No Half-life 2 Review Again In Gametm?

[JoeK]

Obviously I don't require the review now - it's been played (and being played) constantly to know it's bloody brilliant, but quite honestly I'd like a reason why it's not in the new GamesTM. When you have a review of Metal Gear Solid 3 and other gubbins, it's now smacking of 'fuck off to you Valve for not inviting us to the review session'.

C'mon Mart, what's g'wan?

[The Gum Drop Kid]

I think there's a response from the staff somewhere in this thread.

edit - correct thread now.

[JoeK]

I think there's a response from the staff somewhere in this thread on their forum.

Yes, and a load of balls that is.

Contrary to popular opinion, I rather think that a game magazine should review...er...games.

Late or not, it strikes me as rather unprofessional to decide to not review a game really. If that is what they have decided of course.

I don't mind a late review, but a review should be done.

[Andy_Tanner]

first Manhunt, then their gushing review of the utterly abominable Warrior Within and now they're not even bothering to offer an opinion on the greatest game since Mario 64. i won't be buying GamesTM again.

[Readybrek]

they're un-fucking-worthy of it anyway.

[Concept]

It makes a mockery of the magazine to be honest. We're talking about the biggest game of the year, and they're not going to review it because they weren't invited up to Valve to play it along with Future's stable?

Childish, toys out of the pram behaviour, if you ask me.

[K]

If publishers are going to set strict terms for how they wish a game to be reviewed, GamesTM are perfectly within their rights to refuse to adhere to those terms. I admire their stance- it'd be nice if more mags put integrity ahead of exclusives.

[Guest]

a) We are not supplied code in time for review.

B) We are not given any PR suppport for a title.

c) Other mags get code in time/have PR support.

With HL2 specifically, I was unhappy with the fact that we received HL2 code on the day of release when other mags had access to the game 2 months earlier. This meant that our review would have appeared 2 months after the release of the game (Issue 27, On Sale 30th December) and 3 months later than every other magazine. Sorry.

I hope this helps.

Rgds,

Simon

So - if no one gives up review code to Games TM EVER AGAIN, the magazine simply won't ever have reviews again. WOOT!

This means that EVERY SINGLE review before hand has adhered to the above criteria. Wow!

[Concept]

If publishers are going to set strict terms for how they wish a game to be reviewed, GamesTM are perfectly within their rights to refuse to adhere to those terms. I admire their stance- it'd be nice if more mags put integrity ahead of exclusives.

Yes, but are you honestly telling me the likes of Rockstar et al didn't or (haven't before) dictate exactly the same kind of terms VUG or Valve perhaps did?

If GamesTM were to take this stance with every game and refuse to review they'd be very short in that particular section no doubt. I see no reason why they can't review Half-Life 2 now it's out in the shops.

Smacks of childishness.

[Guest]

If GamesTM were to take this stance with every game and refuse to review they'd be very short in that particular section no doubt. I see no reason why they can't review Half-Life 2 now it's out in the shops.

They do take this stance on every game. That's what they've said, and they've no reason to lie about this to us.

Thus, every game adheres to the criteria as stated.

[Rin]

I think that's perfectly reasonable (!)

[Mogget]

I was going to comment on this, but........I just can't be bothered

[K]

Yes, but are you honestly telling me the likes of Rockstar et al didn't or (haven't before) dictate exactly the same kind of terms VUG or Valve perhaps did?

If GamesTM were to take this stance with every game and refuse to review they'd be very short in that particular section no doubt. I see no reason why they can't review Half-Life 2 now it's out in the shops.

Smacks of childishness.

It's up to GamesTM to decide whether or not they feel they should compromise in order to get an early review (or even a timely review) on a case-by-case basis. Evidently, in this case they thought they shouldn't. It's their choice- you could argue that there's little point in entering the battlefield so long after the battle finished.

At the end of the day, magazines are free publicity for publishers- they don't owe them anything, and they certainly shouldn't be forced to kowtow to their every demand in order to get an EXCLUSIVE!!!!!

[Concept]

I agree with what you're saying, but to not review a game of the magnitude of Half-Life 2 is doing their readers a disservice in my opinion.

Could you imagine Empire magazine refusing to review Return of the King at all, even after cinema release?

GamesTM, in my view, has a duty to their readership (if to be taken seriously) to cover the important events across the videogaming landscape.

[Guest]

Yes Games TM should not listen to what their buying public seems to want.

Oh look, a review is to be added to the website.

[KieronGillen]

To be honest, Games TM are just being retarded.

This is nothing to do with ethics. Ethics is turning down a review under unfavourable conditions, and entirely admirable.

Sulking is not reviewing it when they *can* get a copy. And somehow implying that there's not dozens of games they review only when a copy arrives on release day.

This is about spiting Vivendi and Valve, rather than actually doing their job of servicing their readers.

And there goes me ever being able to sell work to Games TM.

KG

[Guest]

Horay another voice of reason.

[Rin]

And there goes me ever being able to sell work to Games TM.

Like you'd ever want to do that.

[KieronGillen]

Like you'd ever want to do that.

What can I say? I like money.

KG

[kensei]

To be honest, Games TM are just being retarded.

This is nothing to do with ethics. Ethics is turning down a review under unfavourable conditions, and entirely admirable.

Sulking is not reviewing it when they *can* get a copy. And somehow implying that there's not dozens of games they review only when a copy arrives on release day.

This is about spiting Vivendi and Valve, rather than actually doing their job of servicing their readers.

And there goes me ever being able to sell work to Games TM.

KG

Surely it reflects badly on GamesTM if they are reviewing the game months after everyone else has? They might as well not review it, to be honest.

[Rin]

What can I say? I like money.

KG

Pride > Money.

[Concept]

Stupidity > Pride > Money.

We can play this game all day.

[KieronGillen]

Surely it reflects badly on GamesTM if they are reviewing the game months after everyone else has? They might as well not review it, to be honest.

Who cares? You review it when you can review it.

(In fact, even admiting other magazines exist in the marketplace is - for me - always a sign of weakness. Who cares what they're doing? What *you're* doing is what matters. Mags which constantly snipe at their rivals are just annoyingly insecure)

If you want, mention the reason why it's late and decry Vivendi for doing it - but to not review it sells out your readers who may care what you have to say (In fact, some who may even have been waiting for your review) and as a journal of gaming misses a big page from the history. It needs to be reviewed so Games TM has an editorial opinion on the bastard thing.

I mean, imagine if this was Mario 64 and a magazine not reviewing it because Nintendo wouldn't give them early code. It's just Stupid.

KG

[KieronGillen]

Pride > Money.

I'm a games journalist. I have no pride.

KG

[Mr Spew]

GamesTM weren't supplied review code for that shitty mehk game and Katamari Damacy, so why did Cacky get to review them?

Simon - you're fucking pathetic. Your review numbers are going to dwindle even more thanks to your plain ignorance and childishness.

I will continue to buy it now and again, only for strider's Retro section though. Not your twattery.

[KieronGillen]

Er... this has clearly hit some buttons with me. I wouldn't normally say anything about this sort of thing, especially about a games magazine.

I think my problem is that when magazines start caring more about politics than games, something is deeply wrong with their priorities.

KG

[Concept]

Put it like this, Simon's message on GamesTM's forums is going to win the magazine no favours from either their readers or colleagues, especially if they're more or less implying other magazines who reviewed the game did so before release out of a pre-conditioned agreement on the outcome.

[Guest]

GamesTM weren't supplied review code for that shitty mehk game and Katamari Damacy, so why did Cacky get to review them?

1) We are not supplied code in time for review.

2)  We are not given any PR suppport for a title.

3) Other mags get code in time/have PR support.

YOU LIE! They've said it there! LOOK! They wouldn't lie!

I'm ashamed Spew.

[Rin]

That 3rd point is really really odd.

In fact, all the points are odd. Why have the criteria at all?

[Guest]

Actually let's be fair here:

Sorry folks, there's no chance of us reviewing Half-Life 2. I apreciate that you guys want to hear our opinions of the game (it's AWESOME, by the way), but I have taken the decision not to review certain games if:

Otherwise you could accuse those statements of being out of context.

But why...CERTAIN games?