Was Gameinformer paid by Capcom to review Resident Evil 5?

Everyone always says that critics are bribed by game developers just because Call of Duty is crticial acclaimed each year, Call of Duty is not a bad game, just a rehased one, anyway, this may sound like Hater talk, but I never used to think that critics were paid until I saw Gameinformer's review of Resident Evil 5 (I know that game came out in 2009 but I only saw the review a few weeks ago and I only thought to make a thread now, they gave it 9.50, now i'm not hating on Gameinformer just for giving a horrible game a high score but when it is compared to other reviews, it does seem like Gameinformer was paid, for example, Assassin's Creed II only got 9.00 (i'm not saying that's a bad score, but Assassin's Creed II improved over the original in almost every way and Resident Evil 5 stuffed up the series, I know it's an opinion, but the game has flaws that even a hardcore Resident Evil 5 fanboy couldn't deny) and Super Mario Galaxy 2 only got 9.25 (once again, not a bad score, not a bad score at all, but when you look at every other website, the game is considered perfect, it's the only game that got 10/10 from Gamesweasol on YouTube, and every other website thinks that Super Mario Galaxy 2 is significantly considered better than Resident Evil 5. Once again, this may sound like hater talk, but since everyone seems to think that game critics are paid by game developers just because of Call of Duty, I don't see why thinking that Gameinformer was paid by Capcom to review Resident Evil 5 is such a bad thing.

I don't know about all that, but I do think Game Informer likes to throw out high scores for hyped games in order to get higher sales at Gamestop.

Everyone always says that critics are bribed by game developers just because Call of Duty is crticial acclaimed each year, Call of Duty is not a bad game, just a rehased one, anyway, this may sound like Hater talk, but I never used to think that critics were paid until I saw Gameinformer's review of Resident Evil 5 (I know that game came out in 2009 but I only saw the review a few weeks ago and I only thought to make a thread now, they gave it 9.50, now i'm not hating on Gameinformer just for giving a horrible game a high score but when it is compared to other reviews, it does seem like Gameinformer was paid, for example, Assassin's Creed II only got 9.00 (i'm not saying that's a bad score, but Assassin's Creed II improved over the original in almost every way and Resident Evil 5 stuffed up the series, I know it's an opinion, but the game has flaws that even a hardcore Resident Evil 5 fanboy couldn't deny) and Super Mario Galaxy 2 only got 9.25 (once again, not a bad score, not a bad score at all, but when you look at every other website, the game is considered perfect, it's the only game that got 10/10 from Gamesweasol on YouTube, and every other website thinks that Super Mario Galaxy 2 is significantly considered better than Resident Evil 5. Once again, this may sound like hater talk, but since everyone seems to think that game critics are paid by game developers just because of Call of Duty, I don't see why thinking that Gameinformer was paid by Capcom to review Resident Evil 5 is such a bad thing.

RageQuitter69

Reviewers aren't people. They don't have opinions. Not ones that could possibly differ from whatever person may be reading the review at any given time. Every good score is bought. Every bad score is punishment for publishers who wouldn't pay. /obvious sarcasm.

also, RE5 is not a "horrible game".

If Resident Evil had nothing to do with RE and was an original IP, it would be an amazing game.

Unfortunately its burdened with being part of one of the best series of the genre.

The difference between people like you and professional reviewers is that the professional reviewers actually play games with an open mind. They don't play the game and say "THIS ISN'T LIKE RE4 AND ISNT AS GOOD, ITS TERRIBLE!". They take the games for what they are and give their opinion. Resident Evil 5 was a good game for what it was. As good as RE4? Not a chance, but it was a pretty good game.

Aside from awful AI for your co-op partner during single player and a pretty terrible story (which has never been RE's strong point anyway), there's really nothing wrong with RE5. Game looks good, runs good, offers a great amount of content, and best of all it's fun (especially with a friend). Critics gave it high praise for good reason.

Compare it to other REs and yeah, I think it stumbles, but it isn't the job of critics to bash a game on what it could have been, but to report on what it is.

The difference between people like you and professional reviewers is that the professional reviewers get paid for their worthless opinion.

MikeMoose

Fixed for you.

In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with RE5 at all. Not as good as RE4 and not as good as the original RE titles, but I still think it's a lot of fun :). But with that being said, I never think of scores as making a game better really, think of it as an overall for that game. For example, there is a game that is a 9.5, and there is a game that is a 8.5. Just because one is a 9.5, doesn't necessarily mean that it is better than the one that is 8.5 for a few reasons (gap between the release date of the game and even the specific reviewer). Every game needs a reviewer and if a company got somebody else to write a review, the game that got a 8.5 might have got a 9.0 instead.

In the end, it doesn't matter. If you enjoy it, that does. ;)

I don't know about all that, but I do think Game Informer likes to throw out high scores for hyped games in order to get higher sales at Gamestop.

Bigboi500

This, GameInformer is owned by GamesStop so it makes sense that they hype u games and give them good scores to push pre-orders.

The co- op ruined it espically not playing with someone online and whilst I wil admit it was a big letdown I'd still say it's a solid if unspectacular game. It's not that it's a bad game it just doesn't feel like RE.

The co- op ruined it espically not playing with someone online and whilst I wil admit it was a big letdown I'd still say it's a solid if unspectacular game. It's not that it's a bad game it just doesn't feel like RE.

chocolate1325

Its Resident Evil 4 but with sun...

If RE 5 doesn't feel like RE, then neither does RE 4.

[QUOTE="MikeMoose"]

The difference between people like you and professional reviewers is that the professional reviewers get paid for their worthless opinion.

Ilovegames1992

Fixed for you.

I wouldn't call a reviewer's opinion worthless, since it is their say and their say is important to other gamers, but at the end of the day, it really isn't. What you say is what matters ultimately.

You know those crazy people that clams that road construction was set up to slow him/her getting to the office so a coworker will get the promotion. Why does it seem that many games use that type of thinking?

Great, another thread for all the moronic losers who believe in these idiotic conspiracy theories.

The difference between people like you and professional reviewers is that the professional reviewers actually play games with an open mind. They don't play the game and say "THIS ISN'T LIKE RE4 AND ISNT AS GOOD, ITS TERRIBLE!". They take the games for what they are and give their opinion. Resident Evil 5 was a good game for what it was. As good as RE4? Not a chance, but it was a pretty good game.

MikeMoose

This. Even though I think RE5 was better than 4.

[QUOTE="chocolate1325"]

The co- op ruined it espically not playing with someone online and whilst I wil admit it was a big letdown I'd still say it's a solid if unspectacular game. It's not that it's a bad game it just doesn't feel like RE.

Ilovegames1992

If RE 5 doesn't feel like RE, then neither does RE 4.

You don't own the IP, you have no say in what "feels" like RE. It's not your call.

OMG. There is so much wrong with this post. To quote Bill Clinton, I dont know whether to laugh or cry.

Let's dissect this post:

1) You claim that RE5 is a horrible game. Yet the average rating for this game on Metacrtic is 84%. That is far from horrible. A horrible game would have unanimous 30-40% ratings.

2) Then you bring up Assassin's Creed 2 an SMG, two games likely reviewed by different reviewers then compare them to a game from an entirely different genre. It's as ridiculous as comparing the 8.5 Gamespot gave to Metal Gear Solid to the 9s and 9.5s it has given to Madden and Baseball games over the years.

3) Thinking Gameinformer was paid to give RE5 a good score isn't bad, but making a forum post about it with no actual facts and random conspiracy theories is pretty awful.

4) Looking through your review history. I see that you have given Mafia 2, Hitman Blood Money and quite a few others 10/10s. Hitman Blood Money has a 82% average on Metacritic, while Mafia 2 has a 74%. That's a 26% difference b/w the average and the score you gave to Mafia 2.

5) Were you paid to give Mafia 2 a 10/10?

a. defends the high scored of call of duty even though is known EA buys their reviews

b. proceeds to bash a good game because he doesn't agree with the reviewer, god forbid someone liked the game

c. conclusion, failure thread

a. defends the high scored of call of duty even though is known EA buys their reviews

b. proceeds to bash a good game because he doesn't agree with the reviewer, god forbid someone liked the game

c. conclusion, failure thread

a. defends the high scored of call of duty even though is known EA buys their reviews

Krelian-co

a. EA has nothing to do with the Call of Duty franchise.

b. Where's your source? Your ass?

c. conclusion, failure post.

Everyone always says that critics are bribed by game developers just because Call of Duty is crticial acclaimed each year.

RageQuitter69

a. defends the high scored of call of duty even though is known EA buys their reviewsKrelian-co

Source, please.

[QUOTE="Krelian-co"]a. defends the high scored of call of duty even though is known EA buys their reviewsc_rake

Source, please.

i meant activision, my bad. and i'm too lazy to look for them, but w/e

[QUOTE="RageQuitter69"]

Everyone always says that critics are bribed by game developers just because Call of Duty is crticial acclaimed each year.

Synthia

Slightly amusing considering Jeff Gerstman was "let go" after a less than favourable Kane and Lynch review from Gamespot. I'd say the idea that Publishers purchase game reviews is incorrect, but Publishers also work as hard as they can to get the review scores they want.

Whether its not handing out review copies of a game till very close/after release date. Placing different embargos on reviews depending on the score. Sending reviewers "gifts". The list goes on. A number of people have discussed these issues in the past, both industry insiders and journalists. These are not conspiracies, but the prevelance of these issues is highly overblown and it's not about handing money over the table for a 9.5.

Also of course opinions can change everything, but that's about it. I'd say anybody would be hard pressed to argue that something like The Official Playstation magazine is going to do anything but speak favourably about Console exclusives, etc.

i meant activision, my bad. and i'm too lazy to look for them, but w/eKrelian-co

Uh huh. Sure.

Slightly amusing considering Jeff Gerstman was "let go" after a less than favourable Kane and Lynch review from Gamespot.Arath_1

We're still bringing this up? Ugh.

He already explained that it was all the result of a bad. inexperienced sales team (which no longer works at GameSpot). I'd think big-name publications would have people who know how to deal with threats of advertisement removal by now given how long they've been around and how common it is. If it were a prevalent issue, we'd be hearing about actual cases more often; Gerstmann's dismissal pretty much proves that with how quickly word got out about that.

RE5 wasn't a terrible game. I thought RE4 was much better but 5 was definitely one of the better games from recent years. 6 on the other hand? I'm not even going to gamefly that crapistuffedsunny

It hasn't come out yet.

OMG. There is so much wrong with this post. To quote Bill Clinton, I dont know whether to laugh or cry.

Let's dissect this post:

1) You claim that RE5 is a horrible game. Yet the average rating for this game on Metacrtic is 84%. That is far from horrible. A horrible game would have unanimous 30-40% ratings.

2) Then you bring up Assassin's Creed 2 an SMG, two games likely reviewed by different reviewers then compare them to a game from an entirely different genre. It's as ridiculous as comparing the 8.5 Gamespot gave to Metal Gear Solid to the 9s and 9.5s it has given to Madden and Baseball games over the years.

3) Thinking Gameinformer was paid to give RE5 a good score isn't bad, but making a forum post about it with no actual facts and random conspiracy theories is pretty awful.

4) Looking through your review history. I see that you have given Mafia 2, Hitman Blood Money and quite a few others 10/10s. Hitman Blood Money has a 82% average on Metacritic, while Mafia 2 has a 74%. That's a 26% difference b/w the average and the score you gave to Mafia 2.

5) Were you paid to give Mafia 2 a 10/10?

S0lidSnake

1. It's my opinion, and besides, even a hardcore Resident Evil 5 fanboy would have to admit the game has flaws, especially the obvious one of not being scary.
2. They were just examples, go find me another website that thinks Resident Evil 5 is better than Assassin's Creed II and Super Mario Galaxy 2.
3. Other people have made similar threads about game critics being paid to review games, just no one has made on about Resident Evil 5.
4. Which relates back to the first post, Assassin's Creed II has a 91% on metacritic (PS3 version) and Super Mario Galaxy has a 97% on metacritic, and Resident Evil 5 only has a 84% (PS3 version).
5. I'm not even going to answer that.

OMG. There is so much wrong with this post. To quote Bill Clinton, I dont know whether to laugh or cry.

Let's dissect this post:

1) You claim that RE5 is a horrible game. Yet the average rating for this game on Metacrtic is 84%. That is far from horrible. A horrible game would have unanimous 30-40% ratings.

2) Then you bring up Assassin's Creed 2 an SMG, two games likely reviewed by different reviewers then compare them to a game from an entirely different genre. It's as ridiculous as comparing the 8.5 Gamespot gave to Metal Gear Solid to the 9s and 9.5s it has given to Madden and Baseball games over the years.

3) Thinking Gameinformer was paid to give RE5 a good score isn't bad, but making a forum post about it with no actual facts and random conspiracy theories is pretty awful.

4) Looking through your review history. I see that you have given Mafia 2, Hitman Blood Money and quite a few others 10/10s. Hitman Blood Money has a 82% average on Metacritic, while Mafia 2 has a 74%. That's a 26% difference b/w the average and the score you gave to Mafia 2.

5) Were you paid to give Mafia 2 a 10/10?

S0lidSnake

In his defense, Mafia 2 is a kickass game. And what is this blasphemy, Blood Money has a higher average than Mafia 2?

But I love Gameinformer! They always have something funny to say, and I don't really care if a game gets a bad review from one source, it's their opinion.

[QUOTE="Arath_1"]Slightly amusing considering Jeff Gerstman was "let go" after a less than favourable Kane and Lynch review from Gamespot.c_rake

We're still bringing this up? Ugh.

He already explained that it was all the result of a bad. inexperienced sales team (which no longer works at GameSpot). I'd think big-name publications would have people who know how to deal with threats of advertisement removal by now given how long they've been around and how common it is. If it were a prevalent issue, we'd be hearing about actual cases more often; Gerstmann's dismissal pretty much proves that with how quickly word got out about that.

I bring it up because its valid evidence to the argument at hand. Just because it was "a bad" by people who no longer work for CNET/Gamespot does not invalidate what happened and probably happens. This isnt the only case, sure it gets out sometimes, especially now with the Internet this information will spill eventually, but this has happened and will probably happen again. You dont have to explain the case to me, I know what happened.

Further examples

http://www.joystickdivision.com/2011/09/review_embargoes_are_truth_on.php

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2011/06/duke-nukems-pr-threatens-to-punish-sites-that-run-negative-reviews/

These are the ones that get out. The question is can/are reviewers pressured/coerced to do certain things for certain games. The answer, yes.

These are the ones that get out. The question is can/are reviewers pressured/coerced to do certain things for certain games. The answer, yes.Arath_1

But how often do they accept those offers/cave under pressure? That's the real question.

[QUOTE="Krelian-co"]a. defends the high scored of call of duty even though is known EA buys their reviewsc_rake

Source, please.

a. defends the high scored of call of duty even though is known EA buys their reviewsKrelian-co

Everyone always says that critics are bribed by game developers just because Call of Duty is crticial acclaimed each year, Call of Duty is not a bad game, just a rehased one, anyway, this may sound like Hater talk, but I never used to think that critics were paid until I saw Gameinformer's review of Resident Evil 5 (I know that game came out in 2009 but I only saw the review a few weeks ago and I only thought to make a thread now, they gave it 9.50, now i'm not hating on Gameinformer just for giving a horrible game a high score but when it is compared to other reviews, it does seem like Gameinformer was paid, for example, Assassin's Creed II only got 9.00 (i'm not saying that's a bad score, but Assassin's Creed II improved over the original in almost every way and Resident Evil 5 stuffed up the series, I know it's an opinion, but the game has flaws that even a hardcore Resident Evil 5 fanboy couldn't deny) and Super Mario Galaxy 2 only got 9.25 (once again, not a bad score, not a bad score at all, but when you look at every other website, the game is considered perfect, it's the only game that got 10/10 from Gamesweasol on YouTube, and every other website thinks that Super Mario Galaxy 2 is significantly considered better than Resident Evil 5. Once again, this may sound like hater talk, but since everyone seems to think that game critics are paid by game developers just because of Call of Duty, I don't see why thinking that Gameinformer was paid by Capcom to review Resident Evil 5 is such a bad thing.

RageQuitter69

That score seems about right for RE5 for me. The game is one of the best action games this gen.dvader654

[QUOTE="dvader654"]That score seems about right for RE5 for me. The game is one of the best action games this gen.RageQuitter69

[QUOTE="RageQuitter69"][QUOTE="dvader654"]That score seems about right for RE5 for me. The game is one of the best action games this gen.Yusuke420

I could not care less if people like games I don't, if I did, I would not be a very happy person considering I don't like Mass Effect 2, Metal Gear Solid 4, Resident Evil 5 or Skyrim.RageQuitter69

And yet here you are complaining about a review you disagree with. Hm...

[QUOTE="RageQuitter69"]I could not care less if people like games I don't, if I did, I would not be a very happy person considering I don't like Mass Effect 2, Metal Gear Solid 4, Resident Evil 5 or Skyrim.c_rake

And yet here you are complaining about a review you disagree with. Hm...