Haha reviewer vs reviewer CQC battles to see who gets to play MGSV that day.
-
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
Haha reviewer vs reviewer CQC battles to see who gets to play MGSV that day.
Fancy Clown
Member
Sho_Nuff82
Member
EGM actually withheld their review because Konami flat out dictated what they couldn't say in it.
Finale Fireworker
Member
I know it's sort of a false equivelancy, but supervised viewings are commonplace in every critical industry.
Films have private screenings, which journalists jump and down for invites to, where they sometimes watch an unfinished version of the film. Other times it's the final print, but they're still watching it in an environment controlled by the studio.
I have heard of high profile book reviews, like Harry Potter, where the reviewer is allowed to sit and read the book in the company of a publisher rep, and it is not allowed to leave the room.
Being given 40 hours to play MGSV in a supervised environment sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Unless the game cannot be reasonably be completed in 40 hours.
If reviewers are cheating their way through the game and playing as quickly as they can, that's their fault, not Konami's.
Films have private screenings, which journalists jump and down for invites to, where they sometimes watch an unfinished version of the film. Other times it's the final print, but they're still watching it in an environment controlled by the studio.
I have heard of high profile book reviews, like Harry Potter, where the reviewer is allowed to sit and read the book in the company of a publisher rep, and it is not allowed to leave the room.
Being given 40 hours to play MGSV in a supervised environment sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Unless the game cannot be reasonably be completed in 40 hours.
If reviewers are cheating their way through the game and playing as quickly as they can, that's their fault, not Konami's.
GalacticAE
Member
Reviewers rush through games all the time and tend to suck at them too. Their opinions or worthless most of the time . This isnt a surprise.
Stallion Dan
Member
These are very poor cmparisons.
Unless the movies have entire scenes missing, or they are made to watch a 90 minute movie in only 70 minutes, it isn't comparable.
Unless those books have chapters missing and they weren't allowed to read the entire thing, it isn't a good comparison.
This, and sometimes some games are so badly reviewed and the reviewer so poorly informed that the article itself lifts the veil a bit. See Alien Isolation on Polygon.
Do not like the sound of this. So Im guessing they did this review event because if they had sent out review copies they could have ended up in the wrong hands and thus spoilers all over the interwebz like a week before release date?
Do not like the fact that reviewers were literally forced to play the game out of their own comfort, no way can the reviews be 100% accurate like this. But even the the game is getting 10/10's so Konami probably cont care lol
Do not like the fact that reviewers were literally forced to play the game out of their own comfort, no way can the reviews be 100% accurate like this. But even the the game is getting 10/10's so Konami probably cont care lol
Love Deterrence
Member
FWIW, EA is planning a dual review event in Sweden for Battlefront and Need For Speed, given that both developers are based there.
cj_iwakura
Member
Crap like that warrants taking on the threat of a blacklist if you ask me.
BIONIC-ARRRMMM!!
Member
I wouldn't playing bowling with Miller and Quiet.
Hunkasaurus Rex
Banned
As much as this sucks for reviewers, doesn't this speak volumes about the quality of the game? Reviewers were rushed to finish it and yet it still scored several 10s. Being rushed would sour my personal opinion and yet it still scored phenomenally.
well in some reviews the story gets its own category, i have a tough time tristing these, i know that the gameplay itself is gonna be great, but what if these reviews may have missed some underlying problems. maybe, maybe not, im gonna have to see some second opinions on the full retail game (with the exception of MGO obviously).
FlutterPuffs
Member
All I know is if I get 40 hours of fun with it, and only notice the flaws later on, it deserves a 9 in my book.
Probably why I still hold the first Diablo 3 in a good light. It was shit at top difficulty, but I spent a few weeks really loving the game
Feel this game will be the same.
Probably why I still hold the first Diablo 3 in a good light. It was shit at top difficulty, but I spent a few weeks really loving the game
Feel this game will be the same.
This
Stealth_Cobra
Member
Honestly, it's not really that different from recieving the game a couple of days before street date and rushing to complete it to be able to print your review before embargo... It's not like reviewers take their time when reviewing games anyways, they basically try to reach endgame as fast as they can so they can print a review without risking looking like morons because they didn't report on the ending or the big plot twist they missed since they were only halfway into the game.
The only difference is you're not doing this on your own turf and you get to interact with other game journalists, which can be a good thing since you'll be able to share experiences and get a deeper understanding of the systems from your peers, in case you missed some features and such.
I can see how Konami can appear as a villain in this story, as they basically hoard journalists in some sort of boot camp to binge play their game while restricting their ability to talk about the content they experience, but then again, I believe it is indeed mostly done so consumers do not get spoiled in regards to content, endings and such. Doing reviews in such a controlled environnement, with NDAs and such ensures journalists will not spoil the game in advance, which in turns means we'll get a review that describes the game, but doesn't spoil the story.
The only difference is you're not doing this on your own turf and you get to interact with other game journalists, which can be a good thing since you'll be able to share experiences and get a deeper understanding of the systems from your peers, in case you missed some features and such.
I can see how Konami can appear as a villain in this story, as they basically hoard journalists in some sort of boot camp to binge play their game while restricting their ability to talk about the content they experience, but then again, I believe it is indeed mostly done so consumers do not get spoiled in regards to content, endings and such. Doing reviews in such a controlled environnement, with NDAs and such ensures journalists will not spoil the game in advance, which in turns means we'll get a review that describes the game, but doesn't spoil the story.
(mgs2 spoilers)
https://youtu.be/F4IncLsiNuQ?t=4m52s
https://youtu.be/F4IncLsiNuQ?t=4m52s
Isn't this what pretty much what all big games do nowdays for early reviews? I remember a interesting thread about it a while back.
This one:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/1qijni/the_true_story_of_most_review_events/
This one:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/1qijni/the_true_story_of_most_review_events/
sciencerob
Member
I don't see what the big fuss is about. People love to try to feel as if some establishment is slighting them. I see no problem at all with a review event so long as they are not told to play a specific way or have they work severely edit or curtailed (something like "don't spoil the ending" is fine with me).
I don't know how they decide who should be expected to attend the event and who gets their own copy so I can't comment on that.
I don't know how they decide who should be expected to attend the event and who gets their own copy so I can't comment on that.
They're not pathetic. They're trying to do their jobs under bullshit conditions.
Can you name three such games from this year?
Even if true, how does that make it ok though?
I can't even name three big AAA games that have come out this year off the top of my head, but I'm sure I could easily name three with a bit of digging (which I won't do now since I'm at work).
Most reviews of modern Halo and CoD games are based on similar review events. MS will organise the same kind of review event for Halo 5 later this year.
Didn't say that it's OK, just that it's standard practice. I don't remember there being any outrage when CoD: Advanced Warfare came out even though nearly all the reviews were based on similar review events organised by Activision.
They have always done it for COD and Halo, probably Assasins Creed and Battlefield as well, pretty much any big Take-Two game, Bioshock, GTA etc. Don't know off the top of my head what others but I'm sure there are a lot that have brought in youtubers and reviewers in to get early looks at the games.
Markitron
Is currently staging a hunger strike outside Gearbox HQ while trying to hate them to death
I don't think anyone is really suggesting the game isn't worthy of it's scores, just that these kind of review events are a bit shady and not good for the industry. I don't think it will have a massive effect on MGSV, but the Battlefield 4 event covered up the games horrible online performance, and I really don't want Battlefront to be reviewed at an event.
Stealth_Cobra
Member
My main gripe with such a means to produce reviews are the following.
1 - You're in a controlled environnement, meaning the dev controls what you get to play to some extend, and how you play it. If they don't want you to experience the online mode, they make it unavialable, and so on. It can give the impression that they are filtering what gamers get to know before release, especialyl considering reviewers were pretty much not allowed to talk about anything that was not officially announced. In the end, it makes it more of an "Impression" than a "Review", as to me a review is supposed to be able to dissect a game as a whole, not just what it is convinent to discuss. Binge experiencing something in a controlled environnement is not the best for objectivity, basically.
2 - You're surrounded with Product Placement, memorabilia, posters from the game in question. You're also surrounded by the guys that made the game, making it harder to be critical. It's always harder to tell someone that what he spent the last five years doing kinda sucks. In sense, it's closer to being called for a playtest... You feel like you're "in the zone" with the devs and in a sense, you might let your guard down and forget you're a reviewer. This breaks neutrality. It would also feel somewhat wrong to play the game in front of the devs for five days, then write a review slamming the game for being crap.
3 - I'm not going to say it's bribing journalists, but you can be sure they get preferrential treatment. I'm guessing the trip to the boot camp is paid expenses, so is the hotel during their stay. They probably get meals, snacks and merch thrown at them, plus they get the opportunity to play the game days before everyone else and meet the creators. In a sense, it feels like VIP treatment, and it's bound to influence review scores in some way.
4 - Another problem is that it kinda controls who gets to review the game. The publisher hand picks the review sites who "deserve" to play the game early on, based on popularity, affinity and other corporate concerns. In a sense, the Publisher decides who gets the revenue ad from early clicks for reviews, too : By giving early access to a select few websites, they ensure said websites get more site traffic from their reviews, and ensure smaller, less known websites are left in the dark in terms of review money. Finally, this means outspoken folks like Jim Sterling , Yathzee and Angry Joe are filtered out of the initial batch of review, wheareas people that praise metal gear like Yong Yea get to play it early because it will generate sales. By the time the more critical reviewers get the game, their voices are buried by the initial batch of overly positive reviews. Again, review copies have the same problem, but the publisher can send more since it's just a plastic disk being shipped, not an all out paid expense trip they must host for journalists, meaning it's more democratic and less elitist.
5 - These type of review events probably tend to normalise reviews too. In a sense, if everyone is playing the game at their offices alone, they will all produce a different, mostly personal and unique opinion. But in such a setting, everyone's opinions have a chance to merge together and overlap, as the reviewers are constantly discussing the game. Peer pressure is strong, and if you realise all your fellow reviewers are going to give the game a ten, are you really going to go on a limb and give the game a 7 ?
6 - Last but not least, there is what I would call the "future opportunities" card at play here. In a sense, as a review website, you're getting the preferrential treatment now, but if you were to produce a steaming pile of hatred as a review, you can pretty much be guaranteed you would not be reinvited for the next similar event in the future. In the end, it becomes a situation where, if you were to absolutely hate the game, it would be detrimental to complain about it in the review and give it an average score, because it would make you look ungrateful and would remove you from the publisher's list of "publications that deserve to play this game early". In the end, you would lose ad revenue on the next game since you would be late to the party with your review. Just like review copie do to a lesser extent, this type of behaviour can influence review sales, as reviewers do not want to get blacklisted and lose revenue.
1 - You're in a controlled environnement, meaning the dev controls what you get to play to some extend, and how you play it. If they don't want you to experience the online mode, they make it unavialable, and so on. It can give the impression that they are filtering what gamers get to know before release, especialyl considering reviewers were pretty much not allowed to talk about anything that was not officially announced. In the end, it makes it more of an "Impression" than a "Review", as to me a review is supposed to be able to dissect a game as a whole, not just what it is convinent to discuss. Binge experiencing something in a controlled environnement is not the best for objectivity, basically.
2 - You're surrounded with Product Placement, memorabilia, posters from the game in question. You're also surrounded by the guys that made the game, making it harder to be critical. It's always harder to tell someone that what he spent the last five years doing kinda sucks. In sense, it's closer to being called for a playtest... You feel like you're "in the zone" with the devs and in a sense, you might let your guard down and forget you're a reviewer. This breaks neutrality. It would also feel somewhat wrong to play the game in front of the devs for five days, then write a review slamming the game for being crap.
3 - I'm not going to say it's bribing journalists, but you can be sure they get preferrential treatment. I'm guessing the trip to the boot camp is paid expenses, so is the hotel during their stay. They probably get meals, snacks and merch thrown at them, plus they get the opportunity to play the game days before everyone else and meet the creators. In a sense, it feels like VIP treatment, and it's bound to influence review scores in some way.
4 - Another problem is that it kinda controls who gets to review the game. The publisher hand picks the review sites who "deserve" to play the game early on, based on popularity, affinity and other corporate concerns. In a sense, the Publisher decides who gets the revenue ad from early clicks for reviews, too : By giving early access to a select few websites, they ensure said websites get more site traffic from their reviews, and ensure smaller, less known websites are left in the dark in terms of review money. Finally, this means outspoken folks like Jim Sterling , Yathzee and Angry Joe are filtered out of the initial batch of review, wheareas people that praise metal gear like Yong Yea get to play it early because it will generate sales. By the time the more critical reviewers get the game, their voices are buried by the initial batch of overly positive reviews. Again, review copies have the same problem, but the publisher can send more since it's just a plastic disk being shipped, not an all out paid expense trip they must host for journalists, meaning it's more democratic and less elitist.
5 - These type of review events probably tend to normalise reviews too. In a sense, if everyone is playing the game at their offices alone, they will all produce a different, mostly personal and unique opinion. But in such a setting, everyone's opinions have a chance to merge together and overlap, as the reviewers are constantly discussing the game. Peer pressure is strong, and if you realise all your fellow reviewers are going to give the game a ten, are you really going to go on a limb and give the game a 7 ?
6 - Last but not least, there is what I would call the "future opportunities" card at play here. In a sense, as a review website, you're getting the preferrential treatment now, but if you were to produce a steaming pile of hatred as a review, you can pretty much be guaranteed you would not be reinvited for the next similar event in the future. In the end, it becomes a situation where, if you were to absolutely hate the game, it would be detrimental to complain about it in the review and give it an average score, because it would make you look ungrateful and would remove you from the publisher's list of "publications that deserve to play this game early". In the end, you would lose ad revenue on the next game since you would be late to the party with your review. Just like review copie do to a lesser extent, this type of behaviour can influence review sales, as reviewers do not want to get blacklisted and lose revenue.
Live Free or Die
Banned
Agreed.
normalmode
Member
If you also include preview events, the games media in San Francisco alone averages 2 such events per week (3 per week if you include mobile and indie games coverage). Big name news outlets not based in SF are often flown here for preview event, sometimes with overnight stays.