Bethesda engaging in more unethical practices?

Posted: Thu Oct 21, 2010 11:56 pm

you're throwing around "negative reviews" as if thats the sum of the entire site/magazine and that other development companies aren't getting good reviews for making good games, or that game companies don't need publicity as much as the pubs need material to review. If that were true, they shoudl just close up shop anyway.

I also cant see how giving one negative review of a game would scare other devs away. thats their competition.. any other dev should welcome a rival getting poor reviews as it will drive gamers to buy other games, say the ones made by them. Or better yet their rival not even being featured in the same magazine? Tell me that Sega would be upset if its 2k3 review isnt followed by a madden 11 review on the next page.

Why not tell the dev that youre not gonna do business with them if they treat you like shit over a review of their shitty game and do a write up of the whole ordeal? tell me that fans of gaming wouldnt eat that up. tell me that thats not going to sell more and that advertisers wouldnt jump on.

Im sorry, but just going along with it all just exacerbates the problem. I can't feel sorry for an inddustry that won't stand up for its self and try to set a benchmark-to challenge devs to put out better games. in general, lets face it- there are a lot of shitty games out there and sack full of sugar reviews help them get sold.

Posted: Fri Oct 22, 2010 1:23 am

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Gerstmann

Posted: Fri Oct 22, 2010 4:48 pm

This is my perceptive on why he gave it a bad review because the game was great I didn't see anything wrong with it besides the regular bugs/glitches in all of Bethesda's games they make with that game engine. I ran through new vegas and played fallout 3 and elder scrolls 4. All which were great games and had tons of fun playing them all. The only problem with new vegas was i never finished fallout 3. icon_razz

Well, anyway back to why he gave it a bad review. I asked one of my friends what he thought of elder scrolls 4 he said it sucked and he hated it. The only problem was he never made it passed lvl 2. It was just too hard for him to play, he was on the console too(which just makes it harder). So... obviously it was too hard for the reviewer to get anything done. So... he gave it a bad review. It seems like console players have a more difficult time playing on this game engine since it was designed for the PC. Coming from Bethesda point of view its pretty messed up that just because someone sucked at your game and hated it. Doesn't make it right for them to give it a bad review. I want to know why the reviewer didn't like it. It would probably go a little like this... THIS GAME FUCKIN SUCKS!!!! I CAN"T HIT SHIT AND THOSE LITTLE FUCKIN GECKOS KEEP FUCKING HITTING ME!!!!!! I FUCKIN RAN OUT OF AMMO AND FOOD AGAIN!?!?!?! WTF!?!?!?! I AM IN THE MIDDLE OF FUCKIN NO WHERE!!!!! WITH NO CAPS NO FRIENDS AND I KEEP FUCKIN DIEING!!!! FUCK THIS I QUIT!!!!!!

Posted: Fri Oct 22, 2010 6:48 pm

While NV is a good game, it's not perfect. Not to mention the godawful engine. Just read any threads on this forum to see why FO3 sucks and you'll be able to attribute the shitty aspects to NV as well.

In conclusion, don't be a retard or you won't like it here.

Posted: Fri Oct 22, 2010 9:03 pm

The game's quality is a moot point, Bethesda is a publisher and IP holder.

It's in their best interest to protect the value of that IP and to maximize sales through promotion and dissemination of information. They went about this by shady means in this case. Using the power of advertising dollars to squelch negative feedback.

That's what this thread is about, not arguing the merits or flaws of New Vegas, a game not designed by Bethesda anyway.

Posted: Sat Oct 23, 2010 8:53 am

Yeah like Frater mentions. I don't understand how people, even when trying to form an objective point of view of something, can look past the engine or the bugs for example encountered in the X box and PS3 game (a few even in the PC one).

Or the fact that the game really adds nothing new. It's just an expansion in many ways. It re-uses the SPECIAL system and Karma system and what not from F1-2, it re-uses the VATS system, the engine, the 3D objects from F3.

If a game like this is getting 9/10 then what should a game like Half Life 2 or Fallout 1 get? Or even *pains me to say this* Oblivion that after all was new at its time and at some parts actually looked more stunning.

Yes the dialouge is from what I hear better and so are the quests. But that's probably, honestly cause they didn't have much else to work on, right?

The question is ofcourse if the other reviewers also missed to see this or if they were a bit smarter (or more cowardly) and simply protected their own asses by never writting about it. I'd say one way or an other Bethesda with their massive advertisement campaigns and subtile discussions behind closed doors influenced most of them in a more or less dirty way.

Posted: Sat Oct 23, 2010 9:03 am

^

..Spin off Of what is obviously a spin off of fallout 1 and 2 is back on track. Its like making 3 left turns to make a right. I have not played it YET, but as this guy above me said... it more or less SEEMS to be a 'mod' of Fallout3. New terrain, new quests, and .. real writers (supposedly) are the appearant updates to a fail game. POINT IS, .. where the hell are all these new people coming from???? they make an acount, post one time, and never return.....

Posted: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:10 am

Hey,
I like the Bethesda game.Bethesda was apparently engaging in some unethical marketing practices with regards to review quotes..most major corporations promote their commitment to more unethical practices..
Locksmith Bethesda

Aug	SEP	Sep
	05
2012	2013	2015