Tomato Can - So they gave kickbacks to EVERY reviewer?
What an eminently plausible theory.
They dont give kickbacks, rather they have to buy bucket loads of advertising space for a more generous review.
There was a big kick up about that, well almost every year and a few reviews resigned with both gamespot and Ign over that as they felt it was misleading the public and it is.
The reviews I seen of it scored it in the mid 70`s and is about correct. Not enough new stuff in there, better yet the stuff the added could have been dlc since the assets where allready in 2008s version.
I'm not obsessed with the game, I don't own any consoles or play console games.
I believe you that there are complaints on the website, but for you to extend that into thinking that only a "small minority don't think the game sucks" is dumb and unsupportable with the facts.
How many different individuals have lodged complaints to say the game sucks? Please keep in mind that this is out of HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of people that purchased the game.
Snakey - The reviews I seen of it scored it in the mid 70`s and is about correct. Not enough new stuff in there, better yet the stuff the added could have been dlc since the assets where allready in 2008s version.
tomato can, you don't own or play any console games and are clearly out of touch and naive when it comes to video game reviews. why are you arguing about this when it's clear you have no idea what you are talking about?
Most people wait for player reviews to start trickling out because of the absurd nature of game reviews.
Zero Punctuation, which is one of the great reviewers on The Escapist website, who is known for ripping games to fucking shreds, lost advertising for their site because of a single unfavorable review.
This is the cycle in gaming today. If you dont give favorable reviews, they pull advertising from your site, magazine etc, and stop givng you exclusive access and early versions. Your essentially DOA if you dont go to bed with the developers on some level.
Now, if you want to get an idea of a game score you have to use a sliding system.
7 means it below average or for the devoted only, but the site doesnt want to trash the developer.
8 means its competant to above average and the site wants to help the developer to stay in good graces
9 means its good regardless of developer
10 means Rockstar or said developer paid them off to go absolutely overboard with praise.
BTW, THQ is only doing this because the sales have been down. Sales are down and players are largely ripping it to shreds. Theyll go to the 18month schedule so the game gets a little further out of peoples minds before dropping the next. Madden pulls off the annual releases because they have to incorporate new drafted players and trades and they also catch millions of fans during their initial football craze for the start of the season. A lot of people buy the game and dont play it at all, but with the season about to start a shitload of people buy it as an annual rite of passage. With the UFC its basically the same fighters with little variance. Plus, THQ will hold off on the next release so they can see what EA does and find a way to cleverly incorporate mechanics they may introduce. THQ has to knock the next one out of the park, because succesive stumbles with EA in the market will mean a certain death.
7 means worth playing if you're a fan of the genre
8 means worth playing period
9+ means an exceptional game
I'd like to point out that:
1) I'm not out of touch at all when it comes to reviews. While I don't own any consoles, I still play PC games and read several reviews for every game I buy.
2) Average user scores on metacritic and gamespot range from 8-8.5 so you can chuck the "reviewers are all bought and paid for, people who think the game is good are in the small minority" bullshit out the window.
taxidriver - THQ should recognize they a subpar developer, and releasing mediocre products yearly just won't fly, not even with the videogame starved mma crowd. Stop reusing code and ideas from the Dreamcast UFC game, take care of all the bugs before even thinking of releasing another game and, please, don't compare yourselves with EA Sports.
UFC 2010 didn't sell because it was shit and everbody knew it since they had already played UFC 2009. And lol at wikipedia listing UFC 2011 as future release. Not anymore, thank god.
THQ is a Publisher, overseeing many games and many developers.
Tomato Can - I'm not obsessed with the game, I don't own any consoles or play console games.
I believe you that there are complaints on the website, but for you to extend that into thinking that only a "small minority don't think the game sucks" is dumb and unsupportable with the facts.
How many different individuals have lodged complaints to say the game sucks? Please keep in mind that this is out of HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of people that purchased the game.
The people on the forum are generally the individuals who are most passionate about the game, the passion seems to be overwhelmingly on the negative side though.
You can have all the critics in the world saying it's the greatest game ever, but the one true fact is the sales reflect the game is horrible. They had to go as far as blaming another video game for their poor sales.
If you don't play video games, why do you give a shit?
1) The people on this site are not representative of the video game playing public at large.
2) Sales do not necessarily reflect quality. Lots of great games have sold poorly throughout the years.
3) Not only professional reviews have been positive. Average user reviews on MetaCritic and GameSpot have ranged between 8-8.5 out of 10.
4) I do play video games, if you count PC games. I love gaming and have been following the industry for 20 years.
5) I don't give that much of a shit, I just found the whole "the sales are poor because the game sucks" argument to be laughable, considering how well the game was received.
Tomato Can, STFU, you are fu3king clueless. Like many here mentioned before, if you believe reviews rating from most video game review site, you are a fu3king tool.
I am a huge video gamer(console+PC)and I can't believe the game rating sites like gamespot & IGN gives most of the time. Rating is bought like cheap whores.
The best and only playable UFC game is still the original Dreamcast game, every subsequent titles have been nothing but liquid diarrhea.
Of course it would be unwise to just read 1 review on 1 site and base your opinion on that. However, when review aggregation sites like MetaCritic and GameRankings show that reviews are UNIVERSALLY positive, PLUS the user ratings for the game are in the 8.0-8.5 range, maybe it's time to recognize that the opinions of a handful of people who post on a message board are not particularly representative of the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of people who bought the game.
The shitty part is that the game is now $29.99 at Sam's Club. I bought that piece of shit for $60 in its midnight release.
@ Tomato Can. I'm not trying to start an argument with you but honestly if you haven't purchase OR played the game you may want to reserve your opinion.
^^ all that including the other bugs and glitches like:
Machida and others having an unstoppable takedown that made them horribly overpowered
the omoplata glitch where you just canceled the move to get a free ticket back to your feet
and of course the reversals, where you can spam them with no danger of losing stamina wich basically made the game an endless reversal spamming game
I never saw any of these issues mentioned in the reviews. But i should just disregard everything i know about a game i paid for and simply trust the reviewers like Tomato Can