Is a lack of a review on release a bad sign for a game? (Tomb Raider)

[mrnelsby]

So,

I was kind of curious about the new Tomb Raider and can't help notice that there aren't any reviews out. Mind you this isn't a unique situation, but I was wondering if games are like movies in that publishers won't send review copies ahead of time to the main game sites/magazines if they aren't confident in a game's quality?

With movies this happens quite often. When they know they have a dud, they just don't show it to critics, hoping that lack of reviews will get more people into the theatre uninformed. That said, I don't know if something like that actually happens with games. Anyone know?

 

[Darth Marsden]

Sometimes it happens, and it's usually for one of two reasons.

One - The game's bad, and the publisher wants to sell as many copies as possible before it gets reviewed and people realize this.

Two - They either forget or don't have time to make sure review copies get sent out, since they're making the game as good as they can and are working right up to the deadline.

If you're concerned about Tomb Raider, try the demo. I did, and it's put a lot of my concerns to rest.

 

[Praelanthor]

having never played a tomb raider in depth before the demo of this game has really made me like the series however i am still unsure about purchase due to my inexperience with the series.

 

[laikenf]

Sometimes; I know of some games (Tales of Vesperia is the first to come to mind) that where reviewd late and got good scores, I'm sure there are many others but I just can't remember them right now.

 

[L.B. Jeffries]

If it's an AAA title that you've been seeing ads for all over the interwebs...yes.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Try the demo. It's lush. She's back to how she was in the original but with TV smooth graphics.

(I admit to being quite a fan)

 

[mrnelsby]

Hmm... I'll have to fire up the demo on the Xbox and see. I gave the Steam one a try, it looked amazing, but the controls on the PC are kind of crap. I played the original on the PS1, so I'm kind of partial to controllers for Tomb Raider...

 

[PedroSteckecilo]

It could just mean it's been underhyped and the reviewers haven't gotten to it quite yet. Or they didn't send out preview copies. It often happens with JRPG's.

 

[B4D 9R4MM3R]

I don't know, these new Tomb Raiders seem to be moving away from familiar mechanics.

My main concerns are regenerative health and dying just brings you back to a checkpoint at FULL health, regardless of what you had at the time.

 

[mrnelsby]

Do we know the final game is actually like that? As opposed to just the demo?

I don't know, these new Tomb Raiders seem to be moving away from familiar mechanics.

My main concerns are regenerative health and dying just brings you back to a checkpoint at FULL health, regardless of what you had at the time.

 

[B4D 9R4MM3R]

The regenerative health feature is new, but the checkpoint problem has been in since Legend, and they haven't fixed that in the demo either.

 

[NeedAUserName]

Its probably in this case to do with the time of the year. There's so many games coming out, you can't expect instant reviews. But it is odd in this case, because Lara Croft games are universally known.

 

[Axolotl]

I don't know, these new Tomb Raiders seem to be moving away from familiar mechanics.

My main concerns are regenerative health and dying just brings you back to a checkpoint at FULL health, regardless of what you had at the time.

It does make the game pretty easy, however it also removes the feeling in the older games where you realise that your last save was 2 hours ago or that you had just saved with almost zero health just before a large fight.

 

[B4D 9R4MM3R]

Precisely; now there's no punishment if I fuck up, but more importantly it almost removes the need for medipacks.

 

[Axolotl]

Precisely; now there's no punishment if I fuck up, but more importantly it almost removes the need for medipacks.

You still need medipacks, you have a lot less health than in the original games.

 

[Slycne]

Making things even uglier, Guy Cocker of Gamespot U.K. revealed that Eidos told him to hold back his review of the game if he planned on scoring it less than 8. In a Twitter post on Wednesday, Cocker wrote, "call from Eidos - if you're planning on reviewing Tomb Raider Underworld at less than an 8.0, we need you to hold your review till Monday." A representative from Barrington Harvey, a public relations firm contracted by Eidos U.K. to handle the rollout, was surprisingly frank about the issue, admitting that the company was trying to control the release of reviews in order to generate a positive launch atmosphere for the game.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.77823

This might have something to do with it as well.

 

[Pigeon_Grenade]

sometimes, if theres Alot of Good games coming out all at once, it takes a while for
reviews to show up

 

[B4D 9R4MM3R]

Precisely; now there's no punishment if I fuck up, but more importantly it almost removes the need for medipacks.

You still need medipacks, you have a lot less health than in the original games.

I'd disagree; unless I'm playing it on the hardest difficulty I'd say Lara has the same amount of health, and she can move and dodge much better. The only time you need medipacks in the game is for certain boss fights.

 

[mrnelsby]

Well damn... I guess it WAS a bad sign:
http://www.videogaming247.com/2008/11/21/uk-tomb-raider-underworld-reviews-under-810-silenced-until-monday/

Linked from the Penny Arcade commentary on then evident fact that Edios was actively trying to talk game-reviewers into postponing their less than 8.0 reviews until they talked with a representative of the company... wtf