bit-tech.net - Exclusive Game Reviews Ethically Troubling?

[magerette]

U.K. site bit-tech.net has a column (http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2008/04/28/exclusive-game-reviews-ethically-troubling/1) up examining the ethics aspect of game reviewing in the aftermath of the Gerstman flare-up. The short article looks at some comments made by Variety video games reporter Ben Fritz in his blog.
Here's a sample from the column:
Games journalism has had a tough time as of late, with many alleging that the industry is spotted with corruption after the woefully-titled Gerstman-gate. The onslaught hasn't finished yet either as Variety call the practices of sites like IGN in to question.

Variety's Ben Fritz has pointed the finger at sites like IGN in a recent article on his blog, questioning the integrity of sites that offer 'exclusive reviews'. The very idea of an exclusive review is, Fritz says, ethically troubling.

"How can we trust a videogame review when the outlet running it has been given a major commercial favor — one that's worth money — from the publisher of the game? You never see a paper or TV station getting special access from a movie studio or TV network or book publisher to run an "exclusive review," " says Fritz.

"Imagine the L.A. Times or Roger Ebert touting their "exclusive review of 'Iron Man.'" Absurd, right? So why do we tolerate it for a videogame?"
Fritz also discusses the questionable quality of 10/10 scores, publisher review 'embargoes' and how being the first outlet to run a game review influences web hits and magazine sales. You can read the full blog entry here. (http://weblogs.variety.com/the_cut_scene/2008/04/exclusive-revie.html)
More information. (http://www.rpgwatch.com/show/newsbit?newsbit=8824)

[doctor_kaz]

Good points, but not really new or original. I used to trust a few review sites, but now I don't trust any at all. I pretty much go by screenshots and gameplay videos, feature sets, and the track record of the developer.

[Brother None]

Not really new or original indeed, dr k, but the thing is these kind of things have been said over and over, but nobody seems to be listening.

When it comes to exclusive reviews for Halo 3 or GTA IV...I can't believe my eyes when I see nobody is kicking up much of a ruckus. This is ridiculous. We're talking about a mutual beneficial gain in the terms of real cash profit between a game publisher and a game reviewer.

That's not just "shady" like the parties publishers throw for reviewers or the constant soft-balling in interview land, it's just plain, all-out wrong. There really shouldn't be a discussion if it's ethical, there's nothing to discuss, it's wrong.

[DeepO]

More of such articles, the better.

[Reyla]

My favorite "review" <cough>.

http://www.joystiq.com/2008/04/14/first-grand-theft-auto-iv-review-perfect-10/

[Thaurin]

I don't really care. Reviews aren't there to be "trusted" in my opinion. You glean them for information. If there's little information in it, it's not a good review. And when a reviewer raves about a game, it's still just an opinion. I want to read why he thinks it's so amazing, with details. Even if it's not really his honest opinion, with the right details and my previous experiences with similar games or games from the same developer, I can decide if it's a title worth having.

I mean, you wouldn't buy something just because some random person on the internet said you should?

It also helps to user read comments from the haters, just for contrast. They're usually just as biased if not more, but it does off-set an otherwise one-sided view.

[GothicGothicness]

Look at GTA IV 10/10 almost everywhere, is it really the best game ever?

[Prime Junta]

The trouble is that most game journalists aren't journalists -- they haven't had the Sense Motive or Gather Information training/experience "real" journalists are expected to have. (Supposedly, anyway.) Plus the game press public consists largely of enthusiastic fans who are much more likely to be upset by a poor score of their favorite game than about a good score for someone else's favorite game.

This means that the entire industry is extremely vulnerable to manipulation -- both by game and media publishers.

This is a structural problem, and I can't see any shifts happening to change it. So I guess the best we can do is to continue what we're doing now -- basically, ignoring the scores, and reading carefully -- many of the reviews do, actually, mention some of the problems the games have, even if they don't end up in the scores.

[Thaurin]

Look at GTA IV 10/10 almost everywhere, is it really the best game ever?

I don't think game review scores were ever meant to be compared. When I see comments like, "Game X got 9.8 and game Y only got 8.5!??!! WTF????" I just roll my eyes. There are so many factors at work that don't even apply to both games that you shouldn't think of scores in that way.

10/10 also doesn't mean perfect, like some people believe. I think game review scores are more like personal opinion, tilt scores, even. When a reviewer gave it a 10/10, he was just really blown away by it, instead of that game being an objective 10 out of 10 perfect title.

[GothicGothicness]

If one reviewer give it 10/10 yeah it could be a personal tilt, but IF most reviewers give it 10 out of ten and calling it the best game ever???

And of course they should be compared I expect a 10/10 RPG to be a lot better than a 5/10 RPG , just look at how much better Tales of Eternia is compared to Oblivion!!! Oppps Oblivion got a 10/10 at some place and tales of eternia got a 5/10 hmmmmmmmmmmmmm,,, IT JUST MEANS THE REVIEWER SUCKS :P

[ToTo]

I don't really care. Reviews aren't there to be "trusted" in my opinion. You glean them for information. If there's little information in it, it's not a good review. And when a reviewer raves about a game, it's still just an opinion. I want to read why he thinks it's so amazing, with details. Even if it's not really his honest opinion, with the right details and my previous experiences with similar games or games from the same developer, I can decide if it's a title worth having.

The problem is that you can manipulate by not giving some information (like level scaling in Oblivion). He can choose for example only/one of few quest that was interesting and suggest that other has the same quality you can't check that information whithout other sources. Quest are very interesting and allow for many diferent approaches, for example when I was [...]. Now how can you know if that is a valid representation of game whithout other sources?

[doctor_kaz]

The ethics issues go beyond the questionable exclusive first reviews. Gaming journalists have relationships with the publishers and developers that is questionable too. They get all sorts of perks and goodies like the $800 bags of stuff that Microsoft sent out to the reviewers for Halo 3. Gametrailers TV had a brief segment on all of the cool stuff that publishers do for gaming journalists and one publisher took a bunch of them on a Zero G flight. A ticket on a Zero G flight costs $4,000 if you buy it yourself!!!

But it's not like we're paying for these reviews, so maybe they aren't unethical after all. It's like the "analyst" reports that Goldman Sachs and Bear Stearns issue for the companies that are also their clients. If you get a recommendation for free then it's probably not worth much more than what you paid for it. That doesn't make it any less frustrating though that the gaming media repeatedly overrates games and rewards or encourages mediocrity.

[Alrik Fassbauer]

Although not new, I believe that it is necessary that this topic is brought to the wide attention of the readers - regularly.

I personally don't believe that it is good when a small circle of very well informed people always says "we have known it always before", meanwhile the great masses remain uninformed.

[zakhal]

GTA4 was released today and its getting multiple 100% reviews. The signs from profets have become true. The new messiah of gaming has born. There are allready multiple fights on forums which console ps3 or xbox has the best version of this ultimate game. People are counting pixels and comparing sidebyside screenshots.

As long as masses are happy nothing will change.

[BillSeurer]

This isn't unique to gaming BTW. Car magazines regularly get in trouble because their "reviewers" are wooed big time by the auto companies.

Microsoft had (maybe still has) people who flew at a moments notice to the offices or homes of reviewers if they had the least bit of trouble. One reviewer gave an incredibly sarcastic review of one of MS's product one time about this assuring everyone that they too would have the same level of support that he had.

[drum]

Look at GTA IV 10/10 almost everywhere, is it really the best game ever?

It is as great as everyone expected - that's really an achievement worth 10 out of 10 nowadays. The hype was mostly true, wow!

[kalniel]

It is as great as everyone expected
Shows what expectations will do for you ;)

[DArtagnan]

About GTA IV:

I would never personally rate any game 10/10, as I tend to go by logical meaning. As in 10/10 is the ultimate, perfect, achievement. Such a thing will never happen and therefore I consider the whole notion of dozens of "perfect" reviews - amazingly silly.

That said, GTA IV is just about the best game I've seen in many years - but that's an objective observation. I like the franchise and I'm having fun with GTA IV (40% done or so), but it's not really my thing overall. I'd rather have a CRPG GTA in a Shadowrun setting - complete with magic, nethacking, non-scripted Deus Ex-type missions, and ninja motorcycles. But that's me.

Anyway, for once I think the hype is relatively justified - but as I said I would never personally rate a game 10/10 - no matter how good it was.

However, there is not the slightest doubt in my mind that corruption is rampant in this industry, but since I don't rely on reviews and never will - I have a hard time getting worked up over yet another kind of corruption. It's unfortunate that lies are being used to sell things, but such is the case everywhere. It's a worldwide disease and to cure it, we need to let a few thousand years pass with a ton of negative experiences to guide us to a better understanding of what happens when lies become the accepted norm.

[Squeek]

According to a poll (http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=288359) over at NeoGAF, nearly one in three customers is reporting a game-stopping issue with GTA IV (throw out the "I don't have the game" responses). How can all these reviewers give a broken game a perfect or near-perfect score?

[DArtagnan]

According to a poll (http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=288359) over at NeoGAF, nearly one in three customers is reporting a game-stopping issue with GTA IV (throw out the "I don't have the game" responses). How can all these reviewers give a broken game a perfect or near-perfect score?

My guess would be that their review copies weren't broken.

I don't think reviewers can predict the future, nor do I think it's fair to expect that.

[Squeek]

My guess would be that their review copies weren't broken.

I don't think reviewers can predict the future, nor do I think it's fair to expect that.That must be it then. The reviewers had good luck, and the fans had bad luck. Imagining anything else is unfair.

[DArtagnan]

That must be it then. The reviewers had good luck, and the fans had bad luck. Imagining anything else is unfair.

First of all, we don't know how many are experiencing the problem. Secondly, reviewers are most likely playing a slightly earlier version and if the problem is the actual discs (it's a hardware related error by all accounts) - then it's not unreasonable to assume that reviewers didn't experience this error. Even if it's as bad as some people suggest (30%), it's not certain that reviewers would have encountered the error- according to probability - if they DID in fact have identical versions (copies from the same master).

I certainly find it more reasonable than reviewers deliberately covering up that the game doesn't work. I've got a copy myself that works perfectly so far, and I seriously doubt it's an issue with the game itself - as the code obviously works and hardware is as good as identical across consoles.

Anyway, it's not really something we can know for sure. I wouldn't be surprised if reviewers sometimes cover up bugs or crashes to please developers - I just don't see anything remotely suggesting such is the case here.

[Squeek]

First of all, we don't know how...Secondly, reviewers are most likely...then it's not unreasonable to assume...Even if...it's not certain...according to probability...if they DID in fact...I've got a copy myself that works perfectly...I seriously doubt...Anyway, it's not really something we can know for sure...I just don't see anything remotely suggesting....Welcome to the world of high technology. If we had a theme song, it would be something just like that.

DArtangnan, I only asked how it could happen. If the stuff you're objecting to seems obvious to you, then I don't blame you. It seems pretty obvious to me too.

But isn't it a game reviewer's job to evaluate a game and give the reader information he can use? Wouldn't information about a game-stopping problem be valuable?

Like it or not, it's perfectly valid to wonder how reviewers missed it. Something went wrong. Why defend it? I'd like to see an end to that mindset, especially among game makers and reviewers.

[DArtagnan]

Ehm, are you reading my posts?

I'm not defending anything, I'm suggesting that they probably didn't even know the problem existed and as such weren't in a position to warn people about that which they didn't know.

If they DID know, then I'll be on the offensive as well. It's simply about what I find likely - based on 100% neutral observation. I have no emotional investment either way.

I don't have any reason to suspect the reviewers were aware of problems, and I don't think Rockstar intended to release a version with the reported amount of hardware lockups. It's not like they have any special interest in deceiving people with a large number of faulty copies. Obviously the software works as intended - as at least 2 out of 3 people are playing it without issue - myself included. That STRONGLY suggests a hardware related error, and my personal guess is that something went wrong during the duplication process from gold master to DVD/BR media. Seems like a big batch came out faulty, and buyers will most likely be compensated in time.

You're implying that reviewers were fully aware of the reported problems with the release version, and apparently none of them were truthful since not a single reviewer mentions hardware lockups (at least not in the 4-5 reviews I've read so far). Interestingly enough, all the reviews I've read strongly indicate that reviewers completed the game, as they comment on what happens late in the story. I wonder how they managed to get that far with faulty copies that lock up their systems. I guess Rockstar dictated the reviews?

As I said, I have no doubt corruption is rampant in the industry - but I don't automatically assume everyone is a liar and cover-up artist.

[Squeek]

I suppose I could demand that you quote where I implied any of that, but that's not necessary. Everything I've said is still here in this thread.

Like you, I wondered whether or not reviewers had been honest, and I'm not surprised you thought that came across in my post. I haven't actually expressed my opinion about that yet, but I can tell you that one difference between mine and yours is that I don't see the need to defend reviewers at this point or to avoid obvious questions about their reviews.

[DArtagnan]

I suppose I could demand that you quote where I implied any of that, but that's not necessary. Everything I've said is still here in this thread.

Like you, I wondered whether or not reviewers had been honest, and I'm not surprised you thought that came across in my post. I haven't actually expressed my opinion about that yet, but I can tell you that one difference between mine and yours is that I don't see the need to defend reviewers at this point or to avoid obvious questions about their reviews.

Are you kidding me?

You've been implying reviewers were aware of the problems - all along. I can't think of a more futile endeavor than trying to prove that to you. You know what you wrote, and if you claim you never meant to imply anything of the sort, well then there's nothing to be gained by trying to demonstrate the opposite.

Furthermore, you keep insisting that my opinion of what happened is a defense of reviewers, even though I've been quite clear about that.

In effect, I see no point in continuing this exchange as it would be a waste of our time.

[Squeek]

I suppose this question probably should have been raised on a forum where fans get together to exchange opinions and discuss games, one where it's tolerable for opinion to be reserved.

Whatever the cause turns out to be, I imagine it will be identified soon and that there will be an explaination offered along with a solution. I think I'll wait for that before deciding whether or not I feel reviewers ignored it.

Sorry if that rubs you the wrong way, DArtagnan.

[Dhruin]

I don't have GTA4 (no console), so I can't speak to personal observances - but I find this poll (and therefore the journalistic implications) rather dubious. I frequent a number of gaming fora and many of them are flooded with GTA4 posts...and I don't see any evidence of widespread problems. In fact, I don't really see evidence of any problems.

Tom Chick has eight hours, some reservations, but no obvious technical issues (http://www.quartertothree.com/inhouse/news/435/). Qt3 has nine (9!) GTA related threads (http://www.quartertothree.com/game-talk/forumdisplay.php?f=6) currently on the first page and I haven't seen a mention of it. And so on.

[Squeek]

Well, NeoGAF made the post about it a sticky, and it's been viewed over 90,000 times and had 1,741 responses. Half the PS3 and a quarter of the XBox customers reported it. They're also saying there's a temporary fix.

[Dhruin]

I was going to come back to this...a post about this did show up on Qt3 but the response was underwhelming - from a brief look, it looks like it might be related to multiplayer games and players with network issues. Anyway, I accept there is some issue but I still think NeoGAF has (as usual) blown it out of proportion, or I'd see outrage everywhere I turn (and I don't).