UK Mag's Exclusive Review Fits Alleged Eidos Conditions

Earlier, The RAM Raider accused Eidos of trying to fix review scores for Batman: Arkham Asylum, a claim Eidos categorically denied. Now one magazine's exclusive review fits all the conditions said to have been made.

Games Master's got "the world's first review" of the game, and man, is it glowing. Eidos, which had been behind earlier efforts to rig scores and favorable reviews or pump up accolades for its games, is said to have put an embargo on reviews of Arkham Asylum until the end of this month. But, according to TRR, it was willing to lift the embargo for any magazine that featured the game on its cover and gave it a score of at least 90 percent. Eidos' head of UK marketing said all of that was straight bullshit.

Well, bingo, Games Master gave it a 96. "Not only the best Batman game ever, but one of the finest adventures of its generation," they wrote. In the love and hate bullet points, GM hated "that it has to end."

Now, Batman: Arkham Asylum may deserve that score. It looks great, and I definitely want to play it. And certainly the non-exclusive reviews will provide more context. But still, it's awfully convenient that someone gets an exclusive review, and they give the game nearly perfect marks.

Arkham Asylyum: We Have a Winner [The RAM Raider, thanks Fraser]


    I know Eidos has done bad by us before, But I really don't understand how these pieces can be so negative about this. From what I understand, Eidos is just saying,'if you happened to give Arkham Asylum 90+ and are willing to give us the cover then by all means print it.'

    Don't confuse that with, 'hey, if you change your score to a 90+, and give us the cover, we'll let you print it'.

    Oh, and let's SUPPOSE Eidos following the second scenario, and reviewers do change their scores to match their requirements... how in the hell do you think Eidos is worse than the reviewers who chose to take the bait?

      "From what I understand, Eidos is just saying,’if you happened to give Arkham Asylum 90+ and are willing to give us the cover then by all means print it.’"

      And, if it's true, not allowing anyone to print a review of less than 90%. Which is misrepresenting the product and misleading the market.

    one will promote the other bud, if you suggest 90% or higher = exclusive your executives will ask you to put it 90% or higher so they get it out 1st and sell more copies

    (which in turn you might even get a bonus for)

    Its a slippery slope and one which further nullifies the legitimacy of journalism these days.

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now