I remember reading an article about this earlier in the month and now that the first Arkham Asylum review is out (mind you the game will be released at the end of next month) it's about as suspiciously suspicious as a review can get.

Here's the article about the rumor: http://ve3d.ign.com/articles/news/48955/Did-Eidos-Try-To-Fudge-Batman-Arkham-Asylum-Review-Scores

and here's a Kotaku article about the review that sums up my suspicions well: http://kotaku.com/5322813/uk-mags-exclusive-review-fits-alleged-eidos-conditions

So what do you guys think? Did Eidos pull some dirty tricks, and does this shed light on that fateful day a little over a year ago?

Yes.

Wasn't this already posted? Not the actual first review, but the rumour about how they may be "pressuring" reviewers. Meh, if they don't wanna be pressured, they'll wait for the embargo lift, if such is up. Big deal. Anyway, it comes with the job description. World Exclusive First Reviews are always with top marks, no? And it's not like they gave it 91 just to be in the territory. And it's not like if you're going to rate the game well anyway you won't take advantage of the embargo rule. And it's not like high moral ptetentious fucks won't slam you for it claiming how if they were you, they'd not put the review up before the embargo lifts even if they rated it over 90%. And it's not like uh, many other things. Like some guy on Kotaku said:

Give me 3 or 4 glowing July reviews followed by a unanimous chorus of lukewarm August reviews, and then we may have something

Wait before pointing fingers? Attacking from one's own super high moral ground has become such a trend lately. Coming from Kotaku drama? K.

It's been said before, and it'll be said again, every games company does this, it's just Eidos are fucking terrible at covering their tracks.

this is why I always wait for giant bomb reviews.

Gamers as a whole would be a lot better off if every videogame media outlet outted these tactics openly and then blatantly disregarded the wishes of the developers / publishers.  The real fear reviewers have is being cut out of the loop, and it's a real problem.  Then as a whole media outlets could rat on any upstart propaganda reviewers.

Things are a little too comfy for game reviewers though, not enough gamers care if their reviews are absolute worthless tripe.

gametrailers most recent invisible walls segment goes into detail about this story pretty well while bringing up jeffs situation from a while back.

http://www.gametrailers.com/video/episode-67-invisible-walls/53328?type=flv

I think Eidos isn't the only publishers who has these kind of practices. It would be understandable if the game was of poor quality but Batman: Arkham Asylum actually looks like it will end up being a good videogame.

I dont see why everybodys so shocked and saying they wont buy now...it's a common fucking thing...my lord..

*ugh*  You people and your fucking theories.  I hate defending Eidos, but at the same time, a company has every right to hold back super bad and scathing reviews...especially Eidos, after all the stupid mistakes they made before...both confirmed (Tomb Raider) and unconfirmed (Jeff).

There won't be confirmation of that until someone high up at Gamespot at the time comes out years from now and says that was the reason.

As for Eidos potentially pressuring reviewers and allowing good reviews to release early this isn't anything new. Hell, Eidos isn't even an independent company anymore. They got bought out and now fall under Square Enix Europe. So, technically this would be Square Enix doing this now.

The best example of a good game doing this would be Metal Gear Solid 4. They had crazy restrictions on reviewers that they could release their reviews before the game came out but couldn't reference things like load times and the length of the cutscenes. Due to this both Gamespot and EGM refused to release their reviews until after the game released and the restrictions were removed.

It's a simple fact that in order to continue being given early access to press events, demonstrations, and early code for games reviewers are going to have to play by the publishers rules. I'm sure we would love them all to take some moral high ground but the simple fact is that they would then be cut off. There are still plenty of consumers out there who have never heard of a video game reviewer and buy their games solely based on what box cover looks the neatest.

" @DOUBLESHOCK said:

" this is why I always wait for giant bomb reviews. "

exactly "

" @DOUBLESHOCK said:

" this is why I always wait for giant bomb reviews. "

exactly "

This is why I always wait for an opportunity to play the damn game before forging my opinion.

Didn't they do this with GTA IV and Metal Gear Solid 4? 

" Didn't they do this with GTA IV and Metal Gear Solid 4? 

Doesn't this happen with EVERY single game? 

Isn't that how PR works?

"

" @Moeez said:

" Didn't they do this with GTA IV and Metal Gear Solid 4? 

Doesn't this happen with EVERY single game? 

Isn't that how PR works?

"

Yes, nobody listens though when you say that. "

" Didn't they do this with GTA IV and Metal Gear Solid 4? 

Doesn't this happen with EVERY single game? 

Isn't that how PR works?

"

well the proof will be in the pudding as they say.
 
no point in mouthing off at the people that are now rightfully suspicious of those reviews that are now, maybe, going to start popping up all giving the game 9+ scores. the reviewers don't like it, we shouldn't have to like or accept it either, it should be derided as such.

deleted

" @Moeez said:

" Didn't they do this with GTA IV and Metal Gear Solid 4? 

Doesn't this happen with EVERY single game? 

Isn't that how PR works?

"

Yes, but nobody will listen. They much rather just bitch. "