Sony sports, Ubisoft, Midway ban EGM from reviews

i think they should get rid of reviews overall... it can kill a great game with just a 1 or 2 digit number... just like that! F the reviews.. i never listen to them anyways... they should just have something more like a pro/con review instead of the stupid score review...

hmmmm... what a dilema. do i side with sony or with the reviews. they either make good games or should they be mad for the bad reviews theyv been getting...hmmm what to do what to do. well i dont care about reviews. i think lair wasnt all that bad and it was pretty cool to me. if i was to belive ps3 fanboy or any other reviews then i cant side with them. but i get reviewers got the same tastes. some of my favorite games havent gotten good reviews at all. oh well. i still their games should be the greatest ever for what we pay for them and not be mad for the bad reviews.

just my 2 cents

I think Dan was on an episode of Bonus Round on Gametrailers and said that even though those companies didn't want EGM reviewing the games, he still would. This meant no financial backing with advertising and such.

He still wants to review the games for the readers. I agree.

And numbers or not, if you read the actual review, you can see the pros and cons in the text.

I agree. I have found many titles, (Outpost, Pariah,various gba games) to be fantastic in some respects (story, atmosphere) even though they lacked in others ("traditional run-gun gameplay") so even though they got like %50's they were some of the most emotionally moving and thought provolking games I've ever played.

Then there are games like Lair, which I am about to try, which get such polarized reviews that they are basically useless without a demo. A good DEMO in the hands of gamers early combined with a forum including developer participation might solve this whole review debate. Let the games decide, let the devs hear it!

i still think their games should be the best for what we pay for them*****

sowwie

Bought me a copy of EGM in December thought it was gonna be a good mag. But I don't like how they have like 4 people review and half the time they spend saying yeah I agree with reviewer and not adding much to the review. Personally still like Game Informer and there reviewing.

in all fairness, 70-80% of review sites are corrupt and just plain suck anyway

look nevermind what i posted. i dont know whats wrong with this...

EGMs reviews can be broken and hypocritical at the same time. They often review games and penalize them for not having online play, or for only being around 10 hours or so. Yet when a game like Halo comes out, which has its faults as any other game. It receives perfect scores just based off the online aspect. Everyone knows the campaign isn't the greatest.
Also EGM tends to get into the mindset that everything needs to be "innovative". There are plenty of titles that aren't even innovative, but complete the basics better than anyone else.
That is why I read Play magazine. They tend to hand out 10s left and right. But they evaluate games based on how good they are in their genre. No penalization for not having online. And just rate them on how entertaining and fun the game is.
I also don't get how the price of a game goes into the score of a game.. I don't care how much a game costs. As long as it is fun and entertaining!

I stopped reading the reviews, but I do value the opinion of most of the people at EGM. I would say that I now wait for the game to come into discussion on the EGM Live/ 1UP Yours podcasts, before deciding whether or not I think its worth getting. They are usually pretty dead on with their opinions/impressions of the games when they talk about the on those podcasts.

I agree with removing the point system out of reviews, since your tastes in genres/etc affects how you percieve it. Just picture a big NFL football fanatic being assigned to review mario. It just doesnt make sense.


I also personally hate EGM and 1UP. They are way too unprofessional with the way the write their reviews. They are vague and inconsistent... Which leads me to believe they are biased and being paid to shave points off games. I mean, if 1UP likes being controversial to attract more hits to their website, good for them.

As for sony banning them... Maybe that's too much? Maybe the games sucked? But, if you knew you're being judged unfairly, what other course would you take?

I have been against reviewers for a long time. I have been examining every gaming magazine and game site. Everybody knows how bias all these magazines and gaming sites are against the PS3. I found that to be true with EGM as well from reading many of their mags. The same goes for Game Informer, their very bias against the PS3 as well, and that upsets me because that's my favorite game mag, well it was before all the PS3 bashing and Xbox fanboyism i've been seeing in the mag. Why does everybody want to see the PS3 fail? Is it because the Playstation brand has been on top for the past 10 years, and people are tired of seeing them succeed? Why is this only happening here in America?

Theres not a reviewer alive that influences anything I do. I think most reviewers of anything, whether it's music, dining or movies go negative every chance they get.

EGM must have done something really bias. I mean gamespot gave ratchet and clank a 7.5, uncharted an 8.0. Plus they've created 2 articles (at different times) naming what the PS3 needs to do to be a good console. Yet sony hasn't banned gamespot. What the hell could have EGM to make sony ban them?

EGM and 1UP have been realy off the wall on there rateing
they bashed warhawk for being online only and costing almost the same as a full game but gave shadow run no point hit
that is one of there MANY Fups the fact that 3 game makers are telling them no shows a lot

EGM totally blows at reviewing games. They are so biased. They take every chance they can to bash Sony. I get the magazine only because OPM finished my subscription with it.

So basically what the anti-Sony kids that run this site are saying is there is no way EGM would show bias or print reviews that are not exactly formulated with ethics in mind? Jesus Christ on a crutch. it's EGM.

Don't Review 'Our' Game, 'We' Already know it SUCKS!!!

Wow Can't take the HEAT.... Then Make games that don't SUCK!!!

Whoa what a Bunch of GIRLS...

Well if the games didn't SUCK, They wouldn't get awful reviews...
To the Fanboys that Blow everthing out of proportion, Do you really think there biased towards Only Sony? Wake up Fools, There plenty of Wii & Xbox fanboys that 'Think' the same thing.
'There so Biased against 'our' Platform' Two words for you... GROW UP

I'm really not surprised. Long before this news I already had marked EGM as reviewers to discount completely. They give good scores to the big hits and trash anything else. They're consistently 10 points lower than the average on most non-AAA games. Screw them anyway.

The Danish (Scandinavian) magazine Gamereactor, will never get allowed to review EA sport titles, because EA thinks the scores are below average (maybe they are)

The funny/crazy thing about this: Gamereactor in Norway and Sweden are still allowed to review EA sport titles.

Wow what a bunch of lame fanboy whiners.
EGM makes a stand for integrity and gets bashed by game fans who would rather have the companies dictate to them which games to like and buy.

EGM has been having the conversation about integrity in game reviews and previews long before the Gerstman controversy. Shoe has written about it several times in his Editorial.

EGM is the only game magazine that I feel is 100% not influenced by the companies. They should be applauded for this, and everyone who is a true fan of video games should support them.

i just wrote a comment but it doesn't seem to have gone through. That always happens. PS3fanboy your comments board is broken!

Yeah, that comment went through not the first one that took a few minutes to write! Grrr....
Basic gist was: I haven't noticed any bias but 1up reviews frequently complain about games being too difficult, when clearly some of the reviewers are just sh*t at games (see reviews of Jericho or Spartan: Total Warrior for reference).

So, I won't be buying games from Midway or Ubisoft or Sony sports titles anymore. Fine with me, though, since I've never bought them in the past (they've never been good).

Hsu doth protest too much. He reminds me of all the baseball players claiming they never took steroids, than in actuality did. He always claims EGM is a "clean" mag, but it's reviews seem just as fishy as every other mag out there.

The word 'ban' isn't really the right word here. These companies refusing to financially support EGM's reviews through providing free games and advertising is hardly the same as trying to 'ban'.

I don't think any game producers have a moral obligation to provide free copies of their titles to reviewers.

Seems like the wrong way to stop criticism to me, even if it is unfair. There will always be other reviews to balance it out and if you go to Metacritic you can see the average (though as there are no 'average' people it gets a bit impersonal at that point as to whether you'll actually like the game). Let the critics say what they want- it's good demos that convince me to buy a game most of the time. I look to the critics to see how 'good' it really is, as they play more games than I'd ever dream of.

This is a long overdue punishment to EGM. Gamepro deserves one, too.

In Gamepro issue# 220 / January 8, 2007, they gave Resistance Fall of Man a 3.27 for graphics. In that same issue, they gave Marvel Ultimate Alliance for the xbox360 a whopping 3.75 in graphics.


Is there a bias towards Microsoft???

These and many other game reviewers are from American magazines reviewing the only American console in a mostly Japanese industry. Expect bias until it goes too far. Then, we have Sony saying, "f**** you...!!! Get your dirty hands off our products for reviews."

In the upcomming Olympic games in China, you'd expect bias if all the judges for every event were chinese, wouldn't you? That's why no one would allow an all chinese or all american or all japanese judge panel in the Olympics.

Not so with the gaming industry.


The best thing to do is just to review the abundant videos on the internet and read the articles rather than focus on the scores. Some articles will focus more on the bad stuff. Some on the good stuff. Just take as much info as you can before buying.

And pay attention to which reviewer seems to be honest and have the SAME TASTES in gaming as you do. There's no point in following his scores if he's immoral or if he likes first person shooters only while you like Racing games. His scores will have less meaning to you.

I only take scores minimally into ccount. I was fooled into buying COD4 because it has the highest score on metacritic. Boy was I disappointed. It is currently the worse game I own, according to my tastes. However, despite the low scores on GRAW2, Motorstorm, VF5, Ratchet, and Uncharted, I knew I had to buy those games based on careful reading, cross-verifying information from one mag to another while taking into account their previous bias reputations, and watching videos. For instance, I knew that Uncharted was my kind of game no matter what the reviews would be. And I knew that Heavenly Sword and Lair wouldn't be that big a deal even before the reviews came out. I know my tastes. I'll wait until those two games sell for maybe $15-$20 before I'll try them out.


I know MGS4 will be my kind of game even though I've never played an MGS game before just based on watching the trailers and knowing that I love stealth games.

(By the way, if you want to know whether this game will be a true exclusive or a surprise timed exclusive like Lost Planet on the xbox360, just look at the tell tale signs of PS3 exclusivity: Game length, AI, and the number of activities onscreen at one time. Color is not an issue here becuase of the art direction demanding a smaller, analogous color patter, I assume.

It would really worry me that this is intened to be a time exclusive for the xbox360. Maybe in about 5 more years when the xbox360 is winding down and is no longer a threat to the PS3. Maybe, maybe not. But the sad thing is that if this is true, then Kojima will "future proof" the game and make it with the xbox360 hardware in mind, rather than the PS3. Just as activision did with COD4. This would be cost saving and would make for an efficient port when necessary)


By the way, just because early ports have been bad on the PS3 from the xbox360 doesn't mean that the xbox360 is more powerful. Ratchet & Clank 1 and 2 for the PS2 ported or "emulated" to the PS3 will cause slow motion and framerate problems, too. But that doesn't mean that the PS2 is more powerful than the PS3, does it?

i personally dont go off of reviews but i think its quite obvious that many ps3 games take harder hits from "reviewers" than other games, just by reading some you can see a biased. i have read 360 reviews where they pick out flaws and give it an almost perfect rating, do the same for ps3 and the game is considered a disaster and unplayable. i go off of user opinions not magazine reviews...