More about game "journalists" selling out their readers.
08-04-02, 12:48 PM
#27
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 2,208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Darknight
I'm sure some get swayed by events, but the main journalists usually do not. Why? Because they go to so many of these things and while it's cool to go have fun and all, it almost becomes routine and doesn't wow you like they would if you've only been to one or two. Being a video game journalist myself, I look forward to these events, but not once has it ever swayed my opinion on a game from being anything but objective. When I attend these events, I write about the games because it's news. But that's really no different than a company sending me a beta and then writing about it that way. If anything the events are more social and you get to hang out with people in the industry while eating and drinking.
To sum it up, when it comes to the regular gaming press, and I don't mean the people who write for your major newspaper or like Time magazine, but your core people who write for IGN, ziff davis and so forth, the events rarely sway their opinion.
I'm sure some get swayed by events, but the main journalists usually do not. Why? Because they go to so many of these things and while it's cool to go have fun and all, it almost becomes routine and doesn't wow you like they would if you've only been to one or two. Being a video game journalist myself, I look forward to these events, but not once has it ever swayed my opinion on a game from being anything but objective. When I attend these events, I write about the games because it's news. But that's really no different than a company sending me a beta and then writing about it that way. If anything the events are more social and you get to hang out with people in the industry while eating and drinking.
To sum it up, when it comes to the regular gaming press, and I don't mean the people who write for your major newspaper or like Time magazine, but your core people who write for IGN, ziff davis and so forth, the events rarely sway their opinion.
No reputable journalist accepts gifts and bribes from the people they're supposed to cover.
Presidential campaigns would pay for travel and accommodations for the press corps, but, instead, their organizations pay for everything, so they can remain independent.
When reputable film critics go on press junkets, which are similar to game "events," though frequently less extravagant, their organizations pick up the tab, so they can remain independent. Harry Knowles lets the studios pay his way, and he can't be trusted.
The gaming press, meanwhile attends events where the people they're supposed to cover throw extravagant parties. The gaming press attends events where they fly in F-14's, drive tanks, and see the Superbowl, at the expense of the people they're supposed to cover.
The developers justify the expense as "cheaper than advertising." Further, the gaming press works to fulfill the PR needs of developers in exchange for access to games in development. The result is that the consumer cannot trust the video game press.
Further, I don't care about benefit of the doubt previews. Developers can work on framerates and clipping and small glitches, but when a game sucks two months from release, it's going to suck. When the press writes gushing previews of a game for a year, you cannot trust them enough to pre-order. When they write gushing reviews, you still can't trust them. So what are they good for?
08-04-02, 01:28 PM
#28
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 2,208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by ten41
ScandalUMD - give me an example of a game that the majority of the people who played it thought it was awful and was given great scores across the game industry.
ScandalUMD - give me an example of a game that the majority of the people who played it thought it was awful and was given great scores across the game industry.
If you check out IGN's reviews of games like "The Bouncer," and "Oni," they're not exactly trying to convince anyone not to buy these games. In fact, very rarely will they point out a major developer's game, and say "don't buy this."
Often, the reviews will willfully glos over some major control issue, such as the controls in "Dropship." This was viewed as a pretty average game that was only for people looking for a flight sim fix, but it still got rated in the 7.5-8.0 range.
My argument is simple; there are enough great games that nobody needs to buy a game that's only "pretty good." So "pretty good" is actually pretty bad. The game reviews are written, so, if you were really hoping "Agent Under Fire" would be good, the review will help you convince yourself to buy it, instead of pushing you the other way, which is what they should do.
08-04-02, 03:18 PM
#29
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 1,053
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scandal -
Ever stop to think that maybe these reviewers play 100 times more games than you, 90% of which are complete crap? And that most of the games you play are considered the cream of the crop? Compared to all the other crap out there, games like the Bouncer and Oni are pretty damn good.
Ever stop to think that maybe these reviewers play 100 times more games than you, 90% of which are complete crap? And that most of the games you play are considered the cream of the crop? Compared to all the other crap out there, games like the Bouncer and Oni are pretty damn good.
08-04-02, 03:56 PM
#30
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally posted by William Wallace
Scandal -
Ever stop to think that maybe these reviewers play 100 times more games than you, 90% of which are complete crap? And that most of the games you play are considered the cream of the crop? Compared to all the other crap out there, games like the Bouncer and Oni are pretty damn good.
Scandal -
Ever stop to think that maybe these reviewers play 100 times more games than you, 90% of which are complete crap? And that most of the games you play are considered the cream of the crop? Compared to all the other crap out there, games like the Bouncer and Oni are pretty damn good.
Just my .02,
Shawn
08-04-02, 04:08 PM
#31
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 2,208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by William Wallace
Scandal -
Ever stop to think that maybe these reviewers play 100 times more games than you, 90% of which are complete crap? And that most of the games you play are considered the cream of the crop? Compared to all the other crap out there, games like the Bouncer and Oni are pretty damn good.
Scandal -
Ever stop to think that maybe these reviewers play 100 times more games than you, 90% of which are complete crap? And that most of the games you play are considered the cream of the crop? Compared to all the other crap out there, games like the Bouncer and Oni are pretty damn good.
It's their job to play the bad games so that gamers don't have to, and it's their job to make it crystal clear which games are cream-of-the crop, and which are not worth $50. And, instead, they give you the closest thing they can to ad copy while still maintaining a modicum of credibility with their readers. They will give a purely unremarkable game the best review they reasonably can.
And it's because they're friends with the developers and their PR people. It's because they party and drink with the developers and their PR people. It's because developers and PR people take them to castles and to Vegas and on fighter jets, and pay for strippers.
They expect us to pay for "insider" and "complete" coverage, but they make their living selling games to gamers, and selling gamers to publishers, rather than by providing independent analysis and content to help consumers make educated purchases.
But they'll probably go out of business soon anyway. Why are you even bothering to defend them?
08-04-02, 05:53 PM
#32
DVD Talk Legend
Man ScandalUMD... who pissed in your cheerios?
You really have some built up angst, and heavy issues with this subject (don't you)???
What happened... have you bought some crap games on pre-order yourself because you believed everything you read in magazines? Did you buy the Bruce Lee xbox game? Or maybe you imported The Bouncer from Square before it hit the U.S. shores… was that it? Have you decided to make it your own personal crusade to save every gamer from the clutches of these evil journalists, and their skewed articles that are filled with lies and deceit???
Or maybe you actually use to write for one of these magazines and were fired. Is that it... were you let go???
You're making allot of accusations and using allot of pronouns...but where are the facts?
"It's their job to play....
"They give you the closet thing to add copy...
"They expect us to pay for "insider" and "complete" coverage, but they...
I'm outta here... this thread is starting to look like you're just trolling for an argument.
Here’s my award for the day, cherish it.
-k
###
You really have some built up angst, and heavy issues with this subject (don't you)???
What happened... have you bought some crap games on pre-order yourself because you believed everything you read in magazines? Did you buy the Bruce Lee xbox game? Or maybe you imported The Bouncer from Square before it hit the U.S. shores… was that it? Have you decided to make it your own personal crusade to save every gamer from the clutches of these evil journalists, and their skewed articles that are filled with lies and deceit???
Or maybe you actually use to write for one of these magazines and were fired. Is that it... were you let go???
You're making allot of accusations and using allot of pronouns...but where are the facts?
"It's their job to play....
"They give you the closet thing to add copy...
"They expect us to pay for "insider" and "complete" coverage, but they...
I'm outta here... this thread is starting to look like you're just trolling for an argument.
Here’s my award for the day, cherish it.
-k
###
08-04-02, 06:39 PM
#33
Member
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Sunnyvale, CA 94086
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scandal: Man you have some extreme view that is almost entirely out of perspective and untrue to the reality of the situation. Have you ever been to one of these events? Flying a F-14 or such events are RARE. The typical event usually consists of a game presentation, and some food and drinks. That's all. Sometimes they're at neat locations, and sometimes they aren't. Being catered to with food isn't being bought off really. You get catered with food at any event. There are times when you do some extra fun thing, but those really are on rare occaisions and not the norm. Let me describe some of the more recent events I've been to.
One was for THQ. They held it at a small club/bar. There was food since it was at night, generally like a small dinner type thing where you go up and grab what you want. Somewhat open bar, but only to a certain extent. Now around the place they have several TVs set up with various systems hooked up to them. Around each one is usually one of the developers who worked on the game to help explain or answer questions. In the middle of the event, there is a video presentation and some explanation overall of what they plan on doing. That's it. This isn't really any different than another event I went to with Eidos. Once we went to their office, got a demonstration of a game, and a presentation, some hands on, and then we got some lunch. Same thing when we went to Crystal Dynamics. We had sandwiches for lunch and then a tour of some of the things they were doing with some time to talk to the developers. How is this really any different than what happened with THQ? You got a presentation, and some food.
Heck even one of the more elaborate events from Eidos was the unveiling of Tomb Raider: Angel of Darkness. They held it at a museum in SF. It was kind of fancy outside with Tomb Raider lighting. On the inside, you got to stroll around the museum and check things out while getting some food and drink until the presentation started. Once the presentation started, there was an introduction, then a trailer for Tomb Raider, and then a Q&A with Core. After that we got a small notebook, a pen that lit up, and on the way out a bottle of wine that had a Tomb Raider label on it. And despite all this, the general impression among the friends I talked to who are also journalists were, it looks interesting but they were disappointed that they didn't show more and that it could still be as bad as the later versions on the PS. It was too early to tell. And despite all of this, it didn't stop me from completely hating what I saw at E3.
Maybe you should get some perspective and see what really goes on at these events before mouthing off and assuming that we're so influenced like we're sheep. Most of the key journalists know how to cut through the BS that is given to us, but we go to these events in order to get the latest news or check out the latest version of the game. The food, and mingling are perks, but certainly not a way to sway us since we go to so many of these events. Not to mention that these events happen so often, that they a lot of them happen in the bay area, and the people who attend are people who work in the bay area. It would be too expensive to constantly fly people out here. That's why there are west coast editors listed in magazines so that they can cover these types of events. Also companies don't always pay for travel expenses for these things. It really depends on how major the event or announcement is. What you've done is taken the rare and extreme case and assumed it's the norm which it is not. Not only that but you assume to know what goes on at these things when you've never been to one. Not once has one of these events swayed my opinion other than the game itself improving or being worse than I had expected or had previously played. Nobody paid me off, and nobody will ever pay me off to change my view and I can say that's the same for several people in the industry. I'm sure some people do get swayed, but not the major gaming press.
One was for THQ. They held it at a small club/bar. There was food since it was at night, generally like a small dinner type thing where you go up and grab what you want. Somewhat open bar, but only to a certain extent. Now around the place they have several TVs set up with various systems hooked up to them. Around each one is usually one of the developers who worked on the game to help explain or answer questions. In the middle of the event, there is a video presentation and some explanation overall of what they plan on doing. That's it. This isn't really any different than another event I went to with Eidos. Once we went to their office, got a demonstration of a game, and a presentation, some hands on, and then we got some lunch. Same thing when we went to Crystal Dynamics. We had sandwiches for lunch and then a tour of some of the things they were doing with some time to talk to the developers. How is this really any different than what happened with THQ? You got a presentation, and some food.
Heck even one of the more elaborate events from Eidos was the unveiling of Tomb Raider: Angel of Darkness. They held it at a museum in SF. It was kind of fancy outside with Tomb Raider lighting. On the inside, you got to stroll around the museum and check things out while getting some food and drink until the presentation started. Once the presentation started, there was an introduction, then a trailer for Tomb Raider, and then a Q&A with Core. After that we got a small notebook, a pen that lit up, and on the way out a bottle of wine that had a Tomb Raider label on it. And despite all this, the general impression among the friends I talked to who are also journalists were, it looks interesting but they were disappointed that they didn't show more and that it could still be as bad as the later versions on the PS. It was too early to tell. And despite all of this, it didn't stop me from completely hating what I saw at E3.
Maybe you should get some perspective and see what really goes on at these events before mouthing off and assuming that we're so influenced like we're sheep. Most of the key journalists know how to cut through the BS that is given to us, but we go to these events in order to get the latest news or check out the latest version of the game. The food, and mingling are perks, but certainly not a way to sway us since we go to so many of these events. Not to mention that these events happen so often, that they a lot of them happen in the bay area, and the people who attend are people who work in the bay area. It would be too expensive to constantly fly people out here. That's why there are west coast editors listed in magazines so that they can cover these types of events. Also companies don't always pay for travel expenses for these things. It really depends on how major the event or announcement is. What you've done is taken the rare and extreme case and assumed it's the norm which it is not. Not only that but you assume to know what goes on at these things when you've never been to one. Not once has one of these events swayed my opinion other than the game itself improving or being worse than I had expected or had previously played. Nobody paid me off, and nobody will ever pay me off to change my view and I can say that's the same for several people in the industry. I'm sure some people do get swayed, but not the major gaming press.
08-05-02, 12:45 AM
#34
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 1,053
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Playing games all day, even bad ones, doesn't seem like too bad a job, especially when they sweeten the pot with free parties and trips and flights in F-14 fighter jets.
It's their job to play the bad games so that gamers don't have to, and it's their job to make it crystal clear which games are cream-of-the crop, and which are not worth $50. And, instead, they give you the closest thing they can to ad copy while still maintaining a modicum of credibility with their readers. They will give a purely unremarkable game the best review they reasonably can.
And it's because they're friends with the developers and their PR people. It's because they party and drink with the developers and their PR people. It's because developers and PR people take them to castles and to Vegas and on fighter jets, and pay for strippers.
They expect us to pay for "insider" and "complete" coverage, but they make their living selling games to gamers, and selling gamers to publishers, rather than by providing independent analysis and content to help consumers make educated purchases.
But they'll probably go out of business soon anyway. Why are you even bothering to defend them?
It's their job to play the bad games so that gamers don't have to, and it's their job to make it crystal clear which games are cream-of-the crop, and which are not worth $50. And, instead, they give you the closest thing they can to ad copy while still maintaining a modicum of credibility with their readers. They will give a purely unremarkable game the best review they reasonably can.
And it's because they're friends with the developers and their PR people. It's because they party and drink with the developers and their PR people. It's because developers and PR people take them to castles and to Vegas and on fighter jets, and pay for strippers.
They expect us to pay for "insider" and "complete" coverage, but they make their living selling games to gamers, and selling gamers to publishers, rather than by providing independent analysis and content to help consumers make educated purchases.
But they'll probably go out of business soon anyway. Why are you even bothering to defend them?
My point was that most game mag reviewers are probably not as picky as your average joe gamer. Their reviews ARE honest, because The Bouncer really is one of the better games out there. It's just that you probably have never even played the truly crappy games. Besides, I know of many people who actually like The Bouncer.
I've seen plenty of games get trashed by game critics. For example, Mission impossible on n64, many fighting games on n64, superman on n64, san francisco rush on psx, bruce lee on xbox, and many others.
08-05-02, 02:56 AM
#35
DVD Talk Legend
I think you guys are being too hard on Scandal.. He's got a point or two. Being a part of video game media coverage is a pretty dope job. First of all - you get to be a writer which is what alot of those people like to do anyway. Second, you get to play games before anyone else... lots of games... all the time. Third, people actually care about your geeky opinion of this game because nobody else has played it yet. Finally, you get to go to events like E3 for free where video game publishers flaunt large-breasted models dressed up as video game characters so that you'll be thinking about that in-the-flesh version of that catholic schoolgirl rollerblader's boobs while writing a review for Aggressive Inline.
Besides - Oni wasn't a good game. Oh, it could've been - but the level and texture design was nonexistant so it ended up being boring after 5 minutes. In PC magazines I remember that game getting a pretty low score, but console magazines gave it a fairly decent score... what's that mean? As for Bouncer - "I know of many people who actually like The Bouncer" Prove it. Produce them. I want video confessions while they are strapped into a lie detector... cuz I don't think you know anybody who liked that game.
Actually, I've never played it - but my friend said it sucked balls, so I never bothered. I do remember really wanting to play it after seeing all the hype and the reviews of it though.
Besides - Oni wasn't a good game. Oh, it could've been - but the level and texture design was nonexistant so it ended up being boring after 5 minutes. In PC magazines I remember that game getting a pretty low score, but console magazines gave it a fairly decent score... what's that mean? As for Bouncer - "I know of many people who actually like The Bouncer" Prove it. Produce them. I want video confessions while they are strapped into a lie detector... cuz I don't think you know anybody who liked that game.
Actually, I've never played it - but my friend said it sucked balls, so I never bothered. I do remember really wanting to play it after seeing all the hype and the reviews of it though.
08-05-02, 03:32 AM
#36
Member
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Sunnyvale, CA 94086
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh I won't say that the job sucks or anything, but Scandal has us as being bribed and easily persuade while being given tons of cash and lots of gifts which couldn't be further from the truth. I wish I was getting the lifestyle that he thinks gaming press get. There are disadvantages to being gaming press though. It doesn't pay very well, which doesn't help when you live in CA, it can be extremely long hours and working weekends to make deadlines. E3 isn't what it's cracked up to be when you're working. Sure you get to see new stuff, but most of the time you're running from one appointment to another which you have to do regardless how boring the pitch is going to be, and believe me they can be quite boring at times. Since you're assigned to specific companies, you don't get to see a lot of other stuff. Rarely do you ahve free time to wander the show when you're video game press. I don't even see the girls anymore since I'm so busy. I didn't even notice them at all this last year. Not that I've ever cared for that stuff, but this year I didn't even know there were any.
The Bouncer got pretty low reviews. It averages a 62% among all review sites, and a 6.2 among user reviews. So it seems like they're in key with each other. I gave the game a D if I remember right. From what I played of Oni, I wouldn't touch it again either. It looks like the PC version was higher rated too. An average of a 75% from reviews and 7.1 from users. PS2 version got even lower with an average of 69%.
I'm not saying I agree with all reviewers or I think reviewers are usually on the spot, but it is their opinion and usually that opinion has not been swayed by such press events or other type pressure that Scandal believes is the heart of the gaming press. It looks to me that the average score among gaming press doesn't seem to be that different from the average score of user rankings. So how could it be so bad overall?
The Bouncer got pretty low reviews. It averages a 62% among all review sites, and a 6.2 among user reviews. So it seems like they're in key with each other. I gave the game a D if I remember right. From what I played of Oni, I wouldn't touch it again either. It looks like the PC version was higher rated too. An average of a 75% from reviews and 7.1 from users. PS2 version got even lower with an average of 69%.
I'm not saying I agree with all reviewers or I think reviewers are usually on the spot, but it is their opinion and usually that opinion has not been swayed by such press events or other type pressure that Scandal believes is the heart of the gaming press. It looks to me that the average score among gaming press doesn't seem to be that different from the average score of user rankings. So how could it be so bad overall?
08-05-02, 02:27 PM
#37
DVD Talk Legend
Originally posted by Trigger
As for Bouncer - "I know of many people who actually like The Bouncer" Prove it. Produce them. I want video confessions while they are strapped into a lie detector... cuz I don't think you know anybody who liked that game. Actually, I've never played it - but my friend said it sucked balls, so I never bothered. I do remember really wanting to play it after seeing all the hype and the reviews of it though.
As for Bouncer - "I know of many people who actually like The Bouncer" Prove it. Produce them. I want video confessions while they are strapped into a lie detector... cuz I don't think you know anybody who liked that game.
Actually, I've never played it - but my friend said it sucked balls, so I never bothered. I do remember really wanting to play it after seeing all the hype and the reviews of it though.
I was really hyped after seeing it at the Square booth at E3 prior to its initial rollout.
And I actually liked it
, thinking it was a real pretty game... too linear... but pretty. It was also too short, as I was able to beat in about an hour on a demo monitor at my local import store. It just did not live up to Squares' rep.I just think the scanman's being fair in his assumptions of the gaming media in a whole... that's all.
Or maybe it is all a big conspiracy... just to sell crap to unsuspecting gamers! -k
###
08-05-02, 03:42 PM
#38
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 2,208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Darknight
Oh I won't say that the job sucks or anything, but Scandal has us as being bribed and easily persuade while being given tons of cash and lots of gifts which couldn't be further from the truth. I wish I was getting the lifestyle that he thinks gaming press get. There are disadvantages to being gaming press though. It doesn't pay very well, which doesn't help when you live in CA, it can be extremely long hours and working weekends to make deadlines. E3 isn't what it's cracked up to be when you're working. Sure you get to see new stuff, but most of the time you're running from one appointment to another which you have to do regardless how boring the pitch is going to be, and believe me they can be quite boring at times. Since you're assigned to specific companies, you don't get to see a lot of other stuff. Rarely do you ahve free time to wander the show when you're video game press. I don't even see the girls anymore since I'm so busy. I didn't even notice them at all this last year. Not that I've ever cared for that stuff, but this year I didn't even know there were any.
Oh I won't say that the job sucks or anything, but Scandal has us as being bribed and easily persuade while being given tons of cash and lots of gifts which couldn't be further from the truth. I wish I was getting the lifestyle that he thinks gaming press get. There are disadvantages to being gaming press though. It doesn't pay very well, which doesn't help when you live in CA, it can be extremely long hours and working weekends to make deadlines. E3 isn't what it's cracked up to be when you're working. Sure you get to see new stuff, but most of the time you're running from one appointment to another which you have to do regardless how boring the pitch is going to be, and believe me they can be quite boring at times. Since you're assigned to specific companies, you don't get to see a lot of other stuff. Rarely do you ahve free time to wander the show when you're video game press. I don't even see the girls anymore since I'm so busy. I didn't even notice them at all this last year. Not that I've ever cared for that stuff, but this year I didn't even know there were any.
I'm quite aware that with the collapse of the tech bubble, the "events" have become less extravagant. What you get now are similar to the staged press junkets that entertainment reporters attend, with two major differences.
Entertainment journalists generally expense their junkets, and their outlets pay for them. Harry Knowles allows studios to wine and dine him, but he's the exception, and his behavior is unethical. If the developer picks up your airfare and hotel tab so you can come see their game, you're still getting something of value from them, and that still creates the appearance of impropriety.
Meanwhile, your publications have a greater responsibility to your audience than entertainment/celebrity reporters, because you provide information readers use to make purchasing decisions, rather than merely giving out celebrity dish. I have the same issues with "Access Hollywood" that I have with the gaming press. No matter what you cover, you should adhere to proper newsgathering practice.
I'm not talking about conspiracy theories here. I'm not talking about bribes getting sneakily passed under tables. I'm talking about journalists, especially IGN, who are getting too friendly with developers, and are letting their responsibilities to their readers slide.
What's more, with the declining power of the gaming press, the developers are left holding all the cards. The journalists need access. They need the screenshots and videos and early impressions to keep eyeballs on their site. As a result, developers can basically write the prerelease "coverage" for their games.
They make rules for what is on and off the record, and, for the press, it's non-negotiable. You can report on the complex storyline, but not on the poor collision detection. You give them the "benefit of the doubt," because you won't get to preview their games anymore if you don't.
So the press is just too friendly with the industry, and, if anyone decides to try to be a voice for the gamers, the industry can cut their access, and the outlet will go out of business.
08-05-02, 04:37 PM
#39
Member
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Sunnyvale, CA 94086
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scandal: I said read them for what they are, opinions. Keep track of whose opinions fall more in line with your tastes and weigh their opinion more heavy than those you tend to disagree with. You can read a review from someone you don't agree with but still get valuable information. As I said initially, use reviews as tools, not as a way to make your decision for you. Believe it or not, people actually don't all like the same game. A game you hate might be loved by someone else. Who are you to say that there is one straight line of what is "good" and what is not when it's really subjective and an opinion?
In all of this, I'm saying that the main gaming press is NOT persuaded by companies through these press events like you are accusing them. Just because you disagree with a review doesn't mean they were paid off or influenced to write what you read. It's an age old urban legend is what all of this is.
You're also not aware of what goes on at these events? Have you ever been to one? I've been doing this for the last eight years. So don't make claims that they're different now because of the change of the economy.
Throughout all of what you said, you make way too many assumptions. First, it's true that sometimes we are put under NDA for certain things. Usually it's about talking about or showing pics of a game. It's usually not about a specific aspect. But there's nothing sneaky about this. This is to give the press a heads up of what is going on but at the same time it might be too early to either have the public know, or worse, the competition. It also helps press by giving them lead times and having things ready to go. With the explosion of the Internet, magazines can get really screwed without these delays and it's really for their benefit that there is a time release for the information.
When it comes to previews, the reason you don't hear about the problems is because like all software that is in development, it's early and it's buggy. Why would you create negative press about something that likely won't exist in the end? It's creating panic when there is no need. So that's why in previews you give the developer and the game the benefit of the doubt. Reviews are even impressions for online sites are where you start to point out flaws, but not previews. Simply because that's the fair thing to do. Otherwise developers wouldn't show games to ANYONE not just the one outlet until they were close to being done, and then that hurts everyone including you the reader because you don't get the information until the last minute. Although when it comes to first impressions, it is most certainly fair game to point out issues and flaws as it has been done on online sites. But again, you have to remember to not tear apart the game since again, it is unfinished and it's not fair to do so.
As far as expenses, more often than not, your outlet pays for your expenses, not the developer. The reason a developer will pay for expenses is if they deem the event important enough that they want to make sure everyone is there to cover it. Such an event is like the upcoming Sony Gamer's Day which takes place in less than two weeks. But really how does that make any difference from the reporters perspective? Be it their boss or company paying for their trip or say Sony in this case. The bottomline is that the reporter didn't pay a dime so I don't see how it's any type of influence on the reporter. Heck if you want to be extreme, based on what you're saying, any event where someone gets to travel is a valid enough reason for them to be persuaded even if their own outlet paid for it. Why? Because without the developer putting on the event, they wouldn't have got the free trip from their outlet. Same difference really using your logic.
And finally, being friendly with the companies. Sure it's good to have a good relation with their PR. But believe it or not, there are actual friendships here because of the constant dealing with. When PR people leave a company and move to another company, it's more than likely you'll keep in touch with them wherever they go so it's good to build a good relationship with them. But PR people are understanding that even some of the stuff they're pushing is crap and are understanding when the press slams it. Sure it's the PR's job to try and spin it into the best light as possible, but they know they can't all be dealing with winners and that games are going to get bad reviews. Often, you'll find, at least in the bay area, that some PR people hang out with some journalists in the off hours because they're friends. No strings attached. So regardless of these friendships, games still get bad reviews, and the press does cover things objectively and review things with only their own opinion in mind. You can't go through this industry or any industry without making friends. But with friends, you get some favors such as inside information about a game or the developer and tips that wouldn't normally be disclosed through normal channels. That is the advantage of making friends here.
Have you even looked at a magazine lately or read reviews? Games get slammed all the time and get low scores. I really am having a hard time trying to grasp at what you're getting at. You claim that the press is not impartial because they get wined and dined by companies, but yet there are still reviews that slam games. How is that the case when supposedly they're being persuaded? I'm all for pointing out that there are some issues with some reporters or even some outlets, but those problems really don't deal with the relationship between outlets and developers and their influence on them. There are plenty of voices in this industry and far too many to somehow have a positive spin from every angle in the industry. You're speaking from an outsider view that simply has made assumptions from what little you have read or know of what goes on. As a result, your view is not only jaded by way off mark of the reality of the situation. Heck I need not look any further than the Official PlayStation Magazine which is endorsed and sponsored by Sony. That didn't prevent NFL Game Day 2001 a 1 out of 5 rating or even NFL Game Day 2002 a 1.5 out of 5 rating. Oni, which as been mentioned by someone else here got a 1.5 out of 5 rating. Most of the Konami sports games got pretty low ratings but that didn't somehow hurt their Metal Gear Solid 2 coverage. Even Triple Play 2002 from EA got only a 2 out of 5 rating. So really what are you getting at?
In all of this, I'm saying that the main gaming press is NOT persuaded by companies through these press events like you are accusing them. Just because you disagree with a review doesn't mean they were paid off or influenced to write what you read. It's an age old urban legend is what all of this is.
You're also not aware of what goes on at these events? Have you ever been to one? I've been doing this for the last eight years. So don't make claims that they're different now because of the change of the economy.
Throughout all of what you said, you make way too many assumptions. First, it's true that sometimes we are put under NDA for certain things. Usually it's about talking about or showing pics of a game. It's usually not about a specific aspect. But there's nothing sneaky about this. This is to give the press a heads up of what is going on but at the same time it might be too early to either have the public know, or worse, the competition. It also helps press by giving them lead times and having things ready to go. With the explosion of the Internet, magazines can get really screwed without these delays and it's really for their benefit that there is a time release for the information.
When it comes to previews, the reason you don't hear about the problems is because like all software that is in development, it's early and it's buggy. Why would you create negative press about something that likely won't exist in the end? It's creating panic when there is no need. So that's why in previews you give the developer and the game the benefit of the doubt. Reviews are even impressions for online sites are where you start to point out flaws, but not previews. Simply because that's the fair thing to do. Otherwise developers wouldn't show games to ANYONE not just the one outlet until they were close to being done, and then that hurts everyone including you the reader because you don't get the information until the last minute. Although when it comes to first impressions, it is most certainly fair game to point out issues and flaws as it has been done on online sites. But again, you have to remember to not tear apart the game since again, it is unfinished and it's not fair to do so.
As far as expenses, more often than not, your outlet pays for your expenses, not the developer. The reason a developer will pay for expenses is if they deem the event important enough that they want to make sure everyone is there to cover it. Such an event is like the upcoming Sony Gamer's Day which takes place in less than two weeks. But really how does that make any difference from the reporters perspective? Be it their boss or company paying for their trip or say Sony in this case. The bottomline is that the reporter didn't pay a dime so I don't see how it's any type of influence on the reporter. Heck if you want to be extreme, based on what you're saying, any event where someone gets to travel is a valid enough reason for them to be persuaded even if their own outlet paid for it. Why? Because without the developer putting on the event, they wouldn't have got the free trip from their outlet. Same difference really using your logic.
And finally, being friendly with the companies. Sure it's good to have a good relation with their PR. But believe it or not, there are actual friendships here because of the constant dealing with. When PR people leave a company and move to another company, it's more than likely you'll keep in touch with them wherever they go so it's good to build a good relationship with them. But PR people are understanding that even some of the stuff they're pushing is crap and are understanding when the press slams it. Sure it's the PR's job to try and spin it into the best light as possible, but they know they can't all be dealing with winners and that games are going to get bad reviews. Often, you'll find, at least in the bay area, that some PR people hang out with some journalists in the off hours because they're friends. No strings attached. So regardless of these friendships, games still get bad reviews, and the press does cover things objectively and review things with only their own opinion in mind. You can't go through this industry or any industry without making friends. But with friends, you get some favors such as inside information about a game or the developer and tips that wouldn't normally be disclosed through normal channels. That is the advantage of making friends here.
Have you even looked at a magazine lately or read reviews? Games get slammed all the time and get low scores. I really am having a hard time trying to grasp at what you're getting at. You claim that the press is not impartial because they get wined and dined by companies, but yet there are still reviews that slam games. How is that the case when supposedly they're being persuaded? I'm all for pointing out that there are some issues with some reporters or even some outlets, but those problems really don't deal with the relationship between outlets and developers and their influence on them. There are plenty of voices in this industry and far too many to somehow have a positive spin from every angle in the industry. You're speaking from an outsider view that simply has made assumptions from what little you have read or know of what goes on. As a result, your view is not only jaded by way off mark of the reality of the situation. Heck I need not look any further than the Official PlayStation Magazine which is endorsed and sponsored by Sony. That didn't prevent NFL Game Day 2001 a 1 out of 5 rating or even NFL Game Day 2002 a 1.5 out of 5 rating. Oni, which as been mentioned by someone else here got a 1.5 out of 5 rating. Most of the Konami sports games got pretty low ratings but that didn't somehow hurt their Metal Gear Solid 2 coverage. Even Triple Play 2002 from EA got only a 2 out of 5 rating. So really what are you getting at?
08-06-02, 01:49 PM
#41
Member
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Sunnyvale, CA 94086
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
William: You actually bring out a point that I forgot about. Don't a lot of people on forums usually complain about games getting low scores, not high ones? I see a lot of complaints when a game doesn't get as high as a score as they expected. Wave Race: Blue Storm and some XBox games come to mind.
06-14-11, 09:08 AM
#44
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Re: More about game "journalists" selling out their readers.
I stick with EGM mainly because I've never had a reason to doubt that any of their reviews were genuine. If a game sucks, they say it sucks and give it low scores. For example, Mortal Kombat Advance's review was something like 0.0, 1.5, 1.0 (all out of 10).
They've even had advertisers (Acclaim in the 16 bit era was one) pull their ads after bad reviews and still not falter.
Plus they only review final versions of games, even if it makes the review a month late, which is something I appreciate.
I've always though websites were much more suspect. Their ad revenue is less, plus most get no subscription fees, so one company pulling their ads will hurt them more. Plus they need more content, more often, so not getting early reviews and stuff to preview is a bigger deal to them than a magazine.
Basically all that stuff is part of why I'll pay for EGM, but never for a gaming website like IGN or Gamespot.
Plus the writing is much better in EGM IMO.
They've even had advertisers (Acclaim in the 16 bit era was one) pull their ads after bad reviews and still not falter.
Plus they only review final versions of games, even if it makes the review a month late, which is something I appreciate.
I've always though websites were much more suspect. Their ad revenue is less, plus most get no subscription fees, so one company pulling their ads will hurt them more. Plus they need more content, more often, so not getting early reviews and stuff to preview is a bigger deal to them than a magazine.
Basically all that stuff is part of why I'll pay for EGM, but never for a gaming website like IGN or Gamespot.
Plus the writing is much better in EGM IMO.
06-14-11, 10:45 AM
#48
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Jersey represent!
Posts: 5,642
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
06-14-11, 11:41 AM
#49
DVD Talk Legend
Re: More about game "journalists" selling out their readers.
I wonder if all these now-strangers are suddenly getting emails from the forum saying their thread has been replied to.
06-14-11, 12:28 PM
#50
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
Re: More about game "journalists" selling out their readers.
Actually EGM has been back for about a year. It is still a really good magazine that I don't mind paying for. And for the record, the 4 years I wrote a "gaming column, blog, whatever", I never sold out my readers (my wife, my best friend, random people who were bored, etc).