Three publishers stop sending products to EGM after poor reviews

[Spectre]

Not sure if this is the right forum guys, move if you want

http://kotaku.com/342519/3-companies...g-poor-reviews

In his editorial column in the latest issue of EGM, editor Dan Hsu has named three companies that, thanks to negative reviews coverage, have stopped submitting products to the magazine. Those he names are Ubisoft, Sony's sports game division and Midway's Mortal Kombat team. While there's always been a healthy dose of scepticism surrounding advertiser and publisher pressure on gaming press (particularly in light of recent events), I can't remember the last time a major commercial publication came out and publicly named names like this. Bravo, Dan.

I know 1up gave the Show a pretty mediocre score but that's a little uncalled for. I have no idea about the Ubisoft or Midway games they reviewed. Thoughts?

[Kramer5150]

Re: Three publishers stop sending products to EGM after poor reviews

Not sure if this is the right forum guys, move if you want

http://kotaku.com/342519/3-companies...g-poor-reviews



I know 1up gave the Show a pretty mediocre score but that's a little uncalled for. I have no idea about the Ubisoft or Midway games they reviewed. Thoughts?

I'm not sure either....about the Midway title,but didn't EGM rate Ubisoft's Assassin's Creed pretty low? That's the only title from Ubisoft that I can think of.

**Edit**
I just checked the scores for Assassin's Creed...
Michael - 7.0 Good
Andrew P. - 6.0 average
Crispin - 4.5 bad

[Eton Rifles]

Re: Three publishers stop sending products to EGM after poor reviews

On 1up, the Sports guys did not like Mlb the show last year. I don't think they liked SCEA's NBA much either. I know 1up just gave NFL tour a 3.0

[bkfount]

Re: Three publishers stop sending products to EGM after poor reviews

so in the end, the internet hails these corporately owned reviewing publications, once thought obsolete, while scolding the publishers putting out repetitive games.

nice.

[mgoblue]

Re: Three publishers stop sending products to EGM after poor reviews

I'm not sure either....about the Midway title,but didn't EGM rate Ubisoft's Assassin's Creed pretty low? That's the only title from Ubisoft that I can think of.

**Edit**
I just checked the scores for Assassin's Creed...
Michael - 7.0 Good
Andrew P. - 6.0 average
Crispin - 4.5 bad

While I don't think publishers should stop sending out due to bad reviews, no way does Assassin's Creed deserve a 4.5 or 6...given where that rates a game compared to others in that range it's laughable.

[ChaseB]

Re: Three publishers stop sending products to EGM after poor reviews

While I don't think publishers should stop sending out due to bad reviews, no way does Assassin's Creed deserve a 4.5 or 6...given where that rates a game compared to others in that range it's laughable.

On the EGM scale I'd say it's pretty fair since not everything they rate gets a 7.0 or above.

If you are judging it on the 7-10 scale that many sites/publications work on then you have more of a case.

AC is a polarizing game though so I can see why you might think what you do.

[mgoblue]

Re: Three publishers stop sending products to EGM after poor reviews

On the EGM scale I'd say it's pretty fair since not everything they rate gets a 7.0 or above.

If you are judging it on the 7-10 scale that many sites/publications work on then you have more of a case.

AC is a polarizing game though so I can see why you might think what you do.

I think they really need a standard for scores...I like when places give realistic scores, but it's impossible to compare a 7 in one place with a 7 in another.

I understand why people might not totally dig AC, and it's polarizing (and kinda repetitive at times), but how can you deny the graphics and gameplay completely? I imagine a 4.5 game as pretty much total utter trash...I haven't gotten EGM in a while, but most of the time a game that low is almost "Big Rigs" 1.0 territory, unplayable.

Is EGM now 1up.com? They gave Time Crisis a 3.5, Fantastic Four a 4.5...I'd say those are drastically different in quality than AC, no matter if you dislike the game or not. I question that reviewer's ability, personally...4.5? Are you giving that just for "effect"?

I just don't think there's any sort of consistency with scores sometimes...I personally don't go by scores, but in the wake of Gerstmanngate at Gamespot you just realize how important scores are in the industry.

I'm all for EGM being tough, just think a reviewer comparing AC to some of those other 4.5 range games is laughable.

It all comes down to the fact that points are dumb, IMO...Just read the reviews, but since reviewers have to give a score they'll sometimes go too low to make a point, or go too high.

[mgoblue]

Re: Three publishers stop sending products to EGM after poor reviews

I see they gave NHL 2k8 a 4.0...I can understand how their scale goes, just really stands out. We really need a standard range to go off of, like movies. It's accepted that some movies get 0 or 1 stars in the newspaper reviews. We need it to be ok that games do get scores this low, for far too long we've been given the "5" is the worst a non-abortion of a game would get, you know? The review industry has to standardize and step up to be a "real industry" not just the play industry it's been so far.

It's just interesting...how do you score a game you feel should have improved more (Madden, NHL 2k8) but isn't necessarily bad or crap (more NHL 2k8 than Madden here)? It's still a decent game. "More of the same". How is that much different than Halo 3? That game somehow got a pass (they gave it a 10 when graphically it's slightly improved Halo 2)...Then again i think the entire industry sucked on Halo 3's tailpipe but that's another story. Halo 3 was the most overrated game anywhere in my opinion. I'm sure some reviewers thought that (similar to AC?) but did any have the guts to say it?

Fun discussions...Every review won't be perfect, just like movies...for some reason it's just wildly different in gaming than it is movies...a bad review can kill a video game, but a 1 star movie can (and usually will) sell pretty well in the theaters. Some 2* reviewed movies are my favorites. How many 2.5 or 5.0 games do people love? not that many...

[Candyman5]

Re: Three publishers stop sending products to EGM after poor reviews

I see they gave NHL 2k8 a 4.0...I can understand how their scale goes, just really stands out. We really need a standard range to go off of, like movies. It's accepted that some movies get 0 or 1 stars in the newspaper reviews. We need it to be ok that games do get scores this low, for far too long we've been given the "5" is the worst a non-abortion of a game would get, you know? The review industry has to standardize and step up to be a "real industry" not just the play industry it's been so far.

It's just interesting...how do you score a game you feel should have improved more (Madden, NHL 2k8) but isn't necessarily bad or crap (more NHL 2k8 than Madden here)? It's still a decent game. "More of the same". How is that much different than Halo 3? That game somehow got a pass (they gave it a 10 when graphically it's slightly improved Halo 2)...Then again i think the entire industry sucked on Halo 3's tailpipe but that's another story. Halo 3 was the most overrated game anywhere in my opinion. I'm sure some reviewers thought that (similar to AC?) but did any have the guts to say it?

Fun discussions...Every review won't be perfect, just like movies...for some reason it's just wildly different in gaming than it is movies...a bad review can kill a video game, but a 1 star movie can (and usually will) sell pretty well in the theaters. Some 2* reviewed movies are my favorites. How many 2.5 or 5.0 games do people love? not that many...

I do agree it was overhyped and did not deserve a 10, I say it should of got a 8.5-9.0. And this is comming from the Halo costume guy. I dont think COD4 deserved a 10 either, I say it should of got a 9.5-9.8 margin.

[mgoblue]

Re: Three publishers stop sending products to EGM after poor reviews

I do agree it was overhyped and did not deserve a 10, I say it should of got a 8.5-9.0. And this is comming from the Halo costume guy. I dont think COD4 deserved a 10 either, I say it should of got a 9.5-9.8 margin.

I'll give you both...I'm not saying Halo 3 sucks by any means, it's just hardly the perfect 10 game (hell, didn't even win GOTY anywhere)...

I just think that ratings need to somehow stay consistent, whether it be the EGM more harsh method (I would prefer this), or the current "5.0 is really bad" method...just can't really mix the two easily.

All in all, no publishers should withhold games specifically because of a prior bad review....but reviewers also need to be held accountable and accept criticism. Right now review scores are just too important IMO, once that stops being the focus things could improve. National Treasure is kicking *** at the theaters and it's only a 2 star. Give a game a 5 and it's almost cutting its throat, you know? Things are just different somehow.

[Flawless]

Re: Three publishers stop sending products to EGM after poor reviews

I would say Halo 3 got a pass, because there isn't another shooter on the consoles that is more feature-rich and has more community-driven functionality that is designed in such an elegant, streamlined, and accessible way.

Of course that $800 schwag bag that Microsoft gave out helps too.

[grunt]

Re: Three publishers stop sending products to EGM after poor reviews

I think the number system is a joke. The number system try to give a quantitative score to a qualitative analysis.

1 up drop these number bombs with very little reason why. I rather wait for a few days and go to the message boards and get impressions than waiting on one person review.

[Wheele8]

Re: Three publishers stop sending products to EGM after poor reviews

I think the number system is a joke. The number system try to give a quantitative score to a qualitative analysis.

1 up drop these number bombs with very little reason why. I rather wait for a few days and go to the message boards and get impressions than waiting on one person review.

I completely agree. The number system is trash. Furthermore, they don't rate movies 1-10 for a reason. In the case of the EGM Assassin's Creed review, it would have simply been a 2 star review. There's plenty of "2 star" reviewed movies that I really loved.

[Eton Rifles]

Re: Three publishers stop sending products to EGM after poor reviews

REmember with EGM, they have 3 people review a lot of the games, I guess to give different perspectives.

[ChaseB]

Re: Three publishers stop sending products to EGM after poor reviews

I think they really need a standard for scores...I like when places give realistic scores, but it's impossible to compare a 7 in one place with a 7 in another.

I understand why people might not totally dig AC, and it's polarizing (and kinda repetitive at times), but how can you deny the graphics and gameplay completely? I imagine a 4.5 game as pretty much total utter trash...I haven't gotten EGM in a while, but most of the time a game that low is almost "Big Rigs" 1.0 territory, unplayable.

Is EGM now 1up.com? They gave Time Crisis a 3.5, Fantastic Four a 4.5...I'd say those are drastically different in quality than AC, no matter if you dislike the game or not. I question that reviewer's ability, personally...4.5? Are you giving that just for "effect"?

EGM and 1UP are both owned by Ziff Davis, so they help each other out, and EGM is able to post things on 1UP.

Also comparing different genres of games and scores is also tricky. It's how well a game does what it set out to do, how fun it is, an how does it compare to other games in that genre. You aren't going to compare a casual Wii game score (Carnival Games or something) to Mass Effect. That type of logic would be absurd.

Moving on, a low score like a 4.5 is the reason why some subjective reviews still freak people out a bit (hence why more consumer reporting aka checklist stuff still happens). But the reviewer didn't think the game was fun, and found the gameplay repetitive. He gave merit to the climbing system and some other elements but in the end it wasn't fun to him.

PS I don't think any critic type industry has one base set of review scores, so I don't think it's completely fair to want that. I think people should just start to trust certain reviewers from sites and then know the review guidelines from that site...Plus people need to read the copy more than just look at a score and say I disagree. How can you disagree with a number that's silly. You disagree with the complaints etc not the number, because numbers to everyone mean something different.