Game previews are lies?

[SovietSecrets]

So I was thinking about bad games and how much hype had been surrounding them like Haze and Lair and I assumed that this hype gets built off the previews of the games which mostly say that its one of the best games for the system, but wait when the actual review comes out the score is terrible. How does this work? I looked into it and found some odd differences. Sorry if this turns into a wall of text type thing, don't yell at me too much.

First Example: Lair, which came out in 07 and both previews were the near final finished game. Got a score of 4.5 from Gamespot and 4.9 from IGN.

First site I used was Gamespot.

Preview(From E3 '07): "Thankfully, Lair looks to buck this trend with stunning visuals and some clever uses of the Sixaxis controller."

Review: "You shouldn't play Lair. Not unless you have some morbid interest in experiencing what is quite possibly one of the worst control schemes ever devised."

What? The preview and the review were written by the same person as well. What could of possibly changed in that time span that made the controls so bad? I'm sure that Factor 5 and mess up the controls on purpose. Why praise and then hate?

Second site is IGN

Preview(From E3 '07):"As we've reported previously, the SIXAXIS copes easily with dogfights in open areas, but negotiating the confined chasms without being spotted is a much tougher test of the controller's precision. Thankfully it feels responsive without being twitchy and with a little practice - we're talking less than a few minutes - gliding past the spotlights becomes second nature."

Review: "However, that wonderment won't last as you wrap your head around the mandatory Sixaxis control scheme -- especially when you get to "Crossing at Dawn," the fifth mission on the main screen and the bridge battle that ruined any chance of me finding a silver lining in Lair."

Samething once again, though two different people wrote the preview and the review, the preview states controls are great and then reviews state horrible.

Second Example: Haze which came out in 08.

First is Gamespot again.

Preview(from GC '07): "As we scoured the relatively small Jungle level, our comrades did a good job of following us when we were headed in the right direction, and also of hanging back or moving away from us when they wanted us to go elsewhere. They also did their fair share of killing, but not to the point that we ever felt inferior or unnecessary in any way."

Review: "If you played any given 10-minute chunk of Haze, depending on what part of this futuristic first-person shooter you chose, you would be convinced that it was either incredibly exciting or simply dreadful. Dim-witted artificial intelligence and deeply embarrassing storytelling..."

Again differences and only by one year. I didn't mention multiplayer or story in the the preview, but both were said to be good before the review came out.

IGN once more.

Preview(from GC '07): "However, what doesn't come across in screens or even videos is how beautiful and lush the environment is. Poppies are dotted around grassy fields (which billow as you run through them) and mildew-encrusted rocks provide handy cover during fire-fights. Plus, the explosions that send clouds of black smoke billowing into the air look amazingly realistic. The guys at Free Radical were keen to point out that Haze doesn't just take place in a jungle but, after playing through several levels in the rainforest, we're certainly not complaining if the rest of the game looks this gorgeous."

Review: "...Horrible plot, weak gameplay mechanics and visuals that are truly underwhelming. Tons of visual issues abound within the game from texture tears and non-descript environments to pop-in and odd animation problems."

Again two different people writing, but again if one person says it good and is a writer whose opinion we can somewhat trust, what the hell was he thinking then when he played?

Overall those were the two best examples I was able to come up with. Now I am not saying that all game previews are bad, but I am questioning why write such a great preview when the game is only a few months away from being released and then write such a bad review of it. They called Lair amazing in the preview, but not so much in the review. What are your ideas on this? Please do correct me if I mixed up my facts on anything.

 

[starrman]

The same is true of reviews too. I've given up on almost every review/preview that comes from a magazine and not an independent reviewer. You just can't be sure that the reviewer isn't towing the company line, reacting to free merchandise or actually too busy to have played it properly and is just going by what others have said. I recently saw a review that said Fallout 3 got 100/100. I'm sorry!?!! What?!!?!

These days I tend to look for general public opinions on reviews and just ignore the previews until the games are out, only taking note of what is on its way, instead of how AMAZINGSTABULOUSTOUNDING it might be.

That's a real word you know...

 

[Good morning blues]

A preview is basically a special type of ad - the publisher doesn't need to pay as much for it, since game journalists are eager to secure previews in order to draw readership, and the publisher also has the advantage that people are going to pay attention to it for more than a split second.

I can only once remember seeing negative comments in a preview, and that was a few years back when I was subscribed to PC Gamer (the preview for Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter criticized it for getting rid of the gritty realism of the original in favor of a more mass-market-friendly arcadey setup). You might get one or two sentence-long throwaway criticisms, but the fact of the matter is that previews are little more than advertisements that the publisher doesn't have to pay for.

 

[mike1921]

Same thing as good morning blues with only once hearing negative previews, but I saw one other preview and it was on xplay(back when the fun was there) Adam said that the game (it was some JRPG, I don't know the name) looked horrible and the review even gagged that he's not allowed to say bad things about a game that isn't out yet.

built off the previews of the games which mostly say that its one of the best games for the system, but wait when the actual review comes out the score is terrible

That's what they're made to do, make the game look good.

Preview(From E3 '07): "Thankfully, Lair looks to buck this trend with stunning visuals and some clever uses of the Sixaxis controller."

Review: "You shouldn't play Lair. Not unless you have some morbid interest in experiencing what is quite possibly one of the worst control schemes ever devised."

What? The preview and the review were written by the same person as well. What could of possibly changed in that time span that made the controls so bad?

They were already that bad. The preview was just made solely out of moments where you can't tell or the guy playing the game knows how to make it look like he's not pissed as hell when the dragon goes the wrong way and act like he really meant to go there.

 

[GuerrillaClock]

The reviewing industry seems depressingly corrupt. Publishers tend to only allow previews if they have ensured, by one way or another, that the game will get a positive write-up. The magazines/websites/whatever will almost always go for this as they don't want to miss out on a story, especially if it's a pretty big release like Haze. The Kane & Lynch fiasco was an example of how dodgy reviewing games can be.

 

[searanox]

You guys might be a bit confused. There isn't much that's malicious about game previews, at least on the journalists' sides.

Previews are highly, tightly controlled by the publisher of a game because they are essentially free advertising, and highly effective advertising at that. Previews are often based on hands-off demonstrations or brief, limited gameplay demos, and expanded upon with additional information given by the developer or publisher. So, for example, if the publisher says the game will have ten cars to drive, but the journalist only has access to one, he or she will just have to take the developer's/publisher's word for it. The journalist must always keep in mind that what they are seeing is a preview build, often far from complete, prepared specifically for the press. There are plenty of cases where games come together at the last minute, and journalists want to remain optimistic. There are bugs here and there, or the framerate's spotty? Well, it's still six months to release, so things have a good chance of changing, right? I'm only seeing one car here, but they've still got time to add in the rest.

There is also a huge amount of pressure to maintain good relations. Online magazines like IGN live and die by their content and by their advertising, most of which is provided by game publishers like EA and so forth. Publishers view magazine and online coverage as a cheap and effective form of advertising, and if it risks becoming a liability, they will cease participation. Magazines like IGN know this, and if they start giving poor coverage or coverage which casts those games in a negative light, then publisher support, in the form of advertising, interviews, exclusive features, etc., may wind up being slowly but surely withdrawn. In order to stay alive, they can't risk pissing anyone off too badly. Sad but true. It's a business, and that's how business works - it's all about keeping the guy at the other end placated.

 

[starrman]

Magazines like IGN know this, and if they start giving poor coverage or coverage which casts those games in a negative light, then publisher support, in the form of advertising, interviews, exclusive features, etc., may wind up being slowly but surely withdrawn. In order to stay alive, they can't risk pissing anyone off too badly. Sad but true. It's a business, and that's how business works.

And that's why I don't buy them.

 

[Bullfrog1983]

Sometimes a game looks great in production, but is in fact a lemon. This is why I rent games a lot instead of buying them so that I don't get burned.

 

[SinisterDeath]

Lair wasn't as bad as the reviews made it out to be.

The Story/Plot However, was actually worthy of there contempt, not the controls.

 

[Wanderer1911]

I think one of the big problems is that reviewers and magazines are co-dependant. Most magazines goal is to sell magazines. The easiest way to do that is to have some hype and exclusive contents on all genres. The problem is that when one magazine gets more exclusive content about some game that?s projected to be hot, the competing magazines have to try and create more hype and exclusive content and through the following months and this goes back and forth till the release date and these games look like the best thing since sliced bread. In addition I think that through all of this a reviewer?s perception might be skewed in the process. I certainly agree that they have to keep publishers happy for advertising dollars and I also think that free shit might also be a factor. I think this is why some of the best games fall through the cracks and go unnoticed until after release. I don?t read video game magazines any more, not since Turok Evolution was supposed to be the greatest thing to ever hit the video game world.

On a similar yet un-related note I remember when one gaming magazine featured Game Shark codes to unlock all the classic Bonds on GoldenEye. This was featured on the cover and was for the April edition and was part of an April fools joke. Well in the codes section of 2 or 3 of the major competitors contained the same bogus codes. I remember all of the drama when the first company realized they had some leaks.

 

[irrelevantnugget]

Previewers automatically give a game the benefit of doubt (think sponsoring). Reviewers can crush a game at will.

 

[Susan Arendt]

A common practice in previews is to give the developer the benefit of the doubt, and to not be too harsh about any flaws because a) the game is not finished and therefore b) things could, theoretically, be fixed. It's unfair to say "this game is crap!" and perhaps affect sales when the game may very well change between the time the preview is written and the game is actually released. So there is a definite tendency to give previews a bit of glass-half-full treatment.

 

[Susan Arendt]

Absolutely true. Theoretically, previewers take the amount of time left before a game's release into consideration when writing about the game. If it's a year, that's one thing, but if it's a month...the game's as good as in the store.

 

[Princeps senatus]

"I have this great cake that I'm making, it's almost ready and I'm going to show it to you. A friend of mine is going to take a bite and tell you more about it." "Well as you can see there is a special coating of chocolate on top which is really going to change the Cake business. Might I even say Revolutionize the very sense of eating a cake."

Finally the cake is baked and a reviewer gets a taste.

"This taste like shit..."

Now transfer this to games.

 

[Pimppeter2]

Gamespot does that alot, Dont know bout IGN

 

[Yog Sothoth]

Game previews are the devil. Don't believe the hype. GameInformer and GameSpot.com are particularly egregious in this area....

Thank god for the Escapist!

 

[JokerGrin]

What I despise are trailers that are just CGI rendering with no gameplay footage at all. This just demonstrates absolutely nothing about the game to me, so much so that I refuse to watch non-gameplay demos/previews/trailers.

 

[Zetona]

Preview(From E3 '07): "Thankfully, Lair looks to buck this trend with stunning visuals and some clever uses of the Sixaxis controller."

Review: "You shouldn't play Lair. Not unless you have some morbid interest in experiencing what is quite possibly one of the worst control schemes ever devised."

What? The preview and the review were written by the same person as well. What could of possibly changed in that time span that made the controls so bad?

They were already that bad. The preview was just made solely out of moments where you can't tell or the guy playing the game knows how to make it look like he's not pissed as hell when the dragon goes the wrong way and act like he really meant to go there.

Probably the more you play it, the more glaring the flaws become. In a 20-minute demo, you might attribute going off course to inexperience or it being an early build. It's sort of like how the controls in LittleBigPlanet worked just fine until the penultimate level or so, at which point they became too unresponsive for the set-pieces. I still haven't passed that level.

 

[Calax]

I think another reason you get the glowing previews is because sometimes they are watching one of the devs play it, and developers generally know the controls A LOT better than your average gamer (like the sony guys using sixaxsis to control everything. They know how to manipulate the controls to get the desired effect.)

 

[Social Pariah]

Previewing concepts, playing test builds designed to look awesome for 5 minutes.

Reviewing reality where such things are made to span entire games.