Welcome to two months ago but thanks still.

Funny but I have that issue of GamePro and there is no bashing in that preview of the game, plus the guy who previewed it was Air Hendrix.

You're either incorrect on the issue or you're just giving out false info.

Siduu101 Wrote: Welcome to two months ago but thanks still.

I don't recall you even being here two full months ago. Also before agreeing with someone you should check to see if the info is correct or not.

Shoe is an EGM reviewer. EGM also bashed the hell out of Deadly Alliance. Though Shoe is one of the few competent reviewers on the EGM staff, he has a hard-on for pure fighting games, so don't expect much praise from him when it comes to MK.

IMO, MK is the greatest fighting game series ever.

Well if u go to gamespot and go to MKD and scroll down it will say Gamepro's reviews not until 8/1????

Scarecrow Wrote: Shoe is an EGM reviewer. EGM also bashed the hell out of Deadly Alliance. Though Shoe is one of the few competent reviewers on the EGM staff, he has a hard-on for pure fighting games, so don't expect much praise from him when it comes to MK.

That's unfair, fans of a game and a reviewer of a game look for different things, you may like fatalities, the storyline and the fact that there are new minigames that have never been seen in MK before,

but on the other hand reviewers actually make unbiased judgements on the GAME, a game is judged on it's gameplay. Graphics, storyline and extras are considered, but the main part that is reviewed is the game, which means the fighting part of the game.

That doesn't make them fighting purists, that's what games are supposed to be judged on, it's completely different from what a fan looks for in a game, so don't hold their opinions in disrespect just because they are doing their jobs.

That's a big problem I have with game reviewers these days; they try too hard to be like movie critics and less like fans. Gaming elitists bug the living hell out of me, and EGM is full of them. If a game is fun, a game is fun, it's not like the movies. Now if you don't like MK, that's fine, I don't care. But you're not gonna read a positive review for it in EGM, though every other website and publication will likely give it higher marks. I am basing this off their review of DA, which I highly disagreed with. And it's perfectly fair for me to do that because it's my job as a gamer to have my own opinion on a game I like. They didn't like DA because it wasn't Soul Calibur. I found Tekken 4 to be pretty boring, but EGM was rough on that game too. Why? Because it wasn't Virtua Fighter 4. Don't get me wrong, I like EGM, it's the mag I've subscribed to the most over the years, but their reviews have been lacking the last couple years. They have the three reviewer system and often it's one guy giving it a really high mark, one guy giving it a really low mark, and one guy giving it an in the middle mark. Now the point of game reviews is to help the consumer decide if they should buy a game. How does a completely varied review from the same publication help someone decide if they should buy a game? They're not movie critics, they're game reviewers, and EGM tends to take themselves a little too seriously.

FLSTYLE Wrote: That's unfair, fans of a game and a reviewer of a game look for different things, you may like fatalities, the storyline and the fact that there are new minigames that have never been seen in MK before, but on the other hand reviewers actually make unbiased judgements on the GAME, a game is judged on it's gameplay. Graphics, storyline and extras are considered, but the main part that is reviewed is the game, which means the fighting part of the game. That doesn't make them fighting purists, that's what games are supposed to be judged on, it's completely different from what a fan looks like in a game, so don't hold their opinions in disrespect just because they are doing their jobs.

Scarecrow Wrote: That's a big problem I have with game reviewers these days; they try too hard to be like movie critics and less like fans. Gaming elitists bug the living hell out of me, and EGM is full of them. If a game is fun, a game is fun, it's not like the movies. Now if you don't like MK, that's fine, I don't care. But you're not gonna read a positive review for it in EGM, though every other website and publication will likely give it higher marks. I am basing this off their review of DA, which I highly disagreed with. And it's perfectly fair for me to do that because it's my job as a gamer to have my own opinion on a game I like. They didn't like DA because it wasn't Soul Calibur. I found Tekken 4 to be pretty boring, but EGM was rough on that game too. Why? Because it wasn't Virtua Fighter 4. Don't get me wrong, I like EGM, it's the mag I've subscribed to the most over the years, but their reviews have been lacking the last couple years. They have the three reviewer system and often it's one guy giving it a really high mark, one guy giving it a really low mark, and one guy giving it an in the middle mark. Now the point of game reviews is to help the consumer decide if they should buy a game. How does a completely varied review from the same publication help someone decide if they should buy a game? They're not movie critics, they're game reviewers, and EGM tends to take themselves a little too seriously. FLSTYLE Wrote: That's unfair, fans of a game and a reviewer of a game look for different things, you may like fatalities, the storyline and the fact that there are new minigames that have never been seen in MK before, but on the other hand reviewers actually make unbiased judgements on the GAME, a game is judged on it's gameplay. Graphics, storyline and extras are considered, but the main part that is reviewed is the game, which means the fighting part of the game. That doesn't make them fighting purists, that's what games are supposed to be judged on, it's completely different from what a fan looks like in a game, so don't hold their opinions in disrespect just because they are doing their jobs.

Acting like critics and less like fans is a good thing, reviewers and fans are two separate gamers, if fans where the reviewers than reviews would depend on whether you're a fan or not, which is biased towards or not towards the game in question.

That's the point of reviwers, people who don't love the series, but also people who don't hate them either.

You can't compare reviewers with fans, just like you can't compare reviwers opinions with fan's opinions, fans and reviewers speak from completely different viewpoints.

I think it's wrong to be a critic or a fan of a certain types of games when it comes to reviewing. But I find it more then right to be a fan of gaming since that is who they are reviewing for, the gamers.

A reviewer should like all types of games, or only handle the types of games he or she likes. Otherwise everything else can be biased.

I stopped subscribing to EGM about a year ago becuase of their biased reviews. EGM has always pretty much been anti-MK so Shoe's bashing of MKD doesn't surprise me. They tend to over-exaggerate on every review they write, wheter its in favor of the game or against it. That's why I don't like EGM anymore.

shang_heihachi Wrote: I stopped subscribing to EGM about a year ago becuase of their biased reviews. EGM has always pretty much been anti-MK so Shoe's bashing of MKD doesn't surprise me. They tend to over-exaggerate on every review they write, wheter its in favor of the game or against it. That's why I don't like EGM anymore.

^ He summed up what I was going to say. EGM isn't a source to be trusted, as its mostly full of fanboys of particular games. I don't like Deadly Alliance's fighting engine, but goddamn it was still a fun game for what it was worth. And Final Fantasy games shouldn't be getting straight 10s ever. EGM literally makes me sick.

hey, listen, if EGM is do unbiased, then why did EVERY OTHER gaming mag/website give MK: DA a good score? I heard that EGM wanted the da story, but when Game Informer got it, they threw a hissy fit. Seems that rumor was true.....

johnny_cage_win Wrote: hey, listen, if EGM is do unbiased, then why did EVERY OTHER gaming mag/website give MK: DA a good score? I heard that EGM wanted the da story, but when Game Informer got it, they threw a hissy fit. Seems that rumor was true.....

It is true. EGM never ever liked MK games to begin with. And it seems like no matter who is reviewing an MK through out the years it will always get a low mark. So yeah, when they were in place for the MK:DA exsclusive's, but GI got it, that only fueled more rage to their hatred. But I can't blame Midway for that decision. Would you give a world exscusive story to a game mag that has done nothing but bash your games in the past? I wouldn't.

On the subject of reviewers needing to be more like critics, I agree with FLSTYLE, they do need to be. I don't want to see high scores for a game just because it has a certain name on the front of the box (Tekken comes to mind).

PSM has been the only mag I trust on reviews for a long time. The only thing I hate about them is in their previews they always make a game seem like it's going to be awesome. But then they review it and give it low scores. Most of their reviews are pretty dead on (for me anyway). As a matter of fact the only review I can think of where I totally disagreed was Final Fantasy 8. That game sucked, it was no where near Final Fantasy calibur. The story sucked, the characters sucked, the battle system sucked, the magic system was god awful, etc. etc.

But anyway, just because EGM bashes MK:D doesn't mean anything. It's certainly not going to make me go change my pre-order to another game. Every other preview from E3 I have seen said the chess mode was great, the konquest mode was well thought out and designed, the engine is faster and more responsive, the graphics are more detailed, the arena's are well detailed and huge, and the over all character design is great. So, draw your own conclusions.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: It dosen't matter if a magazine dosen't like MK. All that matters is that you do. Personally, I think they were right about DA, so I don't believe it was sour grapes over a cover story. If you disagree with EGM, fine, but maybe you should be posting this on THEIR message boards. Let them know you want changes, instead of posting here in the relative saftey of your group of friends.

Sorry to sound like an ass, but there's been way too many of these threads bitching about anytime a mag dosen't worship the ground Ed Boon walks on.
Remember, were the fans, nobody's opinion matters but ours.

See, my bone to pick with EGM isn't the fact that they're already knocking MK:D, or the fact that their MK:DA scores were lower than everyone elses. While I tend to think that EGM is to videogames what MTV is to music (both only play the popular hits: ie GTA, MGS, FF, etc), and that EGM's had some of the most self important, snobby, "geeks are cool" pokemon worshipers ever to pack into one reading space, my point is on quantity.

EGM has given MK:D NO PREVIEW space. One measly glance that gave no new info about four issues ago, and then one little burn from Shoe in the E3 preview. They didn't even include MK:D in their list of fighting games coming in 2004 when their big preview issue came out months ago. MK:DA sold millions, yet all EGM focuses on are EA games, Square games, and shooters. I can disregard their witty little criticisms, but man, some new info would be nice, rather than another 900 pages of Solid Snake pictures. (I get it! He wears different colors! Enough!)

I never like EGM's reviews to begin with, they always seemed so shallow and biased. I really hate their whole attitude about Virtual Fighter 4 (the 'purist' fighter) being the end all of fighting games and acting like every other fighter after it is lower than it. To me, it doesn't matter how many grapple situations or counter depth a game has, because it still isn't realistic to a real fight (the UFC games have been the most realistic fighters) and it just isn't as fun as Mortal Kombat ever was to me.

Acts 1:18.

MachonyLeeoun Wrote: I never like EGM's reviews to begin with, they always seemed so shallow and biased. I really hate their whole attitude about Virtual Fighter 4 (the 'purist' fighter) being the end all of fighting games and acting like every other fighter after it is lower than it. To me, it doesn't matter how many grapple situations or counter depth a game has, because it still isn't realistic to a real fight (the UFC games have been the most realistic fighters) and it just isn't as fun as Mortal Kombat ever was to me.

I totally agree with everything you said.

Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out... nice

Jaybe2K4 Wrote: Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out... nice

There are many Mortal Kombat-type verses in the Bible. ;] The Bible pwnz!

DrCube Wrote: I've said it before and I'll say it again: It dosen't matter if a magazine dosen't like MK. All that matters is that you do. Personally, I think they were right about DA, so I don't believe it was sour grapes over a cover story. If you disagree with EGM, fine, but maybe you should be posting this on THEIR message boards. Let them know you want changes, instead of posting here in the relative saftey of your group of friends. Sorry to sound like an ass, but there's been way too many of these threads bitching about anytime a mag dosen't worship the ground Ed Boon walks on. Remember, were the fans, nobody's opinion matters but ours.

I totally agree with everything you've said. People need to stop bitching about bad reviews. FLSTYLE made a very good point when he said critics arent fan boys, and they look more into the game then a fanboy would, which is true, a fanboy would give every game a 10. And to people bitching about EGM giving MKDA the lowest score, well someone had to give the lowest score, if it wasn't EGM then you'd be bitching about whatever magazine gave it the lowest. And besides the important thing is what YOU think about the game.

I don't think the DA score alone is what is causing this EGM backlash. It's the fact that they're obviously biased towards certain companies, titles, and genres. Of course, whenever anyone writes to them about it, they'll print the letter, and the proceed to just insult the author and give off a vibe that all they're doing is rolling their eyes. If critics are all about quality and are above fans, then why the hell do they still accept advertising dollars for games they think suck? They love to spin that around "if this review pisses off an advertiser, so what?" Well if you're such an honorable and unbiased gamer, why are you accepting their money in the first place? Look, I'm all for making cash, but don't bullshit me. EGM reviewers are just as big of fanboys as anyone here (just read ANYTHING written in that magazine about Halo), they just like to give off the vibe that they're above the average gamer. Some of their reviewers seem to know their stuff, especially Shoe (who is one of the biggest MK bashers, other than that, he seems cool). The bottom line is, EGM tries to put their reputation above any other mag (granted, it is a hell of a lot better than Gamepro) and look like elitist movie critics. But there are no arthouse video games. Video games aren't like movies. You have "popcorn" movies like Anchorman that aren't going to win Oscars but are just there for entertainment. Then you have your movies that are made for an Oscar that critics love because it's not what you're used to seeing and make a statement. VIDEO GAMES AREN'T LIKE THAT. Video games are either fun, or not fun, simple as that. Jonathan Dudlak from EGM is not Roger Ebert. Scary Larry from Gamepro is not Leonard Maltin. Halo is not Taxi Driver. Get my point? There's no reason for a reviewer to judge a game on anything other than fun factor. If a game is unplayable, it can't be fun. If the graphics are so horrible it burns your eyes, you can't be entertained. Entertainment is the only criteria when it comes to a video game review, it's totally different from movies or music for that matter.

johnny_cage_win Wrote: hey, listen, if EGM is do unbiased, then why did EVERY OTHER gaming mag/website give MK: DA a good score? I heard that EGM wanted the da story, but when Game Informer got it, they threw a hissy fit. Seems that rumor was true.....

Personally I don't read EGM, and I'm guessing the version you're talking about with all the Americans in this thread is the American version, my comments up to now have been about gaming mags in general.

My fav mag in the british PSM2, they obviously know what they are talking about, they are unbiased towards the games, and if you disagree about them you can load up the DVD and go to the reviews section, and they explain each score for each review for every game reviewed in the previous month's magazine.

If there's a game I think looks good I can get all the screenshots I want but if they don't give it a score of over 70 then I ain't buying it, thanks to them I was introduced to the underated gem that is Chaos Legion. (Devil May Cry without the puzzle sections and instead of turning into a devil you have a mini-army)

If this EGM magazine are giving bad reviews because MK is MK and probably not even trying out the game then I wouldn't read it either.

CMETH I was here since last year and that's even before you came here or I would of been in the thousands visits by now.I even have 6 usernames registered here right now.