MGS Phantom Pain reviews potentially compromised

Eh after 6 days these people know if the gameplay is good or not and thankfully this game seems to excel in this department. Even the "work in progress" reviews seem to LOVE the game.

I'm not worried. If anything this hindered those reviews that dinged the game for it's story.
 
I know some reviewers had the retail version, but yes, we've known that a lot of these reviews were coming from a review event.

I dunno, for reviews, if it's a game I really want, I don't really pay attention. I just see if the game is actually working, and then I won't read any reviews until after I've beaten the game. I like to see the different perspectives other people had on the game, but I don't really need a review to color my experience. The exception is if it's a game I know nothing about and i'm only slightly interested.

Guess Who said:
Those poor corporations! They are very lucky to have you defending them from criticism on the internet.
Click to expand...

To be incredibly fair here, while I dislike review events, the majority of the people who went to this review event and published reviews were freelance bloggers and community members. Not really big corporations.
 
I knew song was fishy about these reviews... Was wondering how they went from that horrible thing that is GZ to apparently GOTY material, but as it seems they actually didn't.
 
SaveTheQueen said:
So it begins. Yet another witch hunt is about to start. Down with the big bad media websites. Shame on them....sigh. Same song, different day.
Click to expand...

Yep, here we go again...

I really don't see the big deal. Most site were transparent and it sounds like many had plenty of time to review the game. Seems like hysteria imo.

LukasTaves said:
I knew song was fishy about these reviews... Was wondering how they went from that horrible thing that is GZ to apparently GOTY material, but as it seems they actually didn't.
Click to expand...

Lol, I don't know how any of this implies that. I doubt all these major sites decided to just get together and give it great reviews.
 
funkystudent said:
The fact we have sites like IGN and Gamespot giving it 10's while admitting they haven't touched the online features all that much and have zero idea how microtransactions will work in the game was already telling.

I wonder if its a case of "if you promise to give us a 9+ you can release the review today. If not you have to wait until release".



I mean. Jeez. Why play ball with Konami this much? Its not like they are going to be releasing any more noteworthy games after this.
Click to expand...

I doubt anybody cares enough about online features in a Metal Gear Solid game that it would seriously impact the overall score of the game one way or the other. The vast majority of people are here for the single player content and story.

Why play ball with Konami on this? It's really simple. You decide you have some sort of moral integrity (?) and don't want to review the game under this condition. Now, since there are no review copies, your review is coming out a week, maybe 2 (since you don't want to rush) after the games release date. Meanwhile, other outlets don't have the same scruples as you and so have had their review out for 3 weeks prior to yours hitting. From a views perspective, you've immediately lost a significant amount, which means you've lost out on money.
 
MGS4 had a similar boot camp event right? That's how
Big Boss' appearance
leaked before MGS4 came out IIRC.

I understand Konami's conundrum, and I'd like to give them the benefit of the doubt if it were any other publisher, that hasn't had the last few months that they have.
 
LukasTaves said:
I knew song was fishy about these reviews... Was wondering how they went from that horrible thing that is GZ to apparently GOTY material, but as it seems they actually didn't.
Click to expand...

What is your conclusion based on?

I think people that are freaking about about this have huge trust issues with reviewers. Which is fair concern. But it has nothing to do with this event. If you don't believe the scores out of this review event why would you believe them when reviewers had a weekend to review the game on their own?
 
LukasTaves said:
I knew song was fishy about these reviews... Was wondering how they went from that horrible thing that is GZ to apparently GOTY material, but as it seems they actually didn't.
Click to expand...
That's totally what you should take from this. Totally.

I heard Konami is keeping dissenting reviewers locked away in their review camps for reconditioning.
 
I'm sure people will be largely upset by this, but let's not forget that strict review circumstances made the MGS2 surprise as impactful and interesting as it was. Of course, that was quite different, but I think sometimes we don't actually want all the transparency that we think we want.

Given that all accounts so far suggest the extra content not visible at the boot camps only inflate the reviewer's impressions, I can't help but feel that Konami would have only been hurting themselves with this process, rather than the end consumer.
 
Yeah the conditions are horrible and it leads to uneven reviews that are missing pieces of content. The crazy thing is this just hurts the MGSV experience, it's amazing it still scored so high given that some rushed through the game and didn't get to experience what looks to be an amazing PVP mode. Some didn't even see the actual ending leading to some strange story disagreements between sites.

These conditions do not do the game justice, I would hate to play it like that. I respect those that held back the review to really enjoy it fully.
 
Luke_Wal said:
It's possible that he got extended access because of their Let's Plays. Also, I watched the review discussion this morning, and it sounded like he had a copy in the apartment? It's cool that such a small outlet can get expanded access, but I agree, it is a little weird that other outlets haven't made this very clear.
Click to expand...

I'm sure it has something to do with him being buddy buddy with Shuhei Yoshida
 
MiamiWesker said:
Yeah the conditions are horrible and it leads to uneven reviews that are missing pieces of content. The crazy thing is this just hurts the MGSV experience, it's amazing it still scored so high given that some rushed through the game and didn't get to experience what looks to be an amazing PVP mode. Some didn't even see the actual ending leading to some strange story disagreements between sites.

These conditions do not do the game justice, I would hate to play it like that. I respect those that held back the review to really enjoy it fully.
Click to expand...

It generally ends up better for the publisher if they do these kind of events. They put the journalists in expensive hotels with room service, then allow them to play the game in perfect conditions.

For example, Battlefield 4 was reviewed under these conditions and got good scores despite being one of the most broken launches this industry has ever seen.
 
Resident_UA said:
What is your conclusion based on?

I think people that are freaking about about this have huge trust issues with reviewers. Which is fair concern. But it has nothing to do with this event. If you don't believe the scores out of this review event why would you believe them when reviewers had a weekend to review the game on their own?
Click to expand...

That's the thing...I, personally, don't. I prefer the reviews or impressions that come a couple of weeks after the embargo is lifted. Or, a reviewer who received an advance copy weeks before release. Those reviews, I feel, contain content that has marinated with the reviewer for some time.

This is really only concerning the massive open-world games that take time to discover and learn. The CoDs and Battlefields of this world are a different breed that would certainly benefit from a bootcamp like this (bugs and network issues notwithstanding).
 
I don't really blame Konami, though I also don't see how this is any less likely to result in spoilers than them being sent the game before. Ultimately if the websites don't want to do this, they can just wait til the game is out and review it then. But they don't want to do that.
 
posted in MGS community thread but guess relevant.

Regarding status of reviews.

I have had a chat with someone and they're stating that a lot of the reviewers had been set with very limited time to play the game and also under the guidance of Konami PR, also that these review days are widely the only way most of these opinions and them actually playing the games have come about, I will be very interested to see later reviews as currently I feel we maybe seeing some shady possibly bias reviews which sure does suck but this is something I want you guys to know.

Either that or what we're seeing is people jumping the gun with their review and actually only using the limited time we have to form opinions.
Also depending on reviewer skill that may provide some context into the very mixed story opinions that we are currently seeing.
Click to expand...
 
Grief.exe said:
It generally ends up better for the publisher if they do these kind of events. They put the journalists in expensive hotels with room service, then allow them to play the game in perfect conditions.

For example, Battlefield 4 was reviewed under these conditions and got good scores despite being one of the most broken launches this industry has ever seen.
Click to expand...

Well that has to do with online being broken and that is something no one can recreate in controled enviornments. They are basically playing the same game we will get (minus whatever Konami is doing with FOB which is optional) but under far worse conditions than us. We get to savor every moment of the game, they don't.
 
LukasTaves said:
I knew song was fishy about these reviews... Was wondering how they went from that horrible thing that is GZ to apparently GOTY material, but as it seems they actually didn't.
Click to expand...

Lets be fair, I don't think any publication gave Ground Zeroes low marks because of it's gameplay and story. It was an hour long. Clearly there's a difference in length in these two games.
 
6 days honestly seems like plenty to me to write a review in.

There will be NeoGAF members posting about the ending to this game having completed it in less than 6 days.
 
I would rather them do this than have MGSV spoiled for me. Sorry, I'm not sorry. If you're on the fence, then read reviews when the game comes out. Games like this can be ruined so easily by just one person... I'd like them to take all precautions to stop spoilers.

I know a lot of people probably won't agree with that, but that's the way I feel. Blacking out the entire internet for a month is just not feasible anymore.
 
Bumhead said:
6 days honestly seems like plenty to me to write a review in.

There will be NeoGAF members posting about the ending to this game having completed it in less than 6 days.
Click to expand...

but they play the game when they want, and how they want to in those 6 days.. the same does not happen at review events..
 
Damn, that sounds horrible... could never enjoy a piece of entertainment under "guard". Seems reviewing games is a far less pleasant job than it looks at a first glance.

This description really sounds good:
At times, the boot camp felt like being gifted a bottle of Macallan 1946 whiskey in a frat house and being told to chug, chug, chug.
Click to expand...
 
Hanmik said:
but they play the game when they want, and how they want to in those 6 days.. the same does not happen at review events..
Click to expand...

Journalists were allowed to play MGSV how they wanted at the review event.

They just had a time limit in which to get that done. A time limit which was ample enough that people on here will manage to achieve the same sort of progress and completion in compareable time, of their own accord.

The issue here is disclosure, really. If someone didn't finish the game in the alloted time, they could have reviewed what they did play and disclosed that it wasn't to completion.
 
TurboButts said:
Lets be fair, I don't think any publication gave Ground Zeroes low marks because of it's gameplay and story. It was an hour long. Clearly there's a difference in length in these two games.
Click to expand...

Well, I did. The incredible janky controls, really stupid missions (oh here's a few war prisoners, you have to escort them on your back, one by one, enjoy!), and the incredibly bad cutscenes and dialog made me few like I was robbed. And I got the game for 6 bucks on a sale.

The reviews made it sound like everything was great now, but I guess i'll wait for a proper hands on then...

RichiRamjag said:
Yep, here we go again...

I really don't see the big deal. Most site were transparent and it sounds like many had plenty of time to review the game. Seems like hysteria imo.



Lol, I don't know how any of this implies that. I doubt all these major sites decided to just get together and give it great reviews.
Click to expand...

Resident_UA said:
What is your conclusion based on?

I think people that are freaking about about this have huge trust issues with reviewers. Which is fair concern. But it has nothing to do with this event. If you don't believe the scores out of this review event why would you believe them when reviewers had a weekend to review the game on their own?
Click to expand...

Call it concern if you like. But I though GZ was terrible, and this game was getting so much great reviews that seemed they addressed my complaints about the game, I was just talking about my brother that I would give it another chance and pick up... Now I'm not sure... Will definitely wait for at least a hands on before grabbing it.
 
So they had to play a game eight hours a day against a ticking clock, rushing like madmen.
The perfect condition to make someone hate the hell out off a game.

And they still liked it?


I need to get me MGSV
 
So if reviewers had more time to review the game at their own pace... it could've scored even higher?

Kinda says how impressive the game is that playing it in a rush is still a top experience.
 
Roronoa said:
Why didn't reviews mention this? Was this part of the NDA as well?

You're supposed to play a game, not meet a deadline. These types of reviews are very toxic, regardless of scores.

Possible that we might get "pacing" issues. Well, of course, since you are being forced to play it for 10 hours all day every day.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it sounds like the pre-release/ early reviews will be a waste of time to read. Suppose the way I'd do it is play like normal, get an extended honest impression online, then do a proper review/critique later after the game is in the wild. Probably couldn't be done at most websites though since that race to be first and putting up a score for metacritic is very important for clicks.
 
LukasTaves said:
Well, I did. The incredible janky controls, really stupid missions (oh here's a few war prisoners, you have to escort them on your back, one by one, enjoy!), and the incredibly bad cutscenes and dialog made me few like I was robbed. And I got the game for 6 bucks on a sale.

The reviews made it sound like everything was great now, but I guess i'll wait for a proper hands on then...





Call it concern if you like. But I though GZ was terrible, and this game was getting so much great reviews that seemed they addressed my complaints about the game, I was just talking about my brother that I would give it another chance and pick up... Now I'm not sure... Will definitely wait for at least a hands on before grabbing it.
Click to expand...

Well that is certainly more reasonable (and sensible) than your previous statement. I don't blame you for waiting for a hands on if you did not enjoy GZ, More gamers should purchase this way when unsure.
 
danowat said:
Blimey, I didn't know this kind of thing was a thing at all, so just how widespread is this review bootcamp thing?

I guess the question is, do you trust media outlet X or Y to offer a reasoned and non-biased view of the (a) product if they (have) to attend one of these boot camps?
Click to expand...

They were more common a decade ago and are all but nonexistent today. Can't remember the last one before this, outside of Call of Duty, and we can generally still get a review copy in the office prior to release, even when we pass on the review event. Hopefully that'll be the case here too.
 
Sounds like this is about about reducing leaks, rather than some evil plot to hide the games true awfulness. I kind of understand where Konami are coming from. They don't want some arse ruing the story for the people who have been eagerly awaiting MGS:TPP for years before it is even released.

This kind of stuff is as partly the fault of journos who have spoiled stuff in the past. They would argue that they are doing their job, but then so are Konami.
 
The Omega Man said:
I swear I read the same article when MGS4 released, same complains about the boot camp, same everything, I am imagining things?
Click to expand...

I remember that as well.

But it was more about the integrity of game journos who agree to a controlled review environment.

I don't think they wine and dined them this time around though.
 
Zyae said:
Talk about confirmation bias.
Click to expand...

Not my fault they deliver a turf in GZ. Back in e3 2013 I was tremendously excited for what they showed, it looked like it had topped Splinter cell in fluidness of game play, and was open world even! With many new stealth mechanics!

Then I got to play GZ, and it's honestly one of the few games I regret buying in my whole life, so I had pretty much scrapped MGS5 from my list, until these glaring reviews came...
 
Events like these makes me care even less about game reviews. I care about game discussions but regular reviews, even without this sort of crap, more or less provides me nothing of value.
 
LukasTaves said:
Not my fault they deliver a turf in GZ. Back in e3 2013 I was tremendously excited for what they showed, it looked like it had topped Splinter cell in fluidness of game play, and was open world even! With many new stealth mechanics!

Then I got to play GZ, and it's honestly one of the few games I regret buying in my whole life, so I had pretty much scrapped MGS5 from my list, until these glaring reviews came...
Click to expand...

What was so horrible about GZ? I thought the gameplay was amazing. Incredibly smooth animations, great shooting mechanics, and a ton a choices in terms of approaching a mission.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

From Bloodborne to The Witcher 3 to MGSV The Phantom Pain, these games will turn 10 in 2025, believe it or not
Opinion Event 
41
2K
Super Lemon Drop replied
Famitsu Review Scores: Issue 1883 — Wuthering Waves, Phantom Brave: The Lost Hero and more scored
Review 
0
650
Thick Thighs Save Lives replied
  • Locked
Persona 5: The Phantom X first announcement May 15th
32
260
CyberCali replied
The Phantom - Gameplay Showcase Releases March 12th
20
1K
TonberrysKnife replied
Atomfall - Reviews Thread
2 3
106
8K
Humdinger replied
Top Bottom