No early Doom review copies for anyone

[tuneguru]

Lord_Kane said:

No review copies? well game is going to be shit, cancelling preorder now.

Lol

[tuneguru]

Im sure there are a few good reasons, but no doubt there is a huge day one patch that will change/fix certain parts of the game so they won't want an unpatched game getting reviewed. Also early reviews have a big impact these days, any negative reviews will be seized upon by braindead haters who will write their own negative reviews etc, and it can snowball just like the steam fiasco...

I think its wise to let people make up there own minds first.

[Tracer]

"What?! No reviews?! It must be bad."

Spoken like a true sheep; can't give something a chance unless they hear from some critic that it's good.

[victorboris1]

Lord_Kane said:

No review copies? well game is going to be shit, cancelling preorder now.

Git gud scrub, I already canceled my preorder ages ago when I've heard they weren't using sprites for the enemies and a 2.5D engine. :^)

[LittleBurger]

victorboris1 said:

Git gud scrub, I already canceled my preorder ages ago when I've heard they weren't using sprites for the enemies and a 2.5D engine. :^)

To be honest, I'd actually like them to go back to a 2.5D fps game at some point (something about that style just seems so cool to me).

[Chest Rockwell]

TraceOfSpades said:

"What?! No reviews?! It must be bad."

Spoken like a true sheep; can't give something a chance unless they hear from some critic that it's good.

Yea I'm sure bethseda is holding back review copies cause the game is so 10/10 critics wouldn't be able to handle it

[Chubzdoomer]

LittleBurger said:

To be honest, I'd actually like them to go back to a 2.5D fps game at some point (something about that style just seems so cool to me).

How about sprites in a 3D world!?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2yPfWXPIs0

[Tracer]

mistercow said:

Yea I'm sure bethseda is holding back review copies cause the game is so 10/10 critics wouldn't be able to handle it

Fuck critics, dude. Judge the game yourself.

[Chest Rockwell]

TraceOfSpades said:

Fuck critics, dude. Judge the game yourself.

I don't even care about critics opinion. It's the fact that they aren't giving it to them at all what is worrying.

[Neutrino]

Enough promo material and detailed info was released so far so that everyone can form reasonable expectations about the way this game is going to turn out.
If you still need someone else to tell you what to think about it or whether or not it is worth your money and time, especially after I've read so many comments around here saying how reviews are irrelevant, then I really don't know what to say...

[qdash]

I'm not surprised at all, because Wolfenstein was highly rated game but still no 90+, negative hype around MP can ruin final score to 78-75 or something.

[Otus]

Until today i really don´t know why Wolfenstein becomes so much good ratings. I would shred this game to pieces if i had to review it. So for me, a high rated game by critics and a game i have fun with are often not the same. I dont know if it is true that devs can buy their ratings (some people say so). But i will make my own rating at friday.

Someone mentioned a few posts before that they might fix some issues with a day one patch. Maybe the patch isn´t ready yet and this would have a influence on the rating?

[Deatheye]

Otus said:

Until today i really don´t know why Wolfenstein becomes so much good ratings. I would shred this game to pieces if i had to review it.

and what exactly is so bad in wolfenstein? please explain

[Kelzam]

Is there even a point to reviews anymore with all the edgy pseudo-reviewers these days trying desperately to be the Howard Stern "shock jock" of the gaming world? It's hard to be bothered by this fact when frankly there's a huge lack of any integrity or opinions on games anymore that isn't being exaggerated to sensationalize one's opinion for the sake of more views/watchers/subscribers. As evidenced by this thread, whether there's reviews or not, some asshats are going to cancel their order as evidence of the game "sucking", and if you're that easily swayed then you're probably impressionable enough to throw a tantrum because someone that barely qualifies as an intelligent lifeform can't find their way out of a dark corner and deems it "bad".

[Otus]

Deatheye said:

and what exactly is so bad in wolfenstein? please explain

Should i write a review now?

What if i try it revers. I tell you that Wolfenstein had its best moments when it just let you play the game. It had some great parts, and that was when you could simply blast through some waves of Nazis. Besides that i disliked everything else. Strating with the pointless NPC´s i really dont care about, the sidequests, the pathetic "stealth" parts, that the game could not decide between thrash or serious, the pipe structur of the levels. And what was the "old school" part at the game, i havent found it. Because you could collect medikits and armor? Because you have only a limited health regeneration?

Feel free to hate me for this but i really disliked this game. I finished it once but i hadeto force myself to do so.

[Deatheye]

Otus said:

Should i write a review now?

What if i try it revers. I tell you that Wolfenstein had its best moments when it just let you play the game. It had some great parts, and that was when you could simply blast through some waves of Nazis. Besides that i disliked everything else. Strating with the pointless NPC´s i really dont care about, the sidequests, the pathetic "stealth" parts, that the game could not decide between thrash or serious, the pipe structur of the levels. And what was the "old school" part at the game, i havent found it. Because you could collect medikits and armor? Because you have only a limited health regeneration?

Feel free to hate me for this but i really disliked this game. I finished it once but i hadeto force myself to do so.

I agree with the pipe levels, the rest is only your subjective perception - which should not influence a games rating

[Otus]

OK, you are right. I switch off my perception, buy the game again and like it as it meant to be. Life could be so easy.

[Deatheye]

Otus said:

OK, you are right. I switch off my perception, buy the game again and like it as it meant to be. Life could be so easy.

that's not the point, you can love or hate it, it's absolutely fine - but when a person reviews a game, he must be as objective as possible

[AnonimVio]

Deatheye said:

that's not the point, you can love or hate it, it's absolutely fine - but when a person reviews a game, he must be as objective as possible

There is no such thing as an "Objective Review".

EVERY REVIEW IS SUBJECTIVE.

[Deatheye]

AnonimVio said:

There is no such thing as an "Objective Review".

EVERY REVIEW IS SUBJECTIVE.

as objective as possible

[AnonimVio]

Deatheye said:

as objective as possible

That means as closely to your opinion as possible?

[HavoX]

Deatheye said:

and what exactly is so bad in wolfenstein? please explain

Deatheye said:

that's not the point, you can love or hate it, it's absolutely fine - but when a person reviews a game, he must be as objective as possible

Deatheye said:

as objective as possible

Capitalize the first letter of the first word in a sentence and end that sentence with a period.

Just some friendly advice. :)

[Otus]

Deatheye said:

that's not the point, you can love or hate it, it's absolutely fine - but when a person reviews a game, he must be as objective as possible

Thats right. But how could you review these aspects then? I mean you can measure framerate, resolution and maybe if the game is graphical "up to date". But the points i am refering to are, at least in my opinion, essential for the fun of the game. And isn´t this also a major part of a review? I mean, if i run after blinky collectibles and kill enemies in a stealth mission who are either almost deaf or are standing miracously with their back to me, i feel treatened like a dump person.

I am not a professional reviewer, maybe thats why i am missing the point. And maybe i am unfair to Wolfenstein too. What annoys me at this game goes beyond the game itself. But on the other hand it manifests in a product like this.

[Linguica]

Deatheye said:

I agree with the pipe levels, the rest is only your subjective perception - which should not influence a games rating

Actually a person's subjective experience is literally the basis for every game review ever written

[Deatheye]

AnonimVio said:

That means as closely to your opinion as possible?

can't you read? it means as objective as possible

[Deatheye]

Linguica said:

Actually a person's subjective experience is literally the basis for every game review ever written

the difference between a good and a bad review is when the reviewer tries to be as objective as possible

[TheGamePhilosophe]

Deatheye said:

the difference between a good and a bad review is when the reviewer tries to be as objective as possible

To be "as objective as possible" you would have to stick to a cold description of the formal features of game, without any hint as to their quality/feel. For example, Doom is a first-person-shooter. You move your character forward, backward, and side-to-side. You can also turn your character clockwise and counterclockwise.

Once upon a time, this was known as an "instruction manual." And this is what you are asking for to be the standard for "reviews."

[Li'l devil]

^^And that reminds me of this video: https://youtu.be/eMU1_-_4WKg?t=57s (an example of 100% objective review; start watching at 0:58; that video made me laugh)

[VGamingJunkie]

The whole point of a review is to be subjective, it's all about opinion. What I think people are sick of, though, is reviews that aren't honest and fueled by things like ad revenue and backroom deals. It's not that reviews should be objective, it's that they should be as non-biased and honest as possibly can be. I want their opinions on each game to be how they personally felt after playing, not how the game company that made the game decided they should feel about it. I'm sick of well known franchises consistently getting perfect scores, that reeks of bull crap and the worst part is the fanboys are complacent in it, they will actually rage if their game doesn't get a perfect 10/10. I'm sure that many people here will cry foul if some well known reviewer gives Doom 2016 a score of anything less than 95-100%.

[MrHofmann]

TheGamePhilosophe said:

To be "as objective as possible" you would have to stick to a cold description of the formal features of game, without any hint as to their quality/feel. For example, Doom is a first-person-shooter. You move your character forward, backward, and side-to-side. You can also turn your character clockwise and counterclockwise.

Once upon a time, this was known as an "instruction manual." And this is what you are asking for to be the standard for "reviews."

TheGamePhilosophe said:

What I mean is that they write about the game in a way that tries to excite the reader about the product, rather than say, describe it in more objective or measured terms.

Lines like "The screams of countless demons echo throughout the chamber” or "In the blink of an eye, the area is crawling with enemies" is stuff I'd expect to find in a pulp novel that is trying to draw the reader into its fantasy, not a journalistic description of a video game. Also, "I almost feel like a parkour runner navigating the sea of demons" made me cringe. It is literally a regurgitation of id's own promotional materials.

I forget the exact person, but it reminds me of the instance when a game journalist was outed on a podcast for talking about MGS4 in the terms "recommended" by Konami at their review boot camp. GI is the only one with this preview. And you've got to ask yourself, why that is, and how they got it. Promises of favorable coverage and minimum review scores are, sadly, not unheard of in this industry.

I don't mind at all if his overall impression is positive. But this publication has written a number of articles (this one included) that makes me doubtful of their integrity.