On Timelines and Tomb Raiders

You think the development teams are able to say to these same marketing people, "Nope, sorry, we're not shipping the game until our content is of 10/10 level of quality"? Ironically, I doubt that they can.

Bread, actually it's the same thing with games. I believe GameSpot doesn't get every game in advance from the publishers.

I agree!!!

Well said petros957!!! WELL SAID! *shakes hand*

Still isn't as bad as some movie studios that don't screen movies for critics anymore when they assume it's going to get lambasted with negative criticism. Terrible stuff. I'm sure one day this will start amongst game companies as well.

Is Eidos particulary bad about doing this? I ask because the only two time I've heard about it, this game and the Kayne and Lynch thing, they were the publisher. Or are the other publishers just better at being more subtle than Eidos? Well, at least no one got fired this time! ....right?

I hate to let you in on this "secret", but not all of your faithful readers go strictly by your reviews. We know what kind of games we're interested in, and have no trouble remembering games that you didn't rate that high which we enjoyed, and other games which you gave a glowing review that we thought was drek. In short I think many of us realize that we have to think for ourselves. And while we might appreciate your input, your reviews are not the final word. That being said, I understand how difficult a job it can be to develop a "good game". And so it's not completely unreasonable to expect that some developers will drop the ball, or that the game will not measure up to the hype. Still there are plenty of decent games that are lots of fun. I suspect that Tomb Raider: Underworld falls into this catagory. Sure it may not be perfect, but that doesn't mean I won't enjoy it. I'll just wait a while and either rent it, or score a used copy. Please don't take this the wrong way! I enjoy your site, and visit regularly. I appreciate your reviews and the effort that you put into them. I just insist on making my own decisions on how to spend my time and money. And I suspect a sizable number of your other readers feel the same.

I still remember Jeff G. and the Kane & Lynch review issue just like it hapened yesterday. That being said I am glad at what the outcome was (Jeff and other reviewers gone from GS) and I now use his review website GiantBomb.com as my number one review site. You guys should check it out. He has no one to answer to or to influence his reviews. Everything you hear will be the str8 up truth with no BS.

why are you on this website then?

GS is so biased ne waze, just make a game for the 360 and it will prob get a good score. Thats prob why a company would ask a site like GS to hold off on the review, because they are so biased against games, they dont wanna get their game a bad rep just because a GS employee didnt like the game, but failed to look at anything a fan would like about the game, or the technical touches about the game. That is, if underworlds developer even did this that is. But the fact that this is going on says 2 things. 1) Game Developers are very insecure about their games, meaning games are becomin less and less quality, which can clearly be seen lately. and 2)Game Developers are scared to get their game reviewed because critics are soo biased on most sites. Game Informer magazine and IGN is prob the only two sources i would want my game to get reviewed in because they take a professional look on things. All in all gaming used to be a care free hardcore life for us serious gamers, and now its turning into nothing but a materialistic joke.

So no one will get canned if it's a low review, right?

This would have been a more impressive statement on Gamespot's behalf if it had come before Kane & Lynch instead of after when they know people are checking to see if they do the same thing with Underworld.

well lets see, another review fiasco. maybe i should send in my application for head editor since they mite be lookin for another new one soon ;) heck, if only they posted an article like this about kane and lynch rather than throwing their integrity and reputation out the window.

Good job GS - that's the way to make a stand. Keep bringing the reviews when they are done - which preferably will continue to be before a games launch as obviously many people depend on them to determine whether they are going to buy the game or not. Keep up the good work! :)

Eidos + Reviews = Magic!

Eidos: what the hell. You think they would steer clear of this kind of thing considering last years fiasco.

Pelm, why will you have to return it because Gamespot scored it low? If you like the game and want to keep it, then do so. Gamespots scores are a guide and not everyone will (or should) agree with every review. We all have our own tastes, make sure you play the games that are right for you, not the ones that score highly.

Yeah GS what Dlind70 say, also re-review the last remnant that looks good and is very good but because you guys scored it so low i'll have to return it.

Thank you, Ricardo for this insider news concerning publishers requests. Gamespot, if you intend to get things right, you may want to re-review Too Human. I'm starting to get into lvl 50 with 2 of my classes and the gameplay gets more strategic and fun the more I play with higher lvl mission charms and Diablo like epic suits. It is my sleeper hit of the year. Titles like Fallout and TH are a rare breed when you feel you've gotten you're $60 worth and can still be engrossed 100 hrs. into the gameplay. Thank you for your time.

I hope guy cocker keeps his post. I really do, but the underworld got a 7. something so its ok

i don't see how this practice is relevant to GameSpot. Most GS reviews don't come out until a week or 2 after the game launches anyway.

Well after looking at the score it seems that Eidos bombed on another game, just like Kane & Lynch.

Lol. Eidos still proves that they will do anything to get a good score after the Kane & Lynch fiasco. Funkyhamster is right. For once, GS actually does something honest.

Gamespot? Eidos? Reviewing controversies!? :shock: Not again... In all seriousness, I'm glad Gamespot is being honest and upfront about this issue.

Hmmm... Though my initial reaction is to praise Gamespot, one has to wonder: If this is common practice, why has Gamespot singled Eidos out? Seeing is believing. There may be more than meets the eye here. Maybe Gamespot and Eidos have some vendetta behind the scenes, and maybe Gamespot is telling the truth. I'm going to rent Tomb Raider: Underworld and see how accurate of a review Gamespot's really is. If it's not, Goodbye Gamespot. If it is, Goodbye Eidos.

Shame on you, Eidos. It's nice to know that Gamespot is trying to be unbiased and neutral.

and notice it was written by Ricardo T, one of the people who was sorting out the mess along with the rest of the more well known reviewers. and yes PR still could have got him to do this, or at least edit it for him.

yes it was, my guess is this is gamespot making a preemptive post on the issue (jeff and the Kane & Lynch review) should it arise again or if past issues (again jeff and the Kane & Lynch review) are brought back up in comments and such. personally I think it is a good move on gamespot's part, I mean sure it's their PR department workin' over time, but still good on them.

Again, its eidos....

wasn't Eidos the company behind Kane & Lynch, back when all the crap hit the fan here?

Eidos at it again.

There's some noise right now about Eidos trying to manage Tomb Raider scores by delaying any that are below an 8 until after the game's UK release. I figured I'd weigh in since one of the reasons we have this reviews blog is to offer you a look into what we do and how we do it. This week, Barrington Harvey, a UK PR agency that represents Eidos, asked one of our UK editors to hold the Underworld review until Monday if the score wasn't in a range they wanted. This was supposedly done on Eidos' behalf but we didn't get anything like that here in the US and Eidos UK is saying that they never asked the agency to do that. I'm honestly not sure what went down but, at end of the day, these kinds of requests aren't exactly rare. Asking for low scoring reviews to be held is, sadly, a common practice among some publishers, especially at this time of the year. Such requests are generally informal, though that's not always the case. Regardless of how the request is made, our response is always the same: Our review schedule is dictated by our reviews team, not by those companies who mistakenly think that sending us games for review entitles them to some control of our editorial calendar.

The sole exception to that policy is when companies send us games well in advance of their release date and we sign NDAs (nondisclosure agreements) stating that we won't post our review until a certain date. At GameSpot we've always been more interested in getting our reviews right than in getting them posted ahead of the competition anyway, so these NDAs only rarely result in us posting a review any later than we would choose to anyway. We'll push back if a proposed NDA would prevent us from posting a review before a game arrives in stores, but for the most part companies aren't presumptuous enough to make requests like that. This situation with Tomb Raider is an exception, of course, and in keeping with our policy the request is being ignored and we'll be posting our review later today and that will be that.

I'm sure the notion of companies trying to dictate review timelines based on scores will raise eyebrows for some out there. That's fine--it should. It's a pretty stupid practice and you'd think most of these publishers would know better. It's not hard to figure out why publishers would want unflattering reviews to hit late, but what works for them doesn't work for us or for you, and hopefully they'll come to understand that in time. Until then, we'll continue to review games how and when we see fit.