[Multiplatform] Midway, Sony Sports and Ubi Soft Hate EGM...

Reprinted editorial from EGM #225


The basic jist of this is that those three companies are pissed that EGM gave their games low scores and now they are effectively revoking coverage from the publication. Something similar to this has happened before like Acclaim pulling ads because of the low scoring NES game, Total Recall and Capcom doing the same when they didn't give Super Street Fighter II the stellar reviews that Capcom felt it deserved.

Honestly I'm pissed and disappointed with these companies. It really makes game journalism seem illegitimate and this doesn't help in the light of 'Gertsmann-gate'. This also prevents the video game industry from being taken more seriously. If many magazines are getting paid off for reviews then it just cheapens the medium and really prevents it from being bigger than it should. I'm glad that EGM is sticking to their guns by being honest in their reviews despite how much game companies or even other people might hate it. The truth hurts and at the same time, not everyone's opinion is the same however it is good to be informed about any issues involved with the games.

To the point I would like to propose a gamer wide ban on Midway, Sony Sports and Ubi Soft until they cut this childish act out and allow EGM to cover their games in a timely fashion. I'm going to sell off my Ubi Soft collection which includes Prince of Persia: Sands of Time unfortunately. I don't believe I have any Midway games but if I do I'll get rid of them and I've never bought any sports games, realistic ones anyway. I also plan on boycotting future releases from those companies and it really sucks because there are some good games coming from Ubi Soft, Splinter Cell: Conviction being one of them.

If you're with me, great. I want the corruption of video game journalism and video game PR to stop. I want EGM or any publication or anyone for that matter to really blow the lid off of this. I want it to stop and I want to see honesty in reviews and previews, not ass kissing.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

This is pretty funny, EGM barely review games as it is. What will they fill those four pages they usually dedicate to reviews up the back now? More ads for jellybeans?

There's nowhere I can't reach.

God. "Gertsmann-gate". more NeoGAF faggotry. I swear to God.

Games "journalism" is not about integrity, it's not about being honest, it's about the almighty dollar, and 1up trying to show off and say "look at us, we're the fucking bastion of review integrity" is hypocritical. I don't know what they're attempting to do here by naming a few names, honestly. It's not like these particular companies are the only perpetrators of the problems here.

All this recent bullshit should just reinforce the fact that gaming review sites are pretty much all manipulated in one form or another. It's been this way for years. Maybe people will learn to stop caring about them so much and actually fucking PLAY GAMES, but nahhhhhh. That's just wishful thinking.

But honestly, calling a boycott? Are you serious? Practically no one will participate, and unless pretty much every single person on the market stopped buying this stuff, the company won't fucking care less. No one is going to stop buying Tom Clancy games, sorry bud. Might as well boycott EVERY MAJOR PUBLISHER then, since they all do it. Have fun playing nothing for the next year.

If you're selling your collections, list what you're offing here:

http://www.gamingforce.org/forums/vi...ges-goods.html

I'm sure someone will be interested in Sands of Time, as it's pretty excellent.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by guyinrubbersuit

To the point I would like to propose a gamer wide ban on Midway, Sony Sports and Ubi Soft until they cut this childish act out and allow EGM to cover their games in a timely fashion. I'm going to sell off my Ubi Soft collection which includes Prince of Persia: Sands of Time unfortunately.

And calling for a 'gamer wide ban' or selling your games collection is not childish? Ho ho, selling my used games will sure show these companies! They don't even lose any profit from that, so the gesture has no meaning (outside of your own head), unless you see it as some high moral act (which, yes, is childish).

How can they not allow EGM to cover their games, by the way? The only thing these companies can do is not send out preview copies and similar material, and they have a right to do that for any reason whatsoever. The reason they are providing that material in the first place is to get good publicity and consequentially raise sales. If they feel that EGM does more harm than good for their publicity, they are entitled to take an action in response to that. They have no obligation to be equally fair to all games magazines in the world. I honestly don't see this as something over which to have fits of nerd rage.

Another thing; it's not as if this is some shocking new development. Games journalism has been this way for a very long time, and it certainly isn't limited to the companies targeted here. The way EGM is bringing it up right after the Gamespot scandal makes it appear that they are banking on the readership going 'RAARH YEAH, FIGHT THE POWER, SUPPORT OUR FALLEN, ROTUND HERO GERSTMANN; YOU GO, EGM'.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Aardark

How can they not allow EGM to cover their games, by the way? The only thing these companies can do is not send out preview copies and similar material, and they have a right to do that for any reason whatsoever.

That's exactly it. To paraphase what Hsu said about this, "The reviews may be late, but they'll still be present".

Holy shit am I actually agreeing 100% with an Aardark post? What the fuck is going on.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Aardark

Another thing; it's not as if this is some shocking new development. Games journalism has been this way for a very long time, and it certainly isn't limited to the companies targeted here. The way EGM is bringing it up right after the Gamespot scandal makes it appear that they are banking on the readership going 'RAARH YEAH, FIGHT THE POWER, SUPPORT OUR FALLEN, ROTUND HERO GERSTMANN; YOU GO, EGM'.

Yeah because there is not such thing a coincidence.

Why should I accept it the way as it is? I'm sure there's more of it out there and I want it to be exposed. I want there to be change. Why not have honest video game journalism? Oh just shut up and game right? Yeah well unfortunately I don't always have the time nor money to dedicate towards gaming I'd like to know some of the points of the game before I get it and I'd like it as honestly as possible.

If those companies can't stand a few bad reviews then perhaps they should allow the developers a bit more time to finish the game so it can perhaps be better.

Originally Posted by Aadark

The only thing these companies can do is not send out preview copies and similar material, and they have a right to do that for any reason whatsoever. The reason they are providing that material in the first place is to get good publicity and consequentially raise sales. If they feel that EGM does more harm than good for their publicity, they are entitled to take an action in response to that.

And yet what comes with this coverage, especially exclusive 'good' coverage? Payouts. Bribes of some sort. Here is the game for you to preview it, say good things and you get a cookie. How does that make sense? Because it makes the money go round and round.

This is one of the few reasons why I have an overall problem with publishers. I've put out my opinion, laid down the facts and I really didn't expect much from here but I'm trying at least, and this will go to other places. Kind of sad that gamers as a whole can be pretty damn complacent.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Game "journalism" is a euphemism for PR. That said, you're not really going to muster support here. Especially given that you're trying to plead to a demographic of people who are looking to be entertained by material goods. Part of playing video games is KNOWING that you're dealing with materialism. You're not trying to get a message spread to you, developers want to entertain you with objectives and time sinks. A company is going to want to take advantage of that any way they can.

It's up to you as a consumer to see that this move by those three companies is, collectively, flagrantly fucking stupid.

Video Games can have a message, but ultimately they are a form of entertainment about creating a vacuum for one's personal time. If you want games to be taken more "seriously", just go about engaging in the activity like everyone else is going to and make your educated decisions without letting yourself get carried away in rampant fervor over things such as, oh my god, businesses being what they are: profit focused.

I don't usually see readers get thrown up in arms if someone doesn't get a review copy of a book. And most movie goers know that it's usually a bad sign if a movie isn't pre-screened to critics. There's no reason a video game has to be "special" and different in this regard.

You kind of strike a nerve with pleading to "gamers." "Gamer" is such a worthless fucking term. I don't know if you noticed, but the gamer lifestyle is plagued by shit like "Fata1ity" designed mouse peripherals or other shit like "player endorsed" sound cards and "The Frag Doll" girl team of "professional gamers." You want to get up in arms? It's time to start looking at the community before you start making accusations at something like "Businesses want money and do dumb shit sometimes thinking it will make them money."

FELIPE NO

You're missing our point, Charlie.

This isn't new, this isn't even newsworthy. It's a shitstorm for no reason whatsoever. 1up is looking for supporters as it can capitalize on the recent Gerstmann shit. Aard's right. The timing for this is fucking transparent as hell. Coincidence my ass.

Your bit about HONEST game journalism is pretty funny. There's no way, not with the current way these major sites are run, that you're gonna get anything close to "honest". Keep on fighting the power, son. And keep believing those scores EGM gives games from some non-listed companies. Keep falling for the bullshit. It's really funny.

lmao at "can't expect much from here", though. Why, because we put some honest to god thought into what we say and do instead of being reactionary retards like the rest of the internet? Have fun with your crusade. Tell me how many people you convince to stop buying the products. I'll cut off my balls if it's a two digit number.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Honestly, when the shit with Gerstmann went down the only thing that baffled me was how surprised the majority of people seemed to be reacting to the debacle. I thought it was common knowledge that "professional" game reviews are a total sham, and generally bought and paid for by whatever publisher's game is being reviewed. I had no idea the internet could be so naive.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Long ago, I stopped visiting 1up, IGN and most other videogame review sites. It's always been painfully apparent that certain developers were/are given a promotional bias. Look at how far in advance the coverage for GTA: Vice City began; even 18 months before the release, EGM was pushing four-page spreads with recycled screenshots and interviews with the guys who brought the programmers their coffee. It's no wonder sales were through the roof, the hype was unprecedented.

At the same time, other games barely received as much as an acknowledgement to their existence. A great example is the old PSX game, "Rogue Trip: Vacation 2012". It's hilarious, plays like a dream and provides a strong challenge. Yet it barely earned as much as a blurb in 1998. I only heard of it because a friend worked at an EB and played it in the back room. I still own and play my copy regularly. But Singletrac didn't pony up the bucks for promotion since they were having internal issues (the company split and formed 989 Studios a few months later), so nobody in the media gave two shits.

Do you want to know where I always go for my game reviews? It might sound dumb but GameFAQs hasn't steered me wrong yet. The reviews are posted by people who've actually played the game, and it's easy to distinguish between rabid fanboys and honest critics. It stands to reason that anyone who takes the time to write a review for GameFAQs has a shared interest in the game's genre, so you'll be hearing the words of someone who actually knows and cares about RPGs or shmups. This is a lot better than reading the insincere words of some weiner at Game Informer who was told that his review of "Mass Effect" had better be positively glowing or else he's out of a job. Or worse, the disgruntled ramblings of someone who usually reviews sports titles but was forced to cover for another writer by spending time with Monster Rancher, and giving it a 4 out of sheer spite. If a game is poor, most GameFAQs reviewers will admit as much and back it up with explanations. While the boards there are atrocious, the reviews are pretty damned accurate.

How ya doing, buddy?

This isn't the first time EGM's blatantly called out publishers that have tried these tactics on them before to try and gain cred with the "hardcore." Personally, I think EGM's been a joke of a magazine for years, but that's another matter entirely. Regardless, this isn't uncommon in the industry, and the Gerstmann debacle likely wasn't, either. Stay independent, or stick with independent sites and blogs (also, game forums), and you'll bypass the bullshit (usually).

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

I know where a few professional reviewers post online, for casual discussion. I'm not quite so cynical of every publication out there, because truth of the matter is that magazines used to be the only major source of video game information that a person could find. The major issue is that each player is going to interpret a game a different way, so we will ALWAYS take issue with reviews. And with the internet, there's so much more information flow, that we constantly polarize toward areas that agree with our respective view points.

I have yet to meet a gay that would want to walk into a room full of homophobic people with a violent streak and sharp objects.

It's funny to assume that every publication is ran and operated by people who don't honestly love video games. That we just hire joe writer from off the street and tell him to pump shit out like Fox News does with it's reporters and major faces. That's where we seem to cross the line from being critical to being cynical. The reason you aren't going to see "Rogue Trip: Vacation 2012" in a gaming publication such as EGM is that most of those major publications are targeting the mainstream demographic.

I mean, I think it sucks that the radio doesn't play "Supersilent", but I don't go around questioning what radio's modus operandi and primary audience are. There are tons of games from the START that haven't received coverage. I don't see the point in nailing publications for this. We should call it as we see it, that's how I feel.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Rotorblade

The reason you aren't going to see "Rogue Trip: Vacation 2012" in a gaming publication such as EGM is that most of those major publications are targeting the mainstream demographic.

I didn't choose "Rogue Trip" as my example out of sheer randomness. It makes for a fine example of payola bias because its developer, Singletrac, also produced the phenomenally successful "Twisted Metal" games.

But "Rogue Trip" was also a car-combat game, released at the zenith of the genre's popularity, by the design team that was responsible for the most successful entries in the field up until that point, and well, ever. So why wouldn't the magazines provide coverage? It was certainly an established demographic and the producers were very credible.

The sad truth is that, as I briefly mentioned, Singletrac was experiencing some internal division. The design team didn't agree with many of the executive decisions handed down, issues relating to pushing inferior products out the door with increasing rapidity just to capture a larger market share - a quantity over quality approach to sales.

Ultimately, the designers were granted their last hurrah before Singletrac was reformed under the masthead "989 Studios". "Rogue Trip" was released and the designers were later quoted as saying that it was everything they'd always envisioned Twisted Metal being before orders from upstairs turned the games into something slightly different.

But what does a game magazine care about these details? Their job isn't to report on internal scandals within mid-sized studios (though they do this anyhow). Their purpose is to find quality games and review the hell out of them. As stated above, "Rogue Trip" met every review criteria of the day, save for one: it didn't get a final push in advertising due to the impending split. Without the check in hand, no magazine felt compelled to give the game a second look; there was no profit in reviewing games just because they were actually, you know, good.

The end result is that a remarkably fun game was overlooked by the masses. While it's certainly the developer's fault for not standing behind their product, a fair portion of blame can be put on the review industry for caring more about kickbacks than fulfilling the purpose of their existence. I understand that journalism is a business too, but still, a significant portion of readers care just as much about the smaller titles than the larger ones. Look at the sleeper hit that "Puzzle Quest: Challenge of the Warlords" became due to some gratuitous praise by a few unaffiliated sites, particularly Penny Arcade. It's possible to support games simply for being of high quality without expecting some kind of compensation. It worked out for PA: a month later, the developer returned the favor by purchasing banner space. And it's not even like PA needed more willing advertisers; 1st Playable was just that appreciative.


Incidentally, for all their bluster, 989 Studios went on to flood the market with countless sports and action titles, most of which were found to be merely average or worse by the gaming community. Eventually, 989 developed a reputation for pushing games out the door long before they were polished and ready. Even the reviewers couldn't dismiss this fact. I don't know what happened to them but it's been quite a while since anyone's heard a thing out of 989. They were probably absorbed by Activision or something. But you see where the mass-market onslaught approach can go dreadfully wrong when you care more about shoring up solid reviews than creating a worthwhile product.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Am I to just go off your word that not a single magazine featured a review of this game? Call me crazy, Crash, but I don't have that kind of faith you. In fact, if it was on the PS1, I'm sure Official or Unofficial Playstation Magazine had coverage of it. We established and accept how major magazines work and they're suddenly evil because they do what mediums such as popular radio also happen to partake in?

At that, I also want to say that most outlets gave Puzzle Quest positive reviews. Including the abominable XPlay show. It was successful, yes... but players have just as much culpability in matters as magazines do. Gradius V got rave reviews... it sold like shit. Again, it goes both ways and that's what bothers me about topics like this.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

What?

989 had nothing to do with SingleTrac. SingleTrac reformed into the brilliant Incognito, one of the best yet overlooked developers of today. 989 simply destroyed the Twisted Metal and Jet Moto series.

FELIPE NO

Quote:

Incidentally, for all their bluster, 989 Studios went on to flood the market with countless sports and action titles, most of which were found to be merely average or worse by the gaming community. Eventually, 989 developed a reputation for pushing games out the door long before they were polished and ready. Even the reviewers couldn't dismiss this fact. I don't know what happened to them but it's been quite a while since anyone's heard a thing out of 989. They were probably absorbed by Activision or something. But you see where the mass-market onslaught approach can go dreadfully wrong when you care more about shoring up solid reviews than creating a worthwhile product.

IIRC, 989 Studios was bought up by Sony and became their in-house developing party. Then, as 'Lith and you said, they wrecked Twisted Metal and Jet Moto, and put out a lot of shit onto the PSX, each title flopping more horribly than the previous. Finally, 989 was shut down shortly before the PS2 launched because... well, they were shitty developers putting out shitty games, and nobody bought their shit.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

If you want to boycott something more meaningful, do it to Amazing Spiderman.
Spider-Man: One More Day - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Stay away like it's the plague!

I'm not a big purchaser of any of their products anyway. No matter how much they bribe reviewers, Midway will be seeing my $50 - $60 for TNA Impact. If you want to punish yourself for such a odd reason, it's all you man.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

It's really hard to take any review site seriously when they also advertise the same product they review.

I can take a review of a book in the New Yorker more or less at face value because their ads are all about watches and suits (or something).

But what if you read a review of Harry Potter and then the next page was a 2-page spread saying "buy Harry Potter, cause it's Goddamn awesome", and then the review continues? That's what game reviews are like.

How can anyone take that fucking seriously?

And what about those "field trip" articles you read about reviewers going to publishers and developers and hanging out, don't you think that influences the score? You don't want to give a bad score to a company you like, it's just that simple. That's what those trips are for, in fact, that's why the marketing department pays for them. "Marketing" is little more than a buzzword for "lies", so if the marketing department pays for something involving reviews, it's absolutely intended to influence the reviewers to give a better score. That's all marketing does, make the game look better than it is.

Anyway, what this sounds like is that these three companies will stop trying to influence EGM. Obviously this implies that they are successfully influencing other reviewing agencies, but it's not like they're being covert about it. I don't see what's so shocking here. Hell, I wish more publishers would stop it.

Anyway, the best reviews are right here and everywhere among people you know. You know their bias, you know what they like, and you know they're PROBABLY not being bribed by the company that published the fucking game.


Incidentally, Incognito isn't THAT underrated. They made what every sane person considers to be the best PS3 game of 2007.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Manny Biggz

If you want to boycott something more meaningful, do it to Amazing Spiderman.
Spider-Man: One More Day - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Most comic fans, which aren't represented by an internet majority by the by, universally agree that Spider-Man: One More Day was a bad way of handling retcon. "Gamers" rarely agree on anything in unison.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

As others have said, selling your used games won't really matter. You already paid for them, so the companies already have their money.

It does make good business sense to NOT give advance copies to companies that will give them bad reviews. They want to make money. However, it is stupid to do so if 99 out of a 100 times the reviews ARE good. If anything (and as we have seen from various posts), people begin to ignore what magazines like EGM says if EVERY review for a particular company is good because then one questions whether those are truly the writer's opinions on the game.

At any rate, it doesn't matter TOO much because 1) that means less publicity for that game unless it gives advanced copies to other magazines in which 2) if this is true people will not believe as much in the reviews of that companies' games because they know what will happen if that company were to be given a bad review. Furthermore, 3) for EGM, that just means they will get a few more games from the other companies or perhaps take up a new company or two.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Rotorblade

Most comic fans, which aren't represented by an internet majority by the by, universally agree that Spider-Man: One More Day was a bad way of handling retcon. "Gamers" rarely agree on anything in unison.

I really want to discuss it, but these forums don't seem to have a huge comic fanbase, so I ended up not making the thread. I actually only really started to read comics a short while ago. A good friend of mine (who is VERY MUCH into them) is in a pretty bad mood over the whole situation. I really only mentioned it because a decision like that directly messes with the very product you are paying for. Bribes for better reviews on the other hand, do not really directly effect your enjoyment of the game (arguable).

Yeah, sorry for that thread derailment.

Most amazing jew boots

Who reads EGM for serious game reviews nowdays anyway? They might as well change the name to "Videogame Advertisements Monthly", or VAM.

As far as integrity in Videogame Journalism would go, you might as well have to start up an entire new magazine / web-site and SPECIFICALLY MARKET IT as UNBIASED and IMPARTIAL. Hammer down the fact that your reviews are NOT influenced by Advertisement dollars, nor by exclusive deals with any publisher or developer. Of course the hard part is getting the bigger companies to review your product before it comes out.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?