13_mgs4_screenshot_d2240_09mgs4reviews-copy.jpg

Both CVG and Gamesradar have published the same review with a different man as their author.  Should Metal Gear Solid 4 be tainted by one fellow’s words?

Don’t get me wrong, the review is very well written and gives the title a generally glowing appraisal.  The CVG.com’s first review happens to be from the UK Magazine, PSW.  No score was given and so the article was christened a “Feature.” This has been the tradition for the  print and online pairing, since CVG prefer to post their own review.

Gamesradar are the next to follow with an indepth 3 page review, commandeered from PSM3 UK Magazine’s editor Daniel Dawkins. The review expresses the game’s successes and failures, even stating that “Metal Gear Solid 4 is a masterpiece, arguably the best in the series and – though many will fiercely disagree – ever so slightly disappointing.”  Nevertheless, the score given was a 9/10. That’s the extent of Snake’s disappointment.

I began to worry when I read similar sentiments in CVG’s review, only to notice that they weren’t just similar, they were the very same words. The same words, the same disappointments, the same criticisms, and the same appraisals. Was Daniel Dawkins of PSM3 UK posted as its author?  No, Mike Jackson of CVG was, with a score of 9.5/10 given, not particularly matching the “disappointed” sentiment expressed.

Naturally, the review is beautifully written, but something is wrong here.  Both CVG and Gamesradar are owned by Future Publishing, as are the magazines PSW, PSM3 and even the highly respected Edge.  Even though Gamesradar only reviews on an integer scale, in comparison to CVG’s 0.5 scale, hence the score disparity, do you think it’s right for one magazine’s review to be posted by two different websites and pronounced as original?

Reasons for the duplications could be that Konami are holding back the review copies, and only the select few have been able to get their hands on Snake’s final mission.  In truth, we’ve yet to be graced by Kojima Production’s presumed masterpiece.

Even if the reviews were correctly presented as Daniel Dawkin’s work, is it right that his opinion is taken precedence on two popular game websites?  I’d be extremely interested to hear your opinions on this matter, and we’ll inform you if CVG and Gamesradar make any comments.  We just hope Daniel didn’t also provide himself for Edge’s review.

*Update* - CVG’s review has now been correctly listed as Daniel Dawkin’s PSM3 review.  However, the same conclusion remains.  Two different popular websites, with two differing readerships are posting the same review.  This may make business sense for Future Publishing, but does it make sense for their audiences?