Publishers allegedly blackball EGM for negative coverage (joystiq.com)

[7th lutz]

http://www.joystiq.com/2008/01/09/pu...tive-coverage/

In his latest editorial, Electronic Gaming Monthly Editor-in-chief Dan "Shoe" Hsu publicly calls out three companies that are allegedly refusing to work with the magazine due to negative reviews of their games. According to Hsu, the members of Midway's Mortal Kombat team, Sony's sports division and Ubisoft as a whole are refusing to give EGM access to early preview or review builds of their games (in the case of Ubisoft, Hsu specifically says "it seems our coverage of Assassin's Creed was the last straw").

As a result, Hsu says EGM readers will get "little, late, or no coverage" of these companies' games. "We won't treat these products or companies any differently, and we'll just cover them to the best of our own abilities, with or without their support," Hsu writes. "Because, after all, we're writing for you, the reader -- not them."

[heybtbm]

While at first glance this looks like pissy publishers putting the hammer down on "the little guy", it can't be denied that EGM is unneccessarily harsh on some of their reviews. Case in point: Assassin's Creed. One of their reviewers gave it a 3.5 out of 10. I mean c'mon...a 3.5? It almost seems like a "revenge" score more than an objective analysis of the game. I'm sure there's more behind this story than the public knows.

Not to mention the articles are written by "XTREME, IN YOUR FACE" teenagers. They have a column by Seanbaby for Christ's sake. I'm glad I get the mag. for free. I wouldn't pay a dime for it.

[Frankie_Says_Relax]

While at first glance this looks like pissy publishers putting the hammer down on "the little guy", it can't be denied that EGM is unneccessarily harsh on their reviews. Case in point: Assassin's Creed. One of their reviewers gave it a 3.5 out of 10. I mean c'mon...a 3.5? It almost seems like a "revenge" score more than an objective analysis of the game. I'm sure there's more behind this story than the public knows.

While I agree that that is obviously a score that no objective professional reviewer worth his/her salt should be giving that game ... there's just something about THAT game that really seems to transcend the "average" category in some people's minds.

I can't remember the last time I've seen a game so polarizing. It completely satisfies some users despite any minor design flaws, and absolutely enrages others like some type of 28 Days Later monkey virus.

Granted, I'm in the "wholly satisfied" camp, and I can see some if not all of the criticisms presented about the game design ... but I really can't for the life of me see a 3.5 as anything other than an attack score.

[fcw3]

Sounds like more of a threat by EGM to the publishers. So the EGM crew doesn't get the stuff early ! We'll show you ! We'll not review any of your games. :P

Maybe game magazines should be like Consumer Reports. To be objective, they should buy what they are reviewing themselves.

FRED

[Wolfrider31]

While at first glance this looks like pissy publishers putting the hammer down on "the little guy", it can't be denied that EGM is unneccessarily harsh on some of their reviews. Case in point: Assassin's Creed. One of their reviewers gave it a 3.5 out of 10. I mean c'mon...a 3.5? It almost seems like a "revenge" score more than an objective analysis of the game. I'm sure there's more behind this story than the public knows.

Not to mention the articles are written by "XTREME, IN YOUR FACE" teenagers. They have a column by Seanbaby for Christ's sake. I'm glad I get the mag. for free. I wouldn't pay a dime for it.

A 3.5? Seriously?

I think AC is overrated, but its impossible to deny that it as at least a solid, well put together piece of software. I can see a 6 or 7, or possibly a 5 if someone REALLY hated it. But 3.5? Isn't that like Superman 64 territory?

Regardless, it's still the reviewers opinion (however infantile the reviewer may have been) and publisher's shouldn't attempt to stomp all over an editorial. I have to applaud Hsu for outing those publishers, I hope more publications and websites jump on board.

[DaBargainHunta]

Face the facts, folks: EGM's glory days are long over.

Then again, their reviews have always been broken.

Case in point: Herzog Zwei got 3's and 4's back in the early '90s.

[heybtbm]

Then again, their reviews have always been broken. Case in point: Herzog Zwei got 3's and 4's back in the early '90s.

3's and 4's? Blasphemy. Herzog Zwei is the grandaddy of all RTS games and one of the best Genesis games ever made. I guess it was too ahead of their time.

[Clownzilla]

With the internet and reviews of actual owners of the game, why do these magazines actually review games any more. I trust a set of many user reviews more than the reviews of a professional magazine writer. Granted, they still can have a readership based off of PREviews, commentary, industry news, and trends but who trusts magazine reviews anymore?

[Borman]

A 3.5? Seriously?

I think AC is overrated, but its impossible to deny that it as at least a solid, well put together piece of software. I can see a 6 or 7, or possibly a 5 if someone REALLY hated it. But 3.5? Isn't that like Superman 64 territory?

Regardless, it's still the reviewers opinion (however infantile the reviewer may have been) and publisher's shouldn't attempt to stomp all over an editorial. I have to applaud Hsu for outing those publishers, I hope more publications and websites jump on board.

Id give it a 3.5 on the PS3. Constantly messing up, inconsistant graphics, boring dialogue, boring, repetitive gameplay, just to name a few. The whole crashing thing is what brings it down to a 3.5 from an otherwise 5 or 6 though.

[Joker T]

I get EGM for free but I HATE it, Giving Assassin's Creed a 3.5 is just extremely unprofessional.

EGM had said that the early builds were rough in terms of control and they very well could have based their reviews on this. Seeing how much shit they talk about Too Human I wouldn't be suprised to see EGM give that game horrible scores.

I hated EGM before that review though, many of their scores are off and nothing is particularly well written or interesting.

[Neil Koch]

I gave up on EGM a year or so ago when their preview of a DOA Volleyball game was accoompanied by a 2-page picture of a guy on the toilet, where it was inferred he was pleasuring himself to pictures of the DOA girls.

I'm not a prude or anything, but it just proved the point of how much the magazine has sunk. I was getting a free subscription, but I stopped it after that. It's not even worth my time to read it while I'm on the can.

[Frankie_Says_Relax]

Id give it a 3.5 on the PS3. Constantly messing up, inconsistant graphics, boring dialogue, boring, repetitive gameplay, just to name a few. The whole crashing thing is what brings it down to a 3.5 from an otherwise 5 or 6 though.

The crashing issue with the software, as well as some graphical tearing was patched a week or so after the game's release on the PS3.

The repetitive grameplay ... well, a patch can't fix that I suppose.

[Snapple]

Who cares about the 3.5? If they honestly think it's a 3.5, give it a 3.5. If you disagree with it, disagree with it. And if 3.5 is Superman 64 territory, then there's no point in even having 1-3.0. Not that it matters, but I know plenty of people that do not find Assassin's Creed to be very fun at all. There are legitimate gripes about the game.

[heybtbm]

Who cares about the 3.5? If they honestly think it's a 3.5, give it a 3.5. If you disagree with it, disagree with it. And if 3.5 is Superman 64 territory, then there's no point in even having 1-3.0.

I'll agree with you about the "who cares" part as far as gamers go. Publishers/developers on the other hand, I'm sure they do care. Quite a bit actually.

What I'm questioning is EGM's lack of consistancy in their grading scale. If Assassin's Creed gets a 3.5 and some absolute crap (like Sneak King) gets a 5.0, is there really any value of assigning numbers to games?

[Streetball 21]

EGM has also had it out for the Mortal Kombat games. I remember they would always makes jokes about the characters and just pretty much laugh at the game. I am a Mortal Kombat fan so I might be a little bit bias, but I never thought the Mortal Kombat games were that bad.

[Mangar]

If you figure an average game is a 5 - Then a guy rating a game he feels is "Below Average" at 3.5 is fair. Reviews are reviews. They are opinions, and everyone is entitled to them. Regardless of what a publisher thinks. The problem lay more in using a 10 point scale, where 5 rarely reflects an "Average Game."

[Half Japanese]

It almost seems like EGM knows how irrelevant they've become and are trying to pander to a fanbase that has largely lost faith in them, putting on a show of being discriminated against to purportedly cast themselves in a light of having the utmost integrity. I'm not buying it.

I lost faith in EGM around the time the Playstation 2 came out, when a lot of their reviews were unnecessarily harsh to perfectly fine games jus so the editors could have a race to the bottom as far as who could be the most 'hilariously' negative. I've said it before, and will gladly bring it up every time it seems apropos: EGM gave the sleeper hit Deathrow for the Xbox something like a 4.5 out of 5, bashing the game's immaturity while completely ignoring the fact it was a fairly original and extremely fun non-traditional sports title, the likes of which haven't been seen with any regularity since the 16-bit days. Elsewhere (Gamespot and IGN), the game was receiving solid 8's.

Here's one more thing I think: publishers should be selective with who they send review copies to. This is exactly why you don't see some budget titles reviewed, because the publishers know they're going to get ravaged and have a disproportionate effect on potential sales. On the other hand, when you have an above-average if not completely competent game that's a pretty safe bet for being a hit, why tarnish that sending a review to a mag that's just going to tear it a new asshole and hurt sales? I know it's not the best thing integrity-wise for a business to do, but it would seem to make business sense. Why invite the neighbor to take a dip in your pool if all they do is continually piss in it?

[Kid Fenris]

EGM gave the GameBoy version of Jordan vs. Bird two fives and two fours back in 1991, and I haven't read a word of that magazine since.

[Infernal Monkey]

I remember buying an issue of EGM back in.. say.. 2000-ish? It's not all that common here in Australia, and the issue was two months old by the time it hit our newsagents, but it was a magazine that'd always interested me.

I was pretty disgusted by the fact that over half the magazine was nothing but ADVERTS. And the reviews themselves were squished up the back and given quarter of a page each. Does that shit still go on? If so, how has the magazine lasted this long? =|

[thetoxicone]

EGM gave the GameBoy version of Jordan vs. Bird two fives and two fours back in 1991, and I haven't read a word of that magazine since.

I know...it really should've gotten all fives...it disappointed me as well.