- Italian website publishes a review of DmC, giving it a 7.5

- Italian website's review was taken down by Capcom's legal team

- Ninja Theory releases this tweet, claiming the review wasn't genuine:

http://imageshack.us/a/img341/8117/1357572230049.png

Ah so the sites that were given the review copy for free felt it was better, what a surprise!

Just relaying all this information from NeoGaf/etc. so there may be more sides to this developing, but extrapolate from this what you will. Seems shady as shit though. Gaming journalism, folks.

Well 7.5 to 8.5 seems like a legit score for a Devil May Cry game..... but who knows europe is a weird place when it comes to vidja games reviews

Yeesh.

The thread title seems a bit sensationalist considering the information you've given (seems like Capcom pulled the review judging from what you posted for a start) though I agree it is kind of odd, still without knowing the full story it's hard to have much an opinion. If lower rated (not that 7.5 is a bad score) DMC reviews appear online without being contested by Capcom's legal team then I guess we'll know for sure whether this was just a dodgy review or not.

This seems like NeoGaf just trying to stir shit up.

According to the DMC review thread on Neogaf they said that no online publications had received review code, so that's probably why it was taken down.

@Demoskinos said:

This seems like NeoGaf just trying to stir shit up.

How do you figure that?

7.5 is not a bad score by any means - other than terrible modern standards of the 5-8 range meaning 'shit' - but until we have more evidence this has no truth to it.

@Brighty said:

@Demoskinos said:

This seems like NeoGaf just trying to stir shit up.

How do you figure that?

Because there is a sect of people that are still so incredibly butt-hurt over this game existing that they want to make a mountain out of any damn molehill they can find. Also, no online websites have the game yet. At this time the only places with legitimate reviews are print publications.

@SirOptimusPrime said:

7.5 is not a bad score by any means - other than terrible modern standards of the 5-8 range meaning 'shit' - but until we have more evidence this has no truth to it.

I agree, but in this day and age a 7.5 might as well be a damning score - ridiculous, I know. I much prefer GB's 5 star system.

Also, what additional evidence do you need? The review was up, got out, and then was quietly taken down, and the PR Ninja Theory twitter spin happened a few hours afterward and claiming it wasn't genuine because the reviewer never got their review code. I can find the screencaps of the review and link you to the old URL that comes up as a 404 now of the review.

Was it taken down because there's an embargo in place? It's the only thing that makes sense since freedom of speech would stop any developer from taking such action otherwise, review copy or none.

I don't care what other people say about DMC . I WILL LIKE IT .

Ninja Theory games really connect with me . I wanna support them , and hand them $60 . Who's with me ? :D

@spankingaddict said:

I don't care what other people say about DMC . I WILL LIKE IT .

Ninja Theory games really connect with me . I wanna support them , and hand them $60 . Who's with me ? :D

Well... I'm buying it but I'll only be handing over $35 technically since I get a discount at work and I also have a $25 gift card to burn. =D

@Brighty said:

@SirOptimusPrime said:

7.5 is not a bad score by any means - other than terrible modern standards of the 5-8 range meaning 'shit' - but until we have more evidence this has no truth to it.

I agree, but in this day and age a 7.5 might as well be a damning score - ridiculous, I know. I much prefer GB's 5 star system.

Also, what additional evidence do you need? The review was up, got out, and then was quietly taken down, and the PR Ninja Theory twitter spin happened a few hours afterward and claiming it wasn't genuine because the reviewer never got their review code. I can find the screencaps of the review and link you to the old URL that comes up as a 404 now of the review.

It seems, from everything I've read, that no online publications have any sort of review code. Either that or NT doesn't want online reviews to be going up (???). When online reviews come up, or negative ones at all, we can look at this again. If they're all positive, then it'll be a bit harder to tell whether or not NT pulled the negative reviews... at least until a bunch of sites and publications flip the fuck out. Or if places like GB, Gamespot, and IGN don't have reviews for it, then it'll be pretty clear.

If big sites/publications don't have a review for a reboot of a major Capcom franchise, then it's pretty icky. Right now, it could just be some website getting their hands on a leak - speaking of which, is the Italian site an Edge or Gamespot for their country?

edit: okay, so the embargo isn't up until Sunday? So why does this thread exist then? Breaking embargo = a no-no. You do that, and your review is going to get pulled.

@Demoskinos said:

@Brighty said:

@Demoskinos said:

This seems like NeoGaf just trying to stir shit up.

How do you figure that?

Because there is a sect of people that are still so incredibly butt-hurt over this game existing that they want to make a mountain out of any damn molehill they can find. Also, no online websites have the game yet. At this time the only places with legitimate reviews are print publications.

There's also a sect of people that religiously feel compelled to defend this game, even if it means burying their head in the sand. I have a good friend that works at a relatively mainstream, primarily online publication, and they have already received their review codes for the game. The game releases next week, lol, you are delusion if you don't think plenty of online websites have the review codes already. The key here is that the embargo isn't up until this Sunday.

@SirOptimusPrime said:

It seems, from everything I've read, that no online publications have any sort of review code. Either that or NT doesn't want online reviews to be going up (???). When online reviews come up, or negative ones at all, we can look at this again. If they're all positive, then it'll be a bit harder to tell whether or not NT pulled the negative reviews... at least until a bunch of sites and publications flip the fuck out. Or if places like GB, Gamespot, and IGN don't have reviews for it, then it'll be pretty clear.

Yeah, I think it's moreover that NT doesn't want any negative online reviews to be going up - which is a reasonable concern - but its still a shady practice to pull it down. Makes one wonder how confident they are on how the game will be received. Have there been other cases like this where a bad review of a AAA game has gotten out early and then pulled down and the game went on to be reviewed positively regardless?

Also, doesn't GB usually just go out and buy the games on release day anyway and not get them from the publisher? Does Capcom send them review copies?

A Legal team can't pull down a review just because they don't like the score. They need an actual legal reason like say, a broken embargo date.

Edit: Can people stop quoting this to tell me i'm wrong, thank you. Embargo or no doesn't change that they need a legal reason to pull down a review or that the site itself agreed to it.

@Pr1mus said:

A Legal team can't pull down a review just because they don't like the score. They need an actual legal reason like say, a broken embargo date.

Bingo. Add this to my previous comment, and yeah that's pretty much it.

@Brighty said:

Ah so the sites that were given the review copy for free felt it was better, what a surprise!

What kind of half-ass website or magazine doesn't get free review copies of big releases?

@Brighty said:

Also, doesn't GB usually just go out and buy the games on release day anyway and not get them from the publisher? Does Capcom send them review copies?

That is the complete opposite of what happens.

EDIT: Ugh, just flag this shit and get it locked

@SirOptimusPrime said:

@Pr1mus said:

A Legal team can't pull down a review just because they don't like the score. They need an actual legal reason like say, a broken embargo date.

Bingo. Add this to my previous comment, and yeah that's pretty much it.

That's what I was thinking, but from what NT is implying they didn't even send them a review code (hard to infer what "genuine" means here). Again though, embargo dates have been broken multiple times in the past and have been left alone, but I guess with this game in particular its pre-release reception its pretty critical for them to paint it in as much of a positive light as they can before its released - whereas more high-profile games probably wouldn't care as much if an early review leaked out giving it a "fair" score. I dunno, this whole process of this game's release has been fascinating to watch from a PR standpoint.

To be clear it's most likely Ninja Theories PR department pulling down the reviews. I wish people would clarify this more. It would probably help solve the problem, and prevent asinine developer boycotts.

(Can I just say if you're going to 'spoiler' something can you use the Spoiler Block, I hate the spoiler blocked in white, super annoying)

On topic, 80+ reviews on MetaCritic are still a thing people, of course there's a tweet like that. But the games not out for another week plus so I doubt the embargo has lifted on it, terms of sending a game out for review, you release the review when we tell you you can, especially if its not a glowing one.

@Brighty said:

@SirOptimusPrime said:

It seems, from everything I've read, that no online publications have any sort of review code. Either that or NT doesn't want online reviews to be going up (???). When online reviews come up, or negative ones at all, we can look at this again. If they're all positive, then it'll be a bit harder to tell whether or not NT pulled the negative reviews... at least until a bunch of sites and publications flip the fuck out. Or if places like GB, Gamespot, and IGN don't have reviews for it, then it'll be pretty clear.

Yeah, I think it's moreover that NT doesn't want any negative online reviews to be going up - which is a reasonable concern - but its still a shady practice to pull it down. Makes one wonder how confident they are on how the game will be received. Have there been other cases like this where a bad review of a AAA game has gotten out early and then pulled down and the game went on to be reviewed positively regardless?

Also, doesn't GB usually just go out and buy the games on release day anyway and not get them from the publisher? Does Capcom send them review copies?

They have to have a reason to pull reviews, though. The point isn't that they pulled down a negative review - right now, at least - but rather that a review got pulled down at all. If, like you just said, the online embargo is up this Sunday then breaking embargo is just a PR team/publisher saying "hey, you kind of can't do that."

I think GB does buy their own copies for certain things, but a lot of stuff does get handed off to them (I know that Jeff or Ryan had a code given to them for Civ 4 or 5 and talked about not using it accidentally on the 'cast). It doesn't really matter, since the GB guys have enough integrity that they would lambaste a shitty game regardless of them getting it for free. I'm saying that if there is no review from the guys, that would be pretty weird unless they specifically pointed it out - total radio silence would be damning for NT. I'm not 'defending' them or anything, I haven't played a single one of their games for starters, I just don't think the evidence is damning yet.

@StarvingGamer said:

@Brighty said:

Also, doesn't GB usually just go out and buy the games on release day anyway and not get them from the publisher? Does Capcom send them review copies?

That is the complete opposite of what happens.

EDIT: Ugh, just flag this shit and get it locked

Geez, sorry I got that wrong. I don't pay that much attention to videogame reviews that much anymore aside from the ones on GB, and even then I usually go to GAF/various internet forums before making any purchasing decisions anyway. I'm primarily here for GB's video content and the bombcasts, which are fucking awesome. No need to overreact and flip out at me.

@oldenglishC said:

What kind of half-ass website or magazine doesn't get free review copies of big releases?

Yeah, that's what I was thinking. Maybe it's PR spin and they received a review copy and just didn't publish a favorable review/broke embargo.

@SirOptimusPrime said:

@Brighty said:

@SirOptimusPrime said:

It seems, from everything I've read, that no online publications have any sort of review code. Either that or NT doesn't want online reviews to be going up (???). When online reviews come up, or negative ones at all, we can look at this again. If they're all positive, then it'll be a bit harder to tell whether or not NT pulled the negative reviews... at least until a bunch of sites and publications flip the fuck out. Or if places like GB, Gamespot, and IGN don't have reviews for it, then it'll be pretty clear.

Yeah, I think it's moreover that NT doesn't want any negative online reviews to be going up - which is a reasonable concern - but its still a shady practice to pull it down. Makes one wonder how confident they are on how the game will be received. Have there been other cases like this where a bad review of a AAA game has gotten out early and then pulled down and the game went on to be reviewed positively regardless?

Also, doesn't GB usually just go out and buy the games on release day anyway and not get them from the publisher? Does Capcom send them review copies?

They have to have a reason to pull reviews, though. The point isn't that they pulled down a negative review - right now, at least - but rather that a review got pulled down at all. If, like you just said, the online embargo is up this Sunday then breaking embargo is just a PR team/publisher saying "hey, you kind of can't do that."

I think GB does buy their own copies for certain things, but a lot of stuff does get handed off to them (I know that Jeff or Ryan had a code given to them for Civ 4 or 5 and talked about not using it accidentally on the 'cast). It doesn't really matter, since the GB guys have enough integrity that they would lambaste a shitty game regardless of them getting it for free. I'm saying that if there is no review from the guys, that would be pretty weird unless they specifically pointed it out - total radio silence would be damning for NT. I'm not 'defending' them or anything, I haven't played a single one of their games for starters, I just don't think the evidence is damning yet.

I've only really started paying attention to the whole "integrity of gaming journalism" bit over the past few months so all of this is more fascinating to me than anything. It's all interesting though - when do positive reviews of online publications usually get released? I know quite a few games have had IGN reviews out a week or two ahead of embargo when they've scored exceptionally, what's the general rule of thumb to start wondering about the score the closer the embargo date gets?

And yeah, GB's reviews/word of mouth on internet forums are really the only sources I trust these days anyway.

@Brighty:

I chalk it to to a broken embargo and the generally skeevy reputation of the European games press.

If this was true - and given what people have said in here, it seems more like a broken embargo issue rather than an issue the score - I think the thing I'd actually be more worried about than Capcom pulling reviews to hide poor scores, is that 75% would be considered 'poor' enough these days to warrant that sort of extreme underhandedness. If it was truly damning, like sub-50%, I'd understand them pulling it more (that doesn't mean I'd find pulling the review anything less than despicable), but a 75% score? Really?

I love embargoed material and NDAs.

That's allow reviews, rather. Stupid mobile site's lack of post editing.

Since when was 75% negative? I'll never understand people's ideas of what review scores mean.

I doubt this is new or revolutionary behaviour. I bet all sorts of shady shit goes down with these smaller sites - I wouldn't be surprised if some websites refuse to give a game a good score until they have been paid by the publisher, effectively holding a metacritic score hostage.

Not every site was built upon a policy of journalistic integrity like Giant Bomb and, to be honest, that's why I don't go to them.

Could a copy have just leaked early in their country? Like all those Polish people "enjoying" Resident Evil 6 a few weeks before everyone else.

@Brighty said:

@StarvingGamer said:

@Brighty said:

Also, doesn't GB usually just go out and buy the games on release day anyway and not get them from the publisher? Does Capcom send them review copies?

That is the complete opposite of what happens.

EDIT: Ugh, just flag this shit and get it locked

Geez, sorry I got that wrong. I don't pay that much attention to videogame reviews that much anymore aside from the ones on GB, and even then I usually go to GAF/various internet forums before making any purchasing decisions anyway. I'm primarily here for GB's video content and the bombcasts, which are fucking awesome. No need to overreact and flip out at me.

Don't take it personally. I always flag threads with sensationalist titles that exist for no other reason than to stir up drama where there is none by misleading people.

EDIT: And did you really just try to use the fact that GB is the ONLY site where you care about reviews to explain the fact that you seem to have no idea how GB does their reviews?

@Brighty: The majority of places will put reviews for BIG games up at the embargo break. For instance, GB did Halo 4 immediately when the embargo was down... and they might have done that for some of the CoD games? I don't know about that, since I don't generally pay any attention to those games. Outside of GB, that seems to hold water: most games will get online reviews later down the line, but gigantic games get immediate reviews for ad revenue/whatever other reason.

Magazines also release reviews as early as they can, but generally follow the whole monthly issue thing. That can also create the thing you're seeing where mags might publish their review online only when the mag actually hits (usually the case, from what I've seen at places like PCGamer) and not early - y'know, to keep the incentive for the magazine going. This might artificially embellish that "problem." I don't see why a magazine or website would want to release a positive review late, after the zeitgeist has calmed down and are bound to get fewer clicks/reads now that people are generally less interested.

@oldenglishC said:

@Brighty said:

Ah so the sites that were given the review copy for free felt it was better, what a surprise!

What kind of half-ass website or magazine doesn't get free review copies of big releases?

You would actually be surprised. Whenever I was running BonusStage back before the 360 came out, EA wanted your site to have a certain number of unique visitors per month and a specific Alexa ranking before they would send you any of their bigger releases. In turn, we were getting the lower end stuff or things they needed to drum up boxart quotes for (like GoldenEye: Rogue Agent *ugh*). Then again, they also expected that we would fluff our review scores to help boost their GameRankings average at the time (before Metacritic was a thing). We didn't, and that pissed them off. I had plenty of e-mails from EA, Activision, Ubisoft, and others about how our scores were "lower than the average", and I would reply "then stop making bad games". Eventually, they blacklisted our site for review copies, which I was fine with. If they don't like the opinions of those playing and reviewing their games, they can go live in their own little bubble and ignore us. We weren't selling our integrity.

Meanwhile, there were other companies that were more than welcome to pass off copies of games/review codes, like Midway, Capcom, and Atlus. I still have my trade copy of Disgaea: Hour of Darkness (which @Disgaeamad always hated that I had and he didn't).

So...that's a long-form answer to your question, but yes - not all websites get review codes for every game released. Mind you, though - I was writing and running that site back in...2003? 2004? Something like that. We covered the launch of the 360, but didn't make it long past that to cover the PS3.

/Sigh.

• The title - 7.5 is not a ''negative'' score. Regardless of how the publishers view it, those are your words. Plus according to your own OP, Capcom pulled it down not Ninja Theory.

• The stupid quote in the spoiler - you can't even legally buy the game as of yet, unless the street date broke, so of course whoever Capcom freely sends the game to will be the ones reviewing it.

For as sketchy as this appears on the surface, you're clearly mounting this up even higher in an attempt to conjure more ill will against DmC.

@SirOptimusPrime said:

@Brighty: The majority of places will put reviews for BIG games up at the embargo break. For instance, GB did Halo 4 immediately when the embargo was down... and they might have done that for some of the CoD games? I don't know about that, since I don't generally pay any attention to those games. Outside of GB, that seems to hold water: most games will get online reviews later down the line, but gigantic games get immediate reviews for ad revenue/whatever other reason.

Magazines also release reviews as early as they can, but generally follow the whole monthly issue thing. That can also create the thing you're seeing where mags might publish their review online only when the mag actually hits (usually the case, from what I've seen at places like PCGamer) and not early - y'know, to keep the incentive for the magazine going. This might artificially embellish that "problem." I don't see why a magazine or website would want to release a positive review late, after the zeitgeist has calmed down and are bound to get fewer clicks/reads now that people are generally less interested.

Yeah, that makes more sense, thanks for putting it in perspective.

@StarvingGamer said:

@Brighty said:

@StarvingGamer said:

@Brighty said:

Also, doesn't GB usually just go out and buy the games on release day anyway and not get them from the publisher? Does Capcom send them review copies?

That is the complete opposite of what happens.

EDIT: Ugh, just flag this shit and get it locked

Geez, sorry I got that wrong. I don't pay that much attention to videogame reviews that much anymore aside from the ones on GB, and even then I usually go to GAF/various internet forums before making any purchasing decisions anyway. I'm primarily here for GB's video content and the bombcasts, which are fucking awesome. No need to overreact and flip out at me.

Don't take it personally. I always flag threads with sensationalist titles that exist for no other reason than to stir up drama where there is none by misleading people.

EDIT: And did you really just try to use the fact that GB is the ONLY site where you care about reviews to explain the fact that you seem to have no idea how GB does their reviews?

Lol, calm down. I didn't mean for it to sensationalistic, I just was reiterating what I read on another website and more or less moved it over here to get peoples' thoughts.

And yes, I did. I look at the score that the game gets and read the reviews themselves, but I don't pay attention to the behind-the-scenes process. The only time I remember anything relating to that was an ILM video where they mentioned that they had to go run out to a store to buy <x game> because they didn't get a review copy, so it made me wonder if it was like that for most other developers when they work with GiantBomb. Good lord, relax man, I'm not trying to personally accost you, you're going to burst a blood vessel.

@Yummylee said:

/Sigh.

• The title - 7.5 is not a ''negative'' score. Regardless of how the publishers view it, those are your words. Plus according to your own OP, Capcom pulled it down not Ninja Theory

• The stupid quote in the spoiler - you can't even legally buy the game as of yet, unless the street date broke, so of course whoever Capcom freely sends the game to will be the ones reviewing it.

Why are you so antagonistic? I made one or two typos, calm down. And yes, the street date has been broken - by a number of days in fact http://www.trueachievements.com/Fnerk.htm http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/605600-dmc-devil-may-cry/65114339

For as sketchy as this appears on the surface, you're clearly mounting this up even higher in an attempt to conjure more ill will against DmC.

I dont understand why some people are so paranoid about. I get it that this game has had a substancial amount of vitriol surrounding it, but some of you DmC apologists are a little too quick to the trigger and too ready to jump down my throat at what you think is the slightest implication of trying to slander the game.

@Brighty said:

@StarvingGamer said:

@Brighty said:

@StarvingGamer said:

@Brighty said:

Also, doesn't GB usually just go out and buy the games on release day anyway and not get them from the publisher? Does Capcom send them review copies?

That is the complete opposite of what happens.

EDIT: Ugh, just flag this shit and get it locked

Geez, sorry I got that wrong. I don't pay that much attention to videogame reviews that much anymore aside from the ones on GB, and even then I usually go to GAF/various internet forums before making any purchasing decisions anyway. I'm primarily here for GB's video content and the bombcasts, which are fucking awesome. No need to overreact and flip out at me.

Don't take it personally. I always flag threads with sensationalist titles that exist for no other reason than to stir up drama where there is none by misleading people.

EDIT: And did you really just try to use the fact that GB is the ONLY site where you care about reviews to explain the fact that you seem to have no idea how GB does their reviews?

Lol, calm down. I didn't mean for it to sensationalistic, I just was reiterating what I read on another website and more or less moved it over here to get peoples' thoughts.

And yes, I did. I look at the score that the game gets and read the reviews themselves, but I don't pay attention to the behind-the-scenes process. The only time I remember anything relating to that was an ILM video where they mentioned that they had to go run out to a store to buy <x game> because they didn't get a review copy, so it made me wonder if it was like that for most other developers when they work with GiantBomb. Good lord, relax man, I'm not trying to personally accost you, you're going to burst a blood vessel.

Either you're vindictive or you're clueless. Whichever it is, threads like these are a major waste of space. 2012 was a banner year for mass stupidity on the internet built on people mindless parroting what they read without sparing any brain power to think about the things they were saying. I'd rather 2013 didn't turn out the same way. Like I said, don't take it personally. I'd just hate to think that you're a symbol of things to come.

EDIT: Although I am extremely pleased to see that a majority of the people posting here are rational enough to see this thread for what it is.

@Brighty: Those who got it free thought it was better? That doesn't make any sense. If they didn't have to pay why would they care to convince themselves it is any better than someone who spent hard earned money on it?

@Brighty: I am calm, and ''Ninja Theory Pulling Down Negative Reviews'' is more than a typo. It's an obvious attempt at making Ninja Theory look desperate and that they're a bunch of slimeballs. It's total speculative sensationalism to draw a total conclusion on why it was pulled down. This is very similar to how you created a pointless thread about some 3 second sex scene for the sake of drumming up controversy around a game you're clearly not very happy with.

But whatever, I'm just some paranoid DmC apologist so... Sa'll good, brah brah!

@Yummylee: I'm pretty excited for it. Played DMC4 and enjoyed all the Nero content actually much more than playing as Dante. The devil bringer made combat a lot more interesting. I like the art style and the premise of the story in this new DMC and plan on getting it as I haven't played a good beat 'em up game since Bayonetta - although thats a little unfair since I think only Bayonetta 2 can ever top that game. (please please Platinum, for next gen consoles plz)

@Brighty: Fnerk's profile on XBL: https://live.xbox.com/en-US/Profile?GamerTag=fnerk

Games Editor, MyM magazine, and far from professional games critic. Writer. Gamer. Vocalist. Liberal. Achievement hunter. Northerner. Lover. Bastard.

It's interesting to point out that three out of five gamertags tracked there are games journalists. Also, don't confuse those Brits with the rest of us Europeans.

I dont understand why some people are so paranoid about. I get it that this game has had a substancial amount of vitriol surrounding it, but some of you DmC apologists are a little too quick to the trigger and too ready to jump down my throat at what you think is the slightest implication of trying to slander the game.

Since you've only been following the whole "journalism debate" for the last few months, you may have missed this, but 2012 was a year rampant with "gamer outrage": from Diablo 3 and Mass Effect 3 to journalist integrity and the sexism debate... It's not unlikely that for some people the slightest hint of sensationalism is the straw that breaks the camel's back.

@Pr1mus said:

A Legal team can't pull down a review just because they don't like the score. They need an actual legal reason like say, a broken embargo date.

If I remember Jeff's explanation correctly, embargos are not legally enforced, and the reason a publication abides by it is to maintain a relationship with the publisher. It's NDAs that are actually legally enforceable since you sign legal documents for those.

7.5 from randomwebsite.com. I'm cancelling my preorder.

@Turambar said:

@Pr1mus said:

A Legal team can't pull down a review just because they don't like the score. They need an actual legal reason like say, a broken embargo date.

If I remember Jeff's explanation correctly, embargos are not legally enforced, and the reason a publication abides by it is to maintain a relationship with the publisher. It's NDAs that are actually legally enforceable since you sign legal documents for those.

This. Embargoes are paper that is sent with a free copy that says if you want more of this don't post it before this date. Which for sites that want to have a release day review this is important to hold on to. But yes since they are not signed they are not legal documents.

@Demoskinos said:

@spankingaddict said:

I don't care what other people say about DMC . I WILL LIKE IT .

Ninja Theory games really connect with me . I wanna support them , and hand them $60 . Who's with me ? :D

Well... I'm buying it but I'll only be handing over $35 technically since I get a discount at work and I also have a $25 gift card to burn. =D

I'll take that as a Yes . Your still purchasing a $60 copy .

@Yummylee said:

@Brighty: I am calm, and ''Ninja Theory Pulling Down Negative Reviews'' is more than a typo. It's an obvious attempt at making Ninja Theory look desperate and that they're a bunch of slimeballs. It's total speculative sensationalism to draw a total conclusion on why it was pulled down. This is very similar to how you created a pointless thread about some 3 second sex scene for the sake of drumming up controversy around a game you're clearly not very happy with.

But whatever, I'm just some paranoid DmC apologist so... Sa'll good, brah brah!

Went to go watch some of the trailers for this again. Got a good chuckle when one of the first comments I saw was this...

Brighty on Aug. 17, 2012 at 4:45 p.m.
Ugh... not impressed at all with this

@Pr1mus: But breaking review embargos isn't illegal.

@PufferFiz said:

@Turambar said:

@Pr1mus said:

A Legal team can't pull down a review just because they don't like the score. They need an actual legal reason like say, a broken embargo date.

If I remember Jeff's explanation correctly, embargos are not legally enforced, and the reason a publication abides by it is to maintain a relationship with the publisher. It's NDAs that are actually legally enforceable since you sign legal documents for those.

This. Embargoes are paper that is sent with a free copy that says if you want more of this don't post it before this date. Which for sites that want to have a release day review this is important to hold on to. But yes since they are not signed they are not legal documents.

Ah, I didn't know that. So there's no real legal action that could have been taken then? Just a general honor-bound rule thing?

@Yummylee said:

@Brighty: I am calm, and ''Ninja Theory Pulling Down Negative Reviews'' is more than a typo. It's an obvious attempt at making Ninja Theory look desperate and that they're a bunch of slimeballs. It's total speculative sensationalism to draw a total conclusion on why it was pulled down. This is very similar to how you created a pointless thread about some 3 second sex scene for the sake of drumming up controversy around a game you're clearly not very happy with.

But whatever, I'm just some paranoid DmC apologist so... Sa'll good, brah brah!

Oh come on, I made the thread about the sex scene in the game because I thought it was hilarious how absurd it was and wanted to share here because it everywhere else it was getting a big laugh. I'm not a big supporter of this game, but I suspect the game will turn out as a fine action game (albeit a poor DMC game), I'm not going out of my way to repeatedly try and bring the game down. You act like I have a personal vendetta against NT/Capcom. Dude, I don't know what tramatic event you've been through in the trenches here defending this game, but you are acting crazy, lol.

@Gaffsaid:

@Brighty: Fnerk's profile on XBL: https://live.xbox.com/en-US/Profile?GamerTag=fnerk

Games Editor, MyM magazine, and far from professional games critic. Writer. Gamer. Vocalist. Liberal. Achievement hunter. Northerner. Lover. Bastard.

It's interesting to point out that three out of five gamertags tracked there are games journalists. Also, don't confuse those Brits with the rest of us Europeans.

I dont understand why some people are so paranoid about. I get it that this game has had a substancial amount of vitriol surrounding it, but some of you DmC apologists are a little too quick to the trigger and too ready to jump down my throat at what you think is the slightest implication of trying to slander the game.

Since you've only been following the whole "journalism debate" for the last few months, you may have missed this, but 2012 was a year rampant with "gamer outrage": from Diablo 3 and Mass Effect 3 to journalist integrity and the sexism debate... It's not unlikely that for some people the slightest hint of sensationalism is the straw that breaks the camel's back.

That makes much more sense why there are a lot more people that seem so butthurt in this thread and so overly defensive over this game. It's interesting to say the least the reaction here as opposed to GAF, Gamefaqs, IGN, or any of the other forums. I'll be sure to be more mindful of my choice of words in the future when it comes to posting topics about this game's development/reception in the future, if it all. Thanks for the heads up though man. It is interesting that out of all of the internet forums I've visited, every single one of them except for GB's is extremely salty towards this game. Here the community seems more split evenly on the game, or the defenders of the game are more vocal here at least. Weird how that works.