Something went wrong. Try again later
    Follow

    Eidos Interactive

    Company »

    Eidos was an English based developer and publisher behind such games as Tomb Raider, Age of Conan, and Hitman. Since a buyout from Square Enix, the company is now know as Square Enix Europe.

    9.5 is a great way to go, I hate to say 10, ethics you know

    Avatar image for lies
    Lies

    3985

    Forum Posts

    32517

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 12

    User Lists: 14

    Edited By Lies

    With the recent little Eidos kerfuffle making the headlines here, I feel like addressing the issue.

    Is the games reviewing industry corrupt? No.

    It suffers from the same problems endemic to criticisms of other media forms. Roger Ebert has spoken of going to events, and having publications sign up for quotes to run praising a certain movie. Movies that are expected to show poorly with the critics simply aren't screened early. What both industries here are the victim of is a simple and logical desire of the producers to have people like their product. Loosely speaking, this is their job- making sure the game gets recieved nicely. A high metacritic score is a key component of this, and making sure early reviews are positive is a means to that end.There is absolutely nothing wrong with this, and those of you that jump to vilify these people should take a moment to consider your actions.

    Apparently, Ubisoft dun liek you giving their premiere games 4's. Pricks.
    Apparently, Ubisoft dun liek you giving their premiere games 4's. Pricks.
    They either spent the last couple years of their lives working on this product, or are closely working with people who did. Unless you're working on a POS licensed game like Bolt, you're going to be understandably proud of that work. A high score is validation of that time and effort. It's the human condition to strive to excel, even if it means trying to game the tables in your favor a bit.

    Of course, usually responsible journalism is there to slap the balance of power right back to where it should be- problems arise when perhaps the journalistic community willingly lets a publisher game the system a bit. Perhaps they think,"Hey is giving Assassin's Creed a low score really worth having Ubisoft completely cut us off from all their events? Honestly, the audience probably really won't even appreciate our earnesty, so why is it worth fighting Ubi over?" This puts us in a bit of a sticky siuation here, as both sides are dependent on the other.
    1. The games press earns their money in part by advertising for games they cover
    2. The games publisher and developer earn their money based in part off of reviews, and get bonuses based off of the Metacritic average
    So what you see there is something that could EASILY become a "You rub my back, I'll rub yours" situation, wherein publications run good reviews in exchange for advertising dollar. Mutually beneficial. No losers, except for the consumers. But that's not how it works

    Interesting
    Interesting
    Luckily for us, this tenuous balance of power is usually maintained. The only time we ever hear about it is when an outlet lets it slide too far, and you get a Gerstman situation. Just because that's all we hear about doesn't mean it's the status quo. Every time we hear about it is because something exceptional has happened. Something that breaks the normalcy of the situation. The relationship between publishers and jourmalists is obviously not ideal, as it runs on the much derided "honor system". I won't try to judge this relationship absolutely- I won't even presume to be entirely educated in the subject, after all, I'm not a games journalist. Just a guy who finds the business dynamics fascinating.

    Ultimately, it would be easiest for journalists just to hand out high scores like candy to appease publishers, and stay secure in their jobs. And this does happen of course- when you see Play magazine handing out 9.0's to Lair, something's fishy. However, journalists (or "professional enthusiasts" as the 1up folks call it) usually have the integrity enough to avoid this pitfall. We know this simply by observing the review scores. EGM gave Assassin's Creed a 4, and paid the consequences. Jeff gave Zelda an 8.8, despite it not technically being in the "AAA" tier. You've seen big games like Mirror's Edge, which no doubt have had tons of marketing dollar thrown behind them recieve 7's. Observe the symptoms, and you can diagnose the disease. Or lack of, in this case. A few isolated cases do not condemn the whole industry, a fact well worth remembering.

    The title comes from the musical crazy of Shawn Elliot- that particular piece kicked off the 12/5/07 GFW Radio, which has some interesting insights into this very topic.
    Avatar image for lies
    Lies

    3985

    Forum Posts

    32517

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 12

    User Lists: 14

    #1  Edited By Lies

    With the recent little Eidos kerfuffle making the headlines here, I feel like addressing the issue.

    Is the games reviewing industry corrupt? No.

    It suffers from the same problems endemic to criticisms of other media forms. Roger Ebert has spoken of going to events, and having publications sign up for quotes to run praising a certain movie. Movies that are expected to show poorly with the critics simply aren't screened early. What both industries here are the victim of is a simple and logical desire of the producers to have people like their product. Loosely speaking, this is their job- making sure the game gets recieved nicely. A high metacritic score is a key component of this, and making sure early reviews are positive is a means to that end.There is absolutely nothing wrong with this, and those of you that jump to vilify these people should take a moment to consider your actions.

    Apparently, Ubisoft dun liek you giving their premiere games 4's. Pricks.
    Apparently, Ubisoft dun liek you giving their premiere games 4's. Pricks.
    They either spent the last couple years of their lives working on this product, or are closely working with people who did. Unless you're working on a POS licensed game like Bolt, you're going to be understandably proud of that work. A high score is validation of that time and effort. It's the human condition to strive to excel, even if it means trying to game the tables in your favor a bit.

    Of course, usually responsible journalism is there to slap the balance of power right back to where it should be- problems arise when perhaps the journalistic community willingly lets a publisher game the system a bit. Perhaps they think,"Hey is giving Assassin's Creed a low score really worth having Ubisoft completely cut us off from all their events? Honestly, the audience probably really won't even appreciate our earnesty, so why is it worth fighting Ubi over?" This puts us in a bit of a sticky siuation here, as both sides are dependent on the other.
    1. The games press earns their money in part by advertising for games they cover
    2. The games publisher and developer earn their money based in part off of reviews, and get bonuses based off of the Metacritic average
    So what you see there is something that could EASILY become a "You rub my back, I'll rub yours" situation, wherein publications run good reviews in exchange for advertising dollar. Mutually beneficial. No losers, except for the consumers. But that's not how it works

    Interesting
    Interesting
    Luckily for us, this tenuous balance of power is usually maintained. The only time we ever hear about it is when an outlet lets it slide too far, and you get a Gerstman situation. Just because that's all we hear about doesn't mean it's the status quo. Every time we hear about it is because something exceptional has happened. Something that breaks the normalcy of the situation. The relationship between publishers and jourmalists is obviously not ideal, as it runs on the much derided "honor system". I won't try to judge this relationship absolutely- I won't even presume to be entirely educated in the subject, after all, I'm not a games journalist. Just a guy who finds the business dynamics fascinating.

    Ultimately, it would be easiest for journalists just to hand out high scores like candy to appease publishers, and stay secure in their jobs. And this does happen of course- when you see Play magazine handing out 9.0's to Lair, something's fishy. However, journalists (or "professional enthusiasts" as the 1up folks call it) usually have the integrity enough to avoid this pitfall. We know this simply by observing the review scores. EGM gave Assassin's Creed a 4, and paid the consequences. Jeff gave Zelda an 8.8, despite it not technically being in the "AAA" tier. You've seen big games like Mirror's Edge, which no doubt have had tons of marketing dollar thrown behind them recieve 7's. Observe the symptoms, and you can diagnose the disease. Or lack of, in this case. A few isolated cases do not condemn the whole industry, a fact well worth remembering.

    The title comes from the musical crazy of Shawn Elliot- that particular piece kicked off the 12/5/07 GFW Radio, which has some interesting insights into this very topic.
    Avatar image for brukaoru
    brukaoru

    5135

    Forum Posts

    12346

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 2

    #2  Edited By brukaoru
    The games publisher and developer earn their money based in part off of reviews, and get bonuses based off of the Metacritic average
    This is an awful practice. This really needs to stop. Metacritic is ridiculous when they turn a 5 star rating system into a rating based off of a 1-100 rating, such as a 3 star rating turning into a 60. Developers should not have their money based on such a rating scale.

    Good point about not all reviews being paid off to elevate scores. A few maybe, but you can trust a majority of reviews won't do such a thing.
    Avatar image for smugdarkloser
    SmugDarkLoser

    5040

    Forum Posts

    114

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 1

    User Lists: 0

    #3  Edited By SmugDarkLoser
    brukaoru said:
    "
    The games publisher and developer earn their money based in part off of reviews, and get bonuses based off of the Metacritic average
    This is an awful practice. This really needs to stop. Metacritic is ridiculous when they turn a 5 star rating system into a rating based off of a 1-100 rating, such as a 3 star rating turning into a 60. Developers should not have their money based on such a rating scale.

    Good point about not all reviews being paid off to elevate scores. A few maybe, but you can trust a majority of reviews won't do such a thing."
    True.  And isn't a 3 star more well translated to a 70% ish game?'
    Either way, they kind of do out of 5 stars/ letter scale for a reason.  Metacritic is a joke anyhow.  Niche games like JRPGs get screwed in the process and well, really anything that takes a risk (looking at banjo)


    - Anyway, you don't completely, but don't make the game developers seem like the bad guys in this.  You're sort of making it one sided.  You have to understand, some of these guys have worked on their game for a couple of years and truly think they've made something spectacular (and really, most games are in some respect) only to see some low basically bashing scores
    Avatar image for bulldog19892
    Bulldog19892

    1835

    Forum Posts

    16

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 2

    #4  Edited By Bulldog19892

    Damn good blog post. Well said, well written.

    Avatar image for dualreaver
    DualReaver

    3790

    Forum Posts

    83

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 1

    User Lists: 2

    #5  Edited By DualReaver

    I liked the picture of Jeff. :D

    Avatar image for daniel_beck_90
    daniel_beck_90

    3243

    Forum Posts

    -1

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 2

    User Lists: 3

    #6  Edited By daniel_beck_90

    well people need money so they can pay their bills right ?  unfortunately this may sometimes lead to  what you previously mentioned , but even then we can distinguish a good game from a bad game ourselves  by observing different reviews and figuring the main content of the game ourselves . Halo 3 received   positive reviews but Did  I buy that  game ?  No  , becasue after reading all those extremely positive reviews I understand that this game is shallow eventhough all the reviews were praising the game  .

    Avatar image for sharkboy242
    Sharkboy242

    10

    Forum Posts

    2

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 1

    #7  Edited By Sharkboy242

    HALO?

    Avatar image for lies
    Lies

    3985

    Forum Posts

    32517

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 12

    User Lists: 14

    #8  Edited By Lies
    SmugDarkLoser said:
    - Anyway, you don't completely, but don't make the game developers seem like the bad guys in this.  You're sort of making it one sided.  You have to understand, some of these guys have worked on their game for a couple of years and truly think they've made something spectacular (and really, most games are in some respect) only to see some low basically bashing scores
    "
    I tried to avoid that, certainly neither side is blameless, and neither side is totally responsible.
    I though I managed to dispel any ideas that developers were to blame here:
    They either spent the last couple years of their lives working on this product, or are closely working with people who did. Unless you're working on a POS licensed game like Bolt, you're going to be understandably proud of that work. A high score is validation of that time and effort. It's the human condition to strive to excel
    Avatar image for clarke0
    clarke0

    1082

    Forum Posts

    1622

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    #9  Edited By clarke0

    I have no doubt that the game-reviewing industry is corrupt. I think the gaming community is part of the problem, as they will group up to hate on a game that got a poor review score from their favorite site. The main reason why I like this site is because I know the reviewers are being honest about the experience they had with the game. Unfortunately people still bitch about the amount of stars games get on the forums.

    Avatar image for liquidprince
    LiquidPrince

    17073

    Forum Posts

    -1

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 1

    User Lists: 5

    #10  Edited By LiquidPrince

    Assassin's Creed was a good game.

    Avatar image for dualreaver
    DualReaver

    3790

    Forum Posts

    83

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 1

    User Lists: 2

    #11  Edited By DualReaver
    LiquidPrince said:
    "Assassin's Creed was a good game."

    Please, excuse me, but I have to ask: Are you only being nice because you want something?
    Avatar image for psynapse
    Psynapse

    1084

    Forum Posts

    243

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 1

    User Lists: 2

    #12  Edited By Psynapse

    Great write up bud.

    I didn't mind Assassins Creed either, wasn't my favorite game, but no way did it deserve a 4 :)

    Avatar image for unreal_dro
    Unreal_dro

    288

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    #13  Edited By Unreal_dro
    LiquidPrince said:
    "Assassin's Creed was a good game."
    no
    Avatar image for deactivated-61da50756e1e4
    deactivated-61da50756e1e4

    578

    Forum Posts

    36

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 1

    User Lists: 1

    Unreal_dro said:
    "LiquidPrince said:
    "Assassin's Creed was a good game."
    no"
    yes
    Avatar image for lies
    Lies

    3985

    Forum Posts

    32517

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 12

    User Lists: 14

    #15  Edited By Lies
    Champy said:
    "Unreal_dro said:
    "LiquidPrince said:
    "Assassin's Creed was a good game."
    no"
    yes"
    The point. You are missing it.
    Avatar image for deactivated-57b1d7d14d4a5
    deactivated-57b1d7d14d4a5

    2945

    Forum Posts

    950

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 5

    User Lists: 3

    I blame the developers for a lot of things, but I don't blame them for the state of the review business. I blame the reviewers. No, no amount of underhanded dealing is acceptable. I also perhaps put the majority of blame on the audience. No, your new favorite game does not deserve a 10.

    Avatar image for lies
    Lies

    3985

    Forum Posts

    32517

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 12

    User Lists: 14

    #17  Edited By Lies

    It's important to remember that devs are often not directly related with these fiasco's, it's the publishers and PR firms that tend to get themselves into trouble with the games press, and blame you shift towards the developer is almost always mis-targeted.

    Avatar image for sparky_buzzsaw
    sparky_buzzsaw

    9901

    Forum Posts

    3772

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 39

    User Lists: 42

    #18  Edited By sparky_buzzsaw

    This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

    Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

    Comment and Save

    Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.