I think that if a developer refuses to divulge a game for no good reason then that game should automatically get 5 points off its score.
It was just pointed out that they may be trying to limit pirating.
If that's true then it could be a viable reason. But something tells me they don't want their game criticized and risk depleted sales.
Right. Most likely a reviewer leaked the game last time so EA is just supposed to say "Here guys! Have fun!"
That's why you can only send it out to trusted sites and organizations. With TS3 they gave it to anyone and everyone. So to quote Julia Roberts in Pretty Woman; big mistake!
I saw that with "pee 5 times to get a reward." No one would EVER respond to my questions for a source and I'm still fairly sure it's because another member and I were discussing the RPG elements and the other person used that as an example of how extreme and annoying she thought the RPG aspects were in TS4. Next thing I knew, people were quoting it as being part of the game all over the forums.
How easily rumors get started.
It's not like the discolored stone story that's going around. That stuff is real.
This is like that game where you whisper a story down the line and see how mangled it becomes by the end, only with multiple started threads on the same topic.
It's pretty amazing around here.
I remember one time on these forums I saw in one thread someone said something like "That's like saying there aren't any toilets in the game."
Then someone replied "That proves there aren't any toilets in the game!"
Then 2 minutes later in a different thread someone said "I just read that there aren't any toilets in Sims 4? Why would EA do this?" and the conversation just took off from there.
Of course it wasn't toilets they were talking about, I just can't remember the exact details of the conversation.
I'm only human, okay DrGorilla? I can't possibly remember everything! Get off my case!
I think it was "No family trees" somehow morphing into "No families!!" I didn't even touch that because of how disappointed I was in, ahem, humans.
"LOL! There are only positive reviews because those people are being paid!!!!"
"LOL! Reviewers aren't getting early copies of the game because EA knows their game is plum!"
I saw that with "pee 5 times to get a reward." No one would EVER respond to my questions for a source and I'm still fairly sure it's because another member and I were discussing the RPG elements and the other person used that as an example of how extreme and annoying she thought the RPG aspects were in TS4. Next thing I knew, people were quoting it as being part of the game all over the forums.
How easily rumors get started.
It's not like the discolored stone story that's going around. That stuff is real.
The stone MUST be taught to conform. You're engendering unrealistic expectations in all stones to allow them to think they can be whatever color they want.
Origin ID: ebuchala I'm not a psychopath. I'm a high-functioning psychopath. Reaper
I just commented on another thread that it seemed odd IGN have not already done a review. Normally it's not a good sign, or EA haven't paid IGN yet to give a good review!
I just commented on another thread that it seemed odd IGN have not already done a review. Normally it's not a good sign, or EA haven't paid IGN yet to give a good review!
This pretty much sums it up-
This is why I don't trust IGN, they drink too much Mountain Dew and Coca-Cola.
I just commented on another thread that it seemed odd IGN have not already done a review. Normally it's not a good sign, or EA haven't paid IGN yet to give a good review!
This pretty much sums it up-
This is why I don't trust IGN, they drink too much Mountain Dew and Coca-Cola.
I just commented on another thread that it seemed odd IGN have not already done a review. Normally it's not a good sign, or EA haven't paid IGN yet to give a good review!
This pretty much sums it up-
This is why I don't trust IGN, they drink too much Mountain Dew and Coca-Cola.
I wish EA would pay me to give them a review... I'd still give them a 5/10 though xD
I just commented on another thread that it seemed odd IGN have not already done a review. Normally it's not a good sign, or EA haven't paid IGN yet to give a good review!
This pretty much sums it up-
This is why I don't trust IGN, they drink too much Mountain Dew and Coca-Cola.
Don't forget Doritos!
How could I forget the DORITOSSSSSS!?
[img]http://stream1.🐸🐸🐸🐸.com/view/175275/dorito-samurai-2-o.gif[/img]
The more I think about this the more ludicrous the conspiracy theorists claims are.
Okay, so. They think video game reviewer sites basically sell good reviews and the fact that EA isn't giving them early copies of this game proves that EA hasn't paid for a good review yet...okay...so...like okay yeah I'm with you so far.
But if you openly admit that you think game reviewers can be bought and sold why would you give 2 plums about their opinion anyways?
That doesn't make sense.
"I'm waiting to see what the professional reviewers have to say about this! Who cares if a good review means they were bribed and a bad review means they weren't bribed! I want an unbiased opinion, darnit!"
As an MMO player I'm fairly used to that. No one gets the full game before launch of an MMO.
It's different with an MMO, because without a ton of people playing, you can't judge the "Massively Mulitiplayer" part.
This is bad news for TS4. It's like when a big film studio won't let anyone review a movie before it's released -- they are indeed expecting bad reviews, ones that will keep paying customers away.
Dan Stapleton, by the way, is an excellent reviewer and has written many favorable Sims reviews over the years for PCGamer magazine. I seem to recall that he loved the base game of TS3. I trust his thoughts on games (don't always agree with them, but trust them).
This is a terrible sign and is making me reconsider my preorder that was already at about half the asking price for the game.
Even though IGN has a history of being paid off and everyone knows how wrong the initial Simcity reviews were last year, reviews are still important. Sure, some people have had previews - a carefully selected group of people who were told that they were playing an earlier version and for a limited amount of time. I was expecting that some reviewers (not all, because $$$$) would be more careful this time around and make sure the game didn't fall apart a few hours in like Simcity did. This is not giving me hope that Sims 4 will be different.
The more I think about this the more ludicrous the conspiracy theorists claims are.
Okay, so. They think video game reviewer sites basically sell good reviews and the fact that EA isn't giving them early copies of this game proves that EA hasn't paid for a good review yet...okay...so...like okay yeah I'm with you so far.
But if you openly admit that you think game reviewers can be bought and sold why would you give 2 plums about their opinion anyways?
That doesn't make sense.
"I'm waiting to see what the professional reviewers have to say about this! Who cares if a good review means they were bribed and a bad review means they weren't bribed! I want an unbiased opinion, darnit!"
I can't speak for anyone else, but I haven't given a rat's patooty about IGN since 2003.
The more I think about this the more ludicrous the conspiracy theorists claims are.
Okay, so. They think video game reviewer sites basically sell good reviews and the fact that EA isn't giving them early copies of this game proves that EA hasn't paid for a good review yet...okay...so...like okay yeah I'm with you so far.
But if you openly admit that you think game reviewers can be bought and sold why would you give 2 plums about their opinion anyways?
That doesn't make sense.
"I'm waiting to see what the professional reviewers have to say about this! Who cares if a good review means they were bribed and a bad review means they weren't bribed! I want an unbiased opinion, darnit!"
The more I think about this the more ludicrous the conspiracy theorists claims are.
Okay, so. They think video game reviewer sites basically sell good reviews and the fact that EA isn't giving them early copies of this game proves that EA hasn't paid for a good review yet...okay...so...like okay yeah I'm with you so far.
But if you openly admit that you think game reviewers can be bought and sold why would you give 2 plums about their opinion anyways?
That doesn't make sense.
"I'm waiting to see what the professional reviewers have to say about this! Who cares if a good review means they were bribed and a bad review means they weren't bribed! I want an unbiased opinion, darnit!"
Whacky theory, but maybe EA thought that inviting prominent community members to a camp in which they would be allowed to take screenshots and record 10-20 minutes of gameplay video was worth more than paying for reviews from reviewers everyone thinks are just on the take anyway.
The more I think about this the more ludicrous the conspiracy theorists claims are.
Okay, so. They think video game reviewer sites basically sell good reviews and the fact that EA isn't giving them early copies of this game proves that EA hasn't paid for a good review yet...okay...so...like okay yeah I'm with you so far.
But if you openly admit that you think game reviewers can be bought and sold why would you give 2 plums about their opinion anyways?
That doesn't make sense.
"I'm waiting to see what the professional reviewers have to say about this! Who cares if a good review means they were bribed and a bad review means they weren't bribed! I want an unbiased opinion, darnit!"
This is a terrible sign and is making me reconsider my preorder that was already at about half the asking price for the game.
Even though IGN has a history of being paid off and everyone knows how wrong the initial Simcity reviews were last year, reviews are still important. Sure, some people have had previews - a carefully selected group of people who were told that they were playing an earlier version and for a limited amount of time. I was expecting that some reviewers (not all, because $$$$) would be more careful this time around and make sure the game didn't fall apart a few hours in like Simcity did. This is not giving me hope that Sims 4 will be different.
This makes no sense. You state that IGN has a history of being paid off and that they were wrong in their initial SimCity reviews, yet lack of input from such an unreliable source is causing you to have doubts about your pre-order? Or is it simply the lack of EA providing advance copy to this ostensibly paid-off, unreliable source that is causing you distress? Either way ......
The more I think about this the more ludicrous the conspiracy theorists claims are.
Okay, so. They think video game reviewer sites basically sell good reviews and the fact that EA isn't giving them early copies of this game proves that EA hasn't paid for a good review yet...okay...so...like okay yeah I'm with you so far.
But if you openly admit that you think game reviewers can be bought and sold why would you give 2 plums about their opinion anyways?
That doesn't make sense.
"I'm waiting to see what the professional reviewers have to say about this! Who cares if a good review means they were bribed and a bad review means they weren't bribed! I want an unbiased opinion, darnit!"
This is a terrible sign and is making me reconsider my preorder that was already at about half the asking price for the game.
Even though IGN has a history of being paid off and everyone knows how wrong the initial Simcity reviews were last year, reviews are still important.
See what I mean?
Are you strawmanning or just really dense?
How is he being dense or strawmanning? It actually makes no sense why you would trust someone who's been known and there's evidence of them being paid off in the past.
But this is the internet, I forgot that logic isn't allowed here.
This is a terrible sign and is making me reconsider my preorder that was already at about half the asking price for the game.
Even though IGN has a history of being paid off and everyone knows how wrong the initial Simcity reviews were last year, reviews are still important. Sure, some people have had previews - a carefully selected group of people who were told that they were playing an earlier version and for a limited amount of time. I was expecting that some reviewers (not all, because $$$$) would be more careful this time around and make sure the game didn't fall apart a few hours in like Simcity did. This is not giving me hope that Sims 4 will be different.
This makes no sense. You state that IGN has a history of being paid off and that they were wrong in their initial SimCity reviews, yet lack of input from such an unreliable source is causing you to have doubts about your pre-order? Or is it simply the lack of EA providing advance copy to this ostensibly paid-off, unreliable source that is causing you distress? Either way ......
Because it's not just IGN that isn't getting it? They're not allowing anyone they haven't selected to play the game for more than a few hours. That doesn't trouble you in the slightest?
This is a terrible sign and is making me reconsider my preorder that was already at about half the asking price for the game.
Even though IGN has a history of being paid off and everyone knows how wrong the initial Simcity reviews were last year, reviews are still important. Sure, some people have had previews - a carefully selected group of people who were told that they were playing an earlier version and for a limited amount of time. I was expecting that some reviewers (not all, because $$$$) would be more careful this time around and make sure the game didn't fall apart a few hours in like Simcity did. This is not giving me hope that Sims 4 will be different.
This makes no sense. You state that IGN has a history of being paid off and that they were wrong in their initial SimCity reviews, yet lack of input from such an unreliable source is causing you to have doubts about your pre-order? Or is it simply the lack of EA providing advance copy to this ostensibly paid-off, unreliable source that is causing you distress? Either way ......
Because it's not just IGN that isn't getting it? They're not allowing anyone they haven't selected to play the game for more than a few hours. That doesn't trouble you in the slightest?
Not in the slightest. I never read professional gaming company reviews.
The more I think about this the more ludicrous the conspiracy theorists claims are.
Okay, so. They think video game reviewer sites basically sell good reviews and the fact that EA isn't giving them early copies of this game proves that EA hasn't paid for a good review yet...okay...so...like okay yeah I'm with you so far.
But if you openly admit that you think game reviewers can be bought and sold why would you give 2 plums about their opinion anyways?
That doesn't make sense.
"I'm waiting to see what the professional reviewers have to say about this! Who cares if a good review means they were bribed and a bad review means they weren't bribed! I want an unbiased opinion, darnit!"
This is a terrible sign and is making me reconsider my preorder that was already at about half the asking price for the game.
Even though IGN has a history of being paid off and everyone knows how wrong the initial Simcity reviews were last year, reviews are still important.
See what I mean?
Are you strawmanning or just really dense?
Two things:
1) You had really unfortunate timing with that post.
2) You don't place down a precise premise for what you mean by "reviews are still important" despite the initial concession that outfits like IGN have "a history of being paid off" and initially "wrong." How are they still important if the information is made apocryphal from bribery?
Comments
How easily rumors get started.
It's not like the discolored stone story that's going around. That stuff is real.
I think it was "No family trees" somehow morphing into "No families!!" I didn't even touch that because of how disappointed I was in, ahem, humans.
"LOL! There are only positive reviews because those people are being paid!!!!"
"LOL! Reviewers aren't getting early copies of the game because EA knows their game is plum!"
The stone MUST be taught to conform. You're engendering unrealistic expectations in all stones to allow them to think they can be whatever color they want.
I'm not a psychopath. I'm a high-functioning psychopath. Reaper
I wish EA would pay me to give them a review... I'd still give them a 5/10 though xD
[img]http://stream1.🐸🐸🐸🐸.com/view/175275/dorito-samurai-2-o.gif[/img]
Okay, so. They think video game reviewer sites basically sell good reviews and the fact that EA isn't giving them early copies of this game proves that EA hasn't paid for a good review yet...okay...so...like okay yeah I'm with you so far.
But if you openly admit that you think game reviewers can be bought and sold why would you give 2 plums about their opinion anyways?
That doesn't make sense.
"I'm waiting to see what the professional reviewers have to say about this! Who cares if a good review means they were bribed and a bad review means they weren't bribed! I want an unbiased opinion, darnit!"
It's different with an MMO, because without a ton of people playing, you can't judge the "Massively Mulitiplayer" part.
This is bad news for TS4. It's like when a big film studio won't let anyone review a movie before it's released -- they are indeed expecting bad reviews, ones that will keep paying customers away.
Dan Stapleton, by the way, is an excellent reviewer and has written many favorable Sims reviews over the years for PCGamer magazine. I seem to recall that he loved the base game of TS3. I trust his thoughts on games (don't always agree with them, but trust them).
Even though IGN has a history of being paid off and everyone knows how wrong the initial Simcity reviews were last year, reviews are still important. Sure, some people have had previews - a carefully selected group of people who were told that they were playing an earlier version and for a limited amount of time. I was expecting that some reviewers (not all, because $$$$) would be more careful this time around and make sure the game didn't fall apart a few hours in like Simcity did. This is not giving me hope that Sims 4 will be different.
See what I mean?
Are you strawmanning or just really dense?
This makes no sense. You state that IGN has a history of being paid off and that they were wrong in their initial SimCity reviews, yet lack of input from such an unreliable source is causing you to have doubts about your pre-order? Or is it simply the lack of EA providing advance copy to this ostensibly paid-off, unreliable source that is causing you distress? Either way ......
But this is the internet, I forgot that logic isn't allowed here.
Because it's not just IGN that isn't getting it? They're not allowing anyone they haven't selected to play the game for more than a few hours. That doesn't trouble you in the slightest?
Not in the slightest. I never read professional gaming company reviews.
Two things:
1) You had really unfortunate timing with that post.
2) You don't place down a precise premise for what you mean by "reviews are still important" despite the initial concession that outfits like IGN have "a history of being paid off" and initially "wrong." How are they still important if the information is made apocryphal from bribery?