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.
TFA is one of the best commentaries I have seen in a while.
"42%" is certainly a thing of the past. What bothers be about reviewers today is how they describe their rating's scale. 5/10, they say, is average, yet very few games ever get scored below that. It's almost as if the game reviewers are afraid to say "this game is below average", so they create a fictitious average and hope the readers and publishers don't notice.
Mass effect, Halo 3, Bioshock, The Orange Box, Mario Galaxy, Crysis, and some others I probably missed. You may not like all of these games, but they are AAA titles.
Assassin's Creed, Guitar Hero 3, Rockband... Damn it's a great year to be a gamer.
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.