Another story on the relationship between media sites and game companies
January 9, 2008 by pastapadre
VGMWatch posted an interesting article yesterday detailing the recent editorial from a bitter Electronic Gaming Monthly editor-in-chief Dan Hsu. In it he actually went out of his way to name particular companies who were no longer giving them access to provide pre-release coverage and reviews.
According to Hsu, Midway’s Mortal Kombat development team, Sony’s sports game division, and Ubisoft have all allegedly banned EGM/1Up from further coverage of their products. The reason: Apparently, they didn’t take too kindly to EGM’s review coverage of their games.
And really, I can’t blame those companies for making that decision. Why should Sony give EGM/1Up anything when they killed MLB 07: The Show (PS3) in their review? It was the lowest score given to the game and contrasts with how well it has been received by consumers. Sony can offer other sites the opportunity to cover their games instead. This isn’t to say they are shopping around for better review scores. They would just like fair, respectable and complete coverage. And anyone who has read 1Up reviews knows those tend to be very light on details, spotlight random things while ignoring much bigger elements of the game, and are sometimes simply inaccurate. Those issues almost certainly factor into it, although the score ends up being the thing of most importance.
Gaming companies are in a position where they can choose who will get to cover their games pre-release. The bottom line is most sites don’t bother with anything post-release except possibly for reviews, although they’d prefer them pre-release as well. So the gaming companies have the control in this area. What would Sony have to gain from offering the chance at coverage to a site that had previously taken advantage of that only to turn around and tear the game apart giving it a ridiculously low score and poorly written review in order to attract attention and hits?
I’ve written previously about my overall distain towards reviews in general. The use of arbitrary numbers and different ratings “systems” while in the end it is only one individual’s opinion which comes from their own personal background along with their own specific biases. Unlike movie reviews, where you get a wide range of opinions and a site like Rotten Tomatoes gives a great overall picture, gaming reviews tend to all come in with similar findings. Sites that stand out from the norm get ostracized. Game Rankings/Metacritic require that sites rate the games using similar methods. Stand out too much and the site is removed from their database.
That to me is a sign that it isn’t about how much fun a game is because that is a subjective thing, but it is more about technical aspects, meeting certain expectations and sticking to comfortable formulas. The biggest problem is that we’re stuck with it like this. Individual reviewers or sites can’t make a change on their own, it would have to be industry wide.
Until there is a reinvention of what game reviewing is all about, news such as companies blacklisting certain media outlets or even the recent look into the relationship between advertising and the freedom to editorialize following Gamespot’s firing of Jeff Gerstmann will likely only become more common. Both sides will continue to protect their own interests.
Why even use a number system? A 5 to someone might be a 7 to someone else. You can’t just ask for someone to rate anything out of ten because it is all based on personal preference. Pasta, I think you do a great job of giving an honest write-up on how you think a particular game plays for you.
I see your point in a way but I just can’t believe in this statement: “Sony can offer other sites the opportunity to cover their games instead. This isn’t to say they are shopping around for better review scores. They would just like fair, respectable and complete coverage.” — I think it’s silly to believe that they are looking for anything but higher review scores. Companies are obsessed with Metacritic/GameRankings aggregates because they are worried about sales.
I also think you’re completely missing the point if you’re calling out 1UP/EGM and not these companies. It’s good to have a strong opinion when reviewing games because it’s quite rare right now. You say individuals get called-out by these aggregate sites when their standards are different for reviews, yet you say 1UP is wrong for not doing certain things in reviews — makes me believe that you have an image of what the right and wrong way to review is then, thus do you really believe that reviews need to change or that you think they should change to a certain way? I mean saying the review is unfair because it doesn’t match-up with general consensus doesn’t make 1UP wrong, because it’s the job of the reviewer to be a critic not match-up with the public. The comparison is when fans called for Gerstmann to be fired when he didn’t give Zelda a high enough score. And that’s all before they even played the game. That’s just dumb. It’s his job to be a critic; you either read the copy and disagree with the score, or play the game then disagree with the criticism….Either way it still doesn’t mean the reviewer is wrong, because it’s just an opinion.
And I remember that Zuniga review. Yes I didn’t agree with the score either but does he back up his score with the copy? Yes I believe he does. Plus 1UP and EGM tend to use the actual 1-10 scale unlike most other sites that tend to live in the 7-10 area. That’s a different argument altogether, but just because an outlet does something differently, once again doesn’t mean that outlet is in the wrong.
“Unlike movie reviews, where you get a wide range of opinions and a site like Rotten Tomatoes gives a great overall picture, gaming reviews tend to all come in with similar findings. Sites that stand out from the norm get ostracized.” — But in a way you are doing just that by posting about backing up the publisher. You don’t agree with how 1UP does reviews, but that doesn’t make them wrong. That’s a good thing when places do reviews a different way, and you say as much by bashing on the industry for conforming too much. 1UP reviews certainly tend to be more on the short side and talk about things the reviewer thought were fun or not, rather than feeling obligated to go down some checklist. EGM does the trio of reviewers that build upon what each reviewer says — which is certainly not the norm either. Now to me you seem to not like the checklist approach, but also call out 1UP for not looking at “bigger elements.” Maybe if you define what you mean by bigger elements I could see your reasoning a bit more.
And it’s not to say I don’t think reviews need to go through a renaissance of sorts, because they do (scoring games on a 1-10 scale is probably not the best way to me); however, saying you don’t blame the publishers for pulling coverage for bad reviews won’t fix the issue. If you let the publishers decide who covers games then how does the industry not just become a full blown PR machine? You need people to call-out publishers, put the pressure on the people in power because gamers deserve honesty. If you don’t agree with the honesty being spouted then there’s plenty of other review sites and reviewers to go to — at least that’s the end goal. When reading criticism about games, movies, books, music and everything else it’s about connecting with individual reviewers and seeing if you do or do not relate to that reviewer. I like certain reviewers at 1UP more because their taste in games is in line with mine, so I trust them more. I also like the more subjective reviewers and review sites out there. The same goes for movie or music reviews. I know certain people don’t have the same taste in movies as me so I don’t usually read their reviews. And it’s not because I think they are wrong or not doing their job, I just don’t see eye-to-eye with every critic.
DLane wrote:
Simple. They use a number system because thats what has become the expected method, and they are required to in order to be included in Metacritic/Game Rankings, which is a big thing for a site.
Hey Chase, appreciate the comment. I don’t proclaim to know how the system should be changed, but I think most people would agree it is severly flawed as is.
Why would a company provide access to a game prerelease to a company that didn’t like or mistreated their previous release? There are other outlets they can choose to do that in order to get what they feel is fair coverage.
Right or wrong, if 1UP uses a different scale, their reviews are going to be compared to everyone else who doesn’t use the same scale. Which is part of the big problem here. If the average game gets a 7 everywhere else, but their average games get a 5, the perception will be that they are giving a poor score. It also drags down the Metacritic/GR. That is why the companies are likely upset here. They are not using the same standards.
Another issue is that there are only a few reviews that matter, and the Metacritic/GR. So when one big site is unnecessarily harsh on the game it really stings. With movies you have such a wide range of opinions and it is much more understood that each one is just an individual’s opinion. With games it seems like the handful of influential sites are determining the worth of a title on their own and consumers rely on them too much.
Difference here is 1UP didn’t go and fire their reviewers over these games as Cnet did with Gerstmann. So they deserve to be commended for not buckling to pressure. But that doesn’t mean that they were completely fair to the games either and should be getting the opportunity to cover them in the same manner in the future.
The sites/magazines will still have the opportunity to review the games and do so as they please, the companies cant block them from that obviously. They just won’t provide them access when they have different places they can go which are more beneficial to them. That is understandable to me.
Its a business and both sides are looking to use the relationship to their advantage.
Appreciate hearing your thoughts though, I don’t completely disagree with your points. It goes to show how there is no clear answer to what is wrong and how it should be fixed.
I see what your saying I just think your core argument of “I don’t blame the publishers” isn’t entirely fair. In the editorial Dan Hsu clearly states it is due to reviews they have been ostracized. It’s not the coverage being unfair or whatever as a whole, just the review.
Also I want to make it clear I’m pro-being harsh in previews when it’s fair or valid. Far too often this industry is used as a PR machine and frankly it’s tired and needs to stop. I understand the editorial side probably comes under fire at large sites since games are often advertised on game sites…But it needs to stop and I think most would agree that more transparecny in game coverage is needed. All these sites/magazines shouldn’t live in fear of being critical. When it comes to reviews it’s kind of like the last straw and so obviously they should be more harsh than previews because it’s the finished product, but still believe in harsher previews.
Another argument I won’t go into is how important these review scores really are. I think they are necessary and reviews are a needed thing in the industry, but how much each one affects a consumer — I’m not sure. I know I’ve seen some stats where the highest rated games sell the best, but there’s plenty of times where great games don’t sell even though it gets high review marks.
I want to make it clear I mean no disrespect to you, it’s just me not agreeing with the publisher’s argument. “Fair” coverage to any game publisher is going to mean all praise and higher review marks. They are in the business of making money they don’t want to see any negativity, and that’s why I don’t think you can support these tactics just because there are other outlets out there.
Yeah I do think that reviews generally are going to sway people only when they’re really high or really low. The rest of the time the majority of consumers know what they want and are getting it regardless or just pick it up off the shelf without caring.
I dont think fair necessarily equates to all praise. I’ve seen previews, specifically 1UP a few times I remember, where they’ll go through and detail different features and such, then at the end throw in some kind of jackass comment that really wasn’t necessary.
But I’m with you on the preview aspect. One thing I hate is how previews either regurgitate info thats fed by the companies, or they are all positive. Then comes the review and the site gives it a poor score. Just a lack of consistency there. I have seen previews that aren’t overly critical but point out issues with the game at that point in development, and those sites continue to have prerelease access.
It is probably more of a relationship issue here. You can be critical but fair. However if there is selective blacklisting from just a couple companies that relationship is probably broken for a legit reason.
1up gives NFL TOUR a 3/10…damn!