F.E.A.R. Perseus Mandate versus Project Origin - by Digital Nightfall
june gloom on 11/2/2009 at 04:24
heh, a little higher
I guess the publisher didn't buy enough advertising.
Renault on 11/2/2009 at 05:19
Given the high profile of this game, I thought for sure we'd see scores in the upper 8s or lower 9s.
june gloom on 11/2/2009 at 05:53
Don't sequels typically do worse?
Angel Dust on 11/2/2009 at 06:14
Not as much with games as it does with other mediums.
EvaUnit02 on 11/2/2009 at 07:01
Warner Interactive just didn't bribe the press, hence the lower scores. Why else would conveyor belt titles like Halo 3 and Resistance 2 get 9's and 10's otherwise?
Gaph on 11/2/2009 at 07:26
Quote Posted by EvaUnit02
Warner Interactive just didn't bribe the press, hence the lower scores. Why else would conveyor belt titles like Halo 3 and Resistance 2 get 9's and 10's otherwise?
Now you're talking.
Koki on 11/2/2009 at 09:20
I don't really believe in bribing the reviewers. I won't say it never happens, but I don't think it happens as often as people make it out to be. It's simply a matter of reviewers being as professional as Frankenstein was in regards to surgery.
First, they don't play enough games. They get 1-2 titles a week to review, and I assume in the meantime they're also playing games they actually like. That just doesn't work. Today passes two weeks since I began playing King's Bounty, and while my initial zeal kind of settled down(I no longer skip on sleeping) I think I'll be playing it for another week or so.
Second, what comes from the first: Reviewers don't actually finish games, much less learn games, which I believe you need to do to give a proper review. Since most games are made to have biggest impact in the first few hours, it's obvious they can't be objective. Even if they do finish it, it's still a long way to be objective, after a first playthrough you're still "high"(assuming you liked the game), and it takes second, thrid, and even fourth playthrough, combined with some reading on fan/official boards to really get the general idea what's good in the game and what's not, how well it runs, are there any bugs, etc.
Third and perhaps most important: Peer pressure. From the media, the hype, the fans, and even other reviewers. There was the Fallout 3 doubt article about the very thing not so long ago, and I still remember the case of IGN firing someone for giving a bad review to a game IGN was heavily sponsored by at the moment. A single 6 in a stack of 9s sticks out really badly, and after few the reviewer's job will probably be in jeopardy.
Fourth: People are stupid, have no idea how to review a game, are biased, know nothing about the market, know nothing about videogame history and genre history, and are generally a basket of lemons.
Angel Dust on 11/2/2009 at 11:31
Nail on the fucking head.
gunsmoke on 11/2/2009 at 14:35
Koki, are you talking about Jeff Gerstmann over at GameStop getting fired over the Kane and Lynch review? He in turn runs GiantBomb.com now. A decent site.
