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.
Hey dont paint all of games journalism with EGMs shitty brush.
It takes a special kind of fail to get had by IGN.
Or include an IGN watermarked concept piece in your cover art - and fail to catch it before it goes to retail. Maybe it's not gaming journalism. Maybe it's just gaming.
This is pretty much what I was going to say. Thanks to PA, I got a free subscription to EGM and thanks to EGM I have something to keep my old copies of White Dwarf and Newsweek/Time company in the bathroom.
MinionOfCthulhu on
0
AbsoluteZeroThe new film by Quentin KoopantinoRegistered Userregular
edited June 2008
Heh. This makes me happy because I have a special kind of hatred for EGM.
Their letters section is even worse. It's like the swill from Gamefaqs with a spell checker. This latest issue had some moron arguing that because he was a "mature adult", he expected his games to be mature as well; they should make him question his existence and the war in Iraq, no more cartoony yadda yadda blah blah blah.
yeah but hey that's EGM doing something good and who wants to read about that
how is this something good
i'd dare say this is something awful
not reviewing a game because a developer wants them to withhold information about said game is bad?
were we not just talking about how most games journalism is corrupt and inept?
is this not the opposite of that?
Nintendo wanted information about Snake and Sonic withheld for Brawl. What makes this any different?
IGN's explaination for their own:
"In return for letting us play Metal Gear Solid 4 before its release, 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. Regardless of Konami's list of prohibited topics though, this review was always going to be a spoiler-free zone, because part of the pleasure of playing Guns of the Patriots lies in discovering everything it has to offer."
EGM's explaination:
"Konami imposed limitations!"
One version explains that Konami wanted gameplay and story to be kept secret.
The other version explains that Konami demanded good reviews.
One version is accurate. The other is EGM bullshit.
And EGM still did a several page "review" of the game. They just didn't add a score for it.
So for EGM, who are they trying to make look good and what are they making look bad?
last month's EGM on Sonic Unleashed claimed that Sonic's last appearance had been in Mario & Sonic in the Olympic games on the Wii.
Did they forget about that one game called Super Smash Bros Brawl or something?
Also, IGN has a feature on Sonic Xtreme. I lol'd several times during their article because of how much they got wrong, capped by a supposed screenshot of Sonic Mars which was nothing but an Amiga animation used to sell Sega on the concept of Sonic Xtreme.
Yeah, the IGN review at least lets you know "Hey, there's some things we can't talk about here." Was it anything that would have affected the score? Who knows, but probably not.
This is not the first time EGM has done something like this, or claimed to. There was a "mystery game" a while back that Shoe (the editor, not Kuribo's) said wouldn't give EGM a cover story unless EGM secured it a good review. The game was never revealed.
It could have been true. It could have been bullshit. Either way, they shouldn't have mentioned the damn thing, because it makes them look like they have a false sense of superiority and they're slinging mud at all other unnamed magazines by saying, "Oh sure, they'll give in and review the game, but not us here at EGM!"
yeah but hey that's EGM doing something good and who wants to read about that
how is this something good
i'd dare say this is something awful
not reviewing a game because a developer wants them to withhold information about said game is bad?
were we not just talking about how most games journalism is corrupt and inept?
is this not the opposite of that?
Nintendo wanted information about Snake and Sonic withheld for Brawl. What makes this any different?
IGN's explaination for their own:
"In return for letting us play Metal Gear Solid 4 before its release, 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. Regardless of Konami's list of prohibited topics though, this review was always going to be a spoiler-free zone, because part of the pleasure of playing Guns of the Patriots lies in discovering everything it has to offer."
EGM's explaination:
"Konami imposed limitations!"
One version explains that Konami wanted gameplay and story to be kept secret.
The other version explains that Konami demanded good reviews.
One version is accurate. The other is EGM bullshit.
Re: Brawl, it doesn't, because that was fucking stupid, too. They were on the back of the fucking box.
and do you honestly think that EGM would refuse to review one of the most anticipated games of the year over story spoilers? or that they'd refuse to review it and lie about why they refused to review it? there's no advantage to them not running a review, so why would they choose to do that as some kind of ploy? Does the IGN review mention install size or cutscene length? if not, I would think that's pretty telling.
The problem with Winback is that most people that played it, played the PS2 version, and therefore compared it to other PS2 games (like MGS2). As a result, its viewed as being very mediocre. Had they released it as a PS1 game, I think people would remember it differently.
Winback was originally on the N64. And it was released after MGS.
I played the N64 version and enjoyed it, but even then I thought it was pretty poor compared to MGS.
I actually quite like EGM, but maybe that's since I been reading it on and off for like almost ten years. I remember picking up that magazine and Gamefan when I got my playstation. I don't like the current version so much, but it's something to read in the crapper.
And at least they didn't agree to Konami's demands and decided not to review MGS4. Unlike IGN.
how many people in gaming journalism actually know anything about journalism?
Unfortunately, very few.
I was at the GDC panel that was billed as a face-off between journalists and those in the games industry. Out of the 6 or so sitting in the panel, including folks such as Stephen Totilo and N'Gai Croal, I believe it was only Totilo that held a journalism degree. Not to say that you have to have a degree to "know anything about journalism" but it certainly helps and I was surprised to see that out of that esteemed crew only one had a formal background. It was something that the panel actually remarked on as being certainly a "challenge" in video game journalism. Too many outlets are still comprised of mere video game fans that just happen to write about games now.
I don't think there's anything wrong about that per se. After all, there are plenty of people blogging nowadays, doing a very good job of covering interesting stories and issues, etc. and don't have a journalism background either. But there's certainly many journalists that do have that formal understanding. I think the current games media/press would certainly benefit from having more folks that know what journalism is supposed to be. Otherwise, you get what you have now: editorial staff that is often easily influenced by the companies they are covering, not checking up on facts, plagiarism, and potentially biased coverage ... not to mention the regular slew of issues (bad spelling, grammar, writing, etc.).
Not the same thing really, but there's been plenty of times I've messaged a Kotaku editor with a correction only to be told, "Not our fault, that's how it was in the press release."
Happened at least four or five times when discussion Civilization Revolutions. "First time the series is hitting consoles". No. Third time. You know, at least have the gumption to scan over a Wiki entry on the series.
"It's not our fault."
Pfft. You're fucking gamers. Or at least pretend to be.
Not as lultastic, but definitely a slow, sigh filled, facepalm.gif.
Not the same thing really, but there's been plenty of times I've messaged a Kotaku editor with a correction only to be told, "Not our fault, that's how it was in the press release."
Happened at least four or five times when discussion Civilization Revolutions. "First time the series is hitting consoles". No. Third time. You know, at least have the gumption to scan over a Wiki entry on the series.
"It's not our fault."
Pfft. You're fucking gamers. Or at least pretend to be.
Not as lultastic, but definitely a slow, sigh filled, facepalm.gif.
Gaming Journalism: Just repackage the press release. I'm sure it is accurate and not filled with any misinformation.
"The cut-scenes – well, yes, you could argue that there are too many of them, that they're too long, and that the dialogue is occasionally leaden. Indeed many of the most dramatic cut-scenes might make you crave action, or wonder why they couldn't have been turned into interactive sequences."
"The cut-scenes – well, yes, you could argue that there are too many of them, that they're too long, and that the dialogue is occasionally leaden. Indeed many of the most dramatic cut-scenes might make you crave action, or wonder why they couldn't have been turned into interactive sequences."
If there's a single deterrent that works against Xenosaga Episode I above all else, it could be the frequency and length of all the game's cinematics. A necessary tool when telling a tale as massive as this, the sheer onslaught of it all could be too much for gamers that just want to run around and gain experience. Officially clocked at 30 hours for the cinema-only portions (according to the representatives from Namco that we spoke to moments before the penning of this review -- though we think it's more like 15), there's a whole lot of inactivity that you can bank on.
It's funny (but not ha-ha funny) that the actual print content that comes out of these places sucks generally but GFW Radio and 1up Yours, which are side projects essentially, do often have some insightful and interesting discussions of the industry and the profession, especially when guys like Shawn Elliot and Jeff Green are involved.
WyndhamPrice on
0
JebralThe guy nobody pays attention toDown South in the land of free thinkingRegistered Userregular
yeah but hey that's EGM doing something good and who wants to read about that
how is this something good
i'd dare say this is something awful
not reviewing a game because a developer wants them to withhold information about said game is bad?
were we not just talking about how most games journalism is corrupt and inept?
is this not the opposite of that?
Nintendo wanted information about Snake and Sonic withheld for Brawl. What makes this any different?
IGN's explaination for their own:
"In return for letting us play Metal Gear Solid 4 before its release, 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. Regardless of Konami's list of prohibited topics though, this review was always going to be a spoiler-free zone, because part of the pleasure of playing Guns of the Patriots lies in discovering everything it has to offer."
EGM's explaination:
"Konami imposed limitations!"
One version explains that Konami wanted gameplay and story to be kept secret.
The other version explains that Konami demanded good reviews.
One version is accurate. The other is EGM bullshit.
And EGM still did a several page "review" of the game. They just didn't add a score for it.
So for EGM, who are they trying to make look good and what are they making look bad?
"So why don't we have a full review 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."
EGM bullshit? I don't see any demands of good reviews. And that's the only mention of it in the whole article.
"So why don't we have a full review 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."
EGM bullshit? I don't see any demands of good reviews. And that's the only mention of it in the whole article.
IMPLIES. The word I wanted to use was IMPLIES. :x
And yes, that's the message that statement gives off. If you look at other forums, it's how it's interpreted. "Fuck Konami! Way to go EGM! Stick it to the man!"
Not the same thing really, but there's been plenty of times I've messaged a Kotaku editor with a correction only to be told, "Not our fault, that's how it was in the press release."
Happened at least four or five times when discussion Civilization Revolutions. "First time the series is hitting consoles". No. Third time. You know, at least have the gumption to scan over a Wiki entry on the series.
"It's not our fault."
Pfft. You're fucking gamers. Or at least pretend to be.
Not as lultastic, but definitely a slow, sigh filled, facepalm.gif.
Gaming Journalism: Just repackage the press release. I'm sure it is accurate and not filled with any misinformation.
Thank fuck for my legitimate journalism degree.
That way when game journalism goes under I can slide right into something more legitimate, like a tabloid or FHM.
"So why don't we have a full review 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."
EGM bullshit? I don't see any demands of good reviews. And that's the only mention of it in the whole article.
IMPLIES. The word I wanted to use was IMPLIES. :x
And yes, that's the message that statement gives off. If you look at other forums, it's how it's interpreted. "Fuck Konami! Way to go EGM! Stick it to the man!"
UGH.
So if you think they're just doing this to look good, how do you know when somebody is actually doing something based on their beliefs and integrity?
"So why don't we have a full review 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."
EGM bullshit? I don't see any demands of good reviews. And that's the only mention of it in the whole article.
IMPLIES. The word I wanted to use was IMPLIES. :x
And yes, that's the message that statement gives off. If you look at other forums, it's how it's interpreted. "Fuck Konami! Way to go EGM! Stick it to the man!"
UGH.
So if you think they're just doing this to look good, how do you know when somebody is actually doing something based on their beliefs and integrity?
When it's not EGM?
Wasnt EGM the ones who were really indignant at a selection of publishers no longer giving them preview builds of games.
And tried to spin it as some kind of negative review backlash.
I actually quite like EGM, but maybe that's since I been reading it on and off for like almost ten years. I remember picking up that magazine and Gamefan when I got my playstation. I don't like the current version so much, but it's something to read in the crapper.
And at least they didn't agree to Konami's demands and decided not to review MGS4. Unlike IGN.
Konami's demands were to ensure that reviews didn't contain spoilers. Clearly this is needed since EGM doesn't give a fuck about spoilers, as evidenced by TheSonicRetard's post.
I guess this is how their marketing propaganda machine works though, people eat it up.
Who really gives a fuck about reviews for a MGS game anyway? You're all gonna buy it no matter what score IGN/EGM/Gamespot/Megareviewsite#10 give it. It's a foregone conclusion.
"So why don't we have a full review 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."
EGM bullshit? I don't see any demands of good reviews. And that's the only mention of it in the whole article.
IMPLIES. The word I wanted to use was IMPLIES. :x
And yes, that's the message that statement gives off. If you look at other forums, it's how it's interpreted. "Fuck Konami! Way to go EGM! Stick it to the man!"
UGH.
So if you think they're just doing this to look good, how do you know when somebody is actually doing something based on their beliefs and integrity?
When it's not EGM?
You look at their prior history, and how they've stood.
Then you look at the point they've made.
Then you try to analyze their honesty on the matter.
Finally, you check out the fine print, to see if all the details are there.
EGM has failed before with sensationalism like the "mystery game".
The point they've made is that "Konami is forcing us to withhold our honest review until later!"
Then IGN has a clearer explaination, so it doesn't seem like EGM was fully telling the truth.
And without the full truth, all those holes in the explaination gets filled by details from the imagination of the viewer.
Leading them to say "Fuck Konami" and "Woo EGM!"
I'd say they didn't do it based on their beliefs and integrity based on this evidence.
"So why don't we have a full review 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."
EGM bullshit? I don't see any demands of good reviews. And that's the only mention of it in the whole article.
IMPLIES. The word I wanted to use was IMPLIES. :x
And yes, that's the message that statement gives off. If you look at other forums, it's how it's interpreted. "Fuck Konami! Way to go EGM! Stick it to the man!"
UGH.
So if you think they're just doing this to look good, how do you know when somebody is actually doing something based on their beliefs and integrity?
When it's not EGM?
Wasnt EGM the ones who were really indignant at a selection of publishers no longer giving them preview builds of games.
And tried to spin it as some kind of negative review backlash.
how do you know they were spinning it?
jeez, they're the only people to come out about this shit and everybody immediately thinks they're doing it to look good
Who really gives a fuck about reviews for a MGS game anyway? You're all gonna buy it no matter what score IGN/EGM/Gamespot/Megareviewsite#10 give it. It's a foregone conclusion.
Oh, the matter isn't about MGS. People are going to buy it up.
I thought this topic dealt more with the matter of gaming journalism, and their lack of integrity.
Posts
Not all of us have laptops on the shitter.
yeah but hey that's EGM doing something good and who wants to read about that
What, is this true?
This is pretty much what I was going to say. Thanks to PA, I got a free subscription to EGM and thanks to EGM I have something to keep my old copies of White Dwarf and Newsweek/Time company in the bathroom.
you and 50 million other nerds
how is this something good
i'd dare say this is something awful
He was 22.
not reviewing a game because a developer wants them to withhold information about said game is bad?
were we not just talking about how most games journalism is corrupt and inept?
is this not the opposite of that?
Nintendo wanted information about Snake and Sonic withheld for Brawl. What makes this any different?
IGN's explaination for their own:
"In return for letting us play Metal Gear Solid 4 before its release, 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. Regardless of Konami's list of prohibited topics though, this review was always going to be a spoiler-free zone, because part of the pleasure of playing Guns of the Patriots lies in discovering everything it has to offer."
EGM's explaination:
"Konami imposed limitations!"
One version explains that Konami wanted gameplay and story to be kept secret.
The other version explains that Konami demanded good reviews.
One version is accurate. The other is EGM bullshit.
And EGM still did a several page "review" of the game. They just didn't add a score for it.
So for EGM, who are they trying to make look good and what are they making look bad?
Did they forget about that one game called Super Smash Bros Brawl or something?
Also, IGN has a feature on Sonic Xtreme. I lol'd several times during their article because of how much they got wrong, capped by a supposed screenshot of Sonic Mars which was nothing but an Amiga animation used to sell Sega on the concept of Sonic Xtreme.
This is not the first time EGM has done something like this, or claimed to. There was a "mystery game" a while back that Shoe (the editor, not Kuribo's) said wouldn't give EGM a cover story unless EGM secured it a good review. The game was never revealed.
It could have been true. It could have been bullshit. Either way, they shouldn't have mentioned the damn thing, because it makes them look like they have a false sense of superiority and they're slinging mud at all other unnamed magazines by saying, "Oh sure, they'll give in and review the game, but not us here at EGM!"
It just looks really immature.
Re: Brawl, it doesn't, because that was fucking stupid, too. They were on the back of the fucking box.
and do you honestly think that EGM would refuse to review one of the most anticipated games of the year over story spoilers? or that they'd refuse to review it and lie about why they refused to review it? there's no advantage to them not running a review, so why would they choose to do that as some kind of ploy? Does the IGN review mention install size or cutscene length? if not, I would think that's pretty telling.
Winback was originally on the N64. And it was released after MGS.
I played the N64 version and enjoyed it, but even then I thought it was pretty poor compared to MGS.
Why is he using the old NES lightgun?
7 minute install, longest cutscene is the ending at about an hour.
Or so I hear.
EGM's ploy is to create drama. Because drama = attention they so desperately need.
I'm already past that certain spoiler in the game, but if I wasn't... man I'd have been pissed.
I actually quite like EGM, but maybe that's since I been reading it on and off for like almost ten years. I remember picking up that magazine and Gamefan when I got my playstation. I don't like the current version so much, but it's something to read in the crapper.
And at least they didn't agree to Konami's demands and decided not to review MGS4. Unlike IGN.
Unfortunately, very few.
I was at the GDC panel that was billed as a face-off between journalists and those in the games industry. Out of the 6 or so sitting in the panel, including folks such as Stephen Totilo and N'Gai Croal, I believe it was only Totilo that held a journalism degree. Not to say that you have to have a degree to "know anything about journalism" but it certainly helps and I was surprised to see that out of that esteemed crew only one had a formal background. It was something that the panel actually remarked on as being certainly a "challenge" in video game journalism. Too many outlets are still comprised of mere video game fans that just happen to write about games now.
I don't think there's anything wrong about that per se. After all, there are plenty of people blogging nowadays, doing a very good job of covering interesting stories and issues, etc. and don't have a journalism background either. But there's certainly many journalists that do have that formal understanding. I think the current games media/press would certainly benefit from having more folks that know what journalism is supposed to be. Otherwise, you get what you have now: editorial staff that is often easily influenced by the companies they are covering, not checking up on facts, plagiarism, and potentially biased coverage ... not to mention the regular slew of issues (bad spelling, grammar, writing, etc.).
- Don't add me, I'm at/near the friend limit
Steam: JC_Rooks
Twitter: http://twitter.com/JiunweiC
I work on this: http://www.xbox.com
from IGN?
at any rate, how do you not talk about gameplay in a review?
Happened at least four or five times when discussion Civilization Revolutions. "First time the series is hitting consoles". No. Third time. You know, at least have the gumption to scan over a Wiki entry on the series.
"It's not our fault."
Pfft. You're fucking gamers. Or at least pretend to be.
Not as lultastic, but definitely a slow, sigh filled, facepalm.gif.
Gaming Journalism: Just repackage the press release. I'm sure it is accurate and not filled with any misinformation.
"The cut-scenes – well, yes, you could argue that there are too many of them, that they're too long, and that the dialogue is occasionally leaden. Indeed many of the most dramatic cut-scenes might make you crave action, or wonder why they couldn't have been turned into interactive sequences."
Looking at a few reviews recently, very easily!
*ba dum pish*
that neatly sidesteps how long they actually get
and before you say that that never comes up
I guess namco was proud of its cutscenes, though.
"So why don't we have a full review 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."
EGM bullshit? I don't see any demands of good reviews. And that's the only mention of it in the whole article.
IMPLIES. The word I wanted to use was IMPLIES. :x
And yes, that's the message that statement gives off. If you look at other forums, it's how it's interpreted. "Fuck Konami! Way to go EGM! Stick it to the man!"
UGH.
Thank fuck for my legitimate journalism degree.
That way when game journalism goes under I can slide right into something more legitimate, like a tabloid or FHM.
So if you think they're just doing this to look good, how do you know when somebody is actually doing something based on their beliefs and integrity?
When it's not EGM?
Wasnt EGM the ones who were really indignant at a selection of publishers no longer giving them preview builds of games.
And tried to spin it as some kind of negative review backlash.
Konami's demands were to ensure that reviews didn't contain spoilers. Clearly this is needed since EGM doesn't give a fuck about spoilers, as evidenced by TheSonicRetard's post.
I guess this is how their marketing propaganda machine works though, people eat it up.
Who really gives a fuck about reviews for a MGS game anyway? You're all gonna buy it no matter what score IGN/EGM/Gamespot/Megareviewsite#10 give it. It's a foregone conclusion.
You look at their prior history, and how they've stood.
Then you look at the point they've made.
Then you try to analyze their honesty on the matter.
Finally, you check out the fine print, to see if all the details are there.
EGM has failed before with sensationalism like the "mystery game".
The point they've made is that "Konami is forcing us to withhold our honest review until later!"
Then IGN has a clearer explaination, so it doesn't seem like EGM was fully telling the truth.
And without the full truth, all those holes in the explaination gets filled by details from the imagination of the viewer.
Leading them to say "Fuck Konami" and "Woo EGM!"
I'd say they didn't do it based on their beliefs and integrity based on this evidence.
how do you know they were spinning it?
jeez, they're the only people to come out about this shit and everybody immediately thinks they're doing it to look good
Oh, the matter isn't about MGS. People are going to buy it up.
I thought this topic dealt more with the matter of gaming journalism, and their lack of integrity.
there's some stuff we can't talk about but DON'T WORRY NO SPOILERS WOO