The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
Please vote in the Forum Structure Poll. Polling will close at 2PM EST on January 21, 2025.
Ubisoft to reviewer: No A? No review copy for you of Assassins Creed 2
Cade
Eppur si muove.Registered User regular
Eppur si muove.Registered User regular
Ubisoft at it again
Say isn't this familar....
Might just be me though.
We hear about these situations far too much, where a publisher is accused of attempting to broker a guaranteed favorable review from a press outlet. The latest to face such allegations is Ubisoft, having been named and shamed by German magazine Computer Bild Spiele for demanding a high score for Assassin's Creed 2. SCANDAL!
"Our reviews are tough, but fair. We will not give up our independent scores for the sake of a timely review," explains the magazine in its latest issue. "This holds true for Assassin’s Creed 2. The publisher asked us to guarantee the score 'sehr gut,' otherwise we would not receive a review copy, thus we will publish our review in next month’s issue. We’d be more than glad to give the game a ’sehr gut’, but only if it deserves it."
Sehr Gut is essentially Computer Bild Spiele's version of an A-grade, meaning that Ubisoft was only willing to trade a game copy for an incredibly positive review. Of course, asking an outlet to guarantee something like that before they've played the game is asking them to trade in every ounce of integrity they've worked to build, and if these allegations are true, it's a shame that Ubisoft felt the need to barter against someone's self respect like that.
In any case, Computer Bild Spiele has probably ensured that it won't be getting any more games from Ubisoft. Good for them, and let shame rain down on any writer that actually agreed to such shenanigans.
Say isn't this familar....
Might just be me though.
Cade on
0
Posts
It supposedly happens a lot, but more often than not, the game in question turns out to be good.
This supposedly happened with Batman, remember?
PSN ID : DetectiveOlivaw | TWITTER | STEAM ID | NEVER FORGET
I'm not ignoring the point, it's just a horse that's been absolutely beaten to death at this point.
This is somehow even less professional than what Ubisoft is doing.
This isn't fucking school, they're not being assigned letter grades to determine whether or not they pass.
They'd be putting a low score on a game they didn't even review. So much for that integrity that they're trying to save!
Most of the places that bring these scams public are the ones who don't have the resources to review the game otherwise.
The big name guys occasionally complain about this because then they can't scoop anyone, but usually they are smart enough to never offend a company to the point where they pull out of previews and free press copies, and the other promos they send out.
In conclusion: "Mainstream" VG press is too damn close to the companies, but the fans don't care so take what you can get when you can get it.
Ignore the wrong doing by someone, I'm glad that isn't what most people do in life.
Yes gaming "journalism" is a joke of the highest order but to ignore the conduct of those that act in an unsavory manner should not be allowed no matter what.
I dont know, along with an article stating why it gets an F until further notice seems to work to me. People dont read the articles, they check the scores, then leave fanboy-esque comments in retaliation, and go to other blogs and point their friends to do the same. You can say that its a loss of integrity to be retaliatory, but it does force an eye onto ubisoft for their bullshit. If this is school, Id say the scores do determine if they pass or fail, since the public checking the scores are alot like the colleges there applying to.
I mean it sucks to burn bridges, but what are they going to do, not send you their next game because you wont prereview it highly? Why do they send the game out at all anymore if there getting guaranteed a high score? Just send out the press release to get ctrl+c/v'ed like the rest of the news put up in the industry. Ubisoft is directly trying to hurt the mag's bottom line by withholding the game while boosting their own. Putting an F up ahead of time on meta does the same back.
Yes keeping informed is oh so wrong.
But then....maybe your right.....let's not post anything, that doesn't do anything as well. All posting is hereby cancelled, this forum? No point to it, close it down. Get rid of the whole net, it's no good and serves no purpose. Just junk.
That's basically what your saying.
It's tantamount to those people that make a new thread every time Jack Thompson says or does something stupid. Yes, this happens, this is something that happens with regularity.
No, what he's saying is that this whole "Early Copy to people who score it well" thing has been covered to death especially on this forum, and there's really nothing else to say about it. Companies do it, reviewers do it, and sometimes the game is still good, imagine that. It's not like this is goddamn Barbie's Magical Horse Adventure (Which would get an A on its own merits let me tell you), it's Assassin's Creed 2, which might be a genuinely good game.
Who knows what companies have gotten away with this in the past with games that we won't know were reviewed this way. And it'll probably still happen in the future, and we won't know. What it boils down to is how the game gets reviewed elsewhere and how the general community takes to it.
And really that whole "F until we actually get to play it" is a terrible idea. Because it gives the perception of a skewed review once they do get the game, regardless of what happens. If a magazine goes "Well, they wanted us to score it as an A for an early copy, and we have integrity let me tell you!" and then turn around and give it an A anyway, they'll be accused of being bought off. And if they give it a poor review, they'll be accused of being biased against it. It's a no-win, aside from all the free publicity.
The big games like this are so hyped by the time they're ready to release that it wouldn't matter if every reviewer gave it an "F," everyone's already made up their mind that they're going to buy it.
Steam ID: slashx000______Twitter: @bill_at_zeboyd______ Facebook: Zeboyd Games
Maybe to consumers.
Reviews and aggregate review scores like on Metacritic or Gamerankings are actually pretty important to publishers.
I don't care whether Assassin's Creed II is the best game this year, I'm not going to buy it. Trying to bully a magazine into giving your game a high score is complete dickery, and whether or not it is a common practice in the industry, I won't support a publisher who tries it.
And before anyone brings up the fact that I am only "punishing myself" by not playing AC2, trust me, there are plenty of other new games to play.
The Last Eidos game I bought was Tomb Raider Anniversary.
The last Activision game I bought was... shit, probably Tony Hawk's American Wasteland.
There are plenty of other games.
Just so we're clear, when I say bought, I mean bought at retail. If I ever did decide that I absolutely had to play AC2 I could just make a concerted effort to find a used copy. I'd get to play the game, and Ubisoft wouldn't see a dime.
Gaming journalism (especially reviews) is a joke because people expect so little. The fact that most reviews can get away with posting a synopsis of a game and then an arbitrary score is absolutely ridiculous. And publishers are going to exploit this fact to the fullest.
I really can't believe that for the industry and even gamers the absolute value of a review is based entirely on whether or not it affects sales. Can't critical thought be valued for it's own sake?
Who I'm really outraged against, to the point where I have across-the-board ignored them for years, is game reviewers. If there were a review site that I trusted not to do this shit, that might be a valuable service, but it sure as hell isn't valuable enough for me to try to dig through the manure to find it. Until then, I do not buy day one releases (with exceptions for obvious winners, like Borderlands and Dragon Age recently, and even there I've had some regrets due to technical issues) and rely on word-of-mouth.
I wasn't ever going to hire Jack Thompson. I might have bought a copy of AC2.
I say that these are important to post, in order to keep consumers informed. Now I know to be wary of overly glowing reviews of AC2, because they might have been bought off.
Trying to throw the publisher into the spotlight reeks of desperation so badly. The worst offender was a couple years ago when Dan Hsu of EGM spoke of some game that wouldn't be named that they couldn't have a cover story on unless they guaranteed a high review. Not only was this absolutely pointless, he then redirected it by saying that another magazine went ahead and took the offer. Integrity! EGM was a rag anyways, though, so I'm glad it's gone.
It's also pointless to comment on how pointless it is.
But they might not have been!
Again, Batman.
just because it happens doesn't mean it SHOULD happen.
And regardless of your thoughts on Ubisoft, this information makes light of the fact that we now can't trust any OTHER reviews.
Anything other than "Ubisoft doing this" is the wrong answer.
Any game MIGHT be good.
Ignoring reviews isn't the same as assuming the game is bad.
This thread isn't pointless at all, I'm happy to have been informed of this.
Orrrrrrrrr you can wait till people actually play the game and post their thoughts on it and see if it sounds like something you'd enjoy.
That said, it does give me an "eewwwwwie" feeling.
Presenting . . . our review of Assassin's Creed 2, and of Ubisoft Montreal!"
Then a 100% / very good printed in both red and green, with randomly-oriented question marks peppering the space around it, and a statement "this is both the lowest possible score and the highest possible score for this game. We know this isn't very informative, so we advise you to ignore this score completely."
XBL Michael Spencer || Wii 6007 6812 1605 7315 || PSN MichaelSpencerJr || Steam Michael_Spencer || Ham NOØK
QRZ || My last known GPS coordinates: FindU or APRS.fi (Car antenna feed line busted -- no ham radio for me X__X )
I say a better idea is they don't give a numerical score at all. Just a text review for AC2.
But that's just the point; this could have happened with any company and any game in the past that got really high scores. Maybe nobody -said- anything those times.
What would happen if it came out now that back when Fallout 3, for example, got released, some reviewers got early copies in exchange for glowing reviews? Would it have been any less of a game for it? Suddenly learning that now, there was shadiness in the reviews for it, are you going to swear it off because of something like this? If you bought it when it came out, they still got your money so it doesn't matter and if you enjoyed it as a game, something like this doesn't really matter.
I don't know if you liked Fallout 3 or not, and the argument isn't directed just at you, it just seemed like Fallout 3 was one of the most highly praised/liked/touted games around here, so it seemed like the best to use as an example.
The point is, something like this can't be trusted as an indication of quality of the game, and we already know that most of the game companies out there do this all the time; we just don't hear about it every single time and at no point does it reflect on the game itself.
So, because no one said anything before, no one should say anything now?
Would I love to know every time this happened? Sure, but I know I won't. In that case, between the options "some of the time" and "none of the time", I vote some.
As for me, I'll be enjoying the shit out of Assassin's Creed II. Sorry to hear about you guys and your unrealistic journalistic expectations!
Again, I'm not boycotting the game, I'm being extra-wary of overly positive reviews.