Description
You won't find any scores in here, but if you're wondering what GameSpot's reviewers are working on right now this is the blog you should be bookmarking.
Previous Entries
Popular Video Reviews
- Posted Jun 4, 2008 7:39 pm GMT
- 205 comments
The more recent mind-boggling publisher requests have come from Konami regarding Metal Gear Solid 4--requests that we believe cross the line. The first involved an event that we wanted no part of. The majority of the American press was flown to Japan for a so-called "boot camp," where journalists spent two and a half days playing Metal Gear Solid 4 under the watchful eyes of the development team, socialized and dined with them, and then provided focus group-type feedback on the final day. We flatly refused this request, because we believe that this puts journalists in an unethical and awkward position. In our eyes, it would be inappropriate for us to participate in the development process. And we think most reasonable people would agree.
[edit: I reworded the above paragraph to more accurately reflect what this boot camp entailed. It was an invitation for journalists to participate in the development process, not a specific reviews event. However, we don't wish to blur the lines of journalistic integrity by participating in development. This was not a previews event, so GameSpot would have published no content based on this visit.]
It has also been widely reported that Konami blatantly asked the press not to mention two pieces of pertinent information in their reviews: how long the cutscenes are, and how long the installation process is. Publishers routinely ask reviewers not to publish certain story points because they are considered spoilers. That's fair, and we've never resisted requests of that nature. However, cutscene length and installation length are pertinent subjects within the context of a review, and speaking on a personal level, I believe it is flat-out wrong for any publisher to request that pertinent information be left out of a review. The journalist decides what information is most important for the review--not the developer or its publisher.
These are mind games that put us in an awfully awkward position. Of course we want our reviews to be timely and competitive, but never at the expense of accuracy and objectiveness. As reviews begin to trickle out from other publications, our audience complains that we're "late," and by securing exclusive reviews and playing along with these unreasonable publisher requests, some publications foster this idea that the reviews process is a race to publication. Publishers create this environment--but many press outlets enable it, without questioning it, because it brings them all-important traffic. I, for one, am more interested in a review that isn't haunted by these specters, and I think you would want the same.
As of this writing, we are unsure if we will have a Metal gear Solid 4 review published by the game's release date. We have not received review code, and the earliest Konami is willing to provide it is on the 9th, three days before release. It's unfortunate that publisher politics have reached this point, where refusing to meet these unreasonable demands means that we and our readers are effectively punished. Please understand this much: We will bring you a review of Metal Gear Solid 4 when we've played the same code on the discs you buy, and played it in an appropriate, unbiased environment. We think you'll agree that this is the only real choice.
thrones posted Jun 10, 2008 4:02 pm GMT (does not meet display criteria. login to show)