Tycho of Penny Arcade said that if you run a publication that reviews videogames, you need to have a review of Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots. This is a need that Konami is well aware of, and if you haven't heard by now, the publisher has been imposing strict limitations on those reviewing Kojima's latest opus. Why? Because it knows those publications need their game, and will jump through hoops for their precious review. Or will they?
Rather than crook the knee to Konami, EGM has actually refused to review Metal Gear Solid 4 thanks to Konami's demands that nobody mention the game's alleged large install sizes and cutscenes. While IGN is perfectly fine with bowing to Konami, EGM has at least shown that its reviewers can't be pushed around so easily. The magazine has instead compromised with a roundtable discussion of the game as opposed to a full review.
And this, my friends, is the way it should be. Unless it's a matter of courtesy, a reviewer shouldn't have to prostrate one's self to publishers for a review. The gaming press right now has no dignity -- it relies, like a lost puppy, on the games industry when the industry should be working to keep the press happy, not the other way around.
Sticking to embargoes out of common courtesy is something I can understand, but trading in your integrity for the sake of being "first" with a review is pretty pathetic, in my opinion. There's a difference between agreeing to a few minor compromises (posting after a certain date, for example) and agreeing not to mention huge, important aspects of a game because you're so desperate for an exclusive. Thank you, EGM, for showing that at least some mainstream reviewers still have their balls. May others follow your lead.
Contest:
7:33 AM on 06.02.2008
| 
BTW, Jim I've bought GRID, but due to work I'm not going to play it for awhile. I don't have the Intranets on my 360 so what do you reckon I can I do if it's fucked?
Good to see EGM is taking steps--baby steps, to be sure--to change it.
@Alex - there were talk of copying your tag to memory stick, ripping your hdd off and playing from the card. Instant replays will still be available though full replays wont be. I'll try and dig the link up that I was reading but hey, think that covers it all :)
I couldn't give a shit, but if I was reviewing it (and, God willing, I will be the one doing it for Dtoid), I would want to mention a cutscene of such length. Some people are turned off by that sort of thing, and should be informed. It's a reviewer's duty to do that.
I don't see why Konami has stopped reviewers mentioning the long installs and cutscenes as they're all part of the game. Not mentioning them to me means only a half review in my eyes.
I personally would like to see 90 minute cutscenes as the story telling of the series has always been excellent and it will help to give some sort of closure to the series.
Ultimately, the final say would rest on the Editor-In-Chief; (s)he'll be the one to decide whether to run a compromised review or not.
I agree, people need to know about the cutscenes, but lets look at whos buying MGS. I can't see soccer moms and minigame dads buying this games. This game was made "FOR" the people that have always loved MGS(hints at the long cutscenes) and those people could care less about the movie-like cutscenes.
I stand up for what EGM did. People shouldn't be misleaded.
And I do hope the scriptwriters have learned to hold back on the excessive exposition.
games journalist are turning into divas, next thing Michael Winner will be reviewing prince of persia!
Alfie
Just because Konami did it doesn't mean everyone else will follow in their footsteps. Look, this games is trying to be as cinematic as possible. I stand up for both EGM (wanting to review a game for what it is) and for Konami(for pushing the limits).
Also, to develop a cutscene like this, it cost tons of money. Don't worry about every game doing this.
I don't think anyone here can claim to know what "real gamers" want (whatever "real gamers" are).
Can't wait to see that get ripped apart.
IGN bends over for any big release. They've got the integrity of a freakin' taco.
Konami didn't say you couldn't mention the stuff in the review at all; they just said that if you want to review it early refrain from mentioning some stuff. EGM still devoted a couple pages to the game so stop acting like they took the high road. They just didn't give the game a letter grade.
"Oh noes, the publisher says they wont give us a free copy of an awesome game unless we are nice about it. How completely unreasonable, unexpected and unfair.. I know, let's make this look like we have some credibility and not bother reviewing it."
Wombat said it best back in Jan when EGM had a falling out with a few publishers for not giving them free games.
I'd add that this issue is far bigger than MGS4, with MTV Multiplayer's recent review week and other controversies such as GTAIV's exclusive reviews and perfect 10s.
I believe this highlights an issue that goes to the heart of journalistic integrity and freedom of speech. As IGN and Eurogamer noted they have been restricted on specific discussion of technical issues such as load times, cut scene length and installs. Whilst I believe restrictions on spoilers are reasonable and to be expected, restricting a reviewer's ability to fully critique a work is not only wrong but in my opinion corrupt with commercial interests.
I'd always thought reviews were for consumers and not for PR?!
I'm glad that EGM are taking the moral highroad, but what's stopping them from giving Konami a big "fuck you" and reviewing the game how ever they want anyway (assuming they didn't sign an embargo or NDA). It's not like Konami can really do anything. There are plenty of other games to write news about.
It seems to me like EGM is caught up in a bigger problem of publisher-press relations. Trying to keep everybody happy creates situations like this.
But, I could be wrong. EGM could be a well-respected and all-loving gaming-mag that loves MGS just as much as every other magazine.
No EGM doesn't hate the MGS games dude. They disliked the online portion of MGS3 to an extent, having featured a round-table discussion at the end of an issue talking about how broken it was by comparison to Splinter Cell's online game. However, even in that case MGS3's online mode had its defenders, so that wasn't even an absolute.
Good job on the conspiracy theory though. You went about it in a more civil manner than most, but in the end you're still assigning a greater importance to "facts" that you're not even sure are fact. Stop it. :P
Fucking classy, EGM.
I could care less about this shit. Doesn't seem all that honest as far as I see. The IGN review mentioned the cutscenes, describing them as a full 50% of the game's time, and I still fucking laugh every time I hear a console gamer mention installs (MGS2 on the PC took over 10GB to install. Far bigger than most games from the same time it came out, which were averaging around 1.5 to 2 GB at the time, but it ran smooth as silk afterwards, so not a PC gamer in the world had a problem).
It's hard to get more irrelevant right now than a print gaming magazine.
I don't care what the aspects are themselves that are supposed to be let out of the review, it's just the principle of the matter. It's like saying you can review Halo 3 but don't mention the multiplayer. Or review Lair but don't mention the shitty controls (zing).
A product should be evaluated on the entirety of its contents. If that includes things that may upset people, then so be it; as has been stated MULTIPLE times by MGS fan(boy)s here, the product isn't made for everyone. So what's the big deal?
If Konami was trying to win over new fans then they should have considered those portions of the production while the game was being made, not afterward.