recycled game with new rosters and menus.. with a full price tag to boast.. but people are making threads about we should sue Activision..
That is my point really.. Just makes no sense.
ProfessorGerbik wrote:
xTurmoilZz wrote:
ProfessorGerbik wrote:
xTurmoilZz wrote:I agree with everything in this article except for the part about Black Ops Declassified. I completely agree with JuanMdP on why the sites did not receive Declassified on time.
I don't, why? Because I know people would have bought it just the same either way, just because like two sites did not get it doesn't mean others didn't run out buy it or others didn't recieve a copy to review it.
What kind of stupid excuse is that from IGN or those sites you trust. Oh we didn't get a copy today, we will run out and buy one.. which most of them didn't do when they said they would.. they all were like we will go get a copy tomorrow but they didn't. They have an entire staff in their building and you are telling me not a single person could get the game? What utter crap.
I mean it took IGN two or three days while everyone else already had reviewed it.
There were tons of sites that reviewed it the day it was released, I mean tons.. people who didn't just say oh we didn't get a copy so we can't review it.. stupid excuse when other sites easily got ahold of a copy and even gave it the same bad reviews... meaning it still sold just the same.
It made no difference whether they sent it or not, it was easily available for everyone to review. Oddly it didn't stop anyone from buying it clearly.
That makes sense but I still don't agree with the article. I don't believe that critics gave the game bad reviews just because they didn't receive it on time.
I want you go to to IGN, look at the score then look at what people themselves rated it as. Enough said, I for one don't have to even point out the fact IGN is pretty imcopetent when it comes to reviewing anything on the Vita.
You can't defend review sites that gave Fifa 13 for Vita which literally was a complete rip of in the most literaly sense the same scores as CoD.. even though it's bad it still was made from the ground up. Do you see my point here and the point of the article.
The guy made it a huge point even in the article and even comments he was not defening the game at all, he knows it's not worth the money and he knows it's not great.
He never even said that as a fact, he said is it safe to assume? You have to honestly wonder that when Fifa 13 a complete rip off of a game on the Vita get's the same score.. while other sites seriously didn't even waste their time reviewing it which it deserved and those that did with common sense that were not backed by EA gave it a score of 0.. which it deserved.
ProfessorGerbik, I'm like you that try to look at things bit deeper than others. While I agree Declassified was overpriced from what you got and isn't even near the greatest games to come out for the vita (ie would never be in the top ten games for Vita) but I also try to sympathsize with Nhilistic as they got the short end of the stick when it came to time to develop Declassified. Let me digress though as it seems I'm going in the same direction as some of the posters so far here have and am focusing on one portion of that letter. I agree with you ProfessorGerbik and the writer of the letter, Review sites like IGN,Gamespot,Giant Bomb, and some of the community members here just hate the Vita and what it stands for and wish it was EAXCATLY a portable PS3 no matter the HUGE spec differences, thus they compare the Vita to consoles EVERYTIME. While people like to say this is Sony's fault, it really isn't - it's the industry, Review sites, and some of the community members here that drum that idea up. Sony said you can experience console quality games on the go - they were referring to the gameplay and scope. Some games and devs are able to pull off the graphics and gameplay porting jobs together quite well but sacrifices often had to be done and some corners are cut - the Vita is NOT as powerful as a PS3 spec wise and the Vita again is not a portable PS3.
Review sites like IGN, Gamespot, and Giantbomb have spoken why they do their Vita reviews like this and that consoles are the only thing they can compare the Vita to power wise - which should be taken as a compliment but is actually hurting Vita reviews. Some sites review Vita games as a whole, no comparison to consoles whatsoever, they just review the games themselves. Can you imagine if Super Mario 3D Land was compared to the Mario Galaxy on Wii, game was developed by the same people after all and graphics are somewhat similar, why weren't both games compared? Oh, reviewers wanted to give the game a chance on the device it was put on, I understand- bias pricks. Why wasn't the ios/android Most Wanted compared to the consoles like the Vita was? Games were similar but hey, the Android/ios Most Wanted didn't play like the PS3/360 versions - no open world whatsoever, how in the hell did it get a higher score than the Vita copy which was almost a like for like port. Double standards and they just hate the Vita in general - they simply want the Vita to just disappear from existance and wish Nintendo and phone/tablets were the only handhelds on the market. They know it, we know it. Guerilla Games is making the next Killzone game on Vita, be ready for it to not have high scores (I bet it will hit a 6 or 8) on IGN,Gamespot, Giantbomb. Why? They wil compare it to the PS3 games, why can't it be reviewed as a game on it's own on the Vita itself. Simple, they hate the Vita just as much as some of the users here... They will never break out the rut of comparing the Vita to consoles instead of enjoying the Vita itself and games there on it for what they are. I plan to enjoy the games that come out for the Vita that interest me same as some of the fans of the Vita will do the same with their favorite picks. Comparing games to the console counterparts is futile and something I'll never do but reviewers and some users here will continue to love to do. Thier loss and the reason why I don't and will never base my purchases off of Review websites... EVER AGAIN!
ProfessorGerbik wrote:
http://thevitalounge.com/dear-video-game-journalis
ts/
I found it rather insightful.
To be honest, I think most people focus too much on what "professional" reviewers have to say about a game than what their peers have to say.
I rarely look into reviews done by various web sites. While I do frequent Game Informer and IGN, they are not my primary source of determining whether or not I'll like a game. My primary source obviously is myself. At my age, and with my gaming history I'm pretty sure I can accurately judge a game without having someone else hold my hand. My secondary source are my peers. Gamers my age or a bit younger, or gamers I've known for more than a year online.
Have I ever let a review influence my choice in a game? Yes. Most recently Ragnarok Odyssey. I read the review to learn about the game type and about the game play. It told me everything I needed to know, which is the fact that it's a Monster Hunter styled game and not worth my time. The fact IGN gave the game a 5.0 wasn't part of the equation. I am not into the Monster Hunter sub Action/Adventure genre of gaming. I was hoping there might've been an engaging story line or something unique that might catch my eye enough to give it a shot. Sadly there wasn't anything in the review that spoke to me. I did download the demo and based off of that, I wouldn't give the game more than a 6. But it would be unfair of me to rate that game because I am not a fan of that sub genre of gaming.
What I really don't trust are the amalgamation sites like Metacritic. A load of irrate fans can destroy a game's median score. I'm glad I didn't pay attention to the review scores for Nier, Ar Tonelico Qoqa and Cross Edge because I really enjoyed them.
When I do write reviews, it's for games I've played. I can be critical even when it comes to games I enjoyed a lot because I know not every game will appeal to every gamer. It is hard to write about flaws (whether minor or major) when it comes to a game you love. It can be done.
In my opinion, "professional" reviews should be used only as a baseline guide. Sort of a heads up on what might be in a game or what flaws you might find. But either use a demo to learn for yourself (if there is a demo) or find gamers you can trust with similar tastes as your own. That's a better method in my opinion.
JuanMdP wrote:You have been whining about people dissing CoD for quite a while to be honest; yes, we know, you don't even like CoD~.
Review sites, including IGN, outed EA for the Fifa 13 PSV / Wii fiasco. They even made a post saying "Do not buy". The problem here is, you can go and make a separate case for EA. Right now, the problem is Activision and its shady business tactics along with people who are either in denial or desperate to play devil's advocate that they refuse to accept the low scores given to the game~.
No, IGN and Gamespot aren't the only sites who didn't get the game. Nobody did. Even European sites forewarned their readers about this because when people don't see reviews for the games they are looking forward, not unlike the person who wrote that open letter, they begin speculating about how the site is out to get the system of their preference~.
Activision knew that Declassified would be a disaster, that's why they didn't ship the game to absolutely anyone. It's a game made on a five months schedule, it's no wonder that it'd stink. Review sites told their readers that they'd have to wait for reviews since they had to buy the game to review it (which, of course, wouldn't happen until the game was out). Any futher theories are mere speculation backed up by nothing other than a very paranoid mind~.
Finally, I've no idea who you are. And as such, I make no assumptions about you or your intellectual level. I'd appreciate if you could extend the same level of courtesy before jumping to conclusions about what I think or how I think. It's an eyesore to see somebody trying to deduct how I think, not to mention overly pompous and petulant~.
You are right, I don't like COD, I simply applaud the multiplayer that came with Declassified. Want to know how much I've played Declassified? Check my profile, nhilistic normally pops a trophy per level and I only have 1, the training level. I only touched the multiplayeronce too and thought it was fun. I never mention I like Declassified or thought it was a great in the first place, just liked the multiplayer for the match I played. In honesty, I'll probably beat the Single Player, Play a match or two of Multiplayer, and trade the game in - making off like a bandit with the Roads to Victory game. As some of mentioned to me (via PM) I guess I'm not optimisitic, I'm a sympathsize, I simply feel sorry for little amount of time given to nhilistic to develop this game and how Activision allowed Declassified to come out in the state it is in. Like Squarenix - Activision simply has no faith in the handheld and merely did publishing duties. Activision really hasn't like a Sony platform since I don't kown - never. They are simply pumping out games for the business of making money and could care less if they smear their reputation with Declassified on Vita, it's not like they had one of their teams make the game. That will be their excuse too. While for the past couple days I have been sympathsizing with nhilistic - my posts are apparent of this - I still have a pure hate of Activision in General like you JuanMdP and the rest of the Vita Community. I believe that Sony got desperate and needed to have sales of Vita's to gain a bigger base for more devs to be interested in the Handheld, COD might do the trick I guess. This effort might have a bad outcome but it may pay off as as many have stated, COD name might push out a couple more Vita's this holiday season due to the large COD Multilayer fanbase (if it never came it probably would have pushed out less Vita's.) COD on the go may very well mean more sales of Vita's but at a price of us recieving any sort of good COD game on the handheld - potential there but squandered. Killzone will be the love letter Vita owners and FPS fans will be getting from Sony for this mishap. You know what though, Declassified will now forever be part of this community to deviate all sensible conversations here from be on-topic to being utterly off-topic, something I'm not sure anyone should be proud but we are currently doing it non-stop lately in this forum...
da1writer wrote:
ProfessorGerbik wrote:
xTurmoilZz wrote:
ProfessorGerbik wrote:
xTurmoilZz wrote:I agree with everything in this article except for the part about Black Ops Declassified. I completely agree with JuanMdP on why the sites did not receive Declassified on time.
I don't, why? Because I know people would have bought it just the same either way, just because like two sites did not get it doesn't mean others didn't run out buy it or others didn't recieve a copy to review it.
What kind of stupid excuse is that from IGN or those sites you trust. Oh we didn't get a copy today, we will run out and buy one.. which most of them didn't do when they said they would.. they all were like we will go get a copy tomorrow but they didn't. They have an entire staff in their building and you are telling me not a single person could get the game? What utter crap.
I mean it took IGN two or three days while everyone else already had reviewed it.
There were tons of sites that reviewed it the day it was released, I mean tons.. people who didn't just say oh we didn't get a copy so we can't review it.. stupid excuse when other sites easily got ahold of a copy and even gave it the same bad reviews... meaning it still sold just the same.
It made no difference whether they sent it or not, it was easily available for everyone to review. Oddly it didn't stop anyone from buying it clearly.
That makes sense but I still don't agree with the article. I don't believe that critics gave the game bad reviews just because they didn't receive it on time.
I want you go to to IGN, look at the score then look at what people themselves rated it as. Enough said, I for one don't have to even point out the fact IGN is pretty imcopetent when it comes to reviewing anything on the Vita.
You can't defend review sites that gave Fifa 13 for Vita which literally was a complete rip of in the most literaly sense the same scores as CoD.. even though it's bad it still was made from the ground up. Do you see my point here and the point of the article.
The guy made it a huge point even in the article and even comments he was not defening the game at all, he knows it's not worth the money and he knows it's not great.
He never even said that as a fact, he said is it safe to assume? You have to honestly wonder that when Fifa 13 a complete rip off of a game on the Vita get's the same score.. while other sites seriously didn't even waste their time reviewing it which it deserved and those that did with common sense that were not backed by EA gave it a score of 0.. which it deserved.
ProfessorGerbik, I'm like you that try to look at things bit deeper than others. While I agree Declassified was overpriced from what you got and isn't even near the greatest games to come out for the vita (ie would never be in the top ten games for Vita) but I also try to sympathsize with Nhilistic as they got the short end of the stick when it came to time to develop Declassified. Let me digress though as it seems I'm going in the same direction as some of the posters so far here have and am focusing on one portion of that letter. I agree with you ProfessorGerbik and the writer of the letter, Review sites like IGN,Gamespot,Giant Bomb, and some of the community members here just hate the Vita and what it stands for and wish it was EAXCATLY a portable PS3 no matter the HUGE spec differences, thus they compare the Vita to consoles EVERYTIME. While people like to say this is Sony's fault, it really isn't - it's the industry, Review sites, and some of the community members here that drum that idea up. Sony said you can experience console quality games on the go - they were referring to the gameplay and scope. Some games and devs are able to pull off the graphics and gameplay porting jobs together quite well but sacrifices often had to be done and some corners are cut - the Vita is NOT as powerful as a PS3 spec wise and the Vita again is not a portable PS3.
Review sites like IGN, Gamespot, and Giantbomb have spoken why they do their Vita reviews like this and that consoles are the only thing they can compare the Vita to power wise - which should be taken as a compliment but is actually hurting Vita reviews. Some sites review Vita games as a whole, no comparison to consoles whatsoever, they just review the games themselves. Can you imagine if Super Mario 3D Land was compared to the Mario Galaxy on Wii, game was developed by the same people after all and graphics are somewhat similar, why weren't both games compared? Oh, reviewers wanted to give the game a chance on the device it was put on, I understand- bias pricks. Why wasn't the ios/android Most Wanted compared to the consoles like the Vita was? Games were similar but hey, the Android/ios Most Wanted didn't play like the PS3/360 versions - no open world whatsoever, how in the hell did it get a higher score than the Vita copy which was almost a like for like port. Double standards and they just hate the Vita in general - they simply want the Vita to just disappear from existance and wish Nintendo and phone/tablets were the only handhelds on the market. They know it, we know it. Guerilla Games is making the next Killzone game on Vita, be ready for it to not have high scores (I bet it will hit a 6 or 8) on IGN,Gamespot, Giantbomb. Why? They wil compare it to the PS3 games, why can't it be reviewed as a game on it's own on the Vita itself. Simple, they hate the Vita just as much as some of the users here... They will never break out the rut of comparing the Vita to consoles instead of enjoying the Vita itself and games there on it for what they are. I plan to enjoy the games that come out for the Vita that interest me same as some of the fans of the Vita will do the same with their favorite picks. Comparing games to the console counterparts is futile and something I'll never do but reviewers and some users here will continue to love to do. Thier loss and the reason why I don't and will never base my purchases off of Review websites... EVER AGAIN!
I completely agree with literally everything you said and I have even said something along the same exact lines here plenty of times myself so KUDOS but good god don't even get me started on IOS / Android versions of games.. that stuff truly kills me..
And no you weren't focusing on the article in the wrong way like the others.. Trust me I sympathize with Nihilistic probably just as much as you.
You know how bad it hurts to have people tell you the work you have done is complete crap? On top of like you said seeing how messed up the industry is right now wouldn't help boost anyones ego either.. Regardless of how long it took them or the time span they had to work on it, still would you want to work any harder on something if every game you made was degraded heavily before it's even released? It's obviousy most wouldn't, I wouldn't.
I won't lie if I got the bad rep Nihilistic got I can almost promise you I would have made CoD the same way just as half assed just so I could freaking finish the game and finally not have to hear anyone whine and moan about it anymore. Thing is they are still people though, they are a team and I am sure it sucks to be apart of that knowing everyone hates you dearly.
I mean to say Nihilistic didn't try or anyone apart of the development team didn't try the best they could, I think is far from the truth also, it's obvious they have some love for making games as they did waste their own time, risk their own reputation and their own money just to try. Again I am not saying it was the best attempts but **bleep** it does suck for them and I do sympathize.
Support
Corporate
Community
