Global Alpha Test Start Date

[Shougun]

Yoshi-p is always on the first line and among the players to respond to everyone, like a father that shows and explains things to his sons. For that reason, he's a great director.

Yeah its pretty cool of him, I hope he can maintain it through the release of ARR. Fireside chats with your dev, video game companies/producers are business but it is quite preferred to think of them as friends and family then perhaps "soul suckers" like Activision is sometimes referred to.

Edit: Updated my quote of Abrieal's updated post. nvm :P

Oh, some do, believe me. No one that I would bear working with, of course (if any of my writers did something of the sort in any way that I could detect, I'd have a serious talk with them and the rest of the editorial team, and it could easily lead to termination), but I could name a large number of people that openly think that Square Enix deserves a "lesson", and that spare no chance in trying to administer it.

of course Square Enix isn't alone there. Electronic Arts is another good example. Many journos, even highly respected ones, have this warped idea that they're the vigilantes of the industry, and they need to "punish" the evil corporation of their choice with their almighty pen, instead of dedicating themselves to actual reporting.

Of course there are a whole lot of fair, intelligent and relatively unbiased (relatively because absolute lack of bias doesn't exist in any form of journalism. Anyone that tells you he's unbiased lies, and he knows it) ones, but if you look attentively, you'll easily be able to spot the rotten apples.

I dont bother reading much into things that I dont feel accurate for one reason or another :P like a games score being determined by first day DLC. Though I dont like the idea of 1st day DLC the score shouldn't be affected by it as its not a value of the company but of the game.

Not to say I find 100% unbiased sources since I have bias myself but I suppose for clarity I could have added "A good video game review company(/person) wouldn't look to hunt down a company just because".

[Abriael]

I dont bother reading much into things that I dont feel accurate for one reason or another :P like a games score being determined by first day DLC. Though I dont like the idea of 1st day DLC the score shouldn't be affected by it as its not a value of the company but of the game.

Totally agree, and you have no idea on how many think the opposite, feeling that day 1 DLCs are "immoral", and as such they need to lower the score of the game from a moral standpoint.

It's hilarious, I know.

Not to say I find 100% unbiased sources since I have bias myself but I suppose for clarity I could have added "A good video game review company wouldn't look to hunt down a company just because".

Absolutely. The problem is that the percentage of "good" video game reiewers is not as near to the 100% as it should be. This is an industry with a whole ton of amateurism, and the widespread cronyism determines the fact that a lot of those amateurs with no cognition of journalistic integrity and no journalistic education at all, end up writing for large websites that provide their "ideas" with a ton of undeserved visibility, allowing them in turn to negatively and unduly influence the success of a game while they often write just out of a personal grudge of sorts.

Give you an example that isn't about this game, and isn't even one of the most extreme:
http://www.g4tv.com/games/pc/46075/t...-world/review/

It's fairly easy to spot from the highly hyperbolic choice of wording and the way concepts are expressed that the writer went out of his way to be as nasty as possible, to the point of expressing quite a few factually incorrect things.

And that's a fairly well known writer on a very popular website.

But I believe I'm digressing, a LOT, my apologies.

PS:

Edit: Updated my quote of Abrieal's updated post. nvm :P

Yeah, I know, I'm sorry, I tend to polish and repolish my posts over and over. Déformation professionnelle and all that. It's my worst flaw... >_>

[Elexia]

Totally agree, and you have no idea on how many think the opposite, feeling that day 1 DLCs are "immoral", and as such they need to lower the score of the game from a moral standpoint.

It's hilarious, I know.

It really is immoral to charge people to access data on that $60-$70 game they purchased. I can understand separate DLC since it can extend and enhance your purchase, but when you get into Capcom realm and the like, you can't defend that nor can you deny it's immoral and shady business practices.

Day 1 DLC is fine if ts not data you already purchased, so rating it down based on that alone isn't a good thing, but if its Day 1 DLC for extra $ to something significant already on the disk? Yep, I agree with rating on a moral standpoint, I already dropped $60-$70 on a game, why do I need to pay $5-$20 more to access data already on the disk?

[Abriael]

It really is immoral to charge people to access data on that $60-$70 game they purchased. I can understand separate DLC since it can extend and enhance your purchase, but when you get into Capcom realm and the like, you can't defend that nor can you deny it's immoral and shady business practices.

Day 1 DLC is fine if ts not data you already purchased, so rating it down based on that alone isn't a good thing, but if its Day 1 DLC for extra $ to something significant already on the disk? Yep, I agree with rating on a moral standpoint, I already dropped $60-$70 on a game, why do I need to pay $5-$20 more to access data already on the disk?

Whether it's immoral or not depends on how you see the issue. For each game we have no idea if a DLC has been ripped off from the game just to make more coin, or the company simply created it separately, investing money for a further team and assets to create it, and selling it as a separate product studied as that from the beginning.

The fact that it's already on the disk is not really relevant, as putting content on the disk is just a matter of convenience.

In any case, whether it's immoral or not, it's beyond the issue. It's not a reviewer's role to be the vigilante of the industry's morals. We have to judge games on what they are, and for the content they have, not for the content we believe should be included at no charge.

If a game provides a good amount of content, it should be judged as such, regardless of DLCs. On the other hand, if a game provides an insufficient amount of content, it should be judged negatively, no matter the DLC policy.

Mentioning our opinion about it is fine, mind you, but it shouldn't influence the overall judgement or score, that should be related exclusively to the quality of the product we review.