Post by: Bishman on October 16, 2003, 08:36:45 PM
"I just got off the phone with Mr. Eggebrecht, and it turns out that the build that GI reviewed is far from the final (in fact, it is as much as 20 builds away from the final). When I told him the build I had in my possession, (labeled 'review copy' by Lucasarts) he was shocked, and called certain levels outright unplayable. It seems someone at Lucasarts accidentally sent out this incredibly early build, and Factor5 is currently working to rectify this.
Unfortunately, most print media has already gone to the presses, so print reviews of RS3 will be grossly inaccurate." -- AMUSIX
Post by: mouse_clicker on October 16, 2003, 08:39:37 PM
Post by: akdaman1 on October 16, 2003, 09:09:46 PM
Post by: Infernal Monkey on October 17, 2003, 01:53:09 AM
Post by: PIAC on October 17, 2003, 01:56:34 AM
Post by: nitsu niflheim on October 17, 2003, 03:46:14 AM
Quote
Why would you go ahead and print a review if some of the levels don't even friggin' play? THIS GAME SEEMS BROKEN, WHO CARES, LETS JUST QUICKLY REVIEW IT AND GO BACK TO PETTING OUR MONEY HATS!
Tomb Raider: Angel of Darkness anyone? Being sarcastic to reviewing games that are unplayable. Also the Matrix game.
Post by: Bill Aurion on October 17, 2003, 03:58:34 AM
But it does make me feel a whole lot better
Post by: GoldShadow1 on October 17, 2003, 08:12:35 AM
I think your taking Eggebrecht's words too seriously - when he says "unplayable" I think he's referring to the frame rate - you can still play them, they just impair the gameplay too much to be worth the bother. Considering how many games have places like this, I don't think it's a stretch to assume it's the final build. You really can't blame the reviewers for reviewing something labeled as the review copy, come on.
Post by: egman on October 17, 2003, 08:51:57 AM
The game will sell well on the license and the technical mastery alone, but that will be in spite of what I predict is going to be reviews mostly in the 7 range. It'll do good business, but I'd imagine that Factor 5 will feel somewhat disappointed with scores after really trying to give gamers more bang for the buck.
Post by: SuperLink666 on October 17, 2003, 09:12:44 AM
Post by: AdvancedGamer on October 17, 2003, 09:25:43 AM
Post by: Uglydot on October 17, 2003, 10:01:58 AM
Post by: akdaman1 on October 17, 2003, 05:35:41 PM
Post by: Perfect Cell on October 17, 2003, 07:01:03 PM
Post by: mouse_clicker on October 17, 2003, 07:34:44 PM
Post by: Grey Ninja on October 17, 2003, 07:36:01 PM
Post by: mouse_clicker on October 17, 2003, 07:43:46 PM
Personally, though, I'd like to know why GI is so sure they have the actual final release- obviously it would say that on the disc, but how can they prove it's true?
::EDIT:: I was right, here's a quote from Billy:
Quote
Our builds that we played were review builds (it says Review in bright red lettering on the disc), and were probably the same exact builds as EGM, Play, and the rest.
Of COURSE it says "Review" on it- if this whole ordeal is true, the idiot who sent the early build out AS the review copy wouldn't have left in labeled. I don't blame them for reviewing, since for all they knew it WAS the final build, but if Mr. Eggebrecht is telling the truth, I don't see how they can defend themselves, especially with evidence like that.
Post by: Koopa Troopa on October 17, 2003, 08:11:42 PM
Post by: Gibdo Master on October 17, 2003, 08:20:59 PM
Post by: Ian Sane on October 17, 2003, 09:28:20 PM
This "mix up" could be real and it couldn't be. It doesn't really matter for me anyway since I pre-ordered it so if it sucks I'm stuck with it. I didn't really have any problems with the demo except for the aiming on the land based levels which seemed a little wonky. I've gotten used to it but I could see some reviewers criticizing the controls if the aiming and moving is the same on the final copy. In the reviews written thus far what are the complaints?
Post by: Deguello on October 18, 2003, 02:54:13 AM
This doesn't surprise me at all nowadays. EGM has been known to review Beta copies as final products. And just recently, Gamespot had a review pulled because they reviewed some MMORPG (Savage Realm, or something like that) after only playing it for 2 hours. How we know this? The reviewer gave it a bad score and the company retaliated with log records showing the reviewer's account was only logged on for a very short amount of time. Now, I'm not saying the game was perfect, nor am I saying that there is an amount of time you MUST play a game before you say it's crap, but this guy is PAID to write reviews for games, and it is quite obvious that he did not play it that much, and is therefore unfit to review it.
On ther other hand, MMORPGs are very difficult to review, becuase you gan get attached to them and then you now have a sorta skewed vision of the game. And yes, there is something to be said about the deadlines involved in the game magazine journo biz. But I don't find that to be an excuse for compromising your journalistic integrity. It is better to be late with the truth than early with a lie.
Post by: mouse_clicker on October 18, 2003, 07:43:54 AM
Man, Billy got all pissy and locked the thread right after I posted on Game Informer.
I sent him a private message- I hope he responds.
Post by: ThePerm on October 18, 2003, 08:58:53 AM
