Kotaku 
Enter your username and password.
Denver, 6:03 AM
Sat Dec 5
53 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip us:
Editor-In-Chief:
Brian Crecente
| AIM | Twitter
Deputy Editor:
Stephen Totilo
| AIM | Twitter
Senior Editor:
Michael McWhertor
| AIM | Twitter
Senior Contributing Editor, Japan:
Brian Ashcraft
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editor, East Coast:
Michael Fahey
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editor, Oceania:
Luke Plunkett
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editor, Weekends:
Owen Good
| AIM | Twitter
Correspondent, San Francisco:
AJ Glasser
| AIM | Twitter
Columnist:
Leigh Alexander
Columnist:
Tim Rogers
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
12/04/09
That is, of course, a big problem with getting anything done about this. Journo sites are fiercely independent, unco-ordinated, competitive and they don’t get together much.
However, there are ways and means of getting things done. Here is a short guide to civil disobedience that might well work – and strangely enough, it works precisely because the review events themselves exist – they are the only place where you get a critical mass of the right journos together.
This is what I would like to happen.
At the next review event, when you are all together at dinner or something, one of you – it doesn’t matter who but the more persuasive the better – needs to tinkle his glass with a spoon, stand up and make a short speech along these lines:
"Hi.
I’ve had a lot of feedback from my readers that they don’t like these review events. They think they are unethical, lead to biased reviews, questionable practices and are no help to the development of the industry and no good for the gamer.
I bet most of you have had that feedback as well.
So thanks to publisher X for hosting this event, but what do you guys say we forget about the game and forget about the reviews and chill out in the pool for the next couple of days?"
You think that won’t work? It might, you know. Because whoever makes that speech is going to get a big profile as a champion of the gamer, a big boost to their professional credibility and a lot of hits.
And anyone who does not go along with it will suffer in the eyes of the gaming public as being someone whose opinion can be bought.
I look forward to the next review event, and to hearing about the simultaneous tinkling of hundreds of spoons against glasses.
12/04/09
Not speaking on behalf of all gaming press, but as a member of it, I think the understanding is that some high-profile games will be handled differently by the publisher, and we aren't in any posiiton to tell them how to do their presentation; we kind of have to ride along with their stipulations. If I felt a review event wasn't going to be adequate for me to review a product, the review would wait, but on a high-profile title such as MW2, you'd better believe I'm going to do what I can to get my research done during that event if that's all the time I'm going to have with it until release...and the two days with MW2 let me play the game through fully, get through most of Spec-Ops and do a decent amount of multiplayer, just as I would do if I was reviewing in my office or home (and without any influence by a nice hotel, a branded bathrobe/slippers set [which I've never worn] and some of the other "special handling" the review event brought). I stand by my review as a scoring of the game, not on the environment and/or clothing I was given to play in.
But back to the original point: The idea of some member of the press standing up at a publisher dinner and shunning review events is noble, but wouldn't likely happen. It's not that any one of us (as we've done here) wouldn't agree with the concept, but we sometimes have to do things we may not be entirely happy with because that's how a company decides to do it. It'd be like telling someone who works at McDonalds to get up at the next staff meeting and say he doesn't want to wear the uniform anymore: "C'mon, everyone...if we all say we're not going to do it, they won't be able to make us!"
Okay, no, that's not exactly the same as the "review event" situation, but close. I'm in no position to demand that a publisher give me a game in a particular way and not in another (though I can and will turn down something if it's inadequate...as happened a few weeks ago when a publisher wanted me to go to a three-hour, for-the-public event showing the product, expecting me to compete with the masses to try and get enough time on the game to write a review).
12/04/09
12/04/09
And I'm not talking entirely out of my hat here. I've pulled similar 'civil disobedience' tricks twice in a long career - in a different industry - both times out of desperation, both times worked beyond my wildest dreams.
It is very scary, but it can change things.
12/04/09
Mind you, if he is sensible and has contacts (and I wouldn't recommend doing this without) he will quietly rustle up a bit of support first.
12/03/09
12/03/09
It certainly seems like this article is trying to justify something that all of these writers KNOW is wrong.
Don't make excuses. In college journalism courses you're taught that this sort of behavior is what costs you your integrity.
The only reason for doing it is so that you're outlet can cry 'FIRST!' when posting your review, but if you need to trade your integrity for that right, then I don't want to read your review.
The only thing worse would be is if you didn't allow for the transparency for your readers to know the circumstances the review was done under.
And you know... events like this likely wouldn't be necessary if journalists just said 'no'.
We might get the review a few days later, but who cares ?
And of course, there will be an outlet that attends when everyone else doesn't. And if it gets around they did attend, people should do the right thing and ignore that site.
The public knows its wrong.
The publishers know its wrong.
And 'Journalists' know its wrong.
Why are we still talking about this?
12/03/09
12/03/09
If Activision wants to host a dinner for the press, they're welcome to, but don't do it when you're asking someone to review the game as well.
It'd be like the president announcing an federal gas tax increase, and then giving the press a free electric car paid for by the government to illustrate how gas wasn't essential anymore.
12/03/09
Specific to the games industry, the junkets are (like their media cousins) part and parcel of the PR campaign. All of it (the access to talent, the insider looks, the press kits, the optimal reviewing conditions) are part of selling the game to the reviewer. As a reporter, I would want that access to generate copy for my publication. As a reviewer, I would want optimal playing conditions along with an ability to run reviews ahead of my competitors.
In all cases, it's a "trust but verify" situation. You can't take anything at face value and have to be willing to dig deeper or read between the lines. It's fitting that Gerstmann gets referenced because his episode at Gamespot is an excellent example of this. You could argue, "but what if they're all in on it?" to which I would respond with an old adage, "the truth always gets out eventually." This is especially true if the truth is scandalous.
Now if you excuse me, Tiger Woods asked me to change the readout on my caller ID before the University of East Anglia calls me.
12/03/09
12/03/09
In fact - may reporters/critics tend to even get more on guard and look with more scrutiny if they feel they are being schmoozed to a favorable story.
12/03/09
12/03/09
We are fortunate that many outlets have adopted a high level of transparency in the games industry - but that doesn't excuse the fact that they're getting preferential treatment.
I could counter this with there may be some that are just inclined to give a game an extra point because of a free trip to Italy. I mean, its only a point after all? Who really pays attention?
Don't assume the press are immune to being human.
The argument can be made that even getting the game from the publisher for free sways the critic's viewpoint because it wasn't their money paying for it. You tend to view the value of things differently when they're handed to you VS actually investing in them yourselves.
Just a thought.
12/03/09
PR people exist to manipulate press and public. Journalists exist to find the truth and educate the public.
PR and Press are opposing forces as PR will always manipulate the truth for the best possible result.
I don't agree that as a reviewer you should be playing in optimal conditions. You should be playing the game at home for your review or in as close conditions resembling that (IE you company offices).
The public shouldn't be doing the job of the journalist - the public should be there to absorb information (intelligent public should be responsible about what news they consume - but only because the Journalists can't be trusted, in a perfect world, journalists would be the filter for PR BS all the time.)
I also don't agree the truth always gets out. There are certainly things that we never hear about. The gaming press isn't quite like anything else and really suffers from the only regular access coming from PR types. It inhibits the ability to get the truth.
Part of it is the nature of the beast, part of it is the fault of the press, and part is the fault of the public.
The only ones doing their job are the PR folks.
12/04/09
On the micro-side of things, review conditions should be optimal. A good reviewer should know the boundaries of what a game can and cannot do, and be able to dial it down to what it might sound like in different environments. If all you get from a reviewer was, "OMG, the 'No Russian' level sounded so awesome on the kicking surround system!"...well, that's why God created mutliple reviewers. And, in fact...that leads us to the larger points.
You are 100% right about PR people. Unfortunately, you are 100% wrong about journalists. As Sean Connery might say, what you wrote is the Yearbook answer but it isn't how things really are.
Yes, there are definitely journalists who pursue the industry in that way. However, the simple truth is that the vast majority of journalists pursue agendas and angles (including many of those idealists, quite frankly). How many journalists offer a Hobson's Choice where someone either give them information so they can get "their side of the story out" or a story without their participation where it is inferred or stated outright that the coverage of them will be harsher? All you have to do is watch or read the coverage of recent events (Tiger, Climategate) or cast back to some of the more major ones this decade (Iraq, 2008 election) to see the dispirate coverage. More often than not, you can see the agenda being pushed if you are familiar with the paper/show/website or reporter's previous work.
The news industry is just that...an industry. It's a competitive industry. An ideal alternative to point to would be something like the publicly-funded BBC, but that news agency is consistently (and rightly) embroiled in bias controversies. The same goes for NPR and PBS here in America. It doesn't matter what an individual or corporate agenda is. Political, social, economic, personal...it's all immaterial. The bottom line is that the journalists are not purveyors of truth. They are, at best, storytellers that push a certain arrangement of facts and speculation.
This is what I meant by "the truth always gets out." You are right: smaller truths...individual truths. Those can certainly slip through the cracks. However, larger truths...such as the realization that certain people are trying to sell you a line...those get out over time. It's the first time someone gushes about a game that prompts you to spend sixty dollars only to discover it wasn't worth sixty cents. It is not, as you say, a perfect world. Biases exist. When people can recognize the agendas, then they can begin filtering what they read or hear for themselves. They can read other sources and piece together a picture that correlates with their own understanding of things. With that understanding, they can choose to stand up and say, "yes, this is right" or "no, this is wrong." This is the most that we can ask of anyone.
Unfortunately, most people do not have that desire or drive to do that, which is why PR people, journalists, politicians, etc. more often that not have a field day manipulating public opinion. It's why people see this Tiger Woods thing and know instantly how it's going to play out. This isn't news. It's a kabuki dance, and we are all complicit: the PR people, the journalists, the participants, and the consumers.
Whatever greater Truth (with a capital T) exists, it does within the religion, ethics, and values of your family and own guiding principles. The myriad truths of everyday life are up to you to navigate based on whatever foundational values you possess. To bring it back to games, if a game interests you enough to purchase it, you should care enough to research it and reconcile what you find against your own experiences and opinions. If you don't care to do that, then you deserve whatever it is that you get for purchasing something simply because someone said you should.
12/03/09
The really big problem is one that is not mentioned in the article at all. It is the risk – no matter how honest a journalist you think you are – that if you do not give the game a good review you will not get invited to such an event again. Word gets around, you know.
And that is a risk that you won’t in the future be able to get reviews out to your readers, that you won’t in the future get to chew the fat with other game journos in nice surroundings paid for by someone else, that you will no longer be considered part of the ‘top tier’ in Jarrard’s words. That risk is there at the back of your mind, and everything about it affects the way you think about the game.
Maybe not in a big way, maybe not in an obvious way, but enough so you’ll be tempted to give the benefit of the doubt. Enough to corrupt you. It is a pride thing – and pride is dangerous.
The justifications given are a bit thin to say the least.
"It was a way to help make sure reviewers experienced the game the way Bungie intended."
Bullshit. The way publishers really intend you to enjoy the game is to lash out $60 before you have played it and to play it on a console/TV that you have already bought. Otherwise they would not have a business.
If not, they would ship every game with a hotel voucher or a big HDTV. And they don’t do that. Or they would require you to provide evidence of your home set-up before buying the game. And they don’t do that either.
Sure, they would like it if everyone had the latest kit – but if those were the only people they sold the game to they would not sell as many.
"At the same time, who would we be hurting if we banned such events? Those same readers," Hsu says. "Now we can't get a review out to them in time for it to be relevant."
Bullshit. It is the publishers that need the reviews out there before release. The readers, the gaming public, don’t need them then and would not miss them – they would just buy the game two weeks after release instead after they have seen the proper reviews.
It is the publishers that would be hurt. That’s why they are paying all that money out on hotels and so on.
They are not doing it to benefit your readers. If they wanted to benefit your readers they could easily do something more direct, like for example reducing the retail price of the game. But they don’t do that.
If these events were banned, or if journalists refused to attend them the publishers would just do something different – like shipping out review copies in the normal way.
So, all you honest journalists should just refuse to go to these events, especially since they are "not cushy or lavish" (except that hotel sure sounds cushy and lavish to me)
"I understand the desire to keep control of all copies of a game, as pre-release piracy is certainly a real issue,"
Bullshit. Or at least it is not a good enough reason for having these events. There’s nothing stopping publishers from watermarking review games to identify the leakers. And guess what – they probably like the leaks, because they generate interest in the game.
And pre-release piracy is no different to post-release piracy.
Jarrard points to the difficulty in organizing multiplayer game sessions in advance of widespread releases, sessions that sometimes require dozens of players.
Bullshit. It is probably less difficult than organising a hotel event. Nobody heard of secure networks? Really? OK, it would need some work to get it set up right, but it only needs to be done once. I do sort of get the impression they haven’t thought very hard about it.
"Our readers don't play games under these conditions — in nice hotel suites with developers, producers, and PR nearby. Why would we as professional critics? Can we fairly review something if we're playing under different circumstances than our audience?"
Dan Hsu got it right here. So did Frushtick, so did Jarrard mostly. But Gerstner, McWhertor – hmmmm – tending towards justifying the unjustifiable I would say.
Gang up on the publishers, guys. Don’t accept their invitations. Make them do it your way – honestly.
12/03/09
12/03/09
Justifying it in ANY way to me says they are already influenced. If something is really honest, it doesn't need justification.
12/03/09
Definitely the Bungie quote caught my attention. The way they intended? Ha!
12/03/09
It doesn't matter that you gave your slippers and robe to charitable causes, McWhertor- they're still trying to indirectly bribe your opinion.
12/03/09
Well, if you ever thought that comments got promoted just for agreeing with someone ... you are absolutely right.
See - I am corruptible too.
12/03/09
12/03/09
Sounds like justifying a fun trip paid for by the publishers - which is not going to produce a unbiased review. Period.
12/03/09
Though, really, it was a great post. I almost wrote my own comment on the article, but probably wouldn't have done as good a job.
12/02/09
I'm finding myself somewhat torn on the issue. The thought of accepting anything on the publisher's dime, even if it is the only way to get the chance to review the game before the retail release, just seems wrong. Even if one can remain unbiased in the review, there's no way of verifying that to the readers. If it were me, I'd feel like I'm welcoming my readers to question my integrity.
However, an event like this making the multiplayer portion of the review easier is a valid point. And if this is the only way to get a review written before the retail release, then there really isn't much to be done about it.
I'm glad to hear that events like this remain rare. Even if they aren't overly posh, they still seem a bit shady.
12/02/09
12/02/09
For one reviewer, being wined and dined may be a treat that makes them feel a lot better about the game they're reviewing and thus influence their final score. For another reviewer, being cooped up could make the whole event feel too much like a chore and marr their experience with the game, again effecting the final score.
I guess this is why what Hsu said puts it best and why I find Kotaku reviews a good source for information about a game. Without the score, all we have is the words of the reviewer and their opinions and while they may be tainted by such an event or advertisement deal, they normally ring true enough to the reviewers personal feelings.
However, my choice in games isn't based at all on reviews anymore really. I tend to decide if I want a game or not based on what I've seen or heard about the game in previews and prerelease news. When I decide based on such information that I will buy the game, it's generally because I've heard enough to make me feel that there'll be enough in the game to suit my tastes. For example, SFIV was a day 1 buy as was Gran Turismo PSP among others. I knew I'd like these games so I didn't need a review to tell me how the reviewer liked them.
For the games that I can't make my mind up on, I read and watch a mixture of reviews, ignoring the score tacked on at the end and if I need further info, I turn to the community and find out their opinions because for good or bad, the community is unabashed at doling out their honest opinions.
12/02/09
Please bring me a 60+ inch HDTV and a bitchin' 7.1 surround sound system so I may experience my games "as you intended."
Love, Al
PS. Also send three Japanese schoolgirls so I can fully enjoy the multi-player experience.
12/02/09
This mainly effects multiplayer modes, but that doesn't mean that single player isn't effected as well.
Playing co-op with my friend while sitting right next to him can turn an average game into something extraordinary, playing the same game over Xbox Live makes it feel pretty ordinary.
The game experience is more than just what's showing on the screen, so altering the environment means that it's just not going to be an accurate representation of the game.
Of course, that all varies for every person, so any review doesn't necessarily reflect how the average gamer will be experiencing the game.
Long story short? It's important to factor in the environment that a review is done in, just like it's important to note which console the game is being played on and whatnot.
12/02/09
I just wonder if it's humanly possible to separate the memory of an event (positive or negative) from the feelings (positive or negative) on a game played at said event.
12/02/09
Or if it's easier to be convinced to think about the game in a particular way.
12/02/09
12/02/09
I hope this doesn't become a staple of the industry...or has it already?
12/02/09
12/02/09
12/02/09
And even though I said I have one, I can make, err, get more
12/02/09