Support NeoGAF

[gblues]

Seems like a lot of FUD over nothing.

I wouldn't be surprised to learn that sites with full review copies also did shit like play the game with the chicken hat on the whole time, because just because they aren't being monitored by Konami's ninjas doesn't mean they don't have deadlines to meet.

I mean, right now I'm pseudo-marathoning the MGS series to prep for MGSV, and I'm playing on Easy because right now I care more about refreshing myself on the narrative than I do about the gameplay.

 

[YoungHav]

Isn't that enough time to give a game a score? The story may falter but it's not like play mechanics collapse on hour 38.

 

[Chariot]

Not my fault they deliver a turf in GZ. Back in e3 2013 I was tremendously excited for what they showed, it looked like it had topped Splinter cell in fluidness of game play, and was open world even! With many new stealth mechanics!

Then I got to play GZ, and it's honestly one of the few games I regret buying in my whole life, so I had pretty much scrapped MGS5 from my list, until these glaring reviews came...

Huh, what didn't you like about, GZ, besides the length of the main mission of course.

 

[Mifec]

Not my fault they deliver a turf in GZ. Back in e3 2013 I was tremendously excited for what they showed, it looked like it had topped Splinter cell in fluidness of game play, and was open world even! With many new stealth mechanics!

Then I got to play GZ, and it's honestly one of the few games I regret buying in my whole life, so I had pretty much scrapped MGS5 from my list, until these glaring reviews came...

All I'm reading is: I hate GZ because it had the best stealth gameplay in years with only SC: Blacklist coming close.

 

[Curufinwe]

Isn't that enough time to give a game a score? The story may falter but it's not like play mechanics collapse on hour 38.

Yes. The truth is that reviewers don't always finish open world games or just long/difficult games before assigning scores, even if they get sent advance copies. Or they rush thru them to do so.

 

[Dyne]

This had me until the reviewers were likening 8 hours a day to working in a coalmine

What? What about every game developer ever working 12+ hours a day out to ship a game?

 

[Jackpot]

One of the biggest games of the year gets good reviews, better break out the conspiracy theory articles.

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.

*sigh* why can't ever discuss things in measured terms?

When two reviewers literally say that how they had to play the game affected their reception of it, with one even going on to say it would have changed his review score, you conclude that it's a conspiracy?

So many people not seeing this...

Absolutely disgraceful I say!

itsfuckingnothing.gif

And this one comment disproves all the others because...? You think because not everyone blasted through the game that none of them did? Your source is even identical in standard to those in the OP: a reviewer who attended the event. Yet somehow this is enough for you to hold as the only possible account a reviewer could experience. Why even go through cognitive dissonance over such a minor thing?

No one is saying the whole game is a lie, just that the reviews are not comprehensive on every element and should be treated more like impressions from large preview builds, and that the consumer should be informed of this because (some) people are mature enough to incorporate such subtleties into their anticipatory view of the game and how to view reviews in general.

 

[mclem]

Looks like Eurogamer is going with the "Initial impressions based on review event, full review when they can do it at their own pace" approach

 

[ethomaz]

Another MGSV thread based in nothing...

Like the "locked behind pay wall" lol lol lol

 

[SuperDowns]

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.

....not cool at all.

 

[jschreier]

*sigh* why can't ever discuss things in measured terms?

When two reviewers literally say that how they had to play the game affected their reception of it, with one even going on to say it would have changed his review score, you conclude that it's a conspiracy?



And this one comment disproves all the others because...? You think because not everyone blasted through the game that none of them did? Your source is even identical in standard to those in the OP: a reviewer who attended the event. Yet somehow this is enough for you to hold as the only possible account a reviewer could experience. Why even go through cognitive dissonance over such a minor thing?

No one is saying the whole game is a lie, just that the reviews are not comprehensive on every element and should be treated more like impressions from large preview builds, and that the consumer should be informed of this because (some) people are mature enough to incorporate such subtleties into their anticipatory view of the game and how to view reviews in general.

I think you need to make sure you have all your facts straight. As I said, we didn't attend a review event. People at other major gaming outlets have also said they received copies from Konami and did not attend the event.

 

[CapitalismSucks DonkeyBalls]

I think you need to make sure you have all your facts straight. As I said, we didn't attend a review event. People at other major gaming outlets have also said they received copies from Konami and did not attend the event.

That's cool. You 're not 100% of the industry, though. It's still a major problem.

 

[SenjutsuSage]

OMG I didn't know my laptop supported 3D!!

Bravo. I was trying to find the perfect response to that gif, and this is it. This is most certainly it.

 

[Salaadin]

How exactly does this compromise reviews? Were reviewers forced to only play the good parts?

 

[catbrush]

There's no need for a reviewer to complete a game to write a legitimate review. The notion that someone has to spend hundreds of hours to have an understanding on whether or not a game is enjoyable is ridiculous.

If a game sucks for the first 40 hours, it's a shit game. There's nothing a game can possibly offer that would justify ~10 shitty play sessions. Conversely, if a game is amazing for the first 40 hours, the purchase has already been justified.

 

[CapitalismSucks DonkeyBalls]

How exactly does this compromise reviews? Were reviewers forced to only play the good parts?

They were given an item that made them invisible to enemies, taking away a major element of the gameplay.

 

[TurboButts]

Well, I did. The incredible janky controls, really stupid missions (oh here's a few war prisoners, you have to escort them on your back, one by one, enjoy!), and the incredibly bad cutscenes and dialog made me few like I was robbed. And I got the game for 6 bucks on a sale.

The reviews made it sound like everything was great now, but I guess i'll wait for a proper hands on then...

Okay, that's fair. Maybe TPP will be different for you. Fulton seems to take the place of extracting people in a lot of cases, and there seems to be much more varied ways to attack missions. If you didn't like the two cutscenes in GZ, then I dunno. *shrug* They seemed fine to me

 

[raven777]

They were given an item that made them invisible to enemies, taking away a major element of the gameplay.

Its not like that item is exclusive to the review event. You get it in the full game also.

 

[CapitalismSucks DonkeyBalls]

Its not like that item is exclusive to the review event. You get it in the full game also.

But it inhibits the ability to utilize one of the main assets of the damn series...stealth. Do I really have to explain why this is a problem for a review?

 

[KHlover]

They were given an item that made them invisible to enemies, taking away a major element of the gameplay.

Chicken hat? The weren't "given" it, that's an item that simply exists in the game that you can use if you're too much of a chicken to play properly

 

[iratA]

Mountain out of a Mole hill? Yep.

Call me critical but I feel like we're almost trying to find controversy every week in the Games Industry these days. But hey... VIVA LA REVOLUTION! am I right?!

 

[Salaadin]

They were given an item that made them invisible to enemies, taking away a major element of the gameplay.

So they speed ran their way through every mission and came away highly impressed by the gameplay?

 

[Damerman]

We mentioned all this in our (French only sorry) review of the game. No one was forced to play one way or another, the only requirement was that there were only 6 days to do the review (2 days for the preview, then 4 days a few weeks later starting from that save).

I think the scepticism for such an event is warranted, but to dismiss it as utterly disgusting Is hyperbolic.

 

[TurboButts]

They were given an item that made them invisible to enemies, taking away a major element of the gameplay.

The game "rewards" you with that item if you're bad or keep getting killed or caught and stuff. So, may be indicative how some of these reviewers were playing/felt the need to play.

 

[Chariot]

They were given an item that made them invisible to enemies, taking away a major element of the gameplay.

They comprpmised themselves. It's part of the game. When you suck too much you get the chickem hat. If you so prefer you can play that way. This one is on the reviewers and not on Konami.

 

[maltrain]

Can't comment on any other reviewers, but I didn't attend a review event and I haven't used the chicken hat at all -- in fact, I wind up suiciding just about every time I get caught, which is likely why I've been progressing so slowly.

Also, Konami has not tried to control anything I've written, other than requesting that we not share anything about the ending, which is totally reasonable.

Period.

 

[TylerD]

And this one comment disproves all the others because...? You think because not everyone blasted through the game that none of them did? Your source is even identical in standard to those in the OP: a reviewer who attended the event. Yet somehow this is enough for you to hold as the only possible account a reviewer could experience. Why even go through cognitive dissonance over such a minor thing?

No one is saying the whole game is a lie, just that the reviews are not comprehensive on every element and should be treated more like impressions from large preview builds, and that the consumer should be informed of this because (some) people are mature enough to incorporate such subtleties into their anticipatory view of the game and how to view reviews in general.

It doesn't disprove all others but I think it's tiring seeing so many threads where it feels like everyone is in a race to be the most outraged.

 

[normalmode]

My play record before I began writing my review for The Daily Dot yesterday morning (http://www.dailydot.com/geek/metal-gear-solid-v-phantom-pain-review/):

-60 hours total
-I would describe my involvement with Mother Base as moderate. I let my mission completion earnings dictate how busy R&D was and once I unlocked the Combat Deployment option, I always made sure that my guys were always busy with missions.
-Got what I believe was the proper ending by playing Mission 46. Note that you can unlock this mission while still having 6 of the 50 Main Missions incomplete. These remaining missions are revisits of older missions at harder difficulty settings.
-42 Side Ops beaten
-No Reflex
-No Chicken Hats
-Turned off Auto-Aim Correction
-Turned off Keep Aim Viewpoint

The event started on Tuesday, ended on Friday, and we were allowed to retain our save files so we could continue our progress into the weekend.

Fun fact: I put in 45 hours during the review event BUT I lost 7 of those hours due to playing on a faulty PS4 the first day, one that erased my saved when the console shut down for the night. To make up for this, Konami extended the Wednesday and Thursday play session end times from 9PM to midnight. Despite this make up time, I was still pissed off at the situation. The knowledge that some outlets did not have to attend the event made me doubly pissed off. I gave the game a 5 out of 5.

 

[JetBlackPanda]

is there a chance konami is hiding a portion of the game from everyone? I know that these review camps aren't out of the ordinary but something seems fish about this entire thing.

 

[Altairre]

I don't think running a review after an event like that is good practice. Never liked review events, never will. Since the big sites have recieved copies in advance I think that's fair game though I do like that sites like Kotaku are taking their time with it.

 

[KHlover]

is there a chance konami is hiding a portion of the game from everyone? I know that these review camps aren't out of the ordinary but something seems fish about this entire thing.

no. unless you think the review copies they sent out are incomplete lol

 

[ethomaz]

is there a chance konami is hiding a portion of the game from everyone? I know that these review camps aren't out of the ordinary but something seems fish about this entire thing.

No.

The review event copy was the final one with the full game (except the online part) and the reviewers could continue to play after the review event ends.

The thread is a bit premature to be fair.

 

[MiamiWesker]

My play record before I began writing my review for The Daily Dot yesterday morning (http://www.dailydot.com/geek/metal-gear-solid-v-phantom-pain-review/):

-60 hours total
-I would describe my involvement with Mother Base as moderate. I let my mission completion earnings dictate how busy R&D was and once I unlocked the Combat Deployment option, I always made sure that my guys were always busy with missions.
-Got what I believe was the proper ending by playing Mission 46. Note that you can unlock this mission while still having 6 of the 50 Main Missions incomplete. These remaining missions are revisits of older missions at harder difficulty settings.
-42 Side Ops beaten
-No Reflex
-No Chicken Hats
-Turned off Auto-Aim Correction
-Turned off Keep Aim Viewpoint

The event started on Tuesday, ended on Friday, and we were allowed to retain our save files so we could continue our progress into the weekend.

Fun fact: I put in 45 hours during the review event BUT I lost 7 of those hours due to playing on a faulty PS4 the first day, one that erased my saved when the console shut down for the night. To make up for this, Konami extended the Wednesday and Thursday play session end times from 9PM to midnight. Despite this make up time, I was still pissed off at the situation. The knowledge that some outlets did not have to attend the event made me doubly pissed off. I gave the game a 5 out of 5.

This is awesome thank you for sharing. The event itself doesn't mean reviewers couldn't properly play its that some clearly rushed through it. You seem to play as I would, good stuff.

 

[Moon_frogger]

They did this to minimize spoilers. I agree these practices in general are bad for everybody involved except maybe the publisher but honestly I couldn't see them doing it any other way. This isn't a regular game. I really could care less about the reviews, no force on earth would stop me from buying phantom pain, even if the scores were all 2/10. It's like Star Wars films. I'll always go see them no matter what. I'm all in.


Also, did we seriously expect every reviewer would explore every nook and cranny of this game before reviewing it? Really? Review event or not, there were always gonna be press rushing through the thing to meet a deadline. Sucks, but it is what it is. Just stick with an outlet you trust if you really need an 'unbiased' score and hope for the best.

 

[Jackpot]

There's no need for a reviewer to complete a game to write a legitimate review.

Mass Effect 3.

And frankly, completing the game is the least they can do. It's their job. Their profession's whole reason for being is to be the most complete and thorough source of knowledge for consumers.

 

[Sub_Level]

no. unless you think the review copies they sent out are incomplete lol

No.

The review event copy was the final one with the full game (except the online part) and the reviewers could continue to play after the review event ends.

The thread is a bit premature to be fair.

Peace Walker had an extra ending that was fairly well hidden. I think the skepticism comes from a reasonable place.

 

[TemplaerDude]

Yeah, this is why I stopped reading or caring about reviews. The whole "WE HAVE TO HAVE IT OUT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE" thing doesn't help either.

 

[sonicmj1]

I think you need to make sure you have all your facts straight. As I said, we didn't attend a review event. People at other major gaming outlets have also said they received copies from Konami and did not attend the event.

It seems like Konami is micromanaging the review phase, handling different outlets with different standards. Big places may have more control over how they run reviews, but sites like Giant Bomb don't have review code right now because they passed on the review event.

I'm at least encouraged that a number of places have reacted to the time constraints of the embargo by putting up impressions for now, and taking their time before issuing a final review.

 

[ethomaz]

Peace Walker had an extra ending that was fairly well hidden. I think the skepticism comes from a reasonable place.

Like I said reviewers can reach the secret ending in MGSV... there were enough time to even more than that.

BTW I don't think a secret ending can change a review score... the reviewers already have what he needs to score a game even without the secret ending.

 

[Tain]

avoid outlets that review games before they are released

 

[Sub_Level]

Like I said reviewers can reach the secret ending in MGSV... there were enough time to even more than that.

Cool.

 

[Sword Of Doom]

Boot camp or not would reviewers have more than 40 hours to put into a game before reviewing it? I don't know it does sound shitty but it's understandable and knowing that it's Konami it sort of makes it even shittier but I feel like after 40 hours someone should have a pretty good grasp of the quality of the game. It's not like reviews aren't usually rushed anyways

 

[Portugeezer]

Is chicken hat a part of the game? Why?

 

[RichiRamjag]

But it inhibits the ability to utilize one of the main assets of the damn series...stealth. Do I really have to explain why this is a problem for a review?

So one guy says others used it. There is no proof every reviewer used it, you're grasping at straws dude. Other reviewers are saying they had dozens of hours to try it.

 

[Herbs]

It's too bad reviews seem to be tied to the requirement of having to complete the game. Maybe best to just engage in playing the game and give your impressions from there without the need to "complete."

 

[Lothars]

Not my fault they deliver a turf in GZ. Back in e3 2013 I was tremendously excited for what they showed, it looked like it had topped Splinter cell in fluidness of game play, and was open world even! With many new stealth mechanics!

Then I got to play GZ, and it's honestly one of the few games I regret buying in my whole life, so I had pretty much scrapped MGS5 from my list, until these glaring reviews came...

They didn't deliver a turd in GZ, GZ is a great game that well it was short but had a bunch of replayability. I loved GZ which makes me excited for TPP but since you didn't like it than who knows if you will like TPP.

 

[Slowdive]

Is chicken hat a part of the game? Why?

You get it if you get spotted a lot.

 

[Herbs]

You get it if you get spotted a lot.

So specifically designed for Drew Scanlon.

 

[Skele7on]

it's said that the chicken hat upon wearing will make you feel great shame for your words and deeds.

 

[snake_eater_raiden]

I think you need to make sure you have all your facts straight. As I said, we didn't attend a review event. People at other major gaming outlets have also said they received copies from Konami and did not attend the event.

Jason, one question. I hope you will be able to answer this honestly.

Don't you think review events under the watch of publisher PR is detrimental to the essence of games journalism? Don't you think games should be "reviewed" from the player perspective i.e. a copy should be provided to you and should review it "comfortably" on your couch/sofa? You know, just like a average player would.