Way to go, Atari!

[vovan]

Alright, this story seems like it is nothing particularly new, but I just found it. It all boils down to this:

Xbox World and PSM2 magazines, owned by Future Publishing are being accused of fixing their review scores for Atari's Driv3r.

Both magazines in earlier reviews, reportedly gave Driv3r a 9/10 despite major bugs and technical flaws that include cars bumping into invisible walls during scripted sequences and a vehicle flying around in mid air.

It is thought by some industry insiders that Atari somehow influenced the scores handed to Driv3r in PSM2 & XBW by offering some kind of bribe.

http://www.gamedev.net/community/forums/topic.asp?topic_id=253605

More elaboration can be found here:

http://news.spong.com/x?art=7014

And here:

http://forum.gamesradar.com/viewtopic.php?t=43524&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

Well, so much more reason to hail our beloved Infogrames...

[pg]

game reviews can never be 100% trusted because game review sites are so dependent on game companies. there have been accusations and rumors(not to mention real bribery) at gaming review mags/sites for a long time now. there is no real reason for reviews sites/mags anymore. game forums supersede them in everyway imo.

that said, atari/infogrames has always been a ****ty and probably corrupt company. remember they did ship like millions of enter the matrix a while ago too and of course civ 3.

[pg]

Ellis then moves on to claim that although the game may have been buggy upon release, the editorial team had no way of knowing this, as the review was written off the back of pre-release, non-final, code. “Because of the long lead times for magazines and the fact that it was an exclusive review, the code we reviewed from was not final. We were made aware of some bugs in the game and were promised that these would be sorted by the time of release. I cannot comment on whether these were fixed or not..." he states. As to whether magazines should be advising readers to buy products that cost £45 without ever seeing what those consumers will end up owning, is another matter entirely.

that's what really caught my eye from the articles. it just shows how reviewers best interest are at odds with what their job is supposed to be - ensuring educated consumer decisions.

[alva]

I very much doubt this an ATARI only thing btw.

[Urban Ranger]

Yup. Major graphics card vendors are known to "optimise" their drivers for known benchmarks

[DrSpike]

Probably not just Atari but let's blame them anyway.

[child of Thor]

Corruption like this has been going on since the beggining of computer home entertainment - I use about half a dozen different computer game review sites and the forums and if they all are recomending a game then its a good bet that the game isn't a bad one.

And yet we still sadly support these companies and give them our hard earned money

I'm as guilty as anyone with this. Although i do make an effort to punish the bad guys in the industry, if a great game comes along and the gossip on the forums says its good, then i have been known to buy a game produced by Atari/Activision etc - I'm so weak when it comes to computer games

EDIT: i feel a bit guilty naming Activision - they did agree to the release of the source code for CTP2,which was an incredibly noble gesture on their part :b I guess i was struggling for another big name publisher to add

[Daz]

Who knows. Maybe us folks at Poly are part of it too?

[child of Thor]

Do you have something to tell us Daz?

[General Ludd]

People still give a **** about reviewers?


I really don't understand how places like IGN can still be going even after giving those complete and utter flops like MOO3 and Black & White some of the highest scores possible.

It's quite obvious most of the reviewers base their scores on hype and in anticipation with how well the game will do, rather than how good the game actually is.

[Adagio]

Originally posted by General Ludd
People still give a **** about reviewers?

Still? The first review I ever read made me ignore those reviews... I only read reviews to see what features are in the game


The first review I saw said (from memory): (This is for The Settlers 1)

What should we build now? A toilet or woodcutter?

Toilet?

[alva]

I really don't understand how places like IGN can still be going even after giving those complete and utter flops like MOO3 and Black & White some of the highest scores possible.

There's one born every minute...

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by General Ludd
I really don't understand how places like IGN can still be going even after giving those complete and utter flops like MOO3 and Black & White some of the highest scores possible.

CGW seems to be a good bunch, though.

[Dis]

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar
This explains the Civ3 scores.

civ3 was a damn good game

[Dis]

I still get Computer Gaming World. It's a fairly entertaining magazine.

And the review not only helps me determine if the game is good or not. It also lets me know how the gameplay is (some reviewers are better at this than others). By describing the gameplay, I can make my own opinion on whether I will like a game.

For example, if a game does not have the ability to pause in single player mode, there's a good chance I won't enjoy playing the game.

that being said, I did buy black and white based of CGW's review. That was a mistake. I should have read more about the gameplay from other sites. Iirc, the review in the magazine didn't describe the gameplay very well. they just impressed me when they talked about the number of options you take in certain situations. Like near the beginning they said, you have many different options to do something (I can't remember what exactly). It almost seemed like a roleplaying game to me.