Support NeoGAF

[KillerIsJed]

As you probably know, publishers usually set stipulations on game reviewers when giving them a review copy. On top of an embargo, there are also other little quips about what you are and aren't allowed to talk about. Typically this involves spoilers of the story, or specific unlockables.

Now it seems Sony has restricted games reviewers from talking about or showing some of the more basic gameplay in Infamous: Second Son.

"I would love to discuss my favorite power, but gameplay is apparently spoiler territory now, so I can't." - Jim Sterling, Source

"Sony and Sucker Punch required that we only use footage we capture from some very particular points in the game, most of which come quite close to the beginning... Boss battles that I can't show or explain to you." - Adam Sessler, Source

Does this set a dangerous precedent, restricting talking about gameplay from reviews? I think so, maybe. If Infamous: Second Son wasn't getting great reviews, it would be more of a concern.

That being said it could lead to smaller, less descriptive reviews, or later reviews if reviewers choose to buy the game at retail.

Note: This was meant to be a discussion about restricting gameplay from being discussed in reviews, not story. No one wants story spoilers.

 

[Zombie James]

I'd be pissed off if I got late-game spoilers in a review. Keep that shit to yourselves.

 

[alterno69]

I'm ok with this in this particular case.

 

[Savantcore]

I see nothing wrong with it. The B-roll Sucker Punch gave out was more than indicative of the final game and if anything it makes sure the review itself is well-written and informative.

 

[StuBurns]

It's already a precedent.

Publishers have already done this.

They can just choose not to release their review when the embargo lifts if they're unhappy with it. People did it with MGS4 because you couldn't discuss chapter installs or the length of cutscenes.

 

[rrs]

If the gameplay mechanics are mid-late game, I don't want to get spoiled by them. It's like a Mega Man Legends review saying how awesome the

Spoiler

that OP as hell laser you get from sidequests

is. However, requiring all footage being early game seems odd unless something major happens with the map as well.

 

[MHWilliams]

As you probably know, publishers usually set stipulations on game reviewers when giving them a review copy. On top of an embargo, there are also other little quips about what you are and aren't allowed to talk about. Typically this involves spoilers of the story, or specific unlockables.

Now it seems Sony has restricted games reviewers from talking about or showing some of the more basic gameplay in Infamous: Second Son.





Does this set a dangerous precedent? I think so, maybe. If Infamous: Second Son wasn't getting great reviews, it would be more of a concern.

That being said it could lead to smaller, less descriptive reviews, or later reviews if reviewers choose to buy the game at retail.

Most players in the Infamous and review threads seemed like they preferred the restrictions Sony had on us. Is this case, they asked us to keep the story and power specifics for the latter part of the game under wraps. That did not prevent us from talking about whether that story or those powers were unsatisfying.

Note, they just said "we respectfully request"... it wasn't a hard edict or anything.

 

[Aceun]

I think that reviewers should adopt the movie approach, especially as our games become more and more narrative, or involve certain experiences that are best left... experienced.

For movies, good reviewers make a note of potential spoilers or make the conscious decision to hint at it without revealing too much. I think that is the responsibility of the reviewer and the publisher should trust the reviewer to do their job.

I actually think that's why rev3 lowered the score for Second Son ultimately, which is entirely unjustified, but understandable in some ways.

 

[Captain_Spanky]

Eurogamer mentioned all

Spoiler

****4****

powers so maybe it's just footage? They just kinda dropped the info, which bummed me out. Although it did ignite the old imagination.

 

[KillerIsJed]

If the gameplay mechanics are mid-late game, I don't want to get spoiled by them. It's like a Mega Man Legends review saying how awesome the

Spoiler

that OP as hell laser you get from sidequests

is. However, requiring all footage being early game seems odd unless something major happens with the map as well.

Sessler complains that nothing in the environment ever really stands out, so I don't believe it would be that.

 

[GavinUK86]

it all depends on the game. for infamous, specific powers aren't really going to affect the score. if they can't talk about boss fights, unless they really ruin the game, i'm fine with not hearing about it. keep spoilers to yourself.

 

[MHWilliams]

Eurogamer mentioned all

Spoiler

****4****

powers so maybe it's just footage? They just kinda dropped the info, which bummed me out. Although it did ignite the old imagination.

Yeah, the footage requirements were harder that written.

 

[3bdelilah]

I can't see what the fuss is about. I want to experience the story, even if it's almost nonexistent. But gameplay wise too, usually everything 20% in the game I think is suitable for review material. Every power/item you get past that part I consider spoiler sensitive.

 

[Neuromancer]

I can't see how knowing what the last two powers in inFamous are is going to make the difference between someone deciding to buy the game or not.

I don't really have a problem with this. Some reviewers get awfully spoilerly in their reviews if left unchecked.

That boss battle Adam is itching to talk about (making a guess here but it's the most notable boss battle in the game) I would consider a spoiler.

 

[SolidSnakex]

Sucker Punch actively avoided revealing all the powers because they wanted gamers to be surprised when they saw them. So, if they didn't reveal them on their own then why would they allow reviewers to reveal them?

 

[Draft]

Give me a break, Jim Sterling. Like your review suffers due to not being able to describe the popcorn powers dash, fireball, and grenade that works just like the smoke and neon's dash, fireball, and grenade.

 

[FaintColt388301]

It's a good precedent. Reviews are made for people who are interested in buying a game. Tell them you think it is good or not and show them some simple stuff. If it benefits the game to not know certain things, then don't show that to people who are considering getting it

 

[KORNdoggy]

I'd be pissed off if I got late-game spoilers in a review. Keep that shit to yourselves.

1st reply win.

Seriously. I'm nervous enough being on forums when it comes to games i've media blacked out on. And reviews are typically even worse. Far too much shit is known before we, the players, even get our hands on it in most games. The less we know, the more surprising it is. I don't want to be reliving an experience someone has already told me about, i want to experience it first hand. Fresh. Myself. The amount of times i've seen end game content or cinematic in a video review is insane. Websites should be fined for that shit.

 

[Captain_Spanky]

Yeah, the footage requirements were harder that written.

I can see the logic. Knowing the title of the power just sets your imagination off with what it could be, footage is more of a hard spoiler. I, as a personal preference, would have preferred Eurogamer to not mention all the powers but I can see why they did, they're exciting and could be considered a selling point.

 

[ReplacementPelican]

As you probably know, publishers usually set stipulations on game reviewers when giving them a review copy. On top of an embargo, there are also other little quips about what you are and aren't allowed to talk about. Typically this involves spoilers of the story, or specific unlockables.

Now it seems Sony has restricted games reviewers from talking about or showing some of the more basic gameplay in Infamous: Second Son.


Does this set a dangerous precedent? I think so, maybe. If Infamous: Second Son wasn't getting great reviews, it would be more of a concern.

That being said it could lead to smaller, less descriptive reviews, or later reviews if reviewers choose to buy the game at retail.

Your title makes this seem far more nefarious than it is.

I already have the game spoiled and in my opinion the powers not being spoiled are the best ones in the game, one of them is incredible. Sucker Punch has put a lot of work into keeping secrets in this game and of course it isn't a bad precedent.

They have talked about everything to do with gameplay but they can't show spoilers, is this really a problem in your mind?

 

[Neuromancer]

Give me a break, Jim Sterling. Like your review suffers due to not being able to describe the

Spoiler

popcorn

powers dash, fireball, and grenade that works just like the smoke and neon's dash, fireball, and grenade.

Whoa whoa whoa easy there Tex

 

[Bill Rizer]

After a local magazine here in 1994 published their review of Super Metroid spoiling almost the whole game in pictures, including Mother Brain final form, I've always been very little spoiler tolerant. Btw, I barely read reviews as of today.

 

[Samus4145]

This isn't something new. I've had a whole bunch of games that had restrictions on parts of the game that couldn't be talked about or shown for a review, even if it wasn't story related.

 

[Mugatu]

Normally I would agree but considering how awful and useless gaming journalism is anyway it probably doesn't make much difference. The fact that reviewers feel the need to make a big deal of this at all and that it's not obvious to them just makes this obvious.

 

[Gigglepoo]

I wrote around those restrictions because they weren't necessary to the points I was trying to make. Plus, I avoided mentioning even

Spoiler

neon

because I had no idea what the other powers were before I started to play, and I want everyone to have the same surprises I did. Thankfully, if I want to write more about Second Son tomorrow, I could do so without any restrictions.

I've had problems with certain restrictions in the past but generally they don't interfere with what I want to communicate in reviews.

 

[Captain_Spanky]

After a local magazine here in 1994 published their review of Super Metroid spoiling almost the whole game in pictures, including Mother Brain final form, I've always been very little spoiler tolerant. Btw, I barely read reviews as of today.

Oh god that reminds me. My favorite gaming magazine ever wrote a 12 page review of Ocarina of Time review. Every dungeon and even the final final final boss. At the age I gave no fucks, it was pure hype.

 

[KORNdoggy]

This thread is making me nervous now too. Even with the spoiler tags it takes just one douchebag to mess it all up. I'm out of here.

 

[MHWilliams]

I wrote around those restrictions because they weren't necessary to the points I was trying to make. Plus, I avoided mentioning even

Spoiler

neon

because I had no idea what the other powers were before I started to play, and I want everyone to have the same surprises I did. Thankfully, if I want to write more about Second Son tomorrow, I could do so without any restrictions.

I've had problems with certain restrictions in the past but generally they don't interfere with what I want to communicate in reviews.

Pretty much. None of the restriction affected my review and if I need to dig deeper, I can do full editorials on the game tomorrow.

Now if something was crazy broken and they said we couldn't talk about it, then we'd have a problem. But story spoilers are less of a problem.

 

[Marcel]

Spoilers or "spoilers" (i.e. powers, abilities, game features, etc. AKA not actually spoilers) don't affect my enjoyment or experience of a product. The more information out there, the more informed I am making purchasing decisions.

Sometimes the amount of head in the sand behavior that happens on the internet regarding perceived spoilers is absolutely ridiculous.

 

[Draft]

Whoa whoa whoa easy there Tex

Sony can't muzzle me. The kernel blast is overpowered and breaks the game and my readers have a right to know.

 

[Night Angel]

Give me a break, Jim Sterling. Like your review suffers due to not being able to describe the

Spoiler

popcorn

powers dash, fireball, and grenade that works just like the smoke and neon's dash, fireball, and grenade.

Did I really just get spoiled by this shit? Please tell me it's a lie.

;D

 

[ThoughtsOfSpeaking]

The restrictions in the reviews are due to sucker punch being needlessly anal about not "spoiling the surprise" of new powers and moves, which although are kinda cool, are really not amazing enough for that level of restriction. Seeing them give you a sense of "oh wow" for ten mins, then you get back to playing the game.

If you pop your head in the spoiler thread, you will know what I mean. They arebt hiding any flaws in the game and the whole thing is being blow out of proportion by sessler and co.

Hopefully this wont set a precedent. While innocent here, it could be used in a more neferious way.

 

[Linkstrikesback]

This is hardly a new concept.

Reviewers always have the option to wait out embargos if they really value putting something in a review over page hits.

 

[Zombie James]

Note: This was meant to be a discussion about restricting gameplay from being discussed in reviews, not story. No one wants story spoilers.

Gameplay and story go hand-in-hand sometimes. Think back to Bioshock...

Spoiler

If a review came out and talked out the gameplay segment where you become a Big Daddy, that's be a massive spoiler.

I don't give a shit if it's the coolest thing you ever saw or if it blew your mind away; if you want people to have the same reaction you had playing it for the first time, keep it to yourself.

 

[jediyoshi]

Spoilers or "spoilers" (i.e. powers, abilities, game features, etc. AKA not actually spoilers) don't affect my enjoyment or experience of a product. The more information out there, the more informed I am making purchasing decisions.

Sometimes the amount of head in the sand behavior that happens on the internet regarding perceived spoilers is absolutely ridiculous.

With the amount of people out there who are able to get their fill off things like narrative games by just watching playthroughs of it, I find it hard to fathom not being able to understand people's aversion to knowing certain things within a game.

 

[Neuromancer]

Gameplay and story go hand-in-hand sometimes. Think back to Bioshock...

Spoiler

If a review came out and talked out the gameplay segment where you become a Big Daddy, that's be a massive spoiler.

I don't give a shit if it's the coolest thing you ever saw or if it blew your mind away; if you want people to have the same reaction you had playing it for the first time, keep it to yourself.

Yep. You know what, leave that kind of stuff to an 'afterthoughts' piece or something. There's no one saying you can't talk about the entirety of a game in great detail after your audience has actually had a chance to play it for themselves first.

 

[eot]

Wasn't there some game not too long ago where the reviews could only talk about the first half of it? I can't remember what it was.

 

[MYeager]

Unless it significantly impacts the game, like a late game power that breaks the balance completely or just doesn't function well, then there are ways to write around the issue to keep it vague while still being able to convey what the complaints are.

If there's something late in the game that breaks it I'd rather be an informed consumer than go into it blind. If it's something great, well, let me experience for myself. Just say there are some late game additions to the game that a blast to play.

 

[Yoshi]

I don't care about story spoilers, but gameplay spoilers are very important to me. However, I don't think mechanics should be allowed to be blocked from reviews, level design specifics however should be.

 

[El-Suave]

I don't get the secrecy in Infamous's case. Additional powers are a main draw for the sequel and they are a big selling point, so why can't you showcase them a bit as long as you don't tell how you aquire them?
The marketing of this game has been a bit baffling to me, I would have gotten it anyway since I love the franchise, but the topics they've shown and talked about until very recently haven't been too informative, instead the powers they've shown again and again have become a bit boring.

 

[MrBadger]

After IGN's review of Ghost Trick opened up with footage of

Spoiler

Lynne shooting Sissil

and their 3D Land review gave away a lot of the post-game content, I'm fine with reviews being restricted to what they can show. Let's not forget that reviews are there for people who haven't yet bought the game, so it's not fair to give away too much.

 

[KillerIsJed]

Gameplay and story go hand-in-hand sometimes. Think back to Bioshock...

Spoiler

If a review came out and talked out the gameplay segment where you become a Big Daddy, that's be a massive spoiler.

I don't give a shit if it's the coolest thing you ever saw or if it blew your mind away; if you want people to have the same reaction you had playing it for the first time, keep it to yourself.

You could vaguely talk about the said gameplay without naming it, and say whether it is good or not. That being said, if it is a brief experience, then it really wouldn't need to be mentioned. But a main power in a game that has, apparently 4 powers, seems a bit strange.

That would be like the original Super Mario Bros. having a review embargo that allowed you to talk about jumping, running, but not fire flowers or bosses.

While fire flowers are a huge part of Super Mario Bros, talking about them wouldn't spoil anything, but give you an idea of a type of gameplay. Infamous: Second Son could just have a reskinned power though, in which case nothing would be missing from the review.

 

[Marcel]

1st reply win.

Seriously. I'm nervous enough being on forums when it comes to games i've media blacked out on. And reviews are typically even worse. Far too much shit is known before we, the players, even get our hands on it in most games. The less we know, the more surprising it is. I don't want to be reliving an experience someone has already told me about, i want to experience it first hand. Fresh. Myself. The amount of times i've seen end game content or cinematic in a video review is insane. Websites should be fined for that shit.

Yeah okay. I'm curious: Why is your "fresh" experience so singularly important? When you break it down, your experience with the game will be no better or worse than someone who may know more about the game.

For example I knew some story/gameplay spoilers about Dark Souls 2 that helped me actually get more excited about the game as it was about to be released.

 

[ThoughtsOfSpeaking]

I think the whole thing is ridiculous personally. Games are there to be played. If you described in detail ever mechanic power and unlockable move in a game, id still want to play it because I still want to experience it myself. Story spoilers, I can kinda understand, but knowing my toolset ahead of time would not in anyway shape or form limit my enjoyment of a game. In many cases it maKes me more exicted to play.

My joy in games is not from what I discover in the game, but the creative ways I use what I discover.

 

[Lindsay]

Kinda weird since it seems like these days game marketing is constantly pushing out hype material of every character, gadget, powerup, level, feature, etc. + 2 hour~ first looks for all to view aaaages before a games release. I publisher approved previews spill the beans on darn near everything (except story cause its oh so important these days >_>) why would reviews be off limits? In rare cases where a dev/pub are actively trying ta leave surprises for the players I still the reviewer oughta be talk about something if its important an they feel strongly enough about it.

 

[Hollow]

I'm perfectly ok with it in this instance.

I don't want to know about the powers or boss fights since I'm getting the game tomorrow and would like to experience them myself from a fresh viewpoint. They should keep them out of the review.

 

[Lindsay]

I'm perfectly ok with it in this instance.

I don't want to know about the powers or boss fights since I'm getting the game tomorrow and would like to experience them myself from a fresh viewpoint. They should keep them out of the review.

If you're already committed to getting a game whys a review matter? Just don't read any since its not like they're gonna influence your purchase or not!

 

[Kinyou]

As long as they can still describe it, it should be fine. I mean, if some powers were broken or useless they could say that. They just can't say "the ____ power is broken". In the end I still get the same critical information.

 

[ThatChairMan]

I don't get the secrecy in Infamous's case. Additional powers are a main draw for the sequel and they are a big selling point, so why can't you showcase them a bit as long as you don't tell how you aquire them?
The marketing of this game has been a bit baffling to me, I would have gotten it anyway since I love the franchise, but the topics they've shown and talked about until very recently haven't been too informative, instead the powers they've shown again and again have become a bit boring.

Could be implications just from it existing. Like, for example, if you were to gain electrical powers, that's pretty much an implied spoiler for Cole making some kind of an appearance, which would be a pretty big twist that nobody would want spoiled.

 

[CGwizz]

IGN idiots spoiled all the powers in their review , i will never see their video reviews again.