lawblob said:
Garnett's Andrew Dice Clay > Demitri Martin comparison. Yikes...
Jeff is spot on with his Brady Bunch movie analogy.
Agreed on the first point, if only because it's overly reductive. Jerry Seinfeld's TV career took off at about the same time as "Dice" ... and well after that because Seinfeld was more actual humor than shock value. (Which isn't to say shock comedy went with him, as that's the stock in-trade for the Lisa Lampinelli's, Jim Norton's and Whitney Cummings of present day). To make Dice Clay the standard-bearer for an entire era of comedy - as what worked back then - not only ignores that insult / shock value comedy still works now (we just get tired of the personalities behind it), but also overstates the value of the designated standard-bearer.
As to the Brady Bunch film...never saw it. Still trying to figure out how Jeff walked right past the first Austin Powers movie, which is what I thought of while listening to him.
I think the show missed an opportunity talking about the PR / DNF story. As someone who isn't in the business of reviewing video games, the outsider's view of video games PR is that they exist to make a game look as good (purchase-worthy) as they can leading up to a game's launch window. A negative review works against that goal; a negative review that gets out early
because the game's PR gave the reviewer a (free) review copy is money being spent by the publisher that works against the goal of the publisher to induce purchases of the game.
If the reviewer would buy a copy of that game anyway, and would still write the negative review....that review goes up later (since it - almost by definition - can't be put up until the game is purchased and played through during that launch window), minimizing the damage. At least that way the review generates one additional sale.
On the other hand, a game that doesn't get any reviews - even middling ones - does not track on sites like Metacritic, and the absence of attention draws concern. (The obvious comparison being when a movie studio doesn't show a film to critics before opening weekend; not exactly a sign of quality to a discerning consumer.)
What the guys (and Andrea) did talk about is the flip-side of the picture: being able to talk about the game's positives and negatives in a fair and honest manner. What the PR agent tweeted was a desire to limit exposure of (bad) games away from the people who would look to create the kind of pull quotes referenced on the podcast; the same people who generate attention through shock value (the game reviewer equivalent of Andrew Dice Clay). In other words, not giving a free ride to people who would not review the game like a
professional.
You can give Modern Warfare 3 to everyone who asks for a review copy, and that game is still going to sell. PR doesn't matter as much for AAA titles. Duke isn't a AAA game, even if it could have been at one point. What the twitter post talked about isn't threatening to pull ad $$ if the coverage doesn't fit with their message, nor is it the ability to break an embargo if the review is sufficiently positive. So far as I can tell, they were only talking about minimizing potential negative reviews by keeping review builds away from reviewers they consider unprofessional. In other words, the PR company is talking about managing a game's public image....which is exactly what they're paid to do.
The podcast got close to talking along these lines, but never quite got there. From the outside, this looked like a good opportunity to peel back the curtain and talk about the process, and what PR can / should do. That's a conversation I'd still like to hear.
