# Ubisoft caught fixing reviews



## ADF (Nov 8, 2009)

http://www.destructoid.com/ubisoft-demands-high-assassin-s-creed-2-review-score--154456.phtml

Basically they were demanding high scores or they wouldn't let reviewers have a review copy of the game.


----------



## Vaelarsa (Nov 8, 2009)

Lol, insecure major game companies.

Although every time I hear of instances like this, it begs the question...
How many sites / magazines / other media sources DO sell out to insecure and / or lazy game companies?

Although this is why I like demos, as opposed to just going _"Well, this info source says it's great. Time to waste my money!"_


----------



## Duality Jack (Nov 8, 2009)

If you have to demand a high score you must be afraid of your game in fact being shit and need the boost XD


----------



## Tycho (Nov 8, 2009)

Is it a good thing or a bad thing that we don't hear more often from the press about these companies' attempts at fixing reviews?


----------



## Captain Howdy (Nov 8, 2009)

Damn, I remember shtuff like this. I typically wait a week, after the game is released (unless it's a game I REALLY want, like Left 4 Dead), and google "Real (insert game name) reviews", and end up finding...real reviews. 

I'm not always looking for a huge game-bashing website, but I want to know what's wrong with the game, not what makes it the game of the year - That's for me to decide for myself.


----------



## Kangamutt (Nov 8, 2009)

Wow. What a bunch of asshats. Good on Computer Bild Spiele for having some fucking integrity.


----------



## CryoScales (Nov 8, 2009)

Its Ubisoft. You feel surprised if they don't beg a review site to do it.


----------



## Runefox (Nov 8, 2009)

This is pretty old news - I'm fairly sure most game companies are like that, and hell, remember what happened with Eidos and Gamespot when Kane and Lynch got a bad review? Reviewer got the axe.


----------



## DragonRift (Nov 8, 2009)

Jesus, they pulled the same crap with the first game.  I remember them giving *EGM* flack for their negative buzz over the E3 demo back in 2007, and even threatened to pull their ads from the magazine.

Didn't stop good old Crispin Boyer from giving it a pulverizing score of 4.5/10 later that November.  *chuckles*

I don't see the point of this though.  Sure, not everyone liked *Assassin's Creed*, but I happened to love it to death, and it's simply a matter of a gamer's opinion.  Movie studios pull the same garbage by holding back pre-screened flicks so critics won't bombard them with negative reviews before release date.

The problem with this mentality?  Most people will buy a game or watch a movie regardless of what a paid critic says about it.


----------



## Kommodore (Nov 8, 2009)

After Spore, I finally understood how _shit_ reviews actually are. Some of my favorite games have gotten pretty bad reviews and vice versa. Developers and publishers have been bribing reviewers for the longest time so this should come as no surprise to anyone. The best thing to do is to look at forums and read normal people's thoughts on a game, and preferably play a demo. Anything else is just silly. 
_
*has a bug up his ass about reviewers _


----------



## Vintage (Nov 8, 2009)

yeah after EGM was canned by ziff-davis i stopped reading game reviews altogether. i had a good idea a lot of this was going on even when they broke the kane and lynch story, even if nothing really conclusive came from the whole debacle



Tycho said:


> Is it a good thing or a bad thing that we don't hear more often from the press about these companies' attempts at fixing reviews?



it's a bad thing.

edit: well, it's good if you have a story like this, where the reviewer actually stands up to the fucking publisher instead of tucking its proverbial tail between its legs and guaranteeing a 5/5 FUN FACTOR


----------



## lilEmber (Nov 8, 2009)

Doesn't matter, currently they're making the best games on the market.


----------



## TehSean (Nov 8, 2009)

All of them do.

They do it in a sneaky way by simply not mentioning cons, or diminishing other reviews or worries such as: No access to modding or dedicated servers is OK or, simply fail to mention the consequences of not supporting a modding community or dedicated servers on which to run custom content.


----------



## Fay V (Nov 9, 2009)

I haven't read a published review in a long time not for deciding games. I can't afford to buy games as they come out anyway, so it's easy to just go on sites like this and see what real people thought of the game.


----------



## Bobmuffins (Nov 9, 2009)

CommodoreKitty said:


> After Spore, I finally understood how _shit_ reviews actually are. Some of my favorite games have gotten pretty bad reviews and vice versa. Developers and publishers have been bribing reviewers for the longest time so this should come as no surprise to anyone. The best thing to do is to look at forums and read normal people's thoughts on a game, and preferably play a demo. Anything else is just silly.
> _
> *has a bug up his ass about reviewers _



Pretty much this.

Spore was supposed to be great- it wasn't really.

Mirror's Edge was flagged as a mediocre game- it was one of the funnest games I've played in a long time.

Back on topic though- 

What leads a company to do this? Well, obviously 'get moar sales cuz of good revews'... but if a game is flagged as great, and it's not, people will know about it. Then due to the reviews it got, the companies will be compelled to make a sequel, then no one will buy it, and they'll be stuck again. If it gets real reviews, and it gets flagged as middle, yet people still buy it, it'll get a sequel which will have actual sales instead of just those few who actually agreed with the reviewers.


----------



## Stratelier (Nov 9, 2009)

ADF said:


> Basically they were demanding high scores or they wouldn't let reviewers have a review copy of the game.



And to think of whatever scandal ensued over Sony's handling of _Lair_....

I'm not sure if this is related, but I have a major aversion to 10-point scales, because apparently 7 is the new 5....


----------



## CaptainCool (Nov 9, 2009)

i didnt expect anything else from ubisoft...
99% of their games suck, especially the "casual" BS and the tom clancy rubbish!
i can imagine why they demand scores...


----------



## Trpdwarf (Nov 9, 2009)

Tell me this isn't news to you? Gamestop's main magazine you get with their "EDGE" card does the same shit. Gives good reviews because the game companies have a boot up their ass.


----------



## Zero_Point (Nov 9, 2009)

X-Play's been bad about this ever since they were took over by G4, or if not they sure are acting like it. It's the main reason I don't like that network anymore (that and they killed The Screensavers >:C).
Though when Adam gets all defensive when someone calls him out on it is hilarious. :V


----------



## Tycho (Nov 9, 2009)

Wonder how long before peer reviews become completely unreliable (not like they're terribly reliable to begin with).


----------



## Kryn (Nov 9, 2009)

This is why I don't read game reviews anymore. The first assassin's creed wasn't that good either. I remember GTA 4 getting a perfect 10 on some sites, a score it undoubtedly didn't deserve. It's all just marketing, and all marketing is sprinkled with a bunch of bullshit to make you think whatever the product is is the greatest thing ever.


----------



## Tycho (Nov 9, 2009)

Kryn said:


> This is why I don't read game reviews anymore. The first assassin's creed wasn't that good either. I remember GTA 4 getting a perfect 10 on some sites, a score it undoubtedly didn't deserve. It's all just marketing, and all marketing is sprinkled with a bunch of bullshit to make you think whatever the product is is the greatest thing ever.



GTA4 didn't deserve a 10, no fucking way.  Let's START with the fact that the controls make me want to CHOKE A BITCH.  And then let's get into the fact that it's ABSOLUTELY NOTHING NEW and actually LESS THAN THOSE THAT CAME BEFORE IT.

GTA's tired.  They really need to either find a creative way to reintroduce it to a jaded gaming world or can the franchise.


----------



## webkilla (Nov 9, 2009)

wasn't gamespot busted for 'selling' good reviews as well - on Cain & Lynch?


----------



## Armaetus (Nov 9, 2009)

Bobmuffins said:


> What leads a company to do this?



Greed. Plain old greedy-mine-mine-mine capitalism.


----------



## Lazydabear (Nov 9, 2009)

You want a good example of a bad game that got good review was the new Dragon Age: Orgins the game is still gliching on Xbox 360 I will admit it still fun the problem is its still having problems.


----------



## Rifter (Nov 9, 2009)

This is nothing especially new. Almost every company in the business demands that reviewers withhold their reviews 'til launch day if they're below a certain score. They post them anyway, the company pulls advertising.


----------



## Riptor (Nov 9, 2009)

Honestly, has Ubisoft ever actually made anything good lately, except for that new Prince of Persia last year. Especially all those fucking Rabbids games. Rayman is dead.


----------



## Armaetus (Nov 9, 2009)

Rifter said:


> This is nothing especially new. Almost every company in the business demands that reviewers withhold their reviews 'til launch day if they're below a certain score. They post them anyway, the company pulls advertising.



Gotta love free market capitalism, don't we..


----------



## Digitalpotato (Nov 9, 2009)

I knew it. I always wondered why they were more in-depth with games that had huge amounts of advertisement.


----------



## CryoScales (Nov 9, 2009)

Well I always knew games weren't free of Capitalisms hold. But somehow I knew that they would go the same way movies do.

Its a big reason I check out Rotten Tomatoes when I want movie criticism.


----------



## goose (Nov 11, 2009)

All medias lose their touch when they get too big/too old. Just look at... Well... All of them.


----------



## Sinjo (Nov 11, 2009)

Proof?


----------



## Carenath (Nov 11, 2009)

Stratadrake said:


> And to think of whatever scandal ensued over Sony's handling of _Lair_....
> 
> I'm not sure if this is related, but I have a major aversion to 10-point scales, because apparently 7 is the new 5....


Lair is a prime example of why I never took game reviews as gospel. Critics whined about unplayability, yet I found the way they employed the Sixxis controller to be rather intuitive and I liked the game, in spite of the negative criticism. (Lair was also one of the reasons I bought the PS3 over the 360).


----------



## Bambi (Nov 12, 2009)

CommodoreKitty said:


> After Spore, I finally understood how _shit_ reviews actually are. Some of my favorite games have gotten pretty bad reviews and vice versa. Developers and publishers have been bribing reviewers for the longest time so this should come as no surprise to anyone. The best thing to do is to look at forums and read normal people's thoughts on a game, and preferably play a demo. Anything else is just silly.
> _
> *has a bug up his ass about reviewers _


For the love of god, this.

What gets me upset about these reviewers is that they use their opinions about the gaming industry to help control the consumer market. This isn't something that's completely new, but anyone with a brain should have noticed something about the reviews;_ namely a pattern with their content._ "Suck up", is that the right term? 

Quite simply, we're seeing the editors of leading game magazines and websites play soft-ball with that publishers favorite release, and almost all of the most hyped picks will be played up with good scores regardless if that game suffers from significant flaws.

"OH WOW EGM TECH GUY WHO WRITES TEH OP ED LIKES obscure_game_1, obscure_game_2, obscure_game_3, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2; I MUST NOA GET MW2 BECAUSE SUAVE LOOKING GUY WITH A SPUNKY GOATEE LIKES IT."


----------



## CryoScales (Nov 12, 2009)

Bambi said:


> Quite simply, we're seeing the editors of leading game magazines and websites play soft-ball with that publishers favorite release, and almost all of the most hyped picks will be played up with good scores regardless if that game suffers from significant flaws.



Its because, even though there are significant flaws. They were still waiting for that game for a while due to the hype. Of course their judgment is a little flawed as they expect its supposed to be the best game of all time.

Bias is something that is very hard to loose when judging something. Its a natural human thing to feel bias toward things, as it helps us control our judgment of humans and the environment in which we live in. Getting rid of it in order to recommend something to hundreds to thousands of people, and affect them spending money, takes practice.

It's a big reason I do research on games before purchasing them and very rarely buy on release date. (Unless it is a game I fully trust that the developer actually knows what they are doing and is delivering a masterpiece. Case in point: Mass Effect 2). I try and study other people's reviews to see past their bias and of course. Watch a few trailers and Youtube videos to see the gameplay. I found many people simply trust one site's review and just purchase a crappy game based off of it. It is impossible to be neutral and unbiased for everything you review because you are human, you like to exaggerated and choose what you report on.


----------



## Envy (Nov 13, 2009)

DragonRift said:


> The problem with this mentality?  Most people will buy a game or watch a movie regardless of what a paid critic says about it.



No, there are those that listen to reviews and have that influence what game they buy. Though everyone has those games that you look at and go 'I'll buy this and love it.'

The real problem is it renders the entire review process moot, trivialises the profession, encourages marketing over substance... And so forth.

Maybe this is why I like obscure 7/10 games.


----------



## Digitalpotato (Nov 15, 2009)

CryoScales said:


> Its because, even though there are significant flaws. They were still waiting for that game for a while due to the hype. *Of course their judgment is a little flawed as they expect its supposed to be the best game of all time.*



This is why a lot of people are "Disappointed" With games...I don't expect games to be the best game of all time anymore. If you expect it to be better than your favourite game that you have granted "Immunity to criticism", then you really really really shouldn't be playing any more games because you'll be disappointed because guess what? Random new releases aren't going to be _exactly_ like that game you enjoyed. And even if it was you'd probably complain that it's nothing new.


----------



## Slade (Nov 18, 2009)

If you think this is bad, you've obviously never read an edition of GameInformer. A recent issue called Epic Mickey "one of the most highly anticipated titles this year". I've never even heard of it, and I haven't heard anything of it since.

It's still not as bad as EA's little paid-protest over a shitty DMC rip-off Dante's Inferno.


----------

