Haven't seen any posts on the site about this, so I may as well plough ahead. Surprised my search yielded no results, as RAM Raider broke then news on his blog on Saturday.
You may have heard about the RAM Raider's accusation towards Eidos as covered here [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/93080-Eidos-Denies-New-Accusations-of-Review-Score-Tampering].
Basically, it boils down to Eidos (a company with history in this area, having tried the same stunt before with Kane and Lynch and a Tomb Raider game) apparently had offered to allow gaming publications to break the review embargo and publish an early review if a score of 90%+ and a front page picture is guaranteed. An accusation vehemently denied by the publishers, and now...English games publication Games Master, who just happened to be the first to release a review of the game.
Images of the entire review available here [http://forums.gametrailers.com/thread/batman-arkham-asylum-review--9/874931?page=1].
Could this game be one of the best games of the generation so far? Has a jaded journalist undermined the launch of a classic? Or is this another Kane and Lynch fiasco? The hyperbolic language of the review, while possibly just being indicative of a genuinely wowed reviewer, seems false to me, and it's just hard to believe that this game is the near perfect product this magazine has claimed it to be. And when the main criticism is the pathetic 'it has to end', it's hard to believe it's a genuine sentiment. Of course, we'll all have to wait a bit longer before finding out the truth of the matter. This kind of thing has happened before, and probably will again, but if Games Master have written pages of bullshit to appease a publisher, surely there should be greater implications that just a loss of face. Publications such as these claim to provide consumer advice and discussion of a popular medium, but isn't it all meaningless if they are just being used to guide gamers to buy what they're told to?
You may have heard about the RAM Raider's accusation towards Eidos as covered here [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/93080-Eidos-Denies-New-Accusations-of-Review-Score-Tampering].
Basically, it boils down to Eidos (a company with history in this area, having tried the same stunt before with Kane and Lynch and a Tomb Raider game) apparently had offered to allow gaming publications to break the review embargo and publish an early review if a score of 90%+ and a front page picture is guaranteed. An accusation vehemently denied by the publishers, and now...English games publication Games Master, who just happened to be the first to release a review of the game.
Images of the entire review available here [http://forums.gametrailers.com/thread/batman-arkham-asylum-review--9/874931?page=1].
Could this game be one of the best games of the generation so far? Has a jaded journalist undermined the launch of a classic? Or is this another Kane and Lynch fiasco? The hyperbolic language of the review, while possibly just being indicative of a genuinely wowed reviewer, seems false to me, and it's just hard to believe that this game is the near perfect product this magazine has claimed it to be. And when the main criticism is the pathetic 'it has to end', it's hard to believe it's a genuine sentiment. Of course, we'll all have to wait a bit longer before finding out the truth of the matter. This kind of thing has happened before, and probably will again, but if Games Master have written pages of bullshit to appease a publisher, surely there should be greater implications that just a loss of face. Publications such as these claim to provide consumer advice and discussion of a popular medium, but isn't it all meaningless if they are just being used to guide gamers to buy what they're told to?
