Why would EGM just randomly lie about this?
 Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
 |
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
Why would EGM just randomly lie about this?
Why would EGM just randomly lie about this?
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
|
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
That looks from the older builds of the game that certainly looked way better than the final product.
Every older build looks "better" until you play it and you immediately clip through the floor and everything is missing hit detection because it's all part of a prerelease build.
Game journalists would NEVER lie. You shut your lying prostitute mouth up!
I don't want to defend gaming journalists, they were always shit. In the 90s they were just paid shills and since the internet was so primitive and not used by most they could outright lie and not be called out on it.
But i do think here they were likely just going by whatever presser the company gave them that used that name and they just typed what they were fed. They likely saw the game but I've read about how those meetings used to be and it would be very easy to misremember shit.
Journalists were always moronic and like this says are dumb enough to print hyped nonsense from a publisher for reasons.
>presser
God, it's so obvious when some illiterate desperately needs spellcheck for basic everyday writing.
But apparently not so obvious to you that you've just outed yourself as ignorant, illiterate, and underage.
A presser is a carefully curated build, or information package that would be sent out to gaming press. Typically, they'd send a videotape, a specific build, and some pamphlets with information about their game. Sometimes they'd send free shit like merch to suck up to gaming magazines.
What's incorrect about this? Isn't the article implying that some objects have no textures but rather a gradient?
It's saying that the game uses voxels but it doesn't.
Yeah, but I understood what it was saying even if technically incorrect.
How would one know if they are or aren't using voxels?
By looking at it.
But what in particular? Because looking up games that use voxels comes up with examples even from the 90s.
Magazines just repeat what they're told to repeat; and everyone always blow tech stuff out of proportion because even in the 90s the belief was "technologically better = better game"
With that said I do believe it's very much possible the game uses voxels for certain things and nobody's noticed. Maybe just for certain models or just certain pieces of environment. People these think voxels = minecraft look; but no, that's just modern "pixel look love". Use enough of them in a single model and on a platform like the N64, you wouldn't know the difference.
Looking at videos of the game I do believe some of those 3D models could be voxels, probably not the environment though
Looking at reviews, many said that compared to the competition on the system it looks very clean and sharp. One review notes the rough edges.
I believe it.
Better question. Why would some child sperg out over this years later?
Are you one of these guys?
Has John Ricciardi enjoyed his play of Xenogears? Or was he waiting for the PS2.
No. Why? Do you imagine those are the only people who would ask why a child is sperging out over a blurb printed in a rag years before it was born?
Didn't know Dan Hsu started out as a reviewer for EGM; by the time I started reading the magazine, the only thing I remember him being credited for were the comics they used to have at the back of every issue.
So uh, did that make a wish kid survive or was the wish a "farewell gift" and not a raise your spirits type of thing?
Dean looks dead inside
>favorites are sports games
ah that explains it
i wish this game was good. earthworm jim deserved a better 3d game.
EGM was fun to read back when I was in middle school, but now I've really seen how much of what they printed was bullshit. Lately I've been seeing a lot of people mentioning Altered Beast as one of the classics of the Sega Genesis, but EGM shat on that game mercilessly and endlessly so I just went with their criticism of it until I saw people praising the game years later. I guess it was another example to me of how you should never listen to any professional critiques/reviews and just play/watch/experience things for yourself, especially now with how easy emulation is to get into these days.
>Lately I've been seeing a lot of people mentioning Altered Beast as one of the classics of the Sega Genesis, but EGM shat on that game mercilessly and endlessly
never knew. i saw the game back in the day but it didn't look fun except for the dragon-morphing stages. adult years:i played the Genesis and thought it looked ugly and some of the bosses were bullshit. maybe the OG arcade game was better.
They were never journalists. They were ad-men trying to get "the scoop" before each other and spicing it up as much as they could to sell issues.
Everybody who shits on magazines for spewing bullshit need to do themselves a favour: look up old press kits for games online, then check what the magazines say.
You'll realize it's identical. They'll rephrase this or that, try to add a little flavour, but otherwise they just repeat what the publishers told them to repeat.
Shit that are completely wrong like this probably were correct at some point in dev and is just some bits of info the publishers gave them (though of course publisher could also have misunderstood what the devs told them or have outdated info, that can happen too). Usually when the magazine doesn't know, it doesn't make up crazy stuff like this, it assumes things haven't changed: like magazines claiming Rondo of Blood "still featured Simon Belmont", they probably just didn't have the info about a new character so simply assumed it was going to be the same because why would you change the star protagonist of your franchise.
They lied about Sheng Long, why wouldn't they lie about that?
I know GG broke everyone's brains a few years back but the fact that half the people in this thread can't tell the difference between a Preview and a Review says a lot lol
They gave plenty of games bad reviews, including from big advertisers. So why is everybody pretending things like that never happened? It was actually normal for big releases to regularly fail and get bad to mediocre reviews.
Unlike today when every single AAA game gets no less than an 8/10 if they're bad and higher if they're actually decent.