NHL 15

[Dakkster]

So I haven't bought it yet, and I don't read reviews.

From what I've heard though.

PS3 version is basically a CC of NHL14
PS4 version has improved engines, graphics, etc.

If I'm EA I do the same thing. I want to encourage/sucker fans into upgrading the console. This way I make more money. goodatbusiness

Sure the PS3 version is a ripoff, but so is bottled water.

Then you show some ethics and don't charge full price for a copy.

Also, the new console version is incomplete, missing a whole bunch of game modes and other features. Again, charging full price for that is unethical.

[JagrBomb]

His review is for the last gen version.

that makes it even worse if what you're saying is true about it essentially being a $70 roster update.

[Dakkster]

that makes it even worse if what you're saying is true about it essentially being a $70 roster update.

He's writing it as someone who hasn't played an NHL game since 2008. Seven years ago. Go figure. If THW wanted an NHL 15 review, then perhaps they should have given that task to someone who actually plays these games and knows what's new or not. This is exactly what I'm talking about. THW is a mediocre site.

[robmyatt]

Then you show some ethics and don't charge full price for a copy.

Also, the new console version is incomplete, missing a whole bunch of game modes and other features. Again, charging full price for that is unethical.

I think "unethical" is a bit of a stretch. It isn't like they're lying and saying the game has features that it doesn't. Could EA be sued for false advertising? I doubt. Most people can do some research, try the game at a friend's house, or get the demo online and decide if they want to shell out $70 for the game. If the game was $50 would it still be unethical to sell it? Where do you draw the line? It's up to the consumer to be a smart shopper. EA just puts a price sticker on it and waits. I think you're more fired up about the guy reviewing it than the "ethics" surrounding the shelf price.

Regardless, I'll probably wait a month and get the PS3 version on Kijiji for $40 bucks or so. I'll get my money's worth out of it.

[Rodgort]

I never found it to improve much since NHL12, but I kept buying it. And after one month of playing NHL 14 I was bored out of my mind as it was just the same thing.

I for one am waiting until NHL 16 so they can get used to the new systems and figure out new things to do. Then probably be disappointed again... and still buy NHL 17 in an endless cycle...

[Dakkster]

I think "unethical" is a bit of a stretch. It isn't like they're lying and saying the game has features that it doesn't. Could EA be sued for false advertising? I doubt. Most people can do some research, try the game at a friend's house, or get the demo online and decide if they want to shell out $70 for the game. If the game was $50 would it still be unethical to sell it? Where do you draw the line? It's up to the consumer to be a smart shopper. EA just puts a price sticker on it and waits. I think you're more fired up about the guy reviewing it than the "ethics" surrounding the shelf price.

Regardless, I'll probably wait a month and get the PS3 version on Kijiji for $40 bucks or so. I'll get my money's worth out of it.

There's an earlier NHL 15 thread where I ranted enough about the bullshit EA is pulling with both NHL 15 versions.

And yes, it's unethical, just as EA is unethical with the premature release of Battlefield 4, the feature-chopped The Sims 4, the incredibly greedy mobile Dungeon Keeper and many more. Pretty much the worst publisher in gaming. People lazily and unknowingly plopping down their cash for the game without checking out reviews or trying it first does not somehow make the practice okay for EA.

[ASquared]

Your testimony means exactly **** all because Bruce has been pretty arrogant about THW on twitter. I don't care if he's sucking up to his writers and "nice" to you that way, but he's very adamant to defend the mediocrity of his site.

And it's utmost, not upmost.

He's my boss, so why would he "suck up to me?"

I know that he's explained on several occasions how different pieces result in different reactions. Hey, no big deal if it's not your cup of joe. But James works his tail off, so even if you disagree with what he says, we should all respect the time and effort he puts into it. Love havin' you keeping us on our heels, though.

[Dakkster]

He's my boss, so why would he "suck up to me?"

I know that he's explained on several occasions how different pieces result in different reactions. Hey, no big deal if it's not your cup of joe. But James works his tail off, so even if you disagree with what he says, we should all respect the time and effort he puts into it. Love havin' you keeping us on our heels, though.

I have no clue, but it's not true that Bruce is respectful all the time. Any site director who actively defends shoddy writing and nonexistent editing is a bad site director. That's Bruce.

And no, any work shouldn't be praised just because of the sweat put into it. That's like saying everyone should have a participation medal. If something is subpar and it receives due criticism, that's how the world works. If someone writes a completely worthless article about anything, I'm talking so bad that you want to claw your eyes out for reading it, should we also praise that piece because the writer "works his tail off"? No, of course not! Saying that different pieces result in different reactions as some sort of cop out to defend mediocrity is the mentality of someone who DOES NOT CARE ABOUT GOOD WRITING, ONLY ABOUT CLICKS!

I don't get it. This is ... I've lost count ... discussion about mediocre writing on THW. Who defends the mediocrity? The THW people. Both here and on Twitter. Bruce has been defending its mediocrity for YEARS. Why? Because it clearly works for him. He's making money from the site. But for his mentality to spread to his writers is just sad. Yes, different pieces result in different reactions. Bad pieces result in harsh criticism. Good pieces result in praise. You don't get a participation medal.

[ASquared]

I have no clue, but it's not true that Bruce is respectful all the time. Any site director who actively defends shoddy writing and nonexistent editing is a bad site director. That's Bruce.

And no, any work shouldn't be praised just because of the sweat put into it. That's like saying everyone should have a participation medal. If something is subpar and it receives due criticism, that's how the world works. If someone writes a completely worthless article about anything, I'm talking so bad that you want to claw your eyes out for reading it, should we also praise that piece because the writer "works his tail off"? No, of course not! Saying that different pieces result in different reactions as some sort of cop out to defend mediocrity is the mentality of someone who DOES NOT CARE ABOUT GOOD WRITING, ONLY ABOUT CLICKS!

I don't get it. This is ... I've lost count ... discussion about mediocre writing on THW. Who defends the mediocrity? The THW people. Both here and on Twitter. Bruce has been defending its mediocrity for YEARS. Why? Because it clearly works for him. He's making money from the site. But for his mentality to spread to his writers is just sad. Yes, different pieces result in different reactions. Bad pieces result in harsh criticism. Good pieces result in praise. You don't get a participation medal.

You're missing the point. I'm not saying you should praise something you don't like. What I am saying, though, is that it's a thankless job/hobby/craft or whatever you want to label it. You can criticize all you want, and in any way you please. I'm simply reminding you that these folks work hard. You don't have to award a trophy for that. But I don't think it's crazy to suggest that it should warrant some type of respect.

In the matter of this piece, it's personal preference. What if someone absolutely loves the video game? Are they then deemed mentally unstable because it's not the same opinion you hold? Do you at least understand where I'm coming from?

[Dakkster]

I see where you're coming from and I think you are wrong.

When you label a text "review", that immediately gives the text a bunch of connotations. One of them is that the reviewer knows what he's writing about, the ins and outs of it. I wouldn't write a review of the bottle of whisky I got the other week, because I know hardly anything about whisky. I only know if I think it tastes good or not. If someone who is almost completely ignorant about something reviews that thing, that throws the reader's expectations completely out of whack. James can't tell his readers about the progress from NHL 14 because he doesn't have that knowledge and that knowledge is essential for a reviewer of a game that is released yearly.

So no, not every text deserves respect for the hard work put into it. It's also about what you choose to write about. James linked to another text yesterday. It had a lot of problems in terms of form, but the substance was okay. I can respect that one, but not the so-called review. That was a bad writing choice from the start.

This is very basic stuff that I teach my English students all the time. Managing reader expectations, choice of topic and genre, etc. And no, they don't get a passing grade if they mess those up.

[havanablast21]

Correct me if I'm wrong... but isn't the music also the same? Was playing last night and it struck me. if not...then clearly not different enough.

[ASquared]

I see where you're coming from and I think you are wrong.

When you label a text "review", that immediately gives the text a bunch of connotations. One of them is that the reviewer knows what he's writing about, the ins and outs of it. I wouldn't write a review of the bottle of whisky I got the other week, because I know hardly anything about whisky. I only know if I think it tastes good or not. If someone who is almost completely ignorant about something reviews that thing, that throws the reader's expectations completely out of whack. James can't tell his readers about the progress from NHL 14 because he doesn't have that knowledge and that knowledge is essential for a reviewer of a game that is released yearly.

So no, not every text deserves respect for the hard work put into it. It's also about what you choose to write about. James linked to another text yesterday. It had a lot of problems in terms of form, but the substance was okay. I can respect that one, but not the so-called review. That was a bad writing choice from the start.

This is very basic stuff that I teach my English students all the time. Managing reader expectations, choice of topic and genre, etc. And no, they don't get a passing grade if they mess those up.

Holy crap. You're a teacher? Man, I dodged a bullet by not having you back when I was in school.

[Dakkster]

Holy crap. You're a teacher? Man, I dodged a bullet by not having you back when I was in school.

Former editor as well.

I just believe in quality and that high expectations get good results. My students have always told me, after a course or school year is done, that they appreciate the high expectations. As I've told James in another thread, I think he has a good writing voice, but he needs to get sharper. Everyone does. No one is ever good enough at writing and if you think you are, you start to slack off. Everything in context, of course, but when it's about a site that lives and dies by its writing, such as DobberHockey and The Hockey Writers, I'm going to bitch and moan about mediocrity because I want hockey sites to be the best they can be. I love hockey and I love good writing. Sadly, the quality of most hockey writers is woefully bad. We're talking extremely basic grammatical errors and whatnot.

Interesting discussion.

[ASquared]

Former editor as well.

I just believe in quality and that high expectations get good results. My students have always told me, after a course or school year is done, that they appreciate the high expectations. As I've told James in another thread, I think he has a good writing voice, but he needs to get sharper. Everyone does. No one is ever good enough at writing and if you think you are, you start to slack off. Everything in context, of course, but when it's about a site that lives and dies by its writing, such as DobberHockey and The Hockey Writers, I'm going to bitch and moan about mediocrity because I want hockey sites to be the best they can be. I love hockey and I love good writing. Sadly, the quality of most hockey writers is woefully bad. We're talking extremely basic grammatical errors and whatnot.

Interesting discussion.

I can relate with high expectations as well. I can only speak for myself, but I think it's safe to assume that nobody wants to throw garbage on a page and say, "Here ya go!" I'm sure the hammer is right around the corner on my own work.