Were the reviews really paid or people aren't buying it?

[Cabbage Detective]

You know that IGN is a subsidiary of Fox (Raptor) News. If anything, they should be giving DmC a bad review for tarnishing the image of Fox.

If there's no proof, then what's the problem? Maybe these reviewers like the game? Or is that so hard to believe?

As for The Sun, their opinion counts for nothing, so it would not be in the interests of Capcom to bribe them.

Besides, what does the opinion of game magazines and sites matter? We have our own minds and should be capable of making informed choices using our own brains when it comes to picking what games we play.

who cares about reviews anyway?

 

[Loopy]

who cares about reviews anyway?

That's what I mean. Sure, maybe reviews are a starting point, but at the end of it, you make the choice to buy the game. People should go with what they want, not what a magazine or site says.

 

[mrrandomlulz]

no, nuff said, seriously

Do you have evidence?

 

[Loopy]

Do you have evidence?

There's no true evidence either way. Besides, who cares? These are opinions of people who happen to work for a website or newspaper; or have we forgotten to make our own opinions and go with those?

 

[Chancey289]

Do you have evidence?

Do you beyond just saying how you don't agree with another person's opinion?

 

[IncarnatedDemon]

You know that IGN is a subsidiary of Fox (Raptor) News. If anything, they should be giving DmC a bad review for tarnishing the image of Fox.

If there's no proof, then what's the problem? Maybe these reviewers like the game? Or is that so hard to believe?

As for The Sun, their opinion counts for nothing, so it would not be in the interests of Capcom to bribe them.

Besides, what does the opinion of game magazines and sites matter? We have our own minds and should be capable of making informed choices using our own brains when it comes to picking what games we play.

The question is if these sites have been paid off. And any form of beneficial gain for these sites or magazines counts as being paid off.


I recall the very first gameplay of DmC came exclusively from IGN.
http://www.ign.com/videos/2011/12/01/devil-may-cry-dmc-gameplay

And i looked at IGN site now of DmC:
They gave it 8.9 in beginning, now its down to 8.5.
How can you give a rating and then change it later...


And IGN was one of the sites that constantly defended DmC.

 

[Loopy]

The question is if these sites have been paid off. And any form of beneficial gain for these sites or magazines counts as being paid off.


I recall the very first gameplay of DmC came exclusively from IGN.
http://www.ign.com/videos/2011/12/01/devil-may-cry-dmc-gameplay
Then what IGN was given was not money, but the chance to release info and videos first. What IGN gains is more pageviews, not money.

And i looked at IGN site now of DmC:
They gave it 8.9 in beginning, now its down to 8.5.
You're wrong. The 8.5 is for the PS3 version. It has always been like that. The 8.9 is for the PC and Xbox version. Here is proof on this page http://uk.ign.com/search?q=dmc devil may cry

And IGN was one of the sites that constantly defended DmC.

They did not defend. They posted a review and liked what they played. I also don't see how posting gameplay videos is defending.

 

[Chancey289]

There's no true evidence either way. Besides, who cares? These are opinions of people who happen to work for a website or newspaper; or have we forgotten to make our own opinions and go with those?

Evidently. Reviews are evidently something that are like the gospel or something nowadays. Because so many gamers want to think that another person's personal opinion actually affects them as a consumer. In my comment earlier I put emphasis on the word "any."
Because these are the 3 most popular things to think about a reviewer.
-The game gets a good review "obviously sponsored"
-the game gets a bad review. "Obviously honest." Because people don't understand what the word honesty means.
-The game doesn't get the score they want. "This person is bias" or "This person has no idea what they're talking about."

 

[Loopy]

Evidently. Reviews are evidently something that are like the gospel or something nowadays. Because so many gamers want to think that another person's personal opinion actually affects them as a consumer. In my comment earlier I put emphasis on the word "any."
Because these are the 3 most popular things to think about a reviewer.
-The game gets a good review "obviously sponsored"
-the game gets a bad review. "Obviously honest." Because people don't understand what the word honesty means.
-The game doesn't get the score they want. "This person is bias" or "This person has no idea what they're talking about."

That's what seems to happen, especially on big gaming sites. All I see are walls of comments saying it was sponsored or bias because clearly the review has to agree with that individual person and say the game is also bad, or good.

 

[Terrutas]

Evidently. Reviews are evidently something that are like the gospel or something nowadays. Because so many gamers want to think that another person's personal opinion actually affects them as a consumer. In my comment earlier I put emphasis on the word "any."
Because these are the 3 most popular things to think about a reviewer.
-The game gets a good review "obviously sponsored"
-the game gets a bad review. "Obviously honest." Because people don't understand what the word honesty means.
-The game doesn't get the score they want. "This person is bias" or "This person has no idea what they're talking about."

To some extent, you are correct. However you're generalizing way too much. There are ways to tell a legit review from a biased one.

The example off the top of my head would be IGN's review of DmC, giving it a "8.9/10 It's okay".
Like seriously? It's a near perfect score and it's ****ing "okay"?
Also some of his "criticism" made no sense and was barely relevant. IIRC, he was also relentlessly saying how much it's better than the original series. So he was obviously trying to attract OG fans for more sales.

I know not all reviews are like that, but it's an example of why people are frequently skeptic about reviews. At least those with some shred of sense in their mind are, seeing as this is still a growing business, especially IGN.

 

[IncarnatedDemon]

They did not defend. They posted a review and liked what they played. I also don't see how posting gameplay videos is defending.

BEFORE DmC release:

DmC Has Nothing Left to Prove
DmC is looking Totally Sweet
In Defense of Emo Dante
DmC: Better than Devil You Know?


IGN doesn´t speak for gamers. They speak for their own company.

And their company runs on money.
And it shows.

Mass Effect 3 advertisements...


But it´s not that they are defending DmC that makes me go "they are probably paid off".
It´s because their reviews are total crap.

 

[Terrutas]

BEFORE DmC release:

DmC Has Nothing Left to Prove
DmC is looking Totally Sweet
In Defense of Emo Dante
DmC: Better than Devil You Know?


IGN doesn´t speak for gamers. They speak for their own company.

And their company runs on money.
And it shows.

Mass Effect 3 advertisements...


But it´s not that they are defending DmC that makes me go "they are probably paid off".
It´s because their reviews are total crap.

Giving God Hand a ****ing 3... I want to seem them burn.

 

[Loopy]

To some extent, you are correct. However you're generalizing way too much. There are ways to tell a legit review from a biased one.

The example off the top of my head would be IGN's review of DmC, giving it a "8.9/10 It's okay".
Like seriously? It's a near perfect score and it's ******* "okay"?
Also some of his "criticism" made no sense and was barely relevant. IIRC, he was also relentlessly saying how much it's better than the original series. So he was obviously trying to attract OG fans for more sales.

I know not all reviews are like that, but it's an example of why people are frequently skeptic about reviews. At least those with some shred of sense in their mind are, seeing as this is still a growing business, especially IGN.

When it comes to reviews, it's best to ignore IGN anyway. It's not just their gaming reviews, but their TV show reviews. They make lots of negative points, then give a good score...or do the reverse. Or some of their bad point make no sense (same with their good points). One review a complaint was 'not shirty enough'. What does that even mean?:blink:

BEFORE DmC release:

DmC Has Nothing Left to Prove
DmC is looking Totally Sweet
In Defense of Emo Dante
DmC: Better than Devil You Know?


IGN doesn´t speak for gamers. They speak for their own company.

And their company runs on money.
And it shows.

Mass Effect 3 advertisements...


But it´s not that they are defending DmC that makes me go "they are probably paid off".
It´s because their reviews are total crap.

And now you're grasping at straws.
So they like the game...and what?
And of course they will speak for their own company. Employees have to do that you know

It's not just IGN, but all companies run on money....or do they run on good will and fairy dust:troll:
And if you think their reviews are total crap, don't go to the IGN site. Simple as.

 

[Cabbage Detective]

When it comes to reviews, it's best to ignore IGN anyway. It's not just their gaming reviews, but their TV show reviews. They make lots of negative points, then give a good score...or do the reverse. Or some of their bad point make no sense (same with their good points). One review a complaint was 'not shirty enough'. What does that even mean?:blink:

if i listened to ign n their bs then i wouldn't have half of the games i have lol

 

[Chancey289]

To some extent, you are correct. However you're generalizing way too much. There are ways to tell a legit review from a biased one.

The example off the top of my head would be IGN's review of DmC, giving it a "8.9/10 It's okay".
Like seriously? It's a near perfect score and it's ******* "okay"?
Also some of his "criticism" made no sense and was barely relevant. IIRC, he was also relentlessly saying how much it's better than the original series. So he was obviously trying to attract OG fans for more sales.

I know not all reviews are like that, but it's an example of why people are frequently skeptic about reviews. At least those with some shred of sense in their mind are, seeing as this is still a growing business, especially IGN.

Thing is, your best example is IGN and I feel as though they don't even count because gamers everywhere have a mutual understanding they are stupid and IGN is universally hated.

Yea, they don't count so who cares what they think.

 

[Terrutas]

Thing is, your best example is IGN and I feel as though they don't even count because gamers everywhere have a mutual understanding they are stupid and IGN is universally hated.

Yea, they don't count so who cares what they think.

It was an example, dude.

I could probably give you more examples, I'm just too lazy to back up my claims. :3

 

[IncarnatedDemon]

When it comes to reviews, it's best to ignore IGN anyway. It's not just their gaming reviews, but their TV show reviews. They make lots of negative points, then give a good score...or do the reverse. Or some of their bad point make no sense (same with their good points). One review a complaint was 'not shirty enough'. What does that even mean?:blink:

Like i said, first "meaty" gameplay video of DmC came from IGN, and throughout the game´s development they barely had anything but positive things to say about the game.

And i dont give a crap about IGN, but the topic is:

were the reviews really paid or people arent buying it?

I say IGN definetly received something for DmC.
The site is owned by NewsCorp who also has Fox News.

And people would do alot of things for money, so why would Fox News who is owned by NewsCorp attack DmC a product of Capcom, Capcom who may have paid IGN something for their "effort".

And ill leave this here:

I dont have any proof that IGN received something for DmC. I dont...
But i believe they did on basis of:
- They had first exclusive gameplay video of DmC
- Their articles was mostly positive for DmC (never a "DmC has issues")
- And they are generally known for bribing.


I believe its their practice to do this with most games if they can. That is taking money without being noticed on the radar.

 

[Alittleacorn]

if i listened to ign n their bs then i wouldn't have half of the games i have lol

I think they were the ones that gave I am Alive a low score and I thought that was a really good game >.<

 

[Cabbage Detective]

I think they were the ones that gave I am Alive a low score and I thought that was a really good game >_<

don't forget silent hill downpour

 

[Alittleacorn]

don't forget silent hill downpour

I haven't played it yet. I've been kinda out of the loop on Silent Hill since they changed it. First 3 were the best ,Origins was sort of okay. I'd just rather it stuck with the original cast more instead of swapping around every game as much as it has :'(