EGM EIC Shoe names names of companies who refuse to submit games for p/review

Midway's Mortal Kombat team? No surprise there
Sony's sports division? That's actually kind of surprising, I thought that most of their sports titles were usually pretty favorably looked upon, reviews wise.
Ubisoft? I can point to one game, and one game alone for that one: Assassin's Creed.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']
Ubisoft? I can point to one game, and one game alone for that one: Assassin's Creed.[/QUOTE]
4.5!

And as far as I can remember, since I don't play sports games, haven't Sony's sports titles been shit ever since the PS2?
 
See, this is good. Shoe has gone on and on in his editorials about how EGM wants to maintain its integrity (however much they still have), but this is more or less proof of that. At the very least, it's nice to see something interesting in one of these editorial columns.
 
For every good game Ubisoft makes, about 5 of them are downright putrid crap, kinda like Microsoft Game Studios

The only good Sony sports franchise is MLB: The Show IMO
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']ubisoft also pulled ads from 1up.com and egm after assasins creed[/QUOTE]
:rofl::rofl::rofl:

Oh yeah, I remember hearing the Sony MLB games were good. But I'm pretty sure I've heard all the other sports games they make are total ass.
 
[quote name='TheRookieMonster']For every good game Ubisoft makes, about 5 of them are downright putrid crap, kinda like Microsoft Game Studios

The only good Sony sports franchise is MLB: The Show IMO[/QUOTE]

Yeah, Ubi is kinda weird. They're like EA, but the one good game they release every now and then is just enough to keep me from writing them off completely.
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']ubisoft also pulled ads from 1up.com and egm after assasins creed[/QUOTE]

Crispin is lucky he works for 1up/EGM and not Gamespot .

Ubisoft could do a Gertsmann on him .

*You should add Dan Shoe's name to the title .*
 
As crappy as EGM is... this is nice. I'm sure they'll get into legal trouble and whatnot but the magazine isn't exactly good.

Of course, this is probably going to do wonders for their mag sales and site visits.
 
[quote name='-Never4ever-']didn't acclaim pull this shit in EGM's infantcy? Over Total Recall on the NES iirc.[/quote]

Yeah, that sounds familiar. I believe it was a similar situation as well, where they were called out on it by the Editor and Acclaim quickly backpedaled on the issue. That is, if memory serves me correctly!
 
Huh, they must be getting ready to release the new Mortal Kombat pretty soon then.

We shouldn't let this get out of hand though, they just didn't send in review copies, which is their right. It's not like they threatened to pull ad campaigns...

Oops.
 
Stuff like that is why EGM is my most trusted review source (though I certainly don't always agree with them) and why I still have a subscription even though the quality of the magazine (review's aside) has dropped in recent years.

They tell it like it is, advertising dollars, early review copies of games, etc. be damned. I often disagree with their reviewers, but at least I know I'm getting their honest take on the games.
 
[quote name='-Never4ever-']didn't acclaim pull this shit in EGM's infantcy? Over Total Recall on the NES iirc.[/QUOTE]
I think it was that they gave Total Recall a shit score, and Acclaim pulled their ads for a short time.
 
IMO, EGM is worth every penny JUST for SeanBaby. Everything else is like packaging peanuts, only packaging peanuts that occanisonally have a suprise inside, like a good review.

Also, I think the correct response here is "Oh snap!"
 
[quote name='Dead of Knight']I think it was that they gave Total Recall a shit score, and Acclaim pulled their ads for a short time.[/QUOTE]

That's what I meant :)
 
This is also the reason why I have been subscribing to this mag for some 5 years or so.

Kudos to Shoe and EGM both!
 
[quote name='-Never4ever-']didn't acclaim pull this shit in EGM's infantcy? Over Total Recall on the NES iirc.[/quote]If you remember correctly? When I had a subscription, they'd bring it up every other issue.
 
Good for Hsu. Why has it taken this long to come to light?

Also, I'm curious about Ubi. What game(s) are they pissed about (don't tell me just AC; they're too prolific a publisher to get miffed over one game)?

I'm curious what games have been withheld over time. Surely more than just the ones he mentioned. Many that conveniently arrive too late for deadline, no?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Good for Hsu. Why has it taken this long to come to light?

Also, I'm curious about Ubi. What game(s) are they pissed about (don't tell me just AC; they're too prolific a publisher to get miffed over one game)?

I'm curious what games have been withheld over time. Surely more than just the ones he mentioned. Many that conveniently arrive too late for deadline, no?[/QUOTE]

EGM's preview of Splinter Cell DS was misquoted out of context in an ad .
EGM was not happy about it and subsiquently called Ubi out on it .
 
[quote name='mykevermin']
Also, I'm curious about Ubi. What game(s) are they pissed about (don't tell me just AC; they're too prolific a publisher to get miffed over one game)?

I'm curious what games have been withheld over time. Surely more than just the ones he mentioned. Many that conveniently arrive too late for deadline, no?[/QUOTE]
Splinter Cell DS may have been one of the reasons why, but I'm sure the 4.5 for AC was the very last straw.

EGM has reviewed a lot of games 2-4 months late lately. One I particularly remember was Tales of the Abyss. I'd beaten it months before a review showed up in the magazine. I'm honestly not sure why it's taking so long for a lot of games, but this could be an issue. Though it seems that just as many late games get good reviews as bad reviews.
 
[quote name='Vinny']As crappy as EGM is... this is nice. I'm sure they'll get into legal trouble and whatnot but the magazine isn't exactly good.

Of course, this is probably going to do wonders for their mag sales and site visits.[/quote]

I don't think saying "these guys don't feel like giving us review copies of their games" is going to get anyone in legal trouble. It's more of a PR thing.

These companies are trying to pressure/avoid a gaming magazine that they feel doesn't give them the best chance to get a good gamerankings score. That's bullshit and I applaud EGM for going out there and saying "hey, these guys are trying to hide their games from us".

It's better than what we got after the Gerstmann incident where everyone would say "That never happens here! We don't fold under pressure at XYZ.com!"
 
I disagreed with the 4.5 Crispin gave assassin's creed, but it was preceded by two scores I did agree with completely.

What does it matter if they stop sending games, anyway? This is just going to hurt these companies in the end by giving them a negative image with gamers and reducing the amount of publicity they get in one of the biggest gaming magazines in the world. I bet Ubisoft turns back on this and apologizes before R6 Vegas 2 is out.

These corporations think they can control the flow of information through game magazines like they're some PR extension, but but they'll still review the game, later, but they'll still review it. What I wonder is if this means they won't be able to preview games from those companies as easily/in depth. That would surely be frustrating, but theres plenty of other publishers dying for coverage that I'm sure would love extra pages..
 
While I'm not a huge fan of the direction EGM has taken over the years (what happened to true previews of more than five games in an issue?) I've always had faith in their review section and their brutal honesty the vast majority of the time. They aren't afraid to step on toes.

I don't think this move will help Ubi's image at all.
 
[quote name='jer7583']I disagreed with the 4.5 Crispin gave assassin's creed, but it was preceded by two scores I did agree with completely.

What does it matter if they stop sending games, anyway? This is just going to hurt these companies in the end by giving them a negative image with gamers and reducing the amount of publicity they get in one of the biggest gaming magazines in the world. I bet Ubisoft turns back on this and apologizes before R6 Vegas 2 is out.

These corporations think they can control the flow of information through game magazines like they're some PR extension, but but they'll still review the game, later, but they'll still review it. What I wonder is if this means they won't be able to preview games from those companies as easily/in depth. That would surely be frustrating, but theres plenty of other publishers dying for coverage that I'm sure would love extra pages..[/QUOTE]

While it won't hurt online sites because of the quick turnaround, it will hurt print magazines. If they have to publish reviews one or two months later, people will have made their minds on other reviews. It doesn't matter if it's a small game, but that's not necessarily the case here ....
 
EGM does have 1up.com for publishing the lead review. Ubisoft and Midway probably weren't giving a lot of lead time to them before this, so it really shouldn't change much. I'm pretty sure you had to give AC a 9 or better to get a review copy before release anyway.

NeoGAF forums are absurd with this shit. People saying EGM is crap because they review too low. What crap, everyone else reviews too high. GI is the worst offender of the 7-10 scale, but they do pretty good features and other content.
 
Assassin's Creed is a 6.5 to me. Too many problems. It was going to be a 6, but the ending was good enough to bump it up a bit.

Reviewers should refuse to be extremely nice to companies, and should refuse all gifts except copies and consoles to review the games. Nothing more, nothing less. Going beyond that gives developers/publishers the means to push harder to get what they want.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']Assassin's Creed is a 6.5 to me. Too many problems. It was going to be a 6, but the ending was good enough to bump it up a bit.[/QUOTE]

I'd say AC waffled anywhere from a 6 to an 8 for the little bit of time I played it, which was the first 2 assassinations. It was generally better in the beginning, when everything seemed fresh and exciting, and much less so as I realized I was repeating the same things over and over.
 
It would be interesting to see a poll on who thinks the game companies are right and who thinks EGM is right.

Personally I think the game companies are right here. EGM is dying and fighting for survival. I think EGM has turned to crap as they've tried to differentiate and give meaning to print magazine reviews that have become almost meaningless in a digital age. They tried to show their value by grading games more harshly but the implementation of the harsher scores has been extremely inconsistent and hasn't been properly supported with descriptive text that fully justifies the scores they have been giving. Now they're calling out publishers to try and prove their integrity. If I was a publisher I wouldn't take the risk of sending them a game for review.
 
Why is this big news? They've mentioned this stuff a few times before in their podcast. I believe the Sports Anomaly guys mentioned that 1up doesn't get 2K Sports games either, during the day and date extravaganza for NBA Live and NBA 2K this year, since they had to go out and buy the game themselves, which caused the review to come out two weeks later.
 
[quote name='jkanownik']It would be interesting to see a poll on who thinks the game companies are right and who thinks EGM is right.

Personally I think the game companies are right here. EGM is dying and fighting for survival. I think EGM has turned to crap as they've tried to differentiate and give meaning to print magazine reviews that have become almost meaningless in a digital age. They tried to show their value by grading games more harshly but the implementation of the harsher scores has been extremely inconsistent and hasn't been properly supported with descriptive text that fully justifies the scores they have been giving. Now they're calling out publishers to try and prove their integrity. If I was a publisher I wouldn't take the risk of sending them a game for review.[/QUOTE]

Only part I agree with of this post is that their text portions of the reviews tends to be severely lacking and not focused on why the reviewer gave it that score.

Their reviews are harsh, and that's why I like them. I'm a damn harsh critic of games myself, so their scores tend to fall more in line with my personal ones more than other review sources, though I still didn't always agree with them.

And I think it's absurd a publisher would pull games becaue they get overly harsh reviews, or too critical of previews (also mentioned in Shoe's editorial).

If you don't want to get slammed, don't make crappy games!
 
[quote name='jkanownik']I think EGM has turned to crap[/QUOTE]

EGM turned to crap long, long ago. They put more effort into thinking up stupid "funny" responses in their letter column than they do their reviews.

Anyone here with a subscription actually pay for it? I won't ridicule you or anything, I'm just interested.



As to who is "in the right" here, I am definitely sure that I do not care.
 
[quote name='KaneRobot']
Anyone here with a subscription actually pay for it? I won't ridicule you or anything, I'm just interested.
[/QUOTE]

I paid for the past two years, have a free year currently.

Quality has went way down, but I still enjoy the magazine and their reviews scores tend to be closest in line with my own (though I hate that the text of the reviews has gotten worse and worse, a few old reviewrs aside).
 
Well, it'll be interesting to see how long the consensus in this thread shifts from indignation towards the publishers to "Ah, EGM sucks these days, anyway!" Clearly, the backslide has already begun.

My point being, this shit will never change, as on the whole, the gamers want their 'fix' more than they want journalistic integrity. It's not even close. So thanks for that, gaming 'community'!

P.S. Ubisoft is deplorable, and that Jade Raymond comic was more than a little accurate.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I paid for the past two years, have a free year currently.

Quality has went way down, but I still enjoy the magazine and their reviews scores tend to be closest in line with my own (though I hate that the text of the reviews has gotten worse and worse, a few old reviewrs aside).[/QUOTE]

I'm in the same boat. I think it's alright for what it is. I like the concepts they've added over the years (the 3-or-so months after release followup developer interview. It's a great concept, but the softballs they throw ruin it.

It's a catch-22, though. If they ask a developer "what the fuck were you thinking making this game so fucking awful?" the developer's going to pick up and run. So, we get terrible execution with a great concept (like this month's "Aww, we just wuv your wittle SMB3 homage in Mario Galaxy!!!").

Their reviews are tripe. Always have been. It's a constraint of the magazine format - having multiple perspectives is the best they can do, but when distilled into 75 words or so, I'm not moved, ever, to make a $60 purchase, y'know?

Plus the Milk and Cheese comic in the back, or whatever it's called, is pretty damned funy from time to time. This month's SSBB-themes comic was very funny, IMO.

Some of it's corny, but for a $11-13 annual subscription, I'm not sour. Not over that little money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top