[Censor On] Tomb Raider Reviews being squelched by Eidos
hamburger helper
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
I just saw this on Joystiq:
Kane & Lynch m I rite?
Reps from the UK PR firm for Eidos have confirmed that they're asking publications not to release any reviews for Tomb Raider: Underworld below an 8/10 until Monday. The firm says they're doing so at the request of Eidos, which is trying to manage the scores for as long as it can. The game is currently sporting a 78 on Metacritic.
Kane & Lynch m I rite?
hamburger helper on
0
Posts
It's not that common. Not with web press, anyway. I've been working writing for sites for 3 or 4 years now, and this has only ever happened a few times.
I can confirm this is true, though. I've got my review sitting right here, and I can't publish it. It's a 7, by the way.
XBL/PSN/Steam: APZonerunner
(Iirc swedish Pc Gamer (or was is SuperPlay?), said fuck it and explained to the readers why they would get the review a month later instead because they did not accept those terms).
(The whole Gerstman-bomb was not all that clear to me, I saw the Gerstmans review before it was taken down & it was amateurish to be honest. Not amateurish enough to be fired though, just too much nonsense ranting).
I have noticed, though, that outside of the top four or five Big Fucking Name games this season, most other game reviews are either tragically late or quietly ignored. I'm trying to remember if it's always been like this in the fall/winter crush of games.
If you go to the G4 blog, you'll find their Xplay review (3/5) and a note on this story.
Well, it was amusing to me at least.
Care to share a link?
It is what it is.
Linky
Story is currently at the top of the page, a little over halfway down, you'll find the Xplay review.
They're asking. What exactly is stopping them from doing so anyway? Or is this a legal bullshit thing?
Most publications abide by and follow these rules to the letter, yes. The reason is simple - you can't blame them really.
You've got to remain competitive, and in this area of journalism to be competitive is to get your reviews first. You can't review without having played the game. If they say "we'll send you the game 3 weeks early as long as you do x and y," unless the terms are ridiculous you're going to accept. 3 weeks is a lot of valuable playing, writing, editing, screenshotting and videoing, encoding, uploading, etc etc time.
If you don't comply with the demands, you don't get the game, and if you say you'll comply then don't, their next big release won't make it's way to you.
The problem is with this Tomb Raider thing is it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't deliberate set of options laid out by Eidos. Another journo friend of mine who works for the UK arm of a big publication called it a "cut off your dick or cut off your balls" decision.
You can either raise your score (for example, mine was a 7.6 - do I push that by .4 to an 8 to publish early) and essentially lie to your readers, or do you lose out on potential readers and give your rivals a nice juicy first review and headstart?
Eidos is backpedaling now - they've just sent me an email saying I can go 'at my leisure' now. But the site I'm reviewing this for is debating not bothering at all now - they're not worth the publicity.
XBL/PSN/Steam: APZonerunner
We are an audience of Gamers and probably fans of technology in general. I know that not all techies have that "All information wants to be free" schtick (I'm not talking about piracy), but...trying to limit my access to information just so that you can try and sell a few extra copies?
No thanks. Let me make up my own mind. Either let me try the game out (Demo on PSN please) or let me read as many opinions of your game as I want. Trying to keep this stuff out of circulation is just...foolish and outdated.
Yeah, I know. Reviews can help make or break a sell. You know what does that as well? Making a good game. Shocking.
[/rant]
I think you answered much of it in your last sentence with the word "crush." There's an absolute shitton of games coming out and a finite number of people who can review them. Not to mention reviewing the average game takes a fair amount of work... you generally have to put in at least a full day playing it to do it justice. So sites have to prioritize. That's why the Big Fucking Names get out there quick, while the latest bit of shovelware gets pushed to the side.
That said, I wonder if there is more "reviewer management" going on... satisfying certain conditions before you can review it, or ye olde tactic of the publisher not sending out a game early if they think it's a turkey, in hopes that giving the reader no information will be better for sales than negative reviews. I haven't reviewed games in quite some time so I couldn't say.
It's probably a little of Column A, a little of Column B. Reviewing the marquee games (especially with online components and sandbox-y things like LBP) must take dozens of hours.
Though it's funny, I was trying to think back if it was this bad in terms of review silence last fall, but the games I was buying (Trauma Center, Rock Band) were pretty much review-proof anyway. Though it seems more amplified this year. Like, I'm used to Wii reviews been difficult to find, but now they're almost impossible.
It's kind of a chicken-and-egg scenario, though; the gaming press is only responding to the ravenous needs of the die-hard gamer, who proclaims everything under 9 as not worthy of their time in Q4.
Boiling an entire game that will have numerous good and bad points that will appeal to or be disliked differently by people with numerous preferences, down to a single number, and ascribing any importance to that number, is, in a word, ridiculous.
Only the text of a review, objectively describing what the game promises and how well it delivers, can truly serve as a valid reference for the game's quality and how well you personally are likely to enjoy it.
Although honestly, most of my game buying decisions these days are based on seeing how you guys talk about playing something and deciding whether or not I'd like what's described.
PSN:RevDrGalactus/NN:RevDrGalactus/Steam
Anyone holding a review back is doing so on their own.
NintendoID: Nailbunny 3DS: 3909-8796-4685
Kinda curious if other reviewers felt pressured to keep their "sub-8" score reviews under wraps.
tl;dr
Numbers are terrible, especially when they spiral out beyond a four- or five-point scale (personally, I think a three-point buy/rent/avoid scale is perfect), but I think most people freak the fuck out when they're not there because they aren't used to spending time thinking about if certain game qualities are positives or negatives to their own tastes.
The thing numbers are useful for is when trying to look at an overall critical consensus instead of individual reviews.
I was just about to post something to this effect. Looking at one number is silly, looking at a bunch or at an average gives you useful information. Of course you have to read the reviews to get the details, but the scores aren't totally worthless.
-if it's like tomb raider II or III, don't buy.
-if it's like tomb raider: legends, good to buy if you like the tomb raider series
Of course they can (do that bit about equine anatomy), but that's not something that the everyman considers when making a purchase. All that many people care about is
1) Is it good?
2) Is is appropriate?
And that's in descending order. We care about these sorts of things because we're enthusiasts that spend a significant amount of time (where we can) playing games and looking at the industry. While we've, in most cases, the vast majority of our life playing games and expressing genuine interest in the growth of the industry or medium of entertainment (whichever you prefer), most other people out there haven't. Eidos is in the business of making money, not making good games. It's pretty funny. If you look at their "About Us" blurb on their website, you get this feeling of blandness. I couldn't even find a mission statement.
The corporate structure exists to make money, not appease us. We can stand on our high ground and call them out all we want, but I'd bet you that, if they started making games just for us, they'd lose money in the short/medium term. They'd probably make it back a little later (God forbid they create a great license and don't beat it to death), but most higher-ups don't see that far ahead because they have no interest in doing so. Cash in, get out. It's an old corporate slogan that's as immobile as Mt. Everest.
I can kind of see the point, since a lot of AAA games cost so much money to make, but come on. Personally I don't put much stock in review scores, I just play what looks interesting to me (a gamefly account helps with this endeavor), or take advice from you fine folks. I just find the practice a bit ridiculous.
Speaking of PC Gamer UK, they give this 86%. And it is also a very good magazine.