It really annoys me. OPSM Australia's review scores are never counted in the critic reviews, why is this?

to be honest, i've never found the OPSM reviews come up when doing a search for games.

even so, whats the website for OAPSM ?

where's the URL for the reviews, other than gameplayer.com.au,

i.e. http://www.gameplayer.com.au/g...PS3&category=Reviews

Why this is, well, i'd blame derwent howard for not buying a decent URL or an accessible website.

They don't have one, but why do they need one? They're a magazine.

quote:

Originally posted by jase619:
but why do they need one? They're a magazine.

really. why would the 'official' playstation magazine need a website ?

so it could differentiate itself

i.e. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O...PlayStation_Magazine

since this is a 'web' forum, a link speaks volumes for context, where an opinion does not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O..._Magazine_(Australia)

so, indeed, where would a california reviewer ever get a copy of the reviews ? its only printed in australia.

should/could someone mail a copy to metacritic instead? perhaps. if the want to be "counted", then yes, they had better send up a copy.

perhaps they could even email it.

some publishers do this, they send their reviews into metacritic early, so it can be included before it hits their website, creates 'buzz', sic.

but, it appears that derwent howard doesn't need to, their publication stands by itself. i.e. http://www.kotaku.com.au/tags/derwent-howard/ shows that future mag, who publishes the other spinoff 'official's does get counted.

metacritic, could instead, use the review written by a OPSM journalist in the UK and put on the UK website for the same game. or the US OPSM review, etc.

its not as if the reviews appear out of thin air,
someone has to go to the effort to distill the review for inclusion, and someone else has to confirm the content is from a legitimate source or sources. a publisher would more than likely be that source.

if derwent howard, australia, is not in contact with metacritic, then i don't believe that they could ever be "counted" as a source. it's unbelievably simple logic.