Molyneux asks for special review consideration; we ask 'what would other industries do?'

... 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.

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.

Said the guy with the MGS avatar...

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.

You can compare apples and oranges. Oranges win.

Yet they are all still fruit and delicious at that, so it's win-win.

Sharingan FTW. Have you seen all the Shippuuden eps up to the 078/079 double?

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.

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.

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.

MGS4 got shit because they said reviewers may not mention the 4939 (or so) hours of cut scenes.

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.

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.

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?

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!

"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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Their*

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.

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."

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.

Maybe he wants to see if it's worth porting to the Wii

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

I'm glad you don't review games then.

But the whole town of Guildford is counting on him!