Support NeoGAF

[JABEE]

A lot of people contacted me prior to EG. All sorts of advice was given. It was a huge clusterfuck.

First of all, I wouldn't have reacted if I wasn't getting abuse after that article went up (pre-edit). A lot of people take what they read online as gospel and suggesting I was in the "pocket of the Tomb Raider PR team" saw a whole horde of angry people go for me.

"Legal threats" are a weird thing. Two emails were exchanged between me and the editor late that night. One requesting the sentence about the TR PR team be removed as I felt it was unfair and defamatory and also that I felt that mentioning both me and Dave Cook was ultimately unfair. The second to argue my case again. I should never have emailed I was an emotional wreck.

In the second I mentioned that I'd need to seek advice as I felt it was ultimately unfair. That was my fuck up. Again lessons learned and all that.

Though to be realistic, EG shouldn't have ever felt threatened by me. I've never spoken to a solicitor and (in the UK at least) it's very expensive to do so. They know I don't have that kind of money. From what I can guess, they sought legal help themselves who told them to remove it.

MCV has a legal team?

 

[Jackpot]

I'm probably not the person you lot want to see around here but hello and happy new year.

I've not read all this thread yet so forgive me if I've missed any major questions.

As you can imagine, I've been hit with a lot of abuse and the only way to deal with it is to shut down. It's not the ideal solution but it's hard to speak out when people are shouting over you.

I do want to answer questions though and I'd rather it be to people who are interested in the topic than to random angry anon guy on Twitter. Though I think my statement from the Kotaku article was already posted here.

Please feel free to ask me anything.

On the topic of corruption in the media: I think you need to look way above individual critics to find corruption.

How is writing reviews of games you've shilled for not corrupt? Don't make me get the list of Squeenix previews were you splooge hyperbole over everything.

 

[atheistium]

Hey, thanks for having the courage to stop by. I think this is going to get interesting, but it's worth a discussion- you've mentioned corruption.

While I don't doubt that it's usually more than the critic that is at fault, don't you think that it should be the individual to uphold some standard?

Was there a certain number of articles you were asked to print specifically in promotion with certain titles?

It's always worth talking about. It's a sensitive subject but one we're all passionate about. Though I've mixed feelings about some points in Rob's article (mainly about feeling comfortable with PR) I think the overall topic is an important one.

I don't have much authority with this because I was only a full time staff writer at MCV for a few months. All my other jobs have been freelance which have seen me have complete freedom and control over what I submit.

Websites and magazines survive with advertising deals which (sometimes) include content packages.

Most of the time these are just things like having to post a certain number of stories that month on a game. I'm not sure if it has to be positive or not but content can sometimes be dictated by that.

Thing is you do your job. If you're told to write about said game you write about it. You can't turn around to your boss and say no. I've never been asked to write about a game in a positive light because of advertisers and I hope that most staff writers don't even have to deal with that kind of request let alone make a choice to fulfil it or not.

My honest feeling is that if there is corruption happening then it's happening at a much higher level than the people who are writing it. Sure there might be the odd dodgy writer but I've never experienced it myself and neither have people I've spoken to about it.


(trying to answer all these so sorry if I'm a bit slow)

 

[snap0212]

Thing is you do your job. If you're told to write about said game you write about it. You can't turn around to your boss and say no.

A publication would (or at least should) encourage you to say no if writing about it would/could create a conflict of interest.

This sounds really weird as the person assigning you to write stuff should be informed about possible conflicts of interest (like you working for Square Enix and then writing about it) and should do their best to avoid them. Something just doesn't sound right. Either they didn't know writing about SE games could be a conflict of interest or they just didn't care. One sheds a bad light on you and the other option makes the publication look bad.

 

[atheistium]

What kind of corruption do you see from your spot as an individual critic? Do you ever feel there is pressure from internal and external sources that shape the tone of your articles?

Do you believe that there is enough space between journalists and the industry? Do you think it is possible for journalists to achieve a "Lester Bangs" level of separation from the people who make and market games?

Why did you get into writing about games? Do you believe that writing about games is a career or a path that leads to a career in making and marketing games?

I've never specifically seen/experienced it myself so I can't really speak about that from authority. Tone is only changed depending on your audience and that's more about style and not about writing a game in a more positive or negative light though. I've only written honest reviews.

Space is a mix. It's different wherever you go. In the UK press it's heavily based in London. You end up as one big family in a way. You learn to get to know everyone.

To be honest, I think PR know when they've got a shit game on their hands. I've had a very public falling out with one PR when I scored a game pretty low but it's never been too personal.

I think if you're lunching with PR each week then there's stuff to be questioned but I've never experienced that closeness.

I've always wanted to write. I don't think I'm particularly great at it (I'm dyslexic) but it's enjoyable. Writing about games is something I enjoy doing and if I can do it forever I would.

So, you were paid specifically to write positive Square-Enidos articles on a majority of websites when you weren't a paid PR rep... how? Are all freelance writers really that easily told to do that to get paid? Because if so my opinion on doing freelance work has just been shattered.

No. I've NEVER been paid to write positive coverage of anything.

What numerous coverage are you on about? I went to E3 with The Sun and part of it was to cover Square's line-up. I enjoyed Sleeping Dogs, the china level in Hitman and Tomb Raider. You write in a specific style for an outlet and as you can tell The Sun has an exaggerated style. I wasn't lying about those games. I generally liked what I saw.

PR? If we're talking about my three month internship at a PR company where I put Mafia II and a cricket game into jiffy bags then wow. They didn't have the Square Enix account during my time there.

 

[atheistium]

How is writing reviews of games you've shilled for not corrupt? Don't make me get the list of Squeenix previews were you splooge hyperbole over everything.

The list that includes several interviews I did at one event? It's a short list out of all the work I've done. If you don't like my writing style that's a different thing entirely.

A publication would (or at least should) encourage you to say no if writing about it would/could create a conflict of interest.

This sounds really weird as the person assigning you to write stuff should be informed about possible conflicts of interest (like you working for Square Enix and then writing about it) and should do their best to avoid them. Something just doesn't sound right. Either they didn't know writing about SE games could be a conflict of interest or they just didn't care. One sheds a bad light on you and the other option makes the publication look bad.

Again I hope staff writers wouldn't have to face those kind of decisions. I've never faced it myself but I think a lot of people are worried about losing their jobs with magazines closing down so often.

There's a lot of confusion about my work with Square Enix. I've never been employed by them in a full time/part time/official staff capacity. It was freelance work. In total I've done 6 days worth in their office which saw me sit in a room and play Final Fantasy XIII-2 to completion for a mock review.

I assume most of you know what mock reviews are but for those who don't: Mock reviews are reviews that aren't published online or in magazines. They are used internally to guess how the game will do once it releases to the general press. They are written just as honestly and normal as most reviews you read online.

A lot of reviewers do mock reviews. I won't name names but some big UK based websites hire a number of staff who do mock reviews as well as freelancers who continue the practice. Because of this I thought it was ok to do. A lot of people I read and respect said this was normal practice. I think a lot of us have changed our minds about it.

I understand the anger but (and I'm being honest here) it just felt like doing a normal job. I don't feel any special allegiance to Square Enix and I will only write honest feelings about the games as I've always done. Again lessons learned.

 

[Cerebral Assassin]

There's a lot of confusion about my work with Square Enix. I've never been employed by them in a full time/part time/official staff capacity. It was freelance work. In total I've done 6 days worth in their office which saw me sit in a room and play Final Fantasy XIII-2 to completion for a mock review.

I assume most of you know what mock reviews are but for those who don't: Mock reviews are reviews that aren't published online or in magazines. They are used internally to guess how the game will do once it releases to the general press. They are written just as honestly and normal as most reviews you read online.

A lot of reviewers do mock reviews. I won't name names but some big UK based websites hire a number of staff who do mock reviews as well as freelancers who continue the practice. Because of this I thought it was ok to do. A lot of people I read and respect said this was normal practice. I think a lot of us have changed our minds about it.

I understand the anger but (and I'm being honest here) it just felt like doing a normal job. I don't feel any special allegiance to Square Enix and I will only write honest feelings about the games as I've always done. Again lessons learned.

Did you inform any of the publications you wrote for that you had been working for SE? Also if the bolded is true, why did you go and remove any reference to your work for SE?

 

[Zaph]

Lauren, there is only one thing you can do to redeem yourself here - buy a pair of these and become a double agent for GAF. Go to all those shady London industry 'events', record everything and report back here. Raid the tomb and follow the (in-game) money.

But on a serious note, while you did fuck up royally, there was something beyond your control that I would really like to hear your perspective on and I'm not sure it was ever brought up during this hubub. While you were employed by predominately British companies, a lot of your work still ends up on the internet which inherently exposes it to a worldwide audience that maybe can't appreciate the differences in our business culture. With that in mind, how much of this 'scandal' do you think was exacerbated by an international audience along with press outlets that don't really get how the temperature of the relationship between press and PR is (for better or worse - mostly worse) simply different here in the UK?

 

[bigdaddygamebot]

I understand the anger but (and I'm being honest here) it just felt like doing a normal job. I don't feel any special allegiance to Square Enix and I will only write honest feelings about the games as I've always done. Again lessons learned.

Then you're pretty poor at your job and your boss at the time as well.

Maybe you and Andrea Renee can get together and make a website for shills?

 

[atheistium]

Did you inform any of the publications you wrote for that you had been working for SE? Also if the bolded is true, why did you go and remove any reference to your work for SE?

As I said in my Kotaku article things were removed in panic. It's re-edited things back in with explanations now

Lauren, there is only one thing you can do to redeem yourself here - buy a pair of these and become a double agent for GAF. Go to all those shady London industry 'events', record everything and report back here. Raid the tomb and follow the (in-game) money.

But on a serious note, while you did fuck up royally, there was something beyond your control that I would really like to hear your perspective on and I'm not sure it was ever brought up during this hubub. While you were employed by predominately British companies, a lot of your work still ends up on the internet which inherently exposes it to a worldwide audience that maybe can't appreciate the differences in our business culture. With that in mind, how much of this 'scandal' do you think was exacerbated by an international audience along with press outlets that don't really get how the temperature of the relationship between press and PR is (for better or worse - mostly worse) simply different here in the UK?

Photo intel with sunglasses!? The future!

I think what was interesting was how this was covered. Apart from Kotaku, most outlets made no attempt to gain comment. People's job titles were wrong, things were made up about me, links to my body of work were suggested as other things. A lot of outlets also just linked other blog posts as true sources when in fact those blogs were also just observations. Everyone was kind of winging it. No-one really had the full and true story.

There's a really interesting article called "Watch the Wire" which I think says a lot about how this was covered.

I think more people were interested in the scandal of LAUREN WAINWRIGHT than corruption in the media but that's our news culture these days. They'd rather point a finger than tackle the overall issue. It's much easier.

I also find reactions interesting. How things I personally thought were 100x worse than the things I've "supposedly" done were quickly being brushed under the carpet.

I don't know what the relationships are like with American press and PR. I assume it's more spread out and defined via email. It's a little different here. As we have smaller expos and events, we're more likely to see and know each other. It's difficult to not produce a friendly working relationship from that. Doesn't mean we're all going to write just fluff because we know the PR.

From what I understand from the US press is that it's a bit more glitz and glam. They get some crazy promo stuff sent through. I think the most elaborate promo package I've got was some flight sim game with a t-shirt and a soundtrack CD inside... yay...

 

[timetokill]

Websites and magazines survive with advertising deals which (sometimes) include content packages.

Most of the time these are just things like having to post a certain number of stories that month on a game. I'm not sure if it has to be positive or not but content can sometimes be dictated by that.

This pretty much ensures that there can never be real game "journalism."

It's one thing for an editor or somebody to say "we need to write on this topic." It's entirely another to say, "Activision just gave us a huge sack of cash so we need at least one Call of Duty story a day for the next month." At best you get meaningless fluff, but ultimately it's not about reporting on what the consumer needs to hear, it's what the publishers need the consumer to hear.

Very distressing.

 

[atheistium]

This pretty much ensures that there can never be real game "journalism."

It's one thing for an editor or somebody to say "we need to write on this topic." It's entirely another to say, "Activision just gave us a huge sack of cash so we need at least one Call of Duty story a day for the next month." At best you get meaningless fluff, but ultimately it's not about reporting on what the consumer needs to hear, it's what the publishers need the consumer to hear.

Very distressing.

And I totally agree with you. I'd rather have adverts for washing up liquid than being dictated on specific content. Sadly we're the target market for the very things we're critiquing.

Though I must say that most content you read is just because it's the news rather than a publisher asking for specific content. Though if you look for the posts you can easily notice a trend during pivotal release times.

 

[bigdaddygamebot]

I don't know what the relationships are like with American press and PR. I assume it's more spread out and defined via email. It's a little different here. As we have smaller expos and events, we're more likely to see and know each other. It's difficult to not produce a friendly working relationship from that. Doesn't mean we're all going to write just fluff because we know the PR.

From what I understand from the US press is that it's a bit more glitz and glam. They get some crazy promo stuff sent through. I think the most elaborate promo package I've got was some flight sim game with a t-shirt and a soundtrack CD inside... yay...

Well...deflection is certainly one way to go with this.

How about you read JUST the original post in this thread? Click on the links there...then come back and leave a post. Right now it seems you're betting on the fact that you appear "brave" by coming here entitles you to some manner of response such as, "Oh Lauren...oh you. It's all water under the bridge!"

It is brave of you to come here. It's also stupid. There's absolutely zero reason to believe you at this point considering how you've handled things so far and considering your ties to the PR side of things both professionally and socially. A publication or website would be absolutely foolish to hire you as a reviewer because all it would do is diminish their own credibility.

From your posts today, it appears as though someone is lying. You. Eurogamer. Someone. Everyone?

Being brave isn't going to make this go away and although its unfortunate that you're having trouble finding employment, you might prove to be an excellent cautionary tale to a group of people that aren't smart enough to understand just what a conflict of interest is.

 

[atheistium]

Well...deflection is certainly one way to go with this.

How about you read JUST the original post in this thread? Click on the links there...then come back and leave a post. Right now it seems you're betting on the fact that you appear "brave" by coming here entitles you to some manner of response such as, "Oh Lauren...oh you. It's all water under the bridge!"

It is brave of you to come here. It's also stupid. There's absolutely zero reason to believe you at this point considering how you've handled things so far and considering your ties to the PR side of things both professionally and socially. A publication or website would be absolutely foolish to hire you as a reviewer because all it would do is diminish their own credibility.

From your posts today, it appears as though someone is lying. You. Eurogamer. Someone. Everyone?

Being brave isn't going to make this go away and although its unfortunate that you're having trouble finding employment, you might prove to be an excellent cautionary tale to a group of people that aren't smart enough to understand just what a conflict of interest is.

I'm not trying to deflect anything. I'm answering someone's question.

Who's lying about what?

 

[Takuan]

A lot of reviewers do mock reviews. I won't name names but some big UK based websites hire a number of staff who do mock reviews as well as freelancers who continue the practice. Because of this I thought it was ok to do. A lot of people I read and respect said this was normal practice. I think a lot of us have changed our minds about it.

If one was to verbally defecate on a company's game for a paid mock review, what are the chances that person would be re-hired for a mock review in the future?

 

[atheistium]

If one was to verbally defecate on a company's game for a paid mock review, what are the chances that person would be re-hired for a mock review in the future?

They want your honesty at the end of the day. What's the point of getting someone to come in and say just nice things?

 

[bigdaddygamebot]

I'm not trying to deflect anything. I'm answering someone's question.

Who's lying about what?

Exactly. Who is lying about what indeed?


If you bothered to read the original post...
If coming to NeoGaf to answer questions and explain things mattered as much as you would like us to believe...

You would know precisely what I'm talking about. There's a number of interesting things to read there that cover precisely what you're currently posting here.

Hint - read something by Rob Bramwell

 

[SpinningBirdKick]

A lot of people contacted me prior to EG. All sorts of advice was given. It was a huge clusterfuck.

Hello Lauren, thanks for stopping by.

Can you divulge which people offered you advice prior to you contacting EG?

I would also be interested to know if the large Hitman advertorial that you wrote for MCV was commissioned / written prior to this blowing up or afterwards?

I would think due to print lead times it would of been before but it would be nice to know for sure.

Thanks.

 

[MC Safety]

If one was to verbally defecate on a company's game for a paid mock review, what are the chances that person would be re-hired for a mock review in the future?

It's odd you'd care about mock reviews as they're not intended for publication.

As someone who's written mock reviews, I would tell you a critical eye is absolutely welcome.

 

[Corto]

Just wanted to post something now that you Lauren revived this thread. Sorry if I'm going to sound paternalistic, but I hope you took something positive from this whole clusterfuck. Move on. Good luck.

 

[faceless007]

From your posts today, it appears as though someone is lying. You. Eurogamer. Someone. Everyone?

What claims specifically are you referring to?

 

[atheistium]

Hello Lauren, thanks for stopping by.

Can you divulge which people offered you advice prior to you contacting EG?

I would also be interested to know if the large Hitman advertorial that you wrote for MCV was commissioned / written prior to this blowing up or afterwards?

I would think due to print lead times it would of been before but it would be nice to know for sure.

Thanks.

Rather not names names It was a mix of people from diff specialist publications.

The Hitman recommended is a short piece on the game and then talks about it's marketing plans because that's what MCV is. It's not for consumers. It's for retailers. It's not a review. It's an overview of how the game is being marketed with some mini-facts on the title.

Print leads are a week in advance so MCV typically finish a magazine on Monday and it comes out on a Friday.

 

[atheistium]

Just wanted to post something now that you Lauren revived this thread. Sorry if I'm going to sound paternalistic, but I hope you took something positive from this whole clusterfuck. Move on. Good luck.

You don't and I totally have learned a whole bunch. Sorry for bringing up a semi-old topic but it was still being updated.

 

[Takuan]

They want your honesty at the end of the day. What's the point of getting someone to come in and say just nice things?

Yeah, that's what I figured. So any taboo surrounding mock reviews doesn't have to do with the practice itself, but rather the potential effect it may have in biasing a writer's opinion in published reviews/articles for the same company. Thanks.

 

[zkylon]

Can you expand on this corruption you're aware of but don't take part in?

I mean, the few times I've ran across what seemed like corrupt behavior from coworkers I've done what I could to call it out and I actually lost my job because of it. No regrets, I think it's the right and only way to act.

What I mean is that if you know of people who are corrupt you're responsible for doing what you can to fight that corruption. No need to name names, but something.

 

[SpinningBirdKick]

Rather not names names It was a mix of people from diff specialist publications.

Ok, that's understandable. I wasn't really expecting an answer to be honest. But it never hurts to ask.

The Hitman recommended is a short piece on the game and then talks about it's marketing plans because that's what MCV is. It's not for consumers. It's for retailers. It's not a review. It's an overview of how the game is being marketed with some mini-facts on the title.

Print leads are a week in advance so MCV typically finish a magazine on Monday and it comes out on a Friday.

I'm familiar with MCV and it's target audience.

My recollection of the dates and timeline is hazy. But two weeks afterwards seems about right. So it seems that the Hitman piece was commissioned afterwards then? Interesting.

Thanks.

 

[faridmon]

I honestly can not believe that Mock Reviews are considered OK? Especially since it requires a critical eye and a lot of gaming personnel do it. Jeff Gerstmann went into detail how corrupted the whole system is and ''journalists'' should not be encouraged to do it.

 

[atheistium]

Can you expand on this corruption you're aware of but don't take part in?

I mean, the few times I've ran across what seemed like corrupt behavior from coworkers I've done what I could to call it out and I actually lost my job because of it. No regrets, I think it's the right and only way to act.

What I mean is that if you know of people who are corrupt you're responsible for doing what you can to fight that corruption. No need to name names, but something.

I don't know anything specific. There's a thing I find questionable but it's difficult to publicly out something unless you have a lot of decent evidence.

 

[endresults]

Did you win the PS3?

 

[aegies]

If one was to verbally defecate on a company's game for a paid mock review, what are the chances that person would be re-hired for a mock review in the future?

There was a specific triple A title in 2012 where the publisher didn't use any mock reviewers from the previous year's similar triple A release, ostensibly because of what they had to say about certain elements about the 2011 game. It didn't turn out well for them.

 

[Suairyu]

Libel laws change from country to country. Here in the UK what was posted can be seen as libel.

Which part? As has been said many times, there was never an accusation made against you. The article warned what public perception might be (by fairly pointing out yourself as an example) and how journalists should be careful to avoid it, not that there was any actual corruption taking place. There was no statement, suggestion or insinuation of any actual foul play on your part to anyone with a reading level above that of a junior school child.

 

[atheistium]

Did you win the PS3?

LOL never entered the competition.

I honestly can not believe that Mock Reviews are considered OK? Especially since it requires a critical eye and a lot of gaming personnel do it. Jeff Gerstmann went into detail how corrupted the whole system is and ''journalists'' should not be encouraged to do it.

When people your senior do it then you think it's ok. Obviously I see it a bit differently now.

 

[JABEE]

There was a specific triple A title in 2012 where the publisher didn't use any mock reviewers from the previous year's similar triple A release, ostensibly because of what they had to say about certain elements about the 2011 game. It didn't turn out well for them.

Are journalists allowed to do these mock reviews on the side while they are still employed by the media outlet? Do freelancers have to disclose what companies they have done mock reviews for?

 

[atheistium]

Are journalists allowed to do these mock reviews on the side while they are still employed by the media outlet? Do freelancers have to disclose what companies they have done mock reviews for?

Freelancers don't have to. I'm one of the only people I know who has done mock review work to actually publicise the client on my CV/Linkedin.

 

[JABEE]

When people your senior do it then you think it's ok. Obviously I see it a bit differently now.

Did the people do these mock reviews while they were still performing the duties of editor or staff writer?

 

[zkylon]

Did you win the PS3?

lol

 

[MC Safety]

Are journalists allowed to do these mock reviews on the side while they are still employed by the media outlet? Do freelancers have to disclose what companies they have done mock reviews for?

It's not made explicit, but it certainly should be. You shouldn't do work for a game company (of any kind) while being paid to write about games.

 

[v0yce]

Are mock reviews (cant believe these are real) only done after a game is complete, or are they done with enough time to change the game based on feedback?

I guess I'm really hoping this isn't just focus grouping a game based on opinions of people locked in a room playing a game for six days.

 

[Jackpot]

Rather not names names It was a mix of people from diff specialist publications.

Yeah, wouldn't want someone to threaten a totally frivolous lawsuit.

 

[Takuan]

There was a specific triple A title in 2012 where the publisher didn't use any mock reviewers from the previous year's similar triple A release, ostensibly because of what they had to say about certain elements about the 2011 game. It didn't turn out well for them.

What didn't turn out well for whom?

It seems more reasonable to believe that the publisher went for a new group of reviewers to get a fresh set of opinions, instead of the publisher being butthurt over negative feedback given behind closed doors. I just don't see the rationale of paying professionals to mock-review a game in exchange for favorable feedback when said reviews are strictly behind closed doors, for the publisher's ears only.

It's odd you'd care about mock reviews as they're not intended for publication.

As someone who's written mock reviews, I would tell you a critical eye is absolutely welcome.

Yeah, I wasn't 100% sure what the process was when I made the post. I get how it works now, and while I see the conflict of interest, it doesn't seem like such a big deal to me.

 

[aegies]

Are journalists allowed to do these mock reviews on the side while they are still employed by the media outlet? Do freelancers have to disclose what companies they have done mock reviews for?

If they're employed full time, a) they shouldn't have time, and b) no, they can't do work for anybody else if they're a full-time employee.

As for the second question, I personally don't think previous experience doing mocks is a disqualifier, but I'm also biased. I wrote mock reviews for Dark Void and NHL 2K10 before I started at TeamXbox, which I disclosed during the interview process. Since I did the mock for Dark Void months before it came out, I was just removed from all coverage of that game (for which I was grateful). It wasn't seen as a problem, because the point of mock reviews is to be as direct as possible. It's a review that only the publisher gets to see. I also never talked to Capcom or 2K about them. I went through a third party firm that employs freelancers to do that kind of thing. The bigger guys contact people directly and pay quite a bit more for more detailed write-ups.

Talking to colleagues who have done or do them, mock reviews are the stage where the team wants the least amount of bullshit possible. They want to know what to expect, which is why I'm surprised when publishers say they were surprised by critical reaction to their games. In all of the interviews I just did for Polygon, I did ask about mock reviews, but it wouldn't have been an immediate deal-breaker.

I totally called the metacritic ballpark for both of those fucking games, by the way.

Are mock reviews (cant believe these are real) only done after a game is complete, or are they done with enough time to change the game based on feedback?

I guess I'm really hoping this isn't just focus grouping a game based on opinions of people locked in a room playing a game for six days.

That's not really what mock reviews are for. They're late-stage procedure close to release, so that any marketing decisions can be appropriately tweaked. There are some people that consult on games that are much further away from release, though. I've never done that. I don't know if I would.

 

[boutrosinit]

It's odd you'd care about mock reviews as they're not intended for publication.

As someone who's written mock reviews, I would tell you a critical eye is absolutely welcome.

I've written mock reviews (waaaaay long ago) and asked for mock reviews more recently from trusted friends who are still writers (hell! MC Safety knows two of them!).

No conflict is seen here, because those writers are expected to disclose they 'consulted' that game and therefore NEVER review it.

I've never seen a writer I asked for a mock review review anything I've worked on, and I've also never done the same.

Very common practice, but still has some foggy ethics, as something consulted on by a news writer may end up gaining favor for coverage. Rules on this really need more definition in my view.

 

[boutrosinit]

It's not made explicit, but it certainly should be. You shouldn't do work for a game company (of any kind) while being paid to write about games.

That's a pretty good rule.

 

[Haunted]

Yeah, wouldn't want someone to threaten a totally frivolous lawsuit.

 

[Corto]

What didn't turn out well for whom?

It seems more reasonable to believe that the publisher went for a new group of reviewers to get a fresh set of opinions, instead of the publisher being butthurt over negative feedback given behind closed doors. I just don't see the rationale of paying professionals to mock-review a game in exchange for favorable feedback when said reviews are strictly behind closed doors, for the publisher's ears only.

I'm guessing the publisher it's EA and the games are Battlefield 3 and Medal of Honor: Warfighter. If that was the case, I can imagine a scenario where EA instead of listening to some of the faults mock reviews pointed to Battlefield 3, and supported by the good sales numbers of it that lead to misjudge those faults as strengths, just tried to find a more suitable group of people that wrote what they wanted to read and functioned like an echo chamber.

 

[Kelas]

Since I did the mock for Dark Void months before it came out, I was just removed from all coverage of that game (for which I was grateful).

Man, that game had a lot of promise, but I was really disappointing with it. Could have been so great.

 

[Osietra]

If Flossy and that Doriots guy just wrestled in front of a lazer log-fire. It's just a dream I have.

 

[JABEE]

That's a pretty good rule.

I thought that rule would already be in place at most reputable outlets. I could see freelancers doing it, but I have to believe it could hurt you if it limits what titles you can review and cover. Especially if you want to get promoted.

Freelancers would also have to worry about doing too many reviews for one company and the contact they have with the people who make the games. Do they work in the office or do they do it using a third party like Aegies said?

All of these situations have different ramifications for how an outlet covers a game.

 

[atheistium]

Yeah, wouldn't want someone to threaten a totally frivolous lawsuit.

To quote Bramwell direct from his piece on Eurogamer.

We took legal advice and ultimately made the decision to remove the paragraphs. It was not a decision that I took lightly. One objection to this action that I've read online is that there was no libel. All I can really say is that the advice we received meant that removing the offending text and apologising to Lauren was the right course of action to take. We also considered the fact that the article wasn't really about her but about all of us, and I felt that the edited version did not change Rab's meaning.

 

[JABEE]

I'm guessing the publisher it's EA and the games are Battlefield 3 and Medal of Honor: Warfighter. If that was the case, I can imagine a scenario where EA instead of listening to some of the faults mock reviews pointed to Battlefield 3, and supported by the good sales numbers of it that lead to misjudge those faults as strengths, just tried to find a more suitable group of people that wrote what they wanted to read and functioned like an echo chamber.

That seems like a bad logical argument for EA to make. The success of Battlefield was not only dependent on the EA brand. There are different developers, different takes, and a different marketing environment. Relying on past results to determine marketing for a product with so many variables seems like a bad idea. Sounds like an ego issue.