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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I'd like to see a return of demos. Some are starting to do that via demo releases on STEAM and elsewhere, but "back in the day" circa 95-96 it seemed like a majority of "AA" and "AAA" titles had demos, usually distributed via game magazines with demo cds, which in turn made the magazines sell more (easier to buy the magazine than download everything via modem, and often cheaper too considering "pay by the hour" was still a common ISP business model).
I don't think we should go back to demo dvds to sell magazines, but using services like STEAM to make free demos available would be a big improvement over the paid-for "reviews" being pushed by game sites now, and would provide a relativly convenient location to find demos of games you haven't heard of, instead of the current situation of hearing about a game, sorting through all the previews and links to pay-for-download services to eventually find the publisher's download.
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.