-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
MGS Phantom Pain reviews potentially compromised
- Thread starter Jackpot
- Start date
MadLaughter
Member
Things like this are why Giant Bomb typically don't go to review events.
MegaSackman
Member
Well it might be me or those particular games but with Bloodborne, The Witcher 3, and Batman, the more I played the lower my personal score dropped for them (like one point or less of course).
Visualante2
Member
Website says no unsupervised access. So Greg might have been supervised until midnight etc
That is a great gif.
Nobody forced them to put the review out when the embargo lifts, that's why there are still a few reviews "Work in progress".
Now, now... I know you want to use the chicken hat, Jason. You can't resist its powers. In time, it will seduce you. Slowly, perhaps... but you will hear it calling your name.
"Jason... Jaaaaaason. Wear me. Wear me like one of your press sneak fucks."
Coffee Dog
Banned
You think 6 days full time, extra hours isn't enough to form a good opinion on a game?
His Majesty
Banned
Which is why I will wait for user reviews. As usual.
It's a business practicality. The earlier you have your review out the more people read it; the more people read it, the higher the ad revenue.
You're probably thinking, that's their choice to put their business ahead of the integrity of their work, and that's a fair point. But it is what it is, and writers have to eat, too.
LQX
Member
Wat? Who made that? How did they do that? Ha, awesome.
Magic Mushroom
Member
There are sites like Eurogamer who don't post their review until they have finished the retail copy at their own pace and just stick with impressions for now.
Don't tar everyone with the same brush.
I know thatA large part of metal gear is having fun and being silly.
But they shouldn't review the game if they rushed through the game and didn't even use one of the most important mechanics.
I think what is really not right, here, is the fact Konami gave reviews a copy with no microtransactions and FOB.
I understand MGO will go online later, but FOB should be operative and a reviewer should also give a proper judgement of the whole product, FOB and microtransactions included. Now we don't know how much time you need to spend in order to properly develop FOB and other aspects with microtransactions or gameplay option.
I understand MGO will go online later, but FOB should be operative and a reviewer should also give a proper judgement of the whole product, FOB and microtransactions included. Now we don't know how much time you need to spend in order to properly develop FOB and other aspects with microtransactions or gameplay option.
Diablohead
Member
I hope he can get a chicken hat from somewhere and wear it.
Blimey, I didn't know this kind of thing was a thing at all, so just how widespread is this review bootcamp thing?
I guess the question is, do you trust media outlet X or Y to offer a reasoned and non-biased view of the (a) product if they (have) to attend one of these boot camps?
I guess the question is, do you trust media outlet X or Y to offer a reasoned and non-biased view of the (a) product if they (have) to attend one of these boot camps?
Yautja_Warrior
Member
One of the biggest games of the year gets good reviews, better break out the conspiracy theory articles.
SaveTheQueen
Banned
So it begins. Yet another witch hunt is about to start. Down with the big bad media websites. Shame on them....sigh. Same song, different day.
MMaRsu
Banned
read the op
Resident_UA
Member
It sounds like something that could be portrayed in positive lights as easily as negative. Greg Miller made it sound that the event was not as controlled as the article in OP implies... Either way I don't think I have an issue with this. I can't imagine that this way of reviewing is much better than doing it on your own pace. And if reviewers are lying about something that's bigger issue than holding this event...
Review boot camps have always been disliked. The scores the game got don't really matter.
It's also a multiplat game, so there are no fanboys who have a stake in this and would try to create any conspiracies.
Resident_UA
Member
reviewers have stated that when developing MB nothing felt out of sorts. They were able to get through the game easily developing weapons and adding to their Base.
Now the FOB is a different matter. I know in the Gamescom demo stated you won't even be able to develop your FOB until your MB reaches a certain level.
Beelzebufo
Banned
In other news, we now know the topic of an upcoming episode of the Jimquisition.
So many people not seeing this...
Absolutely disgraceful I say!
itsfuckingnothing.gif
Yea the only thing is your playing the game for hours on end. I'm sure that gets tiring but lets say you got your review copy at home a week before release. You'd literally have to do the same thing.
CapitalismSucks DonkeyBalls
Banned
If there was any type of journalistic integrity (which there is precious little), these reviews should have been named impressions. There is no way any of these reviews are fully thought out summaries of MGS V's quality and merits as a game. These are essentially reaction articles after being forced through 40 hours of curated content with no allowance to do things "your way."
Again, I take none of these reviews seriously. These 10's are nothing but reminders of how bad the review process has become.
Again, I take none of these reviews seriously. These 10's are nothing but reminders of how bad the review process has become.
here is a picture from the bootcamp..
lol.. boot camp.. sounds so wrong..
but a review event is not a good way to review a game.. I like that some sites wait with their review.
Doesn't seem like much of a conspiracy to me. It actually sounds like the game would have scored better if Konami gave reviewers unlimited time.
Coffee Dog
Banned
Did you play ground zeroes? Really, ground zeroes is a better preview of the game than any review would be.
Jeronimo Jones
Member
It's good that someone pointed this out. Reviewers should caveat if they didn't reach the end or if they rushed through to see it.
Since I only use reviews loosely, I'd rather have something like this than have spoilers all over. The schedule/time limit does sound brutal for the reviewers, though.
Since I only use reviews loosely, I'd rather have something like this than have spoilers all over. The schedule/time limit does sound brutal for the reviewers, though.
Resident_UA
Member
You are taking this "40 hours" thing as a fact. From other sources it's pretty clear that this was not the case for everyone. Also how would you know how much time these reviewers spent with the game if this event didn't exist?
Coffee Dog
Banned
Considering the insane playtimes we've been getting from people who are playing it, likely not.
MMaRsu
Banned
I dont think thats what this is about
Bubba_Sparks
Member
That's great for Eurogamer, but by and large I don't trust these reviews. I don't think the problem rests with the reviewers, but the business motivations of game journalism. This sounds like Konami basically holding all the cards and using it to try and get as favourable reviews as possible. I don't agree with that and it sounds like it could compromise the quality of the review. So while I appreciate sites like Eurogamer and Giantbomb, I believe they are exception not the norm.
The Omega Man
Member
I swear I read the same article when MGS4 released, same complains about the boot camp, same everything, I am imagining things?
Those poor corporations! They are very lucky to have you defending them from criticism on the internet.