Slashdot Mirror
The Contempt of Publishers for Game Reviewers
Newsweek's LevelUp blog is, without a doubt, one of the smartest voices in games writing today. For a great example of that, look no further than N'Gai's recent discussion of 'Gerstmann-gate', which focuses not on the particulars of the incident but what it means in a larger context. "The Gerstmann-C|Net incident, therefore, suggests that having successfully stage-managed the first two parts of the [game coverage] process for years, thanks to the generous spirit in which previews and features have long been written, certain publishers may now be flexing their muscles more forcefully when it comes to the third: reviews. This publisher-editorial tension, as one journalist from an enthusiast outlet informed us, is at its most contentious during the run-up to Christmas, because the pre-holiday period is the time of year when stakes are highest for some companies. That's even more true during this holiday season, which despite the absence of Grand Theft Auto IV will go down as one of the most competitive on record, loaded as it is with AAA hopefuls all seeking their place in the sun." And indeed, perhaps some portions of the games market have 'transcended' these petty squabbles. Certainly EA Casual doesn't care about reviews, and who really needs a game reviewer to tell you whether Brain Age 3 is any good? To revisit the reason this article was written, we turn again to Joystiq, who has been following it closely.
For years I really wondered if the guys playing these games were getting paid to say "nice things". This whole thing has just confirmed that sentiment.
If you make games that don't suck, and that are innovative, then you have nothing to fear from game reviewers. Most of the time, they don't give bad reviews to good games. Sometimes a good game will get a bad review from a couple reviewers, but not often.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
I want to know what the AAA titles are this year.
God spoke to me.
Don't send a copy to the reviewer/publisher. At least you'll get your opening day sales before they can go buy the game and review it a month late in their magazine. Of course, you'll be giving up all kinds of 'free' advertising (hype) if your game is of the type that would benefit from hype.
Word of mouth, or user reviews are still the best advertisement a game will ever have. Professional reviews are just people who do it for a living. I've never had a gaming magazine, but I always check user reviews at places like gamespot.com or metacritic before I consider spending my money. If you don't pony up with the reviewers, I'll still get the same information I have had before, and other people will resort to waiting instead of buying on opening day unless you're selling Halo 4 or Spore, which many people will still wait to read some reviews.
This has been going on aand discussed on many different topics for my entire adult life. In one instance it was motorcycle magazines or car magazines or computer magazines and now online game review sites. All have their hand in the advertising cookie jar which makes reliable reviewing a huge conflict of interest. Kodus to the honest reviewer for giving truth a chance. /dTd
/dTd
Well, it seems the only logical solution on how to close the Pandora's Box is to stop reading enthusiast gamesites, and to get traditional (read: with actual editorial values) media sources to take video games seriously enough to hire quality reviewers and talent.
There's already at least a few "current affairs" sections (Tempo, Entertainment, "Quality of Life", whatever you want to call it) around... why not digital entertainment?
If people start leaving Gamespot in droves, it *might* catch traditional media's attention. More likely, the Gamespot forums are so ablaze that ad revenues for the forums are at the highest levels in history.
-Rob
Biblical fiscal responsibility
So how does one get started as a game industry "I'll give you lots of stars" game shill anyway? What does it pay? Can I do it part time?
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
Is Brain Age 3 any good? they didn't say!
If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
TFA is one of the best commentaries I have seen in a while.
The reviews of games with free small easy to get demos are irrelevant to me. I'm capable of making up my own mind. If your game is good, a demo is the best possible marketing or PR you can get.
DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
Bow-ties are cool.
There's this idea that the game-reviewers are all paid off, and that's why otherwise mediocre games are reviewed so highly. But directly supplementing a reviewer's salary (or the magazine's coffers through increased advertising) isn't necesary. The game-publishers can effect their ratings in other ways.
For instance, many publishers bring in reviewers to play the games in the developers' offices. Now, one could argue that this already is a bit sleazy; the reviewer isn't getting the same experience as the customer. The REVIEWER isn't going to have hardware incompatibilities. But even overlooking this bit of unfairness, the experience can't help but be effected positively. I mean, there the reviewer is, wined and dined on the developer's dime, playing a game surrounded by the developers who, understandably, are excited about their own product; how can a reviewer not mark up a game in an environment like that? The developers aren't directly paying off the reviewer for five-stars, but their actions can't help but boost the score.
And it's not just a one-time event; developers play to reviewers for years; they bring the reviewers in years before release to see initial concepts ("Hey Matt, we're announcing Starcraft II! We don't have any game yet, but come over to our office and see the concept art!"), preview tests, E3 parties, etc. Often, the reviewers can't help but form relationships with the developers, and that can't help but effect the score either. Reviewers are no more immune to the hype-machine than anyone else.
And even if a reviewer is being on the up-and-up, there are still ways to manipulate the score; for instance, if you're developing a first-person-shooter, ask the publisher that an FPS Fanatic reviews your game. If FPSFanatic writes a glowing review, it's not because he's been bribed or the magazine was promised more advertising; rather, it's because he'll give four-stars to anything that even vaguely resembles Doom.
So don't assume that all five-star reviews for otherwise average games (Bioshock) are because there is rampant corruption in the industry. As often, it is simply because the developers are gaming the system in ways that don't directly involve payola.
While we've had controversy in the past with fake movie reviews, there's never really been a question about bribed movie reviews.
Why is this? I think it's because movie reviews are advertised by the reviewer, not the paper. You don't open up the Chicago Sun-Times to read the Sun-Times movie reviews, you open up the Chicago Sun-Times to read Roger Ebert's movie reviews. For games, however, with the exception of people like Yahtzee and his "Zero Punctuation" reviews, write-ups are advertised by the site as a whole. Read the Gamespot review! Read the IGN review! Compare the Metacritic pages for a film and a game and you'll see what I'm talking about.
So how can we fix this? We need higher-profile game reviewers and for that to occur we need more games to be viewed as art -- or at least as a viable form of expression/story-telling. Just as Hollywood legitimized the movie industry by telling compelling stories and setting up a system of internal rewards for good products (Oscars), we need something legitimate for video-games.
Is that ever going to happen? Who knows.
Of course the whole thing might just be pointless because with demos and such people can get a much better sense of the game than anyone can get with a movie trailer.
It's interesting how publishers and developers have their own unique love/hate relationships with game reviewers. Both publishers and independent dev studios (like the one I work for) spend a lot of time mad at reviewers. We developers don't just want good reviews, many of us want *fair* reviews. Whereas the publisher is just doing what any corporation would do, i.e. whatever it takes to maximize profit. Generally speaking I think that reviewers need to be the ones upholding the journalistic standards here.
But on the developer side, our frustrations come mainly from the *lack* of standards in game reviewing: inattentive playthroughs, fanboyism, hype-influence. There's nothing more painful, especially to a startup, as seeing a miserable sequel score higher than your proud, polished debut on the market.
I think that comparing the games industry to the movie industry is pretty informative here. Hollywood has its ways of promoting blockbuster duds (usually avertise heavily and quote bad reviews out of context), but movie reviewers are generally much much much more professional. That said, there's a marked difference: many of us depend on game magazines and websites (or review aggregators) to choose what games to buy. I think that most of us will see a movie on a lark, or a trailer.
Bow-ties are cool.
It's counter to what a reviewer is trying to do. As a reviewer, who is probably trying to market said product, is going to say whatever it takes to get people to buy the game being reviewed.
I have been known to talk trash but then I realized, talking down on a product doesn't make people want to buy what you have to sell.
How do you sell a products like Mass Effect and Assassin's Creed, when they honestly aren't that great? You hype like everyone else, that's how.
By all means, buy those games please :)
Movie sucks? Don't screen it to the press and hope you make some cash before the negative word of mouth gets round.
Bluntly, anything else is bollocks.
If you want to know whether a game is any good, grab your average related message board and start reading. Here you have people who bought it and have no obligation whatsoever to play nice with the publisher. They're their customers, and not dependent on them in any way. They will tell you whether a game is good or stinks.
Yes, you won't get to see some arbitrary number pulled out of someone's rectum to describe how good or bad a game is. But when you read pages after pages of bug questions, you know how to rate a game.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Their point seems to be that casual gamers don't read reviews, and therefore bad reviews don't matter.
But the reality is far more serious (and dangerous) to the entire industry: casual-gaming customers who don't read reveiws and buy bad games, are disappointed and may stop buying games altogether.
So EA's dismissive nature of reviewers is representative of a dangerous mindset which will ultimately harm the entire industry.
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )