To All You Gamers Blaming The Fans For Poor DmC: Devil May Cry Sales

[IncarnatedDemon]

@
Right now I'm just focused on building eGamer. We're a South African site (which is still a small and growing market) and we've only been around 4 years now, so we're relatively young. But these kinds of articles are exactly what I want to and try to specialise in because I believe strongly in honesty and integrity and being impartial.

Honesty and integrity barely exists in Gaming industry. When i read through part 1 of "Are reviews just opinions?" i thought "Lol this guy is loco" (in a positive manner). As in you are different from other people, you seem to believe in integrity and being honest. But the kinds i've meet aren't just biased and have no integrity, they contribute to antagonizing gamers of a controversy:
http://www.destructoid.com/review-dmc-devil-may-cry-242002.phtml
http://www.destructoid.com/fixing-dante-in-dmc--183981.phtml

I am glad there are people like you.
Btw you may not be here to give a braveheart speech: but i am.

FREEEDOM!!!!


Jokes aside: I hope the type of journalism where journalists break laws to find truth about gaming topics happen. For example, i would have loved to know more about the relationship between Platinum games and Capcom, and why the former Capcom members who now are in PG left.

I would also love to know for sure: if IGN, Gamespot or any big suspicious looking sites have been bought up or bribed by publishers.

 

[XDmC12345X]

Its seems you dont understand what i am saying, i mean the ones who gave it no chance. The ones who tried can complain if they have but those who refuse to try it are the problem.

 

[Tody]

I'm completely aware of that, but in truth it's not just the gaming industry. A lot of journalism is tainted, but it's not all bad as long as you find an outlet you trust. For example, I read SkySports because I'm a football fanatic, but it's some of the worst journalism I have ever seen because it's practically 100% sensationalism to the point that it's laughable.

Hahaha I just believe in true journalism, and integrity and honesty is what I was raised with so it stuck with me. Trust me, nothing rattles my bones more in the gaming industry than journalists who actually join the attack on gamers and take the publishers' side when they really shouldn't. That's what disturbs me the most, and it's what riles me up.

I was quite impressed with Jim Sterling's coverage of the Aliens saga even though I'm not particularly a fan of the man. I can respect his pursuit of the truth. I also hope for that, but at least I can play my part in sticking 100% to the truth and protecting gamers as best as I can by providing them with the best possible information.

Having been in the industry for the last five years (I'm only 19, so I've got a loooooong road ahead of me), I know a lot about bad practices. If you read part 2 that I wrote (the critical thought and integrity; but I very much appreciate that you read part1, thank you ), you'll see how the relationship between publishers and journalists can work, and how damaging it can be.

I've never accepted, and will never accept, benefits in exchange for a positive review. I'd rather sit without money or an early review copy than without my integrity. I mean sure earning money for your work is nice and getting free games is awesome, but there's no price on honesty and fair reviewing. It has happened before that I've gotten a bit of stick for holding nothing back with a game and saying it how it is in my reviews (in my early days years ago there was actually a little humourous and distasteful saga with the alleged - it was through email so can't be proven but he had a developer email - CEO of Zootfly, developers of Prison Break: The Conspiracy because I ripped the game apart), but you know, I couldn't be bothered. Fortunately though, we've gained respect and appreciation from our community for our unique way of reviewing (a system we put together using no number scores, focused on quality and whether to buy or not). Loyalty to gamers first is what journalism should be about.

If you'd like to know more about being "bribed" by publishers, I'd be happy to chat about it regarding what I know, but I did cover the topic of paid reviews in part 2. It doesn't happen as frequently as gamers think, but I can't blame them for being worried about it, because it does happen.

 

[Marionette Cherry]

Honesty and integrity barely exists in Gaming industry. When i read through part 1 of "Are reviews just opinions?" i thought "Lol this guy is loco" (in a positive manner). As in you are different from other people, you seem to believe in integrity and being honest. But the kinds i've meet aren't just biased and have no integrity, they contribute to antagonizing gamers of a controversy:
http://www.destructoid.com/review-dmc-devil-may-cry-242002.phtml
http://www.destructoid.com/fixing-dante-in-dmc--183981.phtml

I am glad there are people like you.
Btw you may not be here to give a braveheart speech: but i am.

FREEEDOM!!!!


Jokes aside: I hope the type of journalism where journalists break laws to find truth about gaming topics happen. For example, i would have loved to know more about the relationship between Platinum games and Capcom, and why the former Capcom members who now are in PG left.

I would also love to know for sure: if IGN, Gamespot or any big suspicious looking sites have been bought up or bribed by publishers.

There's an image going around the internet where NT thanked some Xbox magazine on Twitter for their 9/10 score before it was even published. It's very suspicious. I probably posted it here in some thread, some guy replied "It's going to be hilarious when they publish their 9/10 score, you guys are not even trying" low and behold the Xbox Magazine rated DmC 9/10.

 

[Alittleacorn]

There's an image going around the internet where NT thanked some Xbox magazine on Twitter for their 9/10 score before it was even published. It's very suspicious. I probably posted it here in some thread, some guy replied "It's going to be hilarious when they publish their 9/10 score, you guys are not even trying" low and behold the Xbox Magazine rated DmC 9/10.

They got it mixed up with the UK version of the Xbox Magazine, they thought it was the US one.

I don't like playing the blame game.
I just think it was a sad state of events that led to the game not making as much as I feel it should have.
If I had only a few words to say, I'd say I'm very fortunate to play this piece of beautiful art. It's been an honor.

Ninja Theory, in my humble opinion, should be given another shot to please both ends of the spectrum. I have no doubt they could do wondrous additions in a sequel that would alleviate every fan's worries.
Everyone deserves another chance.

Although, I'm glad Ninja Theory was able to get their vision to the public, albeit with scrapes and bruises.
I hope this isn't the end of DmC, nor the end of Devil May Cry. It's not over... not yet.

I hope so too. If they do a sequel, they'd have to make it more tied to the originals in both setting and characters, because DmC felt like a prequel before the prequel [a.k.a DMC3] I think that's why it was more alienating for some fans, that and they weren't willing to see rebel Dante grow and change into the Dante we're familliar with. They wanted Dante from the beginning, they wanted the Devil May Cry store and Dante's demon hunting business [I was actually sad they didn't have any hint of this at the ending or after the credits. I was really hoping for it]. But part of me worries that even if they did that, even if they made it more like the originals that they felt more like a remake, there'd still be some anger regardless, and it's that anger that worries me about the future of the series as a whole.

I don't blame fans who weren't interested or didn't like it, I blame the ones that were vocal to the point of abusive [on both sides.] I don't want some valid reason why it's okay for someone to pm me saying **** you or saying disgusting things all for their love of a series, or getting angry at me or anybody else for liking this game. It scares the hell out of me what people have said and there's no justifying such abuse.

 

[HatredIsJoy]

Sonic fans didn't file a petition to the White House. Yea, Devil May Cry fans are now officially one of the worst and you can't defend them. Don't even try.

I don't care if this is from page 1 and was possibly called out by somebody already, this bullshit has to be refuted every time.

It had less than 10 signatures, and there's a good possibility that it was a joke. Stop trying to make it look like there were thousands of angry DmC fans sending Obama demands to kill DmC.

 

[IncarnatedDemon]

No, i don't think sites are as bribed as i make them to be. Here is a "pyramid of crap":
_________/\
________/...\
_______/......\
______/bribed.\
_____/ bias......\
____/ ...............\_____user reviews (often objective)
___/clueless........\
....._____________
"Pyramid of crap" is copyright of IncarnatedDemon INC, any use of it or it's trademark will be responded with death penalty

There are many sites that give out 9/10 etc, but they don't elaborate in depth why. They just give a 9/10 and a catch phrase "BRUTAL MADNESS !!!" and thats it. They are a company that must meet a deadline.

Anyhow the pyramid shows how reviewers are. They are either bribed (low chance of), biased or have no idea what they are talking about

For instance you talked about playing all games to understand good game design and bad ones. But these "reviewers" ignore past sequals of a game. For with DmC, reviewers ignore that the gameplay has flaws. With Metal Gear Rising they ignore that there are games such as DmC that have better combo depth.

They just slap a 9/10 or a 8.9 (because 0.1 matters IGN) on games.

 

[Martius]

If you'd like to know more about being "bribed" by publishers, I'd be happy to chat about it regarding what I know, but I did cover the topic of paid reviews in part 2. It doesn't happen as frequently as gamers think, but I can't blame them for being worried about it, because it does happen.

I think adapting is better word. Exclusive interviews, demo, preview and review copies, early access to press material and commercials.

 

[Tody]

@IncarnatedDemon
Hahaha I side with you bro, I've written I think 3 or 4 pieces criticizing reviewers, reviews, the review system and mentality of critics. If there's one topic I've spoken about to death, it's that one ;P

@Martius
By "bribed" I was simply quoting the word used by the earlier post, but you are right =) I do a huge amount in the indie scene, and everything you mentioned forms part of some of the perks I've gotten because of it. But I've never, ever let it affect the review I end up doing, and it's actually happened a few times that I established a friendly relationship with the developers but didn't end up speaking favourably about their game.

Someone who doesn't have the courage of their convictions, or who is more lenient, could easily feel bad about giving the game a bad score when being on good terms with the developers, and that's another issue.

Me on the other hand, as much as I liked some of the developers and what they tried to do and the information they gave me, my loyalty is to consumers so if the game isn't great then it just isn't great.

 

[Martius]

@Tody
For me it looks like "mainstream reviewers" are doing that because they are afraid if they wont show game in at least positive way they wont get so much or any material from publishers from next game. Also probably some of big publishers think that if they are paying for commercials they can demand more, some special treatment of their products.
It is really sad they are treating publishers better than gamers. I know thanks to developers and publishers we have games but without people willing to pay for them they would not have their jobs.

 

[Tody]

@Martius
For me it looks like "mainstream reviewers" are doing that because they are afraid if they wont show game in at least positive way they wont get so much or any material from publishers from next game. Also probably some of big publishers think that if they are paying for commercials they can demand more, some special treatment of their products.
It is really sad they are treating publishers better than gamers. I know thanks to developers and publishers we have games but without people willing to pay for them they would not have their jobs.

I agree with you, but that what I highlighted in bold is the mentality many gamers and journalists take to an extreme and feel that they absolutely have to show gratitude to developers and publishers because we have games, even if that means suffering at the hands of bad practices or exploitation and such. You know, "at least we get games", we can deal with getting smacked in the face.

But I mean, I've never seen that mentality for any other medium of entertainment.

People don't seem to realise (well, most people undermine their own power, it's how they get oppressed) that it's a two-way street. Exactly as you said, without us they wouldn't be able to even make games, let alone make so much profit out of their games and reach the levels of fame and praise that they do. Without us, there'd be no franchises, and they'd have no jobs.

And without them, we'd be worse off without games and such a fantastic medium of entertainment.

Yet people seem to forget the impact we as consumers and journalists have. It may sound harsh, but we don't really owe (have an obligation to) developers or publishers. They make products we spend a lot of money on for our entertainment, and that's the impartial way of looking at it. The best way, for me, is that we can have a healthy relationship with developers and publishers if we acknowledge that it's a two way street.

We help them, they help us. We provide for them, they do it for us. We look out for them and support them, they support us.

So really, they don't have the place to demand anything.'

But there are developers who do it right. Many. CD Projekt RED, Valve, Naughty Dog, Volition, and more are notable developers who go the extra mile for their fans in exchange for loyalty.

 

[Marionette Cherry]

I think there's a way to tell review sites are bribed and its somewhat overlooked but very obvious. Advertisements, publishers I think pay sites like IGN to have their game advertised, whether it be banners, trailers, etc and then the publishers are obviously going to expect something in return like a good score. If however said site gives their game a bad score they're not going to want to advertise on that site anymore and they'll move on to someone else.

There's a bit of a contradiction in my post, a publisher asking for something in return despite asking for their game to be advertised? That's nuts! Well, if IGN can't advertise they don't get money to keep their site up. I hope that makes sense, it came to me when I was thinking about how Mass Effect 3 was shoved in peoples faces.

 

[Mister Z]

More now than ever, not just gamers, but consumers of all kind in general, need to practice their judging skills and generate their own judgments, listening from the direct word of other (non-biased and rational) consumers rather than the press, trying the product (if legally possible) without committing to a full purchase, doing their own analysis and draw conclusions from what they know, what they'd like and what they need (and what they don't).

It's a shame that a lot of people are very dependant of the word of press in order to judge a product, but at the same time, it's a good opportunity for people to encourage themselves into formulating opinions on their own, a practice that should be teached for the common good, so not to let themselves be manipulated by the word of others.

I quit relying on game reviews alone to determine if I want a game or not. Sure, I do check reviews occassionaly, but always from more than just one source and from all kinds of sources too (whether a big-name magazine or a small blog, etc.). I also check gameplay videos, play the demo if it's available and read any other kind of miscelaneous commmentaries on the game. Then I decide if it's worth my money now or later or if ever at all. That's how I make my choice to buy DmC. Not because some distrustful gaming website told me so, not because the PR of the company sympathized (it didn't) and not because someone on the internet told me it was good game. It was a choice and conclusion I made for myself by myself.

 

[Tody]

I think there's a way to tell review sites are bribed and its somewhat overlooked but very obvious. Advertisements, publishers I think pay sites like IGN to have their game advertised, whether it be banners, trailers, etc and then the publishers are obviously going to expect something in return like a good score. If however said site gives their game a bad score they're not going to want to advertise on that site anymore and they'll move on to someone else.

There's a bit of a contradiction in my post, a publisher asking for something in return despite asking for their game to be advertised? That's nuts! Well, if IGN can't advertise they don't get money to keep their site up. I hope that makes sense, it came to me when I was thinking about how Mass Effect 3 was shoved in peoples faces.

Yes and no Cherry. You're pretty close to how it works, in fact almost knocking on the door. I spoke about paid reviews in-depth in this article: http://egamer.co.za/2013/02/take-it...ntial-for-reviewers-but-theyre-lacking-today/

But to reply to what you've said, gaming websites do generate revenue for advertising, but there aren't always strings attached. Sometimes the advertising is just advertising, and you can go on to give the game a bad or good review. But you're right, there are cases where publishers aggressively advertise a game on a site (who knows what goes on behind the closed doors?) and then expect a return, which as you said is demented. This happened with the whole GameSpot Kane & Lynch fiasco. Upsetting the publisher can cause you to lose your relationship with them or even the entire advertising campaign, from my knowledge.

These are extreme cases though, and don't happen that often.

The process, to my best guess, would not be explicit. The publisher would not say "okay you have to give this game an 8/10 minimum", but it rather would be subtly implied - a mutual understanding. There is no contractual agreement that you have to score the game highly. It's rather a mutual understanding between the site and publisher, and as I've said the severe issue with this is that while the site and publisher are looking out for the best interests of their relationship, who exactly is looking out for the consumer?

It's very dangerous. Personally though, I can't imagine ever lying about my thoughts on a game, or not putting honesty and consumer best interest first. So it's about finding an outlet you trust. Personally I like IGN for news and movie news, but I wouldn't touch their reviews with a ten-foot pole. Not because I suspect them all, but because I don't find them to be very well-written most of the time.

 

[Martius]

I agree with you, but that what I highlighted in bold is the mentality many gamers and journalists take to an extreme and feel that they absolutely have to show gratitude to developers and publishers because we have games, even if that means suffering at the hands of bad practices or exploitation and such. You know, "at least we get games", we can deal with getting smacked in the face.

But I mean, I've never seen that mentality for any other medium of entertainment.

People don't seem to realise (well, most people undermine their own power, it's how they get oppressed) that it's a two-way street. Exactly as you said, without us they wouldn't be able to even make games, let alone make so much profit out of their games and reach the levels of fame and praise that they do. Without us, there'd be no franchises, and they'd have no jobs.

But there are developers who do it right. Many. CD Projekt RED, Valve, Naughty Dog, Volition, and more are notable developers who go the extra mile for their fans in exchange for loyalty.

Yeah, i would say it should me more of symbiotic relationship but it is changing to trying to milk consumers to death.
I have my favourite games and developers but i am aware none of them is perfect because that is impossible.
Constructive criticism is good things, no matter if it comes from potential customer, customers or critic.
With DmC there was really strange situation, Capcom pulling out "artist card" by giving franchise to Ninja Theory and "business card" with their projected sales. Tammem saying "we dont care about sales numbers" and changes which were intended to get mad fans back but made in very poor way.
Capcom probably thought that such controversy will help in promotion and most of fanbase will buy game just because it is part of franchise. They could fix that right after first signs of trouble, but instead to keep fire burning (negative attention is still attention for them i suppose) and we can see result of that right now.

There's a bit of a contradiction in my post, a publisher asking for something in return despite asking for their game to be advertised? That's nuts! Well, if IGN can't advertise they don't get money to keep their site up. I hope that makes sense, it came to me when I was thinking about how Mass Effect 3 was shoved in peoples faces.

Lets imagine that IGN would judge games fairly. Trailers, hype, banners and rest of that crap and review of lets say 6/10, maybe 7/10 max. These are mixed message and publishers does not want that for their big investment.

 

[Chancey289]

I don't care if this is from page 1 and was possibly called out by somebody already, this bullshit has to be refuted every time.

It had less than 10 signatures, and there's a good possibility that it was a joke. Stop trying to make it look like there were thousands of angry DmC fans sending Obama demands to kill DmC.

No, it reached somewhere around 80 before it was removed for being so stupid. Also, it was too sad to be a joke. I would have bought it was a joke if it only mentioned the hair but it was just too sincere.It was too sad and pathetic to be a joke.

Thing is too, if gamers want to be acknowledged as a body, this doesn't help that ongoing argument that gamers aren't just a bunch of losers with no life now does it? It was one for the record books regardless.

In a perfect world, a bunch of Capcom employees made that just for sh!ts and giggles. That would have been actually hilarious. You can't defend this fandom so don't even try. Just go around the internet and they are still crying about the reboot and that's still evident on this forum too. Also through personal experience, after getting 11 death threats because I made a joke about Dante and being personally attacked unprovoked at Gamestop, Devil May Cry fans are one of the worst gaming fandoms out there. Don't you even attempt to defend this fanbase because it just can't be done.

 

[Jerry Wirerammer]

Not aimed at anyone in particular but this thread reminds me that there are two rules when it comes to this sort of thing.

Any review you agree with is: thoughtful, insightful, truthful and unbiased.

Any review you disagree with is: stupid, missing the point, lying, biased and maybe corrupt.

 

[Marionette Cherry]

Don't you even attempt to defend this fanbase because it just can't be done.

When Ninja Theory was mocking the old fans I think their actions were pretty justified. Don't even attempt to defend Ninja theory for mocking a fanbase who followed the series for 12 years only to go "Nope, we want a new audience now you guys can **** off"

This forum is classy as hell.

 

[Alittleacorn]

When Ninja Theory was mocking the old fans I think their actions were pretty justified. Don't even attempt to defend Ninja theory for mocking a fanbase who followed the series for 12 years only to go "Nope, we want a new audience now you guys can **** off"

This forum is classy as hell.

I don't know about you, but I think the fandom's acted a whole lot more immature than what they said.

 

[Martius]

I don't know about you, but I think the fandom's acted a whole lot more immature than what they said.

I dont know about you but i think publishers and developer acting immature too is not good thing.