Should be quoted for the new page.Here is the 2nd half of the Peace Walker Famitsu scandal:
"Today, Kotaku Japan was also contacted by Konami, the game's publisher. Konami has uninvited Kotaku Japan from a launch event for Peace Walker — an event that the site had previously been invited to. Apparently, the issue here is also this post over Famitsu conflict of interest. However, Famitsu's review seems to be a conflict of interest. The publication does not appear trustworthy." Just read the thing.
Famitsu is beneath even toilet paper and yes. I have read pdfs of the magazine. It´s basically Nintendo Power of the 80s, highly focused on previews and about as untrustworthy.
It is the reason Edge Magazine didn't release a review for Death Stranding. The reviewer disliked it so much that he didn't manage to finish it.Wow. I wonder how I didn't hear about that...that seems like a bit of a reach.
It is the reason Edge Magazine didn't release a review for Death Stranding. The reviewer disliked it so much that he didn't manage to finish it.
I have no idea about the particulars of the embargo deal, but Edge's reviewer has stated that Edge wouldn't release a review any time soon.So could those people release reviews after the game is out in retail?
It is the reason Edge Magazine didn't release a review for Death Stranding. The reviewer disliked it so much that he didn't manage to finish it.
If anything, them being unable to finish it because they disliked it so much was a review in itself, just not a scored review.how professional...do they only have one reviewer? not a good look at all for such a magazine
I mean, reviewers aren't exactly professionally obligated to finish and review Death Stranding.how professional...do they only have one reviewer? not a good look at all for such a magazine
Depends on how they received the game, I guess. If you signed the embargo you got the game about a month early with the clear message that you're intended to use this time to finish the game. If you didn't sign you weren't able to get the code.So could those people release reviews after the game is out in retail?
A game being so bad that someone doesn't want to finish it is a knock on the quality of the game, not the reviewer.how professional...do they only have one reviewer? not a good look at all for such a magazine
what's unprofessional about not liking a game enough to finish it? should they force their writers to finish the game? considering they review most big games, this one is on DS, not edge.how professional...do they only have one reviewer? not a good look at all for such a magazine
Do people here actually take The Game Awards seriously? Damn we still have a long way to go in this medium.
I mean, even if they didn't appear and the game got a 40/40 nobody takes Famitsu seriously, so...
I've noticed that many people are very intense, serious and angry about really small, not very important things when the big issues they should care about are given very little care.This thread has some Very. Intense. People. in it. Some of ya'll need naps.
The comparison between Game Boy in 1997 and Death Stranding in 2019 is hilarious to me.The Famitsu limited edition Game Boy Pocket was released in January 1997, eight years into the system's life and nearly two years before the release of the Color. What do you think Nintendo wanted to achieve with this conflict of interest? Higher scores for the remaining OG Game Boy games? Higher scores for Game Boy Color games in two years? Note also that there hasn't been a single perfect score given to a Game Boy/Color/Advance game.
If there had been a Famitsu Game Boy at launch then sure, but calling this random limited edition a conflict of interest is such a stretch you just might dislocate your shoulder. This is nothing like being directly involved with a specific game and its marketing campaign.
I don't think anyone is saying that the game sucks because of this, don't worry.well, there are 12 Perfect Scores for Death Stranding, are all of them in the Game too?
If anyone is interested about what Famitsu reviewers say, a friend passed me the four reviews in English. He probably used Google translation, so take them as not 100% correctly
It is no longer artistic that the theme of "connecting" is sublimated as entertainment in the story, game system, and production. The work of considering the journey to the destination and the luggage while looking at the map leads to the fun of trekking and touring. A sense of accomplishment when arriving at the destination, and the presence of "someone" who feels the scenery when looking back. I am alone but not lonely. The online elements that make people feel warm are too great! (Amemiya)
A unique world view and story. Ingenious game design with a focus on delivery. The result is a very interesting finish, excitement, enthusiasm, impatience and relief, and excitement, while keeping your heart shaken. It is fun to think about how to proceed through the built-in field, and the structure that the play changes as the functions are expanded, and its adjustment is exquisite. It's nice that you can feel the connection between the story and the online system. (Iwata)
An AAA-class indie work that the masters work on. The online attempt is brilliant in the structure where altruistic behavior is rewarding, as if a utopia has been realized. It seems to be the presentation of one answer to the divided modern society. The experiment and the message are strong, but the entertainment color seems weak and the taste seems to be divided. The base of the game part, such as good response and ease of use of the menu, is not missed. (Namuko)
You can get a sense of travel and awareness that will change the way you see the real world as you move through the beautiful and desolate world using all means such as walking, vehicles, and "ziplines". There are many strange ways to send out a message that stimulates special feelings with active experiences of players, while being fooled by the small material that makes you laugh out of laughter with so much foolishness I want to experience this gamer! (Totsuka)
—-
To mods, I don't know if this is agains the forum rules but if it is, please take down my post.
If anything, them being unable to finish it because they disliked it so much was a review in itself, just not a scored review.
I disagree with this. I would prefer my reviewers finish a game before they give their critique. This reads as either the reviewer was unwilling to finish a game before he critiqued it (and probably would not have noted as such if not obligated to beforehand) or, on principle, Edge decided they wouldn't be forced into that type of proposition.A game being so bad that someone doesn't want to finish it is a knock on the quality of the game, not the reviewer.
There was a thread about this and it's impossible for a reviewer to finish every game they are given. They are very often not given the time, and they are not machines. Reviewing games doesn't work like watching movies or reading books in that you can just get through them in an afternoon, games are 40-60 to even 100+ hour experiences depending on the type of game and genre.I disagree with this. I would prefer my reviewers finish a game before they give their critique. This reads as either the reviewer was unwilling to finish a game before he critiqued it (and probably would not have noted as such if not obligated to beforehand) or, on principle, Edge decided they wouldn't be forced into that type of proposition.
Hell, who knows how many games are completed before they are scored, from this outlet or others. I like this idea from Sony; I've played wholly through bad games (DMC2, FFVII:DoC) before I called them trash. If your job is to review games, as in you are being paid to do so, you should be required to complete it before you score/review it or acknowledge it in writing that you did not do as such.
Some games are 40-60 hours. Most of those are RPGs which, if I'm the EIC or whomever the boss is, I'm giving you a week to complete.There was a thread about this and it's impossible for a reviewer to finish every game they are given. They are very often not given the time, and they are not machines. Reviewing games doesn't work like watching movies or reading books in that you can just get through them in an afternoon, games are 40-60 to even 100+ hour experiences depending on the type of game and genre.
If a game is so bad that the [considerably higher for reviewers] "bar for quitting" is reached, that means game is bad, not that the reviewer is lazy. If they don't want to keep playing, even being aware that it's part of their job to play games, that's because the game is bad. They're not paid to finish games, they're paid to render verdicts based on playing them, and if playing them is so painful a proposition that their negative verdict is there and set before the end, that's on the game. If there was some big twist that makes it all better, but it's terrible up to that point, that's the games fault for burying it too deep.I disagree with this. I would prefer my reviewers finish a game before they give their critique. This reads as either the reviewer was unwilling to finish a game before he critiqued it (and probably would not have noted as such if not obligated to beforehand) or, on principle, Edge decided they wouldn't be forced into that type of proposition.
Hell, who knows how many games are completed before they are scored, from this outlet or others. I like this idea from Sony; I've played wholly through bad games (DMC2, FFVII:DoC) before I called them trash. If your job is to review games, as in you are being paid to do so, you should be required to complete it before you score/review it or acknowledge it in writing that you did not do as such.
You're really going to give Kotaku shit because they ran a similar article 8 years ago?So basically a rerun of Kotaku's "This magazine cannot be trusted!" clickbait article in response to Famitsu's Peace Walker review?
Good to see someone is taking recycling seriously these days I guess.
That article wasn't clickbait, and Kotaku was called by both Famitsu and Konami afterwards to tell them they were uninvited to the Peace Walker PR event. It is a conflict of interest that the head of a company like Famitsu is doing advertisements for a video game and also being put into a video game while also reviewing said game and giving it perfect scores.So basically a rerun of Kotaku's "This magazine cannot be trusted!" clickbait article in response to Famitsu's Peace Walker review?
Good to see someone is taking recycling seriously these days I guess.
That article wasn't clickbait, and Kotaku was called by both Famitsu and Konami afterwards to tell them they were uninvited to the Peace Walker PR event. It is a conflict of interest that the head of a company like Famitsu is doing advertisements for a video game and also being put into a video game while also reviewing said game and giving it perfect scores.
But the article is about the Japanese reaction to it.If Famitsu wasn't already known to be just a glorified PR rag for whoever pays them the most it'd probably be more noteworthy is all I was meaning to get at.
Haha that is not a 'literal monopoly' in any way. They did not have exclusive control of a market by abusing market position, just had the winning system. At any time a competitor could enter, there were no legal, manufacturing or distribution barriers for a compelling product to sell (eg if Nintendo controlled all retail stores blocking sale of competitors, THAT would be a monopoly). The Game Gear was only discontinued in 97 (and in fact was re-launched in 99 by Majesco) and the Neo Geo Pocket (not Color) came out in 98.The comparison between Game Boy in 1997 and Death Stranding in 2019 is hilarious to me.
In 1997 the Game Gear was long dead, the Neogeo Poket Color came out in 1998, and the Wonderswan in 1999.
The GB had the literal monopoly. Not like we use to say around here, like a LITERAL MONOPOLY. It was the ONLY handeld console around.
ok they had a de facto monopoly. Better ?Haha that is not a 'literal monopoly' in any way. They did not have exclusive control of a market by abusing market position, just had the winning system. At any time a competitor could enter, there were no legal, manufacturing or distribution barriers for a compelling product to sell (eg if Nintendo controlled all retail stores blocking sale of competitors, THAT would be a monopoly). The Game Gear was only discontinued in 97 (and in fact was re-launched in 99 by Majesco) and the Neo Geo Pocket (not Color) came out in 98.
And game systems are not a necessary commodity, they're a luxury entertainment product.
Lets be honest.
Even if Geoff does not simply give DS GOTY, he will make up a new award category just for DS.
Game with the most Me apperances 2019: Death Stranding