| (Pages: 1, 2) | |
Hmmm...didn't Rockstar do the same thing with GTA IV? All those early reviews were really game reviewers sitting in a hotel while a developer explained everything and letting them play a few sections of the game at a time. While large men in suits breathed down their neck... | |
Damn, actually had respect for Konami before this. | |
It's one thing to insist that reviewers don't spoil the plot in their reviews; I can understand that, it works to protect players' enjoyment of the game. I can also understand, albeit reluctantly, only allowing reviewers to play review copies at a controlled location... as that works to prevent advanced copies from leaking out (no offense to the reviewers at the Escapist, but you've got to know that review copies are potential leak sources) even if it does have the potential to intimidate some reviewers. It's another thing entirely to insist that reviewers don't discuss technical features in their reviews, and I applaud the folks at EGM for taking a principled stance. -- Steve | |
Well, what their censoring is said to be the Cut-scene length, which we knew about already, and the installation, which is over 4.5 gigs, I believe (and takes an hour). | |
It just goes to show how unreliable these gaming magazines are when it comes to game reviews. I can't deny it, I bought GTA 4 out of hype and now it's just sitting under all my other 360 and wii games. The thing is now every time we see a game recieve good scores our reactions will inevitabley be: "hmm, how much did the reviewer get paid for that 9.5 or that 10?" and everytime a game gets a bad score it will be more like: "oops, somebody didn't get payed here". Pretty pathetic. | |
Ha, not suprised, Gaming Journalism is basically meaningless these days. | |
I'm actually more surprised that EGM even respected Konami's demands and held off on the review. Oh wait, Konami pays their bills... right. | |
I suspect that this is a common practice so I really don't see the problem. Furthermore the whole concept of an early review is just stupid so I don't see EGM as some paragon of virtue because at the end of the day Konami is well within their right to give conditions before allowing early access to a reviewable copy of their product. No one is required to review a game two to three weeks before the game is even shipped to retailers. I would rather have people in the gaming press review games after they come out not before hand. EGM is not principled at all in this affair. | |
Since nobody else is asking this question I'm afraid I'm just an idiot for not getting it, but I have to ask: Does Konami really have the power to do this? How did they get the athority to do something like that? Obviously I'm just naive for thinking that most games publications are independent from the industry (exept for the obvious one of course) and can write what they want. How would Konami sanction this if anyone when against their requests? The only thing I can think of is that a magazine wouldn't get review copies the next time a release from Konami comes out. Is that really it? And if it's about money, are they really that dependent on getting paid for writing good reviews? The obvious point of all this is that game companies shouldn't have that kind of power. Is there any way to change that? Suggestions are welcome... | |
Giving conditions is one thing. Telling reviewers what negative aspects they cannot comment on goes very far into censorship territory. Edit: And Dr. Tray, it's simple. The gaming magazines are supported through ads that companies place in their newspapers. Also, if they were not allowed to review the game then before agreeing to the demands, then ignoring the demands anyways, Konami would be in a position to sue. So the options left are wait until the game is out and be beaten to the review by almost all other magazines, or follow Konami's demands and get the review out on time. | |
It's their intellectual property, anyone using it has to agree to any conditions Konami may offer or they can withdraw the product from them, they own it and can give it to who they wish. Not great of Konami tbh, thought they were above this and they'll get more bad press from covering up then they would by a review saying bad things about a pre-release version of a game. I don't really trust pre-release reviews (unless they are just the game shipped earlier to reviewers), because most of the time reviewers pick up on bugs that are fixed by the time the game is released | |
I sort of get your point. But why doesn't this apply to any other media? Record reviews, movie reviews, book reviews etc. I really can't picture a music critic letting a record company (much less an artist) dictate what he can and can't write. Not in the independent media anyway. Why are games any different? Just asking. | |
@ DrTray It's a non-disclosure agreement for a product that has not yet been released into the general public. Once a product has been "released" you can call it any number of four-letter words you want. But before the press review date cap and release date expire, as per the contract each of those journalists signed, you are still operating under the terms they have negotiated. No signy contract, no free preview of MGS4 before release date. The magazines do this because we all know we're gonna read those reviews in sweet, hype-filled anticipation. Breaking the terms is, naturally, a very bad idea. Mo' clicks, Mo' problems. | |
Yay EGM Tbh the issues that are being censured don't sound very game breaking. Install and load time? Duh, it's MGS. Lengthy cutscenes, ditto. This hits online publications alot harder I guess; since the "first" status is important for them. The print ones go for quality instead of speed so they generally don't review alot of games before they are released. | |
I think it strange how this dampens peoples respect for Konami. Think about it like this, if you had a game that is supposed to be the main selling point for a console would you want bad media? | |
Supposedly, they have to sell 1 million copies on day one to even put a dent into how much cash they spent on it. http://www.joystiq.com/2007/11/29/metal-gear-solid-4-producer-says-game-needs-to-sell-a-million-co/ So yeah, I'm not shocked they aren't f***ing around. | |
That comment was taken out of context, I don't think it matters that they sell that much on day one or not though I know they would be happy if it did. Look for people that like MGS the game is going to be god, personally I do not care if the game got a seven because ZOE 2 averages something like a 7 and that game is the way fast paced mech combat was meant to be period. | |
I remember hearing about this. As stupid as it sounds, I can see nothing wrong with Konami wanting to censor out bad things in their games, as all other companies want that to happen, but they're the first ones too make that wish vocal. | |
With the exception of Edge, whose income is mostly covered by the price of subscriptions, every videogame print publication is struggling to stay alive. I work for a major game publisher planning their advertising, and online vs print budgets are are about 80/20 these days. With the exception of Game Informer most game publications are in deep trouble. That being said, they need every one of the dwindling number of ad pages they can get. This in turn means Konami can bully all these enthusiast publications to hell. Online makes less sense to me. Gaming sites will only see their ad revenue go up so they should do whatever the hell they want - especially IGN and Gamespot. Game retailers rely on those sites' tracking services to judge the amount of stock they are going to order of a particular game. With that type of power, game companies can't afford to not be on those sites. That Gamespot, for example, would capitulate to them anyway is just foolish. | |
The main difference is that the games industry is driven by a smaller number of hits, which means that reviews-based publications need to get those hits as early as possible, so as to not get beaten by the other guys. That makes the media depend on the publishers. For music, books, and (to a lesser degree) movies, the market is saturated. The press aren't just talking about things you already knew about, they're also likely to be telling you about things you haven't (a new band, a new author, and independent film). So the publishers in these markets depend on the media to help them get the word out to find an audience. This changes if you're the 'small guy game developer', and is frequently why smaller games get ignored by the games press unless they're exceptional. They're too busy chasing the big sellers to research and promote the smaller titles. | |
Thanks for the clarification. And you made a good point in your next comment too. I guess I should have known about how prerelease reviews work. But this whole thing could actually turn into a positive thing: maybe this bad publicity for Konami will make them and other companies more careful about what kind of restrictions they put on reviewers. The best thing of course would be if the games media just stopped racing to be the first to put out reviews. But I'm guessing that won't happen any time soon. | |
10 is the new 8.9 | |
On one hand, I guess they want nothing being spoiled. Which means that there probably are huge twists, gameplay and story wise, that they don't want revealed. Characters, resurrections, locations, etc. On the other hand... It's kind of disapointing that they don't trust magazines to keep these presumed secrets. | |
No, that was regarded as incorrect a while ago. They only have to sell over a million copies in total to make some sort of profit. | |
Foiled by the interwebs again! Ah well, I thought it was an odd figure so I listed where I was getting it from. | |
It's a strange industry. Video game critics are supported almost totally through sponsorships from the same companies they're supposed to be objectively critiquing. It's an impossible situation. As game production costs continue to skyrocket, this type of pressure is going to become more and more common. Thank God for fast-talking internet maniacs who seem to rise above it all somehow... | |
Well, personally I don't have and never intend to get a PS3. Just one major question. You have to INSTALL games on this thing?! About the article: This basically translates to: "Even though your a bunch of critics who are suppose to criticize bad things about our game we don't want you pointing them out because they could potentially make people not buy the game we screwed up on. Just like the games we spit out every time a major movie opens we want to make a few bucks before people realize crap like this." | |
Konami, you've changed. You used to be about the movies- I mean games. | |
Am I the only one who thinks that the list of content not to be discussed could have been headed *Spoilers*? I dunno, even if a magazine could talk about these things and censored themselves from spoilers, most of the issues would look silly if they couldn't be given the actual example. Like, say, if it required that you actually use a telepathic interface at points to control cutscene actions, and the interface gave people a headache, all they could say is "This game will give you a headache", which makes fuck all sense out of context. | |
Me angery | |
Things like this are the reason why I never buy or avoid a game based off reviews. I won't buy a game without renting it first, or playing a demo. | |
Yes, yes you are. How many reviewers would make a fuss about not being able to ruin a game's story, seeing as that's already standard practice? None. How many have? Well I'm pretty sure it's more than none. | |
It's easier to pay someone to type a positive fan review. | |
I would be astounded, if this wasn't so bloody typical | |
| (Pages: 1, 2) | |
Extra Punctuation
MovieBob: Intermission
Experienced Points
First Person
Exploding Barrels
Miracle of Sound: Encore
Loading Time
Special Attack
Backchat
Drinking Games
Escape to the Movies
Escapecraft
Escapist News Wrap - Premium
Escapist Podcast
Feed Dump
GinxTV
Jimquisition
LoadingReadyRun
Mahalo
Meatbag and Co
Media Sandwich
Miracle of Sound
No Right Answer
Pro-Gamer Gauntlet
Reviews
Space Janitors
Tales from the Table
The Big Picture
The Escapist Presents
The Retro Show
Trailers
Unskippable
Zero Punctuation
Max Payne 3 Review
Company of Heroes 2
XCOM Enemy Unknown
Black Ops 2
Diablo 3 Review
TERA Review
Firefall Beta Preview
Starhawk Review
Critical Miss
Name Game
Konami Censoring MGS4 Reviews
Multiple magazines claim that Konami is censoring review content for Metal Gear Solid 4.
Preview reports of the PlayStation 3 blockbuster release Metal Gear Solid 4 highlighted potential problems with the game, mainly its lengthy cutscenes and its installation space on the system.
Two anonymous media sources alerted the MTV Multiplayer blog that Konami had contacted their companies, requesting that these potentially negative technical details not be addressed in reviews.
Shortly thereafter, IGN UK confirmed in its pre-release review that, "Konami issued us with a list of things that we're not allowed to discuss. This list of prohibited topics is pretty long, and even extends as far as several facts that the company itself has already made public."
The latest issue of EGM includes a short note on the status of its MGS4 review and why it was delayed an issue:
"Metal Gear Solid 4 will hit store shelves shortly after this issue of EGM lands in your hot little hands. And four EGM editors - Matt Leone, Jeremy Parish, Andrew Pfister, and Shane Bettenhausen - have already invested plenty of time in the game. So why don't we have a full review in this issue? Simply put: We weren't happy with the limitations Konami wanted to impose on our comments, and rather than publish compromised reviews in the interest of being the first to rate the game, we'd rather wait until next issue, where we can be completely open and thorough with our thoughts."
Online organizations seem to be less limited than their print counterparts, with many websites releasing their reviews before the game's launch under Konami's terms.
Source: MTV Multiplayer, EGM via Joystiq
Permalink