No Planet Zoo Reviews

Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.

Cocolori

Cocolori
mr.sugar said:
Simply to have as much sources and opinions as possible. It´s nothing less and nothing more.

My big problem is that they refused to provide the game for review and did that with quite weird reasoning. That simply is more of a proof that developers themselves are not confident with their own game and that´s why they are giving it out to "fans" who are more likely to be actually less negative. We all know fans tend to do that...
Click to expand...
Isn't there a significant difference between "we won't provide you with a free game because we feel you are unlikely (from past experience) to spend the time reviewing it thoroughly or in a timely way" and "we won't provide you with a free copy because we think you are likely to give it a negative review".

I don't actually have a problem with either strategy given that IGN can review it when it is out (and it can be argued that if they do truly feel aggrieved then they will be more likely to review it negatively so Frontier isn't exactly gaming the system).

Either way this is all speculation and it is entirely pointless as there is nothing stopping you from waiting and buying the game after release or not at all when you will have the benefit of all the formal reviews and a thousand youtube videos plus steam reviews, reddit comments etc. etc. etc.

I chose not to buy Jurassic World Evolution because it didn't seem totally my thing and watching gameplay footage convinced me it wasn't for me. Frontier's job (especially their marketing team) is to maximise the sales of Planet Zoo. Even if it turns out you are right, the gameplay has serious flaws and the game isn't good (I played the beta so I'm very confident it will be fun for me and suit my play style) then that would still be their job. There are a number of marketing tools companies use which I consider sneaky, underhand or explicitely unethical but I don't consider 'not providing free copies' to be one of them - if that crosses a line for you then that's fine but frankly I'm a bit surprised you ever buy anything at all!
 

Silhouette

S
mr.sugar said:
Simply to have as much sources and opinions as possible. It´s nothing less and nothing more.

My big problem is that they refused to provide the game for review and did that with quite weird reasoning. That simply is more of a proof that developers themselves are not confident with their own game and that´s why they are giving it out to "fans" who are more likely to be actually less negative. We all know fans tend to do that...
Click to expand...

That... Still doesn't make sense, but okay. I guess to me, my opinion is the only one that matters when it comes to choosing/liking a game 🤷

Also, Frontier has given copies for review? Just because IGN didn't get one means nothing; it's not like they're the "be all, end all" reviewer. There's also zero proof their claim of why Frontier did that is legit. They could just be salty af they didn't get a copy and decided to try and defame the game, and apparently it's working if people believe them without proof.

Note: I used to follow IGN quite a bit, so I have nothing against them personally.

We can just as easily speculate that it's true that Frontier gave IGN a free key to the beta, and they chose not to review it then... So why would Frontier bother giving them a key now? IGN made itself pretty clear by ignoring the offer before that they weren't interested/invested in the game, so why would they suddenly change their tune now? If anything I would take that as a slight on Frontier and don't blame them at all for not bothering to reach out to someone that gave them the cold shoulder before.

But this is all speculation. Same as people speculating Frontier didn't give IGN a key for 'x' reason. If you choose to believe that then fine, go ahead, but I don't see a reason for trying to then claim Frontier doesn't know what they're doing with their game/marketing.

Oh and it makes complete sense for a developer to only reach out to people interested in their game. If I wanted reviews on my city builder for example, I wouldn't reach out to streamers that are FPS-only players to review the game.
 

Voids Light

Voids Light
I really do think that frontier gave them a free beta key, and IGN didn't use it, or even cover it, so Frontier told them they wouldn't get a free copy, as they proved they were uninterested.
 

Harbinger

Volunteer Moderator
Harbinger
Whatever the reason (and we only have one side of the story) I do think it's a bit of unnecessary bad PR to taint the launch by blacklisting IGN but review embargos typically lift one day prior to release. I have a funny feeling we'll be awash with reviews, both from content creators and all the other gaming publications within 24 hours.

IGN will just be late to the party. It's not the end of the world. Other game sites exist.
¯\(ツ)/¯
 

mr.sugar

M
Chante Goodman said:
No need to make anything of it....
Click to expand...

I understand that as community manager, you have to say this. But for some people, it does matter. I presume you might like "the feedback" as very likely, all these reviews are on your favoured sites. Waiting for later reviews that haven´t got early build from you.
 

Chris Simon

Chris Simon
mr.sugar said:
I understand that as community manager, you have to say this. But for some people, it does matter. I presume you might like "the feedback" as very likely, all these reviews are on your favoured sites. Waiting for later reviews that haven´t got early build from you.
Click to expand...
You do know that the gaming media don't do reviews based on preference, whether they got a copy or whether they like/dislike the game, but purely based on projected revenue, right?
 

Garyd73

Garyd73
Don't really care to be honest. I followed the game from announcement and am really enjoying it, it's there for anyone to do a review on with access to steam but everyone enjoys different things. If you can't find out in today's world if this game might be something you enjoy prior to purchase and are under 70 then perhaps having a PC isn't for you. I don't take kindly to people at working telling me how to run things and do my job especially if they don't have all the facts so I won't do it anyone else.

Bigger issues in the world.
 

xTo

xTo
I've lost my faith in "official" game reviews a long time ago and they haven't improved since. Nine out of ten times they are either biased or bribed. There is no justification to rating the FIFA and CoD games with extremely high scores every year again.
I'm personally a huge pokemon fan, I've played all the games and I still do. However the upcoming Sword & Shield games are heading into a direction me and lot of other fans just can't respect. Right now there's a big movement trying to get an official response from GameFreak and The Pokemon Company and hopefully make them revaluate their decisions.
But did this extreme backlash stop them from receiving incredible review scores? no..
IGN: 9.3
Metacritic: 8.3
81*
Gamespot: 9
Game Informer: 8.75/10
GamesRadar: 4.5/5
Nintendo Life: 8/10

Game critics are just too biased for me to respect them. Especially AAA game reviews are always written by the resident cult fan of '[x] Studio'. Especially IGN has the most obvious bootlicker amongst all of them.
Don't listen to them. Watch gameplay, try demo's, form your own opinion before joining the hate/hype bandwagons.
 

Speedcuffs

Speedcuffs
xTo said:
I've lost my faith in "official" game reviews a long time ago and they haven't improved since. Nine out of ten times they are either biased or bribed. There is no justification to rating the FIFA and CoD games with extremely high scores every year again.
I'm personally a huge pokemon fan, I've played all the games and I still do. However the upcoming Sword & Shield games are heading into a direction me and lot of other fans just can't respect. Right now there's a big movement trying to get an official response from GameFreak and The Pokemon Company and hopefully make them revaluate their decisions.
But did this extreme backlash stop them from receiving incredible review scores? no..
IGN: 9.3
Metacritic: 8.3
81*
Gamespot: 9
Game Informer: 8.75/10
GamesRadar: 4.5/5
Nintendo Life: 8/10

Game critics are just too biased for me to respect them. Especially AAA game reviews are always written by the resident cult fan of '[x] Studio'. Especially IGN has the most obvious bootlicker amongst all of them.
Don't listen to them. Watch gameplay, try demo's, form your own opinion before joining the hate/hype bandwagons.
Click to expand...
'Form your own opinion'.

Absolutely. :D✌
 
  • Like (+1)
Reactions: xTo

Wolfen75

Wolfen75
The so called "gaming press" is mostly arbitrary and dilettante the last years anyway.
I don't want to start with the pityful state of journalism the last 2 decades in general here.
But... gaming press? uhm yea, sure.*
I listen to the opinion of a random guy/gal/yourgenderofchoice that i don't know(and sometimes lived less years than i got gaming experience^^)...
what about :poop:

In the days of youtube previews/lets plays and game streaming no sane person is in need of those "tests".
Find a couple of good (which mean often the "smaller" channels) youtubers who are covering the genres you like
and watch them if you are unsure about a game.
You have way more benefit there.
The youtuber maybe biased too, every review is subjective but at least you see how the game works out

*ofc there are exceptions, i follow one game magazine on youtube that has a couple of good employees, but even there its a gamble and i know that i don't have to look there if i want a solid review of a shooter for an example. There are people who are completly clueless or just have their favourites, or whatever.
and btw, it is surly not IGN 👀
 

Sclurp

Sclurp
Can a moderator lock this thread please? Everything I wanted addressed got answered or else came to light over time. Everything being posted now is wildly off topic.
 
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom