Darc Requiem on 05 June 2008
| d21lewis said: EGM is, by far, my favorite video game magazine. I applaud their journalistic integrity, but it's a song they've sang many times in their long and storied history. Be it losing advertisers due to their convictions, or calling out other magazines for giving high scores to cover story games, when other journalists would bash them. I love EGM. This is different beast all together. In 2001, I bought MGS2. On the ride home, I had the smile wiped off of my face, as EGM proceded to tell me that I'd be playing a Raiden for the majority of the game. That was within their rights, but it wasn't their place to ruin the game's big twist for me. In 2005, I bought MGS3. I read their review after the fact, and it was full of spoilers, and even tips on how to approach certain bosses. Again, more info than I felt they should've given. Had I read the review first, I'd have been pissed. 2008, I'm buying MGS4. It seems that EGM is pissed that they can't spoil the game for me with their "wink, wink' it's not a spoiler, but really it is" review. No thanks. I don't want to know Darth Vader is Luke Skywalker's father before the movie starts. I don't want to know Mace Windu gets killed by the Emperor before I get to the theater, and I don't want to know ANYTHING that will ruin my MGS4 experience before I can play it. |
I see where you are coming from but the problem is install times and cut scene lengths are not plot spoilers. If this was just about Konami wanting the plot to stay unspoiled I'd agree with them. However their list of things not to mention includes things that having nothing to do with plot spoilers that may effect the decision to purchase the game. It would be like an upcoming Guilty Gear 2 review not being able to mention that it isn't a fighting game.
