I'm wondering about the leaps of logic from "They liked the game" to "They were PAID TO SAY GOOD THINGS ONLY" to "THE GAME IS BAD"
Like, sometimes there are things that are good, that people like, and that come from companies.
Exactly. It seems like some people (including the guy that started this whole mess) want Batman Arkham Asylum to be bad just so they can go 'loleidos'. If editors at Games Master start quitting or getting fired over this (ala Gamespot) then I'll get angry, otherwise it's just a bullshit assumption.
I don't think Snugglesworth was wrong to assume that a terrible review like that sounds like moneyhatting: How many honest reviews have you seen like that? Two of the three cons listed are "HOLY SHIT IT'S SO FUCKING AWESOME." And a 96%? I'm willing to believe that these guys made a good Batman game; however, I'm not quite so ready to believe that they made a triple-A game of astounding quality.
So on one hand, I'd have to say that, yes, it certainly doesn't sound honest. On the other hand, what the fuck is Games Master? I've never even heard of this fucking magazine. Maybe it really is just a terrible review.
UnbreakableVow on
0
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
So on one hand, I'd have to say that, yes, it certainly doesn't sound honest. On the other hand, what the fuck is Games Master? I've never even heard of this fucking magazine. Maybe it really is just a terrible review.
Pretty much this. If you have a space to list cons, list some fucking cons. Every game has them, and any reviewer worth his salt can come up with two or three. I'm willing to believe that this is a crap reviewer who just loves Batman and liked the game a lot. If the game turns out to be shit on toast, then the idea that he was paid to say stuff like that by the publisher will seem more likely. If the game is awesome, he's still a crap reviewer.
Its a UK magazine that used to be attached to a TV show where there was a big floating head of Sir Patrick Moore that was the "games master", honestly my first thought seeing it was "holy shit is that still going it has to be like 15 fucking years old now"
Exactly. Who the hell are these people, anyway? Do they have any sort of credibility, or are they another Gamepro?
I dunno, I'd say there's a chance of moneyhatting since the review is just so slobbering, but it could be it's just poorly written. I absolutely love, say, Fallout 3, but I could easily pull out three bad things about the game.
“With regards to an article posted on RamRaider alleging that Eidos has fixed review scores for Batman: Arkham Asylum, we want to state that no discussions have been held about review scores with any magazines. In short there is simply not one shred of truth in this article, except for the title of the game.†Jon Brooke, Head of UK Marketing, Eidos.
“With regards to an article posted on RamRaider alleging that Eidos has fixed review scores for Batman: Arkham Asylum, we want to state that no discussions have been held about review scores with any magazines. In short there is simply not one shred of truth in this article, except for the title of the game.†Jon Brooke, Head of UK Marketing, Eidos.
"No discussions have been held, we give you your review and you fucking publish it, if you want to be a journalist don't get into game reviewing."
Wouldn't be the first time. This is Eidos, after all.
This is the games industry, after all. They're far from the first publisher to do it and it'll continue to happen until game 'journalists' stop relying on publishers giving them shit (ads, review copies, etc).
As for Games Master, they've been around for years. I used to have a few of their magazines from the early PS1 days, though I threw them (and nearly all my old magazines) out a couple of years back.
Did Game Masters have a deal inked out with Eidos to only publish the review early if they gave it over 90%? Judging from the review and everything that's been leaking out from time to time and especially after the whole Gamespot debacle then yes it's obvious that Eidos said you can publish this if you give us a good mark for the game. The game cover was likely part of the deal as it usually is for these things and has been rumored and spoken of a lot before, it's the dirty little secret of video game reviewing despite the fact everyone knows it, it just doesn't get spoken of much.
But yeah it's obvious to anyone that pays attention to these things that Eidos is pulling the strings of some reviewers for a good mark but then many PR for such companies do so.
Wouldn't be the first time. This is Eidos, after all.
This is the games industry, after all. They're far from the first publisher to do it and it'll continue to happen until game 'journalists' stop relying on publishers giving them shit (ads, review copies, etc).
As for Games Master, they've been around for years. I used to have a few of their magazines from the early PS1 days, though I threw them (and nearly all my old magazines) out a couple of years back.
Oh and it's Square Enix Europe now.
This happens will all press of all kinds. Remember when reporters were getting their White House access revoked for asking tough questions during the past few years?
Movie reviewers also rely on the movie studios for access to preview copies and their magazines/papers rely on the studios for some advertising. It doesn't just happen in games.
Cronus on
"Read twice, post once. It's almost like 'measure twice, cut once' only with reading." - MetaverseNomad
0
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
edited July 2009
Blah, this is why I wait for either a demo or a forum thread before I can buy a game.
Exactly. Who the hell are these people, anyway? Do they have any sort of credibility, or are they another Gamepro?
Gamesmaster is shit, the show has not been on for like 10 years and I would be surprised if they didn't promise that score for the exclusive, I am amazed they are still going and probably do what they can to keep selling.
Venkman90 on
0
Olivawgood name, isn't it?the foot of mt fujiRegistered Userregular
edited July 2009
I really hope the game turns out to be just as amazing as that article says it is, not just because I want a great Batman game, but because I want some of you people to eat it
It's good to be skeptical and everything, but some of you are all like "MAN FUCK EIDOS RAAAAAAAR" and we haven't even played the game yet. What are they, the new Electronic Arts?
I really hope the game turns out to be just as amazing as that article says it is, not just because I want a great Batman game, but because I want some of you people to eat it
It's good to be skeptical and everything, but some of you are all like "MAN FUCK EIDOS RAAAAAAAR" and we haven't even played the game yet. What are they, the new Electronic Arts?
People still do it about EA as well, it gets kind of boring.
Personally I think the game looks good and it's pretty easy to tell a bad game from a good game. I'm not saying it looks 96% good but I'm tempted to get it at release even if there aren't other reviews out.
I don't pay attention to this shit but Activision published Prototype so they're alright by me
Take a look at the last few pages of the Brutal Legend thread.
Maybe you could link it
Basically, activision was publishing it first, then dropped it because it couldn't be 'exploited'. EA picked it up, and then once activision saw how popular it was looking, they tried to sue people and stop it from being published.
Every big company wants to exploit sequels. It's just that EA has figured out they need to make new IP every now and then...to start making new sequels. Activision hasn't yet.
Also we should be directing more of this corporate hate towards GameStop, who is holding Dem Bones hostage.
Monthenor on
0
miscellaneousinsanitygrass grows, birds fly, sun shines,and brother, i hurt peopleRegistered Userregular
"Exploited" means that Activision no longer publishes games that they can't milk for sequels. It is worst policy, spoken by ugliest executive.
The saddest thing is a little IP who is told by her own publisher that she will never be marketable. And then they open the front door, and on the porch is a little white suitcase, with all of her things in it.
"Exploited" means that Activision no longer publishes games that they can't milk for sequels. It is worst policy, spoken by ugliest executive.
The saddest thing is a little IP who is told by her own publisher that she will never be marketable. And then they open the front door, and on the porch is a little white suitcase, with all of her things in it.
"Exploited" means that Activision no longer publishes games that they can't milk for sequels. It is worst policy, spoken by ugliest executive.
The saddest thing is a little IP who is told by her own publisher that she will never be marketable. And then they open the front door, and on the porch is a little white suitcase, with all of her things in it.
Nooo!
I'd cry, but I'm watching the next scene where she wins the Miss America pageant and is giving a speech about how much her old publisher can go to hell.
Cronus on
"Read twice, post once. It's almost like 'measure twice, cut once' only with reading." - MetaverseNomad
"Exploited" means that Activision no longer publishes games that they can't milk for sequels. It is worst policy, spoken by ugliest executive.
The saddest thing is a little IP who is told by her own publisher that she will never be marketable. And then they open the front door, and on the porch is a little white suitcase, with all of her things in it.
Nooo!
I'd cry, but I'm watching the next scene where she wins the Miss America pageant and is giving a speech about how much her old publisher can go to hell.
Yeah, but in the scene after that Activision shows up at her at hotel room, tells her that he still owns her ass and tries to rape her.
Every big company wants to exploit sequels. It's just that EA has figured out they need to make new IP every now and then...to start making new sequels. Activision hasn't yet.
Also we should be directing more of this corporate hate towards GameStop, who is holding Dem Bones hostage.
EA (and most other publishers) are also smart enough to not openly admit they're exploiting their franchises. Activision is not.
Earlier, The RAM Raider accused Eidos of trying to fix review scores for Batman: Arkham Asylum, a claim Eidos categorically denied. Now one magazine's exclusive review fits all the conditions said to have been made.
Games Master's got "the world's first review" of the game, and man, is it glowing. Eidos, which had been behind earlier efforts to rig scores and favorable reviews or pump up accolades for its games, is said to have put an embargo on reviews of Arkham Asylum until the end of this month. But, according to TRR, it was willing to lift the embargo for any magazine that featured the game on its cover and gave it a score of at least 90 percent. Eidos' head of UK marketing said all of that was straight bullshit.
Well, bingo, Games Master gave it a 96. "Not only the best Batman game ever, but one of the finest adventures of its generation," they wrote. In the love and hate bullet points, GM hated "that it has to end."
Now, Batman: Arkham Asylum may deserve that score. It looks great, and I definitely want to play it. And certainly the nonexclusive reviews will provide more context. But still, it's awfully convenient that someone gets an exclusive review, and they give the game nearly perfect marks.
I've tried contacting Games Master through its affiliated site, Games Radar, in case they want to add anything. If so, I'll update it here.
Every big company wants to exploit sequels. It's just that EA has figured out they need to make new IP every now and then...to start making new sequels. Activision hasn't yet.
Also we should be directing more of this corporate hate towards GameStop, who is holding Dem Bones hostage.
EA (and most other publishers) are also smart enough to not openly admit they're exploiting their franchises. Activision is not.
See, I always took that as normal CEO speak. When we hear "exploit" we think Guatemalan children chained to sewing machines, but when a CEO says it they think "leverage/utilize". I imagine 50% of the shit that comes out their mouths would piss a normal person off.
What it does mean is that Activision's CEO is bad with PR, and that's reason enough to fire his ass. And frankly I don't think we'd mind annual sequels to GH or Tony Hawk if they weren't so very bad.
Every big company wants to exploit sequels. It's just that EA has figured out they need to make new IP every now and then...to start making new sequels. Activision hasn't yet.
Also we should be directing more of this corporate hate towards GameStop, who is holding Dem Bones hostage.
What are Dem Bones? And why does it sound like the opening line of a joke told by your brother-in-law?
And while all companies exploit their franchises, Activision has said they outright refuse to publish anything nowadays that can't have one or more sequels per year. They've taken exploitation to a silly new level.
Posts
I think it's a mispelling of "moneyhatting," from this comic:
Like, sometimes there are things that are good, that people like, and that come from companies.
Exactly. It seems like some people (including the guy that started this whole mess) want Batman Arkham Asylum to be bad just so they can go 'loleidos'. If editors at Games Master start quitting or getting fired over this (ala Gamespot) then I'll get angry, otherwise it's just a bullshit assumption.
So on one hand, I'd have to say that, yes, it certainly doesn't sound honest. On the other hand, what the fuck is Games Master? I've never even heard of this fucking magazine. Maybe it really is just a terrible review.
Pretty much this. If you have a space to list cons, list some fucking cons. Every game has them, and any reviewer worth his salt can come up with two or three. I'm willing to believe that this is a crap reviewer who just loves Batman and liked the game a lot. If the game turns out to be shit on toast, then the idea that he was paid to say stuff like that by the publisher will seem more likely. If the game is awesome, he's still a crap reviewer.
I dunno, I'd say there's a chance of moneyhatting since the review is just so slobbering, but it could be it's just poorly written. I absolutely love, say, Fallout 3, but I could easily pull out three bad things about the game.
http://ramraider.blogspot.com/2009/07/eidos-seek-90-score-cover-for-arkham.html
Eidos claims it is a lie, however.
"No discussions have been held, we give you your review and you fucking publish it, if you want to be a journalist don't get into game reviewing."
This is the games industry, after all. They're far from the first publisher to do it and it'll continue to happen until game 'journalists' stop relying on publishers giving them shit (ads, review copies, etc).
As for Games Master, they've been around for years. I used to have a few of their magazines from the early PS1 days, though I threw them (and nearly all my old magazines) out a couple of years back.
Oh and it's Square Enix Europe now.
But yeah it's obvious to anyone that pays attention to these things that Eidos is pulling the strings of some reviewers for a good mark but then many PR for such companies do so.
This happens will all press of all kinds. Remember when reporters were getting their White House access revoked for asking tough questions during the past few years?
Movie reviewers also rely on the movie studios for access to preview copies and their magazines/papers rely on the studios for some advertising. It doesn't just happen in games.
"Read twice, post once. It's almost like 'measure twice, cut once' only with reading." - MetaverseNomad
Gamesmaster is shit, the show has not been on for like 10 years and I would be surprised if they didn't promise that score for the exclusive, I am amazed they are still going and probably do what they can to keep selling.
It's good to be skeptical and everything, but some of you are all like "MAN FUCK EIDOS RAAAAAAAR" and we haven't even played the game yet. What are they, the new Electronic Arts?
PSN ID : DetectiveOlivaw | TWITTER | STEAM ID | NEVER FORGET
People still do it about EA as well, it gets kind of boring.
Personally I think the game looks good and it's pretty easy to tell a bad game from a good game. I'm not saying it looks 96% good but I'm tempted to get it at release even if there aren't other reviews out.
I want to know more PA people on Twitter.
No sir, i believe that would be Activision.
I don't pay attention to this shit but Activision published Prototype so they're alright by me
PSN ID : DetectiveOlivaw | TWITTER | STEAM ID | NEVER FORGET
Take a look at the last few pages of the Brutal Legend thread.
Steam // Secret Satan
Wait, wait, wait.... 92, 96, 91 = Overall 96?
Maybe you could link it
PSN ID : DetectiveOlivaw | TWITTER | STEAM ID | NEVER FORGET
Basically, activision was publishing it first, then dropped it because it couldn't be 'exploited'. EA picked it up, and then once activision saw how popular it was looking, they tried to sue people and stop it from being published.
Around halfway down page 20 shows one of the reasons why they dropped it.
Steam // Secret Satan
Also we should be directing more of this corporate hate towards GameStop, who is holding Dem Bones hostage.
INSTAGRAM | ART TUMBLR | OCCASIONAL TWEETS
Nooo!
PSN ID : DetectiveOlivaw | TWITTER | STEAM ID | NEVER FORGET
I'd cry, but I'm watching the next scene where she wins the Miss America pageant and is giving a speech about how much her old publisher can go to hell.
"Read twice, post once. It's almost like 'measure twice, cut once' only with reading." - MetaverseNomad
Yeah, but in the scene after that Activision shows up at her at hotel room, tells her that he still owns her ass and tries to rape her.
EA (and most other publishers) are also smart enough to not openly admit they're exploiting their franchises. Activision is not.
Presumably not an average.
What it does mean is that Activision's CEO is bad with PR, and that's reason enough to fire his ass. And frankly I don't think we'd mind annual sequels to GH or Tony Hawk if they weren't so very bad.
What are Dem Bones? And why does it sound like the opening line of a joke told by your brother-in-law?
And while all companies exploit their franchises, Activision has said they outright refuse to publish anything nowadays that can't have one or more sequels per year. They've taken exploitation to a silly new level.