Former GameSpot reviewer sheds light on more PR hijinx

This is exactly why this IS a bad thing. Having early access to reviews is about the only thing you can do in terms of research. Sure you can look at previews, but those usually go one of two different ways:

The first kind of preview is on that is handpicked by the developers. They send the screenshots to the previewer and tell them the key features of the game, or they invite the previewer over to their offices and show them someone else plating the game.

Or there are the "Hands-on" previews that usually only look at the positives of the game. If there are negatives, the preview usually ends wit something like: "we hope that these issues will be taken care of by the time the game launches."

As you can see, neither preview gives an accurate and non-biased look at the game. If the review score is not great and withheld until the game is released, there is very little you can do in terms of research. Therefore, you are more likely to blindly purchase a sucky game that you've been looking forward to instead of possibly being warned beforehand, so at least you would have some idea whether or not you still wanted the game.

A company asked him to refrain from telling your fellow gamers a game was bad until after the launch of a system where the title was one of few so we could only see the good reviews and view the bad ones after the release.

If that isn't shady what is?

OK but Xav the company is giving them a free copy of the game to review. All they're asking in return is if it gets a bad score that they just hold off on the review until release day. They're not asking the reviewer to alter their score in any way.

If the reviewer doesn't want to do it because it would jeapordize their strict moral code (like a modern day samurai or something), they can wait until launch and buy the game like everyone else. Then they can feel good in the morning.

There ain't no such thing as a free lunch, or a free game. Everything's got a cost. The cost in this case seems reasonable to me.

That isn't what an embargo is.

An embargo is when a company holds reviews or information in lieu of exclusivity or street date. This is asking him to keep quiet on a review if it's bad until after the game is out so people are flooded only with good reviews.

No doubt in my mind that Red Steel is the game in question. This is classic Ubisoft tactics.

It sucks that some readers are OK with this type of activity. This kind of conduct is exactly why the Joystiq network doesn't sign embargoes or keep anything given to us.

Then read the reviews before you go out and buy the game. They're not being paid to give a bad game a good review, they're just releasing the review later. Nothing is stopping you from reading a review before you go and buy a game, and nothing is forcing you to buy a game on launch day either.