Early last week I posted, "Sega's Advertising Failure - Conduit 2?" In that post I showed the Amazon.com sales ranks for Conduit 2 from April 19 though April 30. I also provided the "professional" review score average for Conduit 2 from GameRankings.com, and I provided the review scores and review score average from customers on Amazon.com.
Just one day after my post, drama broke-out between High Voltage Software(HVS) and Joystiq.com's "reviewer" of Conduit 2. An internal HVS email was leaked, showing that HVS employees were encouraged to read/rate Joystiq.com's Conduit 2 reviewer's book he had written and had available for purchase on Amazon.com. The email did not specify what rating to give the book, but considering the review score was 1 out of 5 Stars from Joystiq.com for Conduit 2, I would assume that is what was hoped for in retaliation reviews as well.
Initially after the email was sent internally, negative reviews started appearing on the "reviewer's" book on Amazon.com. After the email was made public by MaroonersRock.com, some of those negative reviews started disappearing.
As for Conduit 2, the game had a customer review score average of 4.5 out of 5 Stars on Amazon.com, based on 13 customer reviews as of 12:30AM on May 17, 2011. Conduit 2's customer review score average was 87.69%, based on 13 customer reviews from Tuesday.
It appears the news of the internal email at HVS has caused more negative reviews to pop up on Conduit 2 though, than the "reviewer's" own book. Let's take a look.
Filtered Thoughts (sort of)
Again, my post was published early Tuesday morning and Conduit 2 only had 13 Amazon.com customer reviews at the time, with a 4.5 out of 5 Stars rating, and an average of 87.69% when the reviews were converted to a 100% review scale.
I just checked Conduit 2's review score average on Amazon.com, around 6:00PM on May 23, 2011 and the game now has a 2.5 out of 5 Stars rating based on 31 customer reviews. Conduit 2's current customer review score average is now 51.61%, based on the 31 customer reviews.
Here are two images showing the review scores from last Tuesday, and today:
|Reviews recorded around 12:30AM on May 17, 2011.|
May 3 - Joystiq.com's editors allowed a "review" for Conduit 2 to be published that trashed the game basically on every front, and contained major spoilers. The "reviewer" also admitted that he barely even played the game's multi-player with no mention of how the local multi-player and online varied. The "review" proved Joystiq has no standards for their reviewers, which is the case for most sites these days. An internal HVS email was sent to employees about returning the favor and "reviewing" the "reviewer's" book on Amazon.com, even providing a link to the book's Amazon.com page in the email.
May 17 - Conduit 2 has 13 Amazon.com customer reviews = 4.5 out of 5 Stars, and/or a 87.69% on a 100% review scale
May 18 - Marooners' Rock published a post with an email picture showing an internal HVS email suggesting HVS employees rate the Joystiq.com reviewer's book 1 star in retaliation.
May 18-23 - HVS issues apology about the Amazon.com review issue, but the "reviewer" still clings to his ignorance acting like nothing was wrong with his review, and Joystiq editors and staff allow the trash review to still be on the site.
May 23 - Conduit 2 has 31 Amazon.com customer reviews, and/or a 51.61% on a 100% review scale.
What do I think about the situation? I think HVS, the "reviewer", AND Joystiq are all at fault. HVS and Matt Corso (the HVS employee that sent the email) are at fault for sending the email and apparently acting on it (and not stopping it from starting). The "reviewer" Michael Murdoc is at fault for writing such a piece of trash "review"; but considering his review was somehow published, it should give hope to those of you looking at getting some freelance work with sites like Joystiq...because evidently they do not proofread reviews, and they do not have any review standards. Last, I believe Joystiq.com's editor(s) are at fault for having no standards and for allowing such a trash review to be posted; but not only to allow it to be posted, but also for it to remain posted.
The fact that HVS was so worried about one "review", really baffles me. In my opinion, HVS should have been sending around a collection bucket to try and raise funds for some Conduit 2 advertising, instead of sending an immature email, about an immature "reviewer's" "review" on evidently an immaturely run website. (My opinion, I know.)
If Joystiq.com's editor(s) allowed (or allows) a Killzone 3, Resistance 3, or Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 "review" to be published without the "reviewer" playing the multi-player at length, I think the outcry would be loud and clear, and justifiable. In this situation, I guess because Conduit 2 is only a Wii game...it was okay to allow an immature and not very complete, or informative, review to be published on the site?
In my post last Tuesday, I showed the lowest recorded sale rank for Conduit 2 from April 19 though April 30 had been #1,138 on April 30; as of this posting, around 6:00PM on May 23, 2011 Conduit 2 has an Amazon.com sale rank of #2,022. I think Conduit 2 has no hope at this point to reach the sales of the original game, The Conduit, and this situation is definitely not a good way to help promote the game.
If you have not seen any footage of Conduit 2, the trailer below should give you a brief idea about the game, without spoiling the ending(as some people don't seem to mind doing):
What do you think? Is HVS only at fault, or does this "reviewer" also have some blame to bear? Do you think Joystiq.com's editor(s) have any blame to bear in this situation for allowing such a "review" to be published?
If you have played Conduit 2, what do you think the game deserves review score wise? Also, do you think there should be game review standards of some sort?
If you are interested in Conduit 2, you can see prices linked on Amazon.com below: