• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Future Publishing (Edge/PC Gamer/etc) freelance writer says they alter reviews, more

jcm

Member
I love how everyone suddenly becomes an expert when "revelations" like this occur. I wonder how many of you saying "oh, but of course games journalism is corrupt" have any proof of this or how many of you are basing it on a few review scores you didn't agree with and the Kane & Lynch saga.

As someone who's been in the industry for many years and hasn't seen any of this widespread corruption everyone's so confident about here, it angers me that the reputations of good writers can be dismissed so easily. Maybe I've just been extremely lucky by not getting involved in any dodgy deals in the years I've been doing this, but even so it's unfair to tar everyone with the same brush as if to suggest "if you're a writer you're corrupt, plain and simple".

At the end of the day, in my experience, 99.99% of the time when you see a score that doesn't match up with the review it's down to bad reviewing, not any pressure from publishers. This Stanton chap is a perfect example.

From what I can gather this bad blood started when his Resident Evil 6 review was posted on CVG and people complained that the score was too high for the text, forcing the CVG ed to come out and defend it (not very well, I should add). Stanton can moan and moan all he likes about corruption and "bent" companies but the simple issue here (in my view) is that his review was shit in the first place.

The review ends with the words "Let's put it this way: we wouldn't buy it full price." Then he gives it 8/10. That's the real problem - the writer has received a free game and then forgotten to put himself in the reader's shoes and decide whether the game's value for money. You simply can't say "well, I wouldn't buy it" then give it such a high score. Stanton can moan all he likes about his former company but as far as I can tell at no point has he moaned about his Resi 6 review or its score being tampered with, which suggests it was unchanged and that, as a result, this "I wouldn't buy it, 8/10" nonsense is his own doing.

All I'm saying is it's unfair to read a review and instantly assume "that score's been paid for" when it seems a little too high. In my experience this rarely (if ever) happens and it's unfair to the hundreds or thousands of decent writers out there who are trying their best. Sometimes they'll get it wrong (I've given a few scores in my time that I look back on now and wonder what I was thinking), but 99.99% of the time they're at least being honest.

You don't have to be outright corrupt to be influenced, or to have the appearance of influence. When big publisher flies a dozen journalists to a resort to play the game for a week, most people will wonder how that may have influenced the review. When publishers send expensive swag along with the review copy, people will wonder. When so many writers use their job as a stepping stone to a job with a publisher, people will wonder..

I don't think many game writers are literally accepting cash from a publisher to give a certain score, but there's lots of other ways to exert influence.
 

gamingeek

Member
There was a case recently where eurogamer did misquote someone quite significantly. Cant find the exact link but it's not as rare as you assert.

I don't know if it was deliberately but it was certainly clickbait and gaming equivalent of gutter journalism

You mean the Sonic Transformred quote about Wii U's power?
 

GraveRobberX

Platinum Trophy: Learned to Shit While Upright Again.
You don't have to be outright corrupt to be influenced, or to have the appearance of influence. When big publisher flies a dozen journalists to a resort to play the game for a week, most people will wonder how that may have influenced the review. When publishers send expensive swag along with the review copy, people will wonder. When so many writers use their job as a stepping stone to a job with a publisher, people will wonder..

I don't think many game writers are literally accepting cash from a publisher to give a certain score, but there's lots of other ways to exert influence.

I remember when Ubisoft flew a fuck-ton of reviewers to Italy (Rome) for Ass Creed Bro
They said they wanted to show how real life Roma was back in Ass Creed Bro time, how there are thing left from that era... I was like you could use pictures to reference that too you know

That shit wasn't a good gesture, that was a fucking bribe

Same goes for Capcom and Hawai'i for their Captivate thing

How about when EA with the GOW knock-off Dantes Inferno
Cash a check for some amount to your checking account... SERIOUSLY?
 

GungHo

Single-handedly caused Exxon-Mobil to sue FOX, start World War 3
The answer then question format of the responses hurts my brain. It makes me wonder if the guy also top posts on USENET.
 

bfrye26

Neo Member
To say all journalists listen to publishers and PR in relation to scores is silly. But as with any industry PR can sway some outlets with advertising dollars. It happens far less with the world more transparent.
 
I love how everyone suddenly becomes an expert when "revelations" like this occur. I wonder how many of you saying "oh, but of course games journalism is corrupt" have any proof of this or how many of you are basing it on a few review scores you didn't agree with and the Kane & Lynch saga.

As someone who's been in the industry for many years and hasn't seen any of this widespread corruption everyone's so confident about here, it angers me that the reputations of good writers can be dismissed so easily. Maybe I've just been extremely lucky by not getting involved in any dodgy deals in the years I've been doing this, but even so it's unfair to tar everyone with the same brush as if to suggest "if you're a writer you're corrupt, plain and simple".

At the end of the day, in my experience, 99.99% of the time when you see a score that doesn't match up with the review it's down to bad reviewing, not any pressure from publishers. This Stanton chap is a perfect example.

From what I can gather this bad blood started when his Resident Evil 6 review was posted on CVG and people complained that the score was too high for the text, forcing the CVG ed to come out and defend it (not very well, I should add). Stanton can moan and moan all he likes about corruption and "bent" companies but the simple issue here (in my view) is that his review was shit in the first place.

The review ends with the words "Let's put it this way: we wouldn't buy it full price." Then he gives it 8/10. That's the real problem - the writer has received a free game and then forgotten to put himself in the reader's shoes and decide whether the game's value for money. You simply can't say "well, I wouldn't buy it" then give it such a high score. Stanton can moan all he likes about his former company but as far as I can tell at no point has he moaned about his Resi 6 review or its score being tampered with, which suggests it was unchanged and that, as a result, this "I wouldn't buy it, 8/10" nonsense is his own doing.

All I'm saying is it's unfair to read a review and instantly assume "that score's been paid for" when it seems a little too high. In my experience this rarely (if ever) happens and it's unfair to the hundreds or thousands of decent writers out there who are trying their best. Sometimes they'll get it wrong (I've given a few scores in my time that I look back on now and wonder what I was thinking), but 99.99% of the time they're at least being honest.

well i worked on gaming press since the early eighties and this happened alot and still is happening today (spanish. gaming press) so we have different opinions on this subject.

Also a lot of former writers work now as pr for publishers,its aclose circle
 

Perkel

Banned
As i said earlier in other thread.

All small sites that want reviews coppies from EA need to sign and respect that:

-They won't score game less than 8/10
-They won't advertise or compare it to another product

and list goes on. And yet people are doubting people like him when most of the sites and mags live on adds from publishers...

That is why i stopped caring about game press scores. Only truested site for me now is RPS because it don't give scores and Eurogamer because they really put a good work in their reviews.
 

Hatten

Member

I was actually waiting for that game since COD4 was really good, and man what a disappointment! I still remember driving that dumb boat and suddenly...........thats it? thats the entire game? what the fuck? what the fuck!

It really was michael bay: the game

well i worked on gaming press since the early eighties and this happened alot and still is happening today (spanish. gaming press)

What, hobby consolas? superjuegos? which one?
 
Bayonetta, RB3, Galaxy 2 and Skyward Sword as 10s is absolutely fucking horrific. But I don't think it's a result of bribing, just the magazine losing anything resembling common sense.
 

SZips

Member
Wat.

Portal is a 10.
TF2 is a 10.
HL2 plus episodes is the only arguable 10, but getting all of that in a bundle? how is that not a 10?

A "10" is a score that should rightfully never be given to any title. The game would have to be absolutely perfect in every sense of the word, but what may be a "10" to one person may not be the case for others.

However, the fact remains that there are no perfect games out there.
 

Krabboss

Member
A "10" is a score that should rightfully never be given to any title. The game would have to be absolutely perfect in every sense of the word, but what may be a "10" to one person may not be the case for others.

However, the fact remains that there are no perfect games out there.

You don't understand review scores.
 

dude

dude
I don't? Please explain then how I, someone who reviews games as a part of their living, don't understand how review scores work?

If you think 10 is an hypothetical score for the perfect game? There's no such thing as a "perfect game", so there's no "perfect score". The score spectrum is relative. It's sort of silly to say you have a 1-10 scale but to never use either 1 or 10 (I took the liberty to assume you also think no game should rightfully be scored as 1.))

A 10, for me at least, represents that the game is able to accomplish what it sets to do to the fullest, and it has no serious faults that gets in the way of what that particular game sets out to do. It's still very subjective, but it's easier because by that metric if you understand the game and genre you could agree a game deserves a 10 even if you don't personally like it.
 
D

Deleted member 13876

Unconfirmed Member
Yeah, some people hold the above position. Others hold the there's no such thing as perfect one. Whatever opinion you hold is fine. Acting indignantly and proclaiming your preferred one as the one true stance on it is silly.
 

Sissel

Member
If you think 10 is an hypothetical score for the perfect game? There's no such thing as a "perfect game", so there's no "perfect score". The score spectrum is relative. It's sort of silly to say you have a 1-10 scale but to never use either 1 or 10 (I took the liberty to assume you also think no game should rightfully be scored as 1.))

A 10, for me at least, represents that the game is able to accomplish what it sets to do to the fullest, and it has no serious faults that gets in the way of what that particular game sets out to do. It's still very subjective, but it's easier because by that metric if you understand the game and genre you could agree a game deserves a 10 even if you don't personally like it.
I like your way of putting it. Journey and Portal 2 would probably be 10s for me. Especially Journey, that game is a masterpiece. Portal 2 had maybe one section that hurt the pacing a bit.
 

SZips

Member
If you think 10 is an hypothetical score for the perfect game? There's no such thing as a "perfect game", so there's no "perfect score". The score spectrum is relative. It's sort of silly to say you have a 1-10 scale but to never use either 1 or 10 (I took the liberty to assume you also think no game should rightfully be scored as 1.))

A 10, for me at least, represents that the game is able to accomplish what it sets to do to the fullest, and it has no serious faults that gets in the way of what that particular game sets out to do. It's still very subjective, but it's easier because by that metric if you understand the game and genre you could agree a game deserves a 10 even if you don't personally like it.

Which is precisely why I hate assigning a numerical value to reviews. The only reason I do it is because I know people will often skip to the end just to see a quick point of reference and then maybe read the actual content portion of the review afterwards. Something I'm sure we've all done before when looking up a review for a game. The only reason I assign a score, as mentioned, is because I feel as though I'm forced to for the sake of lazy readers.

You're right, everything is subjective. I would like to give out a perfect score but I have yet to play a perfect game, there's always something that holds it back in my mind. I don't have any qualms to dishing out a score of 1 if the game deserves it. Perhaps I'm just a bit more critical in my scoring than others, I don't rightfully know. Which is rather weird to say seeing as how I dislike the numerical values period.
 

MechaX

Member
I look forward to these revelations being documented in the gaming press...

Or will they quietly show solidarity by pretending this outburst never happened?

I know which outcome I'd put my money on :p

If Gerstmann-gate was not enough to at least start raising some serious questions about some aspects of gaming journalism, I don't think anything will for quite awhile.
 

Gleethor

Member
Bayonetta, RB3, Galaxy 2 and Skyward Sword as 10s is absolutely fucking horrific. But I don't think it's a result of bribing, just the magazine losing anything resembling common sense.

Uh, a lot of people really really liked those games, I don't think its shocking at all that any of them got 10s
 

sp3000

Member
Uh, a lot of people really really liked those games, I don't think its shocking at all that any of them got 10s

Nothing about them is revolutionary in any sense of the word. They are good games and that's about it.

How can Skyward Sword be considered even in the same league as Mario 64
 
I disagree. The scores are simple for PR to manipulate. While they have something to concentrate on, people with sense can still see the real conclusion hidden in plain sight in the review text. Keep the scores and the metacritics to keep the PR away from the genuinely useful resource: the text.

I have a number of reviewers (and posters on this and other forums for that matter) I read the reviews of that I vehemently disagree with much of the time. Thing is, these guys and gals do something wonderful: they articulate what they love and hate, which often is the opposite of mine. Voila, effective insight!
 

TheSeks

Blinded by the luminous glory that is David Bowie's physical manifestation.
the reason blowups like this occur so infrequently in the games press is this shit right here:

the moment someone steps forward to lay out precisely whats wrong with the industry, a bunch of shitheads pop out of the woodwork to out-blase each other.

that's the trouble with blowing the whistle when the stakes are so low. the only person who gets punished is the guy you should be supporting, while the game publishers and magazine management continue on their merry way.

There's no blowing the whistle when this shit is OLD (see: 10+ years! old) news. He can say Edge is corrupt but anyone that's "followed the money" for years knows reviews are paid-for on most sites and to not trust game journalism as far as you can throw them anymore.

It's good he's blowing up and blowing the whistle. But really those three people you quoted are right: Who the hell is surprised by this news?
 

excaliburps

Press - MP1st.com
While I've seen some dodgy things done in regards to "games journalism" when it comes to ads and stuff (won't name exact sites, sorry!), "buying" reviews is not as cut-and-dry as most people think. It doesn't happen as most people think it does...and not as frequently.

Regarding Stanton, though, the tone of his text review did not match the overall score, but the way CVG addressed it was simply unprofessional, too.

Simply put, they threw him (Stanton) under a bus. I read that message from CVG's EIC about the review being outsourced, whatever. But it does add credibility to Stanton's claims that CVG people "hate" him.

Although. he's not doing his career any favors. I don't doubt he'll get employed again, but airing dirty laundry regarding professional stuff is never a good thing. Over the years I've worked for various gaming sites and up to now, I never spoke ill of any of them publicly...or at least I try not to. I doubt I ever will. I'm not "toeing the line" or anything, I stand for what I believe in but I won't do an expose of sorts if and when I part with employers...believe me when I say this: I've worked with shitty EICs and shitty sites and I'd so love to air my grievances publicly. I almost did one time but thought better of it.

If only GAF had a "quote only" forum for lurkers. ;)

Also, what he said about CVG trolling for hits and headline baiting is true. I like sensationalist headlines, too, but it has to have merit. I once was going to run a post on what X dev said to CVG, read the story and found that they misquoted the dev to make it sound more "interesting." Up to now they still do that a lot.
 

DocSeuss

Member
as someone who counts GTA4 in their top five games of all time, i never really got what was blatantly bought about it's review scores, but anything like this is absolutely shady. still, i've always considered scores pretty much meaningless and only ever gone by the review text anyway. now i feel even more validated for doing that.

i'll consider in the future though, that when someone is loudly claiming that the text sounds like an X but the score is X+/-1 that their might be something fishy about it.

i'll still tell them to just ignore the score though.

Normally, my opinion of a game matches up to the metascore. I'll play it, say "this is about, oh, an 88," and lo and behold the game's within a range of about plus or minus two points of what I thought it might be.

There are three major exceptions to this: Valve games, Bioware games, and Rockstar games.

Most Valve games I've played seem like they're ~10 or so points higher than they ought to be. Left 4 Dead and L4D2 didn't have much content. Portal 2 was charming, but had less-intelligent puzzles than its predecessor, which was frustratingly short. Half-Life 2 and its episodes are poorly-written messes with bad gun feel, horrifically bad pacing (~12minute locked room sequences and extremely lengthy driving bits with unfun cars), bolstered by strong sound and art design. Bioware games are about the same way--though, when I'm playing them, I'm often like "WOW THIS IS SO GREAT AND AMAZING" and then later I'm like "hey, that was just a cutscene with dramatic music and actually the combat was pretty bad and the writing worse."

Then there's Rockstar.

I don't even comprehend the praise. When playing the games, I get frustrated. I push forwards on a stick, so my character runs backwards in a half-circle and falls off a cliff. I die because the game makes some stupid physics call. The gunplay feels awkward, though the movement feels worse. The writing isn't great--it reads like a shitty imitation of various films (Peckinpah for Red Dead, Scorsese for GTA), infused with stupid political bullshit and a college freshman's take on nihilism.

The games don't play well, they aren't written well, and they don't look all that spectacular. Their greatest strengths lie in attention to detail and sound design.

...aaaaaaand they get these insanely high review scores.

So yeah, I literally cannot comprehend how GTAIV has anything higher than an 84.
 

thomasos

Member
A "10" is a score that should rightfully never be given to any title. The game would have to be absolutely perfect in every sense of the word, but what may be a "10" to one person may not be the case for others.

However, the fact remains that there are no perfect games out there.

This is silly. Should Ebert never give any movie four stars?
 
Maybe its easier to read it like this:

Q: Do publishers/platform holders 'pay' for covers? In either ad spend or access.”
A: They control everything

Q: do review scores in future publications sometimes magically change before it hits the self”
A: Yes

Q: game that got most obviously dodgy reviews?”
A: Homefront, less obviously. Most is Driv3rgate

Q: Who were the dodgiest PRs for doing deals (review scores etc)?”
A: Rockstar, without question.

Q: Were Japanese publishers just as willing to buy scores?
A: Capcom, for example, push for scores - but in the right way

Q: Any other examples of good PR you’ve dealt with?”
A: Nintendo - flawless. Early access, no interest in the score.


Another little anecdote from me. I wrote in another thread (since I wrote for a major german gamingwebsite for a while), that we often got some kind of "review-manual". It explained what the game is about, highlight bosses and such things. It was even written a bit like a review. There were things about graphic, sound etc.

I wonder if publishers still do it nowadays. I wrote reviews like 7-8 years ago, so I am not sure if such "review-manuals" are still flying around nowadays.
 
Nothing about them is revolutionary in any sense of the word. They are good games and that's about it.

How can Skyward Sword be considered even in the same league as Mario 64

Because people find it just as fun?

The scale should theoretically be 100% free of revolution or innovation.
 
Maybe its easier to read it like this:




Another little anecdote from me. I wrote in another thread (since I wrote for a major german gamingwebsite for a while), that we often got some kind of "review-manual". It explained what the game is about, highlight bosses and such things. It was even written a bit like a review. There were things about graphic, sound etc.

I wonder if publishers still do it nowadays. I wrote reviews like 7-8 years ago, so I am not sure if such "review-manuals" are still flying around nowadays.

Well, Lair had one and that was like 6 years ago? There probably is, no one in gaming journalism will rat though.
 
Alright.

I really wanna see one again. Too bad I did not make a photo of them, when I was still writing reviews. They sometimes were really hilarious, "ordering" you to use words like "atemberaubende Grafik" (breath-taking graphics) and phrases like that.
 

Sharp

Member
Honestly, who gives a shit... Edge just used to lowball games so it would look tough. Go back and read through some of their older reviews, they weren't great at figuring out which were the classics.
 

Mandoric

Banned
Because people find it just as fun?

The scale should theoretically be 100% free of revolution or innovation.

But surely doing something unique and fun is worthy of more praise than perfecting the implementation in pass #43989843?

As for reviewers in this thread arguing that no one ever waved the Benjamins in their face... They don't have to, and coming at this from the (not games) marketing side that's a terrible value even if I was a completely disgusting human being. Why drop a couple grand in your lap to love my RPG, and risk your editor blackballing us both because he wasn't cut in, when I can just "suggest" (with a major ad buy in play) that the magazine's big RPG fan who loves anything with hit points is best-suited to review a new title in the genre?
 

GDJustin

stuck my tongue deep inside Atlus' cookies
Anyone stating that reviewers are "bribed" with press junkets and swag is telegraphing that they don't really know anything about the actual life of a game journalist.

After the initial "video game journalist woot!" moment passes, the work travel annoys you (you just want to sleep in your own bed) and the tchotchkes get given to fans/readers, maybe go on your desk, and yes, often make their way into the trash.

Edit: Additionally, many publications have a policy that any editor attending a lavish preview event or other junket won't do the review - the review gets assigned to another competent (in the genre) Editor that's less close to the title, having not done too much of the preview coverage.
 

Krabboss

Member
I don't? Please explain then how I, someone who reviews games as a part of their living, don't understand how review scores work?

What is somebody who doesn't understand review scores doing reviewing games? Why would you effectively chop a number off of a scale? What's the point of it being there in the first place?

A 10 isn't a perfect and nobody is pretending it is (well, I imagine some crappy websites do).

If the highest rating on your scale is too high a praise for a game, change your scale - it's broken.
 
A "10" is a score that should rightfully never be given to any title. The game would have to be absolutely perfect in every sense of the word, but what may be a "10" to one person may not be the case for others.

However, the fact remains that there are no perfect games out there.

By your scoring metric, but unless you write for Edge and are in charge of their editorial scoring policy then your opinion on the Edge 1-10 scale is basically irrelevant.

Because the post I quoted was referring to Edge 10s.

Which established a long time ago that a 10 was a revolutionary game.

Portal and TF2 are both Edge 10s by every standard Edge have ever applied.

The Orange Box therefore is validated as a 10/10 by the transitive property.

Q.E.D.
 
Top Bottom