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.
Edge's review mentioned the cut-scenes etc and that, along with Eurogamer, was the least positive of all of the reviews for MGS thus far.
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?
Why do people care about 90 min cutsences? MGS4 isn't like a simple minigame you will play for ten minutes then put down. MGS4 is suppost to be a "meaty adventure" that combines excellent gameplay with excellent cutsence. Sorry casual players, Konami isn't like Nintendo. They aim to give you the experience of a lifetime with 4D graphics and 22.5 Doby Surround Sound. lol
Do you think it's the reviewer or the company the reviewer is working for that would agree to those restrictions? Really though, 90 min cut scenes and a large install size is news in respect to video games. Let's totally leave that out!
Bravo to EGM indeed. Frankly, the entire game review cycle is broken; other industries don't devote feature pages to pre-release titles, so why does the game industry?
Good to see EGM is taking steps--baby steps, to be sure--to change it.
Good on EGM is all I can say. Shame there wont be a review though as generally enjoy reading theirs...
@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 :)
"Why do people care about 90 min cutsences? MGS4 isn't like a simple minigame you will play for ten minutes then put down. MGS4 is suppost to be a "meaty adventure" that combines excellent gameplay with excellent cutsence"
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.
It's good to hear that EGM can stick it to the man.
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.
@tornotlukin
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.
You'll never have to worry about bowing to their pressure, considering it took you guys a month to put out a review of GTA4
Sorry about being a little behind but the 90 minute cutscenes thing is real?
Well according to EGM, they are going to put up an actual review later on 1up after they are no longer restricted by an embargo. I wouldn't neccesarily call it refusing to review it, just wanting to give readers a good review instead of a crappy one that doesn't say much of anything.
Jim Sterling
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.
It's nice seeing a major reviewer like EGM stand up to these ridiculous polices.
As long as there is some means of pausing the cutscenes (or at the very least, the ability to replay them), I have no problem with such length. Of course, I'm a purist and don't like pausing games or movies during the middle of a flow, but it'd be awful to get caught off-guard by that 90-minute behemoth when you simply don't have time to watch the whole thing.
And I do hope the scriptwriters have learned to hold back on the excessive exposition.
I disagree with that mr Sterling, allowing the press to have to much power over the Media "they" review will only serve them.... not us as consumers
games journalist are turning into divas, next thing Michael Winner will be reviewing prince of persia!
These game companies dont even have the Integrity of a Cock Dragon!
Alfie
I commend EGM for what they did. They shouldn't have to put up with Konami's bullshit.
Hey, to those who still defend 90 minute cutscenes think about this: Konami is going to extreme lengths to hide this fact from as many people as possible. If they themselves think its bad enough to be hidden to avoid hurting sales then you fanboys need to stop trying to defend it, have fun with em, real gamers do NOT want games to follow that direction and should know they are getting a freaking movie and not a game.
These guys are a bit too insecure about the best game forever. Iam sorry but as cool as this game will be. These decision makers only make themselves look like fools and mar the image Kojima has built up for them. If its as great as they say Id want all the 10.0 reviews out to boost sales....
Misanthrope
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.
@Misanthrope
I don't think anyone here can claim to know what "real gamers" want (whatever "real gamers" are).
Good on EGM for doing this. Personally, I like the idea of a roundtable discussion EGM will be doing. Multiple perspectives are why I like EGM's reviews and this sounds like it will give me similar information.
Maybe discussions like this are the future. Problem is sooner or later we may all stop marking these games. What's the point of a review, if you can be honest about a game?
I wonder if the Zero Punctation review will mention the 90 minute cutscenes, hehe.
Can't wait to see that get ripped apart.
You know GTA4 had a freezing problem and a rather boring first few hours of missions, and that didn't hurt their scores. Honestly, I'm someone who really wants to play MGS4, and truly LIKES the cutscenes and install times, and even I think this is lame. Base reviews off of the whole product, or don't bother.
"While IGN is perfectly fine with bowing to Konami"
IGN bends over for any big release. They've got the integrity of a freakin' taco.
im really interested what those restrictions are in detail. everyone yaps about the 90 min cutscene, which is kinda stupid i think. saying a mgs game has long cutscenes is like saying gta has cars and guns.
Everyone keeps mentions the cutscene length and install as the things that konami was trying to hide. There have been reviews mentioning them and they are all over the internet. The main thing they are trying to hide is probably spoilers or new gameplay mechanics they want to be a surprise. Does noone remember how they hide Raiden from everyone?
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.
Kudos to them! I'll be sure to read IGNs review instead....
Yeah, I hate when I'm misleaded.
EGM are a bunch of whiny cunts.
"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.
something tells me Dtoid didn't get any review copies. Looks like we'll be waiting a few days after launch to see a real unbiased review.
Good for you EGM!
I fully support EGM's move and think it's greatly ironic that a move by Konami to silence critiques on some aspects of the game is starting to blow up in its face and may well affect retail sales down the line.
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?!
Even though I applaud EGM for not putting up with Konami bullshit, I really fail to see what Konami could do to EGM. Sure, it may hurt their relationship, but it's not like Konami would have any type of legal recourse of they defied their "impositions" and "limitations."
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.
Wasn't it EGM that despises the MGS games? I remember someone writing to them to defend the games, to which they replied "We're sorry for your taste in games." If so, then I wouldn't take their refusal too serious. I'd say they just want a reason not to review a game they hate and get some credit while doing it.
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.
And this is why EGM is awesome
That's good, glad to see some game reviewers still have some nuts and can put their foot down to these companies who want 10 out of 10s on all their games.
@Uther
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
I can't see what EGM actually stands to gain, apart from appearing not to bow to publisher pressure. Telling publications to withhold negative elements about a game isn't a good thing and it might unfortunately end up being the norm unless publications actually resist it. Ok, the load times and other issues are now public knowledge, but what if they weren't? What if every magazine and website didn't mention these and other issues? The day the game came out, the internet would be a buzz about people wanting to know why they bought a game that they were plain misinformed about.The players wouldn't stand for it and the publications would simply loose any credibility as proper reviewers: they would simply be an extension of PR.
Fuck EGM. Bunch of immature console fanboys with a substandard writing style and thin shitty magazine to which I got a subscription for free. By far the weakest link in the 1up network. I remember the first issue I got of it, they answered a letter asking why they don't review PC games or even mention the existence of PC ports on multi-platform games, and they replied with some lame joke about driver issues... on the same page as a letter about the 360 RROD.
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.
Letsee how the haters use this against EGM. I love me the 1up peoples.
Sorry for being retarded but i didn't see anyone ask: can you SKIP (or fast-forward) through that 90-minute cutscene? If you CAN skip/fast-forward, what's the issue?
Wow, if IGN really agreed to cut out parts of the review just to print it first, eek, I don't think I'll be visiting that site again anytime soon.
Are reviewers allowed to mention that the gameplay is still unchanged from 1992?
They can't wait till the game is released? Fuck reviews. I look forward to 90 minute cut scenes if its from MGS.
I think installs and 90 minute cutscenes are great things, don't see why Konami doesn't want those talked about. But I can see why EGM is doing what it's doing.
I don't get the big deal about install sizes. Do you all really play that many games?
@dtomek: Zing!
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.
yeah mannnnn, fuck the corporations man....they're not like independent and full of integrity like destructoid mannn....
Returning Dtoiders: login now to post a comment
Destructoid is an open discussion community. You don't need to "audition" to post a comment - just Create an avatar now - it's fast and free: PLUS you also get your own gaming blog and begin posting stories and uploading videos in our open community area that may also appear on our home page. Sign up and we'll guide you through it, it's easy and 100% anonymous.