I would say the reviews weren't as discouraging as they should have been. The main thing is that all the flaws in the final versions were evident in the earlier builds the journalists played, and they hyped the games anyway.

Their line is that they give games "the benefit of the doubt," but they know that preview access is given because developers see it as publicity, as free advertising. So the press delivers exactly that.

And a lot of gamers pre-order, so they don't get to see the review.

so can I have my soul back

I thought you were joking at the west coast get together when we all signed them away using our blood

If I lost my soul at least I did get that copy of NFL Gameday 2001

I picked this game up as well, simply amazing! The intuitive gameplay is really unique! I love how you can use your bird to scout, pick up items and distract gaurds while you sneak in for the kill. Incredible game.

Todd

How is the writer going to know how the game is going to turn out based on early code? Nobody in their right mind would let people see early versions of games if they knew journalists were going to rip them before they were finished. Should the game industry start ripping doom 3 because it's multiplayer component is not ready or that the game is only 2 levels long?


And how is the is it the game journalists fault if people don't wait for the reviews.

I just picked up this game today and played for an hour through 2 levels...so far so good, it looks great. This game is pretty cool with the neat features mentioned in previous posts. stealth mode whoohoo. Will play more and comment on the game completely.

ScandalUMD already decided before he played the game that he would not like it, so there really was no point in him playing it.

You think the game was decent all along until the end of development when it somehow turned to pure crap? No. It was bad when it was finished, and it was of course even worse beforehand.

And you'd think previews would reflect that, wouldn't you. But no. As ScandalUMD pointed out, there is publisher schmoozing, and it happens all the time. And it makes it difficult for gaming journalists to right an objective, negative preview (it usually affects previews more than reviews). Yes, many games see a leap in quality before they're finished, but Daikatana was absolutely dreadful, and I'd hate to see it in its unfinished form. Now it's kind of mysterious where all that hype arose from....

I'd be interested in finding that article again. It was pretty interesting, and insightful on the subject.

I've seen plenty of negative previews in my day. The problem is you can't critique an unfinished game. Just like you can't critique an unfinished movie, or anything else that is created. To comment on something before it is complete, is absurd. The game magazines are simply giving you a quick synopsis of the game, from what gameplay is available, in order to inform the consumer.

The reason why they don't review games before they are done, is because they are constantly changing. How many times did Warcraft 3 change before it was completed? I'm pretty sure it was like 2 or 3 before the guys at Blizzard finally got what they wanted.

There is an article/editorial in this months Computer Games (with Black Hawk Down on the cover) which discusses some of these issues. Apparently many people write in to the mag complaining that they don't review games as fast as the other mags, and the editor explains some of the reasons why. I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that even if someone gets a review out within a week or two of a game's release, typically, due to the lead times on magazine publishing and the neccessity to play through the game before writing it up, the review had to have been written on a late beta or worse. The editorial also indicates that in such cases, the mags are restricted (probably more for practical reasons than legal ones) from pointing out some flaws in the game because the company can claim they will be fixed before release, whether they actually will or not.

The writer indicated that many reviews must have been written on beta versions (with publisher restrictions on what can be complained about) but very rarely is it mentioned in the review.

Most previews are positive unless its just obvious the game is not going to work. The mags just don't know enough about the game. They usually just give you the basics about the type of game it is supposed to be and tell you to watch out for the full review when they get the game. Granted when its a much hyped title like a Mario Sunshine they will give it a bigger preview than a lesser known game. Previews have to be taken with a grain of salt since they all (even for the smaller games) only focus on positives. Its not till they do the actually review that you can find out whether to buy it.

I don't buy games simply from the previews. I wait for an actually review of the game or until I can try a demo.

As far as Mark of Kri being too short. There are objectives for every level you need to complete. You can beat a level without doing them all, but it takes time to beat a level and fufill all the objectives like doing certain kill combos, etc. That adds some replay value to the game and extends the play time well over six hours. You unlock things for doing this so its well worth the time. Sure you can blow through the game fast if you want, but I like to do everything possible in a game and this game will take a lot longer than six hours.

This game never caught my interest until it got Game of the Month from EGM and the review from Extended Play. I'll probably go rent it.

You need to get over this game "journalist" crap. There's no such thing. No true journalists are going to work for a game magazine. These writers and editors are just gamers with (sometimes) a knack for writing.

Serious journalists are going to take serious jobs.

And it seems like most people like Mark of Kri, so that pretty much debunks your theory of it being overrated due to any publisher influence. Same with Eternal Darkness, most people loved it.

It just seems like any time you don't agree with a games reviews you scream "bias, "lack of journalistic integrity etc."

That's a bit of a generalization, don't you think? I'm sure there are some bad apples in the bunch, but I really think there are quite a few people in the gaming news industry that try to be fair and accurate, as much as a "true" journalist (whatever that means.) And are just as talented, educated, and trained as any other form of journalist.

As a former news photographer, I can tell you that there are DEFINITELY "true" journalists that are more suceptible to bias and unfair reporting than any video game website I've ever read.

If I was a good enough writer and the pay was decent, I would love to work for a video game magazine. And I have a journalism degree, and consider myself to be a "true" journalist. So how do I fit into your generalization?

BTW, I rented the game. Seems a bit short, but it's very fun and very neat to watch. Reminds me a lot of Tenchu, and that's a good thing.

hmm all the reviews on gamefaqs.com from regular people are 9's and 10's. All the magazines rated from 7 to 8. Sounds like someone doesn't like a game and is turning that into this crazy conspiracy theory.

Previews are just that. The offer basic information and screenshots to get you excited about the game. Previews aren't supposed to focus on the negative's.

And most people also love eternal darkness. Sorry that you don't but both these games are above average games. Not great not earth shattering... above average. Hmm a good score for an above average game is what say 7 or 8? Odd...

Btw I played Kri the other day and it seemed like a very fun game, I'm only about an hour and a half in but it looks good and plays well. Nothing amazing but I had fun and I would give it 8/10 for being an ABOVE AVERAGE game

Rant off>

I REALLY liked this game when I first got it. I'm in the 4th mission (I think) and I think I see what some of the reviews meant about it getting old. I'm at 'the pit', which is a large arena-like area where you have to work your way around while moving up and down via ladders and ledges. It's frustrating because I keep getting spotted and at that point, it's game over.

I still like it (it took about 30 minutes to go 'ugh' over Enclave, which I bought at about the same time), but I see where some of the lack of depth comments come from. I like the stealth aspect, but it's getting kind of thin.

The main things this game has going for it are the innovative combat system and atmosphere, lots of atmosphere. Those things actually carry it pretty far, but it does have it's weak points.