The NDA

 Pages PREV 1 2 3
 

FelixG:

Madara XIII:
Le bro snip

Cracked IS awesome, but no I havent been reading it...lately.

I prefer the story... as much as there ever is one when it comes to Resident Evil... of the movie series over the game series, I just never had fun with the games.

At least the movies haven't had Napoleon in them...

image

...Yet...

So yeah...

image

Ok in terms of Story consistency at least the movies do try to stay somewhat linear where as the games branch off into so many arcs and it only goes to convolute the whole Umbrella/Tricell conspiracy to the point of nonsensical.

Although I gotta give RE 1-3 it's props for trying to stay within the boundaries of its own reality.

So with that I just gotta say...Good point. No sense in arguing further. Idk maybe it's just because I was bored to the point of wanting to know EVERYTHING there was about Resident Evil that drove my bias towards the game.

NOTE: I still don't like the movies. And Im somewhat enraged after they fucked up Wesker's role ever so horribly.

So.....Bro fist?

image

I'm happy with the demo. Chris section was kinda "meh", Leon and Jake sections were fun. Really don't see why people are getting so up in arms.

DVS BSTrD:
Didn't seem to apply to Conan


I wonder why?

They pulled it so I think it DOES entail him too.

I don't understand this comic... how many of those saying the game is shit have actually played it?

I've played the demo several times, and I love it. At first I didn't think too much of it (average) but once I discovered all the little nuances and cool things you can do, I'm really excited for it.

I kinda wanna try the game...it seams to be a lot of fun.

Imp Emissary:
Why would they show the game to anyone if they don't want you talking about it?

Also, why would anyone agree that they can't talk about the game before they get to see it?

If I sound Whiny or ignorant I apologize. I just really would like to know how people get into these situations. It doesn't seem good for either side.

Well company A wants to have a launch day review of a game. If they can only buy the game when it comes out how can they have a review ready? They can't. So they sign an NDA with the publisher and the publisher sends them a review copy the game early enough that they can have their review ready to publish on launch day.

Well, this is where the power of the publisher to tweak reviews comes in. They will often include a "review check list" of game features they want the reviewer to talk about, sometimes even things they don't want the reviewer to talk about. Sometimes they will even include a range they feel the score should fall in. If you deviate too far from these "suggestions" you may not get an early review copy of their next AAA game.

Since AAA game reviews bring massive page hits, ad revenue and even new readers this is a huge deal for sites like IGN, Gamespot, even The Escapist and many others. In fact you should read about Jeff Gerstmann, who lost his job for giving a certain game "too low" of a score.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Gerstmann

So it really is a sordid world in this so called "games journalism". Not all sites fall prey to this, I believe that The PA Report does not nor Ars Technica's play section. There are other, mostly smaller sites that are not beholden to publishers in this way.

Mygaffer:

Imp Emissary:
Why would they show the game to anyone if they don't want you talking about it?

Also, why would anyone agree that they can't talk about the game before they get to see it?

If I sound Whiny or ignorant I apologize. I just really would like to know how people get into these situations. It doesn't seem good for either side.

Well company A wants to have a launch day review of a game. If they can only buy the game when it comes out how can they have a review ready? They can't. So they sign an NDA with the publisher and the publisher sends them a review copy the game early enough that they can have their review ready to publish on launch day.

Well, this is where the power of the publisher to tweak reviews comes in. They will often include a "review check list" of game features they want the reviewer to talk about, sometimes even things they don't want the reviewer to talk about. Sometimes they will even include a range they feel the score should fall in. If you deviate too far from these "suggestions" you may not get an early review copy of their next AAA game.

Since AAA game reviews bring massive page hits, ad revenue and even new readers this is a huge deal for sites like IGN, Gamespot, even The Escapist and many others. In fact you should read about Jeff Gerstmann, who lost his job for giving a certain game "too low" of a score.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Gerstmann

So it really is a sordid world in this so called "games journalism". Not all sites fall prey to this, I believe that The PA Report does not nor Ars Technica's play section. There are other, mostly smaller sites that are not beholden to publishers in this way.

I remember that thing with Mr. Gerstmann. That was lame.
Wait. Does this mean they can't give a day one negative review if they agree to this? That doesn't sound right.

Imp Emissary:

Mygaffer:

Imp Emissary:
Why would they show the game to anyone if they don't want you talking about it?

Also, why would anyone agree that they can't talk about the game before they get to see it?

If I sound Whiny or ignorant I apologize. I just really would like to know how people get into these situations. It doesn't seem good for either side.

Well company A wants to have a launch day review of a game. If they can only buy the game when it comes out how can they have a review ready? They can't. So they sign an NDA with the publisher and the publisher sends them a review copy the game early enough that they can have their review ready to publish on launch day.

Well, this is where the power of the publisher to tweak reviews comes in. They will often include a "review check list" of game features they want the reviewer to talk about, sometimes even things they don't want the reviewer to talk about. Sometimes they will even include a range they feel the score should fall in. If you deviate too far from these "suggestions" you may not get an early review copy of their next AAA game.

Since AAA game reviews bring massive page hits, ad revenue and even new readers this is a huge deal for sites like IGN, Gamespot, even The Escapist and many others. In fact you should read about Jeff Gerstmann, who lost his job for giving a certain game "too low" of a score.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Gerstmann

So it really is a sordid world in this so called "games journalism". Not all sites fall prey to this, I believe that The PA Report does not nor Ars Technica's play section. There are other, mostly smaller sites that are not beholden to publishers in this way.

I remember that thing with Mr. Gerstmann. That was lame.
Wait. Does this mean they can't give a day one negative review if they agree to this? That doesn't sound right.

Have you heard of the 7-9 review scale? Go through the review scores of any major site, like some of those listed above. You will see the vast majority of titles fall into that range. This is one of the side effects of the current system.

Basically you can still write a negative review, just be prepared for the consequences, which go so far as losing your job.

hmm i understand complaing about game play , but i am trying to figure out why people thought this series was horror in the first place, when wesker and umbrella became a a thing, resident evil and horror lost each others phone numbers

 Pages PREV 1 2 3

Reply to Thread

Your account does not have posting rights. If you feel this is in error, please contact an administrator. (ID# 54106)