Batmangate. Eidos' demands for Arkham Asylum; 96% from GM

TheRamRaider wrote:Unlike our no-longer-regularly-updated blog, corruption in the games industry has so far failed to go into hibernation. In the week that Eidos has breathed its last, they’ve decided to go out with a bang by brazenly attempting to artificially hype up their forthcoming Arkham Asylum release.

Several mags have their review code already, but have to sit on their reviews until a hateful embargo expires at the end of the month. But Eidos, ever the helpful fellows that they are, have been offering a way around this embargo. If you dedicate the cover of your mag to Arkham Asylum and guarantee a score of at least 90%, Eidos will allow you to run the review early.

We know that one editor has already valiantly told Eidos to strawberry float off, but we can’t tell you which to protect our Anonymous Dark Knight. We also asked the usually chatty UK Officially Corrupt Xbox 360 Magazine editor Jon Hicks about it, who tellingly clammed up tighter than a nun’s banana split at the mere mention.

But what of the others? Well, there’s an exciting way to find out in the form of a game that you can play at home over the next month called “Spot The Corrupt Arkham Asylum Review”. You see, Arkham Asylum is a decentish release that’s not quite up to par when it comes to variety and depth. This means even the most charitable outlets should settle at no more than the 80s in their verdicts, but don’t be surprised if you see a few 7s from the pseuds.

This means that if you see a mag turn up within the next few weeks (ding!) that features Arkham Asylum on its cover (ding!) and gives it at least 90% (ding ding ding!), you have a winner.

Exciting…

Official PlayStation Magazine is one of the mags that have promised an exclusive review for next month. I really hope they haven't succumbed.

Well there's always a first for everything.

So no magazine can legitimately give Batman a 90+ score without people thinking they have been paid off? So, some will be force to give it a lower score, just to show they have not bowed to the pressure.

So messy. :roll:

Raide wrote::fp:

So no magazine can legitimately give Batman a 90+ score without people thinking they have been paid off? So, some will be force to give it a lower score, just to show they have not bowed to the pressure.

So messy.

Well no, anyone who gives it an early "exclusive" review and awards it a 9/10 mark (and maybe a cover, apparently) is probably lining their pockets with Bat-money.

Cheers, Rammy. I now look like a massive Eidos shill.

Raide wrote::fp:

So no magazine can legitimately give Batman a 90+ score without people thinking they have been paid off? So, some will be force to give it a lower score, just to show they have not bowed to the pressure.

So messy.

There's only going to be a handful of exclusive reviews (3 at most - Xbox, PS3 & PC). If they turn up as 90% then you know, at the very least, the review has been seen & okayed by Eidos - despite most magazines having a "they [the publisher] see the review when the reader does" policy.

I don't see much of a problem with people not bowing down to this, they can still give it 90+ if they think it deserves as much but after the embargo lifts.

Hero of Canton wrote:Cheers, Rammy. I now look like a massive Eidos shill.

It's a bit weird that Eidos are willing to pay out for good reviews when their game is obviously fantastic as it is.

Hero of Canton wrote:Cheers, Rammy. I now look like a massive Eidos shill.

What? You've got it? and you've given it a high score because it's good?

Cuttooth wrote:
Hero of Canton wrote:Cheers, Rammy. I now look like a massive Eidos shill.

It's a bit weird that Eidos are willing to pay out for good reviews when their game is obviously fantastic as it is.

I was wondering this myself. I think the game looks fantastic, so why are Eidos worried enough that they are pushing for 90+ reviews?

This isn't the first time Eidos/BHPR have done this. They did a similar thing with Tomb Raider Underworld. They had an emargo for reviews, but if you scored it 8/10 or more, you could publish it whenever you wanted.

Its a shame all this really, finally we looked like we might be getting a genuinely decent batman game, something thats arguably not happened since batman returns on the mega cd. All this talk of inflated scores and embargo nonsense does the game no favours at all. I expect the actual developers are fuming that the attention has now gone from "that might actually be pretty good to "yeah well they all gave it 90+ cause eidos paid them all off".

This is typical Eidos, though. How do you think OPM continually got the first review & playable demo of Tomb Raider for five consecutive years? What about Kane & Lynch? Gamespot & PSW both ended up looking like clowns.

KKLEIN wrote:This is typical Eidos, though. How do you think OPM continually got the first review & playable demo of Tomb Raider for five consecutive years? What about Kane & Lynch? Gamespot & PSW both ended up looking like clowns.

It's certainly surprising they're going out of business.

It's an embarassing episode.

It's made NeoGaf:

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=367741

If you're the Editor who's said yes, I'd be bricking myself round about....now. Someone's reputation is about to go to hell in a handcart. If it's PC Zone I won't give a gooseberry fool.

Fortunately for the publication(s) involved, I can't see this game being atrocious. That's the best type of exclusive, as the prearranged score doesn't stand out like a sore thumb. It's when it goes wrong (Driv3r, Lair, Kane & Lynch) that everything starts to fall apart in spectacular fashion.

I'm genuinely a bit baffled by this, as I thought it'd be getting at least 8s, even from the harsher publications/sites. I don't think 90% will particularly stand out unless people now feel a little uneasy about awarding such a score given the connotations and purposely go lower.

Snide digs at other members will not be tolerated guys.

I think this bit is key:

We know that one editor has already valiantly told Eidos to strawberry float off, but we can’t tell you which to protect our Anonymous Dark Knight. We also asked the usually chatty UK Officially Corrupt Xbox 360 Magazine editor Jon Hicks about it, who tellingly clammed up tighter than a nun’s banana split at the mere mention.

We know OPM & OXM were both scheduled to have the Exclusive review for their next issue. There will no doubt be a 'third man', that being PC. In theory then, one of those mags (at least) should no longer have the review.

There's also the possibility, now that said review is 'open', another publication has picked it up. You may remember OPS2 was scheduled to have the World Exclusive of Driv3r, but it later ended up in PSM2 for whatever reason - possibly as they'd bagged the reveal of San Andreas & bumped the scheduled cover.

Batmangate. Eidos' demands for Arkham Asylum; 96% from GM

Who is online

Affiliates