DNF PR Firm Threatens To Punish Sites For Bad Reviews, then Says Sorry

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
It's not just PR firms that do this, publishers themselves tend to become quite childish when their over-hyped titles get bad reviews. Naturally its a advantage to both reviewers and gamers to get reviews before a game is released. This way the reviewer gets hits on their websites and ad revenue or magazine sales and the gamer can decide if they wish to purchase the game.

Some publishers however have for years now threatened these reviewers
to stop supplying them with future games if the game gets a less than favorable score. Of course no magazine or website will last if they comply to these demands as no one will trust them eventually.
This also leaves gamers either to buy a game without a idea of quality
or wait until the reviewers they trust get their hands on it and get a late review.
 
Dog eat dog, i agree, but i will go further and state (my opinion) that they (gearbox) knew what was going to be said and the backlash was so great they then seperated themselves. bad title leads to bad choices at the suit level, this is what happens when you do not have a subject matter expert on hand to shut the suits up and make them think before they release a game or make boneheaded choices like the pr firm did.
 
the game is not horrible. for $30 it would be a good game

once gearbox has it from day one, it will be a good game next time around...

i think the PR guy was just a little pissed cus the reviews were too harsh... what did u expect from duke, i was tossed around from studio to studio and died many times before gearbox saved it
 
I, for one, don't really trust reviewers to begin with. I usually like to wait a week or so and see where the user scores on metacritic go. You have to think, especially for big titles, the people working at these magazines have had access to these games in screenshot form or playable form from a very early age and with that, I believe, it becomes hard to create an unbiased review.

One of the most recent examples I can think of where I was totally tricked was Shogun 2. For some reason this game got really high reviews even though its common knowledge that the multiplayer campaign still %100 broken. How do you give a game that good review score when it doesn't even work. It is a good game, but not that good. The videos are cool but has nobody noticed that lack of maps? I don't want to play the same continental Japan over and over. Or the shallowness of the units? I mean c'mon I feel totally tricked on that one.

That being said I was playing a lot of Duke Nukem Forever with my buddy today and I will say the game seems and feels like it was related to DN3D. The game doesn't seem to have too many bugs and some of the bosses and units are cool looking and original. The actual game play is mediocre and doesn't deserve high ratings. A 50 on the 360 though? cmon thats just reviewers feeling sad about just another game that doesn't live up to the hype. Welcome to this corporate gaming world where all these suits care about is money. This should be nothing new when you compare it to some of the stuff being "shoved" out lately. Even more disappointing is some of these games that get high reviews and then you buy them when they are boring, repetitive, and still in beta phase.
 
Why are people judging it as a 14yr game? Do people really think someone sat for 14yrs and programmed it? The game engine was changed many times, it went through way more studios and review groups then any game should have. Old school game play? Serious? Of course it does!

Duke doesn't really interest me, so I had no desire to buy the game. I do hope Gearbox keeps it and makes another, one that can show what duke can do. Anyone who thinks this game must be the ultimate in gaming because it was worked on for 14yrs is an idiot.
 
This guy was actually right. I had watched many of the reviews. Some of them were pretty fair. Others sounded like they were written by a femi-nazi. Which is what I think he was referring to when he said they were "spitting venom." This game is easily just a 6/10 but some were dragging it down to 3/10 or 2/10. This is like a rotten tomatoes screwdriver-in-the-ass critic doing a movie review on Jackass.

Seriously, DNF is a dumb fun game. Nothing complicated. Just dumb sit-back-and-laugh fun.
 
DNF's PR firm needs to take tips from Crytek and EA on how to coat a pile of crap and call it candy yet still get "Great" reviews

*cough, Crysis 2, cough*
 
Hey, it's freedom of the press, if they don't like the bad reviews then to bad. People are smart enough to make up there own minds. Good press is good but bad press is good to. Everyone's opinions matter. I think it's bad that he threatened to blacklist them. I personally think the reviews have merit, i've seen the video's and from what i've seen it looks like a second rate game. I'm not gonna buy it just cuz of the hype. But if my friends buy it and it seems good, then maybe i'll give it a try.
 
[citation][nom]4745454b[/nom]Why are people judging it as a 14yr game? Do people really think someone sat for 14yrs and programmed it? The game engine was changed many times, it went through way more studios and review groups then any game should have. Old school game play? Serious? Of course it does! Duke doesn't really interest me, so I had no desire to buy the game. I do hope Gearbox keeps it and makes another, one that can show what duke can do. Anyone who thinks this game must be the ultimate in gaming because it was worked on for 14yrs is an idiot.[/citation]

14 years of ideas, and 14 years of "hay thats a good idea, lets put it in our game, time be damned"

saddly everything didnt pan out im guessing.

[citation][nom]mobrocket[/nom]the game is not horrible. for $30 it would be a good gameonce gearbox has it from day one, it will be a good game next time around... i think the PR guy was just a little pissed cus the reviews were too harsh... what did u expect from duke, i was tossed around from studio to studio and died many times before gearbox saved it[/citation]

its not harsh reviews, its people "reviewing" it from a purely negitivly light. where they only talk about the flaws, only say bad things about it, and hate it just for the sake of hateing it. if this was a game of any other name, it would be looked at fairly goodly, but the hate is purely for the hate.

and holy @#$@ the fem-nazis... i have heard enough of the "he is just blaa blaa women, blaa blaa" crap to make me a chauvinist just to #@$% them off.
 
I was severely disappointed in this game. It reminded me of 007 Nightfire in terms of the controls. I thought it was just horrible. I'm sorry, the game deserves negative comments. What a crappy way to waste $45.
 
Many of the reviewers are just spitting nonsense. Seriously people were taking away points for his "rude comments" and the "uninspired gameplay". Seriously, this is Duke, all he does is show up, kill everything and make rude sexist comments. That is the entire point of Duke, not to be some artistic "inspired" game that makes everyone go "ohh, I just experienced a deep spiritual meaning". Its meant to be a joke on Political Correctness and have you laughing at everything.

Having played through the game, I can say that while not perfect its just "Fun". You get finished and it was an entertaining experience. Most of those negative review's are being done by people going in with this expectation that it should be some epic golden game, or their going to throw it out the window.
 
Duke Nukem Forever is trash, so how do they even think to sell such crap and even expect to get great reviews afterwards ???
 
And this is something new? I haven't trusted many reviews since back in the days when a game could actually score a low 1 in a 10 point grade system.

Today that score is an 7-8 no matter what crap game is "reviewed", so much for honesty. Same with Metacritics, how many of thoose "reviews" are made by actuall marketing employees who work to get a product promoted. The system is so corrupted!

Wasn't 5 supposed to be average of a 0-10 system, atleast what i learned in school!
 
Ignore reviews.
If you can't form an opinion from your own experience you must be about 3 years old or have terminal alzheimers.
This doesn't just go for Duke but for any game.

Let's take movies as example, The Blues Brothers was universally panned by critics on it's cinema release and although it didn't get much commercial success it has stood the test of time to become an all-time cult classic beloved by generations.

So the game has been out for 6 days worldwide, there is no need for such vitriol, I mean what were you expecting with the game? A free leather jacket, a six pack of beer and a blow job?
 
ask me most critic's and new reviewers , just expect to damn much froma game today , seriously giving DNF 50 or lower ????

and evern you guys say in this article it disapointed gamers ??? how ? i jsut don't see it , iv'e been palyign ti , it's agreat game , it jsut doesn't do any thing truely new , So what ? does that make it a terrible as the reviewers woudl suggest with thier scores . ask me NO , maybe it makes amediocre game by today's standards , but i've seen worse games ghet 80% or 8/10 in reveiws before. this is not teh frist time eitehr than i've seena game get crap reviews from new and gamers alike eitehr and i still liked teh game myself (blood rayne 1 and 2)

though in the case of DNF i've seen a lot of gamers scratch thier heads over the bad reviews. sure DNF doesn't do any thing new , and teh potty hiumor seems older today , but the game is a great trip through time (literrally) bringing back many fond memories of teh original duke games. i jsut dont understand why a game today has to some sort of "messiah" game to get deccent reviews any more. not every paitning has to be a michangelo , not every song has to be a beatles hit , and not every game has to be a Halo.

i seriously agree with this guy about what a--hats these critics have been , granted i'm not for blacklisting , but i think more than a few of tehse reviewer's need thier teeth kicked in jsut for being such jack ass idiots to actually expect DNF to be some super differnt expreince , it'sa FPSer not much more to add to this genre really.

further more i'll take duke over any one of the million's of CoD games that are flaothing around today like turds in a toilet. because those games do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING new either , have less than half the humor DNF does, and have much shorter campaigns , yet they all get much better reviews from these same reviewers than DNF did , THAT is why i want to kick these people squarely in the balls , and why i flat out don't trust reviewers.
 
The game is not bad, really. Don't judge by other's reviews. It feels like an old, vintage game, and that is fine by me. It has all the Duke's good things we liked in 96, and the same lonesome hero feel.

So, it is Duke Nukem 3D restyled the way a 2005 game should look. That is not bad. It might not be for you, you might not like it, but this game was not meant to please 10M people, after all this ordeal.

It is a good game for any Duke fan. Maybe not so good for a 15 year old kid, though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom