Originally Posted by dannyboyslim
I've been reading this thread since its inception, and although I've severely reduced my forum postings of late, I just could not resist coming in on this one.
The main thing that I seem to get is that a lot of people feel the PC game has been harshly reviewed - and their basis for this is playing other versions, or the Sniper Challenge free download, or off gameplay videos from YT etc...
Take Don Megamuffin above for example, he has created an account in which at time of writing this he had posted only twice, both in this thread, to spew forth vitriolic bile concerning how he played the free Sniper Challenge bit and saw no tech problems, has seen some videos on YT which he links disputing one part of Toms review, and therefore he feels that the review is a complete travesty (He asks Tom to come on here to "justify his lies".)
He makes no mention of actually playing the PC game itself from start to finish, something which runs with the other forumites posting up the nastiness in this thread.
Yet this is something Tom HAS done, and reviewed it accordingly.
I know whose opinion I value more, and it isn't the chap with the foodstuff in his forum ID."
At no point have I said the game has been harshly reviewed, I just feel, if a reviewer, who is paid to do what he does, lies about information and uses it against the game as strongly as it has been used it is completely unacceptable. When I read a game review from PC gamer I am always impressed by the neutral attitude the reviewer seems to enter the review in, and how the review doesn't seem to be biased in any way, but reading the review for hitman absolution, that sort of attitude doesn't come across, I was shocked when reading the review by how Tom seemed to enter the review wanting to hate the game, and this sort of attitude clearly comes across with the sort of language he uses.
The fact that the review includes at least one lie in it (maybe more as people have already mentioned others, I'm yet to play the game, but one I'm certain of), that makes me think that Tom has gone into the game having done any research (in this case, not even looking in the controls menu and finding out how to throw a bomb, not that we know what the menus look and feel like, as they aren't mentioned once throughout the entire review). I'm not saying I feel it has been harshly reviewed, i didn't say that once, I just don't think what PCG has published isn't at all a review, it's one, jaded, man's rant on why the new hitman game is dead.
And on the topic of the bad performance, no, I can not say anything for definite, the only way anyone can know why the game ran so badly on 2 of the PC's he used is if he releases the information on the specs of the computers that were used, but until then I think I, and any others, should be allowed to make an educated guess, you know, having actually ran the engine on my mid-range PC and it running perfectly with all the settings on ultra.
I have had this PCgamer account for over a year now, and I never take part in any forum discussions at all, and I don't think you have any right to talk down to me because of that or assume that my points are any less valid than yours because you've posted XYZ times on whatever forum, until I read the review of this game I had no interest in posting on any forum, but I was so shocked I wanted to see if the community agrees with me, and it seems a lot of them do. I use this account for mainly posting on articles written by PCG staff, if that's a problem go ahead and continue with the part of your comment that specifies it as one, but if you can come to terms with the fact that not everyone wants to post on the forums, but might actually want an account, then that's probably better for both of us.
I also think if you believe that it's okay for a reviewer to outright lie to you in, especially, such a shocking review, then in that you are wrong.