The Contempt of Publishers for Game Reviewers 56
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.
Exactly as I thought! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Make games that don't suck (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Make games that don't suck (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Make games that don't suck (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
(Like most
Layne
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So it sounds like a lot of game scoring is just a crap shoot. Stuff like bugginess can b
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't care about game reviews. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Then don't send them a copy (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Or release a demo (Score:2)
Re:Or release a demo (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's the problem with demos, imo. They are very polished little snippets of the game, and they don't reflect the reality of how good the actual gold version of the game will be. They are great to see how the basic mechanics of the game are in most cases, but they won't tell you if the game is buggy as h
Re: (Score:2)
Which indeed is what they do with sucky movies (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It's no secret.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Don't blame me... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
What about. the spelling of that little girl? (Score:2)
The solution? (Score:2)
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
How can I get in on this?? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
By the way, have any of you played Super Columbine Massacre RPG? It's awesome!
So... (Score:4, Funny)
Definitely RTFA (Score:3, Informative)
Bribes aren't needed (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
For example, I'm a bit of an RPG hound myself. I would consider it a disservice if I chose not to buy an RPG based upon a magazine having FPSfanatic, who hates RPGs, do the review. Later, I hear about how legendary this RPG is, but it's out of print and I can't get it anymore.
I would also hope that a fanatic for the genre would have taste within it and at least recognize that there are good and bad.
Re: (Score:1)
Difference between game and movie reviews (Score:5, Interesting)
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" [escapistmagazine.com] 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 [metacritic.com] and a game [metacritic.com] 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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
They need not be viewed as art, just as something worth reviewing. Car magazines do not view the average car as art, but some can still produce valid reviews.
When the reviewer puts his name on the article, and appears often enough to get a reputation, readers will be safe from paid reviews (providing that they check into the magazines that reviews reviewers :-).
Re: (Score:2)
Publishers and Developers (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
I think that most of us will see a movie on a lark, or a trailer.
Yup. A $6 matinee ($12 with a SO.) and a 3 hour time commitment (including travel) is a lot less than a $50 (pushing $60 these days, plus taxes) and 20 hour commitment. Yeah, some games suck so bad we give up a lot sooner than 20 hours. But many games are so in-depth, you've usually sunk at least that much time into the thing before giving up.
A movie costs very little compared to a game. Of course I'll go see a movie that looks decent on the trailer, long before I buy a new game. Not that I do much of e
Why would anyone give a bad review? (Score:1)
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 :)
The best review: BBoards (Score:2)
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
EA's mistake (Score:2)
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.