DISQUS

JohnnyHonest · 1 year ago

Sorry, nothing particularly enlightening to say.

But you guys are fucking rad.

Mucudadada · 1 year ago

First I want to thank Anonymous Guy from Big Publisher for sharing this fantastic perspective to us.
From what you wrote it looks like you are saying that the industry needs to grow up. I agree. Since video games firt hit the scene, they have been the kind-of "other" entertainment media and not taken as seriously as movies or literature. Why is this? I think one is lack of cinematic and daring games (Indigo Prophecy and MGS4 have come the closest) that not ony evolve the industry in story, but revolutionize it. BUT, game journalist hve had a big impact in the mediocraty and down cast look on the industry as well becasue and industry is most reflected by hte people who analyze it, and let's be honest, there are few people in the industry who can go toe to toe with movie critics. So, again I thank you for sharing and I hope the industry spurs it's own revolution.

Man, this blog is the best thing to happen to the internet since sliced bread!

-Mucu

cronson · 1 year ago

Mucudadada, I'm totally with you. I'm obsessed with this blog and the insight these guys pump out for all of us readers. I think what Anonymous wrote is completely valid and from a perspective we never get as consumers.

I also want to encourage all of the readers on here who've been keeping it positive and constructive. Its awesome to find a blog where people are above a lot of that trash talking that goes on elsewhere.

Sorry for the ramblings but here's to hoping the journalism industry will grow and change as gamers get older and more mature.

Blake Snow · 1 year ago

"Or when an editor of a big games website gives his FPS guy a sim racing game to review."

Is Roper the drama guy and Ebert the comedy guy? Provided a critic is professional, it doesn't matter.

Doug Hillman · 1 year ago

Uh, yeah actually. I learned long ago which genres each of the film reviewers prefer and I judge their reviews accordingly. No matter how much they may profess to just like "film," Siskel, Ebert, Roper, Shalit, Rabin, and all the rest have thier biases. Well, not so much Siskel any more, but you know what I mean. I don't expect ANY review to be free of biases, but if I could get the FPS guy to review the FPS games I'd be alot happier.

Tom · 1 year ago

Obviously, you've seen some reviews where the reviewer acts like an action flick should compare with A Beautiful Mind.

Zarkon_GT · 1 year ago

The problem with this is....and I use myself as an example: I'm more of an RPG/Turn-based Strategy/MMO person. However, I've been in situations where I've reviewed RTS games, FPS games...all kinds of stuff.

One of the games I reviews was the expansion to one of the Age of games. I don't recall the title off the top of my head, but I was up front in the review, stating that I don't normally do this genre, but here's what I thought.

When a reviewer tends to write about (and like) certain genres of games, they gain experience in the inner workings of the genre, and tend to be more knowledgeable about them. Having them work outside of their genre generally leads to a less polished and less informed review, in my mind.

RTS fans can quote chapter and verse about unit builds and strategies, while MMO fans are all about loot tables, mob timers and class builds. Sports gamers can get deep into recruiting/drafting and building the best team. The knowledge sets can be quite different. Sticking to a journalist/gamer's strengths tends to give for a better review.

Jason Deaville · 1 year ago

Quote:
"What many gamers don’t understand is how busy journalists can be – and also how lazy. Lets say you have a game that takes 30 hours to complete, and reviewer plays 2 hours of it and gives it mediocre review based on the first few levels, just because he has 10 other games to review and can’t put in 20 hours."

I long ago stopped allowing game reviews to dictate my purchases. Not because I think game journalists aren't credible at what they do, far from it actually. As a staff reviewer for a very reputable Hard Rock/Metal magazine, I couldn't imagine reviewing a new CD without listening to it in its entirety. I understand that deadlines loom, but this method of review is completely unfair to the reader, not to mention the developers.

Quote:
"The industry has been crying out for 'real' journalism for a long time now. What this means to me is not harsher reviews, but thoughtful analysis about games, real knowledge of game development, and a deep history of playing games. And ultimately, gauging who the game would be fun for, and scoring it accordingly."

I can only think of two guys (well, Gerstmann too) who lead the way in a quest for "real" game journalism. Crispin, Shoe - can we expect another go at it?

Nawid · 1 year ago

I think the guys from the GFW podcast (now doing pc stuff on 1up.com) you can add to your list. 1up has been really good about its integrity and transparency. I think they're podcasts and occasional editorial rants go a long way in establishing that.

MrTomHimself · 1 year ago

I really enjoyed this letter, but feel that a bad game is still a bad game, no matter how much blood and sweat went into it. I could put all kinds of blood and sweat into a game, utterly devote all life into creating, and I guarantee it would stink, because I do not know how to. I do not feel that the journalists are the "know all" of video games (I loved Assassin's Creed), but when they give a tip or idea, it's because they have an idea of what makes a good game (it's funny, as it's almost like they play games for a living).

I have a deep appreciation for those who make truly great games, as they feed my habit, but the same way there's good music and bad music, there are good games and bad games. I don't care if Fall Out Boy spent 3 months in a loft only recording music, it's going to suck.

*edit* I wanted to apologize for not thanking Anyonymous for sharing the publishing side. I appreciate the honesty.

Booboo · 1 year ago

Way to try and change the subject anonymous pr man.

So we got this - journos don't trust pr and pr don't trust journos.

How about this - good games sell more than bad games. You can qualify that all you want but in the end I think it still stands.

Sewart · 1 year ago

Ico says "hi" :)

RandomDude · 1 year ago

Viva Pinata says hi. Without some journalists telling people its a veru fun game, it would have sold even less than it's already demoralizing sales numbers due to its "judge a book by it's cover" disadvantage.

Booboo · 1 year ago

1.46 million says "hi" to you too.

http://www.vgchartz.com/games/game.php?id=2619

Booboo · 1 year ago

700,000+ says "hi" back.

http://blog.tigmagazine.com/2008/08/07/trivia-s...

"ICO sold approximately 250,000 copies in the United States, 210,000 in Japan, 200,000 units in Europe, 20,000 copies in Asian territories and another 20,000 in Korea. This data does not include sales numbers for the 2006 re-release of the game in European territories and Australia. The Chinese release is also not taken into account."


http://www.playnow.com.au/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cg...

"Sony's ICO development team has confirmed that a new title is under development, they plan to reveal the title in near future. The team has also revealed the worldwide sales of ICO, which is around 650,000 copies; and the breakdown is as follows:

* USA (09/26/01) - 250,000 units
* Japan (12/06/01) - 160,000 units
* Asia (01/13/02) - 20,000 units
* South Korea (02/22/02) - 20,000 units
* Europe (03/20/02) - 200,000 units"

TwoBacks · 1 year ago

There is no correlation between reviews and sales.

Zarkon_GT · 1 year ago

Do they? Really?

Is that why Madden NFL routinely outsells everything else? Because it's the best game on the market?

Or is it because EA aggressively markets it, and has a huge fan base that buys (essentially) the same game every year for little tweaks, a few new features, and roster updates?

Our goal as journalists is to inform the customer, because as it stands now, most customers are ill-informed sheep, which is good for the publishers, but not so good for gaming itself.

After all, if your comment was true? Beyond Good & Evil would have outsold EVERYTHING.

MattChandronait · 1 year ago

You've outlined, rightly I think, many of the easy traps the gaming press falls into--regularly, regrettably. I think a fair critique of your point, though, is that the sense of entitlement you speak of exists on the publisher/developer side as well. A similarly easy trap the developer/publisher side can fall into is that those 100-hour weeks of blood, sweat, and tears means that they are, indeed, entitled to a good review and that a bad review simply means that the reviewer doesn't know enough about the development process to "get it." Of course that doesn't happen that often, and it's incumbent on anyone in the gaming press to know enough about game development to--for example--not call out frame rate issues on a beta build, but the problem isn't when unprofessional people get slapped down by publishers and PR, the problem is when a journalist gets slapped down *because* she is being a professional. Why bother with dealing with a thoughtful, respected journalist who didn't like your last game in the series when you can go the competitor who's lackluster personality is easily brow-beaten into a decent score? This happens. I've seen it, and I think that at that point it is now incumbent on both the gaming press *and* the publisher/PR/developer side to foster this "real" journalism we're all crying out for.

Pierce · 1 year ago

It's cool to see that the 1UP crew reads this blog, too.

Great comment.

I'm a little more understanding with the anon guy, though; not giving due credit happens. I feel that calling out against unfair reviews is a necessary step for a healthy community of analysis. (As well as the journalist's defense and any exchange after.)

I would consider a mix of objective and subjective in critiquing to be professional, as long as they are noted, pointed out. Whenever subjective is insinuated to be synonymous with objective, I think, is when it becomes unfair.

I can definitely understand your perspective, though.

Pierce · 1 year ago

Also:

"Why bother with dealing with a thoughtful, respected journalist who didn't like your last game in the series when you can go the competitor who's lackluster personality is easily brow-beaten into a decent score? This happens."

I'm not in video game reviewing; I have nothing but the greatest respect for you and your work; but reading the other comments, is it possible that the efforts of PRs and developers can be mistaken for cheap actions such as the above quotation?

MattChandronait · 1 year ago

Yeah, I think it's entirely possible. It's all too easy to cry foul when you're not given special treatment and chalk it up to being bullied--and I think this is, indeed, the first refuge of some in the gaming press that are less than stellar examples of professionalism. My point is that lack of professionalism exists on both sides of the equation and it sullies the process as a whole--the case of some rotten pieces of fruit spoiling the bushel.

Pierce · 1 year ago

"and I think this is, indeed, the first refuge of some in the gaming press that are less than stellar examples of professionalism."

That's such a shame; you could be genuinely wronged and your reaction would be so text-book that you could (and probably would) be easily thrown in the bunch with the less-than-professionals.

For your last sentence: thanks for the clarification!

Steven Miles · 1 year ago

Ok. Where does the entitlement come from on the press side. On 1up FM readers asked how to get into the games press, and their only advice was to write and write and write. How about try and make a game, so you can have some humility when approaching a product. I despise when the press makes suggestions, it is one of the absolute worst parts of the industry, and it happens all the time. I've seen members of 1up pitch games to developers, and then have the gall to put that stuff in their released media. It makes it look like what devs do isn't such a big deal to the press. But its hard not to blame you. I've heard multiple stories from PAX about the games media being treated like stars instead of just gate keepers to information. It is a industry structure problem that will hopefully continue to change and evolve.

Lucavious · 1 year ago

It's always been a concern of mine when a reviewer lays into a game as well. Is there really ever a need to hatefully tear into a game when a developer spent so much time making it (regardless of your perceived value?). For instance the Gerstman incident. His review of Kane and Lynch seemed so hateful regardless of the mediocre score he gave it. It's very easy for a journalist to insult a videogame they themselves haven't invest 80 hours a week in creating and I don't think most journalists even consider it.

Palpatim · 1 year ago

I disagree that Gerstmann's K&L review was hateful. On the contrary, the review--the video review especially--felt personal, and I sensed a lot of frustration rather than hatefulness.

That said, it's not a reviewers job to coddle the people producing the art. Movies, music, games, visual art, theater, dance...if something is sub-par, it's the reviewers job to explain why, in a context of what has gone before and what could have been. Critics and creators are eternally at odds, but they each serve a role. Critics could not exist without the creators, and the creators need critics to keep them honest by providing objective analysis.

And given the theme of this post and preceding ones, that's the real issue: How objective can a review be, given the realities of tight schedules, overallocated staff, pressure from publishers and, as admitted by our guest author, pressure from PR firms?

JustinL · 1 year ago

It's definitely a fine line between wanting to write an entertaining review and insulting the people who put so much of themselves into making the game. There's a pull to get into "bash mode," but there's also temptation to give a pass to studios you like despite inferior production (and PR can sometimes try to play into this). It's necessary for reviews to keep this in mind.

In the end, I believe a journalist's loyalties should be to his/her readership: You want to keep them from buying bad stuff, and you want to shine light on hidden gems. I believe the developers' loyalties should be towards that same class. I say this as someone with experience in both camps (former journalist, current game designer).

To the anonymous PR person: I may not completely agree with your perspective, but it's definitely important to give people in your position a voice as well. However, after 8+ hours, I think Too Human sucked... ;)

Jamezrp · 1 year ago

I agree 100% with this. It's what I was pointing out in the comments on the previous post (part 4 of the never-ending "gaming journalism" series), and I have nothing but respect for PR people, marketers, developers, etc. Their efforts are not to extend their "promotional power" over journalists, though it has of course happened in the past. Just as journalists are not supposed to fabricate articles to save time.

The only real response I can give is that this battle will end bloody, one way or another. Either game publishers will be forced to send reviewable code (games and other review content) only to an elite group of publications even earlier, just so that those reviews can go live before the half-assed so-called gaming journalists can squabble together 500-1000 words of gibberish for a few bloody hits on their cheap websites, or game publishers will have to start charging for early review content. That way, the cheap bastards who only want free games and, oh, can write about them in their spare time after they've had enough of it, don't ruin the hard work of dedicated people.

And you know what? I hate to admit it, but I'm guilty of doing that as well. I hated myself for doing it, and realized how truly unfair it is to not only the readers, but the creators of the games to not at least put in the right time and effort into it. When I visited EA's offices, I saw it firsthand.

That's why I really appreciate what EA has done with their entire company over the last 5 years, turning away from the "corporate giant" to a developer powerhouse. They use their size to help market games so they sell well, essentially acting like a movie production studio, while at the same time looking for good content to publish. And if it's not good, they supply their own trained employees to make it the best they can.

Ben Gilbert · 1 year ago

Very interesting read and definitely appreciated. The massive canyon of disconnect between most games journalists and the actual developers may be one of the biggest problems here that isn't explicitly mentioned. Understandably, game publishers want to spread the best possible message about the game they're about to ship -- unfortunately though, rather than letting the game speak for itself (none the less the developers behind the game), there's a "message" that is pushed by example publisher A or B and the disconnect grows. Game journos respond with snarkiness or sometimes outright hostility and publishers look at game journos like rubes, a tautological problem with an obvious solution: cut out the middle-man, let developers show their game directly to game journos (though a logistical problem being that the developers spend their time DEVELOPING and not giving demos), and allow publishers to mediate the situation at the absolute most.

And you're right, Too Human was that bad.

ErrorDante · 1 year ago

I honestly don't know what to say. I get the point of both sides here. Obviously each is gonna have their own opinions, regardless of the others thoughts.

I also can agree there aren't many quality game journalists out there. But on the other hand there really only a few absolutely high quality games that come out per year.

In the end I don't really think amazing review scores matter. If a game is geniunely good, its gonna sell. Regardless of flooding praise from the press. I know I personally don't just look at a review and decide. I give games a chance, rent, play demos and check reviews from the entire media masses. Like Too Human, I played its demo, gave it a rent. It just wasn't there for me. It was extremely repetitive and just didn't do it for me. I wouldn't say its as bad as the reviews have been on it, but I can't say its that good either.

That being said.. a lot of the general public is kinda stupid and will eat into what people say. I guess you can look at a game like the Madden series selling millions each year with little update yearly and see that.

I dunno, I guess the industry as a whole still has a lot of growing to do in all areas.

Edit - I'd also like to thank the author for posting his side though, sorry for excluding that. This blog is continually getting better and better. Hope it continues

TrickyNishidake · 1 year ago

The role of the public relations guy is under appreciated. There's a few people out there saying that if a game is good, it will sell well regardless of the marketing it receives. That kind of a mindset is not entirely fair. Sure, there seems to be a schism between PR and journalists, but both entities are necessities to the industry. Let's take the cult hit for the Playstation 2, Beyond Good and Evil, this was a good game that pretty much fell under everyone's radar because Ubisoft was far more interested in hyping the new Prince of Persia. Granted the latter was also a fantastic game, but Ubisoft could have had two hits on the market instead of one. Beyond Good and Evil ended up in the discount bin and cult status amongst gamers. Games with "cult status" are often good games that aren't money makers, they never saw the sales or mass appeal of games that often have the bejesus hyped out of them. Too Human may be doing well in spite of all the bad press it gets. I'm actually curious to what development teams in the same companies are thinking when the PR guys are out hyping the mediocre game to make up for overhead instead of the less expensive sleeper hit.

"Real" journalism in games just doesn't seem like the right method to me. From the PR perspective, it would appear that your job is to promote a game to as many people as possibly. Having specific reviewers tackle specific genres would be counter intuitive to the process of selling games. It wouldn't take long to realize that the reviewer who's hardcore into RTS games is reviewing RTS games, and the reader coming to the realization that he doesn't give a crap about the inner depths of RTS micromanagement could possibly be turned off. And let's for the sake of indulging me talk about fighting games for a moment. This is my favorite genre of game, and it's dying right before my eyes. And as far as I can see, no amount of marketing could save it. A friend of mine was complaining recently about how Ben Croshaw (Zero Punctuation) wasn't fit to review anymore because he made a Soul Cailbur 4 review where gameplay was only touched upon instead of being rigorously discussed. And while on a personal level, I agree with him, but from a PR and review standpoint I don't see the fighting game demographic being large enough in North America to warrant talking about game mechanics. From what I can see, most gamers care more about Taki's cup size than they do about frame recovery. Having a dedicated reviewer talk about the depths of the genre would probably go on hurting it than reviving it. Catering to the hardcore instead of the casual just doesn't make good business sense, and I find it shocking that our anonymous PR guy would even attempt to sell that point.

caloge · 1 year ago

i have always felt number scores really only say so much, there can give a strong sense of the quality of a game but i for the reasons mr. anonymous spoke about, reading reviews is very important. It comes down to what you want to get out of a game and what you expect. Just as an example, MGS4 reviews ranged from totally bad (zeropunctuation which i suppose isnt a serious reviewer), mildly good and fantastic (ign & gamespot). But if you read a mildly good reivew of MGS4 you will notice they often dont like the length of the cutscenes, convoluted story etc... every game isnt for everyone find games that suit you, they dont all have to be perfect 10's or even very good 8's (I hate numbering games but) your 10 maybe a reviewers 7, you just need to be able to recognize that when you see it

colquittbrett · 1 year ago

I have nothing to add to the already awesome comments posted here. I just wanted to say that I desire to be a part of that so-called "real" journalism for the gaming industry.

And as I have to deal with you little PR kids everyday at the university... might I say that you give them a good name, kind anonymous sir/madam. Most of them appear to be soulless fiends intent on making as much money as possible by spinning bullshit in to the best sparkling shine. Nice to see a few make it out okay!

G-Man · 1 year ago

Let me pose these questions as a consumer:

Should game critics review titles for the audience the game is intended for, the audience that already visits their site/reads their magazine or both?

Why or why not should issues seen in an in-development title (framerate, graphics, gameplay, etc.) be passed onto the readers?

Why do PR/pubs/devs 'massage' critics with open bars, lavish trips and various amenities, thus offering up that so-called 'power' to the critics, if the return is not worth it? Or, is it?

DevGEM · 1 year ago

Mr. Anonymous has the right to say what he feels, and I respect his right to say it, defend it even, but I don't agree with some of it, and some of the stuff will *never* happen.

Take for instance, real video game journalists. Sorry, won't ever happen. You''ve got way too many people reviewing games within the industry who still act like they're in high school, and it reflects in their review tone and score, and as long as the gaming community finds this mentality acceptable, then nothing's ever going to change. Triple AAA games will get unfair scores without being throughly evaluated and lesser games will get shoved aside. He is right. The industry needs to grow up, and it has to start from within.

However, and this is a big however, the companies NEED to stop with the press junkets, pulling advertising and banning certain sites/magazines from getting content. That, in itself, is very childish, and it needs to grow up, too. I understand that a bottom line needs to be maintained, but so does respect and a terms of agreement.

They also need to understand how real journalists work, the ones who don't act like they're still living within the frat house and partying with their brothers. I was one of them who was working on a couple of small-time, independent sites. It doesn't compare to IGN or GameSpot, but my future employers didn't care. It still looked good on the ol' resume.

Anyway, I never received a free game or reviewable code because I wouldn't accept it. It goes against my ideals and ethics. I always bought or rented the games when they first came out, sat down and played them straight through, most of the time getting 100% item completion, etc., and then write up an 800 - 1,200-word review as soon as the credits rolled on the screen. Do you know how exhautive that is to do in one to three days' time seven to ten times a month? And it had to be edited and posted ASAP because readers are VERY impatient and want the reviews now. It's why I won't go back. It's not worth the stress or the aggrevation.

Sorry for the long post. The media industry is something I'm very passionate about as I've been working in it for six years.

yakityyakblah · 1 year ago

I can definitely see anonymous' side of things. It would definitely suck slaving away for countless hours trying to make a game for a specific audience and have a reviewer the game is not intended for simply dismiss it. I also understand that things like hype can get in the way of an honest score. Too Human is definitely a disappointment, but it isn't a terrible game. Anyone who thinks Dyack's frequent adventures in making an ass of himself didn't affect a single score, you probably havn't been paying attention.

I think though, that mob tactics like pulling advertising and with holding previews only encourages unprofessionalism. When before you may have a lazy journalist, you might just create a righteously indignant journalist. Not to mention that said journalist can gain respect and eyes by exposing any funny business on the pr side. All the pr seems to gain is a magazine's fanbase of people who don't trust them anymore. Even if strong arming the journalists does work, that just takes the credibility of that outlet away. Just look at Gamespot, how much did that ordeal help people's perceptions of Kane and Lynch?

Two wrongs don't make a right. If journalists are half assing their jobs then people will figure it out. Whether the scores are positive or negative people can figure out when the reviews are sincere.

To the people who spend their lives on something that fails, I am honestly sorry for them. They have to realize that ultimately a games success is based on quality. More so then any other industry, quality counts. Sometimes good intentions and hardwork can amount to failure. Good people can make shitty games, it's just a sad fact.

Pierce · 1 year ago

Awesome reply. Just awesome.

Chris Tilton · 1 year ago

Honestly, from someone who's been a reader of game reviews, and eventually gone into development... the complaints on both sides are BS. You put out a good game and most will praise it as such... you put out a bad game, and most will condemn it as such. Sure there are variables and opinions. Happens in every medium. It's part of the process. Deal with it!

Just do your best and put out a game that's good and speaks for itself. You do that, and people will follow.

There's a reason that there is much anticipation that TGS will reveal Team ICO's latest project.

Palpatim · 1 year ago

If that's the case, why does Greg Costikyan feel the need to develop a new publishing paradigm for indy games? It's because developing the game isn't enough: In a saturated market, even good games--hell, even *great* games--need to be exposed to a wide audience before they can take off and sell enough copies to justify their enormous development expense.

Chris Tilton · 1 year ago

You make a good point, but, like the film industry, day one sales are almost ALL on the marketing department. Marketing is very important, but you don't need to try and use the gaming press as marketing tools. You don't see film studios hounding Roger Ebert to give their films more coverage. The studios have press screenings, then the press reviews them. Then you have marketing campaigns to spread the word. I don't see why it needs to be any different for the gaming industry.

CooperHawkes · 1 year ago

This is a vicious cycle that isn't going to break anytime soon. The publishers feel that the journalist needs to spend time with the game, which is reasonable, but the journalist has dozens of games that need to be reviewed because publishers are pushing out product like an assembly line.

People have mentioned movie reviewers, the problem there is movies require you to only watch and listen, not make choices, nor is there an expectation to check out anything deeper than what is seen. Pointing out something like Christopher Nolan shooting half of Harvey Dent's face in shadows at some points is very observant, but for a complete review a gaming journalist probably needs to find ALL the Halo 3 skulls and GTA Pigeons. That's daunting as a gamer, can you imagine what it must be when a deadline is looming and you have two more games to go through?

What the gaming industry needs is to slow down, they are offering almost TOO much at once. Think of this holiday season's line up: I have 11 games that I really really REALLY want to play. That's in the span of a four month period. Most of those games take a minimum of 15 hours to play. That's just games I want to play, there are at least another dozen coming.

Movies have the luxury of being over when they are over, and where your initial impression is usually the correct one. Subsequent views are rarely necessary, but in gaming it's a requirement.

I guess my little diatribe is saying: There's no easy answer to this riddle.

Michael Walbridge · 1 year ago

Leigh Alexander's 9-3 post on her blog revealed her thoughts as she reviewed a game that was from a genre she doesn't like. Good read--she handled it well.

My suggestion: do it Game Informer style, only have 1 review be for people who like the genre and one for people who only occasionally dabble in that genre and are "outside" it.

Wolfwood · 1 year ago

I want to say it's refreshing to see the amount of dialogue and honesty Shoe and Crispin's blog has been starting to open up.

To the anonymous PR guy, you are correct about reviewers who don't play a game to completion aren't being fair to the game, developer, and publisher. That's not even fair to the gamer. The qualifications and skills of reviewers are too often lacking, I can surely agree. Hell, didn't IGN higher a reviewer after she sent in pics or herself fellating a PSP?

"This is not to say a bad game should get a free pass, but every game should be given a fair appraisal, with considerations made for target market and price."

The problem is, games aren't cheap things. Most new games are typically $50-$60+ tax. Sometimes $70+ in the SNES/Genesis era. That's a lot more than $10 or less for a movie ticket or $20 or less per DVD. Sure, a game CAN give you a lot more than 2 hours in front of a screen, but that's assuming it's good. When it's a $60+ sinkhole, first it eats your money, then your time, if you can stomach it. In the end, it can be a very painful and bitter experience, hence probably part of the reason why the so-called 'hardcore' crowd can be a very jaded and cannibalistic group.

Is $60 really fair for a generic cookie-cutter game, that no one will remember in 1 month, even if it's technically proficient and not a bug-laden mess? Or one that doesn't aspire to be anything beyond the current status quo? It's certainly not worth my cash. As a PR person, the game's quality is surely out of your hands (or so I would guess), but the consumer shouldn't be expected to foot the bill, if your product is generic or generic +1.

Anyway, if you really have faith in the value of your game, maybe you should re-think pricing to reach a larger audience, or better yet (no reason to give up that $60 if you think you earned it), offer a full-refund within a week after purchase, if you really believe in your product. Most gamers wouldn't mind keeping something if they felt it was worth the value you sell it for.

C Simpson · 1 year ago

Very few games deserve to cost $60.

The fact that The Simpsons Game from EA cost the same as COD4 when it came out... unbelievable. I own both and they're not in the same league.

Games trying to deserve their $60 price-tag but not making it are going to get slammed. I guarantee that if Simpsons Game came out at $29.99... people would have said, huh, it has camera-control problems, but it's fun for what you pay.

The fact that these B-C level games end up $29.99 within 6 months (usually in the used bin at Gamestop) only shows that the game reviewers are 95% dead-on.

Charge what the game is worth vs. the competition (not what your inflated EA development team costs, or what marketing says it should go for)... or prepare to incur the wrath of a jaded gaming public. Cause it'll keep happening.

LBaxter · 1 year ago

"Right off the bat, it needs to be remembered that most serious..."

Don't care. This is a business transaction. I'm in the market for a product meeting my specifications. Some game journalist share my sensibilities so their voices have more clout then others. If your product doesn't meet their criteria and is chastised because of it, doesn't matter to me if your people are crying themselves to sleep at night. I have a finite amount of play money and a lot of dickheads clambering for it.

"What many gamers don’t understand is how busy journalists can be – and also how lazy..."

I have to agree with most of this statement. Far too many preening hacks slap the title "journalist" to their name and expect everyone to bow and scrape before their holy wisdom. So I can't blame a publisher who doesn't want to conduct business with a goofball. On the other hand publishers and developers who think beta copies of games deserve a immunity from critical thinking are kidding themselves. If a journalist spots flaws in control schemes, game mechanics or technical hiccups (stuttering frame rates, torn textures) it's their responsibility to call this out early. YOURS is the business with the reputation of shipping out products with show stopping bugs. So forgive a journo his transgressions in calling out issues they hope will be addressed before shipment of the title. Because all too often your industry knowingly ships out bug filled games and after a decade of this bullshit you still expect a free pass?

"The fact is game journalists – of which there are hundreds at the moment – are living off the blood sweat and tears of creative people who love games and regularly work 100 hours weeks..."

This isn't a parasitic relationship. Both of these organizations rely on one another to squeeze money out of gamers. Developers/Publishers need the blood sweet and tears of reputable journalists to get their games noticed. Buy all the Gamespot, Gamespy and 1UP reviews you won't, nobody listens to those shrills anyway. When dealing with the smaller groups like Joystiq, Arstechnica, Kotaku and Destructoid, you're getting millions of dollars in free advertising and what did it cost you, A video game before street date? That's a hell of a bargain and you're bitching about it.

You can't fault an entire industry for calling a crappy product to the carpet. It's really that simple. Sounds like the real problem is PR folks who don't play games and start to believe their own marketing hyperbole. Not every game is a diamond, in fact most are just smelly lumps of coal.

I'd like to add another thing. Do you really expect consumers to take serious the video game journalist industry when EVERY game is receiving a 90% rating? Do you PR types really believe that's a sustainable operation?

Ooh Ben Kuchera, Frank Caron you guys kick ass!

OperatorC · 1 year ago

Well said. Well said!

It's like you took my thoughts and expressed them for me.

Kudos!

DanPhilpott · 1 year ago

While a call for "real" journalism is well considered it is not possible to have "real" journalism by insisting on your right to bias journalists who do not acceded to your position.

Speaking as neither journalist or publisher I will state that this is not a bilateral contest. The consumers are also a player in this drama. As a consumer I want to know which games are good and which are not. In order to select a game I seek out reviews from journalists I have learned to trust. Sometimes they hate a perfectly good game, sometimes they will love an awful game and sometimes they will be perfectly lucid in their observations. Only over the course of several reviews do I learn to trust a reviewers instincts on game play and how they relate to what I perceive as good game play.

If a reviewer plays 2 hours and pans a game with 30 hours of game play, disparaging the thousands of hours of blood sweat and tears the development team contributed then that is as it should be. His instincts say that further play isn't worthwhile, after 2 hours it didn't draw him in. It doesn't matter to me as a consumer how much effort the publisher exerted in putting the game out. It only matters to me whether I want to put my money on the counter to buy that game.

When a publisher starts to bias a journalist to provide more favorable reviews that inevitably leads to a loss of trust in the reviewers, Without that earned trust the journalists efforts are without value. As a consumer I turn to someone who is more likely to speak to truth. So game publishers do themselves a disservice when they seek to accomplish this goal.

Should the game reviewers ever get together and agree to a common set of ethical guidelines (e.g., not accepting early review copies, rejecting 'special relationships' with game publishers, reciprocal relationships to pull all ads should a game publisher try to pull the 'ad buys' from any one of them, etc.) then we might end up with "real" journalism in this industry.

Jason McMaster · 1 year ago

While all of this is compelling, there's one thing that seems to be overlooked here: if your game is not fun or interesting, no matter how many developers worked on it or love it, it's still not fun or interesting. Not everyone that plays your unique snowflake of a game is going to think it worthy of praise. There's a reason that "Cop Rock" was canceled, and I'm sure a lot of people worked on that. When it comes down to it, a review is an opinion, and whether you like it or not, not everyone is going to think that whatever new product you're pushing is the best.

This reminds me of Mr. Show, the episode about "Coupon" the Movie. In this episode, the public dislike the movie so all the producers are very upset. They go out and sue the entirety of America and force them to watch it. The satire involved is that just because you spent a ton of money and time on something, doesn't mean that people will like it.

What this really brings up is whether or not YOU know anything about the games industry. Most people don't read reviews. They go into a store, pick up whatever trash may have just been shoveled out, buy it and play it. When the games industry stops making crap, people will stop calling it that.

"Right off the bat, it needs to be remembered that most serious games are projects that have involved dozens, if not hundreds of people for years (not talking about the licensed crap). The developer, in most cases, kills itself to get a game completed. Any good PR people working for a game publisher understand what a developer goes through, and should fight hard to get the game looked at by journalists fairly. This is not to say a bad game should get a free pass, but every game should be given a fair appraisal, with considerations made for target market and price."

SO? When I review a game, I think about the fact that they cost people, on average, 60 bucks each. Not everyone works in a job where they can go out and just throw away 60 dollars. So, if your game is not good, and I don't think people will enjoy it, I will tell them so. We owe you nothing. I'm not asking for my ass to be kissed, I could care less if you do, but I'm asking that you stop crying whenever your latest FPS clone comes out with a new, brightly-colored gadget and it's not enough to give you a 10/10. Life is unfair.

You know all those authors that work for years writing a book, getting a publisher and then getting bad reviews? How about the movie industry. How about EVERY industry. That's how business goes. Take some responsibility and stop trying to blame people.

Skye N · 1 year ago

Good points. This whole blog entry has really overlooked the bottom line at point of purchase. It's very much like recording an album beautifully, where the sonic qualities are second to none...... But all the songs suck, and the whole ALBUM sucks by association.

Don't give me this blood, sweat and tears shit. Everyone working for a publisher and developer is paid fairly, and in most cases well. They already earned their paycheck, yet somehow consumers are responsible for a game's market loss? Game reviewers are responsible? Yeah right. And there are *still* mediocre titles - the Halo 3s, the Assasin's Creeds, the Bioshocks - that get free passes and greatly overinflated scores anyway. If that that doesn't demonstrate blatant bias (and probably bribes since those titles are all types of awufl), I have no idea what would.

I know exactly where Anonymous is coming from. I just don't make excuses like he does.

Simon · 1 year ago

Agree on the bit about the uselessness of reviews talking about how the game could be more enjoyable to play. That sort of contrustive critisism is useless to the readers, talking about a game that might be rather then the game that is. It's talking to the developers rather then to the gaming audience.
Everything else though, dude, so wrong. From this player's point of view journos are more on the developers side rahter then our. Talking more to the developer, more considerate to the developer then to us.
For god's sake, completely unplayable games, games shipped with broken code won't even get bottom scores. Completely average, unremarkable, me-too games get 7's and B's rather then average scores.

Joe Rybicki · 1 year ago

I really appreciate Anonymous' insights, but I can't agree with the idea that game critics need to know how games are made. There's a place for that, certainly, but most critics are reviewing games for an audience of consumers -- not would-be game designers.

I've always thought of reviewers as sort of surrogates for the consumer; our job isn't to criticize a game from the perspective of how difficult it was to design, but rather from the perspective of how entertaining it is to play -- ultimately, to answer the question, "Is this worth your money?"

I think the more you focus on how a game is made or what it's made of, the less you're able to communicate the experience of actually playing it. You get into this arcane underworld that's of no help whatsoever to the consumer -- it's the reason so many movie critics routinely bash films that audiences love (example: check out the Metacritic ratings for the first X-Men, an enormously entertaining movie), and it's the reason Anthony Bourdain can with a straight face recommend eating the entire head of a sheep. You get too deep into how its done and you lose sight of what your audience -- i.e., average people -- really needs to know: Is this something I'm going to enjoy?

FalconX · 1 year ago

I don't think big Movie publishers play these games with movie reviews.. and I've never read a review that says it is an "A" for people that like comedy, but and "F" for people that like horror. The reviewers of movies tell us if it is a good movie or not. Additionally, a movie reviewer doesn't need to know squat about the process of making a film and give them credit because they had to go on location or some other hardship. They can simply tell us if it is a good movie or not. I think there is "real" game journalism, but not "real" game publishers.

Game is entertainment, movie is entertainment. $ per hour entertaining is what it breaks down to.. so I expect similar review style.

Lou · 1 year ago

Hey shoe i'm a LONG time EGM and 1up reader just wanted to say how much i appreciate you and crispin for starting this blog. Though this is my first comment on the blog i have been reading whenever you guys update it. just wanted to say THANKS!!

Mucudadada · 1 year ago

Shoe and Crispin, you are about to get a bunch more traffic becasue this just got picked up by Kotaku...

Jason Price · 1 year ago

After reading a few comments I had to stop, all these people complaining and ranting on how things should be done, and how they have these perfect solutions. Right now, that's now how it is. Two sides to every story.

On one side, you have the PR people who are paid to make things look good. That's their job, if something is crappy, they hide it, or blunt you over the head with the positives that outlook the negatives. That's why there here.

I like that reviewers can point these things out and tell someone. "You know, this thing is flawed or it dosn't fit the theme of this game at all it takes me out of the un-reality of the game" and the PR person does his best to get the ideas back to them, to fix or they get chewed out because they want things changed all the way around, and they just spent months on making 1 or a few things work.

Game reviewers hopefully try there best, but somedays (ex: This October) another slew of games comes out. They can't spend hours working on a review like he said. Ya gotta play 2 levels or so and get a opinion and I bet they don't see much story or much of anything. A tutorial level..telling you what to do and such, and another level that boosts some story or mechanic and they have to gave a review on it.

Like I said, some people are trying their best, while other's seem to fall through the cracks of this. Just like any person in power.

I for one, take nothing as garanteed. 1up may give it a A+ and say best game ever, but I'll take it as advice from a friend. I know we have different tastes, and not everything eye to eye, but if some company boasts some good play mechanic, and he says it's alright. I might take his word, I might not.

I say rental places will never close down, people will always like renting before buying things. Democracy is the best thing we got so far, and were all trying.

Sorry for the rant, but I loved the article.

MOT · 1 year ago

I was actually feeling this editorial piece until you said that for "real " jounalism, game reviewers have to have a knowledge about game development. That's like saying to everybody that reviews a movie 'You can't have a valid review until you know what goes into making a game.' I;m sorry, but you lost me.

And that also opened my eyes to the article. What this essentially is a whiny rant that we've heard a bunch of times before, that reviewers don't know what it takes to make a game, and it makes us feel like shit when they walk over it. Art critics, movie critics, comic book critics, don't have to know what goes into making those types of media. Fact is, it's a consumable product. You want us to spend 50-60 bucks on a game, we have a right to learn every positive/negative aspect of it.

I think PR managers, developers, and producers don't get that, which is why there is such a devide between us.

DevGEM · 1 year ago

Mr. Anonymous wrote: "The industry has been crying out for “real” journalism for a long time now. What this means to me is not harsher reviews, but thoughtful analysis about games, real knowledge of game development, and a deep history of playing games."

I will agree with Joe up there. Knowing how a game developed is trivial tripe when it comes to reviewing games. I mean, really, who cares. Mr. Anonymous' comments on that matter was very absurd and thoughtless. As a past reviewer, game player and reader of reviews, I could care less of how a game is made when it comes to reading a review and knowing what the reviewer liked or didn't like about the game.

If I saw something like this in a review, "It took the developer X-million dollars and X amount of months to develop this game, and their brilliant team of engineers used X program on 10 Y computers to..." See where I'm going with this? Who cares! None of it is relevant. if I did see that in several reviews, chances are, that magazine/website would lose a reader.

And let me propose a question to everyone: When did games get overwhelmed in the push and shove game of politics? Whatever happened to just playing for fun instead of all three factions -- gamers, producers/developers, gaming journalists -- trying to make the others conform to a certain set of unrealistic standards, and when no one does, everyone is quick to cry out that something's unfair or pull childish tactics?

The last line in Mr. Anonomous' speaks volumes compared to what I have to say: So the battles will rage on!

Games used to be fun. Now they're not because of all the politics behind it. It makes me want to hang up my gaming hat for good. :(

zombie wizard · 1 year ago

Specialisation in reviewers is a ridiculous idea. If your FPS guy only does FPS and your racing guy only does racing who reviews something unique like Spore? Not only that, but if someone who primarily plays, say, FPS games really likes a rhythm game or RPG when they're disinterested in the genre as a whole that's actually the best indication that it's worth playing.
Reviewers should state their backgrounds, but they don't have to have any background in particular. This isn't objective: all viewpoints are valid, and having a spread available allows readers to find one that matches their own.

Devilyote · 1 year ago

I don't feel it's a reviewer's duty to consider the process of game-making when reviewing the product. The target audience should be taken into consideration when judging the game, but in the end it's the execution. If a video game is trying to accomplish a cinematic-like experience, it should be judged in that context, in which case I believe many games would be justly criticized. If you are setting yourself up as an 'experience', rather than just a series of objectives, you have to judge the game by its narrative structure and flow as well as its underlying mechanics.

Current video game journalism does not do this, and for good reason: the narrative structure in video games is bad. Video games are built up around a target audience, and the story flows from that. I know it's cynical to say, but I get the impression that ideas for video games come from focus testing, and after a bunch of suits determine how burly the main character should be and what kinds of firepower he gets to use, artistic creativity comes second. This is the equivalent to thinking up a title first, and then writing the book.

So what standards are games supposed to be judged by? If there are no rules for game development, how can there be rules for game journalism? Movie reviewers agree on one thing: judge the movie by its execution. What kind of experience are you getting, and how well is it pulled off? Is it trying to accomplish a specific mood or simply entertain?

If a game is supposed to be pure, mindless entertainment, it's easier to judge. When a game tries to be ambitious, here's where actual journalism is important, because suddenly you're not just criticizing the game, you need to criticize the atmosphere, the mise-en-scen, the whole package.

Game developers, then, have to be aware that there will be higher standards than merely appreciating the effort put into their work. As frustrating it may be to hear, high scores should not be rewarded for effort. If the idea is uninspired, or derivative, or poorly embodied, that should be laid at the feet of whoever decided to think up the concept first, and the experience second.

A lot of time and money goes into game development, but I wouldn't feel remorseful for letting loose on a poorly conceived game. I shouldn't have to be harangued by a developer to understand what makes a game special; the game should speak for itself. I think there's a giant creativity deficit in video games today. Games cost so much to make that developers are scared of taking risks.

I would probably not get very far if I sought out a career in games journalism because I have too much respect for narrative structure to appreciate the countless hours of work that went into making a half-cooked experience. Games are designed for too specific of an audience. Did Spielberg micro-target Indiana Jones to appeal to a niche, and simply get lucky? I don't think so.

There is no universality in games. This is a problem, because judging a game should not have to rely on its niche. Its target audience, yes. It shouldn't have to go as narrow as reviewing a game specifically for a "fantasy action/RPG FSP MMO" niche. If you let game developers dictate how their games should be reviewed, there's going to be a loss in quality of both the product and the review.

Game developers are too interested in pleasing their audience to take creative risks that would benefit them in the long term. It's all oriented around returning their investment, and going the safest route to ensure they get it. I appreciate that there are a lot of hard-working artists and programmers slaving away to get their product to market, but the people managing them don't have a clue about creating an experience that stays fresh in gamers' minds for more than two months. How can an industry thrive on throw-away serials and not expect to be criticized for it? Should we applaud Disney every time it hashes out one of its successful classics into a creatively worthless franchise?

I don't see how developers can you take pride in a body of work knowing that it will be forgotten almost as soon as it was released. Pride in one's effort can only go so far before it turns into ego. If I were going to invest millions of dollars and hours of combined effort into making a product, I would want to make absolutely sure it would leave an impression that lasted longer than the fiscal cycle. That would mean investing in concept-smiths who think beyond target audiences and stay true to making an unforgettable experience.

In my opinion, a game can't just be an impressive, polished graphics demo with a weak story as an afterthought. If you want to break video games out of their poor reputation and give them some artistic credibility, you can't complain when a reviewer gives you an unfavorable score. Instead, try studying classic books, movies, and music to understand what made them great, and apply that to your game.

And for God's sake, hire some decent writers.

Michael Mayday · 1 year ago

Gotta question, kinda sorta unrelated, kinda sorta not. Here:

Jeff Green has announced that he's leaving Ziff Davis for EA. He's going to work on the Sims team. Which is all fine and dandy. Maybe. Does his working at EA change how EGM, or Ziff Davis in general, treat EA? Will he being an ex-coworker present moral problems when, and if, any of the 1up staff interviews him?

Pierce · 1 year ago

Mr. Green's new job at EA is picking up trashcans and mopping the floor, so 1UP won't be interviewing him.

Pierce · 1 year ago

I thought someone else would answer you seriously by now.

I don't think they'll be interviewing him as a representative. In all likelihood, Jeff'll return once in a while (a little uncommonly, but casually) to write an editorial or to appear on one of the podcasts. Luke Smith left 1UP to work for Bungie, and as far as I know, he wasn't a publicist or PR or representative for any Halo merchandise to 1UP. When Luke Smith joined the 1UP Yours podcast at Penny Arcade Expo (PAX), there didn't seem to be any animosity as a result of this.

Indeed, even when Shane Bettenhausen of EGM tried to bait Luke (possibly into another famous "You Shut The Fuck Up!"?) by saying that a famous thread on the 1UP Boards had people saying that a certain game had better graphics than Halo 3. Luke responded very calmly, saying, "They're entitled to their opinions." So, it's probably no big deal... but then again, EA is kind of this huge monstrosity thing! :D

PS: About Shane baiting Luke... after Luke responded, some guy in the audience asked Shane, "Did YOU post it??" Hahaha!

portorikan · 1 year ago

I appreciate this person being brave enough to share what they have and I appreciate Dan for sharing it with us. He certainly didn't have to, and it paints a negative photo of the side of the industry he was involved in.

All in all, sadly there are sacrifices that need to be made on both sides. Sometimes, when that happens, some people may not like it. People have families to feed and bills to take care of. Everyone does the best they can with what they've been given.

Thanks for being fair.

Cereal · 1 year ago

What ever happened to the value of demo's? There seem to be few and fewer completed demos that accurately depict the game. Do your job and I'll care about your frustration with Game Reviewers. Until then, honeslty if ALL you give us to judge your game on is these reviews your own company doesn't trust, then why are you even trying? A great demo will beat any reviewers opinion, hatred, or lack of effort.

A picture is worth a 1,000 words...How much is a movie worth and beyond that, how much is a playable demo worth?

Tim · 1 year ago

this letter aggain shows that publishers and developers have problem with overall understanding of ethics. There is inherited conflict of interest between publishers and journalist. Publishers pay for huge chunk of ad space in the same magazines that pay journaliost to review games. Also the review by magazines have significant effect on sales. And when the publishers can directly influence the magazine through methods described above, it is a scum, no more no less. Also the reasons above which state that journalists are lazy is BS.

Also the whole fact that RTS journalist should look at RTS genre and FPS at FPS is just crazy. There are like 10 RTS titles coming out each year and only about 2-3 are AAA productions. It is pretty easy job.

I just don't pay any attention to reviews any more. Sometimes is gets so rediculous I am reading the review and it explains the game is very similar to the previous one and there is no much innovation. I am like thinking 8.0 mayne 7.5 and then boom 9.5. I am like wtf. (IGN Halo 3 Review)

Tom · 1 year ago

Good read. As a developer in the industry I agree (and appreciate) some of the comments made, but I also disagree on one major point. I don't think we (as developers) should be asking the gaming press to be cutting us slack because they represent the consumers who absolutely don't care how hard we worked on the project. If the game is bad in their eyes, our troubles are irrelevant.

We shouldn't lose sight of that fact.

8675309 · 1 year ago

i agree if say a company who sells AV advertises on a site that reviews them then most likely they will get a good review. my isp did an article comparing free AV including their free norton which dont work in safe mode. basicly they suggested to go with AVG Free if your computer is low end old.

http://yahoo.rogers.com/yahoo/spotlight/tech_ma...

8675309 · 1 year ago

another example is the nvidia laptop gpu fiasco. where they say good things and then 6 months down the road these laptop gpus melt down. just to say 3 of the 4 nvidia desktop cards i have used all sucked! & the 4th is getting there.

Happyclam · 1 year ago

In all honesty, if a game isn't fun for the first couple of hours, why would you want to play it? It's like eating food that tastes like shit the first couple of bites. Why the hell you gonna finish it up?
Reviews are totally subjective. What one person likes, another might not. Some person likes the game for the art, another totally hates the art. A reviewers job is simply to cover the bases. Let people know what the game has to offer and then offer his judgment on how /they/ liked the game.
A prime example that is recent is Age of Conan. The developer played it exactly right, knowing that reviewers wouldn't play past the first 20 levels, so that's where they concentrated the most effort and it paid off big time. But, just as quickly, the game died when people realized there wasn't anything past those first 20 levels. It also hurt the developer because now people view them with distrust and disgust.
The whole idea behind the review isn't the play the game all the way through, but simply to provide information to let the consumer make an informed decision. When you put several reviews together from different sources, you can generally get an idea of what a game is like.
PR, by it's function, is bullshit. It's not about fair reviews. It's about getting the word out about the game. To get that game as popular as it can. To spin it as good as they can, even if it is the biggest pile of crap to ever pass through the doors. You give away swag to get good vibes about your company. You advertise to get people to wonder what you are. You pep up descriptions to make it seem like it's a lot more than it really is. Talking about fair reviews is simply putting another spin on bullshit. It's simply trying to manipulate the environment to make the game look as good as possible.

BZ · 1 year ago

It's obvious game reviews, for the most part, do not get the same amount of review time. That's a fundamental flaw that will never change.

My question is: Why does a review need an author/commentator when the fact is not everyone is going to agree and should, on their own merit, come to their own conclusion? Just demonstrate the games (1st-time through each mode once) and let those who see it, make their own judgments and decide.

Imagine having a butler at each arcade machine yapping away about the game as you approach it before you decide to insert your quarter/token to play, yeah it's silly, but I see it that way sometimes. Let the game demonstrate itself, and let gamers decide from there. I think demos prove this.

Anonymouse Game Exec · 1 year ago

This is right on. As a former game company executive, I couldn't believe the poor quality of journalism and how it could affect the perception of a game. Among my pet peeves:

Metacritic is a major culprit, but replace "Metacritic" with almost any review site in the following points:

1) Metacritic - Some journalists would rush a poor critical score to be first, and thereby set the trend for

2) Metacritic lemmings - other journalists more eager to jump on the bandwagon than do their own thinking, research, and honest game-play review. A statistical analysis of game scores easily shows a correlation between initial scores and ultimate scores. I have no doubt that some publishers do everything they can to ensure that the first scores posted are high.

3) Lack of any "bar" on journalist credentials for scores posted. Any schmuck calling themselves a journalist can post a ridiculously low score and a shoddy review.

4) Lack of reasonable algorithms for review posting - such as collect the first 10 reviews before any score is posted. This contributes to all of the above points.

5) No "sanity" algorithm on ridiculously low scores. A disgruntled or unprofessional journalist can pull a game down by simply posting a 0 or a 30 for a game that WAS averaging 80 or 90. This is an absolute travesty.

Game publishers and developers have no say in these matters, and have no choice but to "grin and bear it". They hope that these scores don't "really" affect sales, but of course they do. I see this as one of the major problems of the games industry and it should be addressed.

1) Review sites should themselves be rated and approved by the game development organizations
2) Minimum standards for journalists should be established, before they are allowed to post a review score, and their scores should be weighted by factors like "years in journalism"
3) Minimum-bar algorithms should be established, such as dropping ridiculously low scores and accumulating at least 10 reviews before posting them
4) Journalists should certify that they've actually played the game before being allowed to post a review

What is done about this problem can certainly be debated and discussed, and these suggestions may ore may not have merit, but the problem is absoultely real and absolutely should be addressed.

DevGEM · 1 year ago

Well said except for one part, which I'll touch on later in the post.

I will agree with you there needs to be a set amount of years in real journalism before anyone can call themselves a real journalist, or at least have a B.A. in journalism before you're given the privilege to get behind a keyboard and write out an X-word game review. If you're caught showing any bias, then there needs to be repercussions, but only from within that building's population that the review was written in. It's not the job or duty of the gamers or companies to dish out the punishments.

I also agree that journalists should certify if they've played the game to its full extent or not, but there's no way to know that unless his/her boss is looking over their shoulder and make sure it happens. Who has time for that or wants to do that though? Just because a writer says, "I've played the game and finished it 100%" doesn't always make it true. That's where trust comes in. Gamers are smart enough to know who actually played the game and who's writing a big bunch of garbage, and they'll divide their trust accordingly.

What I won't agree with is this: "1) Review sites should themselves be rated and approved by the game development organizations."

That's a huge violation in ethical standards. If that happened, the scenerio would be like this:

X amount of companies who didn't appreciate the honest reviews their game got by
Y amount of gaming media outlets could rate the media outlet as low as they want and encourage others within their feild to do the same. Word would be quickly be spread in the game development community about those sites and then everyone would have a chance of scoring them as low as they want. Advertising would get pulled left and right, no one from the media outlet would get paid and it'd die a pennyless death.

This method could easily be used to corece the least favorable sites to "change their ways" or get put out of business because of this new type of power the developers could hold over the media outlets. Then where's the trust and the credibility from both the media outlets and the developers?

If the practice ever became a hidden reality, don't think it wouldn't get uncovered. Remember, we do live in the information age. There are no more secrets. Everyone and everything is fair game.

Anonymouse Game Exec · 1 year ago

Good points all. Again, don't throw out the baby with the bathwater...my suggestions are not the only way to solve these problems. Many of hte best action items have nothing to do with the journalists or what they do...simply holding reviews until 10 of them have been submitted and having some common-sense rules around the extreme review scores (through out the high and low, etc.) would make a huge difference.

I would agree wholeheartedly that industry control over journalism would be as bad the other way as it is now.

Flavius · 1 year ago

With all due respect, I hope you didn't apply this same sort of logic in your position as a game executive:

1. Correlations and causations are two separate entities. To say that early, low scores cause subsequent low scores is a leap I'm not willing to take without further evidence. Is there a correlation? Absolutely, but to say that it is what it is here is a bit silly.

2. Your former fellow gaming executives are just as much to blame for the increased emphasis on metacritic averages as anyone else. By using metacritic as a basis for determining bonuses, projects, and indeed, termination of employment decisions, you and your fellow executives have only increased it's power and hold over the industry. Further, at least half of your reply deals with your issues regarding metacritic and aggregators in general, not game journalism (whatever the hell that is). It is either lazy or deceptive on your part to lump these issues in with your criticism of the enthusiast press.

3. Review sites should be rated and approved by the game development organizations? Thanks for personifying much of what is wrong with the enthusiast press. You already have a PR department. You want "quality journalism" so long as you have control over it. Do you see the problem here?

4. One of your minimum standards for journalists would be centered on their years in the industry? Hello! Many of the guys that you devs...er, ex-devs have problems with are the guys who have been banging around in the enthusiast press for quite some time and aren't quite so willing to kiss developers' asses on a regular basis. Perhaps the best best for you and your cohorts would be precisely the opposite: you cannot have been a member of the enthusiast press for more than a year, you must live in an apartment shared by you and several of your co-workers, and you must really be in dire need of a nice meal, a fancy trip, etc.

5. You want the reviewers to "certify" they've actually played the game they are reviewing? How fucking insulting. Here's a thought: why don't you gather up a bunch of developers and see how successful you are in getting them all to certify that everything they do is simply for the benefit of their fans, the consumers, and not their shareholders. Good luck with that.

For what it's worth, the problem isn't the people previewing or reviewing the games. It's the fact that the system is set up in a such a way that you're all in bed together, but not fucking. You've got a line drawn down the center of the room, splitting the bed in two, and you've got a shower curtain hanging up there as well, but it isn't getting the job done. The guys who get it right are the guys who are going to refuse to accept advertising dollars from the publishers, who'll write whatever the fuck they want to write, and let the chips fall where they may. It'll be this, or it'll be Japan. I'm confident in saying that a change is coming, for better or worse.

Manilla Killa · 1 year ago

The #1 point is a real phenomena that we in PR call the 'dogpile effect.' If I hadn't seen it first hand I wouldn't have believed it either. It make you think that most game critics are just little lemmings.

JustinL · 1 year ago

There are tons of sites that I've never heard of who get as much of a say in Metacritic scores than the bigger and -- dare I say -- more reputable outlets. Perhaps the problem is falsely legitimizing them. Perhaps GameLuv2000.com shouldn't have a piece of the Metacritic pie equal to GameSpot or EGM. Maybe low-level "fan sites" are the culprits you and other publisher types are hating on -- because I didn't witness any of these things occurring at the professional sites I wrote reviews for.

I'm all for reviewers being up for criticism -- critics should be able to take as well as you give -- but your ideals are a little extremist and honestly laughable. Lie-detector test to ensure the reviewer played the game they reviewed? Suits from publishers having critic "approval" power? Sites keeping from publishing completed reviews? None of that is every going to happen.

Games are going to receive high ends and low ends of the scoring spectrum; that's what averages are for. Yet in your one entry you both insult reviews that post "copycat" scores, while also insulting those who post scores off the beaten path. You say reviewers rush to put out early bad scores, but also they rush to put out early high scores. Huh? If you're going to blame someone for your unhappiness with Metacritic averages, blame the stockholders who think they matter.

I can't help but imagine your emotional response is attributed to a sub-70 Metacritic average to one of your games -- which robbed you of a bonus that would've paid for a new BMW to replace your 2-year-old model. It'd be harder to imagine you're looking out for the people spending hard-earned money on your games...but I could be wrong.

Karsten · 1 year ago

I think game journalists who play say racing games should be able to review fps or rpg games. This is called professialism where you review a game based on its strengths and not because of your personal opinion of the game or the genre. I mean I enjoy both playing rpg and fps games.

I, too, have long abandoned game reviews from major gaming sites. I only trust people's opinions about the games in which I'm interested. This means I read a lot
of forums where people post their opinions on the games I play.

Troy Goodfellow · 1 year ago

And if a reviewer enjoys playing both, as you do, he is probably qualified to give opinions on them. Me? I've played two FPSes in the last five years and I refuse to review the genre - I just don't have the experience to appreciate what is new and what is old hat.

It's not about whether you like a genre so much as whether or not you have the context for it.

Contrary to what Anonymous alleges, though, most of the big sites have genre specialists. There are a very few polymaths out there who review games from every genre and platform. But Steve Butts does not review shooters. Desslock does not review racing games. Andy Mahood does not touch RPGs. While lack of genre context is certainly a problem with smaller sites, at these places the errors tend to be in the publisher's favor - any complicated strategy game is called "deep" and pretty shooter is called "immersive".

Lena · 1 year ago

I have to only slightly agree with Anon from Big Publisher, some games suck and no amount of whining and protesting Gaming Sites because of bad reviews will change that, but also bribing these sites to give good reviews is just pathetic too. The PR guys will probaly deny "influencing" 9.0 scores on certain game sites but its been plainly obvious certain game sites which i will not name was bribed. That is part of the problem too, so I do agree Game Journalism definatly needs a Professional Overhaul, games arent a niche anymore, its a million dollar industry, we should have Professionals like Music Mags or Movie Mags have.

Carlos · 1 year ago

Thank you so much for posting these Shoe. You are actually one of my inspirations(not to sound ass kissy or anything but it is true). I am actually majoring in Journalism in the hopes of one day working at a video game mag/website and journalistic integrity and just how it works within the industry is something I have always wondered about. You have no idea how much I appreciate this, Keep it up!

AduceClean · 1 year ago

Thanks Shoe for posting this letter and it raises my respect for you
guys in showing two sides of the story...especially one rarely seen
in the games industry of the "PR Guy."

That said, I disagree with Anonymous Guy in that reviewers should
be intrinsically involved in how a game is made and ONLY then being
able to review it.

The enthusiast press is there for answering the question:

"Should I spend my money on this game?"

Joe Consumer doesn't care about milestones or difficulties a
developer has had in making the game, just if it's a game he
should be interested in and whether he should spend his hard-
earned money on it.

I understand developers work on games for months -- even years,
sometimes -- but that shouldn't give them a free pass in saying that
because they've worked on it for so long, it deserves praise.

It would be like giving praise to a painter who draws dots on a canvas
for months and saying its warranted because of the time it took
him to complete.

Psytek · 1 year ago

All that's running through my head right now is "8.0/10, Why so Low?"

JG · 1 year ago

Some good points all in all.
speaking as a developer: I'll have to say I wasn't sad to see Gerstmann canned.
I've read comments saying he was 'the real journalist' and such, but you know what? No. He was loud mouthed hack and held grudges and vendettas against specific developers. A hopped up bully who would 'review' budget games with a 10 to 20 dollar price point as if they were AAA titles, just so he could toss out some personal attacks at developers.
The circumstances of his dismissal were at least badly timed, and at most suspect, but I can't say I'm sad to see him gone.
As a dev? I don't want ass kissing. I don't want a free ride. Overly gushing reviews that gloss over the problems are just as annoying as basing the final review off a year old press build.
What I'd like to see?
Well... less 'back seat game developing', for one. Yes, maybe what we made didn't fufill whatever expectations your imagination has drummed up, but using those in your review is irritating. You imagination doesn't have a publisher, technical requirements, and deadlines. Please keep that in mind while making your suggestions. Most of the time? We've tried it. No, it didn't work as well as you think it will.
Some context would be nice. This ones a sore point with me, because I started in budget games. I spent 8 months working on a game for a publsiher with unreasonable expectations on a team that consisted of 8 people, including the boss. We all half killed ourselves getting this thing out on time and budget. The first few reivews out were good, for a budget game. 6's and 7's. Not bad, and around what we expected. Then some ass gives it a 1 in a review that read like the most he did was read the box and look at screenshots. Unfortunately, it was at one of the bigger sites, so the reviews after that were affected, and it dragged the meta critic scores down.
I know, not a huge thing on a budget game... but it had and still has a fan base, and the tone and language of the review were such that it sounded like we'd raped his puppy.
Really, really uncalled for.

Pierce · 1 year ago

Very interesting.

Skye N · 1 year ago

'Back seat game developing?' No. That's an inability to see a trend in criticism. If one reviewer makes one suggestion and no other reviews continue that trend, it's probably not a worthwhile suggestion. But if it happens repeatedly then you might consider taking notes. It doesn't matter if it didn't work. You're seeing a trend from your audience and they will absolutely mention the same faults in the sequel if they happen again... And it only gets worse.

But there's crappy criticism and reviewers who'd rather give a game the evil eye and be on their way, such as you mentioned. *That's* when ignorance is bliss.

JG · 1 year ago

Or, they parrot.
When it's a worthwhile suggestion, it's noted and worked into the post mortem.
That's critique.
I'm talking about a slightly different phenomenom of 'feature' suggestions that rarely have anything to do with the game itself.
Generally delivered with the 'Well, the devs just havn't recognized my genius' tone.
It's a fine line. One's helpful, the other is irritating as hell.

Skye N · 1 year ago

Okay, but that's the kind of criticism you throw away. It does not incite a trend and it's usually a loose suggestion to begin with. If I were reviewing a game, I'd much rather see problems fixed in the sequel or via a patch well before any new ideas were implemented. Obviously you can't put the cart before the horse.

JG · 1 year ago

Yes, it is.
And it's most of what we get.
Or, in the case of budget games: sometimes it's a great suggestion. If, for instance, we had time, money, and resources.
None of which we had all that much of.
I can honestly say good critique in reviews is very, very rare.
When I come across it on something I've worked on, I save it, even if it's a low score.

Manilla Killa · 1 year ago

I second the loud mouthed hack comment. I was more surprised at the uproar. than from him being fired, after watching his K&L review. Totally unprofessional. A low score is fine so long as you don't resort to hyperbole and attacks to justify it.

Pannad · 1 year ago

/ I have “banned” certain media outlets from getting pre-release access to games, because of previous unfavorable coverage. /

Do you have any idea how badly that backfires? If I see a game has been witheld from reviews before release I wonder what the publisher is trying to hide and wont touch that game with a bargepole.

Kaitlen · 1 year ago

I'm glad you allowed Mr. Anonymous to present the other side of the story. I hadn't thought about many of his points before, but it turns out he does have some valid arguments. This blog is fast becoming a must-read for me.

X · 1 year ago

Nice blog, glad to read it. I've been on the dev side and had a game receive unfair reviews. Low reviews are OK if they are justified, but in our case we had reviewers, who clearly didn't play the game, talking about things that weren't even in our game. Then we watched as other lazy critics jumped on the bandwagon regurgitating the fallacies. One guy at 1up even LIED about trying our game at E3, and wrote his thoughts based on a video he saw two months prior. We had to call his editor and have the negative preview pulled, asking him to personally try the game and give a fair preview, which he did. Sad thing is they let the first guy (his name was Snarky or something stupid) review the final game, and guess what...he was VERY happy to throw the game under the bus. Lame, and totally unprofessional. One reviewer even told us he reduced his rating by 15 points just because the early reviews were low, and he didn't want to stand out.

The sad part is that, as a designer, I get held accountable for that negativity, even if it isn't true. Would I have liked to hold onto that game for another year and make it a near 100? Absolutely, and so would the other 100+ ppl on the team. But guess what, there isn't some unlimited money fountain that lets us make that call.

Also I"m wondering why these ppl are referred to as journalists. I don't think I've ever heard someone say Siskel & Ebert were anything but critics.

JG · 1 year ago

I feel for you man.
I know I'm not objective on this topic,
But I've been in a very similar boat.

Flavius · 1 year ago

Don't take this the wrong way, but if you're willing to go that far in calling someone out, you might as well go all the way.

So it was Scott Sharkey. What was the game?

Mr. Boy · 1 year ago

Speaking hypothetically, what if the previewer were Sharkey, the game happened to be Superman Returns, and the preview was embargoed by EA until the start of E3? At which point the game -still- looked like shit?

It sucks when someone kicks your favorite baby down the stairs just for the hell of it, but sometimes your kid was just stupid enough to fall down on his own while other people had to watch.

Father Boy · 1 year ago

In that case you've got a crappy game, a 'journalist' who is so unprofessional he judges a game BEFORE it is even playable (and makes up things that aren't even in it), an editor who wrote a favorable preview after he played the game (if he actually thought it looked like shit, at this point he would be unprofessional too), the 1st unprofessional guy crapping all over a final game he doesn't understand (and making up things that aren't even in it), and some ranting fanboy who thinks his grandma and puppy were raped by a movie-licensed game.

It's like watching your mom on my wang, but even uglier.

MrTomHimself · 1 year ago

Sounds like someone's bitter about a flop of a game.

Manilla Killa · 1 year ago

lol it probably still sold more than anything you've done in your life, troll

Enammy · 1 year ago

Right with you there. It could be this way for reviews in all industries, but It's sad how little most reviews actually resemble reality. I can't even remember the last time I even thought or cared about reading an official review before I bought a game.

MrTomHimself · 1 year ago

I'm just putting it out there, he's got the online courage to publicly cry foul on what I feel is a trusted review site but doesn't actually name what game it was. Sounds like a flop of a game, until named otherwise.

Pat · 1 year ago

As a "general" reviewer, I understand the fine line we all walk. I have refused to cover a product by a major software company in the past, because i had nothing good to say about it no matter how hard I tried.

But in general it is an editorial choice, to focus on the positive or the negative. You can spend your time writing about what's wrong with the product, or focus on what is right, and to whom these features may appeal.

I don't want to talk about regurgitated press release, or the distant cousin, the cut-and-paste Frankenstein review. Both are common, both are produced by folks without any journalistic integrity, so I'll leave them aside for now.

However, neither do I make any pretention to pure objectivity: I deal with facts and don't lies, but my readers are interested in two things, facts and my opinion/conslusion. I assume that if they did not care about what I think, they'd just read the back of the box and the tech specs...

Am I wrong? Well - let's just say a piece I wrote on the iPod 1G doubted it would go anywhere. But I lay claim to my mistakes and live with the consequences.

Finally, I ALWAYS give the manufacturer a preview version, and a chance to correct errors and respond. This is critical when dealing with gold/beta products - how often have I received "we know and it's being fixed" answers, with a final product far more polished than what I was toying with.

Good communications, the ability to talk with the coders or engineers, and simple fair play means I never had any problem, no matter if the review was good or bad. As you said these guys invested tons of money and years of time in making their product. They owe me NOTHING. And I owe them, at the very least, a chance to correct what can be corrected.

DevGEM · 1 year ago

"Finally, I ALWAYS give the manufacturer a preview version, and a chance to correct errors and respond."

Are you talking about a preview of the preview or a preview of the finished game?

DevGEM · 1 year ago

I meant a preview of the finished typed review. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

ThePimpOfSound · 1 year ago

We certainly have a skilled PR agent on our hands, deflecting the discussion away from the score-inflating practices of the flacks and the corrupt journalists who buy into it, and instead going off-topic to complain about unfair and lazy reviews.

What I want to know from Anonymous is if the laziness or unprofessional nature of some journalists justifies your job, which is to get as high a review score as possible regardless of whether it's deserved.

So I ask, how are we supposed to have "thoughtful analysis about games" when the PR machine denies access and tries to squeeze the reporters it doesn't like? How are we supposed to have "real" journalism when the marketing squads knowingly taint the process with swag and junkets?

Folks, let's keep our eyes on the prize.

Sean Gandert · 1 year ago

First, some background: I'm a film critic for a relatively large (read: national distribution) media magazine. Some of the things towards the end of the piece address "real" journalism in games, which I always find interesting. From my point of view, for the last couple of years many of the larger outlets have been doing so in their reviews. Not all of them, but I think that anyone who thinks there's a large difference between what's going on at Rolling Stone and EGM is really fooling themselves.

The games played between PR and critics are likewise very similar across industries. Music publicists are perhaps the worst I've dealt with, while film publicists cancel interviews if not told that a director's new work is a masterpiece. It's an ugly field but it's universal. Even within other beats. Anyone who's ever worked the crime beat for a metro section will be aware of the pressures not to piss off the local bureau because they are your primary source of information. For whatever reason game fans seem more outspoken about these issues, but it's in no way unique.

On a mostly unrelated topic, I take some issue with the publicist's ire towards not having "specialists" review games, i.e. someone who loves fps games play the fps review etc. One thing I like about the EGM 3-person review is that you can potentially put one person the game who plays that genre next to one who doesn't and see what they both say. Both points of view are valid. I'm not the most knowledgable person when it comes to contemporary Italian cinema but if I write a well-thought review, that shouldn't be too relevant. Likewise, a review of a dogme95 film that only talks about it in the context of the industry can easily miss whether or not a person uninterested in film-as-art would give a crap about what it's doing.

There is no journalism school for any media criticism--there is just specialization within journalism. "A great unspoken truth is that those involved in games development and publishing feel that many journalists feel a sense of entitlement – that they deserve to have their asses kissed because of the power they wield over the sell-in." This is true for all artists and their critics. I guess my ultimate point to this rant is that games and how they're covered aren't as different as everyone in the industry seems to think they are. A decade ago I would've agreed, but coverage has come a long way and I think that it's almost time for people to admit parity with how it's addressed w/r/t other arts.

MattChandronait · 1 year ago

This is great food for thought! My question to you, then, is if there are any examples in your industry of critics that are able to rise above all these shenanigans and still be accomplished and retain the access that they need to keep their outlet(s) in the black?

Shoe · 1 year ago

Great question.

Sean Gandert · 1 year ago

I would say that the main advantage of other media criticism is that there are some outlets that aren't subject to the same chicanery. The New York Times doesn't need to worry about much BS for its film reviews, for instance (and usually when a film isn't going to screen for critics, like the abortions that are Superhero Movie, Disaster Movie et al you usually hear about it). One thing I loved about EGM during their Ubisoft Fallout was disclosure of what was happening during that ordeal.

I think that in the whole, then, a lot of problems related to games journalism may be that they've been almost exclusively trade press for so long. I edited a piece my roommate wrote about games for the NYTimes earlier this year and was very amused by the companies treating him like the trade press. Microsoft offered to send him a 360 to play some of their games (which was not taken up on) while afterwards one of the major publishers banned him from interviews for a year. Not only was this offputting and a bit confusing for a number of reasons related to the article, but I think it was indicative of the attitude the publisher had towards all press misfiring wildly. As the medium does become more mainstream and you see someone like Tony Scott doing weekly reviews in a mass-market newspaper every single week, that's when you'll see some change. Every time I read a review of games in the New Yorker or Time I'm happy not just because hey, maybe that's another place I could get work, but also because of what the expansion is indicative for in both the industry and you guys in the secondary industry that surrounds it. It's a slow road, but my hope is that we are moving forward on it.

Back to your original question, Matt (btw, keep up the good work at 1up, as you do a damn good job over there asking real questions during your interviews) there are certainly examples I've seen but, as I'm still sort of employed (I'm kind of a perma-lancer... no end of freelance work but no salary or benefits bah... so I eat a whole lot of spaghetti and curse a lot) I don't think that's something I should get into too much. Needless to say, though, this is the drama behind the pages that goes unseen but exists more widely than people are aware of. Film criticism is taking a weird route now where the largest magazine in the industry just folded and online criticism has taken over so much that it's nearly impossible for trade press to obtain a review of a big film without a guarantee of positive coverage... which no credible outlet will do. Thus if you look at my folks at Paste, the music coverage online is pretty much the same as print, but film coverage is wildly different. Reading J. Green's blog about leaving the industry, one thing that was striking about his description of Johnny Wilson how it seemed so akin to that of Pauline Kael back in the day. Not that they were doing the same thing at all, but as an example of one journalist having probably too much power and from this being able to obtain access with it that we would like to see everyone have. Unfortunately, in the age of the internet for every A.V. Club there's an Ain't It Cool News who could care less about unbiased reviews. Staying in the black is hard for everyone these days, but AVC is one of the best examples of Shoe's doctrine that if you write first for your audience, they'll eventually come to you.

Dunno if that lengthy rant really answered your question, ok it didn't, but it can probably act functionally as part 2 of my, "We're more the same than you think," thesis.

Unz · 1 year ago

Wait wait wait.

Do you guys really think the problem with games journalism is that people are too harsh on games?

Too harsh?

This is the industry that uses the 7-9 scale and if your game doesn't format my hard drive or crash to desktop every 3 seconds if gets an automatic 7.0. If your game had any sort of AAA marketing its basically an 8.0 unless you fuck up completely, in which case you might drop to a 7.5.

Games are being rated too harshly?

/boggle

Joe Mamma · 1 year ago

I think sometimes they are too harsh in tone (it's like some nerdy kid who gets bullied in school and decides to take it out on a puppy dog), and sometimes unfair in dogpiling games (i.e. too human, k&l, etc).

Wolfwood · 1 year ago

Having played through K & L from start to finish, I can honestly say, most reviews were way too kind. The game had a lot of promise, but turned into a total mess. It more of less could've been a budget title for PS2 3 years ago.

Unz · 1 year ago

I think the far, far bigger problem is gaming journalists being too easy on games because of publisher ad and fanboy pressure.

Its almost like music criticism where Briney or Kanye or whoever can dump an album on market and get a guaranteed 70+ rating on metacritic.

Wolfwood · 1 year ago

Yes, especially the ad pressure. I don't think fanboys should ever be an issue. If anything, pants-pissing fanboys will only generate website traffic, and lengthy comments threads, which all drives ads.

In fact, that's why sites Kotaku and the like, love guys like Jack Thompson and media-related game ignorance. It's always a 300+ thread of comments. But really, if you're to blame Kotaku, you'd have to blame all 'news' media, because that's exactly what they aim for nowadays, getting people angry and upset about petty things = ratings, and sales. But that's a whole other topic...

Anyway, It's probably best not to touch the music the industry. They're a joke unto themselves. It's hard to say which has less credibility when it comes to criticism or awards.

Enammy · 1 year ago

I've found the most disheartening thing about being on the developer end of things is how POOR almost all game "journalists" are. Having read a ton of review for the games I've worked on, I have yet to read a single review that didn't have at least 2 or 3 glaring factual errors. If you can't get simple things right, like names, job titles, or facts about the game right, why should I trust anything else the article has to say.

Druz · 1 year ago

This isn't a new perspective or anything.

The mention of Shoe and Crispin being "real" journalists is funny, since that didn't stop Ubisoft from doing what they did. So whoever publishers feel is the "real" journalist is also a matter of perspective. Thing are never always as black and white as the "shooter" reviewer or the "puzzle" reviewer.. people like multiple genres, believe it or not.

Publishers need to understand that THEY are biased, it is ignorant to think reviewers should be gentle because of the team behind it. What does guilt tripping a good score do for anyone? Yes, they are at the mercy of the reviewer... but they are also at the mercy of the consumer who has a right to know what they're spending $60 on.

hhahjf · 1 year ago

What many gamers don’t understand is how busy journalists can be – and also how lazy. Lets say you have a game that takes 30 hours to complete, and reviewer plays 2 hours of it and gives it mediocre review based on the first few levels,

----------------------------
HAHA But if review will be A+ YOU wouldn't care about if reviewer played 10 hours or 5 minutes and THATS THE TRUTH

Shoe · 1 year ago

Cool, you just gave me another topic for another blog post. Yes, you are absolutely right...this BS goes on all the time!

Manilla Killa · 1 year ago

Here's one for you: How about a story on critics who use pseudonyms to sell reviews to multiple sites? I've never seen anyone cover that harmful practice, which I'd imagine sways the metacritic average quite a bit.

Shoe · 1 year ago

I don't know much about that one....haven't heard anything myself. Will look into it, though.

Nathan · 1 year ago

Journalism school is not the answer, not even close. All it'll do is stratify the lense through which gaming is viewed and provide endless fodder for academic harranguing rather than focusing on the change and betterment possible from gaming. It's a mistake. Again, a convenient thing to argue for on providers' behalf, but an incredibly bad idea.

What's needed is someone to trash shit critics and show them up with _real_ criticism of the games and most of all ambition for moving things forward. And no that's not a rare thing. Everyone has ideas they'd love to see happen, and talking about them, focusing on that, rather than needless introspection and hyperarticulation _about_ the games, would be a far healthier climate.

Syrionus · 1 year ago

Good statements! I personally believe the score system needs to go away. Go to something like a suggestion, like "Buy/Rent/Avoid." If I had not played Too Human before the reviews had come out, I would probably have not bought it. Playing the demo for about ten hours sold me on it no matter what the reviewers said.

98% of the reviewers, reviews sounded like they wanted to stick it to Denis Dyack and itreflected in their reviews. I believe there are good and bad journalists and after playing Too Human and looking at the reviews, it is easier to tell who is who. Those bad journalists reviewed the President of the Company and not th game.

HokeyCokey · 1 year ago

I was susprised at how bad the review score for Too Human were. Gamespot gave it a 5.5, but from the video review you can clearly see he had no idea how to play it: he didn't repair his armour, didn't roll out of the way of enemies, didn't use any of the more advanced move like finishers and juggling. In short, he sucked. So his opinion of the game sucked. That's not to say the game doesn't have its issues, of course. But 5.5? I've already played for 100 hours - this game is deep.

Serpent-SVK · 1 year ago

I think this letter does have a point but I always read the review and don't look at the score.
I decide from the content not from the score.

P.S. excuse my english(i'm from Slovakia)

Cassandra · 1 year ago

I hate to say it, but if the developers are so upset with what journalists who work outside of their realm are saying, why don't they just write previews/updates/reviews themselves? No longer would we have to worry about publishers cramming ad and threats down magazine's throats because they could have people inside the company do it. While that would put a lot of people out of commission (gaming journalists, mags and Web sites) and PR people, we (the readers) would no longer have to worry about publications giving up their dignity and journalistic integrity to get information or worry about the miscommunication that goes on between the various companies that make up the sector of "gaming journalism."

**NOTE: This comment is a bit rushed and only serves as a quick fix to all the current problems in the gaming journalism industry.**

blitzchamp · 1 year ago

You've made many valid points, it still doesn't excuse trying to buy people off, but makes me sympathize a little more with developers. I know I'd be pissed if amateur journalists tore apart a good game and kept people from playing it. However, journalism will always vary in opinion, and there will always be amateurs, and be those ridiculous newpaper reviews that know nothing about games, or magazines that aren't even about games, telling people what games to buy.

Shifty_Pete · 1 year ago

It really doesn't matter how hard developers work on a game... that's not what's being reviewed. The GAME is being reviewed, and should be scored on it's merits only. If the developers work hard but put out a mediocre or outright bad game, then the game deserves that mediocre or bad score. If a developer half-asses a game that turns out great, the game deserves a great review.

Games journalism isn't an outlet for congratulating developers on their work, its a way for consumers to see if a game is worth their hard-earned dollars. Journalists need to write honest, accurate reviews, and gamers need to read beyond the score into the text of the review to get the full story on the game. If a journalist does not complete a game before reviewing it, or any of the other abuses you detailed, they need to be called on it. Not by barring that publication from reviewing games any more, but by public disclosure, so we the gamers can adjust how much trust we place in the journalists in question. The process needs to be MORE transparant to the consumer, not less.

ThePiePieper · 1 year ago

As I see it, if a company wants to spend a lot of money on a game journalists, in hopes that it will reflect good coverage, let them. Any creditable magazine will either reject the offer or make separate accommodations to meet the publisher halfway. Also, just because Big Publisher is trying to build a good relationship with ABC Magazine, it shouldn’t have an influence on anything. I know that that is a dream, set in perfect world, but it can exist, as long as a few criteria are met.
• Who else is invited? As long as one certain magazine isn’t the only on attending the event or getting special treatment, let them have a good time trying to sway the bar.
• Did the developers have the same opportunity? This may be my strongest point, but the people who actually made the game, have they had the same treatment? If a bunch of game journalists are invited to a shooting range to learn how to fire some weapons, it seems like that is something the developers themselves could have done to prep for some new military game. How about flying those same journalists out to the Super Bowl, followed by a party of hookers and blow? Not as likely. In that case, if Future or Ziff wanted to foot the bill on that, then they have more money then we know. If the developers aren’t privy to the same big money event, then it shouldn’t have anyone else do it either.
• Does the gaming public have the same opportunity? Going to a sports event or some awesome display show is one thing, but getting flown to Chernobyl to run around in bio-suits is something completely unrealistic. If you have to know someone, that knows someone, and have a lot of cash, then it is hard for the gamer to relate to that experience, being that they couldn’t in their normal life get a chance to it.
• What’s the occasion? Is Anonymous Guy trying to secure a front cover story or a small preview? If Big Publisher wants to spend $100 on a hockey game for a 50 word, single screen shot preview, more power to them. Something like that will be completely forgotten by the game actually ships. To fly someone to Tokyo for a 2 week vacation/exclusive preview, that’s a little overboard.
• How honest is the magazine publisher? As long as the magazine company is completely, 100% upfront about their experience, and can back up the non-bias perception in writing, then I’m curious to see how review, preview, article compares to the game. For those who have never seen a major sports event in person, it is completely different then at watching it at home. If Big Publisher’s event can help capture what the developers are trying to recreate, then I don’t see any harm in it.

I’m sure, given more time, I could come up with more, but feel these set some, somewhat, visible boundaries.
Now I don’t blame Anonymous Guy for trying to raise that score, or get more coverage, it’s his job. Just like the rest of use, he’s just a squirrel trying to get a nut. Asking for PR to always be respectful of a magazines space, time, and money, is like asking a lawyer not to lie. Now I know this is a stereotypical view, but as a “gamer” that’s all we know. As part of my love for it, all I’m going to read about is the pro side of videogames. I’m not going to read some marketing magazine, hoping to catch some article about videogame PR gone wrong.
When it does come to that, it is really unfortunate our people, PR and journalist, couldn’t get along nicely. When the Kane and Linch review was changed, what happened, Gerstmann got fired. What about the PR guy? Shit I hope that guy got a raise, ‘cause he won that battle. This is unfortunate, because someone lost their job after 12 respectable years with one company and didn’t get a chance to explain himself, only learn from it. But that can of worms will have to wait for another post.

The only thing I know about games is what I read and play, that’s all. I’m not trying to solve all the problems, but I am trying to give the average, normal gamers view.
-Devon
The_Pie_Pieper.1up.com

fgg · 1 year ago

thoughtful analysis about games


hahah YOU only want 8 score or better

Affordable SEO Services · 1 year ago

Whats also worth noting is that this year saw another 50% marketshare increase for mac.

And these new machines? These are beasts. I'm running a 12" powerbook (rev D), and if the MacBook Pro is 4-5x faster then jesus... thats going to be a powerful machine.

age of conan gold · 1 year ago

thanks for the post . i like it very much

tany · 1 year ago

thanks for the article.i like it very much

FloridaHealthInsuranceQuotes · 11 months ago

I don’t see the contradiction there because he’s talking about two different sets of people. In the first quote, he’s saying that it would be disturbing for a reviewer to have to consider that if he writes a bad review the developer won’t get paid as much. I can’t imagine anyone disagreeing with this sentiment.

SEO Submission Services · 11 months ago

No doubt that it is a good food. My question to you, then, is if there are any examples in your industry of critics that are able to rise above all these shenanigans and still be accomplished and retain the access that they need to keep their outlet(s) in the black?

Beyond Mega Pixels · 9 months ago

We live in an age were many millions of people get away with stealing (6 million in the UK alone) . And they think nothing of it. They get all their entertainment for free. They download games, music and films at will.

abc · 9 months ago

And aren't all games pretty much reviewed by the same publications, the same people? Does one game really suffer from the things Anonymous is talking about, while others don't? Does one game have all the publications' FPS guy reviewing a racing game, or isn't this a problem that EVERY game probably faces in the internet's myriad sea of (largely incompetent) reviewers?

learn.hypnosis · 9 months ago

Frankly, it's rare for a bad game to get good reviews, or vice versa. I understand the criticism levelled against Too Human; what's the counter-argument, that people should try harder to learn its controls and get into it more? Well, learning curve is part of a review. If people played that game for 25 hours and never really got how to play it, is that really the hallmark of a fantastic game?

Sunface · 1 year ago

An interesting read by Anonymous Guy from Big Publisher, but also contains a few central themes that aren't that compelling to me.

What's the relevance of saying a game takes thousands of hours to create, and a big team? That doesn't make it a good game, or one worthy of getting platinum sales and five-star review. Games are no different from movies - they take a long time to make, and involve hundreds of people, but when's the last time you saw a movie studio trying to strong-arm critics by promising exlcusives, or pulling ad revenues?

Frankly, it's rare for a bad game to get good reviews, or vice versa. I understand the criticism levelled against Too Human; what's the counter-argument, that people should try harder to learn its controls and get into it more? Well, learning curve is part of a review. If people played that game for 25 hours and never really got how to play it, is that really the hallmark of a fantastic game?

Bad reviews end up looking bad in the wash. Lazy reviews get exposed online, and over time people come to trust certain reviewers over others. Play magazine ALWAYS seems to give games 90%; guess what? I don't trust Play Magazine anymore. I come to trust certain online sites more than others. I've trusted EGM for a long time, because they seem to give honest and careful reviews. The bad reviewers will ultimately be revealed as such.

And aren't all games pretty much reviewed by the same publications, the same people? Does one game really suffer from the things Anonymous is talking about, while others don't? Does one game have all the publications' FPS guy reviewing a racing game, or isn't this a problem that EVERY game probably faces in the internet's myriad sea of (largely incompetent) reviewers?

The purpose of reviews is simple. A game costs $60. That's like, 1/4 of the cost of a console on average. That's also a fair chunk of change to bring something home that you'll play for 15 minutes before realizing it sucks. People, like me, count on reviews to give them the sense of whether they should buy a game or not. As a consumer, I'm intelligent enough to give different weights to different reviews, to know that I don't really care if a game has online functionality or graphics that much, because those aspects aren't too relevant to me. I think most people are equally smart (this isn't rocket science). But when publishers step in and try to manipulate the process, to get good scores for games that don't deserve them, they're cheating consumers out of their $60 and that's totally unfair.

Up with hope, down with dope!

JohnnySocko · 1 year ago

Interesting, the first thing I thought after reading this post was that the author would probably love Dave Halverson of Play magazine.

Now personally, I really appreciate Halverson's unshakeable enthusiasm for all things gaming. But I can see how readers yearning for "just the facts" analysis would be put-off by his glowing reviews of pretty much everything.

Higgz78 · 1 year ago

I cannot stand Halverson. He praises just about everything, but what's worse does so in the most pubescent way, complete with sexual references and lexicon befitting a schoolyard. How he is a "respected" gaming journalist (even among his peers!!)' I'll never know.

AnonDesigner · 1 year ago

I agree with Sunface completely.

I'll preface my comments by saying that I work in the graphic design field; so while I may not be extremely well-versed in how video game design runs, I do know how the creative process works, and more importantly, how creative development and business models work in tandem.

The problem with Anonymous' letter is that he/she is attempting to gather reader sympathy in those poor, poor game designers and coders, spending hundreds upon hundreds of hours coding their hearts out to release a game. The flaw: creative professions aren't nearly as Romantic as PR people would like you to think they are.

Sure, I'd think game journalists were demonic if Independent Company owner John Smith and his devoted team of 10 developers put in 10000 hours on a brilliant, innovative idea, only to have it smashed by critics, but that's not really the case. In reality, Games-R-Us Marketing Committee 17A brainstorms the most convincing and least detectable way to rehash GTA:IV over gin and tonics. CEO Dave P. Laigerizer likes their idea the best, and hands it over to the Director of "International Relations",
who gives the assignment to a team of 1000 Nameless Indian Software Coders overseas. When the game turns out to be crap due to the apparent lack of a concept and the fact that the coders were in no way involved in the "creative" process and therefore have no feel of what should be happening in the game, journalists begin to pan it. That's when Mr. Anonymous in PR has to go knocking on the doors of game publications, telling the sob story of the countless numbers of people who died in their cubicles working on this Great Game.

Furthermore, creative people know when ideas sucks (PR/business people do not). I'm willing to bet that game developers do the same thing I do when they're working to polish turds: they work on it half-heartedly during the day and then bitch about it over beers with the co-workers at night. It's not the coder's job to love a game, just their job to make it work. I don't think any of them get their feelings hurt when they see a terrible review for the game they coded. In fact, I bet some even get an enjoyment out of it; hoping that it hurts the company that has enslaved them to unpaid overtime for months at a time.

Don't kid yourself, you're not twisting the arms of gaming magazines to protect the developers and the coders and the artists that all spent time on a crappy game; you're doing it so that more unsuspecting victims will spend $50+ on a game that doesn't deserve any attention. Hell, I'd APPRECIATE if a journalist said flat out in a review "this game was so boring and impossible to control that I was begging for the 2-hour mark to pass." No one in his/her right mind wants to wait 10 hours into a 35 hour game for it to "get good."

Of course, the bigger problem is that threatening publications into giving higher scores is even acceptable. Believe me, the critics know what they're doing. Do you honestly think the consumer cares about how long it takes to make a game? How many hours you had to spend perfecting collision detection? No, they care about whether or not their money will get put to good use. The critics do a great job of answering that question for the consumer, and that's all that matters. Make better games and quit making excuses.

Who · 1 year ago

Kane and Lynch sucked deal with it.

JonR · 1 year ago

Dear faggot:

Your justification, if it had any fucking weight to begin with, probably wouldn't need to be said under the cloak of anonymity. The fact that it does is admission enough that your attitude is shady and that you'd rightfully catch shit if anyone knew who you really were or who you worked for.

But, luckily enough, you're free to speak on the blog of a writer who only cares about maintaining the mere illusion of integrity and is willing to illustrate the entire problem by actively ensuring that there is no real accountability for your retardation.

Akyan · 1 year ago

In fairness if she/he is currently working for an active PR company you can hardly expect them to give up their identity. After all Shoe himself has waited until after leaving 1UP before starting this series of blogs on the subject.

JonR · 1 year ago

No. There is no expectation here. I'm not some lowlife who can placate himself with some bullshit sense of resignment and false understanding. I'm a gamer, first and foremost, and the only thing that matters is that fuckball here is in MY way. That's the only way to see it. If reviews are to be tools for me to use in the decisionmaking process of whether or not i want to buy a game, then any attempt to justify dicking around with that process is directly against my interests. If you want my understanding, then you can fuckin' pay me -- that should take the sting out of the fact that you're helping to make MY hobby into something that requires what is essentially a gambling addiction.

As for Hsu, the fact that he waited to leave 1up not only proves what bullshit 1up is, but what a sackless waste of space he is. He'd get more sympathy from me if i weren't getting more information from former writers myself than he's dared to give in those pathetic editorials where he tries to clear his conscience without actually doing anything to really expose the very issues that apparently bother him enough to editorialize in the first place.

JohnnySocko · 1 year ago

The heartbreak of 'Roid Rage.

Jamezrp · 1 year ago

Roid rage doesn't cause people to hit the tubes...well, maybe the toilet tubes.

OperatorC · 1 year ago

You're obviously more than capable of expressing yourself in an intelligent manner, but your argument would have more weight if you would leave out the personal insults. It's like you have some personal vendetta as if somebody in the industry had destroyed your pastime, or something like that. Frankly, your attitude sucks and it's doing nothing for this discussion other than bringing it down.

Rob · 1 year ago

Dude, you act as if Hsu and/or this PR guy have done you some personal wrong doing. If you take what Hsu presents on this blog as some great personal insult then don't read it.

You are a human being are you not? You say you are a gamer first and fore most but I say you are a human first. As a human you have free will to do, think and say what you please.

So when it comes to games MAKE UP YOUR OWN MIND. Read reviews/previews or don't. Pay attention to ads, blogs and comercials or dont. Play demos and betas or don't. Ultimately with all the information available on games these days, from outlets big and small, its fairly easy to make and informed decision on weather or not YOU think a game is worth your money or not.

Trashing other people for having an opinion or doing their job is just childish and really doesn't have a place in this discussion.

JonR · 1 year ago

I do make up my own mind. Hence my complete disdain for the editor of a review mag and the anonymous PR whore who helped me make the decision to not pay attention to the very things that exist for the sole purpose of helping me figure out if i want a certain game or not.

We all caught up there, stimpy? Up to speed on things now?

Shoe · 1 year ago

Aw man, we were having such a great, mature discussion here until your "dear faggot" line.

Jason McMaster · 1 year ago

You gotta admit, that opening has pizazz!

MojoBox · 1 year ago

I'd rather it had pizza.

Jason McMaster · 1 year ago

That DOES sound better

JonR · 1 year ago

Dear Dan,

How's that PSP? Would you mind doing another radio show to talk about its merits?

Shoe · 1 year ago

I don't want to delete your comments because I feel you do have something interesting and intelligent to say about this stuff, but man...where's all this raw anger, name calling, and personal insults coming from? Nothing I'm doing is affecting you directly, you don't have to read the blog, and if I'm really that insignificant, why do you care what I'm writing about? I'm not trying to change the world (read our mission statement in the welcome message), and I've admitted to plenty of wrong doing myself. I'm not perfect and I don't profess to be.

Just keep the name calling and insults out of it, please? Thanks.

JonR · 1 year ago

Years of dealing with the end product of the efforts of people like Captain Anonymous, as shrouded by people in positions which you previously held? Where do you THINK my antipathy comes from? You miss the point purely because you're too comfortable. Make no mistake: my position isn't that you shouldn't bother, it's that you should be far, far more shrewd.

You left the established venues. For what? To protect the anonymity of the very people who blithely are part of the problem? Here you are free from it and with the added benefit of a built-in readership that people like me can only grasp at, and you're still protecting them. For what? To give a voice to someone who clearly has more than enough sway? For what? So that we may fume in impotence at it and go back to taking it in the ass?

I am a gamer, one of the people who are ostensibly meant to benefit from what you're trying to do here. If, then, by your own words it doesn't affect me directly, then that's the entire problem. I don't expect you to change the world. I expect you to change the one you left. Because if you don't, i and writers like me will.

Shoe · 1 year ago

Man, it's a lot less complicated than that. A guy on the publishing side wanted to tell another side of the story after reading my last few posts...one that we never really hear. But he currently represents some clients and would probably lose his job for writing something like this. He asked for anonymity, so I gave it to him. So yeah, I'm protecting him. Not cause his is a noble cause, but cause I promised my source that.

You want to change this business, more power to you. But you're treating it like a war. Honestly, are you that angry at me for not doing things the way you expect me to, for not fulfilling some unsaid promises you think I've made?

Hey, give me some feedback or constructive criticism. I welcome it. But the name-calling, personal bashing, and vulgarity aren't helping and have got to stop, please.

Pierce · 1 year ago

Shoe, did you delete his comments or did he remove them himself? I'd say the former would be a little unfair....

Shoe · 1 year ago

I did. I gave him plenty of chances. I don't mind criticism, but "faggot" and "sackless waste of space" aren't that. He's just pushing buttons and making personal attacks against specific people who have nothing to do with him...don't need that here or in my life. :)

Pierce · 1 year ago

Well, it's your blog, so it's your right! But ignoring his many responses and letting other people see how badly he handled his argument would've been fine, too. We all knew he was wrong. ;)

Looking forward to part 5.

JonR · 1 year ago

So, the ones that had "faggot" and "sackless waste of space" were fine... right up until i posted something that didn't contain any profanity or personal attacks whatsoever. My, that's an interesting chain of events, Dan.

What an amazing coincidence. I post something that points out you're doing what the media has always done, and that's what finally does it. Tends to say more about you than it does me, ace.

TrickyNishidake · 1 year ago

You just baited Dan into deleting your comments, then called him on it. If you think you spin so well on this weblog, perhaps you should go work for a publisher instead of whining about them.

Pierce · 1 year ago

TrickyNishidake, you stole the words from my mouth.

Shoe · 1 year ago

They weren't fine...I complained about your posts from the start and asked you very nicely and calmly to chill moving forward. I gave you three chances, my man. :) But after that, you were still being bitter, sarcastic, and being a general a-hole to everyone and talking about your hate for us all rather than adding to the discussion, so....

JonR · 1 year ago

I would terribly, terribly hate for someone who has made punitive decisions toward publications based on what one of their writers said to have punitive measures taken against him in his current endeavor based on what he just said.

Also, i can't imagine why i would be hostile toward the industry. You know, your series on the seedy underbelly of what you adorably still call gaming journalism is actually quite uplifting. This is all a misunderstanding too, since i've often wished PR and/or marketing types -- the most useful and respectable of all publisher employees -- had some way to get their well-reasoned and forward-thinking perspectives across in the gaming media. You've continued to fill that niche, so i really should be thanking you.

Pierce · 1 year ago

The world has wronged you, Jon.

Whatever you do, Shoe, don't answer a telephone ringing in a Phone Booth....