EGM rated Soul Reaver 2 5.5!!!!

That's it! They have gone too far!

Don't take anything they say seriously. They're all Square fanboys that deserve to be shot by the time Final Fantasy 37 comes out. Which wont be too long at this rate, I say about 2 years tops.

Originally posted by Eric:
<STRONG>Don't take anything they say seriously. </STRONG>

Click to expand...

Yeah, I try not to, but man! Can they not see how artisicly wonderful the game is, not to mention the fact that it has perfect control and a flawless camera? And the combat is not that bad!

I subscribe to EGM and was very upset by the horrid rating they gave to Soul Reaver 2. In Raziel's own words this could be called, "a travesty".

I am a huge fan of Blood Omen, Soul Reaver, and Soul Reaver 2. I just love the intricate story line that has been skillfully weaved throughout all three games. Soul Reaver 2 could have been done on an Intelevsion and I still would have ate it up. Anything to continue to story of Nosgoth's decay at the hands of Kain.

My opinion is terribly biased so perhaps I am unfit to judge EGM's harsh rating of Soul Reaver 2. But one of the reviewers did hit the nail on the head when he said that only fans of the series need apply.

I can't wait for Blood Omen 2 to come out. The only decision I face there is whether to get the PS2 or Xbox version. <IMG SRC="smilies/biggrin.gif" border="0">

Sounds like they are mainstream reviewers(meaning they get paid to give good reviews for that game)they got mad for no money and shredded Soul Reaver to pieces.

Originally posted by BJMFH:
<STRONG>I subscribe to EGM and was very upset by the horrid rating they gave to Soul Reaver 2. In Raziel's own words this could be called, "a travesty".

I am a huge fan of Blood Omen, Soul Reaver, and Soul Reaver 2. I just love the intricate story line that has been skillfully weaved throughout all three games. Soul Reaver 2 could have been done on an Intelevsion and I still would have ate it up. Anything to continue to story of Nosgoth's decay at the hands of Kain.

My opinion is terribly biased so perhaps I am unfit to judge EGM's harsh rating of Soul Reaver 2. But one of the reviewers did hit the nail on the head when he said that only fans of the series need apply.

I can't wait for Blood Omen 2 to come out. The only decision I face there is whether to get the PS2 or Xbox version. <IMG SRC="smilies/biggrin.gif" border="0"></STRONG>

Click to expand...

Well said! I am a huge Soul Reaver nut, so perhaps I too an not a good judge of the rating. Still, I feel there are great factual things about the game that are over looked: Great Control, flawless camera and such. Still, its great to me, and that's all that matters!

Originally posted by Marco's Arms Dealer:
<STRONG>Sounds like they are mainstream reviewers(meaning they get paid to give good reviews for that game)they got mad for no money and shredded Soul Reaver to pieces.</STRONG>

Click to expand...

I'm going to say this as politely as possible: You don't know what you're talking about. I have heard this "pay for play" line for years, and I offer the same challenge: Find me some evidence of getting paid to write good reviews. To date, nobody's taken me up on it, and I'm baffled. I mean, obviously, a professional writer's opinions are instantly invalid and suspect if they differ from your own! We disagree, so they're not only wrong--they're clearly corrupt!

So cough up the proof. What do you have on these crooks to back up your claims?

Nothing? Then please keep your uninformed, prejudiced allegations to yourself.

As for EGM's review...don't sweat it, it's just one opinion. If you like the game more and can make up your own mind from personal experience, then compare it to what's on the printed page, that's really all that matters. Reviews are nothing more than guides.

I am a huge soul reaver fan as well.I love the original one.I was anticipating the sequel but it was canned on the DC.I think that EGM nowdays loves giving games low ratings.CvS2 got a 6 in graphics when that game has nice graphics except for the sprites.They also love giving DC games low ratings as well!

WOW! What else does EGM is lacking this year?! Can't wait to hear their dumb comments on the Holiday buyer's guide....

Who buys game magazines anyway? Other than retail stores like EB, Babbages, Barnes and Noble, etc - do consumers even care about the crap written in these rags? I used to flip through them looking for NGPC ads, and with Gamefan I'd look for any Neo expose' but really it's all about the mainstream crud that's being shoved down people's throats.

When will there be a review trashing Final Fantasy? When will people say "FFXXX looks good but the story is utter crap"??? They won't.

God, i hated the first Soul Reaver (played trhough a good chunk of it back in the day (1999)) and am really not surprised at the shit review it got. If SR2 is really more of the same with better graphics, I'll stay far away. Thanks for the honest review EGM.

They gave MGS2 WAY of high if a score.

Oddworld on XBOX was not worthy of that high socre either.

The top 100 list is total bullshit this time around.

They got one thing right: Seanbaby.

I have only played to it on PC but it appeared to be a great game.

Originally posted by EvilWasabi:
<STRONG>Who buys game magazines anyway? Other than retail stores like EB, Babbages, Barnes and Noble, etc - do consumers even care about the crap written in these rags?
</STRONG>

Click to expand...

I subscribe to game magazines. I get GamePro, EGM, GameInformer, NextGen, and Game now (or whatever it is, whatever had the free sign up). I think they are all interesting. They're nice to have in the can. Soul Reaver 2 isn't that great of a game. Just because you think it is, doesn't make it so. Objectivity is key.

If they had put more time into the game and actually giving us a nice solid ending with closure, instead of all that "DVD extra" shit, they might have rated it higher.

I have heard this "pay for play" line for years, and I offer the same challenge: Find me some evidence of getting paid to write good reviews. To date, nobody's taken me up on it, and I'm baffled.

Click to expand...

No disrespect, Dan, but let's turn that around a bit and lets find some evidence that you are NOT getting paid to write good reviews.

I remember watching an interview with Dan Rather once, and one thing he said which stuck out in my mind: "As a journalist, I learned early to trace the money."

Bearing that in mind, let's trace where the money comes from for game magazines.

Where does the money come from.. Let's see. I don't have exact statistics, but it's from subscribers (both consumers and businesses the sell on newstands), and advertisers.

The ppl who pay the bills call the shots. The ppl paying your bills are subscribers and the advertisers (who make the games you review). The people calling the shots are usually the ppl with the most money, which I guess would be the advertisers. They would also call the shots because they supply the games for you to review. You guys aren't exactly a non-profit like consumer reports, so you are in it for the money.

If 3 million readers catch wind of all 6s in a review of FFX in your mag, that means square (who pays your bills with ad revenue), would sell less games because of a bad review. All the time and money and other advertising to promote FFX will be in vain if it gets a bad review and low sales. So, if the critics give it 9s, the advertisers are happy, and the mag continues publication.

It's all about politics.

'Tis a shame...

Well, at least GamePro gave it a nice review. But what baffled me was, the graphics looked the same, if not worse, than SR1 on Dreamcast. (Which I own and Love!)

Originally posted by Awakened1:
<STRONG>

I remember watching an interview with Dan Rather once, and one thing he said which stuck out in my mind: "As a journalist, I learned early to trace the money."

</STRONG>

Click to expand...

How do you know that Dan Rather wasnt payed to say that?

I for one don't take reviews of games seriously enough to take their opinion seriously without playing the game first. So if you like the game, screw the reviews. It doesn't make the game any worse and it'll still sell well becuase of the previous games reputation and for people like you who like the game too.

However, I have to agree with the "bad" review. Well really, in my opinion a 5.5 should mean it's above average (5.0 being average... makes sense right?), and I would probably give SR2 a below average score. I guess it's a required taste, becuase I hated the original Soul Reaver too. I dunno. Whatever!

No disrespect taken--I realize it's just a discussion, so please pardon the mammoth answer that is to follow and don't take it as a personal attack by any means. I doubt too many people will want to read it in full. Maybe you wanna just skip to the last sentence. <IMG SRC="smilies/smile.gif" border="0">

<rant>

Originally posted by Awakened1:
<STRONG>No disrespect, Dan, but let's turn that around a bit and lets find some evidence that you are NOT getting paid to write good reviews.</STRONG>

Click to expand...

What you ask is logically impossible. You cannot prove a negative. Prove to me that you are not, for the sake of example, a rapist. You say you've never raped someone before? I don't believe you--I say you have. I just have a hunch that you're a rapist, so I'm going to announce that hunch, because I can. And if you haven't raped anybody, what proof can you offer me to shut me up? Nothing, except your word, the word of everyone who claims not to be a victim of your crimes (and of course they have no proof either), and your wish that I would not assume such horrible things about you and your character without knowing you. The accusation is completely without evidence or even a rational base--hell, it's legally libelous--but once it's stated, the damage is done. As far as the world knows now, you're a rapist.

Were I getting paid to write good reviews, I could show you some sort of memo or bank statement or what have you--if it were true, you'd be able to trace it. Since it's not true, I have no fancy car or big house or Swiss bank account. There's no material proof whatsoever of the alleged behavior, and therefore no way--or need--to "prove my innocence." All I can offer is that you can read my reviews and see which games get low marks. If I'm on Infogrames payroll, <A HREF="http://[http://www.gamepro.com/sony/ps2/games/reviews/14900.shtml"" TARGET=_blank>Motor Mayhem</A> would have gotten more than the 1.5 Fun Factor I gave it a few issues back.

The conflict you bring up, however, does exist, and it's generally just called the ad/edit conflict. It's obviously one of the most important ethical situations a writer has to deal with, especially if The Golden Rule is "he who has the gold makes the rules," right? Here's a concrete example: I worked at a magazine once where I gave the unbelievably awful Combat Cars for Genesis a 2 out of 10. The publisher came to me and said "Come on, give it at least a 5. It can't be THAT bad." I maintained that it was. Eventually I was flat-out ordered to change the review so as not to piss off the advertiser. They would not let me pull the review entirely--it was too late in the cycle, and the page had already been laid out. So I took my name off the review, let them change what they wanted, and ran my actual review with my real name in another publication, which had no problems with me telling the truth. And the magazine where it happened? Long since out of business. You simply cannot do business like that and hope to keep your reader trust.

GamePro has never--not ONCE--put any such pressure on me to sweeten or otherwise falsify a review. Our in-house key word is responsibility--responsibility to the readers to tell the truth and be a trusted source, and a responsibility to not be cruel where it's not necessary. If a game is getting, say, a 2 out of 5 for Fun, it's pretty obvious that the game is poor. What you don't have to do is say "I would rather drink a cup of my own urine...no, someone else's urine than play this game again, and Company X should never have put out this steaming pile of dung." You can say that same point without being a total ass about it. We avoid cheap shots to preserve the company relationship, but we do not give out high marks to preserve the company relationship.

There is a certain company who has blacklisted GamePro for the last two years because they didn't like the last review they got. They stopped sending us games and they pulled all their ads. We still cover their games when we can, when it's timely coverage. But they pulled their ads because of editorial--we didn't pull our editorial because of their ads.

Advertisers try that stuff all the time. In the alarmingly recent past, I've had product managers call our ad guys and complain about a low score, knowing full well who our Editor in Chief is and that he's the proper contact person. Guess what? It didn't work--the review stands and the ad guy he called said "Sorry you're upset, but ad and edit are different realms, and I can't really tell you what you want to hear." We've had publishers think that because we preview their game favorably or put it on the cover that they are entitled to a glowing review upon the game's release. In one case, the game's high-profile preview and low review score some months later caused a really nasty three-page letter from a well known CEO, full of personal attacks about the writer's lack of a social life. (The CEO and writer had never met--he was just making random allegations without any proof. How about that.) Know what our CEO said in return? "Sorry you feel that way." He backed up the review 100%. There are several other similar situations that I can't reveal because I'd wind up naming names. But the bottom line is, at GamePro, the biz guys back up the edit guys--even if that means they have to deal with screaming and yelling from their clients.

GamePro has printed factual corrections (we just got the ESRB rating for Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance PS2 wrong, so you'll see that one soon), but to this day has NEVER printed a retraction. Ever. We're in our 11th year.

So in summary, how do you know I don't get paid to give good reviews? Because you are not a rapist. And I take the ethics of my job extremely seriously.

</rant...and with no edits>

Any of you guys take logic?

I like this theory, but keep in mind - the writer is not paid to write good reviews for mainstream great expectation games, but is hired on account of his mainstream tastes. See, they know this because you are not a rapist (great analogy!).

If I went to a game magazine saying that I have an english BA and wrote faqs for Neo Geo games, NGPC games, WSC games, loved anything to death by Psikyo and Treasure - they'd probably say "What the hell are those? This guy is too wierd. Call security."

Now if I said I like Nintendo, Sony and M$ (oh man, just to like the M$ X-box should land you a job), they'd probably be a lot warmer to me, thinking, "This is a guy we can trust to keep our necks above water with our publishers and advertisers."

Originally posted by Awakened1:
<STRONG>No disrespect, Dan, but let's turn that around a bit and lets find some evidence that you are NOT getting paid to write good reviews.

I remember watching an interview with Dan Rather once, and one thing he said which stuck out in my mind: "As a journalist, I learned early to trace the money."

Bearing that in mind, let's trace where the money comes from for game magazines.

Where does the money come from.. Let's see. I don't have exact statistics, but it's from subscribers (both consumers and businesses the sell on newstands), and advertisers.

The ppl who pay the bills call the shots. The ppl paying your bills are subscribers and the advertisers (who make the games you review). The people calling the shots are usually the ppl with the most money, which I guess would be the advertisers. They would also call the shots because they supply the games for you to review. You guys aren't exactly a non-profit like consumer reports, so you are in it for the money.

If 3 million readers catch wind of all 6s in a review of FFX in your mag, that means square (who pays your bills with ad revenue), would sell less games because of a bad review. All the time and money and other advertising to promote FFX will be in vain if it gets a bad review and low sales. So, if the critics give it 9s, the advertisers are happy, and the mag continues publication.

It's all about politics.</STRONG>

Click to expand...

So you're saying they are inherently biased because of their hiring practices?

Originally posted by EvilWasabi:
<STRONG>I like this theory, but keep in mind - the writer is not paid to write good reviews for mainstream great expectation games, but is hired on account of his mainstream tastes. See, they know this because you are not a rapist (great analogy!).

If I went to a game magazine saying that I have an english BA and wrote faqs for Neo Geo games, NGPC games, WSC games, loved anything to death by Psikyo and Treasure - they'd probably say "What the hell are those? This guy is too wierd. Call security."
</STRONG>

Click to expand...

I think you're being a bit harsh. Just because you like something that is popular doesn't mean you are a corporate tool any more than liking something obscure means you are superior. I was hired for my writing and evaluation skills, not my preference for any given type of mainstream or underground game. I am free to like what I like, but I am expected to approach everything with an open mind. I try to leave my biases at the door and focus on what is actually on the screen.

Your post hints at this mainstream vs. hardcore thing that I don't understand or agree with. All mainstream gamers are mindless sheep that buy what they're told to buy and wouldn't know a quality game if it came up and smacked them on the ass, and all hardcore gamers are pompous pricks who are more interested in keeping up elitist appearances and thinking of themselves as superior big tymers than actually enjoying quality software, regardless of origin.

Is either statement true? Because if one is, they both are.

However, you're a good example of one thing: You're smart. Readers are smart, in general. If smart readers see bad games consistently getting good reviews, they're going to lose faith in the publication and stop buying it. (Good reviews for bad games, of course, is a sign of this mythical payoff scam that nobody's come forth to prove, correct?) And when the readers go, so does the magazine. So...where would payola get you, really? A shattered reputation and a bankrupt magazine. No way it's worth it to anybody involved, on any level.

I just think people need to consider the larger picture before they make allegations like this. I've always been open about what I do and how I do it--I've written "how to get my job" articles for people who are sincerely interested in doing it, too. So you'll understand that I don't like the insinuation that I am a crook, okay? Especially when the folks making those insinuations generally don't read what I write to begin with.

[ December 03, 2001: Message edited by: Dan Elektro ]

The new OPM gives Soul Reaver 2 a 3/5 with the heading "What's there is good, but there's not that much there." I'm not sure why I subscribed to OPM...they're by far the most biased mag i've ever seen...i think it was for the demo disc..ahh I love coasters.

Very good arguments Dan. I wish I would have taken Logic class.

I just thought I'd throw it out there to drum up interest in these boards and generate discussion.

Your arguement,examples, and your past reviews illustrate your point clearly.

You don't seem to have too many articles in GP lately. In the recent Harry Potter front cover issue, I only noticed Frequency for PS2 written by you (very good BTW). I've only had time to scan the issue. Did you cover any other game in #160?

Who wrote the Fighter's Edge for CvS2? I didn't see the name of any editor listed there... Could this be a conspiracy by Capcom?! (Dr. Evil pinky finger gesture) <IMG SRC="smilies/eek.gif" border="0"> <IMG SRC="smilies/biggrin.gif" border="0">

[ December 03, 2001: Message edited by: Awakened1 ]

It's cool--I realized it was for the sake of argument, and it's a good thing to discuss. I know everybody has an opinion on it; I just want folks to know that I'm SO open to answering questions and that there ARE reasons for why the pro mags do the things they do...but taking bribes just ain't one of them. I mean, all pro writers can't be evil...some of us are Neo owners.

But really--anything anybody ever wants to know about life at GamePro, you'll find I'm incredibly honest and open about it. Just PM me or email me or whatever. I hate this "game writers as rock stars" bullshit. It's a cool job but it doesn't make me any better or smarter than anybody else, and the more I can break down that misconception, the happier I am.

I have been very busy on non-mag projects, namely the GamePro Action Disc thing that comes with the newsstand issues in December and January's issues. That's my baby--I got all the game footage, solved some technical problems, recorded the voice-overs, burned my own CDs, tested the sucker, and all that. That took quite a bit of time so I had to pass on some other stuff. It's not as cool as actual playable demos but it's a good first step for us, since we've never done our own disc. I was also doing some online stuff, like the Inside GP whatnots, and that took time. For the December issue, I'm barely in it, and January I'm in it a bit more I think. February I worked on a lot in print again so I should have more bylines. Right now we're already working on March and I'm doing Max Payne PS2 and Crazy "You've Already Played It" Taxi for GameCube.