EGM delays MGS4 reviews, Konami's 'limitations' cited
"Metal Gear Solid 4 will hit store shelves shortly after this issue of EGM lands in your hot little hands. And four EGM editors -- Matt Leone, Jeremy Parish, Andrew Pfister, and Shane Bettenhausen -- have already invested plenty of time in the game. So why don't we have a full review in this issue? Simply put: We weren't happy with the limitations Konami wanted to impose on our comments, and rather than publish compromised reviews in the interest of being the first to rate the game, we'd rather wait until next issue, where we can be completely open and thorough with our thoughts. In the meantime, our MGS4 vets sat down for an informal chat about the game (and remember -- [once the limitations are lifted] you can find the full review on 1UP.com!)."
The full list of limitations has not been made public (Any readers out there seen the list? Care to share?), but MTV has posted two possible limitations, naming the length of cutscenes and the size of the hard drive installation as two topics that are potentially off-limits to print reviewers. Strangely, these limitations do not seem to be fully imposed on online reviewers (Eurogamer writes freely about both topics in its review), though IGN UK does vaguely acknowledge that "Konami issued us with a list of things that we're not allowed to discuss," adding, "[the] list of prohibited topics is pretty long, and even extends as far as several facts that the company itself has already made public." (It's worth noting that IGN UK confirms later in its review that one of the prohibited topics is the "total length of cutscenes," before going on to state that the cutscenes represent "about half of the content of the game.")
Clearly, Konami has issued certain limitations on pre-release reviews. The scope of these limitations and who they extend to remains unclear. (Also unclear is the potential penalty for violating them, as IGN UK seemingly does.) Still, if EGM understands these limitations to be review-compromising factors, should all pre-release reviews under Konami's guidance be filed with an asterisk?
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Fernando Rocker @ Jun 2nd 2008 12:12PM
So, this is basically a "MGS4 Reviewers Guide" thing?
We need to wait until real reviews, 1UP/EGM, IGN (not IGN UK), and is a less extent Gamespot, Computer & Videogames... heck, I trust more on the 8 from Eurogames or the 8 from EDGE than in the 10's from Official Playstation Magazines from every country.
Phranctoast @ Jun 2nd 2008 12:27PM
You trust a poor review for a PS3 exclusive rather than a positive one. We get it Fernando......
HighFiveJesus @ Jun 2nd 2008 12:31PM
you said you wanted this game to fail anyway so just stow it. also, the excuse to wait for "real reviews" because the current ones are too high is really childish.
License to ill @ Jun 2nd 2008 12:31PM
I don't need to wait for anything but the release of the game...
xFenixKnightx @ Jun 2nd 2008 12:32PM
Damn I'm really tired of all this BS. Let the game/movie speak for itself and be done with it Konami. Are they that insecure? Shouldn't they have confidence in their own game? They shouldn't have done the things they did if they are going to be worried about people criticizing it. Sheesh!
Jacksons @ Jun 2nd 2008 12:34PM
@Fernando
Even though you openly hate anything with a Sony logo on it, you still read reviews of all their products and place "trust" in certain ones? That's ridiculous.
tmacairjordan87 @ Jun 2nd 2008 12:39PM
What's wrong with IGN UK?? Oh that's right...they gave it a 9.9, stupid me.
What's gonna happen when all the ones you listed give it a 9.5-10? you sound like the ps3 fanboys you bash so much "Wait until...."
Maverick Saturn @ Jun 2nd 2008 12:41PM
Not even I have seen all reviews, and Fernando, a pronounced MGS hater has :O lol
Lol, Fernando, you are a funny guy :)
Sir Fidlious Wong (Justin T. McElroy Memorial Burn of the Day Award) @ Jun 2nd 2008 1:00PM
Fenix, MGS games in the past have had very strict things they can and cannot talk about in reviews. Not really trying to hide anything but plot spoilers or easter eggs. I mean, let's put it this way, one site lost the ability to review any future MGS titles long ago because they were allowed to let their review slip four days before the games release date but didn't stick to the review guidelines. So four days before the game slipped, so did knowledge of Raiden, The Patroits, Snakes miracluous survival, etc. Basically ruining the game for anyone who read it.
Bootes @ Jun 3rd 2008 3:52AM
Anyone that complains about cutscene length doesn't deserve to be playing games.
Marty @ Jun 2nd 2008 1:02PM
Guys, this isn't about what the game got as a final score. It's about keeping reviewers objective, for all games.
If you're giving a review on the terms of the publisher, instead of taking a fair look at the game, you might as well just be writing up a marketing paper for the game, because that's all you're doing.
Journalists are supposed to report the facts, and gamers should support the people who do. Turning a blind eye to this garbage is not the way. It's wrong, no matter how big or small the game in question is, and we owe it to ourselves to demand more from big publications like IGN and GameSpot. This pandering to publishers must stop.
Obie @ Jun 2nd 2008 1:03PM
Fernando is ok guy, he is just crazier than my Aunt Louise without her wacky pills.
xFenixKnightx @ Jun 2nd 2008 1:06PM
@ Fiddy
Woah thats some crazy shit, didn't know that. Still they did send a note out on the cutscene lengths, install time, if it gets 9 or higher post review if not then wait till emergence day...err oops I mean release day, etc. Thats what I was refering to. Overall I'm still pretty pumped.
copa @ Jun 2nd 2008 1:09PM
"Not really trying to hide anything but plot spoilers or easter eggs."
Sheppy, stop spinning so blatantly. You are very well aware that nobody is complaining about plot spoilers in the review restrictions.
Cutscene length is a design decision. Lengthy installs after every act is a technical limitation.
These are not plot spoilers or easter eggs, any more than a poor framerate or bad voice acting would be.
Vidikron (FU) @ Jun 2nd 2008 1:43PM
@copa
"Cutscene length is a design decision. Lengthy installs after every act is a technical limitation.:
That's a design decision as well. They could have opted to do it all up front or asked Naighty Dog how to avoid it completely. And let's not forget that "lengthy" is merely your fanboy assumption.
bm @ Jun 2nd 2008 2:05PM
"Anyone that complains about cutscene length doesn't deserve to be playing games."
Anyone who makes a comment like that doesn't deserve to be playing games.
LameDuck @ Jun 2nd 2008 2:57PM
@Vidikron: Same could be said about people who complain about changing DVDs and think that Blu-Ray is a needed thing. But then again, I was put into a coma thanks to changing CDs in a PS1! So screw you, your dog, and that delcious cake you mom makes. D:<
You are all a bunch of insensitive clods. I'm going to go cry in the shower while I eat some oreos.
JaKa (Because 666 gives a wrong impression!) @ Jun 2nd 2008 3:16PM
"You trust a poor review for a PS3 exclusive rather than a positive one. We get it Fernando......"
No, but considering that 10 is the new 8.9, Edge is more capable of writing an honest professional review than a bunch of "teh hardcorez MGS fanboys" who have been waiting for this game ever since it was announced.
I'm sure it will be fucking awesome but nobody wants GTA4 syndrome all over again.
Anonim @ Jun 2nd 2008 4:29PM
So they HIDE:
- Lenght of game:
Reportedly A LOT shorter than 30 hours.
- Lenght of cutscenes:
They take HALF of the game.
- Mandatory Installation
4,6GB
- Additional instalations before EACH act.
- Sub-HD resolution
The same as MGO:
"This resolution is not 768p as you might suspect, since 1024by768 is not a 16/9 isomorphic resolution. Instead, it’s equivalent resolution (contains the same number of pixels) is 1182by665 - or 665p. It is thus accurate to say MGO renders natively at 665p."
Obie @ Jun 2nd 2008 6:38PM
"16/9 isomorphic"
WTF? Did you mean 16:9 Anamorophic? Get your facts together dude!
BananaBoat @ Jun 2nd 2008 7:42PM
EGM is a harsh mistress. Some months they do reviews for games like 50 cent II, and I wonder if all of their integrity has completely flown out the window. Then they hold back on reviewing a game by the publishers terms (terms designed, I'm sure, to get the game higher ratings from magazines desperate to be first with the reviews) and I think that the integrity is still there.
I'll be interested to see their review. From what Shane has already said, I think the thing is getting an A, if not an A+ from him. I'd be surprised if it doesn't average atleast an A from them. You'd think Konami would have said "Hell....you'll give us an A? Go ahead and talk about anything you want" but it seems like that doesn't happen with Konami.
Oh well, T-minus 10 days. Get your cardboard boxes ready, and prepare to yell SNAKEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE?!!!
why not the LS2LS7? @ Jun 2nd 2008 8:51PM
Why all moaning about cutscene length?
It's an MGS game, of course it has huge cutscenes. Might as well be bitching about the cutscenes in JRPGs.
If you don't like long cutscenes (I don't), you won't like MGS games (I don't), but then again, you know that and so you won't be buying any MGS games anyway (I won't), so why be so loud about your objections?
Toasty @ Jun 2nd 2008 12:13PM
What a bizzare turn of events...I don't really care, since I'm going to buy it anyway, but you'd think Konami would trust reviewers not to give out spoilers. But...an install, and cutscene length? Who cares about that? Maybe it's a Japanese thing.
Wii60Warrior @ Jun 2nd 2008 12:31PM
And just for clarity I mean the whole situation. Not EGM or their role in it.
The fact they have to say this to their readers and the fact that they were placed into this role of "Umm yeah we have a game and we could and are probably ready to review it but uhhh yeah the gaming corp giant is sorta cramping our style so we'll just wait" is pretty bad.
I'm really curious as to how long the cutscenes are though. And whether or not it has a mandatory install...
copa @ Jun 2nd 2008 12:42PM
"But...an install, and cutscene length? Who cares about that? Maybe it's a Japanese thing."
Trying to keep people from finding out about the least appealing aspects of your product is not a 'Japanese' things. It's an overly aggressive corporate thing.
Big props to 1UP/EGM for taking a stand here. They also publically pulled Shane Bettenhausen off of the review (although he participated in the roundtable) after he was invited up to Kojima's Japan sleepover / playtest junket, and came back saying he knew what score he would give the game no matter how the final product turned out. (Starts with a 'T', folks!)
From all indications, MGS4 is a great game that would have gotten good scores regardless. But I really hope that the gaming press gives massive attention to install times and cutscene lengths in the coming weeks, so that game publishers learn that future attempts to censor reviews will only backfire.
baby sea tuna @ Jun 2nd 2008 12:51PM
"Starts with a 'T'"...I'm thinking that now that they've changed their review score structure, it starts with something more along the lines of "A."
Though, unless this game has a shitload of extras to make you want to replay it again and again, it probably shouldn't end with a "Plus."
doom saber @ Jun 2nd 2008 2:22PM
"....and came back saying he knew what score he would give the game no matter how the final product turned out. (Starts with a 'T', folks!)"
The guy is giving the game a 2? I kid, I kid
Wii60Warrior @ Jun 2nd 2008 12:15PM
Wow what a fucking disgrace...
Just let the reviewers do their thing. Now devs and companies are blackballing every major reviewer? Its bad enough IGN has completely tanked in the credibility section for the most part. Now EGM?
Tmoney @ Jun 2nd 2008 12:20PM
Perhaps I misread your comments, but how is EGM losing any credibility for this? In fact it adds to their credibility as they refused to do a review under limitations. This is a pretty rare thing when almost all review sites will go for the easy money rather than willingly be one of the last places to have a review.
Maverick Saturn @ Jun 2nd 2008 12:25PM
Tmoney, he said in another article, don't take him seriously, so see this comment as a complete joke and move on.
Jacksons @ Jun 2nd 2008 12:26PM
@Wii60Warrior
I'd love to hear your explanation on how refusing to bend over backwards for publishers hurts their credibility. Konami are the ones being asshats, not EGM.
Wii60Warrior @ Jun 2nd 2008 12:29PM
I'm saying that its a POSSIBILITY.
I'm glad and I hope that EGM doesn't tank like IGN. However you guys do have to admit that its a possibility that this type of thing may be going on already over there or at other companies...
Either way its just a sad thing.
Why can't people just say what they think without someone looking over their shoulder?
Wii60Warrior @ Jun 2nd 2008 12:32PM
And just for clarity I mean the whole situation. Not EGM or their role in it.
The fact they have to say this to their readers and the fact that they were placed into this role of "Umm yeah we have a game and we could and are probably ready to review it but uhhh yeah the gaming corp giant is sorta cramping our style so we'll just wait" is pretty bad.
I'm really curious as to how long the cutscenes are though. And whether or not it has a mandatory install...
NATO_Duke @ Jun 2nd 2008 1:04PM
...I still like IGN's reviews. :(
Looking for credibility online is like hunting for jackalopes.
baby sea tuna @ Jun 2nd 2008 1:09PM
I actually like IGN's reviews as well.
DWells55 @ Jun 3rd 2008 6:29AM
Props to EGM. The fact that they're willing to sacrifice having a review that would sell issues in order to provide a better and more honest article for their readers makes me think a lot more of them.
knowthyself @ Jun 2nd 2008 12:20PM
Sorry you couldn't post spoiler EGM. Better luck next review. I'd rather Konami keep a tight lid on the games secrets than have EGM spoil them so that the internet can start spoiling it for everyone. Thread titles with spoilers. It would be insane ruining the game for all the fans.
Jacksons @ Jun 2nd 2008 12:28PM
Has nothing to do with spoilers, read about it a little.
arrrgh @ Jun 2nd 2008 12:32PM
seriously. fucking kids.
OMGOMG @ Jun 2nd 2008 12:20PM
Not trying to start a flame war, but when a movie is usually not screened or has limitations about someone can say, it usually means it's turning out to be shit.
Not saying the game will be crap, as MGS is quite possibly one of the best videogame franchises of all time (God I really want a PS3 now). Plus, the reviews are already amazing so far.
I think this story proves two things:
1.) Gamespot is far from the only review site that practices questionable motives regarding their reviews
2.) 1UP/EGM seems to want this medium (videogame journalism) to be taken seriously. Props to them, because someone has gotta do it, and it sure as hell isn't going to be the big time websites.
Denkigrve @ Jun 2nd 2008 1:00PM
Movies that don't have previews are different from movies that allow limited critical review. MGS4 is allowing limited critical review. There are reviews being posted. So far I've read reviews from IGN UK, Eurogamer, OPM UK, OPM US, and GamePro. All of the reviews have summed up what is to be an awesome game.
SPOILERS HAPPEN NOW! Read at your own risk:
This is not directly a response to you OMGOMG.
There's too much OMG NO WAI! over minor points. Who cares if there's an install time. It's a PS3 game. Isn't this the norm by now? Who cares if it has long cutscenes? It's this MGS? The longest cutscene will obviously be the final one. Does it matter that the Kojima wants Snake to go out with a dramatic ending? Not really. He has a story to tell so let him tell it. The game is not 2/3 movies, and 1/3 gameplay. It's about 1/3 movies and 2/3 gameplay. There's a LOT of gameplay in there, it's obvious from all of the videos shown throughout the year, and those are only from the first act of the game. You have only just barely been able to see the other locales in the game.
The "I want to play my games, and not watch them" moniker is old and tired when discussing MGS games. They are trying to push the boundaries of cinematic gaming. They aren't trying to be the next Halo or COD. It's not an FPS game, it's not Gears of War. So you can expect 1/3 movies and 2/3 gameplay. Yes the final cutscene is probably an hour long, it's the end of the game. It's MGS, have you not played the last 2 PS2 games? 3 had about 1/3 movies and 2/3 gameplay. I'm expecting this to take the gameplay to even better levels. 3 was awesome, but this should be just as amazing, if not better.
GreyFox @ Jun 2nd 2008 3:35PM
This is why I will continue to keep my subscription for EGM going as long as I can do it. Those guys are top notch!
knowthyself @ Jun 2nd 2008 12:22PM
This is going to be one of the most widely misinterpreted actions taken by gaming journalists. EGM wants to talk about the spoilers. They can't so they are pissing and moaning. Oh and anyone who thinks this game is going to suck is retarded.
K387 @ Jun 2nd 2008 12:28PM
I believe you might be jumping to conclusions. I don't think EGM wants to fill their review with spoilers. I think there may be some serious things that might turn people off or people should be aware of going in.
The cut scenes rumour sounds the biggest. I know that if I spent more time watching cut scenes than playing (i.e. play 5 min, watch 10m in cut scene, play 15 min, watch 5 min cutscene) I would seriously be turned off.
I can't wait til launch day/after launch day to see what the fuss is about.
K387
arrrgh @ Jun 2nd 2008 12:32PM
did they ever once mention spoilers?
K387 @ Jun 2nd 2008 12:24PM
You know, shady stuff like this is disappointing. At least in the movie industry, studios choose to pre-screen for critics or not. Either send the copy to reviewers or wait til launch.
I'. inclined to believe that MGS4 will be a good game, but I think the pressure on Konami to not only release one of the best games, but also the added responsibility of rejuvinating the PS3 platform is getting to them.
NOTE: When I say rejuvinate the platform, I'm saying this based on many people's comments about "wait til MGS4" when describing the PS3.
K387
Maverick Saturn @ Jun 2nd 2008 12:54PM
Its a shame free radical didn't do that ¬_¬ Then it wouldn't have been so hazey, I can barely remember thst game, hmmm
OMGOMG @ Jun 2nd 2008 12:27PM
You're an idiot. I'm pretty sure they knew a condition of reviewing a game early would be not ruining the plot for others. They've had early reviews of games before where they haven't spoiled things. This reeks of Konami worried about bad publicity about cutscenes and the install time. I mean, 4.5 GB? Come on!
Denkigrve @ Jun 2nd 2008 2:14PM
Are you seriously bent out of shape over a 4.5GB install? Seriously? Age of Conan is a 12GB install on top of like 5-6 gigs in patchs before you can even start playing. For faster load times, and a better response time from loading assets you want these installs. Complaining about this is just trolling at this point. Most PS3 games have installs, time to move on. It's like whining about how COD4 and Halo 3 aren't in 720p on the 360. They look/play fine, and are selling quite well. Thats meaningless to worry about.
Considering the game is quoted as being 29 hours or more in length this 8minute or whatever install is really meaningless in the end.
Phinehas @ Jun 2nd 2008 2:33PM
"Are you seriously bent out of shape over a 4.5GB install? Seriously?"
Your incredulity seems misplaced. Why would Konami put the kabash on any mention of the 4.5GB install if they didn't think that people might get a bit bent out of shape over it? Why cover it up if it is such a non-issue?