Eidos just wants people to buy the next Tomb Raider game. Is that so wrong?
It's the Tomb Raider lady, but in real life!!!!With what is now officially an annual tradition, Eidos has found itself caught in the middle of another ridiculous, review-related controversy. The title this time around is Tomb Raider: Underworld, and the tactic apparently being employed over in the UK is nothing new.
GameSpot's Guy Cocker managed to set this one off with a Twitter update that hit like a trash can crashing through the window of Sal's Pizzeria... provided that the trash can in question took two days to be seen or heard by anyone wanting to report on something controversial-sounding:
call from Eidos--if you're planning on reviewing Tomb Raider Underworld at less than an 8.0, we need you to hold your review till Monday.
After people finally saw this two-day old message this morning, things started moving quickly. The UK-based site videogaming247 put in some calls Barrington Harvey, the public relations firm responsible for handling Eidos' affairs in the UK. What they got in response was a surprising blast of honesty--not something people are used to seeing from PR firms, to be sure.
Said a Barrington Harvey rep on the phone this afternoon: “That’s right. We’re trying to manage the review scores at the request of Eidos.”
When asked why, the spokesperson said: “Just that we’re trying to get the Metacritic rating to be high, and the brand manager in the US that’s handling all of Tomb Raider has asked that we just manage the scores before the game is out, really, just to ensure that we don’t put people off buying the game, basically.”
If I were some sort of message massager, I'd find the guy that said all that and boot him into the street. Then again, he's not exactly saying anything that shocking... some publishers, for whatever reason, still seem to think that PR people are able to have some sort of actual impact on review scores. Personally, I think that's just so there's one more person to blame when review scores come in lower than expectations. Obviously, the game couldn't be at fault, right?
(While we're on the topic, MTV Knows Best's Stephen Totilo wrote a solid series of articles about game reviewing that covers similar cases, like the good ol' Red Steel "give this a 9 and you can run it early" message. You might want to give that series a read if you're interested in this sort of thing.)
For its part, the PR firm for Eidos' UK efforts issued a longer statement essentially contradicting the previous statement. Here's a bit from what VG247 received:
Barrington Harvey is not in the position of telling reviewers what they can and cannot say. We love Tomb Raider and believe it merits a score of at least 8/10, but if someone disagrees that’s entirely their prerogative. No problem at all. Seriously: no problem.
Our original NDA stated that in order to receive an advance copy of the game, reviewers agreed not to post reviews ahead of 5:00pm, Wednesday 19th November 2008. Nothing else. No further obligations whatsoever.
So... was the other guy lying? Or has the story changed now that it's become "a story?"
One last pretty funny bit on this topic before I leave you to draw your own conclusions. The UK version of GamesRadar is currently skinned up with a takeover ad that rebrands the site as "TombRadar." That's pretty clever, I'll admit, but this bit from a press release about the ad deal that surfaced on The Escapist is the actual funny part...
"Tomb Raider: Underworld is a great game, well worth the 9/10 scores it is picking up across gaming websites and magazines," said James Binns, publishing director at GamesRadar owner Future. "Getting the message out there on launch day is essential in the games market and this takeover gives Eidos unprecedented cut through."
The game is currently sitting around 77 on Metacritic with only one score sitting at or above the 90 line.
I would effing give that 1.0 just for the whole "We want people to buy it" thing. People buy games because they think it will be good, not because reviewers are brainwashing them. Reviews HELP but are not the only reason for buying a game. >_>
So playing devils advocate here ...... but if game reviewers sign a NDA, then they need to respect it. If they want to make a stand, then they need to stop going to these review events, and/or stop signing these NDAa. buy their own retail copy when the game comes out, and then review it. If you sign something, then you abide by it, and if you refuse, then you have the right to say what you want.
There's at least one good thing that has come out of shady advertising and review score deals: Giant Bomb.
And it's funny when websites are willing to sell out for money, because when they're eventually caught, it usually means a decline in viewership. Sure, the decline should probably be a lot more than it invariably ends up being, but I think word of mouth will eventually catch up with you. Writing reviews is all about credibility, in an industry where trust is the only thing keeping you on top.
On that note, there is still just one issue I have with Giant Bomb. One little nagging bit in the back of my mind that makes me question particular reviews where the staff clearly has bias towards a game, because they have a long-standing relationship with one of the people working on said game. But I think Giant Bomb does a good job of using the "full disclosure" clause to explain the situation to people, which is why I am able to look past that in the long run, and why I trust the Giant Bomb staff more than any other site out there.
This is sad because Tomb Raider Underworld looks like a pretty fun game, I'm thinking 7ish range just like the Metacritic average. This will probably destroy most peoples ideas of picking it up even close to release day though.
Anyone who doesn't take information at face value, who actually does a bit of researched, or is simply cautious about what they drop $60 on won't get caught by these tactics. Sadly the majority (the casual gamer) will and might feel cheated. Do this kind of thing enough and a large segment of people (again, the casual player) may lose interest in gaming. It happened in the early 80's when too many products of mediocre, or just plain poor, quality hit the market and the industry fell apart. There is nothing stopping that from happening again and duping the general consumer into believing a game is better quality than it actually is by helping boost review scores could seriously hurt the industry if employed en mass.
I've never fully trusted a GamesRadar review, for some games they seem to run weeks of hype, and it all seems a tad artificial for my liking. But they do great feature stuff, which is why I visit the site.
Talk about a backfire. I would be pissed if I was the team that made Tomb Raider: Underworld. Now the game may not get the sales it might have. I think the gaming public are smart enough to look at reviews as a guide but judge the game for them selves, on it's own merits. I still intend to buy it, but that's just because I tend to buy almost everything these days.
This is why Giantbomb.com is my homepage. Giantbomb is my homepage because, unlike some gaming websites *Cough* gamespot *cough* they dont change their review scores because the publisher/developer tells them to. Stay honest Giantbomb :]
GameSpot didn't change their score because a developer or publisher told them to either. Check it out for yourself. Guy Cocker. GameSpot UK. 7.0. Not Monday.
There are several possibiltiies here:
Harrington is a liar who's trying to destroy Eidos from the inside
Eidos had a change of heart in an attempt to avoid the controversy
Guy Cocker said "fuck that" and chose to run the review early
"This is why Giantbomb.com is my homepage. Giantbomb is my homepage because, unlike some gaming websites *Cough* gamespot *cough* they dont change their review scores because the publisher/developer tells them to. Stay honest Giantbomb :]"
201 Comments