Editor's blog: Exclusive reviews?

By Tom Bramwell Published 30 January, 2009

What you're actually looking at.

On Thursday we published our review of Killzone 2. You probably spotted that. What you might also have noticed is reports that we - in the words of our friends at Kikizo - "agreed an exclusive with the publisher", in this case Sony.

Exclusive reviews are about as old as games themselves. Well, they're certainly about as old as I am. To some extent they're a peculiarity of videogames, but that's a subject for another time - what's driving a lot of discussion at the moment is the question of whether they're credible, because of the seemingly paradoxical relationship that must exist between the publication reviewing the game and the people who made it.

The conundrum is pretty clear. Any period of exclusivity relating to a big game - whether it's a review, a preview, screenshots or video - is beneficial to the publication hosting it, but in the case of reviews it's also the publication's job to protect its readers by honestly examining the game and deciding whether it's good or not, and explaining why. Given that videogame publishers are so openly desperate to control public opinion of their output, the assumption is that the content of an exclusive review must be controlled in some way by the publisher, or else they wouldn't dare agree to it.

That view is supported - at least at face value - by a number of public spats over reviews down the years. The one that springs most vividly to mind is Atari's DRIV3R, which met with wildly hostile reviews in the summer of 2004 - except for a pair of exclusive reviews that both decided it was worth 9/10. Then last year, IGN explained its exclusive review of Grand Theft Auto IV by revealing that it effectively traded a week of frontpage preview features beforehand to secure it.

There's no proof - and I'm not suggesting - that the content of any of the reviews mentioned was actually drawn up or directly manipulated by the people who published the games in question, but it's not hard to see why exclusive reviews light up the message boards and comment threads whenever their status is confirmed.

Which brings us to Eurogamer's Killzone 2 review, which is an exclusive in the sense that it is published several days ahead of a general embargo to which other publications have agreed. Other reviews released on Thursday include IGN, Jeuxvideo and Gamereactor, and the word is that an avalanche of others will blanket the internet early next week. So how did it happen? And am I writing this from the comfort of a glimmering Sony yacht made out of diamonds, as legions of surplus Blu-ray diodes rub lotion into my neck and Kaz Hirai serenades me with his version of the Ridge Racer jingle?

Well, I'm not on a yacht (and I'm not sure I want to be on that yacht, now I've made it up), but I can tell you what happened. Late last year, Sony's UK PRs told me that we could have a brief "regional" exclusive on the Killzone 2 review. It's not the first time this has happened with Sony - the same was true of LittleBigPlanet - so the rules were well established. The rules are: I'm happy to do it, providing that it's a game that I want us to cover, and providing Sony understands it does not have advance access to the text, and does not have text approval.

With that agreed, we received copies of the game before Christmas to begin preparing - along with a finished build of the game a week or so before yesterday's embargo - and as well as playing the single-player game to completion, our reviewer Dan Whitehead was able to play online with a large group of people mustered by Sony in order to assess the multiplayer aspect, having already experienced a large part of it on last year's closed beta test.

Dan then wrote the review. The only influence Sony had over proceedings (besides filling out the multiplayer games with their own staff, who Dan viciously murdered) was to specify when it could be published: 5pm GMT on 29th January. I wasn't asked to publish any additional content, and Sony only discovered that the game was getting 9/10 when I told my PR contact as a courtesy after the publication date had been finalised.

Whether Sony would have back-pedalled and tried to get out of it had Dan decided to give the game a lower score is something I can only speculate about. I don't know. But I can say that nobody from Sony has ever asked us to hold off publication of a review - exclusive or otherwise - beyond the embargoes agreed across all publications given advance access to review code, preview sessions or developer and executive interviews. Even when we've delivered an unflattering verdict - as with echochrome and MotorStorm: Pacific Rift last year - nothing was said to me in anger, and no attempts were made to shield you from what we thought.

Not every publisher behaves this way. There are others - in my experience - who are happy to agree to an exclusive review, but only if they agree with the score. But as I've discussed before in a previous blog about the impact (or lack of it) that advertising has on editorial, I believe there is no long-term future in a website - or publication of any sort - that attempts to secure commercially valuable commodities that betray the sovereignty of editorial in the process. So if we don't think something is worth the score a publisher wants, it doesn't get the score a publisher wants, and the review goes live with the general embargo. This has happened about half a dozen times in the past year, and occasionally results in punitive measures taken against us by the publisher in the shape of restricted access or withdrawal of advertising money. Such is life.

Ultimately, it's up to you whether you think that's a fair way to operate, but the most important point is that, as I wrote earlier this month, if you disagree with something on Eurogamer - whether it's the selection of content or the text therein - you are simply disagreeing with our conclusions, which are our own, and it's up to you whether they amount to a site you want to read.

Tom.

Picture of Tom.

About Tom Bramwell

Tom is Operations director of Eurogamer Network and Editor-at-Large of Eurogamer.net. He joined the company in February 2000.

Read more articles from Tom by visiting the Tom Bramwell archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (102) Latest comment 3 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • Borealis_UK #1 3 years ago

    Great article.

  • b00n #2 3 years ago

    Thanks for that! Interesting read, good job.

  • mister_moo #3 3 years ago

    Well said.

    It would be nice if the majority of the idiots on the EG forums would actually respect a review as an opinion rather than tearing it to shreds.

    Immature, fanboy twats.
    Edited by 1 at 30/01/09 @ 19:13

  • BigJonno #4 3 years ago

    I give this article 10/10. Now start singing, Bramwell.

    :D

  • ChaK #5 3 years ago

    good reading, thx for the light.

  • gamotakon #6 3 years ago

    Excellent article!

  • ScarOnTheSky #7 3 years ago

    I'm a journalist myself (though not a games journalist): Stay true to your editiorial principles, EG! That's what I like about this website the most.

  • Tehren #8 3 years ago

    "The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is."

    Not bad for a jowly insurance hound, and I applaud EG for serving that truth daily.

    Apart from Fable II, which was About As Good As Halo, Maybe.

  • Hunam #9 3 years ago

    Who are the bad guys then? You are telling me that Sony are a good bunch and that's pretty cool, but on the same side, if a publisher (well call them Tfosibu) throws a hissy fit because you have their game (less say Cssassins Areed) a 7/10 why don't we hear about that more often? Obviously you rely on publishers as you said for advertising money and code etc, but is it fair to you guys if all you can do is weather it out till they come around and start treating you right again? Seems to me you can be pretty powerless in those situations.

    Just wondering about your thoughts on that Tom.

  • Nuggie #10 3 years ago

    Really good article EG, nice one

  • Mugwum Verified Operations Director, Eurogamer Network #11 3 years ago

    Hey Hunam,

    "Who are the bad guys then? You are telling me that Sony are a good bunch and that's pretty cool, but on the same side, if a publisher (well call them Tfosibu) throws a hissy fit because you have their game (less say Cssassins Areed) a 7/10 why don't we hear about that more often? Obviously you rely on publishers as you said for advertising money and code etc, but is it fair to you guys if all you can do is weather it out till they come around and start treating you right again? Seems to me you can be pretty powerless in those situations."

    The thing that stops me writing about publishers who kick me about is that the games they make are innocent bystanders, and I don't want to drag them - or the people who actually make them - into a negative spotlight when I can try and handle it behind the scenes. Publishers give me a hard time, and I'd like to write about it, but it wouldn't be fair on the games.

    Hope that makes sense.

  • Spekingur #12 3 years ago

    How about not giving the games a score then?

    You probably know already that many never really fully read a review and just focus on the score. A score does not say what a game does right and what it does wrong - at least not a single score. This also makes the blithering idiots that are publishers and like to worry about stuff like numbers and boxes less focused on a score and might even confuse them for a few years.
    Hmm, perhaps that's it? We need a Video Game Show that has a similar build-up to Top Gear!

  • Mugwum Verified Operations Director, Eurogamer Network #13 3 years ago

    There are lots of pros and cons to score. For example (and this isn't the be-all and end-all, this is just one example), there are times when you review something good, and you sum up its qualities, then list its faults, and then conclude, and if you didn't have a mark on the end to define the balance, the potential for misinterpretation would be even greater than we see on reviews that do have scores. I know the sceptical view is that scores exist to serve the commercial side of any publication, but I would get rid of scores if I could find a way editorially to safeguard the same impression without that risk.

    I have been tempted to redo the Edge experiment of a no-scores month though, to see what happens, or to introduce scores as a profile toggle.

  • Widge #14 3 years ago

    Or how about a one day delay on score? The review goes up, people digest, then the number gets revealed 24 hours later.
    Sounds odd but stops people flicking to page 3 to get to the bottom of platform exclusive review x.

  • Turrican #15 3 years ago

    Its good that you have explained this process, but having followed Eurogamer for many years now I have no trouble believing that you and your reviewers are an honest bunch of chaps - keep up the good work.

    And as I enjoy the great games you've recommended, and saved my money on the ones you've not, I'll appreciate the flak you take in order to keep your integrity. Online review sites are subject to much more scrutiny than print publications of the past, so as you say, any that have the slightest whiff of dodgy conduct have no future when held to account by the raving keyboard warriors you serve!

  • Kanjin #16 3 years ago

    Good to know, but why mention all that, was their people muttering about bias?

  • ronuds #17 3 years ago

    @ neiltc

    At the end of the day, EG is still a business - and one trying to make money. Why wouldn't they accept an exclusive deal?

    The real test of how these "exclusive" reviews hold up will be when the embargo is lifted. If all of those reviews start rolling out at 7's and 8's, then we'll know the fix was on.

  • Mugwum Verified Operations Director, Eurogamer Network #18 3 years ago

    "Good to know, but why mention all that, was their people muttering about bias?"

    I want to be transparent about things that cause tension among our readers.

    "Two articles in about a week trying to defend some shady things Eurogamer has been doing. Whether the review was accurate or not isn't really the issue - the issue is that Eurogamer was prepared to accept such a deal in the first place."

    Er, what's the other article? Also, we seem to disagree about what constitutes shade, given that the item in question was the banner headline review on the site, followed by a blog explaining it in detail. What specifically do you feel is in the shade? If you have a specific question, ask it and I'll answer. At the moment I don't see how your point isn't addressed by the blog...

  • ronuds #19 3 years ago

    @ Magwum

    One thing you don't really say -- unless I've just missed it -- is what DID EG or Sony get in exchange for the exclusive? Maybe you're not at liberty to say, which is fine, but it appears as if you skipped over the matter.

  • Mugwum Verified Operations Director, Eurogamer Network #20 3 years ago

    "One thing you don't really say -- unless I've just missed it -- is what DID EG or Sony get in exchange for the exclusive? Maybe you're not at liberty to say, which is fine, but it appears as if you skipped over the matter."

    Well, we got to post a review earlier than some of our competitors.

    I don't know what Sony's answer would be. That's one of the peculiarities of the whole exclusive reviews thing - I only know what our side of it is.

  • Derblington #21 3 years ago

    Could just be that EG, IGN, Jeuxvideo, etc, are important sites in their respective corners of the world, and sites that people will pay attention to. Maybe if the scores were negative Sony would have backpeddled, but that's not particularly important right now. Sony are going to get behind this game, they seem confident it's good, as do all reviews and word of mouth up to this point, and it pays for them to get some big names supporting it too, in generating some hype and pre-orders (pre-orders are big business). And at the same time, while everyone stays happy, it furthers the working relationships between both groups for the future...

    Obviously, that may not the case, but it makes sense. While videogames and journalism are both big businesses, out for opportunities to make as much money as possible (hopefully legitimately), the people behind the companies are, generally, regular guys and gals who know that friendly relationships are a key aspect in making their jobs/lives run smoother, and sometimes it is as simple as that. It's not always the shady mess some people imagine it to be.

    edit: I can't believe it took me over 15 minutes to write that... Never mind :)
    Edited by 1 at 30/01/09 @ 22:45

  • HermitArcader #22 3 years ago

    Post deleted at 09:17:39 22-12-2011

  • smelly #23 3 years ago

    This IS the same publication that gave the "Exclusive review" of Sensi 06 - 9/10 isnt it?

  • GiantHaystax #24 3 years ago

    I got a little involved in one or two things here and there in the industry last year. I know for a fact Eurogamer always retain editorial independence and nothing less as I heard it from other side of the story also.
    Edited by 1 at 30/01/09 @ 23:57

  • Yossarian #25 3 years ago

    I'd repost everything I said in the Killzone 2 thread, but I think I've wreaked enough comments havoc for one week.

  • smelly #26 3 years ago

    @Yossarian: Arguing whether a game is worth 9 or 10.. is pointless. .both scores say the game is very worth getting.

    IMHO the ONLY reason to be angry at a score is if a game gets 9 or 10 and you pay good money for it - only to find it's shite. (which has happened to me numerous times).. Then be angry - as it's cost you good money... This has happened to me a lot - For example - I dont agree fable 2 was worth the score it got.. and I wish i hadnt bought it based on its glowing reviews...

    And getting upset over a 9.. because a game on another machine got a 10 (or vice versa) is just fucking sad. Because it doesnt really effect you does it? Apart from removing your ability to go "har har.. my machine is better this game got a 10, your game got a 9" or something equally sad and pathetic.

  • Spekingur #27 3 years ago

    Would it be more viable to break up the score into parts? Such as sounds, story, graphics, etc.?
    And even take out the number factor and replace them with words?
    Such as: Graphics: Hellbent bad and glitchy, Story: Makes sense...for a B movie, etc.

    I'm seriously wondering if it is at all possible to create a Top Gear styled video game review... ^__^

  • Masarin #28 3 years ago

    I vote for the 24 hour score delay for every review. It doubles the ad-impressions too if you want to know the score the day after. Just want to help you Mr Euro Gamer. ;-)

    /Masarin

  • vpin #29 3 years ago

    /sees Tom getting back on yacht

    Kidding aside, good article, have enjoyed reading the reviews here for quite some time now even if I don't see eye to eye at times. While I appreciate the reviews, I kinda prefer formulating my own opinion by renting most of the crap that I play. Have gotten quite picky the past few years regarding which games I choose to buy, and renting stuff first has helped to save me a lot of money. Reviews, if anything, help me decide which games to put at the top of my rental q and whatnot.

    Having said that, I think I'll be buying KZ2 on day one!

    edited for clarity

    Edited by 1 at 31/01/09 @ 02:52

  • roz123 #30 3 years ago

    Good article, as someone who keeps an eye on metacritic i have a couple of points to make.

    Sometimes its really obvious a games gets better scores in exclusive reviews then it does in later reviews. Which is crap and im glad you highlighted it.

    Second, if you didnt have scores then how would you get links from those sites.

    I think its pretty bad that publishers use advertising revenues as a form of bribery. You (and other sites) should name and shame them so we can boycott them. They cant stop you reviewing the games and then maybe they will stop it.

    You can see (comparing the scores on metacritic) that game reviews are a million miles away from film reviews. A score for one film can range from 0 to 100 depending on opinion wheras game reviews generally have a much smaller range of scores. Say 100-80. I Know they are completly different mediums and therefore are judged completely differently but maybe its stuff like this that is stopping a couple of reviewers saying this is not my cup of tea and rating a game alot lower then average.

  • wayneh #31 3 years ago

    Very good article indeed. I have always been happy with EGs reviews which is why I keep coming back to the site. It's a bit disappointing though that the need for this article has ever arose. If you are not happy with the quality/content of the reviews on this site why come back? There are plenty of other sites out there, I just happen to think this one is the best.

  • Bloodhunter #32 3 years ago

    good to know that you can trust a reviewer

  • konniehuqfan #33 3 years ago

    i hate the way some of these publishers throw their weight around like bullies. roz123 is right. keeping silent is misguided, it lets them get away with it.

  • Dave797 #34 3 years ago

    Great Article, good to get an insight in to the process of these exclusive deals. EG has always been the site I've trusted most and it's nice to hear that their opinion will always come first ahead of what the gaming company want as a review score.

    And for those criticising about the EG exclusive and how it's selling out to Sony or shady in anyway I'd like to know how many of us would turn down a chance at an exclusive on one of the most anticipated games of 2009?

  • ps3owner #35 3 years ago

    thanks for clearing that up! I just love the fanboy fights.... can't help but laugh at the stupidity of some of the comments (not in this thread btw)

  • AaronTurner #36 3 years ago

    This still doesn't explain how Sony get any kind of compensation for this deal. Why is it worth them limiting exposure of a game? What purpose does it serve them?

  • Psychotext #37 3 years ago

    Good article... and well explained.

    [Edit - Now get back to your Sony provided hookers you filthy sellouts!]
    Edited by 2 at 31/01/09 @ 12:58

  • Tomo #38 3 years ago

    Agreed, I thought this was a very eloquently written piece although I expected pretty much most of what was written.

    The benefit to the publisher is a sort of teasing exposure I reckon. A slow release of energy if you will. The first sites slowly build the buzz and its drawn out for longer as it pops up on numerous sites. Similar to films that have advanced preview screenings a week before general release.

  • shotgun44 #39 3 years ago

    I'd be devastated if scores were taken away! I always feel 6-7= worth getting when cheaper, 8 = Definate buy when I have the money/time and 9-10 = First day/week buy. TBH, I generally don't bother with anything that scores less than 6 unless it's a genre/series that I love. Without scores I would definately move to another site as I think they are essential TO MY buying decisions. The only bad thing they do is get illiterate, 12 year old fanboys frothing at the mouth when something like MGS4 gets an 8. Although to be honest, I find responses from both fanboy camps quite enjoyable just because every single one of them is blinded by their own bullshit!

  • shotgun44 #40 3 years ago

    I think to some extent limiting the review exclusives to trusted sites stops the internet prematurely flooding with bogus reviews written by people that were prepared to hate a game because of platform/publiusher/name. We all know there are people out there that love to hate on things they haven't experienced.

    Good article BTW. Interesting

  • mkreku #41 3 years ago

    I used to write reviews for a Swedish gaming site. We had exactly the same experiences with publishers as described in this article. Sure, sometimes they were peeved off when we gave low scores to their games but they never told us to change anything or tried to force us to write extra nicely about their products.

  • secombe #42 3 years ago

    The real test of how these "exclusive" reviews hold up will be when the embargo is lifted. If all of those reviews start rolling out at 7's and 8's, then we'll know the fix was on.

    I've never really got this argument (generally, not just relating to exclusives), if anything I'm amazed just how close games review scores are across the board, they are frighteningly similar.

    In any other medium you get massive disparity in review scores (and we're talking 1/5 in one publication and 5/5 in another, and such like), I appreciate that a film or piece of music is less likely to be technically broken, but you would think that considering individuals review these things, that the difference of opinion would be greater when it comes to games. The difference between a 8 or 9 really is nothing in the grand scheme of things, the game is clearly 'very good' if it's up around that area.
    Edited by 1 at 31/01/09 @ 17:08

  • smelly #43 3 years ago

    >good to know that you can trust a reviewer

    Just because they say "its alright mate - you can trust me"?

  • dravin369 #44 3 years ago

    good read tom but i generally trust eurogamers reviews to be honest.

  • Rizzle #45 3 years ago

    Excellent word thinks as ever, Tom. On the subject of scores, is there any chance you have easy access to the page impressions for the Killzone review and could give us a vague ratio of 1st:2nd:3rd page? Only I'd be curious to see the general shape of things (noting that I'm one of the guilty few who skipped page 2, largely because I don't own the format and wanted to get a cup of tea...)

  • Cannibal #46 3 years ago

    There was an article put up the other day about gaming books. Sounds like some of your experiences in dealing with various publishers could make an interesting gaming book in its own right and highlight an area often overlooked when people talk about the games industry.

    Maybe we'll see it on sale right next to the "Better than Halo" t-shirts one day =P

  • AaronTurner #47 3 years ago

    Just by the by, why not simply give an option similar to the forum views option where the score of a game can be hidden by preferences saved within your profile? It'd be good to stop all the moaning about it.

    Alternatively those how aren't interested in scores could just read the reviews and ignore the scores.
    Edited by 1 at 01/02/09 @ 00:51

  • miiiguel #48 3 years ago

    "Good to know, but why mention all that, was their people muttering about bias?"

    Ah! But if it was a MS exclusive review and scored a 9, I can't even imagine...

    Anyway, nice article. I also don't think it'd be good to snitch the ones who get bitter, all in all it's their own right to be pissed and quit the advertising. I guess.

    Disagree completly with Crofto. I think this industry needs to stop focus only on the technical issues. The movie buisness for instance is over that stuff ("oooh look! a color TV!"; "oh! look at those special effects!...";).
    Also, giving a lower score to game does not equal being a good critic, imo. That'd be so easy... one needs the vocabulary, not only to count pixels but also to make things interesting and contemporanean (in some circles that is called "life", I think). Give me a site that talks but pixels and lightning effects, and I'm outa here.
    Well, and the great majority of critics gave GTA4 10, it won GOTYs awards, a greate percentage of the consumers (the ones who actually allow the industry to be alive) loved it. So I guess who's right?! I mean let's invite a bitter reviewer who gives low scores in order to be pseudo-expert ?
    Last but not least, I lilke Oli reviews.
    Edited by 4 at 01/02/09 @ 03:04

  • ChrisOTR #49 3 years ago

    A wise idea to speak openly about things Tom! :) Well done.

  • Spekingur #50 3 years ago

    @Crofto: How the heck can you demand something like that from a human being? Do you not understand how we, us, work? We are never without bias. Never. People may claim they are but that is just untrue.

    Besides, if a reviewer is a good pen, he can make us enjoy the review. Since that is what it is all about in my eyes. And thus impartiality should be out of the window, otherwise review sites could just hire a robot/ai/monkies to put together random words and then add a score behind those words. I have never seen a movie review, theater review, song review, you name them, that is without feeling. And if the reviewer feels something then impartiality and bias walk hard and steadily into the review.
    Perhaps then it would be better to have not just one person but two review the same game? The more results (reviews) you get from something the more likely you'll be able to spot the common denominator.

  • bioreit #51 3 years ago

    @ smelly

    "Just because they say "its alright mate - you can trust me"? "

    I trust them a damn sight more than I'd ever trust you!

    I think you miss out on the fundamental point of a review - it's subjective. Your point that:

    "IMHO the ONLY reason to be angry at a score is if a game gets 9 or 10 and you pay good money for it - only to find it's shite. (which has happened to me numerous times).. Then be angry - as it's cost you good money... This has happened to me a lot - For example - I dont agree fable 2 was worth the score it got.. and I wish i hadnt bought it based on its glowing reviews..."

    I tend to find myself agreeing with almost all of Kristan's and Dan's review son this site and have been served pretty well by basing many of my purchases on their reviews. Except for Oblivion and Fallout 3. I just can't really stand either of them. But I don't get upset, I just accept that for this one type of game (and trhese two titles in particular), my tastes differ from that of Kristan.

    Getting angry about 'wasting' money is a wee bit infantile - Eurogamer isn't exactly meant to be "Eurogamer - A Strict Guide and Bible for the Life of Smelly: What He Needs to Purchase for the Next Twelve Years". It's there to offer an opinion and some help while *you* make *your* choices.

    Which at the end of the day, is what you made.

    Unless Tom forced his way into your house while you were sleeping, bound and gagged you and played, at volume 11, Panama by Van Halen, flashing up images of Fable II and Peter Molyneux until you were brainwashed into purchasing said game.

    /ru-roh, may have just put ideas in Tom's head...

    It's not even as if you pay to read this site, so you're even complaining about actions you carried out, based on the free, non-forced advice of a website you have to decide to visit.

  • jamhead #52 3 years ago

    "It's there to offer an opinion and some help while *you* make *your* choices. "

    "...you're even complaining about actions you carried out, based on the free, non-forced advice of a website you have to decide to visit"

    'bout sums it up for me. Well said.

  • bioreit #53 3 years ago

    @ Crofto

    My God, I'd dread to think what you think film reviews should be like!

    The Matrix:

    The Matrix uses blue and green filters over the lenses of its Arriflex 435ES 35mm cameras, denoting whether the characters are in the real world, or in the titular Matrix. Joel Silver directed.

    This latest film by the Wachowski Brothers is the first blockbuster commercial film to use the technique of 'Bullet Time', whereby multiple cameras are ringed around a scene and set off in sequence, providing a means of apparently using a slow-motion, revolving camera. This technique is used for a total of 58 seconds across four scenes.

    Keanu Reeves, Carrie-Ann Moss, Laurence Fishburne and Hugo Weaving comprise the four main stars of the 35 named cast members. There were 43 stunts people.

    The Matrix lasts for 136 minutes and had a budget of 63 million dollars, an undisclosed proportion of which was spent on Manex Visual Effects and Animal Logic, the two Special Effects studios used.

    9/10

    Nice and objective, but hardly likely to make anyone except movie-technique geeks want to watch it.

    EDIT: I thought some formatting would aid in the reading.
    Edited by 1 at 01/02/09 @ 11:58

  • HolyJebus #54 3 years ago

    Good article, thanks Tom.

  • secombe #55 3 years ago

    @ Crofto...

    I would run off and create your own site if you want reviews like you describe, just don't expect many page impressions.

    I found myself thinking exactly the opposite of what you were saying, which - I think - was something along the lines of "who cares if everybody enjoys it, graphically it's slightly rubbish, therefore it should be marked down accordingly"

    Games exist to be enjoyed, reviews should reflect that.

  • polar #56 3 years ago

    Great article. I trust EG to deliver honest reviews. I may not always agree with them, but I don't think they'd bend over backwards to get a few more page hits. In my 6 years of reading this site, the only time they let it slip (jounalistic integrity-wise) was over the Killzone 2 E3 launch video. That momentary lapse showed that if the website starts fawning over something that's unworthy, the readership will cop it and start to lose respect for the site.

    It's easy to make a mistake like that in the heat of all the E3 excitment, but to my knowledge EG has never been compromised by a blatantly slanted review - thay always take the time to test the game a give a considered opinion on it. We'll know soon enough whether the majority think that Killzone was worth the score and I've no doubt that they will. I don't think EG would sacrifice hard earned journalistic integrity for the sake of a couple of weeks of publicity. They day they do that is the day they lose half their readership.

    Keep up the good work.

  • miiiguel #57 3 years ago

    @ bioreit, even with the edit, it's still hard to read. But that is the point, and you illustrated it perfectly.

  • djed #58 3 years ago

    I think your shareholders disagree with the whole it's also the publication's job to protect its readers by honestly examining the game and deciding whether it's good or not, and explaining why.

  • BillyBrush #59 3 years ago

    I'm not really convinced i'm afraid...not about them not having text approval or anything like that

    It's more that when someone playing a game knows they've been given it earler than usual, and will be writing up their thoughts before other people....well...is that not a nice sweetner? surely it is....publishers know journos are game fans too, and react like anyone would to being able to see a flash of skirt before the show begins

  • smelly #60 3 years ago

    @bioret :

    "Getting angry about 'wasting' money is a wee bit infantile - Eurogamer isn't exactly meant to be "Eurogamer - A Strict Guide and Bible for the Life of Smelly: What He Needs to Purchase for the Next Twelve Years". It's there to offer an opinion and some help while *you* make *your* choices.
    "


    UH!??!?

    99% of the forum posters here get upset that a game they've not played gets a 9 when they think it deserves a 10 becuase of the system its on .. or something equally dumb...

    .. But I use reviews as a basis to decide what to buy - and get upset when the reviews say something is great when it's not...

    .. and IM the one in the wrong?

    My brain has just melted.. Either gamers have some weird logic i dont understand.. or i'll stick to my belief that gamers on forums are dimwits.

  • mazzl #61 3 years ago

    good insights as always Tom, keep up the good work :)
    it's the quality of you're work that makes the money, the money doesn't give you page views, it just gives you boats ;)

  • Garulon #62 3 years ago

    "over the Killzone 2 E3 launch video. "

    Well that was shocking, and it's now being bookended by an exclusive highly-scored review of the most important game Sony's releasing this year. I know what Sony gets. They get a 9/10 to put on the back of the box as they go to print. I'm not saying if KZ2 is a great game or not, but after EG sold us out of the Sensi "review" what exactly is it you trust about them? This whole thing stinks, and this blog is designed to try to diffuse the stink. Nothing more.

  • bioreit #63 3 years ago

    @ smelly

    "
    UH!??!?

    99% of the forum posters here get upset that a game they've not played gets a 9 when they think it deserves a 10 becuase of the system its on .. or something equally dumb...

    .. But I use reviews as a basis to decide what to buy - and get upset when the reviews say something is great when it's not...

    .. and IM the one in the wrong?

    My brain has just melted.. Either gamers have some weird logic i dont understand.. or i'll stick to my belief that gamers on forums are dimwits.     "

    Yes, you are the one in the wrong. You are crticising Eurogamer for something that YOU chose to do. You don't need to bring the other idiots into this, or compare yourselves to them in order to try and justify your ridiculous sentiments. You are having a go at EG for writing a review for a game which a reviewer - you know, an individual, free-thinking human being with their own likes and dislikes - happened to really love. You don't share that opinion and that's great - that means you're a human too! But why you think that gives you the right to criticise that person because you believe that YOUR opinion is more valid than theirs I don't know.

    Because that's what it boils down to. The reviewer said "Hey, I like this game, I'm giving it a score based on that - I hope you guys try it and enjoy it as much as I did". You are saying "This game is rubbish! I was LIED to! The reviewer's opinion is WRONG and MY opinion is the only possible valid one".

    I say this because you admit that you get angry when you buy games based on reviews, feeling like you wish you'd never bought them. Don't get angry - admit to yourself that maybe that person has different ideas of what's fun and enjoyable in a game. Maybe note who the reviewer was and think to yourself "Ok, there was that one game three years ago that we both liked, but his last three or four recommendations I didn't like, so maybe we have different tastes."

    There's a reason why reviews tend to have people's name attached, you know.

  • gandhimaster #64 3 years ago

    I think its brave of Sony (or anybody) to allow that kind of access and honesty. Fair play to them. I'm guessing that publisher's will only do this kind of deal if they're supremely confident of a game's quality.

  • stampax #65 3 years ago

    Another great read. This really is the best gaming website by a million miles!

    I've always wondered about this kind of thing, so really interesting to get some clarification. I wonder to what extent the companies realise themselves when their game is rubbish so therefore don't allow anyone to get an excusive, or will only go to certain places that they know they can heavily influence. Thus i wonder if Sony are happy to let you guys have LBP and Killzone early because they know you'll give them good reviews, simply because they are excellent.

  • coolbritannia #66 3 years ago

    Really good article, this site has come so far from 'we're not sure the 360 IS next gen' it's untrue. I applaud your efforts of turning this into the best review site on the web.

  • schnide #67 3 years ago

    Ultimately it doesn't matter, because the article bashing Home was up all over Christmas and the Killzone review was pushed off the front page after a day by three - count them, three - articles about the Dreamcast!

  • bioreit #68 3 years ago

    @ Schnide

    What, you mean the KZ2 review2 that's been sitting there all weekend and is still there right now?

    You mean like how every other big review gets a certain amount of time in the spotlight (top left of the front page), before being relegated to a little box lower down, before disappearing into the archives, regardless of format?

    Compared to the Home article which, by your own admission, was up there all over Christmas, i.e. when no-one was updating the site? Like on Bank Holiday weekends when the last article poste don a Friday stays there until well into Tuesday morning?

    Ah wait. I'm sorry. I forgot. Eurogamer is really Microsoft-Gamer and are subsidised not by advertising revenue, but out of Bill Gates' personal coffers.

    May I recommend ps3fanboy.com, as undoubtedly, based on your post, they are the only website that will come even close to what you think of as spending enough time on Sony and the PS3.

  • Spekingur #69 3 years ago

    Home being bashed? Oh no, how dare people do that?! /sarcasm

    I see nothing wrong with "bashing" or criticising Home. It is/was an ill thought out project when released to the public and if no one would speak up Sony wouldn't know. Not that they listen even if people really do speak up - since Sony is known for doing their own thing their own way no matter what "the lesser humans" (the public) says :-P
    Edited by 1 at 02/02/09 @ 12:15

  • Garulon #70 3 years ago

    " I'm guessing that publisher's will only do this kind of deal if they're supremely confident of a game's quality."

    Or that they know the review's "for sale". Remember the videogames journalism industry isn't for us, the poor mugs who's eyeballs they want. It's for the guys on the side. See all those flashing images on the right and the top? That's what pays the bills, games reviews are an extension of a "product"'s "roll out", and an early exclusive review has been bought and paid for some way. EG gets the eyeballs, Sony gets the "9/10" sticker for the back of the box, everyone's happy! Well everyone who counts, anyway.

  • Garulon #71 3 years ago

    I mean post-sales reviews don't make any difference, but early reviews are written in the same breathless tones as previews. Take a look at EGs driver 3 preview:

    [link url=http://ww w.eurogamer.net/articles/p_driver3
    ]http://ww w.eurogamer.net/articles/p_driv...[/link]

    " players of Driver 3 can expect to drive down streets brimming with character and extraneous detail, from rubbish bags and stacked crates left in conveniently smashable positions to various awnings, balconies and even the odd weather cock. And although the cars won't be licensed, they should be extremely detailed fakes. "

    But of course, "that doesn't count, it's a preview" will be the return cry. My question is so what? If it was neutral like (ggnngh) Edge previews I'd understand, but it's alllll part of the marketing, building up a "products" "buzz"

    Exclusive reviews are the same. Hell, It's likely that if KZ2 turns out to be dogshit (I'm not saying it will, I'm saying we don't know) EG will happily Department of Truth the whole deal into "Oh we were caught up in the buzz", carry on, nothing to se here...

  • schnide #72 3 years ago

    @bioreit

    How about you calm the fuck down mate?

    When you're done, point out a better website for me since I own a 360, and not a PS3.

    You calmed down yet? Ah, still not yet.

    Three articles about the Dreamcast which died some time ago when Sony's flagship game review comes out with a glowing figure? Seems a bit odd to me. But don't let my one paragraph comment post get you riled up like I just bumfucked your mum then gave her a dirty Sanchez.

  • bioreit #73 3 years ago

    @ schnide

    You calm down.

    You're the one who seems to have a magic memory. Forgotten all those Killzone 2 previews they had yet, have we? But oh no. Eurogamer *must* be in the pocket of Microsoft, or hate Sony, because extra news items happen to have forced the review you seem to love so much to a different position on the front page! Maybe the reason why there are three DC articles taking pride of place because Eurogamer know that these articles are appreciated by quite a few of us, but that many others might ignore or miss out on them if they didn't have huge banners proclaiming their presence. Whereas a far greater majority will seek out the KZ2 review regardless of its location. But obviously, that's a logical reason, which has no relation to *your* perception of reality now, does it?

    Possessing other systems is no barrier to membership of a Fanboy Club.

    All you've done with that comment is proven just how stupid and moronic your thoughts can be.

    Bravo.

  • schnide #74 3 years ago

    @bioreit

    Look, I tell you what.

    We can get into a heated debate about whether you're taking this a bit too seriously or not, or if you really need three articles to do one thing about a dead console, but either way there's something neither of us can deny - your mum just loves me giving her a shit moustache.

  • bioreit #75 3 years ago

    Wow.

    Guess Schnide really has more important issues to deal with than his beef with Eurogamer.

    Obssessive compulsive *and* a fetishist.

    I pity your friends and family having to put up with all of your problems.

    At least you're allowed Internet access on day release, eh mate?

  • schnide #76 3 years ago

    Aww, bless your mum and her beaming little face! She looks like she's just gone apple bobbing in a chocolate mousse.

  • Garulon #77 3 years ago

    " your mum just loves me giving her a shit moustache. "

    You mean like Poirot?

  • schnide #78 3 years ago

    Quality :D

  • muscleblade #79 3 years ago

    Even though i loved Prince of Persia the IGN exclusive internet review was a little too positive and the score a little too high compared to most other reviews. Coincidense maybe/ maybe not? I belive in the latter.

  • penhalion #80 3 years ago

    This article would have been more credible had games like LBP, Fable 2, Halo 3 etc. etc not gotten scores much higher than they deserved, seemingly to pander to fanboys or publishers.

  • miiiguel #81 3 years ago

    I shouldn't have read some of these comments. I might have to quit gaming now.

    :/

  • spekkeh #82 3 years ago

    While I do think Tom, and by extension the whole of Eurogamer, genuinely do not take bribes and are sincere in their reviewing, I'm still with Variety that they should shy away from any exclusivity deals. At the least it raises suspicion, but there's a very real sense that it unconsciously affects the score. After all, publishers who award you with exclusive deals are friendly chaps. It's good for your business. It's even better for your business if you run some more exclusive tidbits on the game, to highlight that you have the exclusive, as that raises the amount of visitors. Your website has the exclusive review, is gradually building up the hype, the developers are friendly people, and before you know it, ever so slightly, you're starting to identify with the game; associating positive self-determination with the game that neutral players won't have.

    And then all of a sudden, GTAIV is heralded as the best game ever, because the reviewer felt such an integral part of the magnificent game world, evoking unparalleled feelings of presence.. while in actuality, the gameplay was as broken as ever.

  • miiiguel #83 3 years ago

    Well, and to be fair... I can only imagine that if those guys @ Kikizo didn't snitch the deal/agreement (whatever one wants to call it) this article wouldn't exist. Nor we ever knew about it, right ?

    Anyway, I also don't think that bribes happen, but I agree with spekkeh comment.


    edit: but disagree with the GTA4 comment. The game isn't broken (at least my copy, or my definition of broken is different), and I had a very good time playing it.
    Edited by 1 at 02/02/09 @ 16:08

  • rauper Verified Managing Director, Eurogamer Network #84 3 years ago

    miiiguel: I hadn't even heard of that article until you mentioned it... but either way, the editor's blog has been running for a little while now and right from the start our intention was to discuss all elements of how EG is run - it's not really prompted by Killzone2, it just happens to be a good/relevant time to write about it.

  • miiiguel #85 3 years ago

    @ rauper: I have no reason not to believe what you just said, so I stand corrected.

  • GodlessXVIII #86 3 years ago

    Strange how Tom Bramwell devotes the major part of his editorial post rejecting claims of outright, unsubtle bribery-with-blood-diamonds when the far more insidious matter of influence is let completely off the hook.

    Paraphrasing Lessig regarding Congressional influence peddling, the simple introduction of directed privileges and preferential treatments, with no outright demands in return, can almost always create the right conditions for undue influence. How can Whitehead review Killzone 2 and convince himself he wasn't in the least influenced by the greater context of the exclusivity conferred to his writing by Sony (their expectations), and manage to not take into account the (always at least possible) impact his opinion would have on further advertising deals and exclusives? He would have to be pretty naïve or steel-headed to navigate such waters and come out the other side with an unbending piece of review.

    But the question is not whether our current crop of game reviewers are capable or not of handling such pressure, it’s whether or not readers of such online publications are prepared to lend credence to writers operating within that pressure.

    There is a reason that "exclusive reviews" are themselves exclusive to the gaming industry. For all his clueless talk about games, no one can imagine Ebert or any other movie critics assenting to an exclusive review while an embargo is imposed on his colleagues.

  • Gaol #87 3 years ago

    Nice article, hope you can stick with it.

    I was always suspect of Age of Conan's review though, there was a lot of Funcom coverage and that game was a total turd... then you rereview it a few months later and admit it was shit. Stiffening of editorial backbone in the interim?

  • ccfb #88 3 years ago

    I think if you have such a cosy relationship with the publisher to be on the "fast track" reviewing list, it shows they're pretty confident on a positive write-up before handing over the disc.

  • smelly #89 3 years ago

    @bioreit: "I say this because you admit that you get angry when you buy games based on reviews, feeling like you wish you'd never bought them."


    Right.. lets say i read 10 reviews.. every review tells me the game is the best thing since sliced bread.. none of them mention any faults with the game at all.

    Then I buy the game - and there are obvious flaws everywhere. It's not so much the score.. But the fact that the drops to 5fps on my 360.. or that the game is fundamentally broken hasnt even been mentioned.. etc etc.. Of course i'll get upset with the reviewers. It's got nothing to do at this point with personal tastes- just that it just didnt deserve the score it got. Lets take for example fable 2 (and i only mention this as it's the last highly scoring game i played).. I could list 20 or 30 flaws with it that ANYONE who played the game probably would agree with - but yet none of them were mentioned in the reviews at all - etc etc.

    For example.. Would you be happy with a burnout paradise review where the reviewer stated it was the best thing since crotchless knickers - but failed to mention that you couldnt restart races.. I'd be peaved when i bought it if i didnt know about that!

    If i read loads of glowing reviews for a film.. i go to watch it.. and it turns out to be a pile of crap.. then yes.. i'm upset at the reviewers - why wouldnt i be? They recommended a film/game to me.. which turned out to be not good.

    BUT that wasnt my point. My original pos was in answer to the saddo (Yossarian - go read his comments in the killzone thread for reference) on the previous page who got upset because killzone 2 (a game he hasnt played yet) got a 9 rather than a 10.. That's not something to get upset about imho.


    Edited by 1 at 02/02/09 @ 19:00

  • smelly #90 3 years ago

    What i find REALLY disturbing/confusing about your attitude though is that a game reviewer on a site like this criticises years of a games developers hard work.. That's their "job" to be critical of peoples work, and give recommendations when they're due.

    But yet you're suggesting that people SHOULDNT be critical of the games reviewer?

    Almost as if it's okay to be critical of the people making the games you play - but dare to be critical of the person criticising the games you play - and all of a sudden that's a bad thing!?!?

    i.e.

    "I say this because you admit that you get angry when you buy games based on reviews, feeling like you wish you'd never bought them. Don't get angry - admit to yourself that maybe that person has different ideas of what's fun and enjoyable in a game"


    If you carry on this logic to the people who MAKE the games.. i.e. they have a different idea of whats fun and enjoyable in a game.. so it's okay thaty ou spent money on something which is tosh.. Then therefor every game deserves a 10/10 and games review sites shouldnt exist?



    Edited by 1 at 02/02/09 @ 18:59

  • smelly #91 3 years ago

    And lets not forget this is the same site, with the same reviewer that wrote this article which gave an "Exclusive review" of a game by someone they seem to be mates with (looking at the number of articles that person gets on here) NINE out of 10 (which ignoring all its faults).. when every other review found its faults and gave it 6/10.

    Then they have the nerve to talk about exclusive reviews and how they would never give a game a high score just because of an exclusive review (I guess they have to also be mates with the maker too)

  • bioreit #92 3 years ago

    @ smelly

    Wow. You really didn't get that Yossarian was taking the piss? Even a cursory look through his older posts would have belied his Killzone 2 comments. Even reading the rest of the comments on that review thread would have shown you that he was playing the fool.

    And yet you go and mention reading , say, ten reviews before making your mind up. Implying that you do plenty of research before making a purchase. Yet you don't even check the veracity of this one guys posts. In fact, you still refer to him and think that he was being genuine. You even use him as your example of what you were getting annoyed with!

    Sounds to me like you're lazy, ignorant and childish - someone reviewed a game which you happened not to like and now you have to spout crap onto your computer without engaging your brain beforehand.

    Obviously subjectiveness comes into whether you, or reviewers, or games developers, or anyone else finds a game enjoyable or not. But when so many people find a game enjoyable and you don't, then maybe you have to wonder if it's something wrong with you, rather than the whole world. Maybe they didn't mention these massively annoying flaws, because to them, they didn't actually detract anything form the game. Maybe you went into the game looking for things to dislike about it, magnifying these flaws until they were the only things you could even see. I don't know.

    But of course that doesn't mean that every game should be 10/10. Just because the devs happen to think their game is king wouldn't make it so - if almost every review and most popular opinion went with them, then yeah, it would deserve it. It's like a dad, thinking his son is the best footballer in the world - but he can't kick for crap and runs 20 yards before stopping for a breather. The dad would then be wrong. If the dad of another kid thought his son was the best footballer and a talent scout for a large club also thought so and paid that kid hundreds of thousands of pounds per week to play for his team, and this kid scored more goals than anyone else in the league, then that dad would be justified in his belief.

    Doesn't change the fact that there'll probably be quite a few people who think that kid's a numpty, or just 'got lucky', or is actually crap and gets carried by his team. But they'll be in the vast minority and therefore, wrong.

  • Bremenacht #93 3 years ago

    Tom - I'd rather you wrote that you did write this article from a Sony loan yacht, using your latest PSP freebie. Imagine the fireworks. :)

  • smelly #94 3 years ago

    >you're lazy, ignorant and childish

    On the contrary.. just because someone has a different opinion to you - doesnt make them wrong.. however i'll ignore the insults and carry on with your other points as i'm enjoying the discussion.


    >Wow. You really didn't get that Yossarian was taking the piss?

    I didnt read the whole thread (got kinda depressed reading it)... so no - i didnt. But there are many people like the poster he was pretending to be in that thread (i.e. moaning about a 9 and not a 10.. ) which was kinda my point originally.


    >But they'll be in the vast minority and therefore, wrong.

    Ah.. So opinions only matter if they are the same as the majority then? :-)

    I get what you're saying. But i think you're focusing on the number at the end too much. I dont mind a reviewer giving a game a 10/10 - if they've explained flaws in the game.

    For example.. lets say in the review it says "This is the best game i've ever played!!!" .. "but there is an issue where it drops to 5fps every so often - which might make it unplayable for some people" .. "but i loved it 10/10"

    I'd have no issue with that. If i'm the type of person who cant stand low frame rates - i now know the game is great - but would annoy me too much.. etc etc.

    (Note: Frame rates just an example.. I just expect any reviewer to point out positives and negatives)



    The "majority rules" discussion is something i'd like to talk about at another time though.. as using that logic it basically means that popular games will be reviewed highly regardless of whether they're good.. and unpopular games lower.. For example a kids game would almost be gauranteed a low score on a site like this regardless of how good it is - because the majority of the people reading wont be interested in said game.. However does that make said game "crap"? (rhetorical question)

  • smelly #95 3 years ago

    >Maybe you went into the game looking for things to dislike about it

    Isnt that the job of a critic?

    To look past their own "OMFG ITS THE LATEST GTA GAME I GET TO PLAY IT BEFORE EVERYONE ELSE" excitment and calm down and look at it from all angles, isn't that the point of any form of critique?

    I guess that's the problem with games websites.. when games reviews in print form - at least the person writing it tended to have training in journalism.. (not saying the people who run here do or dont mind - neither am i claiming to have myself)

    It's like "A review of fish and chips : I love fish and chips me! 10/10" is vastly different from "I'm a huge fan of fish and chips - but we must remember the fat issues.. yada yadda yadda".. See?

    Going back to fable 2 (and i feel like i'm being unfair to it here as it IS a good game - it's just the last game i played):

    I'd expect a review of it to point out that it's short, that it's rediculously easy and prevents little or no challenge (this may be a good thing to some people), it was buggy on release - The whole good/evil thing didnt change the outcome of the game, and it was too easy to quickly make yourself good/evil.. waaay too similar to the original etc etc...

    But then i'd also expect all the good points too.


    Now I'm using that as an example for how i like to see reviews.. And for the most part EGs are like that (which is why i come here!).. But I'm keeping the discussion going with you as i find this interesting.

    Disclaimer: Personally i think (with all the flaws) fable 2 is 7/10 game.. That doesnt mean EG was wrong - just means our opinions are different. I'm glad i played it... And I played it after reading the glowing review scores.. I'm using it as an example for what i think a good review should point out.. Im NOT saying that EGs review for it was bad, nor am i saying it is bad either (Depending how you read my previous comments that may seem the case)

  • smelly #96 3 years ago

    >Diis the game in the copy, but please Sony with the score.

    Well I dont think most people read the words - they go straight to the score.

    But (according to bioreit) as long as the majority are happy (regardless to whether they've played it or not) then the score is right.

  • smelly #97 3 years ago

    "It would be nice if the majority of the idiots on the EG forums would actually respect a review as an opinion rather than tearing it to shreds. "

    Isnt the whole point of having comments so people can share their own opinions of said game .. i.e. "the reviewer says this game is ace.. but i didnt like it because??"

    Afterall you expect the REVIEWER to be critical of the game.. why not be critical of the reviewer?


    But just to clarify my position on this - I trust EG's reviews more than most the others.. for me they're the best of a bad bunch of online reviews. I am suspect about this "exclusive reviews not biased" thing though (for reasons and examples given). Ditto with advertising/etc etc.

    But that's no worse than ANY print or website review.. Personally the only reviews i ever REALLY trust are on sites with no ads (like consolevania.. RIP).

    But I like EG...

  • local_celebrity #98 3 years ago

    @GodlessXVIII

    You took the words right out of my mouth. Except you couched them far more interestingly.

    For those who didn't bother to read his post, the point is this: that Eurogamer didn't make an explicit commitment to Sony (to praise the game) is immaterial. The very fact they were *bestowed* this exclusive means they would have felt the pressure anyway. Ruddy hell, I would. Wouldn't you?

    Now, look at the review again.

    Reads a bit negative, doesn't it? Yet there's a big thunking nine at the end. Sounds like Dan Whitehead (in his head at least) was trying to have his cake and eat it. Dis the game in the copy, but please Sony with the score. Everyone's a winner.

  • local_celebrity #99 3 years ago

    Sorry, Smelly, took my post away for a bit of re-editing.

    But I wholeheartedy concur with your last point: Eurogamer is still fucking ace, in spite of it all.

  • des #100 3 years ago

    The most pathetic thing is that nothing will change,in couple of weeks,months some "exclusive"crap will emerge.

  • Ryuken #101 3 years ago

    I don't think EG's honesty is in question here as Tom makes his relationship with publishers quite clear. Publishers come to certain sites with an 'exclusive' not because they think scores can be bought (otherwise people in the biz would know) but because those sites have more visitors/a good reputation, separate embargo dates = more days your game comes into attention.

    What does make me go "Say what?" all the time is how you can completely judge a game four weeks before it is released. Especially for a highly anticipated title with a big online multiplayer component like Killzone 2. It's very ironic that of all the other games sites it is Gamespot who makes a big remark about why they haven't reviewed the game yet.

    It's the same as with the early HLČ, Far Cry 2, GTA IV reviews or more recently the very early written mag Dawn of War II reviews; the beta of the latter game is still going on and is full of bugs and yet most publications think they have the right to make an assesment about the multiplayer (completely sidestepping the functionality of an online service on Day 0, assuming it will be fixed probably) or have the right to come back to the multiplayer later on even though they give a single score to the complete package in such an early review.

    That's just not a respectful thing to do for your readers nor do I see why you should always be the first with a judgment, especially if that means you have to publish it a month before the game becomes available to the rest of the world. I'd even say an extremely early article works the other way around for the site/publication that publishes it as by the time the game comes out other articles will probably be more accurate and fresh in the minds of consumers.

    I am not saying it's always a matter of life and death, mostly the experience comes down to the same thing but I think a lot of people would like to know when something goes wrong when activating a game (=>HLČ, Saints Row II, Fallout 3: OA), when a Day 0 patch adds extra content/clears out bugs (=>possibly DoW II), how in-game advertising affects the game when review versions didn't include it (=> Far Cry 2) or when a retail version has seemingly more remarkable bugs/hassles than the review version (which was reviewed at the developer's studio or not) (=>GTA IV PC, Fable II, Fallout 3, Oblivion, etc.).

    "Next-gen", superhappy and superearly 10's en 9's are good and all, but these mostly technical issues do matter for gamers as well.
    Edited by 3 at 03/02/09 @ 13:05

  • Kyle #102 3 years ago

    I appreciate your honesty. Well done, Brammers.