Molyneux asks for special review consideration; we ask 'what would other industries do?'
by Alexander Sliwinski 
{ Oct 7th 2008 at 5:30PM }
Molyneux apparently details the online co-op feature in the letter, which will be added soon after launch. Variety ponders if publications should wait until the feature comes out before reviewers write their pieces, or if outlets should make a note saying this important feature couldn't be tested at the time? So, we asked Variety (well known for its movie and music reviews): what would one of its film or music critics do if they were asked to review an unfinished product? Find out the answer after the break.
Variety's video game reporter, Ben Fritz, explained to Joystiq:
"I talked to one of our film critics and he said we usually do review the earliest available print, even if it's not the final version. If they're showing it at a festival to the public, for instance, we often review it. Even with the understanding that it may be re-cut or altered if/when it is released commercially. When that commercial release occurs we usually don't write a new review, unless it has been hugely changed. Sometimes we actually talk about the fact that it may be changed before commercial release. Check out our review of "Che" from the Cannes film festival, where the first sentence of the review starts "No doubt it will be back to the drawing board..."
The basic rule is: If they are showing it to the public in any way shape or form, we feel justified in reviewing it. The only time we wouldn't is if they are explicitly showing a "work in progress," like a test screening or a series of clips shown to exhibitors or something like that. That would be like running a review based on an E3 demo. Another relevant analogy I thought of is that we do review Broadway-bound shows when they are doing a "tryout" in another city. However, in that case, we usually review it again once it opens on Broadway.
So, the short answer is, if Fable II were a movie or play, we would absolutely review it the day it opened, even in its "incomplete" form. Which is why I have decided I will do the same with this game. Luckily in the age of blogs, however, I can update my thoughts when online co-op becomes available."
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
B3astofthe3ast @ Oct 7th 2008 5:36PM
I dunno, movies and games are apples and oranges...
kinshadow @ Oct 7th 2008 6:02PM
... and books are cantaloupes and music is mangoes.
I hate when people say this. Of course they are different types of media; that doesn't mean you can't look for precedence in the other. IMO, gaming has another couple of decades before it has enough of its own history to push beyond this.
dukrous @ Oct 7th 2008 6:07PM
Books, movies and games centered on fiction have the same goal...entertain the audience. On that basis is how you judge games and movies: how entertaining are they? Thats a perfectly valid question with which to review it. After all, a game that doesn't entertainment is just a simulation (to paraphrase Poe). Everything else like story-telling, graphics, voice-acting, etc...it's all chrome if the game doesn't entertain you.
Chez @ Oct 11th 2008 4:30AM
Said the guy with the MGS avatar...
t3kni9e @ Oct 7th 2008 7:26PM
I agree with kin, I hate when people use that apples and oranges analogy, it's just a way to make an excuse while not having to back anything up.
In the end both games and movies get reviews, so even if they are two different things, they are in the same boat.
I love Fable and PM is a cool with me. But if you release an unfinished product, then it's your fault if it gets bad reviews because of it.
Nick8708 @ Oct 7th 2008 8:41PM
You can compare apples and oranges. Oranges win.
Hyperion45 @ Oct 7th 2008 11:04PM
Yet they are all still fruit and delicious at that, so it's win-win.
Mike @ Oct 7th 2008 5:40PM
I guess it'd be like reviewing the theatrical release and the director's cut. Most publications are going to review it now so they don't miss out. I think a pubs like EGM would consider holding their review like they did with MGS4.
Foetoid @ Oct 7th 2008 5:59PM
Sharingan FTW. Have you seen all the Shippuuden eps up to the 078/079 double?
BananaBoat @ Oct 7th 2008 11:49PM
They held the MGS4 review because Konami wouldn't let them talk about a part of the game that was actually finished and in the game. Konami never asked them if they'd kindly hold their review, instead they said "Ok, review it without mentioning these issues we perceive will lower the score, or don't review it early at all" which is, in my mind, a whole lot scummier than asking nicely if reviewers would give you the benefit of the doubt, that a feature will be included very very shortly after review (which is what Molyneux is doing)
The whole Konami thing aside, I don't think it's too big of a stretch to give a score now, and then amend it when the features are in, as long as they are in VERY shortly after launch (say, within a week). Then again, with the antiquated print magazine medium, you can't amend a score later, so it seems like holding a final score by a month would be the proper thing to do (like EGM did for MGS4, but for different reasons). This doesn't present a huge problem for online reviewers, since they have no printing deadlines etc.
I don't know if Co-Op is going to add anything to the score, but if it's going to be there at launch (or very shortly after launch) it's probably harmless enough to give a little bit of consideration for the game. That is, unless the game is horrible, and no amount of co-op is going to fix it, in which case this entire argument is pointless. Since I'm buying this game on launch day, I truly hope that the game is good. I loved the first one, but I was disappointed with what wasn't there despite being promised. Hopefully Molyneux will be delivering on all of his promises this time around.
Mike @ Oct 8th 2008 2:03AM
Yeah, I remember the details of the MGS review. That situation would have resulted in an incomplete review. This situation could be a review of an incomplete game. That is if you care about multi-player. I don't care about it in my rpg.
I don't believe in modifying a review after a game has been released. They have to review what is available to every consumer. Not everybody will have an internet connection to download the patch. A patch which is taken into consideration in the review score. I wouldn't mind a separate review of the DLC itself.
BananaBoat @ Oct 8th 2008 1:00PM
Not every consumer will have an internet connection to download a patch that enabled online co-op?
Whaaaaaa?
Sarcasm aside, I know what you mean. In most cases, that would absolutely be true, and I'd say they should review the thing as-is. In this case though, we're talking about a feature that you need the internet to use anyway. There is nothing stopping people from getting it whenever it's released (Hopefully a week after launch).
I'm hoping for atleast a score of 90. I know that scores amount to exactly zero once you are playing the game and enjoying it (or hating it) but I loved the original fable, and I worry that if this one doesn't do well, that there won't be another one.
Buy, people. Buy buy buy.
Agathos @ Oct 7th 2008 5:42PM
I'm going to thoroughly enjoy this either way I suspect, along with LBP, Socom, Fallout, and Motorstorm (of course it'll take months to enjoy all of these completely...)
Karamo17 @ Oct 7th 2008 5:43PM
MGS4 got alot of shit for that fact that such a letter or request was made by the developers, why should fable 2 get special considerations. i'm getting the game but when it comes to fairness it seems that the gaming media is full of shit if they do what this developer has asked.
Eric @ Oct 7th 2008 6:16PM
MGS4 got shit because they said reviewers may not mention the 4939 (or so) hours of cut scenes.
copa @ Oct 7th 2008 6:25PM
I agree 100%. MGS4 deserved the shit they got, and Molyneux deserves abuse here.
If Molyneux wanted reviewers to credit Fable 2 for providing online coop, he should have waited to release the game until online coop was ready.
What he wants is to receive credit for the mode with the implicit understanding that it works flawlessly, without actually subjecting the finished coop mode to critical review.
This is a scam that has been in games journalism forever, but really hit the big time with Ultima 9. When Ultima 9 was provided to reviewers, it was so bug-ridden that it was almost unplayable. But Origin, a big name developer with a very good reputation, assured reviewers that all of the big problems would be patched at launch. The most gullible journalists acquiesced, and reviewed the game as though it had been fixed.
Of course, the game was never fixed. Origin was able to use the positive reviews to boost its sales, without ever having to deliver the product that would earn such reviews.
From Lair's "reviewer's guide," to MGS4's "you can't talk about the worst design decision in the game" to Molyneaux's "please review features that don't yet exist", developers will continue to try and game the review process as long as they have such little respect for the journalists.
Bloo @ Oct 7th 2008 6:26PM
No, MGS4 got flak for telling reviewers what NOT to mention in a review. Molyneux never says don't mention anything. He asks reviewers IF they will consider letting a casual gamer play the game as well as mentioning a coming-soon feature ala LBP's online co-op mode. Most review copies of games are sent out with similar letters letting reviewers no some of the things to look for in the game.
Karamo17 @ Oct 7th 2008 7:44PM
I'm not saying MGS4 did did not deserve it i'm saying that they should not let F2 slide, mind you reading and analyzing the comment before u respond to it?
JJ Rooster @ Oct 7th 2008 7:50PM
Copa is right as usual. I am fuckin SICK of Molyneux and his self-driven hype. It's just too much "my shit is the most unique" posturing for me. You won't get a dime from me, Frog!
Abscissa @ Oct 7th 2008 8:58PM
"developers will continue to try and game the review process as long as they have such little respect for the journalists."
It's not just disrespectful for the journalists. It's also disrespectful to the gamers who read the journalists' reviews.
When the first XBox was coming out, people were worried that it would usher in an era of "ship-early-then-patch" mentality on the part of console game developers. Time has shown those fears were not unfounded. I miss the days when games were released when they were actually fucking *done* instead of before.
why not the LS2LS7? @ Oct 8th 2008 4:31AM
It doesn't matter whether it was requested something be omitted that is there, or something be included that isn't, or whatever.
The point is that the makers of the games are trying to tell the reviewers how to write their reviews. If the developers write the reviews, what is the point in the reviews?
It looks like Dyack was ahead of the curve here. If reviewers don't like something, then they reviewed it wrong. If gamers don't like it, they are playing it wrong.
How about the developers make games people can enjoy without special instructions on how to do it?
A Pissed-off English Gamer @ Oct 8th 2008 7:47AM
Developers SHOULD get shit for this. You don't send in an extract of a book you want reviewed only to include a letter explaining elements of the writing; the build, like writing, should speak for itself.
Karamo17 @ Oct 8th 2008 8:02AM
you are right, games should be be reviewed as is not as will be, nor should there be any restriction on reviewers, but reviewers should also be fair and treat every game the same.
Duke @ Oct 7th 2008 5:44PM
I see people soon saying any positive reviews for this game are bs because of his letter being sent with the game. Lair accusations forthcoming?
Paulmichael @ Oct 7th 2008 6:11PM
No, Lair came out a long time ago. :P
Anyway, I wouldn't think reviewers are lying, a letter guarantees nothing. If you had those reviewers sign an NDA, then that would be very different. I'm going to rent this game first.
Haggard (Mr.ESC resurrected on a... thursday?!) @ Oct 7th 2008 5:45PM
Game could be really good, Molyneaux's ego could do with some consideration from the professional psychiatric community.
dojita @ Oct 7th 2008 5:51PM
Thats trash. we don't do that when a game comes out and then gets DLC do we? so why should this be any better?
nobody changed they're "review" of SSHD or pain when they added all that new stuff so why should this game be any different?
jynxycat @ Oct 7th 2008 6:29PM
Their*
Daniel Lawson @ Oct 8th 2008 4:02AM
We buy stuff based on the future... 360 owners bought GTA4 knowing that in the future they would get some big downloadable content. Should the reviewer mention that it is coming? Yes... that's a no brainer and something that probably most would have talked about anyway.
OperatorC @ Oct 7th 2008 5:58PM
The reviews are (mostly, it not entirely) for the consumers, and consumers only care about getting the best bang for their buck-- if the game isn't complete when it's released, and by that I mean the game is clearly not finished (I'm not referring to promised-but-not-delivered content from previews), then the review should reflect that.
rooshma @ Oct 7th 2008 6:58PM
Though I agree that the review should reflect the features missing, most likely saying something like "the promise of online coop sounds good, however...", this letter doesn't seem that out of line to me. In response to the MGS4 dispute, they were told not to outline certain flaws they may have found (namely the massive cutscenes), whereas Molyneux is merely saying that there will be considerable features added later, and these shouldn't be discounted. He isn't saying "assume it's perfect", but rather "it will be there, say what you want."
Pimliconite @ Oct 7th 2008 5:56PM
You really should have asked him how he would respond if told by a film producer "please don't show this to some guy who watches movies for a living. Just show it to some average Joe off the street and gauge their reaction first before judging with your critic's eye, ok?"
That would have been a great response.
copa @ Oct 7th 2008 6:32PM
That would be rare, but not unprecedented:
http://dir.salon.com/story/ent/movies/review/2005/05/18/star_wars_iii/print.html
"But before we talk about that, a few other points: Some critics I know have been asked by their editors not to actually review Revenge of the Sith. 'Just tell people whether or not they should spend their money,' the directive goes, a huge victory for critical thought in the media."
This was the same basic request: If the movie sucks, don't say so. Just say whether an idiot would like it.
Professor Lario @ Oct 7th 2008 5:58PM
I will be waiting for a release and review of co-op gameplay. If the co-op bombs I will most likely do Fallout as it seems more compelling as a single-player RPG.
Drune @ Oct 7th 2008 6:07PM
Umm why would I care what a person who doesnt play games thinks of the game?
That is just stupid.
Vcize @ Oct 7th 2008 6:30PM
Maybe he wants to see if it's worth porting to the Wii
rooshma @ Oct 7th 2008 7:07PM
Because there's a massive part of our population that doesn't play games, and they would like to know whether they would be able to play. Don't pretend that just because you're a gamer you love things to be as complex as possible; there's something to be said for intuitiveness.
AtomicPlayboy @ Oct 7th 2008 6:09PM
Alexander, is the distribution of such letters a common practice for developers, or is the is relatively new phenomenon? I ask because we've seen more stories about this sort of thing recently (MGS4, Lair), and I wonder if that is because the letters' contents are unusual or whether the whole practice is peculiar.
In any case, you're absolutely doing the right thing, and I would hope that your review reminds its readers that the game's developers attempted to influence your opinion.
Markusdragon @ Oct 7th 2008 6:22PM
I'm pretty sure all devs (or at least, their publishers) try to influence the opinion of reviewers, the games are, after all, handed out free, and often come with goodies, competition prizes for the publication, copious amounts of alcohol or advertising deals.
Taking that into consideration, Molyneux is a cheap bastard.
AoE @ Oct 7th 2008 6:26PM
"I would hope that your review reminds its readers that the game's developers attempted to influence your opinion."
Out of interest, why? I mean they're clearly stating as much now... but, maybe I'm a bit naive here and haven't noticed it, but it seems to me that developer's attempts to butter up game reviewers rarely, if ever, has any effect on the quality of the content of the game; which is presumably at least what a review is about. Peter Molneuyx's antics, while unprofessional (hopefully at least, I would hate to think this is common in the industry), shouldn't have any effect on the review.
AtomicPlayboy @ Oct 7th 2008 7:14PM
My thinking here is that once the review is released, this initial story may be forgotten, and the attempt by the developers to affect the review should be included to provide some context. I certainly think something along the lines of "I've been asked to specifically consider the non-gamer as I review this game" is germane and informs the user of the developer's intentions. This alone would influence my buying decision, regardless of the review, as it tells me that I may not be the target audience for the game. The review may be written with a broader audience in mind, and as such this relevant (to me) information may not be included in it.
AtomicPlayboy @ Oct 7th 2008 7:15PM
My thinking here is that once the review is released, this initial story may be forgotten, and the attempt by the developers to affect the review should be included to provide some context. I certainly think something along the lines of "I've been asked to specifically consider the non-gamer as I review this game" is germane and informs the user of the developer's intentions. This alone would influence my buying decision, regardless of the review, as it tells me that I may not be the target audience for the game. The review may be written with a broader audience in mind, and as such this relevant (to me) information may not be included in it.
Richter @ Oct 7th 2008 6:16PM
How about setting the precedent of telling Molyneux to eat a dick, because he and his games suck? Works for me.
AoE @ Oct 7th 2008 6:27PM
I'm glad you don't review games then.
Mr Khan @ Oct 7th 2008 6:15PM
C'mon, Pete, don't go Dyack on us
Dirty @ Oct 7th 2008 6:29PM
But the whole town of Guildford is counting on him!
Jarret @ Oct 7th 2008 6:27PM
If he doesn't want it reviewed, they shouldn't release it. I mean, is he afraid the reviews will be bad just because of co-op? This sickens me and only piles on to gaming's struggle to be seen as legitimate art.
&rew @ Oct 7th 2008 6:28PM
Still no shock collar on him...
Dante G @ Oct 7th 2008 6:33PM
I think an update of the original review wouldn't be enough unless it's on a new blog entry. cause let's be honest, who would go back and check the review to see if it has been updated?
OTAM @ Oct 7th 2008 6:45PM
"What would one of its film or music critics do if they were asked to review an unfinished product?"
You wouldn't release an unfinished product. You wouldn't release The Wall with disc 2 missing or the Dark Knight with an "ending added in the DVD,we ran out of time" theatrical version.
Get the product finished or push the game back. Don't be greedy fucks.