Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Then one would ask...why were the first reviews of the game weren't as high as the recent? did Kojima had some scheme working when the first reviews came out?I'm not making ANY conspiracies...I'm going with what I saw during this and last week.
It went from a 9.5 to a 10 on Gamespot. They cited some bug on the site as the reason for the 9.5 ...
In other news, EGM simply delayed their review to say **** Konami:
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
The only time a game, or anything really, deserves a lot of hype is when it's not originally hyped, but turns out amazing.I don't think Metal Gear 4 or G.T.A. 4 deserve anywhere near the hype they got, but it's gonna happen, isn't it?
-AC
I dont think any game nowadays deserves any sort of hype. It's always overblown before the game is released and the game never exceeds expectations.
But it is not the fault of the game, but the media and PR.
MGS4 is probably a great game for people who love MGS games, while GTA4 is similar.
But in the present, you rarely see a game that comes up and surprise people. With numerous gaming sites, magazines, TV shows and forums and the greed of the gaming industry shoving trailers and game footage down your throat, you'll never see a game surprise people.
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Then one would ask...why were the first reviews of the game weren't as high as the recent? did Kojima had some scheme working when the first reviews came out?I'm not making ANY conspiracies...I'm going with what I saw during this and last week.
Thought we were talking about Gamespot here.
for starters: that thing about not wanting to rate the game because of the Kojima/Konami Restrictions and Fan reaction, why even comment on that?, they gave it a 10, so why ***** about it? by doing that, it gives the impression that they would have rated the game with a relatively mediocre rating, so once again PS3 fanboys would get mad at them. By the score given now, Xbox fanboys would have been the ones they wanted to please, but... couldn't?
I understand not everybody felt comfortable with the restrictions, but most chose to hold their ratings after the release, which it's a good idea, now what you point out it's true: why did that happened?
One would think the early lower scores given were lower because they were bitter about the restrictions?... or maybe they didn't want to hype the game even more before its release? (unlikely)...
or just maybe: could it be because the reviews are just opinions done, and given (mostly) by one guy who works in the mag/site but, while official, doesn't really represent an average of the rating the community (mag/site) as a whole will give?
the exact opposite happened with Assassin's Creed, early reviews over hyped the game, while later, more in depth, reviews gave the game the rating it deserved and commented on how repetitive the game actually is.
bottom line: it's best to play (or experience) something for yourself than follow, and refer to, reviews as the one and only truth. reviews are sort of guidelines, you don't know whether the author is biased or not (not necessarily in a fanboyish-biased way of speaking)
I only use reviews to see if I might like the game or not.
If the game is scored a 7, but what is in the review states that it has gameplay that I might enjoy, I'll check it out.
Same with a perfect score, if the game doesnt appeal to me, then I wont try it.
Unlike music or movies, game reviews are generally quite accurate. Gameplay mechanics are more of an exact thing than what movies and music do. If the reviewer didnt have fun and they gave examples of why its not fun then generally means that theres a good chance it might not be a good game.
Gamespot breaks away from the accusations of bias by making MGS4 Game of the Year!
http://www.gamespot.com/best-of/game-of-the-year/index.html?page=2
MGS4 beat GTA IV, Left 4 Dead, and Fallout 3.