Here’s another take on this whole EGM fiasco…
As you might be aware, Konami have been trying their very best to keep Metal Gear Solid 4’s plotline very hush-hush, only allowing magazines and websites to talk about the game on the condition that they keep the game’s entire plot under wraps. From the official UK PS3 magazine to industry publication Edge, all have written about what they’ve seen without mentioning the ending or the involvement of the characters. IGN has also mentioned that Konami’s list of no-nos was pretty extensive, but their review is chock-full of everything else.
Well, instead of Metal Gear Solid 4 being THE story in gaming for this month, EGM attempts to make themselves THE story, instead of just reporting it.
More diva-like attitude and temper tantrums, after the jump.
You can understand the reasoning behind Konami’s decision. After all this is Metal Gear Solid 4, one of PS3’s biggest games ever (not just this year), the end of the era of Solid Snake. Konami’s want to restrain the voices of journalists, for the sake of blocking any spoilers, makes perfect sense. You’d hate to open your favourite publication and discover the ending.
You can expect to see Snake gracing the cover of almost every single PS3 and multi-format magazine this month, as without a doubt this is one of the biggest games in the industry this year. Not Electronic Gaming Monthly though. They have Gears of War’s Marcus Fenix gracing their front page instead, and the only PS3 news on the cover involves the Bioshock port coming later in the year.
A flick inside reveals that the editorial staff decided against giving out a review score, meaning that effectively MGS4 remains an unreviewed game in the pages of EGM. Citing Konami’s want to “impose limitations on out comments”, they’ve opted for a round-table discussion instead, with staff members voicing their opinions on what they liked and disliked about the game’s features.
Whose side is right to take? Is it wrong of EGM to slate Konami’s decision to block spoilers and refrain from ‘officially’ reviewing the game, or is Konami being too heavy-handed in their approach to MGS4’s storyline? Personally, I can see the reasoning behind Konami’s spoiler-blocking, and I think Electronic Gaming Monthly have been a little harsh in their approach to looking at the game. After all, practically every other publication and website has pulled off a review of the game’s features, with IGN simply commenting that “part of the pleasure of playing Guns of the Patriots lies in discovering everything it has to offer.”
Regardless of limitations, most reviewers would refrain from spoiling the plot due to the risk of aggravating their readership. EGM are acting a little harshly with regards to Konami’s perfectly reasonable restrictions and I think that next issue, they should churn out a score based on everything the game has to offer, not just the plotline.
Source: Mag Roundup 5/31/08 - GameSetWatch
![[Post to Twitter]](http://sarcasticgamer.com/wp/wp-content/plugins/tweet-this/tweet-this-small.png)
Tweet This
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
17 responses so far ↓
1 jeff // Jun 3, 2008 at 9:40 am
It wasn’t just because of some spoiler-free policy.
There weren’t allowed to mention thins such as the length of cut-scenes, the duration of the installation process and the size it would take, …
I think they did well they should be allowed to talk about mgs4 defects. If you start complying to such restrictions imposed by editors, what will be the next step ?
2 Lono // Jun 3, 2008 at 9:51 am
@ jeff: EGM got an early release copy BECAUSE they made an agreement with Konami to not talk about that stuff… Then EGM throws a public fit and refuses to review the game because of their agreed upon stipulations??? What the heck is that all about?
Companies provide review copies of games all the time to big review sites with stipulations attached. The only difference in this case is that EGM is basically seeking to break those stipulations and telling Konami that they either allow EGM to break the embargo on the hush hush stuff, or EGM will throw a fit like a whiny little baby and cry foul in their magazine. That’s ridiculous.
Read between the lines Jeff. It’s not as black and white as it seems.
3 jeff // Jun 3, 2008 at 10:09 am
Ok so considering what you’ve said I admit that EGM’s behaviour sounds a bit like a cry baby.
However I do think that those forbidden topics are part of the game experience and should be evocated freely to give the reader a more objective global appreciation of the game.
I don’t see the point for Konami, I mean most of PS3 owners will buy the game anyway. If I could afford it I’d buy the PS3 just for it.
So EGM tried to break the agreement they accepted, that’s wrong. They would have better shut up and review the game once released.
But I find the controversy helpful in the way that it reminds us that pre-release review are somewhat controlled by the editor.
4 slik1000 // Jun 3, 2008 at 10:29 am
I think it’s a but unfair that restictions were put in place on any of the review companies. When did you ever read a review of anything that genuinley spoiled the game? The story of MGS games are what keep me involved (God knows I needed it towards the end of MGS2).
If I cant get the full review on all aspects of the game I aint going to buy it, and I am absolutley not going to drop for a PS3 anymore, at least ’till I hear a full review.
5 Rocket badger // Jun 3, 2008 at 10:46 am
it sounds like EGM is tring to get some publicity off this but throwing a fit.
soon the review will come out and the whole thing will be revised.
and a review goesnt matter every PS3 on the planet is going to have this disc in it when it comes out so the review inst going to change the fans or the most anticipated game for the PS#
6 Lono // Jun 3, 2008 at 10:49 am
@Silk1000: You know how EGM could get around those “restrictions” ?
Buy the game themselves… Then review it. There’s no restrictions attached when they personally pony up the money for it.
They got the game for free, weeks before it actually comes out and in exchange agreed not to talk about certain things. THEN they went public and bitched about the agreement they freely made with Konami.
Yeah, it’s a total publicity stunt.
7 slik1000 // Jun 3, 2008 at 11:06 am
They still ran an article though. Five pages of words with a round table discussion because they knew that they weren’t going to put their journalistic integrity on the line and let it be held to ransom. What happens if you get this and it the story sucks? Is the 10/10 gameplay going to keep you interested for very long?
8 Yamster // Jun 3, 2008 at 11:44 am
@slik1000: Reviews from several outlets including IGN and the official UK PS3 magazine have said, without any sort of spoiler, that the story is one helluva rollercoaster ride and will not be a disappointment. Just because they can’t give details of the story doesn’t mean they can’t tell you what to expect.
9 slik1000 // Jun 3, 2008 at 11:53 am
thats true, but THIS editor obviously thought that he couldnt give an accurate score without discussing a part of the game. I wonder what Metacritic will do? will they ignore this review, or assign a number to it?
10 Keith K // Jun 3, 2008 at 11:58 am
I for one would just like to see the entire review process die.
I find the fact that some shmoe works for a publication makes his opinion more relevant than my own insulting.
The fact that ANYONE can rent the game and form their own opinions for half the price it would cost to buy that magazine really makes me reconsider that magazines value.
11 Yamster // Jun 3, 2008 at 12:15 pm
@slik1000: Metacritic tend to assign numbers if no specific score is given.
@Keith K: Magazine reviews are generally there to provide consumer advice for those uncertain about renting games or buying them. It’s a lot cheaper to buy a magazine and read reviews of several games you like the look of than it is to rent every single game you’re interested in.
Usually these opinions can be quite accurate, but if you’re unsure, you can optionally choose to rent it, but I usually find that I can rely on the opinions of magazines and websites. And, as above, there’s always Metacritic.
12 Lono // Jun 3, 2008 at 12:34 pm
@Silk1000: How could any reviewer realistically say that they couldn’t give a good review based on Konami’s restrictions? AND if that is in fact the case, that they couldn’t give an accurate review, then why agree to it in the first place, get the game, play it through and then bitch when it came time to review it???
The only thing that makes sense to me is that EGM is trying to get some pub in an attempt to earn some gamer cred by “standing up” to Konami…
I thinks its all a bunch of peacock crap…
13 Tweepe // Jun 3, 2008 at 2:21 pm
I know it’s not the point of THIS article, but I think I would rather see round table discussions on certain games rather than extremely high scores. GTA IV was a 10, that number tells me little but that it’s excellent, I’d rather hear the round table discussion… MGS4 is the same thing, review scores are going to be astronomical so tell me something I didn’t know.
Lono’s right though: EGM has a new editor and he’s making his play for “Street Cred” which comes across as a load of crap.
14 Lurkero // Jun 3, 2008 at 3:33 pm
I think that you guys are blowing it out of proportion. My interpretation of what EGM did is that they didn’t want to assign a score to the review without specifically mentioning why the score was given. They just wanted the review to be as accurate as possible.
I’ve read the review and there is nothin but positives said about MGS4. It’s not like they were trying to defame it because of the install. In fact, I don’t think that the install will affect the actual review too much because that shouldn’t be considered a true part of the game.
Although, EGM has been gathering a lot of attention lately.
15 Lono // Jun 3, 2008 at 3:47 pm
You don’t think that not reviewing MGS4 when the no.1 gaming magazine ships a week before the game comes out isn’t a middle finger to Konami??? that cost Konami a ton of advertising dough, by not getting a review in that magazine. Don’t kid yourself.
16 Lurkero // Jun 3, 2008 at 4:06 pm
“We’d rather just wait until the next issue, where we can be completely open and thorough with our thoughts” - EGM
I agree that EGM should have just bought the game if they didn’t agree with the rules. However, the article gives the impression that EGM did not REVIEW the game when in fact I think they did. What EGM didn’t do was give a SCORE. Does every review really need a score to mean something?
[There was ironically no advertisement for MGS4 in the issue. I think we know why.]
17 Julian // Jun 4, 2008 at 2:01 am
Really I think this was a lame attempt on EGM’s part to try and shout from the bell tower about how “ethical” they are given all the industry snafu’s in that area recently.
Think about it. Konami didn’t want them to mention total cutscene lengths and the apparent installations between acts. What bearing would those items have on a review score?
I have yet to see a game have points deducted because of cutscenes unless they were horrible. In fact, if the scenes enhance and fill out the storyline they could actually be positives. Also, the installation between acts. That’s basically the same as a loading screen. Again, what bearing would that have on a score? We have yet to hear from EGM how long the game is overall. IF lets say the game is 20 hours or longer, how would 90 minutes of cutscene be out of place or a negative? Additionally, other sites aren’t mentioning this as a negative even though they’ve MENTIONED it overall. That’s kind of a sign that it’s probably not significant to the overall perception and scoring of the game; at least certainly not in a negative way.
Overall again, I think EGM was lame in doing this. They took something which is apparently minor and used it as an excuse to try and score some cheap PR for themselves, not to mention as others have pointed out, they used it as an excuse to try and break out of their agreement with Konami that got them the game pre-release to begin with! This is lame and smacks of desperation on their part. Desperation to trumpet how “superior” they are to their competition. If anyone actually buys that act, it’s sad. Just review the darn thing and let us know! If reviewers thing cutscenes detract from the game, show it in the rating!
These items are so insignificant. It’s not like Konami told people they could review the game as long as they didn’t mention any glitches or performance issues, for example, something that would impact gameplay. Shame on you, EGM!
Leave a Comment