Sensitive Biscuit

degrassinoel

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Well, if he didn't get a free review copy then he's perfectly right not to buy it IMO.

Yeah lol

Although he's been arguing that he's not a reviewer aswell. Which imo is ridiculous, and EA should have thrown him a bone.

ancapailldorcha

SB2013 wrote: »

It wasn't necessary to play or finish the game. The game was brilliant without it. It added some good extra background and a decent unit but that's all. It didn't affect the overall game. It was a bad play on behalf of EA but the game itself was still worth the money withour the dlc.

The Prothean squad member was such an important part of the lore. Yes, he wasn't needed to break the game and he doesn't add all that much but when you consider how important the Protheans are to the franchise's lore and then EA using that to charge for DLC on top of a full price game. I consider that ridiculous. Only for the fact I discovered the series less than a year ago I was able to get ME3 quite for £15 so I didn't mind paying for the DLC but if it came out now, I'd refuse to buy it.
What TB said to you was childish at best but it doesn't invalidate everything he says. Whether or not he's a tool is subjective, I watch his videos because I think he's quite well informed and I'd take his opinion over the likes of IGN any day.

COYVB

ShadowHearth wrote: »

There is no standard, but there should be

How could there ever be a standard for something that boils down to "does the person writing this like the game?" in fairness? Do you like chicken? Because lots of people don't. If one who did and one who didn't wrote reviews about chicken, one would be positive, one would be negative. Why?

Because of personal opinion.

That's all reviews are - personal opinion - whether about games, movies, cars, software, food, or anything else

ShadowHearth

COYVB wrote: »

How could there ever be a standard for something that boils down to "does the person writing this like the game?" in fairness? Do you like chicken? Because lots of people don't. If one who did and one who didn't wrote reviews about chicken, one would be positive, one would be negative. Why?

Because of personal opinion.

That's all reviews are - personal opinion - whether about games, movies, cars, software, food, or anything else

REVIEW =/= OPINION, PREVIEW, FIRST LOOK.

o·pin·ion [uh-pin-yuhn] Show IPA
noun
1.
a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
2.
a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.
3.
the formal expression of a professional judgment: to ask for a second medical opinion.
4.
Law. the formal statement by a judge or court of the reasoning and the principles of law used in reaching a decision of a case.
5.
a judgment or estimate of a person or thing with respect to character, merit, etc.: to forfeit someone's good opinion.


re·view (r-vy)
v. re·viewed, re·view·ing, re·views
v.tr.
1. To look over, study, or examine again.
2. To consider retrospectively; look back on.
3. To examine with an eye to criticism or correction: reviewed the research findings.
4. To write or give a critical report on (a new work or performance, for example).
5. Law To reexamine (an action or determination) judicially, especially in a higher court, in order to correct possible errors.
6. To subject to a formal inspection, especially a military inspection.

degrassinoel

ShadowHearth wrote: »

REVIEW =/= OPINION, PREVIEW, FIRST LOOK.

o·pin·ion [uh-pin-yuhn] Show IPA
noun
1.
a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
2.
a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.
3.
the formal expression of a professional judgment: to ask for a second medical opinion.
4.
Law. the formal statement by a judge or court of the reasoning and the principles of law used in reaching a decision of a case.
5.
a judgment or estimate of a person or thing with respect to character, merit, etc.: to forfeit someone's good opinion.


re·view (r-vy)
v. re·viewed, re·view·ing, re·views
v.tr.
1. To look over, study, or examine again.
2. To consider retrospectively; look back on.
3. To examine with an eye to criticism or correction: reviewed the research findings.
4. To write or give a critical report on (a new work or performance, for example).
5. Law To reexamine (an action or determination) judicially, especially in a higher court, in order to correct possible errors.
6. To subject to a formal inspection, especially a military inspection.

I'm pretty sure people who post here can distinguish the difference between the two without you having to copy and paste a dictionary definition dude. What was your point before that?

ShadowHearth

degrassinoel wrote: »

I'm pretty sure people who post here can distinguish the difference between the two without you having to copy and paste a dictionary definition dude. What was your point before that?

Well that was the last resort... When person says he is doing preview, first look, "opinion" work and then people bashing him, because they take his work as a REVIEW.

bradlente

I thought this thread was about a new indie game.:o

SB2013

Ok perhaps we're getting a little off the point. The lack of any kind of industry standard for a review makes it very hard to distinguish between a mere opinion piece and review. And we all will have different opinions on Total Biscuits content.

Leaving IGN and Bioshock out of it, do people think early access offers to games compromise a reviewer in any way?

COYVB

ShadowHearth wrote: »

REVIEW =/= OPINION, PREVIEW, FIRST LOOK.

o·pin·ion [uh-pin-yuhn] Show IPA
noun
1.
a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
2.
a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.
3.
the formal expression of a professional judgment: to ask for a second medical opinion.
4.
Law. the formal statement by a judge or court of the reasoning and the principles of law used in reaching a decision of a case.
5.
a judgment or estimate of a person or thing with respect to character, merit, etc.: to forfeit someone's good opinion.


re·view (r-vy)
v. re·viewed, re·view·ing, re·views
v.tr.
1. To look over, study, or examine again.
2. To consider retrospectively; look back on.
3. To examine with an eye to criticism or correction: reviewed the research findings.
4. To write or give a critical report on (a new work or performance, for example).
5. Law To reexamine (an action or determination) judicially, especially in a higher court, in order to correct possible errors.
6. To subject to a formal inspection, especially a military inspection.

Look at number 4 from the review heading. That's what game reviews are, they're critical reports on a new work. That critical report will always be based on the opinion of the person in question

If you and a friend to go a restaurant and both order the same thing, one of you might love it, the other might not. If both reviewed the meal, one would be more positive than the other because of personal taste. You CANNOT review something without opinion coming into it. If things were as you wanted it, game reviews would be along the lines of:

The visuals are on a level similar to the most highly rated 10% of contemporary game experiences within the genre. The frame rate is locked at a solid 60fps, while screen tearing is kept to a minimum.

The gameplay mechanics are first person shooter in nature, where the player views the action through the eyes of the protagonist. There are 14 weapons available in the game, from the pistol available at the start through to various additional weapons that can be picked up by walking over them throughout the game experience. Pressing the fire button causes your character to shoot projectiles from their weapon in a manner directly comparable with the firing of similar weapons in real life - however the act of picking items up by walking over them is inherently unrealistic.

The enemies are varied, ranging from unarmoured opponents who take very few bullets to put down to more intelligent, stronger and armour wearing enemies which take longer to kill.

You play through the game by following narrative direction. A character may tell you to go to a certain point to collect an item and bring it back to them. You progress through the game by doing so. You can also explore the various areas if you wish, although this has little bearing on the ultimate outcome of the game.

Technically the game is extremely competent. It didn't crash at all while we played it, and there were few audio or visual issues throughout, although on a number of occasions one character would cut off another mid-sentence, making it difficult to hear what each were saying.

That's what you'd get. You would NEVER have a review saying "this game is great fun", because that's an opinion. Fun differs from person to person. If you got the reviews you wished for, they would ONLY cover technical aspects, never anything about the narrative structure (again, opinion), gameplay beyond mechanics (opinion), level design beyond mechanics (opinion), comparative gameplay to other titles (opinion)

There is no such thing as an objective review when it comes to artwork, and given that games are essentially modern artwork, your entire notion that opinion can be separated from review is beyond nonsensical

COYVB

SB2013 wrote: »

Ok perhaps we're getting a little off the point. The lack of any kind of industry standard for a review makes it very hard to distinguish between a mere opinion piece and review

All reviews are opinion pieces, not all opinion pieces are reviews. That's it summed up as succinctly as possible

SB2013 wrote: »

Leaving IGN and Bioshock out of it, do people think early access offers to games compromise a reviewer in any way?

All game journalists (and I am one), get access to games early. That doesn't compromise anything. When an outlet pays for exclusivity on go live date of a review, however, then yes I believe that there's compromisation with regards to needing to pay for the exclusivity agreement through the additional advertising dollars generated through being the first to run a review

degrassinoel

ShadowHearth wrote: »

Well that was the last resort... When person says he is doing preview, first look, "opinion" work and then people bashing him, because they take his work as a REVIEW.

I take it as a review aswell but it's a matter of opinion to me.

Not The Real Scarecrow

I have to agree with Shadow. A review can be biased by an opinion but the final review should not be a total reflection of the opinion. Its a matter of trying to separate your own opinion from how the game actually plays.
I absolutely hated Assassains Creed 3, for some reason it annoyed me to a point that I could have smashed the **** out of the disk, however if I was reviewing it I would make it clear that I didn't like it for what ever reason but could see why people would like it and the final review score would be mainly based on graphics , mechanics and other aspects of the game that are constant for anyone who plays it. Reviewing a game should be based on the reviewer placing themselves in other players boots and trying to figure out how they might react to the game with out their own opinion coming into too much.
Unfortunately I think a lot of reviews that are out there are solely based on personal opinion and people take their opinions as the word of god. I knew a few people that really liked Aliens CM and if they were to give their opinion disguised as a review for a site, they'd have been cruicified.
As far as Tb goes, he always came across as a twat that thought his own opinion was more important than it actually was and if he's gonna start attacking his followers , I doubt he'll be around for much longer.

degrassinoel

SB2013 wrote: »

Leaving IGN and Bioshock out of it, do people think early access offers to games compromise a reviewer in any way?

Reviewing an unfinished product can only ever produce a preview and should be treated as such. Early access such as open beta's or pre-release builds which are open the public through payment should be treated as a preview too. After all it's an unfinished product which may not show all of it's glory or ghastliness.

COYVB

Just checked out the TotalBiscuit vid in question, and there's absolutely nothing there that suggests it's a review. It's non-critical look at the pre-release game, more "this is what you can do" and "this is how you do x", exceptionally opinion based and very clear about it

ShadowHearth

Meatwad wrote: »

I have to agree with Shadow. A review can be biased by an opinion but the final review should not be a total reflection of the opinion. Its a matter of trying to separate your own opinion from how the game actually plays.
I absolutely hated Assassains Creed 3, for some reason it annoyed me to a point that I could have smashed the **** out of the disk, however if I was reviewing it I would make it clear that I didn't like it for what ever reason but could see why people would like it and the final review score would be mainly based on graphics , mechanics and other aspects of the game that are constant for anyone who plays it. Reviewing a game should be based on the reviewer placing themselves in other players boots and trying to figure out how they might react to the game with out their own opinion coming into too much.
Unfortunately I think a lot of reviews that are out there are solely based on personal opinion and people take their opinions as the word of god. I knew a few people that really liked Aliens CM and if they were to give their opinion disguised as a review for a site, they'd have been cruicified.
As far as Tb goes, he always came across as a twat that thought his own opinion was more important than it actually was and if he's gonna start attacking his followers , I doubt he'll be around for much longer.

Jesus fecking Crist. Finally we getting somewhere, thank you!

If someone does not like him, then fair plays to you, its not some communist country where you are forced to watch TB content. Dont like him, ignore him - DONE.
Though lets call spade a spade here!

COYVB

degrassinoel wrote: »

Reviewing an unfinished product can only ever produce a preview and should be treated as such. Early access such as open beta's or pre-release builds which are open the public through payment should be treated as a preview too. After all it's an unfinished product which may not show all of it's glory or ghastliness.

99.999% of reviews are done using finished code. Games are typically finished 3-4 weeks pre-release, often longer. For example, I played a non-finished version of Infinite about 5 weeks pre-launch, but the game was almost finished at that point (the dev I spoke to told me it was minor aesthetic things that were just being tidied up before the master disc was sent to the printer). Now, you certainly wouldn't review that code, however the pre-release disc we received to review it was retail code, ergo it was finished. (retail code does NOT mean it comes in the retail box, on a retail disc, btw)

I think there's a massive misunderstanding among the public as to how a lot of this stuff works tbh

COYVB

Meatwad wrote: »

I have to agree with Shadow. A review can be biased by an opinion but the final review should not be a total reflection of the opinion. Its a matter of trying to separate your own opinion from how the game actually plays.

That's all well and good in theory, but that's not how it works in reality. The key thing in your post above is that you say it should not be a TOTAL reflection of the opinion, that i agree with. That's not what Shadow is saying though, he's saying opinion shouldn't come into it.

Opinion has to come into it though, as opinion is where people get their points of reference. You can't really separate them, otherwise a game review becomes nothing more than a technical critique, and games are about so, so much more than that

degrassinoel

COYVB wrote: »

99.999% of reviews are done using finished code. Games are typically finished 3-4 weeks pre-release, often longer. For example, I played a non-finished version of Infinite about 5 weeks pre-launch, but the game was almost finished at that point (the dev I spoke to told me it was minor aesthetic things that were just being tidied up before the master disc was sent to the printer). Now, you certainly wouldn't review that code, however the pre-release disc we received to review it was retail code, ergo it was finished. (retail code does NOT mean it comes in the retail box, on a retail disc, btw)

I think there's a massive misunderstanding among the public as to how a lot of this stuff works tbh

believing a developer when he/she tells you, oh it's just a minor aesthetic thing could be disasterous too. Especially if that developer was involved with The WarZ

I'm not involved in the gaming industry, i'm just using my own common sense and applying it to how i believe it should work as a review rather than a preview or firstlook etc..

ShadowHearth

COYVB wrote: »

That's all well and good in theory, but that's not how it works in reality. The key thing in your post above is that you say it should not be a TOTAL reflection of the opinion, that i agree with. That's not what Shadow is saying though, he's saying opinion shouldn't come into it.

Opinion has to come into it though, as opinion is where people get their points of reference. You can't really separate them, otherwise a game review becomes nothing more than a technical critique, and games are about so, so much more than that

Right, you know better what i think, then i do myself now. And sure, we live in complete BLACK and WHITE world.

COYVB

degrassinoel wrote: »

believing a developer when he/she tells you, oh it's just a minor aesthetic thing could be disasterous too. Especially if that developer was involved with The WarZ

I'm not involved in the gaming industry, i'm just using my own common sense and applying it to how i believe it should work as a review rather than a preview or firstlook etc..

Of course, and that's why I said you'd never review non-retail code. Retail code is for reviewing, because that's the code people are buying, anything before that is for preview only.

I played Splinter Cell: Blacklist in January, and even though the 2 levels I spent my time with were 100% complete at the time, I certainly couldn't use them as the basis of any review, because things can change dramatically in 7 months of development time.

The WTF is SimCity WAS based on retail code, however. It was the very same code everyone in the press had, and that was the very same code that everyone who bought it day 1 got. The code wasn't the issue, it was the servers. The rush too get reviews up for embargo lift means that anything involving servers will never be in any way accurate. That's why I, personally, refuse to review anything that relies on major server side work for at least a week or two post release

SB2013

COYVB wrote: »

All reviews are opinion pieces, not all opinion pieces are reviews. That's it summed up as succinctly as possible



All game journalists (and I am one), get access to games early. That doesn't compromise anything. When an outlet pays for exclusivity on go live date of a review, however, then yes I believe that there's compromisation with regards to needing to pay for the exclusivity agreement through the additional advertising dollars generated through being the first to run a review

And if you slate the game and the reviewer decides not to give you a review copy next time they release a game will you still review their product on your own dime? Or might you be tempted to give a better review to ensure you receive their stuff in the future and are not put at an extra cost and time delay compared to other reviewers.

COYVB wrote: »

Just checked out the TotalBiscuit vid in question, and there's absolutely nothing there that suggests it's a review. It's non-critical look at the pre-release game, more "this is what you can do" and "this is how you do x", exceptionally opinion based and very clear about it

Did you watch the whole hour and a half video? Because he does look at bits of it critically. The DRM, small map size, resource usage, FPS. He also talks about its brilliance as a simulator.

COYVB

ShadowHearth wrote: »

we live in complete BLACK and WHITE world.

That's precisely what you're trying to make out though. You're trying to say you can have a review without opinion. That's fine for technical stuff, but games are not about technical stuff. Games are about whether the reviewer thinks it's a game worth buying, and they're issuing their recommendation to purchase or avoid based on a number of factors which touch upon build quality, technical quality, and opinion

It's not black or white - opinion will always be a factor. Do you crib about movie reviews in the same manner? They've been around a lot longer and they are based on the very same premise as game reviews. Same for music reviews. Same for car reviews. Watch Top Gear and see how often the 3 goes disagree on the quality of a car

COYVB

SB2013 wrote: »

And if you slate the game and the reviewer decides not to give you a review copy next time they release a game will you still review their product on your own dime?

Never happens.

SB2013 wrote: »

Or might you be tempted to give a better review to ensure you receive their stuff in the future and are not put at an extra cost and time delay compared to other reviewers.

Again, never happens.

SB2013 wrote: »

Did you watch the whole hour and a half video? Because he does look at bits of it critically. The DRM, small map size, resource usage, FPS. He also talks about its brilliance as a simulator.

I only skimmed through and watched a few different minute-two minute bits. Is he wrong about saying it's a brilliant simulator though? It is, let's be fair. It's just that the servers and DRM didn't work properly, neither of which were apparent until release day server load hit

SB2013

COYVB wrote: »

Never happens.



Again, never happens.

In general or just with you?

COYVB wrote: »

I only skimmed through and watched a few different minute-two minute bits. Is he wrong about saying it's a brilliant simulator though? It is, let's be fair. It's just that the servers and DRM didn't work properly, neither of which were apparent until release day server load hit

No it's been shown to have basically no underlying mechanics for proper simulation. No proper demographics for population. It's years behind Sim City 4 in terms of simulation. I was of the same opinion as yourself for a day or two but when you start to see what the real issues are you cant say its a good simulator.

ShadowHearth

Right, I am looking at the first post and I am tryinbg to find out what is the real topic and purpose of this thread.

a) It is a thread about: "Hey, someone famous told me to feck off, because he does not agrees with my opinion, but he did not said that nicely and got a bit Emo about it.
If that is the point of this thread, then I agree, that TB over reacted. He was wrong in acting like he did. Case closed.

b) He was reviewing the game Simcity. Was wrong about it and just praising the game, because he was pretty much payed for doing it. As he got copy early.
I think it was answered already, that all major people involved in gaming in one way or another got a copy of the game. He did not do a review, he did a coverage of it. it clearly states in the VIDEO. IT IS NOT A REVIEW.

copy pasted from discription: TotalBiscuit invites Genna to take an extensive look at the newest SimCity. The game is scheduled for release on March 5th in NA.

When he did this WTF, he dodged mostly on the whole ****STORM of EA servers, because there were only limited amount of people on the game it self. A lot of broken design issues came up clear only few days after launch. He had limited time window to play this game and do a video about it. He could not sit and play fecking SimCity 80 hours and find every single bit that was wrong with it. And he did pointed out a lot of wrong in it. Keep in mind video is done BEFORE the actual release and **** storm.
I would bet that he gave credit to the game, as when stuff is fixes, it is going to be quite a good game. He and almost every single one expected there to be a Cluster**** on launch, due to online only EA bull****. Though no one expected it to be so bad so long after launch. From what I see in SimCity thread it is still in shocking state.
c) This is a general thread: " I dont like TB, I think he is an idiot. Every single Video he makes is rubbish ( I still somehow manage to watch most of them, even if I unsubbed 20 years ago ). I think his face is stupid. His voice is annoying and he should be killed."

Well if thats where it is going, and I can see by a lot of posts that it is going there, then I dont see the point in being here then. Just to talk **** about someone ( who as people say they dont watch ) is sort of pointless.

COYVB

SB2013 wrote: »

In general or just with you?




No it's been shown to have basically no underlying mechanics for proper simulation. No proper demographics for population. It's years behind Sim City 4 in terms of simulation. I was of the same opinion as yourself for a day or two but when you start to see what the real issues are you cant say its a good simulator.

In general, never happens. Good or bad reviews, it's the pr company's job to get as many column inches as possible, so they'll always send the game

ShadowHearth

COYVB wrote: »

That's precisely what you're trying to make out though. You're trying to say you can have a review without opinion. That's fine for technical stuff, but games are not about technical stuff. Games are about whether the reviewer thinks it's a game worth buying, and they're issuing their recommendation to purchase or avoid based on a number of factors which touch upon build quality, technical quality, and opinion

It's not black or white - opinion will always be a factor. Do you crib about movie reviews in the same manner? They've been around a lot longer and they are based on the very same premise as game reviews. Same for music reviews. Same for car reviews. Watch Top Gear and see how often the 3 goes disagree on the quality of a car

I am trying to define 2 media's. One is a complete REVIEW, which is prefesional, completed, in depth, not based on your personal view, opinion. The other side is Preview/Opinion/First look, which can/is personal opinion, quick and usually just surface analysis of the item.

I am not denying that reviewer will throw in some of his opinion, but review cannot be opinion based, like some people say. I am sorry if i was not 100% clear with this. english is not my first language, so I do run out of words or the ways of explanation. Meatwad hit the nail on what I was trying to say.

In TBs case, it is not a REVIEW, for which he is being slammed.

degrassinoel

I didnt think he was slammed for that, but rather for his reaction to a question from a follower on twitter.

SB2013

ShadowHearth wrote: »

Right, I am looking at the first post and I am tryinbg to find out what is the real topic and purpose of this thread.

a) It is a thread about: "Hey, someone famous told me to feck off, because he does not agrees with my opinion, but he did not said that nicely and got a bit Emo about it.
If that is the point of this thread, then I agree, that TB over reacted. He was wrong in acting like he did. Case closed.

b) He was reviewing the game Simcity. Was wrong about it and just praising the game, because he was pretty much payed for doing it. As he got copy early.
I think it was answered already, that all major people involved in gaming in one way or another got a copy of the game. He did not do a review, he did a coverage of it. it clearly states in the VIDEO. IT IS NOT A REVIEW.

copy pasted from discription: TotalBiscuit invites Genna to take an extensive look at the newest SimCity. The game is scheduled for release on March 5th in NA.

When he did this WTF, he dodged mostly on the whole ****STORM of EA servers, because there were only limited amount of people on the game it self. A lot of broken design issues came up clear only few days after launch. He had limited time window to play this game and do a video about it. He could not sit and play fecking SimCity 80 hours and find every single bit that was wrong with it. And he did pointed out a lot of wrong in it. Keep in mind video is done BEFORE the actual release and **** storm.
I would bet that he gave credit to the game, as when stuff is fixes, it is going to be quite a good game. He and almost every single one expected there to be a Cluster**** on launch, due to online only EA bull****. Though no one expected it to be so bad so long after launch. From what I see in SimCity thread it is still in shocking state.
c) This is a general thread: " I dont like TB, I think he is an idiot. Every single Video he makes is rubbish ( I still somehow manage to watch most of them, even if I unsubbed 20 years ago ). I think his face is stupid. His voice is annoying and he should be killed."

Well if thats where it is going, and I can see by a lot of posts that it is going there, then I dont see the point in being here then. Just to talk **** about someone ( who as people say they dont watch ) is sort of pointless.

My main issue is TBs criticism of IGN for accepting this prerelease review deal when it is a practice he often engages in himself, as do many other reviewers, on a more inclusive yet still exclusive basis.

My second issue is to point out what an ass he was when i asked about it and to ask you wether it was deserved or not.

COYVB wrote: »

In general, never happens. Good or bad reviews, it's the pr company's job to get as many column inches as possible, so they'll always send the game

Ok so if it doesn't happen like that then why is there such an issue with IGN doing it exclusively? Is it just sour grapes from others or are IGN doing something different.

ShadowHearth wrote: »

I am trying to define 2 media's. One is a complete REVIEW, which is prefesional, completed, in depth, not based on your personal view, opinion. The other side is Preview/Opinion/First look, which can/is personal opinion, quick and usually just surface analysis of the item.

I am not denying that reviewer will throw in some of his opinion, but review cannot be opinion based, like some people say. I am sorry if i was not 100% clear with this. english is not my first language, so I do run out of words or the ways of explanation. Meatwad hit the nail on what I was trying to say.

In TBs case, it is not a REVIEW, for which he is being slammed.

Ok so at what stage does an opinion piece become a review. What level of analysis or structure is needed? Maybe this needs its own thread. Perhaps we could come up with a good standard.

COYVB

SB2013 wrote: »

Ok so if it doesn't happen like that then why is there such an issue with IGN doing it exclusively? Is it just sour grapes from others or are IGN doing something different.

IGN paid for the rights to be the first ones to put out a review. That's the difference. In doing so, they guaranteed a massive traffic volume from fans who wanted to read about the game, almost guaranteeing it would get a polarized review. Nobody pays a load of cash out then writes about how a game is "okay". If it was good, they'd say it was absolutely brilliant, if it was average, they'd say it was garbage.

In this case, though, it was almost definitely a soundly calculated approach. Everyone in the industry knew it was going to be a great game having played it fairly extensively pre-launch.

It's basically just the idea of paying to prevent anyone else getting hits for a certain time period for the review that rankles. Obviously anyone with deep enough pockets can do it though