Controversy over Eurogamer's Darkfall review

suzzopher wrote:

Mafro wrote:

Eighthours wrote:

CrashHornet wrote:As if the Sensi thing wasn't bad enough.

Well, EG got past the Sensi thing. Which is quite amazing when you think about just how utterly ludicrous that review was.

Is that when they gave Sensi 2006 9/10?

I bought that based on their review

Eighthours wrote:http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/r_sensisoccer_ps2x

Read it.

Then read this: http://worldofstuart.excellentcontent.c ... /swiz2.htm

CrashHornet wrote:Doesn't reflect well on Eurogamer though. Whatever way you look at it and however it turns out, Gillen's review is going to have this hanging over it.

Mafro wrote:

suzzopher wrote:

Mafro wrote:

Eighthours wrote:

CrashHornet wrote:As if the Sensi thing wasn't bad enough.

Well, EG got past the Sensi thing. Which is quite amazing when you think about just how utterly ludicrous that review was.

Is that when they gave Sensi 2006 9/10?

I bought that based on their review

Bloody hell suzz

Sensible Soccer has always been one of the all-time greats of the gaming scene and never deserved to be relegated to the basement leagues of nostalgia in the first place - and this sympathetic reworking proves that more than ever. For the 2006 edition to land on our laps just in time for the World Cup is fantastic news, and gives the football gaming scene a much-needed injection of fun without lacking depth or resorting to being wacky.

The best compliment we can pay Sensible Soccer 2006 is that you don't need to be a fan of football games or even a footy fan to enjoy having a quick kickabout. In fact, for those of you disillusioned with the quest for realism or just fancy a game that takes a different approach, this arrives like a stunning volley in extra time after a tense 90 minutes. It's fast, flowing and exciting. It's instantly intuitive, it's rewarding and above all, relentlessly entertaining - it's the best football action game by some distance. If Sensible Soccer 2006 was a football team, it'd be getting an open top bus ride for its long overdue return to gaming's Premiership.

What was I meant to do

Jimmy Shedders wrote:The classic Mario line "our princess is in another castle", knowingly reused here, is more than just an ironic wink to gaming history. In the context of Braid's melancholy mood, it becomes a bona fide commentary on the human condition. Our princess is always in another castle.

Photek wrote:

Jimmy Shedders wrote:The classic Mario line "our princess is in another castle", knowingly reused here, is more than just an ironic wink to gaming history. In the context of Braid's melancholy mood, it becomes a bona fide commentary on the human condition. Our princess is always in another castle.

A much as I liked Braid, I did hate that sentence.

Eighthours wrote:As far as I see it, here are the possibilities:

1. The reviewer did indeed only play the game for 3 hours. He has lied to the EG editorial team repeatedly in order to cover this up. He has posted a bogus review. He must never work in this town again.

2. The reviewer played the game for 9+ hours as he claims, which is enough to - in his opinion - properly assess it. The review is valid. The dev has lied about the server logs. The dev must never work in this town again.

3. The compromise option. The reviewer exaggerated how long he played the game for. The devs exaggerated how little he played the game for. No one comes out of this with any credit.

Who bets 3?

HSH28 wrote:

Eighthours wrote:As far as I see it, here are the possibilities:

1. The reviewer did indeed only play the game for 3 hours. He has lied to the EG editorial team repeatedly in order to cover this up. He has posted a bogus review. He must never work in this town again.

2. The reviewer played the game for 9+ hours as he claims, which is enough to - in his opinion - properly assess it. The review is valid. The dev has lied about the server logs. The dev must never work in this town again.

3. The compromise option. The reviewer exaggerated how long he played the game for. The devs exaggerated how little he played the game for. No one comes out of this with any credit.

Who bets 3?

Possibility number 4...

4. He played the majority of his 9 hours on a different account.

Not sure if that is possible, but it seems like it could be.

suzzopher wrote:

Mafro wrote:

suzzopher wrote:

Mafro wrote:

Eighthours wrote:

CrashHornet wrote:As if the Sensi thing wasn't bad enough.

Well, EG got past the Sensi thing. Which is quite amazing when you think about just how utterly ludicrous that review was.

Is that when they gave Sensi 2006 9/10?

I bought that based on their review

Bloody hell suzz

Sensible Soccer has always been one of the all-time greats of the gaming scene and never deserved to be relegated to the basement leagues of nostalgia in the first place - and this sympathetic reworking proves that more than ever. For the 2006 edition to land on our laps just in time for the World Cup is fantastic news, and gives the football gaming scene a much-needed injection of fun without lacking depth or resorting to being wacky.

The best compliment we can pay Sensible Soccer 2006 is that you don't need to be a fan of football games or even a footy fan to enjoy having a quick kickabout. In fact, for those of you disillusioned with the quest for realism or just fancy a game that takes a different approach, this arrives like a stunning volley in extra time after a tense 90 minutes. It's fast, flowing and exciting. It's instantly intuitive, it's rewarding and above all, relentlessly entertaining - it's the best football action game by some distance. If Sensible Soccer 2006 was a football team, it'd be getting an open top bus ride for its long overdue return to gaming's Premiership.

What was I meant to do

Neogaf member wrote:They once did something similar with Resistance 1. The reviewer basically panned the multiplayer and then commented about using a weapon while playing that was never in the multiplayer to begin with.

Cal wrote:

CrashHornet wrote:Doesn't reflect well on Eurogamer though. Whatever way you look at it and however it turns out, Gillen's review is going to have this hanging over it.

I think this reflects very well on EG. They've come right out and appointed a star reviewer - a 'known' (and respected) quantity to the video gaming community - to undertake a re-review for the sake of fairness to the publisher and players/readers. Good on them. It's responsible move and should be applauded.

KKLEIN wrote:Play it safe with a 5/10 & you can't go far wrong. Couple in the fact the readers aren't likely to play the game anyway & strawberry float it, why bother?

PlayStation 3 is more powerful, more fully featured, more innovative and better supported than Xbox 360. When the Sony conference kicked off, we expected to see something "a bit better" than Xbox, technologically. We didn't expect to have our most fundamental beliefs about what next-generation games will be capable of changed. That, however, is exactly what happened.

We're not just talking about a console that's twice as powerful as Xbox 360 in simple, logical terms (and bear in mind that that's a far, far greater gap in power than existed between PS2 and Xbox); we're talking about a console with more functionality, with fewer corners cut and with a genuinely more impressive line-up of software.

Perhaps the biggest blow for Microsoft though isn't that PlayStation 3 is absurdly powerful by comparison, or that it seems to do everything Xbox 360 is talking about as its USPs without those features even making the first page of the press release, or that it seems to have the support of every major company to a far greater degree, or that it has an enormous software line-up already, or that it... Well you get the picture.

What's going to be a huge blow is that having spent at least the last couple of years watching its share of the multi-platform market grow and Nintendo's dwindle and Sony's erode slightly, as Xbox proved the best platform for most of those titles, PS3 is not only going to be the platform most developers pin their banner to first in the next generation; the games are actually going to look better this time too. And with that, it's hard to take seriously Microsoft's assertion that it can be number one in this generation. You know what? Frankly, going on what I've seen so far, I'm not even convinced Xbox 360 and PS3 are the same generation.

Eighthours wrote:I've already answered this. It would have been front and centre of EG's response if that was the case. (I bet the reviewer wishes he'd thought of that one, though!)

HSH28 wrote:

Eighthours wrote:I've already answered this. It would have been front and centre of EG's response if that was the case. (I bet the reviewer wishes he'd thought of that one, though!)

Unless there is a reason he doesn't want to admit to it...granted it seems rather farfetched.

Eighthours wrote:

While I do like EG and read it every single day, it would be a missed opportunity not to remind you of possibly the site's finest hour - the "real next gen" business back at E3 2005:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/a_ps3gamesreaction
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/a_e32 ... itorialrob
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/a_e32 ... itorialtom

PlayStation 3 is more powerful, more fully featured, more innovative and better supported than Xbox 360. When the Sony conference kicked off, we expected to see something "a bit better" than Xbox, technologically. We didn't expect to have our most fundamental beliefs about what next-generation games will be capable of changed. That, however, is exactly what happened.

We're not just talking about a console that's twice as powerful as Xbox 360 in simple, logical terms (and bear in mind that that's a far, far greater gap in power than existed between PS2 and Xbox); we're talking about a console with more functionality, with fewer corners cut and with a genuinely more impressive line-up of software.

Perhaps the biggest blow for Microsoft though isn't that PlayStation 3 is absurdly powerful by comparison, or that it seems to do everything Xbox 360 is talking about as its USPs without those features even making the first page of the press release, or that it seems to have the support of every major company to a far greater degree, or that it has an enormous software line-up already, or that it... Well you get the picture.

What's going to be a huge blow is that having spent at least the last couple of years watching its share of the multi-platform market grow and Nintendo's dwindle and Sony's erode slightly, as Xbox proved the best platform for most of those titles, PS3 is not only going to be the platform most developers pin their banner to first in the next generation; the games are actually going to look better this time too. And with that, it's hard to take seriously Microsoft's assertion that it can be number one in this generation. You know what? Frankly, going on what I've seen so far, I'm not even convinced Xbox 360 and PS3 are the same generation.

Hook, line and sinker

.