By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Fox News Reviewer immediately fired for early review

Bodhesatva on 07 April 2009
JaggedSac said:
Kasz216 said:
JaggedSac said:
I guarantee that if a site broke the review date that game companies sometimes set, there would be consequences.

Well they don't really set review dates the same way as movie companies.

Afterall Videogame companies say "You can't review the game untill 3 weeks after it's been released unless you give it an 80 or higher."

If a movie studio tried to put a star limit on movie reviews.... they just don't.  They'd get blasted.

 

Actually, no, game companies say, "do not publish a review of this game until after this date".  Said date is usually a week or two before the release of the game.  They usually send the games to reviewers early and provide a letter explaining the rules of publication.  Ask madskillz, he goes through this all the time.

 

 

 There are plenty of examples of studios doing exactly what Kaz said. MGS4 was famous for this:

http://www.joystiq.com/2008/06/02/egm-delays-mgs4-reviews-konamis-limitations-cited/

You could only publish your review if you did not talk about certain aspects of the game. Similarly, we are all familiar with the Gamespot Kane and Lynch fiasco, and I'm sure we're all aware of Sony's refusal to work with EGM as well.

This happens all the time, and this is only the stuff we know about. Imagine how many rules of this nature are enforced under the radar.

In other words, you're simply wrong, and Kaz is absolutely right, publishers do this sort of stuff all the time.



http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a324/Arkives/Disccopy.jpg%5B/IMG%5D">http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a324/Arkives/Disccopy.jpg%5B/IMG%5D">

Around the Network
Khuutra on 07 April 2009
Bodhesatva said:

 That's the producer side of things, and I agree that's also heavily manipulated.

Right now I'm discussing the consumer side, though. In film criticism, any attempts like these are viewed as hackery: Roger Friedman's name is now anathema in the industry, more or less. By comparison, we encourage game critics to engage in this sort of behavior. Give us the review a month before the game comes out: fight over exclusive reviews; feed us a constant stream of rumors and leaks that may or may not be authorized and may or may not have a reliable source.

This trend is a result of the gaming media catering to and being fed by a particular niche of the population, one which thrives on that kind of behavior, that kind of competition. Once the niche ceases to define the media, I expect this to change.

Just a little bit longer, now... just a little bit longer and the way we think of "video game reviews" will be gone altogether. What replaces it won't end up being like movie reviews, or book reviews, but it will have its integrity and its dignity.



DKII on 07 April 2009

If someone wrote a game review based on a pirated copy of the game that was leaked before any real review copies were sent out, there'd be consequences for that, too.



Khuutra on 07 April 2009
DKII said:
If someone wrote a game review based on a pirated copy of the game that was leaked before any real review copies were sent out, there'd be consequences for that, too.

Bod means backlash from the consumers of reviews, I believe, rather than the game producers.



Bodhesatva on 07 April 2009
Kasz216 said:
Bodhesatva said:
Kasz216 said:
JaggedSac said:
I guarantee that if a site broke the review date that game companies sometimes set, there would be consequences.

Well they don't really set review dates the same way as movie companies.

Afterall Videogame companies say "You can't review the game untill 3 weeks after it's been released unless you give it an 80 or higher."

If a movie studio tried to put a star limit on movie reviews.... they just don't.  They'd get blasted.

 

 

 That's the producer side of things, and I agree that's also heavily manipulated.

Right now I'm discussing the consumer side, though. In film criticism, any attempts like these are viewed as hackery: Roger Friedman's name is now anathema in the industry, more or less. By comparison, we encourage game critics to engage in this sort of behavior. Give us the review a month before the game comes out: fight over exclusive reviews; feed us a constant stream of rumors and leaks that may or may not be authorized and may or may not have a reliable source.

 

True... but i mean it's slightly different isn't it?  The Early reviews are approved of rather then stolen...

because they're promised good reviews.

It's bothersome that people don't call out these people but at the same time... if some movie guy got to see a movie early adn wrote a review on it authorized i think people would be happy.

 

 

There's absolutely no way that would fly. Why do you think no film reviewer does this? Obviously, someone would already be doing this if 1) people wanted it and 2) it was considered professionally acceptable. Either the readers recognize that such behavior is corrupt, or professional standards actually exist in the film criticism industry that prevent critics from doing this in a non-binding manner. Which all of them actually follow.

I'd argue that it's likely because it's a mature industry, but whatever the reason, film review readers don't seem to want this. I think it's understood that the competition for "early reviews!" creates favoritism and bias which clouds the quality of the review process, but perhaps I'm giving my fellow readers too much credit. I don't think I am, however.



http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a324/Arkives/Disccopy.jpg%5B/IMG%5D">http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a324/Arkives/Disccopy.jpg%5B/IMG%5D">

Around the Network
bdbdbd on 07 April 2009

And the Assassins Creed review? Ubisoft was giving options to review the game above 80 or not to review it at all. Or else...

The Ubi threat works, since they have a lot of ads in the sites that review games, but not quite sure are the movie reviews funded with movie ads.



Ei Kiinasti.

Eikä Japanisti.

Vaan pannaan jalalla koreasti.

 

Nintendo games sell only on Nintendo system.

JaggedSac on 07 April 2009
Bodhesatva said:
JaggedSac said:
Kasz216 said:
JaggedSac said:
I guarantee that if a site broke the review date that game companies sometimes set, there would be consequences.

Well they don't really set review dates the same way as movie companies.

Afterall Videogame companies say "You can't review the game untill 3 weeks after it's been released unless you give it an 80 or higher."

If a movie studio tried to put a star limit on movie reviews.... they just don't.  They'd get blasted.

 

Actually, no, game companies say, "do not publish a review of this game until after this date".  Said date is usually a week or two before the release of the game.  They usually send the games to reviewers early and provide a letter explaining the rules of publication.  Ask madskillz, he goes through this all the time.

 

 

 There are plenty of examples of studios doing exactly what Kaz said. MGS4 was famous for this:

http://www.joystiq.com/2008/06/02/egm-delays-mgs4-reviews-konamis-limitations-cited/

You could only publish your review if you did not talk about certain aspects of the game. Similarly, we are all familiar with the Gamespot Kane and Lynch fiasco, and I'm sure we're all aware of Sony's refusal to work with EGM as well.

This happens all the time, and this is only the stuff we know about. Imagine how many rules of this nature are enforced under the radar.

In other words, you're simply wrong, and Kaz is absolutely right, publishers do this sort of stuff all the time.

How am I wrong?  I said that game companies set review embargo dates.  He said that publishers sometimes make reviewers wait until 3 weeks after a game is released and place a score cap on them.  Give me examples of where that was the case.

MGS4's limitations were not around the score they gave, merely in the content of the review.



JaggedSac on 07 April 2009

Oh, and early reviews are quite big in the film industry as well. Perhaps you should go to the right sites. Check out aintitcool.com. They are already having some early impressions/reviews of Star Trek. They usually get reviews long before the critics get them out the door. Perhaps it is because you are not as in tune with the movie industry as you are with the gaming industry.

 

Also, for anyone interested, the overall impressions of Star Trek have been very, very positive.



Bodhesatva on 07 April 2009
JaggedSac said:
Bodhesatva said:
JaggedSac said:
Kasz216 said:
JaggedSac said:
I guarantee that if a site broke the review date that game companies sometimes set, there would be consequences.

Well they don't really set review dates the same way as movie companies.

Afterall Videogame companies say "You can't review the game untill 3 weeks after it's been released unless you give it an 80 or higher."

If a movie studio tried to put a star limit on movie reviews.... they just don't.  They'd get blasted.

 

Actually, no, game companies say, "do not publish a review of this game until after this date".  Said date is usually a week or two before the release of the game.  They usually send the games to reviewers early and provide a letter explaining the rules of publication.  Ask madskillz, he goes through this all the time.

 

 

 There are plenty of examples of studios doing exactly what Kaz said. MGS4 was famous for this:

http://www.joystiq.com/2008/06/02/egm-delays-mgs4-reviews-konamis-limitations-cited/

You could only publish your review if you did not talk about certain aspects of the game. Similarly, we are all familiar with the Gamespot Kane and Lynch fiasco, and I'm sure we're all aware of Sony's refusal to work with EGM as well.

This happens all the time, and this is only the stuff we know about. Imagine how many rules of this nature are enforced under the radar.

In other words, you're simply wrong, and Kaz is absolutely right, publishers do this sort of stuff all the time.

How am I wrong?  I said that game companies set review embargo dates.  He said that publishers sometimes make reviewers wait until 3 weeks after a game is released and place a score cap on them.  Give me examples of where that was the case.

 

What? Didn't I give you one? MGS4. I even provided a link: you could not talk about certain things in your review until after the game was launched. Not just "plot spoilers" mind you, but specific criticisms like "FMV scenes are too long.". How could you miss this? It's right in my post.

As others have mentioned, Assassin's Creed was in the same boat, but even more explicitly: they apparently barred any reviews under 80 from release until after the game had been published.

http://kotaku.com/342519/3-companies-bar-egm-from-coverage-following-poor-reviews

Do you need more?

 



http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a324/Arkives/Disccopy.jpg%5B/IMG%5D">http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a324/Arkives/Disccopy.jpg%5B/IMG%5D">

JaggedSac on 07 April 2009

About MGS4, like I said, the limitations were not on the score that was placed on the game. It was merely in regards to what could be said before the game was released.

Also, that link does not say anything important. Merely that some game companies knew their games would get reviewed poorly and decided not to send EGM the games.

Also, I have yet to see a 3 week after release date embargo or a score cap.