Dante Posted November 21, 2008 Posted November 21, 2008 Eidos UK PR firm Barrington Harvey has confirmed that British sites are being asked not to post Tomb Raider: Underworld reviews with scores lower than 80 percent until Monday. The game releases today for 360 and PS3. Gamespot UK journalist Guy Cocker revealed the tactic in a Twitter post on Wednesday that said: “call from Eidos–if you’re planning on reviewing Tomb Raider Underworld at less than an 8.0, we need you to hold your review till Monday.” Said a Barrington Harvey rep on the phone this afternoon: “That’s right. We’re trying to manage the review scores at the request of Eidos.” When asked why, the spokesperson said: “Just that we’re trying to get the Metacritic rating to be high, and the brand manager in the US that’s handling all of Tomb Raider has asked that we just manage the scores before the game is out, really, just to ensure that we don’t put people off buying the game, basically.” British site Eurogamer has already gone live with a 7/10 score, an act the rep said had caused “problems”. OXM UK has also posted a 7.0 score. The news is unlikely to go down well. Eidos’s efforts at controlling review scores are still fresh in the mind: it was a row over Gamespot’s 6/10 review of Kane & Lynch that cost popular US journalist Jeff Gerstmann his job. Tomb Raider: Underworld’s Metacritic average stands at 78 percent. www.videogaming247.com
Choze Posted November 21, 2008 Posted November 21, 2008 This is why you should not bother with game reviews.
Cube Posted November 21, 2008 Posted November 21, 2008 This is why you should not bother with game reviews. Game reviews are fine. It's just the scores that are the problem.
m_fergy Posted November 21, 2008 Posted November 21, 2008 Yeah, I got the game just havnt put it in yet... Shame they are doing that tho... Taking the piss, If its a shit game then they should get a bad review Make them try harder next time
flameboy Posted November 21, 2008 Posted November 21, 2008 Hmmm another case proving that whats written is more important than the score.... Eidos clearly trying to artifically keep their meta score high for this weekend in order to increase chances of people who care about such things from buying it... I for one am glad the press don't bow to their demands and stick to their guns.
Choze Posted November 21, 2008 Posted November 21, 2008 Eidos clearly trying to artifically keep their meta score high for this weekend in order to increase chances of people who care about such things from buying it... I for one am glad the press don't bow to their demands and stick to their guns. Problem is the source of the review. Generally they are nothing more than a bunch of pages designed to gather as much hits as possible. Not quality journalism. Hence publishers having so much power as the websites/mags/blogs are ad funded. This creates a relationship where both generally have to get along. 7-10 review scales happen because of this, aside from token games outside of that. In Eidos's case this is unfair as they are being singled out when others like PR or journalists are left to walk away unscathed. I hate Tomb Raider more than anyone but claiming integrity in this situation is a joke.
tapedeck Posted November 21, 2008 Posted November 21, 2008 There is an underpinning argument here that they are putting millions into development to create entertainment and advertising it etc...then a magazine or online publication gives it a 7/10 and a massive chunk of sales is lost. Purely because a lot of gamers rely on scores too heavily. It's a wierd situation. If a movie get's 7/10 people are like "ok, I'll try it" but with a game it seems like a lot of players shit on it from a height. Still, curbing reviews is stupid and only magnifies any potential issues.
That Guy Posted November 22, 2008 Posted November 22, 2008 There is an underpinning argument here that they are putting millions into development to create entertainment and advertising it etc...then a magazine or online publication gives it a 7/10 and a massive chunk of sales is lost. Purely because a lot of gamers rely on scores too heavily. It's a wierd situation. If a movie get's 7/10 people are like "ok, I'll try it" but with a game it seems like a lot of players shit on it from a height. Still, curbing reviews is stupid and only magnifies any potential issues. My initial thought was how disgraceful this is, but you do have a point. Any game that gets 6 or 7 should still be considered good but never seems to by people. This is one reason why I think the /10 score system should be scrapped and everyone go with a 5* system instead. 3*'s seems a lot more acceptable than a 6/10 does. The only time that becomes just as crap is when idiots then use 1/2s cos they can't decide on a number.
Chris the great Posted November 22, 2008 Posted November 22, 2008 well, first off eidos are wrong to try and hide review scores. my reasons will be revelaed in my second point. second point. games that score 7 and lower are treated less favorably then an equivelent movie for two main reasons. Price, seing a film sets you back around £7 at the cinema, depending on your age and the time of day. a new game is £40-£50. thats rather alot more, much less likly to give it a go at full price, more likly to wait for a price drop. time is also a factor to consider. a mediocre movie will last 2 hours, maybe a little longer, and wont force you to watch scenes repetadly. a mediocre game could last up to 20 hours, maybe requiering several attempts at poor bits. people are less willing to invest so large a chucnk of their life into somthing that isnt great. so put em together, eidos shouldnt block reviews, people are paying money for a game, they have certain expectations. i know i dont usualy splash out the cash on games that recive poor reviews, i dont have the money to invest in somthing im less likly to enjoy. best sorce of information on games is from reviews, by hiding reviews to look better, its bassicly like admitting the game isnt really worth your money.
Sheikah Posted November 22, 2008 Posted November 22, 2008 When asked why, the spokesperson said: “Just that we’re trying to get the Metacritic rating to be high, and the brand manager in the US that’s handling all of Tomb Raider has asked that we just manage the scores before the game is out, really, just to ensure that we don’t put people off buying the game, basically.” Captain No S. Sherlock commenting on the matter there, quite blatantly. Am I missing the batshit crazy style of logic being used by these morons? "Oh, we've made a game that clearly isn't going down amazingly, but we'd rather supress opinions reflecting its nature so that people can be tricked into buying a game that they might otherwise turn down." They've been flogging the dead horse that is Lara Croft for a while now... many of the games seem to be selling on name alone and that can only get a game so far. Meh.
That Guy Posted November 22, 2008 Posted November 22, 2008 well, first off eidos are wrong to try and hide review scores. my reasons will be revelaed in my second point. second point. games that score 7 and lower are treated less favorably then an equivelent movie for two main reasons. Price, seing a film sets you back around £7 at the cinema, depending on your age and the time of day. a new game is £40-£50. thats rather alot more, much less likly to give it a go at full price, more likly to wait for a price drop. time is also a factor to consider. a mediocre movie will last 2 hours, maybe a little longer, and wont force you to watch scenes repetadly. a mediocre game could last up to 20 hours, maybe requiering several attempts at poor bits. people are less willing to invest so large a chucnk of their life into somthing that isnt great. so put em together, eidos shouldnt block reviews, people are paying money for a game, they have certain expectations. i know i dont usualy splash out the cash on games that recive poor reviews, i dont have the money to invest in somthing im less likly to enjoy. best sorce of information on games is from reviews, by hiding reviews to look better, its bassicly like admitting the game isnt really worth your money. Yeah that's exactly what I was thinking. There are also so many games I could be playing over several weeks that I want to be playing the very best ones.
Falcon_BlizZACK Posted November 22, 2008 Posted November 22, 2008 by hiding reviews to look better, its bassicly like admitting the game isnt really worth your money. Exactly LOL... What shit. Its like they have released a product they are basically ashamed of or unsure of, quality-wise - If they the creators, feel that way, then we the consumers have the right to know the full story of what we are about to purchase.
killer kirby Posted November 22, 2008 Posted November 22, 2008 Its like they have released a product they are basically ashamed of or unsure of, quality-wise - Which is odd, since the demo was kick ass. I am looking forward to it, and if it's as good as Legends, then I will be very pleased.
ShadowV7 Posted November 22, 2008 Posted November 22, 2008 The obvious solution would be to make a good game. Meh.
Chris the great Posted November 22, 2008 Posted November 22, 2008 The obvious solution would be to make a good game. Meh. that requires time, thought, effort, and origionality. the industry is more then happy to relable old games and make a killing.
Aimless Posted November 22, 2008 Posted November 22, 2008 They've been flogging the dead horse that is Lara Croft for a while now... many of the games seem to be selling on name alone and that can only get a game so far. Meh. Would I be right in thinking you haven't played Legend or Anniversary? Crystal Dynamics have really upped Lara's game. Not that I'm defending Eidos, of course. Trying to artificially heighten a game's Metacritic score is pretty much the business equivalent of Gamerscore boosting: they've 'cheated' to get a number that doesn't really mean anything higher than it might have been.
tapedeck Posted November 22, 2008 Posted November 22, 2008 Considering Legend and Anniversary were excellent titles (or perhaps brilliant for finally doing Tomb Raider 'right') maybe this is a great Tomb Raider title. But yet again the curse of the "anything under 9/10 and it's shite" strikes - Perhaps it got a 7 for being too much like its predecessors? (Which would be a great thing as Legend/Anniversary were solid, fun outings.) Eidos then go on the defensive (albeit massively and thus create a huge PR blunder) and we get a million interwebz comments saying "it's pap" by those who haven't even played it yet. Chris: I think the cinema is a rip off and begrudge paying nearly a fiver to see a movie. But I get your point and actually think it's an excellent one.
Jimbob Posted November 22, 2008 Posted November 22, 2008 Now this just is stupid. Why block bad reviews until Monday. Solution Eidos: Make a better game. If you can't handle the heat, vacate the cooking area. I play games that are 6 rated or above and i do like the majority of them as well. Why would this be different.
Black Diamond Posted November 22, 2008 Posted November 22, 2008 Well, Underworld is actually a really good game. 4/5 easily. It's just a little too similar to the others to justify 5/5, but if you're a fan of action adventure games, you should already have it.
dwarf Posted November 22, 2008 Posted November 22, 2008 I sometimes wonder how many great games I've missed out on that got bad/average scores but would have gone down greatly with me. One such game that didn't escape my radar was Worms 3D (for the Cube). It got very average reviews but I loved it and had many great experiences with it.
Chris the great Posted November 22, 2008 Posted November 22, 2008 well, thats why i dont just look at the score in a review, the text is as important, decide if the flaw would be so bad to you, or if the pros are enough to warrent a purchase. pleanty of high score games dont appeal to me.
dwarf Posted November 22, 2008 Posted November 22, 2008 Yeah you nailed it. Sometimes reviews reduce a game's score if it is a sequel, even if it is a better game. Originality card as Choze puts it. Edit: well I guess it would be understandable if it was the 6th/7th game in the franchise if you get me.
Hero-of-Time Posted November 22, 2008 Posted November 22, 2008 Considering Legend and Anniversary were excellent titles (or perhaps brilliant for finally doing Tomb Raider 'right') maybe this is a great Tomb Raider title. But yet again the curse of the "anything under 9/10 and it's shite" strikes - Perhaps it got a 7 for being too much like its predecessors? (Which would be a great thing as Legend/Anniversary were solid, fun outings.) When I read the Eurogamer review the other day your bolded comment and shoddy enemy AI were the main problems that they had with the game. If that is the worst thing about Underworld then im a happy chappy as I loved Legend and Anniversary.
Black Diamond Posted November 23, 2008 Posted November 23, 2008 If you loved Legend and Anniversary, then Underworld is an absolute must. It's the same "kind" of Tomb Raider, if that makes sense.
Dan_Dare Posted November 23, 2008 Posted November 23, 2008 haven't the reviews for this been pretty good? Edge gave it an 8.
Recommended Posts