Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Media Entertainment Games

Editors Get an Earful 51

Posted by Zonk from the its-fun-when-people-tell-you-what-to-think dept.
Gamedrool.com (via Kotaku) has the text from a letter to Gamepro from 2001, sent by then-president of 3DO Trip Hawkins. It's a hilarious look at what kind of flack you can get for offering up an opinion in a public venue. From the article: "I would hope you can recognize that I do not love all my children equally and can be objective about both good and bad features in a game as well as games that are of quality and those that are not. I do not send messages like this to you after every review. But this happens to be a game that I have played all the way through and beaten on all difficulty levels and I know the game intimately. I also have seen the profound positive effect this game has had on my children. "
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Editors Get an Earful More

Editors Get an Earful

Comments Filter:

  • Fault in the User? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Fitzghon ( 578350 )
    "I personally think we made a game that hard-core adult male gamers would enjoy. But I can understand that some of them would reject it the same way some adults reject Shrek or Beethoven. But personally, I think that really means there is something wrong with a man like that, not with Portal Runner. " So... Bad games aren't bad, they just have bad gamers? Fitzghon
    • But I can understand that some of them would reject it the same way some adults reject Shrek or Beethoven.
      Ok, Shrek is unambiguous enough. But Beethoven -- is that Beethoven the composer [wikipedia.org] I'm supposed to reject, or Beethoven the dog [imdb.com]?
      • Based on context, most likely Beethoven the dog, since the movies are aimed at a younger audience like Shrek is, and both are more likely to be rejected as "kid stuff" by an adult audience. Beethoven the composer would be more likely to be rejected by the younger audience than an older one.
  • Here [gamepro.com] is the initial panning of the game. It ends with:
    Mercifully, Portal Runner's missions are short, and even incompetent gamers will have no problem conquering the easy "puzzles"---a good thing since players will get tired of the tinny in-game music and Vikki's raspy-voiced one-liners real fast. Stay away. Stay far away.

  • Holy Crap (Score:3, Interesting)

    by nathanmace ( 839928 ) on Wednesday January 12, 2005 @05:00PM (#11340712)
    This is nothing more than a CEO complaining that Gamepro didn't "return the favor" and give a crappy game a good rating. He mentions that 3DO is/was a major advertiser for Gamepro, and that (paraphrasing) Gamepro should been a "better" friend and given the game a "better" score.
    • I suppose this means that some games are so bad that you can't buy them a good review?
    • Man...who is this CEO...

      He must be Trippin!!!

      HA HA HA HA!

      Where do I come UP with them?!

      I've gotten some crap from game publishers, but it's few and far between. Back when I used to write for Gameplayer, I panned Evil Zone, a literal 1-button fighting game. The PR guy called me up and complained...I told the guy, sorry, but there was just no way he was going to convince me that the game was somehow better than I felt it was.

  • It was actually a fairly reasonable letter until.. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by vhold ( 175219 ) on Wednesday January 12, 2005 @05:01PM (#11340734)
    ... he started threatening them with cut advertising.

    I was actually kind of with the guy on the whole "Find audiences for a game instead of just assuming everybody is like you" concept of reviewing, at least if it's a mainstream site. But when he cut into the threats about biting the hand that feeds you, well, I completely lost touch. The last thing a reader wants from a review site is a bought reviewer.

    Of course I'm not the audience for that letter, I wonder how much their bottom line was actually affected. So the real question becomes.. how much does that sponsorship affect reviews? Is it possible to quantify it? If you compare reviews for games on sites that have ads for those games to reviews on sites that don't, can you find a coorelation that cross cuts many games? Common sense says that such a coorelation is so likely as to be obvious.

    If that's is the case, that really doesn't set up the writer of this letter for ridicule. He's behaving accordingly to the climate. Who's more unscrupulous? Those that accept a bribe or those that offer it?
    • It's not the reviewer's job to find an audience for the game -- that's the marketing dept's job. Gamepro was a journalistic publication. They're job was to report on the industry, not to be lackies for 3DO like Tripp wanted.
    • Ever notice that the actual 'average' scores are almost never given? If a review ranks games out of 10, and there are 100 games reviewed, you would expect about half to be 5 or lower, an half to be 6 or better, with most games falling between 4 and 7.

      Instead, you see most games ranging from 6 to 8.

      You will never see a truly negative review for a game unless that game is indefensible. Game mags cannot afford to offend advertisers.

      END COMMUNICATION
      • I've definitely noticed that, but I chalked it up to a very different meaning. I've read a lot of seriously negative reviews where the practical upshot is to not buy the game but it got a 7 or 6.5.

        I think reviews tend to work more like grades in school. If your score is 50% of 100%, that's typically a fail, not the average. Below 60 is a total fail, 60-70 is below average, 70-80 is the average range, 80-90 is above average and 90+ is excellent.

      • Re:The acutal effect is likely a bit different. (Score:5, Interesting)

        by RogueyWon ( 735973 ) on Wednesday January 12, 2005 @06:38PM (#11342059) Journal
        I used to believe this, but the more I've thought about things, the more I'm inclined towards a slightly more benign conclusion.

        When I first started reading gaming mags in the late 80s/early 90s, genuinely bad reviews were pretty common. Games getting 20% or less weren't exactly common, but nor were they rare. Plenty got less than 50%. Obviously, this isn't the case today.

        However, when you stop and think about it, it's rare that you actually get a genuinely bad commercial game these days. It's true. I looked up some videos of the game in question and, from what I can see, it's an average, underwhelming early-PS2 action game. Yes, it's nothing like as good as any number of other games you could have bought at the time. It no doubt had a frustrating control system, poor level design and repetative gameplay. However, if you'd never seen Halo, Kingdom Hearts, Zelda, Metal Gear Solid or, indeed, any other modern video game before, you'd probably be pretty impressed by this. At worst, you can play through the game from beginning to end and probably not want to stab yourself in the eyes with a pair of scissors.

        The commercial games development world has just moved on too far to produce truly bad games. Virtually all games go through at least some QA before launch. Indeed, if you want to release on one of the big three consoles, you have to convince Sony, Microsoft or Nintendo that your game is worthy of launch and won't be an embarrassment to their system.

        Of course, the occasional utter stinker does still happen, particularly on the PC. Budget developers like Valusoft don't always have the same standards as the rest of the industry. I remember there was a truck racing game a few months ago which actually made a slashdot news story just because it was so sheer bloody awful. All the reviews of this game were sub-20%.

        So, where does this leave the reviewer? In a bit of a quandry, to be honest. He has to be fair to the games he's reviewing and shouldn't call them truly bad unless they actually are. However, he also has a duty to let his customers know whether the game he's looking at is worth their cash. I suspect this is why we see so many reviews where the score is in the 60% range but the review text makes it clear that the game shouldn't be purchased.
      • Computer Gaming World usually has a good balance of reviews. Sometimes there are even more negative reviews than good ones. I think one issue a couple years ago had only 3.5 stars or less reviews in it (out of 5 stars).
      • You have to realize that there are a LOT of games that are never reviewed. MOST reviews are of big-budget games made by experienced companies. It would be a shocker if those games had the same "score" distribution (statistically) as games in general.
        • The trick is that this doesn't stop movie reviewers from giving 1 star, or whatever your lowest score is, to big-budget films. Certainly THEY don't review every indie film that some hack director churns out.

          I've noticed grandparent's point, also. Even the players (in their reviews, as on the "review it yourself" feature of major gaming websites, or on GameFAQs) tend to fall into the trap of making a 10 point rating scale into a 7 point rating scale by defining 4 to be bad, 7 to be average, and 10 to be g
    • If you compare reviews for games on sites that have ads for those games to reviews on sites that don't, can you find a coorelation that cross cuts many games?

      That is something I've thought about a lot. But the realization I've come to is that ad-revenue backed sites tend to at least be accountible for their scores and reviews.

      I've seen so many forum posts and independent websites that fall into the general industry memes and hype that predetermine a game's fate before it is ever picked up.

      Not to s
    • Of course I'm not the audience for that letter, I wonder how much their bottom line was actually affected. So the real question becomes.. how much does that sponsorship affect reviews? Is it possible to quantify it? If you compare reviews for games on sites that have ads for those games to reviews on sites that don't, can you find a coorelation that cross cuts many games? Common sense says that such a coorelation is so likely as to be obvious.

      I worked in the marketing department of a major game publisher
      • This is why I am glad that there are publications like "Consumer Reports." All revenue comes from subscribers, and there are no ads that may 'influence' the results of the test. Of course, "Consumer Reports" generally only focuses on big-ticket items like cars and refrigerators, but when you think about it, $50 bucks wasted on a game is no biggie when compared to the purchase of a $20,000 lemon.

        An entertainment journal set up like this might be cool, but it might be difficult to convince people to invest
  • You have so much more to gain if you are enthusiasts for gaming, and try to find the audience for a new game. You are so much better off if you do not bite the hand that feeds you.

    You are so much better if you let us keep face, take your paycheque home and don't make waves?

  • One thing stands out (Score:4)

    by DaveJay ( 133437 ) on Wednesday January 12, 2005 @05:14PM (#11340874)
    In the letter, he says that a pro-game advertisement running alongside a poor review for the same game makes the reader think the review is honest and advertisement is biased, and claims that usually it's the other way around.

    I'm sorry, but every single advertisement ever written for anything anywhere, is biased. To claim otherwise is ridiculous.
    • If a consumer sees a bad editorial, and a positive ad, they are going to assume the ad is biased (what is frustrating is that often it is the other way around).

      Gee, Trip, ya think? Since when have advertisements been anything but biased (with the exception of Crazy People [imdb.com])?

      Good thing 3DO makes such good games, otherwise I might start to agree with GamePro. Oh wait...

    • THANK you, EXACTLY.

      if anything, i take a diversity in advertizing / content as an indicator of true impartiality.

  • Idiots Write Letters (Score:4, Insightful)

    by exick ( 513823 ) on Wednesday January 12, 2005 @05:15PM (#11340894)
    Reviewers who don't consult with the game publisher about the intended audience, and don't attempt to position a game in terms of who might like it and who might not like it, are unprofessional.

    Let me translate for you:
    Game reviewers who share their true opinions instead of trying to push units and help even the shittiest of games turn a profit are unprofessional.

  • Thinking of the children (Score:3, Insightful)

    by StocDred ( 691816 ) on Wednesday January 12, 2005 @05:26PM (#11341072) Homepage Journal
    I do not love all my children equally ... I also have seen the profound positive effect this game has had on my children.

    What children are we talking about here? Children-as-product, or children-as-kids? The confused nouns in Paragraph 1 indicate his tone and mood for the entire misguided letter.

    Plus, points off for mentioning "God." Twice.

  • or slashdot? ;)

    From the article:
    The audience for games no longer consists of one iconic block of angry young men who cannot get a date on Saturday night.

    and more:

    dominated by angry young men that are poorly trained and represent a narrow and anarchistic element of the world's population. They have a negative attitude and are looking for what is wrong with something, instead of looking for what is right and who might like it.

    It reminds me of boys at junior high school dance. With their fragile egos,
  • One of the points he makes is that reviewers assume that they are the be-all and end-all of the video game consumer. I have seen many reviews lately of games intended for children that either fail to take this into account at all, or dismiss it as not an excuse for simpler controls and/or gameplay. It doesn't seem helpful to anyone to pan a game in gamespy or ign or whereever, when its intended for individuals who don't even read that site. If these sites insist on reviewing the game, and the reviewer do

  • Eh, it's GamePro (Score:3, Funny)

    by ayersrj ( 701333 ) on Wednesday January 12, 2005 @05:35PM (#11341168)
    Any magazine that ranks 1 through 5 with different levels of colorful smileys and has JD Roth from Fun House reviewing the latest games probably doesn't deserve anyone's time or money to begin with.
  • If you disagree with me, you do so at your own peril

    Anyone else picturing an evil bald guy sitting in a black chair, stroking a white cat?

  • I wish 3DO still existed... (Score:3, Funny)

    by trawg ( 308495 ) on Wednesday January 12, 2005 @06:46PM (#11342156) Homepage
    ... so I could stop buying their games

  • RAR, TRIP HAWKINS WILL CRUSH YOU (Score:4, Funny)

    by ArmpitMan ( 741950 ) on Wednesday January 12, 2005 @08:42PM (#11343608) Homepage
    And do not patronize me by telling me the reader is the customer--your real customer is the one that pays you your revenue. And it is game industry advertisers. If you need to be able to be constantly negative you need to accept that you are like a parasite that is killing its host.

    Man, and to think -- EA didn't really start being evil until after Trip Hawkins left.

  • Trip's right... (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    ...at least, he's right when he says a kids' game shouldn't be slammed for being a kids' game.

    A reviewer has to assume that anyone reading the review is at least mildly interested in the game. If the game is a niche game, then he has to assume that he's writing to a member of that niche audience. He should write the review as if he's talking to the person for whom that game is intended. Or more accurately, he should write the review as if he's talking to the person who is most likely to consider buying the
  • ...when you have to go back to 2001 for reading material.

  • wanker publishers (Score:1, Flamebait)

    by spir0 ( 319821 )
    You are so much better off if you do not bite the hand that feeds you. And do not patronize me by telling me the reader is the customer--your real customer is the one that pays you your revenue. And it is game industry advertisers. If you need to be able to be constantly negative you need to accept that you are like a parasite that is killing its host.

    as far as I see it, gamers are the real customers. game developers and game magazines don't exist without the gamers.

    I love the fact that GamePro did this.

  • Trip is a first-class asshole. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I've had the bad luck of working for Trip Hawking. If you think this email is funny, you should have seen the drek he sent out to everyone in the company every few months.

    I said it in the subject and I'll say it again. Trip Hawkins is a first-class asshole. Buying any product with his name on it supports his self-centered egotistical rampage that has cost people their jobs, money, and self-esteem.
  • The only reason Trip couldn't throw his marketing weight around here is that GamePro's editors knew the writing was on the wall for 3DO and didn't need to care about losing their advertising.

    I've worked for games developers and I was always amazed at how prophectic the advertising department could be. They would show us early previews of their adverts and posters which would already have the review scores on them. Amazingly the scores exactly matched what the game got when we finished writing it and sent i
  • I wish it were the case that Gamepro reviews were bad over the years because of threats from advertising--unfortunately it's just due to the fact that some people give bad scores.

    The problem is, if you're passionate enough about games to dedicate your life to it, you're bound to be a fanboy for certain genres and franchises. Some can't filter out their excessive interest for the game and give inflated scores.

    If you're the "RPG guy" in the company, it's cus' you love RPGs ...so if some ultra nichey game

Slashdot Top Deals

"Confound these ancestors.... They've stolen our best ideas!" - Ben Jonson

Close