http://gamespot.com/gamespot/filters...561063,00.html

This game looks pretty weak, and Gamespot comes off looking really bad for drooling all over it. The combo system looks very shallow for an action focused game.

And what is this: "The level layout is essentially linear, which has allowed the designers to focus on constant combat"

Since when is linear design a good thing? Why is Gamespot spinning for Sony? Why is Gamespot writing a 4 page preview when they only played a one level demo and 5 screens?

And comparing it to Conker? Conker took a top-quality platform game, and packed it with gore and dirty jokes. This game looks like it took Zelda, and took out the world exploration, the exciting weapons, and the dungeon crawling, and made it bloody.

Maybe the fighting system is really great and they're really exciting, but this game doesn't look that impressive, and this reads like an infomercial.

What do you guys think?

I never put a lot of stock into previews. Previews are almost universally positive from what I've seen. Wait till the review is out of the finished game. If they are still praising it then...well let the complaints start.

Most previews are that way.

You don't see something wrong with a website that influences purchasing decisions basically writing advertising?

Hopefully it will be playable at E3 and we can find out for sure how good the game is. After reading the previews on IGN, I was very intrigued about the game. The combo system actually seems very interesting to me. But, it's really hard to say whether you are right about the system being shallow until I get to play it...

I think it's too early to say whether the game is going to be a hit or a bust...but I'm hoping for the best.

I actually agree with ten41 and mtucker. Game writers generally give all previews a positive tone. I think they give games the benefit of the doubt until they get a reviewable version to get a true opinion on.

Gamespot has done the same for countless other games....Mark of Kri is no different than any other in this respect IMHO...

There's something wrong with that. They do more than give a game the benefit of the doubt; they provide free advance marketing for the game. If you ask me, the editors of these sites are way too friendly with game designers.

Releasing screenshots, movies, and interviews is all promotion for these guys. What's more, the editors allow themselves to be feted shamelessly by the developers at all the major trade shows.

Readers spew rants about "bias" by the editors towards this platform or that one, but they miss the real conflict of interest. Game reporters serve the interests of their sources, rather than providing the critical and independent analysis their readers expect of them.


Real journalists don't allow a source or a subject to pay for anything. If you meet them for lunch, they don't buy it for you. They don't buy your drinks. If journalists cover a fundraiser event for a politician, they don't eat, because they don't want to create the appearance of a conflict.

Presidential campaigns would gladly pay for the transportation of the press corps, but the newspapers cover the expenses for the planes and buses which carry the reporters around behind the candidates, because they absolutely will not allow even the appearance of a conflict.

Games journalists don't cover anything nearly as important, but they still have a responsibility to the reader, and they fail, utterly. They should be guiding their readers to discern the quality games from all the crap, and, instead, they are complicit, and even participatory in the marketing hype engine.

What's worse they deliberately con a readership that skews very young, and is thus not sophisticated enough to realize they're being snookered.

And now, when the ad market is drying up, these sites have the gall to ask readers to pick up the difference by paying for what essentially amounts to commercials. Am I the only one who is bothered by this?

I never made any judgement on this practice. I think it's wrong but it's common industry practice. The magazines and the websites all want to score early access to games to get a leg up on the competition and don't want to hurt their sources. That's why I take most previews with a grain of salt and wait for the reviews. Most magazines and web sites redeem themselves once they write their reviews. I despise the practice as much as you do but I have grown to accept it.

This practice has been going on for years. I finally figured out this out back when I bought PC Gamer quite regularly. In one issue they would gush over a game in a preview, while the next issue would pan the game in a review.

I've just learned to view previews as glorified ads for an upcoming game.

Why would they do a preview for an game that they thought would suck? I'm sure that there have been plenty of games that looked great on the drawing board, but were executed poorly.

What makes me laugh is just the opposite - you see a preview, and it says something like: "The version we received was only 65% complete, but there are some serious gameplay issues and the framerate is horrible". The game gets dismissed months before it's available.

Why is ScandalUMD writing a 4 paragraph preview when he's not played anything and only seen 5 screens?

OK, I'm being a little sarcastic there.

A few points:

1. It's probably a little early to decide either way if the game is great or sucks.

2. I would hope there is some grain of truth to Gamespot's extreme enthusiasm. Skim off about 70% of the hyperbole and it might be more accurate.

3. I agree as well that most sites/magazines tend to put an overly positive spin on previews. This most likely is sucking up to publishers to get more exclusives first.

You can't judge a book by it's cover, or before even reading it, for that matter.

Very few games look weak during playable previews, and turn out to be stellar on release.

In fact, "serious gameplay issues" almost never get resolved. If there's a little clipping or a little slowdown, that sometimes gets patched up. Beyond that, this is a game that's scheduled for a 7/15 release. That's about 8 weeks away.

I think it's wrong that publishers can demonstrate a 65% complete game to supposedly independent publications and get positive coverage of their game in spite of serious problems, which the editors probably know are unlikely to be corrected.

Gamespot helps developers sell lots of bad games the same way Harry Knowles helps studios front-load their box offices. These sites are hype-generators, and promotion engines, and they pose as consumer resources. It's subversive.