Game Informer Hands-On...

[Village Idiot]

Quote: Originally Posted by BabyBlueFresh

I swear that there is a whole new world of difference from Internet video gamers and regular video gamers. Regular gamers play games for what they are while internet gamers complain for what they arent' Regular gamers know what they like while internet gamers need someone else to tell them what they like. Regular gamers might never post on message boards(me) while internet gamers spend more time on the boards than they do playing games.

Define 'regular', please. And I'm not sure I understand what you mean by 'internet' here either. Truth be told, this just looks like prejudicial nonsense.

[coogrfan]

Quote: Originally Posted by NovaStar

Yeah, you are saying what I thought you were saying, and that is he is less credible for liking 2k. Here is my take on this, a reviewer can like or dislike a game based on an honest, objective opinion. It is when your opinion is not honest or objective that the problems come in. I think alot of these reviewers that consistently give madden great scores every year are not honest or objective. You said IGN slurps madden, the question I would pose to you is why do you think they slurp madden? Is it because they honestly and objectivelly like it, or is it because ea has some say so in the way they view the game. I would like your honest and objective answer.

It would be naive to say that IGN isn't influenced to some extent by EA's $$$$ , but I don't believe their reviews are totally bought and paid for either.

Don't misunderstand what I'm saying. I don't think the editors at GI or IGN tell their reviewers what to say. What they do is more subtle - they shape their respective websites by deciding who gets into print. GI comes across as pro-2k because they have a 2k guy do the reviews, while IGN does pretty much the same thing in reverse.

[NovaStar]

Quote: Originally Posted by coogrfan

It would be naive to say that IGN isn't influenced to some extent by EA's $$$$ , but I don't believe their reviews are totally bought and paid for either. Don't misunderstand what I'm saying. I don't think the editors at GI or IGNtell their reviewers what to say. What they do is more subtle - they shape their respective websites by deciding who gets into print. GI comes across as pro-2k because they have a 2k guy do the reviews, while IGN does pretty much the same thing in reverse.

First off Coogrfan, thanks for you honest answer, that's why I like talking to you. Now, I hear what you are saying, my only point is this, is the pro 2k guy pro 2k because he honestly likes the game or is he pro 2k because he is in 2k's pocket. With IGN and others, you never know what the motivation is, or where they are coming from with their reviews of madden/2k. But other than that I hear what you are saying.

[coogrfan]

Quote: Originally Posted by NovaStar

First off Coogrfan, thanks for you honest answer, that's why I like talking to you. Now, I hear what you are saying, my only point is this, is the pro 2k guy pro 2k because he honestly likes the game or is he pro 2k because he is in 2k's pocket. With IGN and others, you never know what the motivation is, or where they are coming from with their reviews of madden/2k. But other than that I hear what you are saying.

I believe that in both cases it's because they honestly prefer the games in question.

[mr_president]

Quote: Originally Posted by Tomba321

The one good thing about madden is that it's str8 ahead football video game football. 2K5 just like APF 2k8 and even 2K's other sports try so hard at making a sim that somehow they faulter whereas in madden it's just fun sometimes,but i like 2ksports

trying to understand...........

[jmood88]

Quote: Originally Posted by mr_president

trying to understand...........

There's nothing wrong with what he said, although I don't agree with him since Madden is an extremely boring game.