Smells like Censorship!!!!

Wolfman Walt · Post by **Wolfman Walt** » Wed Oct 29, 2008 4:28 am

[ Game -> Article ] - More info on <a href="#Bethesda Softworks">Company: Bethesda Softworks</a> | More info on <a href="#Fallout 3">Game: Fallout 3</a> So, recently IGN reviewed Fallout 3 and surely all of you read it and ran to the stores after the glowing review that was given. Might wanna slow down as it seems that the story suffered a last minute change after being posted that took out some complaints. What was changed? According to site <a href="http://neocrisis.com/" target="_self">Neocrisis</a>, this: <blockquote>Before: "Fallout 3 is such an engaging and fantastic experience that it's easy to overlook its few minor flaws, but they do exist and should be mentioned. With any game of this size and scope, you can likely expect a few bugs to slip through the testing process and that is the case here. I had the game crash a couple times. I, and other editors at IGN, have also experienced an annoying number of bugs on the PS3 version that have prevented the game from progressing or have broken the world. In all of these cases, reloading the game has been enough to fix the errors and nothing was frustrating or detrimental enough to give me thought of not recommending the game. However, there is one major issue with the PS3 version that can't be fixed with a reset. Every time anybody on your friends list signs on or sends you a message (or any time you receive any network notification), the game freezes and the screen blurs for a few seconds. If you have a lot of friends signing on and off all day, this will completely ruin the game. The only way to circumvent this is to either play offline or turn off notifications entirely." After: "Fallout 3 is such an engaging and fantastic experience that it's easy to overlook its few minor flaws, but they do exist and should be mentioned. With any game of this size and scope, you can likely expect a few bugs to slip through the testing process and that is the case here. I had the game crash a couple times, amongst other small bugs. In all of these cases, reloading the game has been enough to fix the errors and nothing was frustrating or detrimental enough to make me not recommend the game."</blockquote>I don't know about you, but I'd have liked to have been informed that a version of the game is almost unplayable before I bought it. The article can be read <a href="http://neocrisis.com/content/view/2903/39/" target="_self">here</a>, but there's not much more to say. I'm certaintly not shocked that this happened as much as that it was so quickly caught.Spotted @ <a href="http://neocrisis.com">neocrisis</a>

mixmastermind · Post by **mixmastermind** » Wed Oct 29, 2008 7:18 am

Oh my God.

This is just fucking ridiculous, IGN.

Glad to see the game journalism business doing well, though.

Mismatch · Post by **Mismatch** » Wed Oct 29, 2008 10:24 am

I bought it.

lol, sucker

VasikkA · Post by **VasikkA** » Wed Oct 29, 2008 10:46 am

Mismatch wrote:
I bought it.
lol, sucker

lol, dyslexia

4too · Post by **4too** » Wed Oct 29, 2008 1:58 pm

The Market Place: War, War Never Changes ...

IGN, ' "which side are you on, which side are you on ..."'

IGN as a collective fails to befriend the public with REAL information that could sell this product to the experienced game consumer.

IGN by editorial choice fails to communicate the truth of all electronic entertainment coding: bugs, and game breaking crashes on ALL platforms.

If IGN considered their professional writing, as more than the copy and paste of PR slight of hand,
then simply telling the truth might foster a brave new era of trust between game makers and game buyers.

But ...

'Let the buyer beware' has always been a market place caveat. A given in this dance of dollars.

What entity in this commercial dynamic has denied impartial responsibility to inform the consumer? Why ... it ... it's IGN.

At this point it may be 'fair' to not confuse the polly-anna concept of 'impartial journalism' with the drum beat of professional or semi pro game review writers.
Their scripted behavior -- the OMFG! 11! out of 10 scores ...
Some might read to be comforted by agreement. Others might dissect the happy talk for the latent advise of an experienced game player.
With a little balance in their rail road-ed narrative, one might divine useful information that would make the product playable.

IGN has chosen not to be all things to all consumers.

IGN has chosen to surrender it's potential power as middle man and information conduit. If one wants sugar coated happy hype, IGN is one's warm and fuzzy cocoon.

We might just as well get the verbiage straight from B-soft.
The direct feed back of happy and exploited patrons might foster a grander budget for play testers and Quality Control specialists.
IGN is choosing to travel on a one way slide to the commercial land fill of history.
Just as most print publications have faded from relevance,
so may these ''game sites'' lose "clicks = eye-balls/second/second"
because the oppressed consumer will wander the web seeking a flame's spark of truth, and huddle in the shadows of blogs and fan sites.

This IGN editing may not be a lying liar's lie. This maybe what an experienced consumer might have to deduct by reading what IS NOT THERE.

Since few words have so direct a meaning to convey the deception in the market place, let's qualify this as a kind of lie.

A lie of omission.

By this LIE of omission IGN perpetuates the adversarial, the predatory, nature of this entire industry.

If one wants sugar coated propaganda, then one knows where to click 'n' go. IGN.

If one wants the real story, the truth, for correcting game bugs well ... 'perseverance furthers'... wander in this darkness of lies and wait ... for the patch.

The saddest cliche of all, the least flattering inditement of this industry is ... ' " wait for the mod's "'.

Wait by the bargain bin.

And wait for the true market forces to cull out these ""Games Of The Year"" into a hierarchy of the slickest.

After 6 months or more these bundles of cultural manipulation usually drop in street value 10, 20 to 50%, and might just be patched / mod-ed into playability!

Saw @ Micro Center recently, the plain -vanilla version of Oblivion the 1st --$29.00-- (2006?) / Bioshock ----> $19.00 (2007?). In their cherry prime, what ... $59.00 or $ 49.00?

For the consumer, do these commodities 'age' better then we might suppose, if we stay away from the happy hype and miss direction as championed by IGN?

Nothing new here, the war between truth and video game hype extrusion never changes, as we wander in this wilderness of missed directions.

////////////// ///

Thanks for reading,
thanks for not reading,

am upgrading PC-s, may, (clock and calendar willing), catch up on: Bioshock or Stalker or The Witch-er,

but your player reviews will always be better than any Oblivion that I could ever imagine.

My PC will forever be Oblivion free.

FO3? Well, ... FO 1 and 2 content are the true sales hook from my driveway.

Oblivion With Guns? ... Meh.

Dogmeat, Vault Boy ? ... ' " maybe ... maybe ... " '

FO3 patch out yet?

Now only if I had the time....

4too

Post by **King of Creation** » Thu Oct 30, 2008 5:26 am

I really cannot stand this kind of bullshit. Having to cave to corporate pressure because of, undoubtedly, ad revenue is heresy. Long gone are the days where if you make a buggy game, you get a crappy review and deal with it. I've got an idea: DON'T RELEASE AN UNPLAYABLE GAME. Fix it before you release it. Just because you bought advertising space on a website does not mean you get to dictate, directly or indirectly, what they say about your game. It should be up to the game companies to impress the journalists. Stay out of everything else.

POOPERSCOOPER · Post by **POOPERSCOOPER** » Thu Oct 30, 2008 5:53 am

After looking at that I feel like it might not be just due to the pressure of the publisher but the fact that the journalists are really just lazy. They probably felt like it would cause too much hysteria that they wouldn't want to have to deal with. If gamers complain about how their review didn't include the problems then they can just say that it was a pre-release so it wasn't the exact final version okay! I don't know though it could be either way.

Post by **King of Creation** » Thu Oct 30, 2008 6:00 am

Here's how it goes:

Bethesda: We're making Fallout 3. Can we pay you lots of money and put ads on your website?
Game Journalist: Sure!
....hype ensues....
Bethesda: Here's Fallout 3! We got really lazy with fixing bugs and things and decided to release a broken product. ESPECIALLY because we hate PS3 people.
Game Journalist: Well, umm, I'm going to have to tell the truth in the review then.
Bethesda: The truth? I'll tell you the truth. If you write a single bad thing about our game, then we pull all our ads off of your website and you have no money.
Game Journalist: Shit. I guess I have to trade in my journalistic integrity to feed my mountain dew addiction. 11/10! W00t

Apparently in the world we live in now, money buys everything...including lies.

Post by **Dogmeatlives** » Thu Oct 30, 2008 6:37 am

King of Creation wrote:Here's how it goes:

Bethesda: We're making Fallout 3. Can we pay you lots of money and put ads on your website?
Game Journalist: Sure!
....hype ensues....
Bethesda: Here's Fallout 3! We got really lazy with fixing bugs and things and decided to release a broken product. ESPECIALLY because we hate PS3 people.
Game Journalist: Well, umm, I'm going to have to tell the truth in the review then.
Bethesda: The truth? I'll tell you the truth. If you write a single bad thing about our game, then we pull all our ads off of your website and you have no money.
Game Journalist: Shit. I guess I have to trade in my journalistic integrity to feed my mountain dew addiction. 11/10! W00t

Apparently in the world we live in now, money buys everything...including lies.

You mean you didn't get the memo? Money is God. Don't forget it. What money wants, money will get.

Post by **King of Creation** » Thu Oct 30, 2008 6:54 am

Good thing I don't have any money

VasikkA · Post by **VasikkA** » Thu Oct 30, 2008 7:16 am

DAC should totally buy ad space on a website and dictate their Fallout 3 review.

Post by **King of Creation** » Thu Oct 30, 2008 7:22 am

I still have no money!

Kashluk · Post by **Kashluk** » Thu Oct 30, 2008 8:19 am

You communist swine

Wolfman Walt · Post by **Wolfman Walt** » Thu Oct 30, 2008 8:39 am

King of Creation wrote:DON'T RELEASE AN UNPLAYABLE GAME.

So I rented it, because I refuse to buy it and because I have to review it for another site I write for. In my thus far.....5ish hour experience I came across a bug that wouldn't let me get any further if not for the alternative route and have had the game lock up my system afew times. Luckily, no one on my friends list has signed on, but I'm just waiting for that to happen.

ApTyp · Post by **ApTyp** » Thu Oct 30, 2008 2:02 pm