GamePolitics yesterday reported on an interesting little mainstream story concerning the Daily Mail. The story revolved around a young 13 year old boy (name withheld given his age) who decided to set fire to three vehicles in Lyon, France, purportedly because of video games. After speaking with police, the boy said he wanted to act out his adventures in Grand Theft Auto.

A police spokesman in Lyon elaborated:

He said he played the game for a few hours, then wanted to go out and [see] what it felt like to burn out some cars. This kind of entertainment is clearly having a negative effect on some young people.

The problem is that the Daily Mail reports the boy was inspired by Grand Theft Auto IV: Liberty City for the PC. It just so happens that the PC version won’t be out until late November in that territory. Perhaps the young arsonist has access to a time machine?

While this can easily be perceived as simply a small factual error on the part of the Daily Mail, may it also represent an apparently typical rush to blame video games - any game, released or not - and that the details don’t really matter?

Source: Daily Mail Online, GamePolitics

Tracey John over at MTV Multiplayer takes a lengthy look at the history of Game Informer covers the past four and a half years, spanning fifty-five total issues. John discusses the perception of a game as presented by GI on their covers, and how the game actually panned out using Metacritic scores.

Many of GI’s predictions/hype hold up to some extent, but there are some glaring and occasionally amusing examples to the contrary, like for the following for Dead to Rights II: Hell to Pay, where John contrasts the cover hype versus the end result:

The cover claimed that “Namco redefines vigilante justice.” It turned out that Namco didn’t redefine vigilante justice so much as kill it. GI’s later review had a subtitle that read, “how to kill a franchise — without really trying.” It criticized the game saying it was “a lesson in what happens when there is an unwillingness to evolve.”

Peep the full article here.

Source: MTV Multiplayer

Or…. “Dan Hsu’s beef with the industry”

Yesterday we introduced readers to Dan Hsu and Crispin Boyer’s new blog, Sore Thumbs. We asked viewers to add the blog to their bookmarks list, and for good reason - today the writings of Shoe have provided another critical look into the inside workings of the often flawed industry.

Shoe comments on the state of an industry in which game companies consistently pressure journalists to provide pleasing scores for their products, listing examples as he goes along. It’s fascinating, really, and runs the gamut from jostling for exclusive reviews via “promising” high review scores, doing “make up” stories for companies who have felt jilted by coverage in past articles so as to save advertising dollars, and even…. wait, even providing prostitutes for lonesome editors? (Note: This one’s just rumor, folks, although Shoe has reason to believe.)

One example provided in the piece:

For example, some companies will offer an outlet an exclusive first review with the understanding that the game gets a certain score or higher. I don’t feel this is necessarily inappropriate on the game publisher’s side — why put a poor review out there if you can avoid it? And I can certainly understand why the press would entertain such an offer. First review = high traffic or magazine sales. But my beef with this (and why we officially stopped doing exclusive reviews when I was at EGM): Just bringing up the offer alone taints the reviews process…something that should be as clean and innocent as the Virgin Mary.

As an example of the above, Shoe was kind enough to source two VGMWatch articles; we’ll do the same for the benefit of our readers. Peep the hubbub we exposed over IGN’s Prey review process here and here.

While these are “indirect” bribes, as Shoe points out, aren’t they bribes nonetheless, and subject to the same level of scrutiny? As we have put forth before here at the Watch, when any such activities proceed at a publication, there is an immediate conflict of interest and as such the journalist’s objectivity is immediately compromised on some level, whether they realize it or not.

Again, check Sore Thumbs for more examples, and don’t forget to view the other two installments of “Behind the Scenes: Game Journalism” here and here. And don’t think Shoe leaves EGM untouched - in fact, impropriety was one of the reasons he left 1UP/EGM (see part three).

Source: Sore Thumbs

Dan “Shoe” Hsu and Crispin Boyer’s new blog, Sore Thumbs, is the proverbial diamond in the internet rough. It makes no promises about content and isn’t out to excel in any one category of coverage, but the fact that Hsu and Boyer were former EGM staffers (Editor-in-Chief and Senior Editor, respectively) makes their pondering and “walks down memory lane” of notable interest to the Watch.

Case in point: a post penned by Boyer a couple weeks back concerning the cover of Electronic Gaming Monthly back in 1995. As Boyer explains, in the mid-90s fighting games were still all the rage, and they were the safe and preferred bet for a cover of a magazine. So when Editorial director Joe Funk decided to go with a Twisted Metal cover (then a new franchise on the PlayStation), magazine founder Steve Harris’ head spun a good 360 degrees as he promised to stop the presses, if possible.

Included at the Sore Thumbs blog is the original September 1995 email correspondence between Funk and Harris, in which the latter begins his reply with:

WHY IN THE HELL DO YOU DO THIS?!?

Please note there was no emphasis added above. For a look at the complete, scanned email, pop on over to Sore Thumbs.

As many may remember Harris was too late and the issue went to press…. and sold well. It’s inside the industry stories like this that VGMWatch salivates over, and thanks to Shoe and Boyer’s hints at more, we’ll be adding this site to our blogroll. We suggest you do the same.

Source: Sore Thumbs

Electronic Gaming Monthly’s Editor-in-Chief Dan “Shoe” Hsu has an interesting editorial in the latest edition of his magazine. The bulk of Hsu’s column deals with topics familiar to VGMWatch.com readers: publishers bullying game publications; overly positive previews; and editorial integrity. In fact, Hsu himself has covered these issues in past columns before. However, what makes his latest editorial unique is what he’s always shied away from doing in the past: it names names.

According to Hsu, Midway’s Mortal Kombat development team, Sony’s sports game division, and Ubisoft have all allegedly banned EGM from further coverage of their products. The reason: Apparently, they didn’t take too kindly to EGM’s review coverage of their games. Still, Hsu maintains that EGM “won’t treat these products or companies any differently.” We have yet to confirm these allegations with the publishers mentioned. However, if the editorial’s claims are accurate, VGMWatch.com is certainly disappointed with these publishers’ behavior. As corporations, publishers have every right to ban any publication they want for poor coverage. But that doesn’t make it right. Gamers should feel disrespected as well.

VGMWatch.com staff will be contacting the companies involved with this story for further comment. In the mean time, readers may want to pick up the current issue of EGM to view Hsu’s editorial for themselves.

The last few weeks have been rather busy, but I wanted to quickly touch on a familiar topic in game journalism ethics. The issue of publisher gifts has been at the center of many a controversy in the game media. In an effort to cozy up to publications, publishers often send “schwag bags” in the spirit of their latest game release. While the vast majority of these gifts are trivial promotional trinkets, every now and then lavish presents are sent to editors. We often see examples of what not to do when journalists receive these pricey gifts. I’d like to highlight two examples that buck that trend.

In September, Microsoft sent out several personalized Halo 3 duffel bags to members of the game media. The bags contained two Halo 3-themed 360 controllers, Halo 3-edition Elite 360, Master Chief collectible helmet, Xbox Live headset, dog tags, health kit, and some military meals. The total value of the gifts estimated to approx. 800 USD. In a widely reported instance, Dean Takahashi of San Jose Mercury News displayed the contents of the bag in his video blog. Takahashi provided a great example of journalistic principle by announcing that he would return the gifts to Microsoft. In response to reader comments on the video, Takahashi stated:

There was probably $900 worth of stuff in that goody box. That’s some serious swag. It’s so valuable in fact that, if we accept it, people would question our ethics and priorities. So it’s going back to Microsoft tomorrow. We need to get games from the companies we cover and sometimes the hardware to run them as well. We keep a small number of games for reference and donate most of the rest. We’re not trying to put on airs, as much as we joke around about it. When it’s too much, we’ll send it back. There are no hard feelings about that, but it’s the way we operate.

Kudos to Takahashi for displaying solid game journalism ethics on this issue. It’s easy to get caught up in the hype and media frenzy of blockbuster releases, but standing firm on principle is a great message to send to aspiring game journalists in the industry.

After reading Dean’s story, I asked Dan Hsu of Electronic Gaming Monthly what his team did with their Halo 3 duffel bag. I was surprised to hear that they had kept it. However, he gave a reasonable explanation for their decision. Below, Hsu explains his policy on publisher gifts such as the Halo 3 duffel bag:
(more…)

One magazine that seems to garner massive amounts of praise throughout the gaming community is EDGE — and that’s whether or not people have even read it. I guess that’s one of the benefits of being British. I’ve read the publication before, usually when I’m enjoying an afternoon at Barnes & Noble, and I find it to be a good read with very solid, snappy copy.

However, I’m at a bit of a loss over a recent situation involving EDGE, a contributor, and a pulled column. Paul Rose, a monthly columnist for EDGE, had a recent submission killed “because it was felt to be too much of a personal attack on a certain individual.” [Rose’s blog] That individual just happens to be Sony executive Phil Harrison.

After reading through the article, I believe the justification provided to Mr. Rose by the editorial staff of EDGE seems weak. From where I’m sitting, EDGE must have felt if they were to let this article run that Sony, especially Phil Harrison, would excise revenge on the magazine. For what? Reporting the truth (if Mr. Rose’s article is to be believed in its entirety, which we here at VGMW think that’s the case)? While this article might have garnered a small amount of press if it had run, the fact it got bounced makes it much more of a story and now both Phil and EDGE look bad for it.

While there is a fear about being “blackballed” (Can we run our publication without their support?, Will other companies follow suit?), it’s important to know that publications can challenge the establishment to a certain extent. Look no further than the “blackballing/180″ KOTAKU experienced — and they’re just a single blog (no offense, Crecente). Companies need publications, and publications need companies. Disagreements will occur, and at the end of day each has to do what they feel is in their best interest. I’m just a little saddened that EDGE seemed so worried over article recounting Harrison’s stupidity. If he didn’t want it reported on, Phil shouldn’t have tried commandeering a charity auction.

I contacted Margaret Robertson, an editor for EDGE, who after saying she would contribute to the piece, hasn’t responded back (which is why we’ve been sitting on this story for so long). However, if someone with the publication contacts me, the offer to contribute another side to the story still stands.

David Gornoski’s Take: One can’t help but notice the similarities between this case and the recent Don Imus firing flap. While the game media has much to learn from its big brother mainstream news media, this is one trend the game media should not adapt. Censoring free speech, whether it be egregious racial slander or aggressive commentary on a major business figure, should not become the future of any media format.

“I feel a little bad for those of you who cruise through this magazine and skip reading about this game because of the big ‘7′ slapped across the top; it’s a number that has very little to do with how much you will or won’t enjoy this particular title.”
-Miller, in his review of Odama in the latest issue of Game Informer (March 2006, #155)

When Dan Hsu led off the latest editorial in Electronic Gaming Monthly (#199, January 2006) with “my industry pisses me off,” I knew it was going to be interesting. Sure enough, in the following paragraphs, Dan Hsu paints a picture of widespread ethical misconduct that he says has infected parts of the video game journalism industry. Without naming any names, Hsu’s editorial mentions three seperate publications — two magazines and one Web site — that he has heard are willing to exchange advertising considerations for editorial considerations.

After finishing the short editorial, it seemed pretty clear that these serious accusations required further elaboration. And that’s just what Hsu gives after the jump.

(more…)

Game Informer 150 (October 2005):

• 45 reviews
• 161 content pages
• 77 ad pages

Game Informer 151 (November 2005):

• 57 reviews (26.7% increase)
• 200 content pages (24.2% increase)
• 102.5 ad pages (33.1% increase)
• 4 hours of sleep per editor per night (33.3% decrease)*

Here’s wishing all the hard-working editors in video game land a relatively restful and stress free holiday crunch period.

* Totally made up statistic. Duh!