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.
Kotaku had this article today about the NDA for MGS4,
"Payton says the NDA covered: Install times, length of cutscenes (the ending in particular), number of environments, opening "movie", product placement and a half dozen story-specific items."
Can't talk about product placement is a huge red light for me.
Kojima wanted to keep the ingame iPod as much a secret as possible. Even through they showed it off to the press and they reported on it. And the Magazines are playboy I THINK.
I think they just want to keep it a surprise.
Or because of legal issues.
Finally, we've asked reviewers to not write about some of the product placement because of some contractual agreements we have with third parties.
Basically, he took a game and said things that made it sound like played it for 20 minutes.
He then dropped the controller like a 4 year old and said "THIS IS DUMB".
AC had it's flaws, but it was not as bad as he painted it.
Opinions are one thing. Misinformation is another.
You can certainly say you didn't like it. And I can certainly say "HUMBUG AND HOGWASH!" because shoving dudes off towers to their death is frigging awesome.
Well, to be fair, AC did only have about 20 minutes of total gameplay, they just repeated it for a dozen hours.
Man, watching someone play AC is pretty awesome, but when you factor in that you're holding down one button button to do everything, the combat system that was so broken you could take a nap during a massive fight, and the fact that there were only like 3 things to do in the game, yeah, it was pretty shitty. Probably one of the prettiest games I've ever played, but also one of the worst.
IMO, Crispin's review was spot on. It isn't misinformation just because you don't agree with it.
Also, I just realized I hadn't read the last page of this thread, but I'm posting this anyway.
The sad truth is the gaming community, as a whole, doesnt want fairness and balance.
It wants 'MGS4 10/10 best game you will ever play'
It wants 'Wii games suck and waggle is a pathetic fad'
People want these hyper extremes, EGM delivers them. We here are in no way an accurate representation of the mindset of the vast majority of the gaming community. They want hyperbole, fanboy hate and drama.
8.8 for Twilight Princess was fair and balanced, and both his video and text reviews outlines his views, backed them up and justified his opinion well.
Of course if you think anyone viewed either you clearly dont know the attitude of gamers.
Even GFW themselves did one issue without scores and even their readership was in uproar.
the only problem I see with ratings scales and the annoyance I saw with that Twilight Princess review, is that not all games/movies/media/etc. are rated on the same scale. What I mean is, obviously there are much higher expectations when it comes to what a Zelda game should deliver, but then a different game which is pretty good but has no expectations can receive a higher rating. So according to that rating system, X game was better than Twilight Princess? Since there is no clear cut way imo to grade stuff like this, it should really boil down to "Get it", "Get it if you're a fan of X genre/series", "Don't get it", something along those lines. You can even include a summary at the end (I usually skip to these anyways first then browse around a review) of how you came to the conclusion. Yet, people want to see the score and judge it that way.
the only problem I see with ratings scales and the annoyance I saw with that Twilight Princess review, is that not all games/movies/media/etc. are rated on the same scale. What I mean is, obviously there are much higher expectations when it comes to what a Zelda game should deliver, but then a different game which is pretty good but has no expectations can receive a higher rating. So according to that rating system, X game was better than Twilight Princess? Since there is no clear cut way imo to grade stuff like this, it should really boil down to "Get it", "Get it if you're a fan of X genre/series", "Don't get it", something along those lines. You can even include a summary at the end (I usually skip to these anyways first then browse around a review) of how you came to the conclusion. Yet, people want to see the score and judge it that way.
I agree. At this point I am really tired of numbers/letters/stars/etc. ratings systems because they are just fuel for the CONSOLE WARZ and they don't really tell you anything meaningful anyway. I want to see more reviewers omit that kind of crutch and focus on conveying an intelligent opinion instead.
I would just like to point out that I was right, that EGM was not refusing to review it out of any desire to make themselves look cool, and that they were not the only ones refusing to review it under those circumstances.
Now then, I won't defend the quality of the rest of the magazine, because I can't.
Kotaku had this article today about the NDA for MGS4,
"Payton says the NDA covered: Install times, length of cutscenes (the ending in particular), number of environments, opening "movie", product placement and a half dozen story-specific items."
Can't talk about product placement is a huge red light for me.
Basically, he took a game and said things that made it sound like played it for 20 minutes.
He then dropped the controller like a 4 year old and said "THIS IS DUMB".
AC had it's flaws, but it was not as bad as he painted it.
Opinions are one thing. Misinformation is another.
You can certainly say you didn't like it. And I can certainly say "HUMBUG AND HOGWASH!" because shoving dudes off towers to their death is frigging awesome.
Well, to be fair, AC did only have about 20 minutes of total gameplay, they just repeated it for a dozen hours.
Man, watching someone play AC is pretty awesome, but when you factor in that you're holding down one button button to do everything, the combat system that was so broken you could take a nap during a massive fight, and the fact that there were only like 3 things to do in the game, yeah, it was pretty shitty. Probably one of the prettiest games I've ever played, but also one of the worst.
IMO, Crispin's review was spot on. It isn't misinformation just because you don't agree with it.
Also, I just realized I hadn't read the last page of this thread, but I'm posting this anyway.
But here's the thing: IF you read his review, he LIKES the combat! He's only complaining about mission structure being repetitive. Which is ridculous because EVERY game is repetitive!
God of War? Kill lots and lots of dudes, then kill bigger ones. And odd puzzle here or there.
GTA: Escort Mission, chase mission, or assassination mission.
AC: Pickpocket, Interogation, and Eavesdropping.
And the thing is, you only have to do 3 to get to the kill!
Basically it just shows how little patience everyone had with this game. GTA is infintely more frustrating mission structure, with NO checkpoints at all, save for on the final mission.
God of War? Kill lots and lots of dudes, then kill bigger ones. And odd puzzle here or there.
There are actually more than two different dudes you kill in that game.
You can say anything is repetitive if you get basic enough, but AC is repetitive even without getting basic.
Does that mean the game isn't fun, because of a repeated action?
Because if you spent time with the fighting it had some finesse and depth to it, instead of just mashing on the X button until everything's dead.
I think people are just kindof inclined to not like this.
Game Journalism isn't REAL journalism. It's a bunch of want-to-be industry insiders giving opinions on games getting kickbacks from the industry to play said games.
It's a few steps up from paid advertising spokesman (occasionally they'll admit the flaws of a game), and one step up from whore most of the time. For a multi-BILLION dollar industry, Game Journalism is a total joke.
Yup.
And the industry manipulates it to their advantage to prevent legitimate journalism from cropping up. Since they have a pool of lapdogs already, publishers can simply refuse to send review copies to journailists who don't do as they say.
Game Journalism isn't REAL journalism. It's a bunch of want-to-be industry insiders giving opinions on games getting kickbacks from the industry to play said games.
It's a few steps up from paid advertising spokesman (occasionally they'll admit the flaws of a game), and one step up from whore most of the time. For a multi-BILLION dollar industry, Game Journalism is a total joke.
Yup.
And the industry manipulates it to their advantage to prevent legitimate journalism from cropping up. Since they have a pool of lapdogs already, publishers can simply refuse to send review copies to journailists who don't do as they say.
On the other hand, a significant part of the community actively seek out legitimate game journalism. Meaning that while the shit does get a much higher circulation, a dedicated magazine/website that is of high quality can create a business model around a much more loyal and trusting subscriber base.
When you look superficially at 1up, or IGN, or EGM, or Gamepro,Gamespot,Gametrailers etc etc there is very little difference between them other than aesthetics.
But there are standout outlets who dont get as much popularity but continue to make money based on subscribers. Loyal subscribers who pay to keep the higher quality coming.
Now that I think about it, I don't think we really need good gaming journalism. When it comes to games, I really only need to know 2 things.
-What games are coming out?
-Are those games any good?
Sure, they just regurgitate press releases, and downplay all the flaws in their previews, but they still post screens and videos, and a decent enough description of the gameplay. So they are pretty good at taking care of question number 1. As for question 2, even if they didn't play it safe in their review scores to avoid pissing off their advertisers, and even if a lot of their reviews weren't as poorly written as they are, it wouldn't matter because the only opinion I trust is my own. That's where demos and rentals come in.
Game Journalism isn't REAL journalism. It's a bunch of want-to-be industry insiders giving opinions on games getting kickbacks from the industry to play said games.
It's a few steps up from paid advertising spokesman (occasionally they'll admit the flaws of a game), and one step up from whore most of the time. For a multi-BILLION dollar industry, Game Journalism is a total joke.
I absolutely agree. Game journalism -- the criticism side especially -- is largely horrible, and will continue to be horrible as long as those in media tie themselves closely to game developers and publishers, allowing themselves to be used as unofficial PR divisions rather than independent journalists. The breathless fan wank in gaming commentary is bad enough. Toss in a heaping helping of what amounts to payola and I'm left wondering why I should care about or trust most of the gaming press.
Honestly, the fans don't help matters. Over at the MTV blog, when they did Reviews Week taking a look at the games journalism business, the comments for the story on Konami's demands re: MGS4 really caught my eye. So many of these people could not understand why Konami's well-publicized demands are an example of what's wrong with games journalism. They just plain didn't care. For these folks, "Metal gear rocks!!" (and I'm sure it does) is all that matters. Not only did they miss the point of the story, they treated it like it was questioning the game, and god forbid you do that.
We'll not get a better class of journalism for this business until we demand it. Until we tell PR hacks and publishers that we don't want or need their shenanigans. Until we tell fanboys-turned-reviewers to save their gushing for their personal blogs. And until we start appreciating the few outlets for real, honest, intelligent gaming commentary, criticism and reporting out there.
I am very much hoping that Shawn Elliott and the rest of the crew at GFW Radio will use this to take another opportunity to talk about the state of game journalism, like they have done in the past. The only difference that this happening with a magazine that they actually work on now (ever since GFW has gone away).
I've always gotten the feeling that the GFW editors didn't think very highly of the journalism work of their peers, and often for good reason. Will they refrain from pulling the punches in this case?
I hope they don't. I always liked when Shawn and the crew got into business talk during their podcast. He's got the right idea and the right philosophy, but sadly he's beating his head against a wall in an industry very resistant to that kind of thinking. For the most part the powers that be among developers and publishers don't want it, his own publishers don't want it -- you don't want to bite the hand that feeds, after all -- and I often get the sense that many of the fans don't want it. "We" (and I don't mean myself, or even most PAers) want to be told the games we like are awesome and the systems we don't lke suck.
It's freakin' ridiculous is what it is. I'm glad guys like the GFW crew are out there pointing fingers at the awful cliches that plague game reviews, at the crappy way PR hacks go about their business, and at the sorry state of game commentary.
Games are excellent. Games operate on an amazing number of levels and entertain us with a baffling array of styles, techniques and approaches. There is so much to say about what games are, have been, and can be. There is plenty of room for gaming fanboyism ... can't we clear some space at the table for intelligent gaming commentary, too?
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!"
I disagree. I think such things should be mentioned -- though they ought to name names when they do it. I think such things are important to know for anyone who cares about objective journalism or anyone interested in how that end of the industry works. It's noteworthy that PR people will negotiate positive coverage in exchange for a cover story or exclusive review. And they do. This happens.
It'd be better if EGM wasn't so journalism-light in other areas -- the stupid Maxim-like goofball lists and that garbage need to go -- but at the very least acknowledging that this sort of prid pro quo takes place is worth doing.
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.).
Boy howdy do I ever agree with this post.
No, a journalism degree isn't a must, but some experience covering news for the local paper, maybe, would be nice. Something of that nature. Too many game "journalists" are just fan writers plucked off the 'Net after writing some catchy reviews.
Thing is, blogging or reviewing things does not effectively teach you how to keep an objective distance from your subject, ESPECIALLY when you're suddenly thrust into a position in which your subject is loading you down with gifts, trips, free play sessions, access that would make fanboys drool, and more. Ask Harry Knowles about objectivity. When he's done pulling the free Transformers 2 Twinkies out of his mouth, he'll laugh. Dude's not a critic, he's an unofficial PR hack.
Which is what too many game journalists are, whether they know it or not.
Take someone with actual experience in journalism and all the gifting might seem tempting, but manageable. Journalists aren't perfect -- FAR from it -- but most quickly grow weary of being pushed around by someone with an agenda, a trait that could serve them well in hames journalism. Take someone who is really just an opinionated fan who can write and put them in the same and what do you have?
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.
No, it was EGM who noted that UbiSoft would not longer preview their games with EGM because EGM was -- gasp!! -- too critical in their previews of Assassin's Creed.
Something I applauded them for, incidentally, because for many, many years game previews were worthless bullshit. Warmed over press releases and over-the-top hype with little in the way of information and nothing in the way of value. Free advertising for upcoming games and nothing more. When EGM started to actually assess games in their previews, I thought, and still think, it was a great move.
UbiSoft didn't. They wanted their criticism-free free advertising.
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?
Seems pretty obvious to me what makes it different. Being asked to withhold what can be argued to be spoilers and surprises, thus potentially ruining a gamer's experience, is far different than being asked to withhold essential technical specs (install times) and a key element of the experience a game delivers (45-minute cutscenes).
Eurogamer seem to get plenty of previews, and yet don't seem afraid to comment in them if something sucks. Just today, I was reading some rather bitchy remarks about Soul Calibur IV, for instance.
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.
I do, and no I won't, and no it isn't.
I loved the ever lovin' hell out of MGS and still consider it one of my favorite games ever. I very much disliked MGS2 and regret spending my money on it. So for me, the Metal Gear name isn't an instant sell.
With SO MUCH great gaming out there and not enough time or money to take it all in, yeah, if I have questions about a game I like to know some more about it before I spend my money. I don't think it's too much to ask that my reviews be objective and contain information that may unfluence my purchase.
Besides, you're missing the point. The issue here isn't MGS4. The issue isn't the game. The issue is that demands such as this are made, that things such as this take place, and that this sort of practice is ingrained in the "journalism" you and I and every other gamer consume. I'm sorry if you don't understand why this is unfortunate. But it is.
Video game magazines are in a sad state. 1993-1995 was the golden years of video game magazines. Back then, the internet was in it's infant stages (Compuserve: GO SEGA was useless), so magazines served a purpose. Yeah, their writing was just as bad as it is today - their reviews were completely superficial, and were largely giant ads. However, they were basically the only way to keep up with gaming news, and they were packed with content. The average EGM is, what, 80 pages? The december (1994) issue of gamepro was 440 pages long.
This isn't just video game magazines, it's publishing in general.
Creed was a 9 game in my opinion, but I have no qualms about someone giving it lower, as I recognise completely the issue of differing opinions. Many professionals thought Creed was a 9 while many more thought it was worse.
Crispins 4.5 though was a work of the devil. And like always, I read the text first and it not only had factual errors but seemed overtly hostile and scathing towards the game. To use the word 'Agenda' might be too harsh but there was something off.
I don't see the issue. The work of the devil how? On a 7-10 scale, maybe?
Seems to me a 4.5 paints the game as average, or slightly below average, and the tone of the review painted it as a grandly hyped game that fell short of its potential, ending up being average or slightly below average.
:shrug:
I've no horse in this race. I'm neither an AC fan not a hater. Haven't played it. I just don't see how a review you disagree with is the work of the devil. The most important thing is the text, not the stupid number, and the text reads like, well, like the guy's opinion -- which isn't that different from MANY opinions I've read about the game.
Hell, from the latest issue they have an entire article that's supposedly about the future of Nintendo's online but is just an excuse to shit all over their (admittedly poor, imho) online strategy.
But if the article is about Nintendo's online strategy, and you think their online strategy is poor, why would you expect the article to reflect anything other than that?
EGM is not a great magazine, but methinks this particular complaint is a bit ... strange.
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.
No, it was EGM who noted that UbiSoft would not longer preview their games with EGM because EGM was -- gasp!! -- too critical in their previews of Assassin's Creed.
Something I applauded them for, incidentally, because for many, many years game previews were worthless bullshit. Warmed over press releases and over-the-top hype with little in the way of information and nothing in the way of value. Free advertising for upcoming games and nothing more. When EGM started to actually assess games in their previews, I thought, and still think, it was a great move.
UbiSoft didn't. They wanted their criticism-free free advertising.
That is the issue to which you allude.
.
Hold on. I wasnt praising what Ubisoft did. Dont spin that shit on me like that. You missed the entire point of my post.
My beef was with EGM bitching and moaning that they couldnt get preview stuff. For free. Not the fact that Ubi cut them off for whatever reason.
As Tycho said, the less interaction between publisher and reviewer the better. EGM wont be sucking up to Ubi for the Assassin's Creed 2 cover story exclusive, and therefore can cover the game far more objectively.
Similarly, with no avenue of free press advertisement, Ubisoft can present a wider range of outlets with media assets.
Except you're ignoring the fact that in order for a magazine to surivive they need at least a two month lead, giving them more of an incentive to make shameful deals for content then even the web press, who just jockey for exclusives.
The sad truth is the gaming community, as a whole, doesnt want fairness and balance.
It wants 'MGS4 10/10 best game you will ever play'
It wants 'Wii games suck and waggle is a pathetic fad'
People want these hyper extremes, EGM delivers them. We here are in no way an accurate representation of the mindset of the vast majority of the gaming community. They want hyperbole, fanboy hate and drama.
8.8 for Twilight Princess was fair and balanced, and both his video and text reviews outlines his views, backed them up and justified his opinion well.
Of course if you think anyone viewed either you clearly dont know the attitude of gamers.
Even GFW themselves did one issue without scores and even their readership was in uproar.
Yes, this. I agree. All of it.
Honestly, I was astonished at how angry people were when GFW dropped the scores. I supported the move and thought it was a noble experiment; wish it stuck. I understand some didn't, and that's cool. I get that. But BOY did people hate the hell out of that move, and I did not understand why.
Anyway, to your larger point, yeah, it seems that for many, if not most, they just want an hype echo chamber.
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.
No, it was EGM who noted that UbiSoft would not longer preview their games with EGM because EGM was -- gasp!! -- too critical in their previews of Assassin's Creed.
Something I applauded them for, incidentally, because for many, many years game previews were worthless bullshit. Warmed over press releases and over-the-top hype with little in the way of information and nothing in the way of value. Free advertising for upcoming games and nothing more. When EGM started to actually assess games in their previews, I thought, and still think, it was a great move.
UbiSoft didn't. They wanted their criticism-free free advertising.
That is the issue to which you allude.
.
Hold on. I wasnt praising what Ubisoft did. Dont spin that shit on me like that.
I wasn't. I was commenting on the situation between EGM and Ubi, not on you. I don't believe I at all suggested you praised Ubisoft.
My beef was with EGM bitching and moaning that they couldnt get preview stuff. For free. Not the fact that Ubi cut them off for whatever reason.
I think it was a legitimate concern for EGM to air, and I'm glad they did. It shone a spotlight on an aspect of the gaming industry few people are aware of or see, i.e. the quid pro quos of gaming journalism and the "punishment" game publishers are willing to thrown down on those who won't play ball. Whether or not they were indignant, eh, whatever. Fact is, it was an issue worth discussing and it was an issue worth noting to the public.
As Tycho said, the less interaction between publisher and reviewer the better. EGM wont be sucking up to Ubi for the Assassin's Creed 2 cover story exclusive, and therefore can cover the game far more objectively.
Similarly, with no avenue of free press advertisement, Ubisoft can present a wider range of outlets with media assets.
Except you're ignoring the fact that in order for a magazine to surivive they need at least a two month lead, giving them more of an incentive to make shameful deals for content then even the web press, who just jockey for exclusives.
But like I said, getting exclusives =/= sucking publisher dick. Many magazines have secured exclusive previews and panned the game in question. In fact, i know some publishers prefer readership demographics, size and the writing style over a regurgitation of PR.
Because PR is just that, a direct release of information from the publisher. They need magazines to deliver the message less and less as time goes on. Time was, magazines were the primary source of my video game news. Now, they are at best 3 weeks late to any big announcement. Which is why my favourite magazines are focussing more on reviews, critical analysis of the industry and genuinely interesting articles about non news issues.
Securing an exclusive cover story doesnt mean kissing ass, it means more and more these days of being a decent conduit for publishers wants. Sure, go to something like Gamespot and you will get all the sucking up you want (their month long spiderman 3 launch centre thing springs to mind) but go to somewhere more 'legitimate' as it were and you can deliver the same message to a more specified audience.
For example, give your Madden 09 exclusive to gamespot and thats your target audience. Give your Wrath of the Lich king exclusive to them and you may be not using your assets to the best of their ability.
A magazine like GFW is a better choice (though no longer clearly) - and their preview was critical and didnt suck blizzard cock. But the message was delivered to the target audience better.
Kotaku had this article today about the NDA for MGS4,
"Payton says the NDA covered: Install times, length of cutscenes (the ending in particular), number of environments, opening "movie", product placement and a half dozen story-specific items."
Can't talk about product placement is a huge red light for me.
"Number of environments."
I suppose I could see that spun as being part of not revealing the story, and MGS games haven't been known for jumping from location to location in the way traditional level-based games do, but still ... variety of location and gameplay can certainly be a factor in assessing a game, whether critically or for purchase. If you play in a single environment the whole time, or if you travel to ten different locations, isn't that legitimate information worthy of including in a review?
Coming from someone who knows the entire plot of MGS4, some of their NDA requests are not as unreasonable as you might think. Especially the locations one. I will say no more. Dont read too much into that. As far as publisher NDAs go, that is quite reasonable all round.
Thing is, blogging or reviewing things does not effectively teach you how to keep an objective distance from your subject, ESPECIALLY when you're suddenly thrust into a position in which your subject is loading you down with gifts, trips, free play sessions, access that would make fanboys drool, and more. Ask Harry Knowles about objectivity. When he's done pulling the free Transformers 2 Twinkies out of his mouth, he'll laugh. Dude's not a critic, he's an unofficial PR hack.
Which is what too many game journalists are, whether they know it or not.
Sad, but true. I believe having excitement and passion isn't bad at all, but it shouldn't be the only thing you have. At the GDC panel, and again when a co-worker and I talked to him in person, and then repeated later on the 1UP Yours podcast, Garnett Lee talked about how he's just a "kid in a candy shop". He tries not to think too deeply about the stuff he writes and just wants to convey his excitement (or disappointment) for a given game. That might sound good, but I wonder a lot if folks like him, who don't have a deep understanding/background of journalism end up being taken advantage a lot of the time.
Take someone with actual experience in journalism and all the gifting might seem tempting, but manageable. Journalists aren't perfect -- FAR from it -- but most quickly grow weary of being pushed around by someone with an agenda, a trait that could serve them well in hames journalism. Take someone who is really just an opinionated fan who can write and put them in the same and what do you have?
You have the modern day games journalist.
Yup. So, who do you think today, is a good games journalist? I can name a few: N'Gai Croal, Stephen Totilo, and perhaps the GFW crew (Jeff Green, Shawn Elliott especially). I am also surprised at times by Adam Sessler, who I figure as a "TV star" would be stereotypically shallow and fake but that's not the case at all. Geoff Keighley perhaps as well, although I admit I have limited experience with him.
Posts
Well, to be fair, AC did only have about 20 minutes of total gameplay, they just repeated it for a dozen hours.
Man, watching someone play AC is pretty awesome, but when you factor in that you're holding down one button button to do everything, the combat system that was so broken you could take a nap during a massive fight, and the fact that there were only like 3 things to do in the game, yeah, it was pretty shitty. Probably one of the prettiest games I've ever played, but also one of the worst.
IMO, Crispin's review was spot on. It isn't misinformation just because you don't agree with it.
Also, I just realized I hadn't read the last page of this thread, but I'm posting this anyway.
I doubt it. I've already seen another review mention how they're not supposed to talk about cutscene length.
the only problem I see with ratings scales and the annoyance I saw with that Twilight Princess review, is that not all games/movies/media/etc. are rated on the same scale. What I mean is, obviously there are much higher expectations when it comes to what a Zelda game should deliver, but then a different game which is pretty good but has no expectations can receive a higher rating. So according to that rating system, X game was better than Twilight Princess? Since there is no clear cut way imo to grade stuff like this, it should really boil down to "Get it", "Get it if you're a fan of X genre/series", "Don't get it", something along those lines. You can even include a summary at the end (I usually skip to these anyways first then browse around a review) of how you came to the conclusion. Yet, people want to see the score and judge it that way.
CALORIE MATE
Mmm mmm GOOD!
I agree. At this point I am really tired of numbers/letters/stars/etc. ratings systems because they are just fuel for the CONSOLE WARZ and they don't really tell you anything meaningful anyway. I want to see more reviewers omit that kind of crutch and focus on conveying an intelligent opinion instead.
Now then, I won't defend the quality of the rest of the magazine, because I can't.
Why?
Konami has been pretty open about it.
But here's the thing: IF you read his review, he LIKES the combat! He's only complaining about mission structure being repetitive. Which is ridculous because EVERY game is repetitive!
God of War? Kill lots and lots of dudes, then kill bigger ones. And odd puzzle here or there.
GTA: Escort Mission, chase mission, or assassination mission.
AC: Pickpocket, Interogation, and Eavesdropping.
And the thing is, you only have to do 3 to get to the kill!
Basically it just shows how little patience everyone had with this game. GTA is infintely more frustrating mission structure, with NO checkpoints at all, save for on the final mission.
You can say anything is repetitive if you get basic enough, but AC is repetitive even without getting basic.
Because if you spent time with the fighting it had some finesse and depth to it, instead of just mashing on the X button until everything's dead.
I think people are just kindof inclined to not like this.
Yup.
And the industry manipulates it to their advantage to prevent legitimate journalism from cropping up. Since they have a pool of lapdogs already, publishers can simply refuse to send review copies to journailists who don't do as they say.
On the other hand, a significant part of the community actively seek out legitimate game journalism. Meaning that while the shit does get a much higher circulation, a dedicated magazine/website that is of high quality can create a business model around a much more loyal and trusting subscriber base.
When you look superficially at 1up, or IGN, or EGM, or Gamepro,Gamespot,Gametrailers etc etc there is very little difference between them other than aesthetics.
But there are standout outlets who dont get as much popularity but continue to make money based on subscribers. Loyal subscribers who pay to keep the higher quality coming.
-What games are coming out?
-Are those games any good?
Sure, they just regurgitate press releases, and downplay all the flaws in their previews, but they still post screens and videos, and a decent enough description of the gameplay. So they are pretty good at taking care of question number 1. As for question 2, even if they didn't play it safe in their review scores to avoid pissing off their advertisers, and even if a lot of their reviews weren't as poorly written as they are, it wouldn't matter because the only opinion I trust is my own. That's where demos and rentals come in.
Honestly, the fans don't help matters. Over at the MTV blog, when they did Reviews Week taking a look at the games journalism business, the comments for the story on Konami's demands re: MGS4 really caught my eye. So many of these people could not understand why Konami's well-publicized demands are an example of what's wrong with games journalism. They just plain didn't care. For these folks, "Metal gear rocks!!" (and I'm sure it does) is all that matters. Not only did they miss the point of the story, they treated it like it was questioning the game, and god forbid you do that.
We'll not get a better class of journalism for this business until we demand it. Until we tell PR hacks and publishers that we don't want or need their shenanigans. Until we tell fanboys-turned-reviewers to save their gushing for their personal blogs. And until we start appreciating the few outlets for real, honest, intelligent gaming commentary, criticism and reporting out there.
I doubt it'll happen anytime soon.
It's freakin' ridiculous is what it is. I'm glad guys like the GFW crew are out there pointing fingers at the awful cliches that plague game reviews, at the crappy way PR hacks go about their business, and at the sorry state of game commentary.
Games are excellent. Games operate on an amazing number of levels and entertain us with a baffling array of styles, techniques and approaches. There is so much to say about what games are, have been, and can be. There is plenty of room for gaming fanboyism ... can't we clear some space at the table for intelligent gaming commentary, too?
It'd be better if EGM wasn't so journalism-light in other areas -- the stupid Maxim-like goofball lists and that garbage need to go -- but at the very least acknowledging that this sort of prid pro quo takes place is worth doing.
No, a journalism degree isn't a must, but some experience covering news for the local paper, maybe, would be nice. Something of that nature. Too many game "journalists" are just fan writers plucked off the 'Net after writing some catchy reviews.
Thing is, blogging or reviewing things does not effectively teach you how to keep an objective distance from your subject, ESPECIALLY when you're suddenly thrust into a position in which your subject is loading you down with gifts, trips, free play sessions, access that would make fanboys drool, and more. Ask Harry Knowles about objectivity. When he's done pulling the free Transformers 2 Twinkies out of his mouth, he'll laugh. Dude's not a critic, he's an unofficial PR hack.
Which is what too many game journalists are, whether they know it or not.
Take someone with actual experience in journalism and all the gifting might seem tempting, but manageable. Journalists aren't perfect -- FAR from it -- but most quickly grow weary of being pushed around by someone with an agenda, a trait that could serve them well in hames journalism. Take someone who is really just an opinionated fan who can write and put them in the same and what do you have?
You have the modern day games journalist.
Something I applauded them for, incidentally, because for many, many years game previews were worthless bullshit. Warmed over press releases and over-the-top hype with little in the way of information and nothing in the way of value. Free advertising for upcoming games and nothing more. When EGM started to actually assess games in their previews, I thought, and still think, it was a great move.
UbiSoft didn't. They wanted their criticism-free free advertising.
That is the issue to which you allude. Seems pretty obvious to me what makes it different. Being asked to withhold what can be argued to be spoilers and surprises, thus potentially ruining a gamer's experience, is far different than being asked to withhold essential technical specs (install times) and a key element of the experience a game delivers (45-minute cutscenes).
I loved the ever lovin' hell out of MGS and still consider it one of my favorite games ever. I very much disliked MGS2 and regret spending my money on it. So for me, the Metal Gear name isn't an instant sell.
With SO MUCH great gaming out there and not enough time or money to take it all in, yeah, if I have questions about a game I like to know some more about it before I spend my money. I don't think it's too much to ask that my reviews be objective and contain information that may unfluence my purchase.
Besides, you're missing the point. The issue here isn't MGS4. The issue isn't the game. The issue is that demands such as this are made, that things such as this take place, and that this sort of practice is ingrained in the "journalism" you and I and every other gamer consume. I'm sorry if you don't understand why this is unfortunate. But it is.
Seems to me a 4.5 paints the game as average, or slightly below average, and the tone of the review painted it as a grandly hyped game that fell short of its potential, ending up being average or slightly below average.
:shrug:
I've no horse in this race. I'm neither an AC fan not a hater. Haven't played it. I just don't see how a review you disagree with is the work of the devil. The most important thing is the text, not the stupid number, and the text reads like, well, like the guy's opinion -- which isn't that different from MANY opinions I've read about the game.
EGM is not a great magazine, but methinks this particular complaint is a bit ... strange.
Hold on. I wasnt praising what Ubisoft did. Dont spin that shit on me like that. You missed the entire point of my post.
My beef was with EGM bitching and moaning that they couldnt get preview stuff. For free. Not the fact that Ubi cut them off for whatever reason.
As Tycho said, the less interaction between publisher and reviewer the better. EGM wont be sucking up to Ubi for the Assassin's Creed 2 cover story exclusive, and therefore can cover the game far more objectively.
Similarly, with no avenue of free press advertisement, Ubisoft can present a wider range of outlets with media assets.
Everyone wins.
Yes, this. I agree. All of it.
Honestly, I was astonished at how angry people were when GFW dropped the scores. I supported the move and thought it was a noble experiment; wish it stuck. I understand some didn't, and that's cool. I get that. But BOY did people hate the hell out of that move, and I did not understand why.
Anyway, to your larger point, yeah, it seems that for many, if not most, they just want an hype echo chamber.
"You cannot hope
to bribe or twist,
thank God! The
British journalist.
But, seeing what
the man will do
unbribed, there's
no occasion to."
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
But like I said, getting exclusives =/= sucking publisher dick. Many magazines have secured exclusive previews and panned the game in question. In fact, i know some publishers prefer readership demographics, size and the writing style over a regurgitation of PR.
Because PR is just that, a direct release of information from the publisher. They need magazines to deliver the message less and less as time goes on. Time was, magazines were the primary source of my video game news. Now, they are at best 3 weeks late to any big announcement. Which is why my favourite magazines are focussing more on reviews, critical analysis of the industry and genuinely interesting articles about non news issues.
Securing an exclusive cover story doesnt mean kissing ass, it means more and more these days of being a decent conduit for publishers wants. Sure, go to something like Gamespot and you will get all the sucking up you want (their month long spiderman 3 launch centre thing springs to mind) but go to somewhere more 'legitimate' as it were and you can deliver the same message to a more specified audience.
For example, give your Madden 09 exclusive to gamespot and thats your target audience. Give your Wrath of the Lich king exclusive to them and you may be not using your assets to the best of their ability.
A magazine like GFW is a better choice (though no longer clearly) - and their preview was critical and didnt suck blizzard cock. But the message was delivered to the target audience better.
I suppose I could see that spun as being part of not revealing the story, and MGS games haven't been known for jumping from location to location in the way traditional level-based games do, but still ... variety of location and gameplay can certainly be a factor in assessing a game, whether critically or for purchase. If you play in a single environment the whole time, or if you travel to ten different locations, isn't that legitimate information worthy of including in a review?
Still not a fan of the install time and cutscene bits, though. But fair enough on the locations. I can see what you're saying.
My Collection
Yup. So, who do you think today, is a good games journalist? I can name a few: N'Gai Croal, Stephen Totilo, and perhaps the GFW crew (Jeff Green, Shawn Elliott especially). I am also surprised at times by Adam Sessler, who I figure as a "TV star" would be stereotypically shallow and fake but that's not the case at all. Geoff Keighley perhaps as well, although I admit I have limited experience with him.
- 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