Variety Game Writer Troubled by "Exclusive" Reviews (including GTA IV's)
Variety Game Writer Troubled by "Exclusive" Reviews (including GTA IV's)
April 28, 2008
Ben Fritz (left), who writes The Cut Scene blog for Variety, questions the journalistic ethics underlying exclusive game reviews.At the center of Fritz's concern is IGN's recent perfect score for Grand Theft Auto IV. Fritz writes:
I'm not at all accusing IGN of being dishonest in this particular case... HOWEVER... what the hell is with the concept of an "exclusive review?" Is anyone else as troubled by this entire concept as I am?
...being the first outlet to review a highly anticipated new videogame is a big deal. It means a major boost in Web traffic or magazine sales. ...But 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." 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?
Via: That Videogame Blog
UPDATE: IGN responds in an interview on Game Daily. Xbox Editor Hilary Goldstein said:
My problem with online journalism in general is that nobody does their due diligence. Nobody from Variety called us and said, "Hey, would you like to comment about this?" ...A lot of people didn't get the game early. So if Variety didn't get the game early then you're looking at somebody, I don't know, who had a grudge on his shoulder because he didn't even have the game yet and we'd already put out the review.
I just wish people would call. We had so many people writing comments about us and not a single person contacted us. Not Kotaku. Not Variety. Nobody called. They just all made assumptions. And of course we gave it a 10. But so did everyone else.
A PUBLICATION OF THE ECA
SUBSCRIBE
LOGINGamePolitics ShoutBox
Posted 07/24/08 at 07:39am
sortableturnip: Best...comments...ever: http://jaablog.jaablaw.com/2008/07/06/jack-needs-your-help.aspx?pg=5&view=threaded
sortableturnip: Best...comments...ever: http://jaablog.jaablaw.com/2008/07/06/jack-needs-your-help.aspx?pg=5&view=threaded
Posted 07/24/08 at 05:42am
sortableturnip: Alteffor: I 2nd that motion. GP you should have a special section for all of JT's correspondence to you
sortableturnip: Alteffor: I 2nd that motion. GP you should have a special section for all of JT's correspondence to you
Posted 07/23/08 at 10:13pm
GRIZZAM PRIME: Lunatic: Nope. Ever fading if I'm not mistaken.
GRIZZAM PRIME: Lunatic: Nope. Ever fading if I'm not mistaken.
Posted 07/23/08 at 08:05pm
LuNaTiC: is there a way to view old shouts? sorry if its a noob question.
LuNaTiC: is there a way to view old shouts? sorry if its a noob question.
Posted 07/23/08 at 07:07pm
gamepolitics: momma didn't raise no sock puppet
gamepolitics: momma didn't raise no sock puppet
Posted 07/23/08 at 06:15pm
Rodrigo Ybáñez García: Jack is a repressed man. Don´t be surprised...
Rodrigo Ybáñez García: Jack is a repressed man. Don´t be surprised...
Posted 07/23/08 at 06:07pm
GryphonOsiris: So Jack admitted paying for gay porn... all I can say is wow... just wow...
GryphonOsiris: So Jack admitted paying for gay porn... all I can say is wow... just wow...
Posted 07/23/08 at 05:09pm
lumi: to the case, and he's been on 60 minutes once!
lumi: to the case, and he's been on 60 minutes once!
Posted 07/23/08 at 05:09pm
lumi: GP, you should mention you'll be filing a legal injunction against him if he doesn't comply. Phoenix Wright will be attached
lumi: GP, you should mention you'll be filing a legal injunction against him if he doesn't comply. Phoenix Wright will be attached
Posted 07/23/08 at 03:32pm
Alteffor: You should add a section to the site for anything Jack CC's to you. It's always entertaining to read the stuff he writes.
Alteffor: You should add a section to the site for anything Jack CC's to you. It's always entertaining to read the stuff he writes.
Posted 07/23/08 at 03:31pm
Matriculated: Does anyone know when the Supreme Court reaches their decission?
Matriculated: Does anyone know when the Supreme Court reaches their decission?
Posted 07/23/08 at 03:04pm
Freyar: I demand to see this letter! (Not that I have any grounds to demand on.)
Freyar: I demand to see this letter! (Not that I have any grounds to demand on.)
Posted 07/23/08 at 02:53pm
gamepolitics: JT called me a "sock puppet" in an e-mail to Hal Halpin... i gave him 24 hours to retract it, LOL
gamepolitics: JT called me a "sock puppet" in an e-mail to Hal Halpin... i gave him 24 hours to retract it, LOL
Posted 07/23/08 at 02:46pm
Haggard: Might want to take a look at what Anthony Horowitz wrote about GTA IV in the Telegraph, article seems to have been taken down
Haggard: Might want to take a look at what Anthony Horowitz wrote about GTA IV in the Telegraph, article seems to have been taken down
Posted 07/23/08 at 01:05pm
Silencets: Beutiful. I always did wonder about Jacko Wacko
Silencets: Beutiful. I always did wonder about Jacko Wacko
Posted 07/23/08 at 10:24am
Matriculated: So Jack (an anti-gay activist) PAYED for gay porn
Matriculated: So Jack (an anti-gay activist) PAYED for gay porn
Posted 07/23/08 at 10:22am
Matriculated: [i]...and purchased membership.[/i]
Matriculated: [i]...and purchased membership.[/i]
Posted 07/23/08 at 10:21am
Matriculated: [i] few months later, as part of his ongoing campaign against Kent, Thompson followed links to gay porn on Kent's website[/i]
Matriculated: [i] few months later, as part of his ongoing campaign against Kent, Thompson followed links to gay porn on Kent's website[/i]
Posted 07/23/08 at 07:40am
sortableturnip: Jack's at it again: http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/riptide/2008/07/jack_thompson_faces_permanent.php
sortableturnip: Jack's at it again: http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/riptide/2008/07/jack_thompson_faces_permanent.php
Posted 07/22/08 at 11:22pm
PHOENIXZERO: Ugh, that CNBC program "Play to Win" is it? Is on again...
PHOENIXZERO: Ugh, that CNBC program "Play to Win" is it? Is on again...
Copyright © 2007 ECA. All rights reserved.
Game Politics and Game Politics logo are trademarks of the ECA.
Game Politics and Game Politics logo are trademarks of the ECA.
Comments
There are better reviewers out there - ZeroPunctuation comes to mind.
It’s not really a question of being right or wrong in their reviews to be honest, it’s being objective when it is what you do for a living.
EXACTLY!
That is 100% perfect what i was trying to say :)
the whole point of this article isnt so ppl can go 'oh well GTa MAY be that good duh!'. Yes it may, but there are far too many games that receive reviews not based on teh quality of the game but based on the quality of te freebiews / ad revenue they get. Its a sad but true fact that myself (as a game dev) know only too well about.
A game should earn its review PURELY on its gameplay, not even 1% due to ad money or whatever. ITs just wrong.
But what I am sure is that GTA IV deserve this score.
I trust some reviews. For print magazines, it's important to get games to review early so that they can have content for their magazine. IGN, however, doesn't have that excuse.
This sounds some what similar to what the Source did with Benzino. Or FOX news not having any problems with 20 century Fox new release and so forth.
It's because IGN's target market is the internet where the amount of content is not limited by time and space thus putting up words like "Exclusive" just makes the story more interesting.
Then again, he forget to mention all the celeb tv shows like "Entertainment Tonight" and "Access Hollywood" who have "Exclusive" interviews with celebs and reviews of movies and events involving well known celebs.
However, I do agree that, in practice, this "exclusive review" system is rotten and can (and probably has) cause problems with unfair rating.
I usualy just read the review and ignore the number in the corner.
I find it a little ironic.
Hope Fritz doesn't read his employer's website.
P.S. I don't know if that was a comment or a rant but you all caught my drift.
That is paid advertising though, not supposed neutral-source reviews of the product in question. I think that the article writer is correct... Roger Ebert doesn't get exclusive reviews of movies... why? Because it makes no sense from multiple standpoints. The whole exclusive thing just means that the video game company can "sweeten the deal" to make the review be biased a bit more favorably to them... not saying it necessarily will happen, just that it can happen, while if multiple different sources can review the item in question, then the consumer is better informed about the product. "Exclusivity" is basically another word for propaganda.
While in general exclusive reviews may seem bad they're a moot point. Five minutes after the exclusivity period is up everybody has posted their reviews. Not to mention the fact that these "exclusive firsts" are usually only done for highly anticipated titles, which makes their reviews not all that surprising when they do come out.
In the end, they're really no different than reporters getting exclusive interviews for a story.
I believe they've defended themselves as legitimate critics.
It's not a moot point that someone gets an exclusive review if you realize that a few hours is enough to drive additiional traffic to the site enough to enhance its normal figures for advertising sales. In essence, these 'exclusive' official rights given to a website or magazine publication for review comes with strings attached. If a publication receives exclusive rights and then torpedoes the game...this can happen:
http://gamepolitics.com/2008/01/09/editor-upset-with-coverage-gamecos-cu...
So, I would say that IGN has been indiscreet, and it is a concern for anyone who gives a crap about standards and integrity anymore in whatever venue.
http://nsidernews.com/mario-galaxy-review-is-the-worse-experience/
What gamers take Variety reviews seriously anyways?
a sad fact i learned when becoming a dev.. :(
Welcome to the internet where you can find pretty much anything for free from numerous resources.
The ratings scale seems to be from 7 to 10 rather than 0 to 10, largely because of developers driving it with ad money on review sites and giving exclusive reviews to only favorable reviewers.
Considering past performance, I would believe GTA Rockstar is capable of making a 10 game, and I would not expect GTA to drop below 80% on any scale, so this may not be the example to use. There are plenty of others out there though.
I totally agree. It's shady. But then, so is IGN. As a reader, as soon as you hear "exclusive review" you should be thinking "not going to read it".
It's always about money and site traffic/readership. The only difference is that a lot of times the film industry doesn't use the moniker "exclusive."
One should be wary of any pre-release review not only due to the publishers and developers controlling who gets the reviews, but also because content changes.
Variety is just as bad with their movie reviews though. It is sad when a comedic newspaper like The Onion is actually a better source of media reviews than a movie specific source.
Did fansites like GTAGaming, GTA Planet and others pay or give favors to gain exclusive screenshots? I would argue no.
Can someone tell me how long Variety has kept a gaming section? I'd suggest that maybe this guy is new, but I down want to put him down in such a way if he's been there a while...
To me, this whole thing is similar to seeing three movie trailers in a row that claim to be the "Best Movie of the Year" by critics. They've gotta have a hook, and the phrase "exclusive" is one of them.
I was just thinking about someone saying 7-10 scale. Not true, if they pay for ad space it's more like 8-10, if they don't it's more like 1-7.
Companies that review games do get advanced copies. Granted a lot of the reviews these days are very slanted.
No, they will just cut and paste the same review and score, substituting PS3 for Xbox 360 (or vice versa).
Second of all, that was the major warning that the authors of "Paid to Play" mentioned in their Journalism chapter. Game companies know you'd love that trip to the Bahamas to try out the latest FPS. They know you may need a new 360 in order to review Halo 3, so they send that Special Limited Edition.
Rockstar knew that IGN would love to boost their traffic (which has been dwindling lately). Nuff Said.
You think Take 2 would lock them in a hotel to play the game just for these folks to give them a bad score?
I'm still buying it at midnight.
Then my brain went to ignore-mode.
Obviously 10+ perfect scores from big-time reviewers must mean SOMETHING
It's not really a question of being right or wrong in their reviews to be honest, it's being objective when it is what you do for a living.
I have every respect for games reviewers, but when you get paid to review games, and when the sites or magazines you are reviewing games for are heavily dependent upon advertising money, there is...pressure. Certainly, no game reviewer wants to rate a game higher than it deserves, and I'm not saying the game is any worse than they say, but personally, I'd rather hear the opinions of people who have absolutely nothing to lose if their opinion isn't popular.
I might even disagree with them, I've bought a few games and they've turned out to be much better than other people claimed, but at least I feel like I'm getting the whole picture. A reviewer might say that a game has a few 'annoying' buglets, whereas, in my experience, 'Game crippling' would be more of an accurate depiction, both Gothic 3 and X3 at release come to mind in that respect (though both were, in all fairness, patched moderately swiftly), so getting the whole picture is sometimes very important.
Eventually other people will get their hands on it and review it regardless of what a publisher wants or thinks. Eventually the truth will come out, no matter how much a publisher is willing to pay to hide it. If you're dubious, then just wait. If you're going to be sucked in by the first review, chances are you were sucked in already.
If you have a problem with exclusive reviews, your ethics are in the right place, but your logic isnt.
Hence, I tend not to trust IGN's reviews anymore. I don't trust Gamespot's reviews as much as I used to do. Greg's Kasavin's reviews seemed to be very good & honest as did Jeff Gerstmann's. However, both of these now have left Gamespot...
These days, I tend to rely much more on my fellow gamers' reviews of the games I want to play, be it adventure, rpg, or even fps games.
Bad example dude, it isn't that uncommon for good games on the consoles to have crappy PC ports, The reason? controls the PC may have a shit load of more buttons but the layout of a keyboard means that it will be awkward at best and unplayable at worst, one prime example is DMC3 Special Edition the controls just didn't work on the PC. just because it has the same name doesn't make it the same game, is my philosophy when it comes to PC ports, with the possible exeption of FPS's
Post new comment