http://sarcasticgamer.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/egmmgs4.jpg
As you might be aware, Konami have been trying their very best to keep Metal Gear Solid 4’s plotline very hush-hush, only allowing magazines and websites to talk about the game on the condition that they keep the game’s entire plot under wraps. From the official UK PS3 magazine to industry publication Edge, all have written about what they’ve seen without mentioning the ending or the involvement of the characters. IGN has also mentioned that Konami’s list of no-nos was pretty extensive, but their review is chock-full of everything else.
Well, instead of Metal Gear Solid 4 being THE story in gaming for this month, EGM attempts to make themselves THE story, instead of just reporting it.
More diva-like attitude and temper tantrums, after the jump.

You can understand the reasoning behind Konami’s decision. After all this is Metal Gear Solid 4, one of PS3’s biggest games ever (not just this year), the end of the era of Solid Snake. Konami’s want to restrain the voices of journalists, for the sake of blocking any spoilers, makes perfect sense. You’d hate to open your favourite publication and discover the ending.
You can expect to see Snake gracing the cover of almost every single PS3 and multi-format magazine this month, as without a doubt this is one of the biggest games in the industry this year. Not Electronic Gaming Monthly though. They have Gears of War’s Marcus Fenix gracing their front page instead, and the only PS3 news on the cover involves the Bioshock port coming later in the year.
A flick inside reveals that the editorial staff decided against giving out a review score, meaning that effectively MGS4 remains an unreviewed game in the pages of EGM. Citing Konami’s want to “impose limitations on out comments”, they’ve opted for a round-table discussion instead, with staff members voicing their opinions on what they liked and disliked about the game’s features.
Whose side is right to take? Is it wrong of EGM to slate Konami’s decision to block spoilers and refrain from ‘officially’ reviewing the game, or is Konami being too heavy-handed in their approach to MGS4’s storyline? Personally, I can see the reasoning behind Konami’s spoiler-blocking, and I think Electronic Gaming Monthly have been a little harsh in their approach to looking at the game. After all, practically every other publication and website has pulled off a review of the game’s features, with IGN simply commenting that “part of the pleasure of playing Guns of the Patriots lies in discovering everything it has to offer.”
Regardless of limitations, most reviewers would refrain from spoiling the plot due to the risk of aggravating their readership. EGM are acting a little harshly with regards to Konami’s perfectly reasonable restrictions and I think that next issue, they should churn out a score based on everything the game has to offer, not just the plotline.
Source: Mag Roundup 5/31/08 - GameSetWatch (http://www.gamesetwatch.com/2008/06/column_game_mag_weaseling_mag_46.php)
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~a/TheSarcasticGamer?i=Ajxp8R</img> (http://feeds.feedburner.com/~a/TheSarcasticGamer?a=Ajxp8R)
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/TheSarcasticGamer?i=7GtQqI</img> (http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/TheSarcasticGamer?a=7GtQqI) http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/TheSarcasticGamer?i=4mB94I</img> (http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/TheSarcasticGamer?a=4mB94I) http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/TheSarcasticGamer?i=5TN3Di</img> (http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/TheSarcasticGamer?a=5TN3Di) http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/TheSarcasticGamer?i=FlxR2i</img> (http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/TheSarcasticGamer?a=FlxR2i) http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/TheSarcasticGamer?i=jSvAvI</img> (http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/TheSarcasticGamer?a=jSvAvI) http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/TheSarcasticGamer?i=QAaaDi</img> (http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/TheSarcasticGamer?a=QAaaDi) http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/TheSarcasticGamer?i=t1zkji</img> (http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/TheSarcasticGamer?a=t1zkji) http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/TheSarcasticGamer?i=DY0WsI</img> (http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/TheSarcasticGamer?a=DY0WsI) http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/TheSarcasticGamer?i=pvjbqI</img> (http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/TheSarcasticGamer?a=pvjbqI)
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/TheSarcasticGamer/~4/303745471

Click here to view the article. (http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/TheSarcasticGamer/~3/303745471/is-spoiler-blocking-getting-too-extreme.html)

I think it’s a but unfair that restictions were put in place on any of the review companies. When did you ever read a review of anything that genuinley spoiled the game? The story of MGS games are what keep me involved (God knows I needed it towards the end of MGS2).

If I cant get the full review on all aspects of the game I aint going to buy it, and I am absolutley not going to drop for a PS3 anymore, at least ’till I hear a full review.

now I can understand that but the game isn't out yet, Meta lGear Solid is such a strong series with a huge story and it would be easy to accidently drop some spoilers, especially with such loyal fans. Their is nothing unfair about it, it is their game after all.

I think it’s a but unfair that restictions were put in place on any of the review companies. When did you ever read a review of anything that genuinley spoiled the game? The story of MGS games are what keep me involved (God knows I needed it towards the end of MGS2).

If I cant get the full review on all aspects of the game I aint going to buy it, and I am absolutley not going to drop for a PS3 anymore, at least ’till I hear a full review.

Don't forget that EGM agreed to Konami's terms JUST TO GET THE REVIEW COPY. For them to bitch afterward about the "restrictions" they initially agreed to, is disingenuous, in my opinion.

now I can understand that but the game isn't out yet, Meta lGear Solid is such a strong series with a huge story and it would be easy to accidently drop some spoilers, especially with such loyal fans. There is nothing unfair about it, it is their game after all.

The hardcore fans are already sold on it though. Why are they even reading a review? I want to know if it’s worth spending £340 to buy a PS3 and MGS, I am the person they are supposed to be marketing to. This is supposed to be another system seller but if I can’t find a full review taking in all aspects of the game I won’t buy it. Especially if I have to buy a console just to play it.

Don't forget that EGM agreed to Konami's terms JUST TO GET THE REVIEW COPY. For them to bitch afterward about the "restrictions" they initially agreed to, is disingenuous, in my opinion.

Just because they recieved a copy of the game doesnt mean have to run it. Konami think that they are doing EGM a favour by letting them discuss the game. Thats a BS attitude, which writers on this site have complained about before

The hardcore fans are already sold on it though. Why are they even reading a review? I want to know if it’s worth spending £340 to buy a PS3 and MGS, I am the person they are supposed to be marketing to. This is supposed to be another system seller but if I can’t find a full review taking in all aspects of the game I won’t buy it. Especially if I have to buy a console just to play it.



Just because they recieved a copy of the game doesnt mean have to run it. Konami think that they are doing EGM a favour by letting them discuss the game. Thats a BS attitude, which writers on this site have complained about before

Hardcore fans still read reviews, just look at any review for a major game, and it can ruin a game before it even comes out, with a game this big to have it ruined would certainly piss me off. What Lono is saying they AGREED to the terms then bitched. As far as you not wanting to buy a game due to the lack of a "full review". I believe the reviews out now are pretty damn good, and the fact that it is getting 10s is a pretty good incentive.

I am guessing (this is a guess) that they probably had to consider the story before running a score. They werent alowed to talk about it, and therefore cant give a review. Its the editors decision to put his magazine on the line. If he thinks the story contributed massivley to the game he would have to take that and review it.I am guessing (this is a guess) that they probably had to consider the story before running a score. They weren’t allowed to talk about it, and therefore can’t give a review. It’s the editors decision to put his magazine on the line. If he thinks the story contributed massively to the game he would have to take that and review it, not being able to he cannot give a fair review.

It wasn't about spoilers, Konami wanted reviewers 'not to mention' stuff like 90-minute cutscenes and the like. I don't know about you, but that's something I'd want to know about in a review. EGM has done some stupid-ass stuff, but I don't think that this was one of them.

I am guessing (this is a guess) that they probably had to consider the story before running a score. They werent alowed to talk about it, and therefore cant give a review. Its the editors decision to put his magazine on the line. If he thinks the story contributed massivley to the game he would have to take that and review it.I am guessing (this is a guess) that they probably had to consider the story before running a score. They weren’t allowed to talk about it, and therefore can’t give a review. It’s the editors decision to put his magazine on the line. If he thinks the story contributed massively to the game he would have to take that and review it, not being able to he cannot give a fair review.

They can take the story into account in the review, Konami just doesn't want them dropping any spoilers. Hell let's face it most people skip forward to see the score first thing anyway. You can give it a score without talking about the story.

I am guessing (this is a guess) that they probably had to consider the story before running a score. They werent alowed to talk about it, and therefore cant give a review. Its the editors decision to put his magazine on the line. If he thinks the story contributed massivley to the game he would have to take that and review it.I am guessing (this is a guess) that they probably had to consider the story before running a score. They weren’t allowed to talk about it, and therefore can’t give a review. It’s the editors decision to put his magazine on the line. If he thinks the story contributed massively to the game he would have to take that and review it, not being able to he cannot give a fair review.

If we assume that everything you wrote is the truth, then why would EGM agree to Konami's terms, in exchange for a review copy of MGS 4? Wouldn't the proper thing to do, if EGM really feels the way they say they do, is to refuse the review copy???

Just refuse the review copy. They didn't do that. They agreed to Konami's terms and then bitched about it afterwards... That's crap. IMO.

They can take the story into account in the review, Konami just doesn't want them dropping any spoilers. Hell let's face it most people skip forward to see the score first thing anyway. You can give it a score without talking about the story.

Just because you can give it a score without reviewing everything, doesn’t mean you should.

If we assume that everything you wrote is the truth, then why would EGM agree to Konami's terms, in exchange for a review copy of MGS 4? Wouldn't the proper thing to do, if EGM really feels the way they say they do, is to refuse the review copy???

Just refuse the review copy. They didn't do that. They agreed to Konami's terms and then bitched about it afterwards... That's crap. IMO.

What? And miss out on the biggest slice of the market this month? That’s just nonsensical. They only actually agreed to run an article on MGS, they don’t have to run a score. Even if they get a review copy, they are a magazine and ultimately it is the Editors choice what should be run. If Konami are going to restrict their opinions I think it is only right that EGM have the right to restrict the advertisement they give to the game. Is it really even bitching about it? They look like they are just explaining why they haven’t given a score.

It’s sort of like Metallica handing out review CDs to Kerrang and saying “we don’t want you to spoil the lyrics so would you just not mention those”.

What? And miss out on the biggest slice of the market this month? That’s just nonsensical. They only actually agreed to run an article on MGS, they don’t have to run a score. Even if they get a review copy, they are a magazine and ultimately it is the Editors choice what should be run. If Konami are going to restrict their opinions I think it is only right that EGM have the right to restrict the advertisement they give to the game. Is it really even bitching about it? They look like they are just explaining why they haven’t given a score.


I think you're missing the point... EGM got the Game in advance of release by agreeing that if they did an article/review or whatever that they would talk about certain things. Konami made the same deal with a bunch of other sites too including IGN, etc...

They don't get the review copy without agreeing to the terms. They knew what they were getting themselves into... The whole EGM "we won't review this" thing sounds WAAAAY premeditated to me.

I think you're missing the point... EGM got the Game in advance of release by agreeing that if they did an article/review or whatever that they would talk about certain things. Konami made the same deal with a bunch of other sites too including IGN, etc...

They don't get the review copy without agreeing to the terms. They knew what they were getting themselves into... The whole EGM "we won't review this" thing sounds WAAAAY premeditated to me.

I have to agree with you. I can't see them signing the contract which says that they can't give away the story just to get the game and then complain about it, it seems odd.

Maybe they had no intention of reviewing it, but were desperate just to play it.. :lol:

They were just advertising themselves. I know a LOT of people who wouldn't have even noticed if MGS wasn't reviewed this month. Hell, I didn't even notice until they bitched about it.

I think you're missing the point... EGM got the Game in advance of release by agreeing that if they did an article/review or whatever that they would talk about certain things. Konami made the same deal with a bunch of other sites too including IGN, etc...

They don't get the review copy without agreeing to the terms. They knew what they were getting themselves into... The whole EGM "we won't review this" thing sounds WAAAAY premeditated to me.

Now that I come to think about it from your perspective, it does sound a bit fishy.

I know that they made these deals. It still highlighted, to me at least, that the reviews that are out there, on IGN etc, may not be full reviews. Positive or negative, they could be deeply flawed because they aren’t taking into consideration the storyline. Even if they are taking it into consideration they aren’t telling me what about the story they like, where it has flaws. I am going to have to sit on this before I am willing to spend good money on a new console to play it.

They are taking the storyline into consideration on the final score, thye just aren't revealing the story. the reviewer knows the story and knows if it is good or not, he can still say how good it is just not what is in it. Whether the restrictions are their or not they still played the same game and the score is still the same.