It's the confusingly dated 9/11 in the UK, a date which marks the release of Black Ops. Anyone who knows anything about video games knows what Black Ops is. The core game will be a variation on previous franchise iterations with new maps, game modes and weapons. With so much already known about the game why is it not sent out for review prior to release?
Films are press screened and I don’t think games should be any different. Games might not have the same release window but the launch is still important. A lot of people will want to get the game on day one. With Black Ops under embargo the internet is full of opinion based on trailers and gossip. There needs to be the opportunity to read informed criticism beforehand.
When a film is not press screened it is usually because it is awful. Some games are sent out for review early but it seems to be too infrequent. In the video-games industry the power of advertising outweighs quality criticism and discussion. It seems reviews are only useful to publishers as a promotion tool, unnecessary when a game is ‘guaranteed’ 18 million sales.
Black Ops will be open to negative criticism for its inherited floors and perceived lack of creativity. If this discussion happened in advance of release it might nullify some of the hype. After millions of people own the game it seems hard for prominent writers to publish unbiased reviews. Individual criticism on the internet is dismissed as reactionary or fan-boyism.
Black Ops will be open to negative criticism for its inherited floors and perceived lack of creativity. If this discussion happened in advance of release it might nullify some of the hype. After millions of people own the game it seems hard for prominent writers to publish unbiased reviews. Individual criticism on the internet is dismissed as reactionary or fan-boyism.
The video game criticism is still growing and faces its own unique problems as an art form. Games need to available for review before release, and maybe more importantly, before sales figures.
