@matgrowcott: Here's one example of bought and paid for reviews.

http://www.xbox-scene.com/x...

OT: I love articles like these, so easy to tear apart.

Chocolate comparison: It isn't like taking the tried and true recipe and adding stuff to it. It's like taking Oreo cookies and changing the black cookies to white and the cream filling to lemon while still calling it an Oreo cookie. The cookie has the same designs all over it, and the same basic "cookie, filling, cookie" forumla, but that's all that's the same.

"I think that we might have been surprised by the intensity and the duration of the feedback, but we actually were heartened by it in a way because it showed that people are still passionate about the series, so that part was fine."

So let's see if I got this right. You knew what fans loved, you were shocked by hearing what they hated, and yet you STILL thought the changes were what the fans wanted and were good changes? I think this makes it official that Capcom lives in their own world. A world where we all love on-disc or day one dlc, a world where we love getting 3 editions of one game just to have the complete experience, a world where we love being sold "true endings", and a world where we love complete paradigm shifts in established franchises. Seriously Capcom? Seriously?

"Jones goes on to posit that it wasn’t until gamescom 2011, when Capcom and Ninja Theory began to show larger chunks of gameplay and the liquid fluidity of the combat upon which the Devil May Cry franchise was conceived, that the most vociferous of angry fans began to appraise DmC for its underlying DNA, as opposed to the colour of Dante’s hair."

Right there, right f*cking there, is what completely invalidates this whole article. Even today the problems the fans have with DmC have A LOT more to do with than the colour of Dante's hair. A LOT more. The characters are all wrong, the gameplay is too slow, the framerate is too low, the backstory is insane, the engine is lame. I can keep going. But this just proves that Capcom and the apologisers still think that it's all just about how Dante looks. Happy sales incoming.

Next we move on to Vergil. Another example of just how wrong this game is. Vergil from the original series was cold, calculating, powerful and ambitious. He cared nothing for anyone but himself and his own goals. That Vergil is more likely to be the antagonist of DmC than the one we're given. This Vergil is a simpering ninny by comparison. Too concerned with brotherly love and the fate of humanity than with dominating everything and everyone. Vergil is a stark contrast in this game to his original self and can easily be made the poster child of everything that is wrong with DmC. Capcom probably figured that adding Vergil in the game would appease people, and it would have if it were actually Vergil. As it stands, this guy is more of a Nigel than a Vergil. Which isn't surprising since Ninja Theory took the whole "we're British" thing a little too seriously when making this game. It isn't a platform for your pride Ninja Theory, it's a game you want people to buy.

To all you apologisers: Buy this game, and you have no right to complain about ANYTHING Capcom do in the future. If you support them in one bad decision, they see it as support for all of them. I don't want to hear any of you complaining about any design changes in the future lest you wish to be brought back to this issue and asked what the difference between then and now is.

@Baka-akaB

All I can say is that in my experience (three years writing about the gaming industry, nearly ten generally), I've never known anybody be offered money for a good review score. There have been a few cases, like Kane and Lynch 2, where the owners of the site have stepped in after complaints from advertisers, but the very fact that that was such a big deal at the time shows how rarely that sort of thing happens.

Companies don't buy coverage. They might grant very specific review time, show only a certain part of the game and on optimal equipment and settings but, as you say, a bad, erroneous review never takes long to correct and be found out. It might be, in the case of PES, that the reviewer got an early demo on a dev console and was told some issues would be ironed out before the final release and based all his review on that. I don't know, but I find it very unlikely that it's as simple as "we've been paid for this review."

@DragonKnight

Maybe I'm just talking for myself here, but I've never been especially excited by the free games/stuff I've gotten because it really doesn't put food on my table. Writing a fair review does. If it had just been $800 then I'd have totally been behind you, but I get your point.

Swag and items were given out regularly when I used to actually have any contact with PR, but I find it hard to believe that any journalist would give a positive review to a terrible game in return for bits of plastic and a nice shirt. For those of us that make a living out of it, it's just not worth it.

" It might be, in the case of PES, that the reviewer got an early demo on a dev console and was told some issues would be ironed out before the final release and based all his review on that."

no no no , the issues were very apparent for the ps3 version and gamebreaking in any version ,even the official demo or in a few showfloor previews . They blatantly chose to ignore it , as they were one of the actual sponsors of the game , on top on having ads running concurrently with the review .

And when called on their crap , they sneak edited and acted as if nothing happened .

Not laying the blame on the journalist , wich most likely was pressured to just copy paste the 360 stuff , even more so if he wasnt a regular writer and staff member yet . But something was definitively shady , at least back then .

They shouldnt even have had any business reviewing games they got a financial and vested interest in , to begin with

And again , known personalities in the field , have commented upon "boostering" and incentives practices a few times , especially former game journalists .

@matgrowcott

I couldn't care less if the game was good or the gameplay will win out in the end

NT and Capcom have treat DMC fans like crap and they don't deserve to be supported. Notto mention that this isn't like a DMC game at all.

"Every post I see from you is so anti-industry, and usually without anything actually backing it up. Bite the hand that feeds, much?"

With the amount of crap gone on this gen

Disc locked content
Developers lying to us
Giving old fans middle finger for a bigger audience
Ruining franchises
Cut DLC
High price DLC

Can you honestly blame me....I'm a realist here, unlike most people I learn from my mistakes, not give someone chance after chance after chance.

@Baka-akaB

I wasn't there mate, so I can't say for sure. A dev version of the game, however, would have been played months and months before the official demo was even complete and a long time before the game was finalized. It's perfectly believable to think that that review was done ages before the final version of the game was pressed or before it had gone gold.

While I don't deal with PR people any more, I can promise you that even days before release there are emails sent out saying "Don't criticize this in your review, by the time the embargo is up there will be a patch that fixes it and your review will be out of date." I can only imagine the amount of mistakes written off by developers as "to be fixed" if the game is played months in advance and especially if it's alongside representatives of said developer.

I'm afraid it's just a fact of the gaming industry - the only people that want to advertise on gaming sites are people interested in reaching gamers (the developers, basically). Nine times out of ten that has no effect on coverage and when it does, it's usually in the amount of coverage rather than making it purely positive (previews are almost always positive because it's usually based on material chosen as the very best a game can offer). We've seen examples of bad management from people not involved in editorial (and you might be right on the mark with this IGN story, I don't know), but all I can say is that no company ever out and out paid for a good review. It just doesn't happen.

@MikeCosgrove

All I can guess is that you're very young or that you didn't have money to spend on games over previous generations. I remember spending £50 new on N64 games that lasted three hours and had no additional content after finishing (could have desperately used DLC, because asides from being short they were often quite good). I remember paying full price on SNES games and Mega Drive games and being given 8 levels (which, in some cases, I could complete in under 20 minutes blind) for £30 - £40. If you don't remember those things, you were either very, very lucky in your choice of games or you've painted past generations in a very positive way.

The fact is that you've either got to move with the industry or get left behind. If you don't like DLC, if you don't like games that are updated for a modern audience, you need to get a new hobby. It's not going back to the way it was, and on many levels that's a fantastic thing.

If you want tank control Resident Evil and Devil May Cry 2-era beat-em-ups (terrible game), then they'll always be there for you. But making money means appealing to the majority and you're just not the majority any more. Again, on many levels that will be fantastic for you (more money in the industry for more games, etc), but you seem to want to focus on the fact that you don't feel the same way playing a game as you did when you were 10, when girls were prettier and summer holidays lasted forever. If that's the case, it's your problem, not the developers.

@matgrowcott

So because I talk about the flaws of this gen, I automaticaly havent been through any other gens and I'm really young....right ¬¬

So thats it then....just move on and get left behind. No thats not how it should work, everyone shouldn't just have to put up with all this crap, people should stand up and voice their opinions. Look at the disc locked content that went on with Capcom, people stood up for themselfs and it made Capcom think about their DLC decisions....now if we took your advice people should of just remained silent and if they didn't like it then tough sh*t.

Wow...if you like being walked all over on by developers then fair enough but most people don't

@MikeCosgrove

No, you're young or haven't fully been through other generations because you don't seem to realize that previous generations had massive, gaping flaws as well. You're either conveniently looking over problems or you weren't there. Either way, not good when you voice your opinions as if you have experience.

This generation isn't perfect by any means (the fact that digital distribution and online networks were something of an afterthought has made this latter half of the console lifespan full of growing pains), but let's not pretend that it's any worse or any better than previous generations. On average, games today are longer, have better stories, are cheaper, more widely available and accepted by more people. Of course, there are a few games in previous gens that are better, longer, more enjoyable - but there are also a ton of games that sucked then and sucked now. Funnily enough, you can say the same thing for this gen.

The rest of your post pretty much proves my point. As digital after-market material becomes the norm (and it is the norm, I promise you. "Most people" are quite open to the idea of DLC) publishers are going to start to find ways of cutting back on download times for the end user and on cutting back on the cost of uploading/storing data on a first party server. I can't defend Capcom (and I have no interest in doing so), but things aren't as black and white as you're painting them and you're certainly not speaking for anybody but yourself when you give an opinion.

Developers aren't walking all over me or anybody else - they're trying to make a profit. If you can't tell the difference, I'm not sure you'll ever fully accept the direction the industry is going in, or any industry, or life in general. The fact that big publishers are making more money now than they ever have show that, for the most part, people are happy to buy things which they see has value for them; that includes DLC, day one or otherwise. If it wasn't profitable, if it wasn't successful, it wouldn't happen. If things go wrong financially, the developer will fix it.

But the things you want fixed aren't issues in the industry, they're things that you don't like. That's a big difference.

The crux of the matter still remains .

IGN was a sponsor of the game , and ignored game breaking issues that were apparent on all known and publicly shown version of the game .

Other mentioned and caught on it very early , and even while giving Konami the benefits of the doubt about potential fixes , didnt give them blank checks .

I'm not saying Konami per se went out of their way to buy out the reviews ... but IGN as an involved business party for that particular game , did fudge the review .

"but things aren't as black and white as you're painting them "

Following your debate with Cosgrove ...

You mention high cost for games in the past , i remember that indeed .

But do you also remember when most of those games had the same extra and bonus features included for free instead of nickeled and dimmed to a cost sometimes way above the old prices ?

Cause i do . A game like Xenogears had a card game and a 2p vs battle mode . In our current climat , they'd be cutting it out and selling it as dlc .

"I remember paying full price on SNES games and Mega Drive games and being given 8 levels"

But let's not pretend that game from the same genres wouldnt usually still be as short AND on top of that selling additionnal features and content , that may or may not have been removed .

To all those saying reviews are not bought, you are lying to yourselves. Remember the $1,000 swag bags for Halo? Remember the all expense paid trip for COD, including helicopter rides? If that is not "bought and paid for" then nothing is.

You probably haven't played the game, they haven't even reviewed it and you say Capcom will pay off IGN? I'm sorry but that is the stupidest comment I've seen in N4G. People are allowed to have their opinions, Ninja Theory in an excellent developer I don't see why this game being good is hard to believe.

Honestly, DMC is looking really good except the re-imagining of Dante from a complete bad-ass to that beat up 15 year old annoying teen.

I find it funny how Capcom have posted this very article on Facebook

Yes they have...strange right, take a look for yourself on the official Capcom Facebook page.

I think people are getting good game mixed up with good DMC game. If it's not a good DMC game then as a fan of DMC it's not a good game if it can't live up to the DMC name...

CAPCOM will do their best to curb the negative backlash from the old fans and one way to do that is to pay the gaming media to hype DmC. I just do not understand what do the media find so interesting and fresh about this game? Is it the gimicky transforming city, the ugly westernised characters, the 30fps dumbed down gameplay or anti-corporation theme? I have read many previews which state that it is REALLY easy to pull off amazing combos and I really fear that the gamplay has been dumbed down. Previous games required hours and hours of practice and perfecting skills before one can pull impressive and effective combos. Hell even keeping the REAL Dante continuously in the air required skillful manipulation of various techniques. On the other hand, this new "Dante" flies all over the place while destroying the enemies even in the hands of a noob previewer. This game is going to suffer from the "accessibility and streamlining syndrome" that has affected so many games this generation.

ign arent payed off through money but there reviewers are treated to hotels and retreats. the mw3 reviewer was treated to a week off in a hotel just to review the game. now tell me you would give a bad review after that.

It's called $$$ and swag.

There's DEFINITELY going to be some $$$ involved with the score of this game. ---12

@matgrow
Thing is its not that gamers have accepted DLC its that publishers cut the most sought after content back to be sold later as DLC knowing that gamers want the content so badly theyll pay extra for it since they cant get the content any other way.

I know you havent been gaming long because the greatest games from previous gens out number and out deliver all titles this gen in quality and quantity.

You must not be very familat with the industry because there is a term called check press and it goes both ways...if you dont know what i mean you prove my point.

Where is ur proof that ign has ever been paid off?

and plus all the haters are just hating on it for the sake of hating now.. they all know its looking sweet but its to late as they had a hissy fit over how he looked and now they gotta stick with there guns like 12 year olds...