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.
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.”
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.
"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."
Salute: 1UP Acquired By UGO, Downsized; EGM Shuttered
Sony Issues Handy Chart, Giant Bomb Issues Handier Chart
Pre-Release Killzone 2 Demo Only For Pre-Orders in US
LittleBigRoll
Metal Gears of War?
Warning! Caution! Overload! Planned Downtime Tonight!
Ninja Blade Demo: We Cut Some Guys, Watch
Sony Issues Handy Chart, Giant Bomb Issues Handier Chart
Salute: 1UP Acquired By UGO, Downsized; EGM Shuttered
Pre-Release Killzone 2 Demo Only For Pre-Orders in US
Ninja Blade Demo: We Cut Some Guys, Watch
1.5M Xbox Live Users Online, Bogging Us Down
Metal Gears of War?
LittleBigRoll
on Nov. 21, 2008
on Nov. 21, 2008
(as in terms of controversy, not dirt)
on Nov. 21, 2008
on Nov. 21, 2008
on Nov. 21, 2008
on Nov. 21, 2008
on Nov. 21, 2008
This is kinda bullshit though, they're just trying to do damage control. I'm sure Eidos doesn't want to be surrounded in more controversy after the Kane and Lynch fiasco.
on Nov. 21, 2008
on Nov. 21, 2008
on Nov. 21, 2008
on Nov. 21, 2008
on Nov. 21, 2008
Eidos is so fucking stupid...
PS. I borrowed K&L from a friend and it sucked, Jeff was a little generous with that 6.0, it deserved a 4.0 imo
on Nov. 21, 2008
on Nov. 21, 2008
on Nov. 21, 2008
http://sorethumbsblog.com/
on Nov. 21, 2008
on Nov. 21, 2008
1. Tomb Raider has such a loyal following that even if it was crap (as most Tomb Raider games, save recent years are) it'd still sell solidly enough that this kinda bullshit managing would be a moot point.
2. Developers would worry more about making a game that's good and that they're proud of over making a game that they hope is going to make a lot of money. I know this will never be the universal case, but look at games like Psychonauts, System Shock, and the orginal Prince of Persia: Sands of Time. Those games recieved excellent reviews, but didn't sell worth a goddamn. Then look at something like Dynasty Warriors, which sells solidly every year for making the same game... every year. Good Ratings =/= Good Sales
And also... Jeff covering an Eidos controversy story? Oh, the irony!
on Nov. 21, 2008
These underhanded tactics used to sell games are pathetic, this compiled with the apparent intent on destroying the used games market is leaving a sour taste
on Nov. 21, 2008
What I am glad to see this year though is more and more of the gaming media and reviewers maturing into a powerful community where the majority are sticking together and telling developers they will give a rating of what they think the game deserves. I just want to see the big websites and magazines to follow the others.
I have been thinking of reviews for a while now and scores, I think you can scrap them full stop and still offer a fast method of reviewing.
I myself only read a whole review if I am only half interested in a game or not. If I know I may get a game I look at the ratiing on giant bomb and the summary at the end.
I think the wrap up should be as an intro/leadin for a fast access opinion, or at least if you did it on giantbom for example a "summary" button at the top near the score you clicked to get a pop up to read that information that is at the bottom.
My vision of a score which I do not know if it would work or not would be to not have an overal score. You have a game which all are split into different elements, how does it look, how does it play, the story etc. So rate it accordingly. each element with a colour in a bar and a percentage of a total bar. If it is heavy on the graphics with little or no story then the bar will look be mainly all blue for graphics and a bit of green for story and some for gameplay. That with a summary opinion of the game should be enough to gage the game along with the full review if you want to read it.
That way developers can not force a score on you if you want it early, your review system does not work like that so they cant say that to you, it would be interesting to see how they reacted to people using systems that offered feedback to gamers and the info they need but no overal score. You really just need to know if it good, bad, or ugly and worth your money or not and everyones opinion is different. I like the giant bombs approach to reviews and I love the guys that do them and I respect the giantbombs team more then others and trust their opinions.
on Nov. 21, 2008
Fuck you Eidos.
Login or Signup to comment.