Taint or Mere IGNorance?
I have always been a strong opponent of relying on game previews and reviews for a publication’s bread and butter. I firmly believe that much of the problems of corruption and taint that exist in the game media stem from a dependency on publisher exclusives. When a publication makes exclusive game previews and reviews their prime attraction for readers, it cedes power to game publishers. Some publications are often coaxed to cheapen their journalistic standards in an effort to “outbid” competing venues for the exclusive story. This dynamic ends up punishing the honest publications that do uphold their journalistic standards in all cases. I’ll share my take on this topic in greater detail at another time.
There are many stories that illustrate the taint introduced in the game review process. Recently, I was informed of an unfortunate event involving 2K Games and IGN Entertainment. I spoke with a former IGN.com editor who wished to remain anonymous to avoid any apparent conflict of interest (The individual is still employed in the game media). I will let the individual’s story speak for itself. Below, I have paraphrased the journalist’s recollection:
The review embargo for Prey [for Xbox 360] for all press outlets was up on a Monday I believe. But I happened to know through the grapevine that 1up.com had an exclusive review for the weekend. I think they planned to post the review on the Friday before. So the Monday before that Friday, I hear Doug Perry [Former EIC of IGN 360] speaking with Marci Ditter [2K Games PR manager] about this review exclusive. I knew [IGN writer] Tom McNamara was on the review of Prey. I also knew he hadn’t even played the game yet because we’d talked about it that very morning.
I hear Doug saying to Marci something along the lines of “No, I’m sure it is a great game. I’m pretty sure it is going to do well. That’s why we want the exclusive. We don’t want the exclusive on crappy games… ” so on… He gets off the phone and heads over to Tom and asks him, “Tom, what were you thinking you were going to give Prey?” That’s sort of a no-no to begin with, but Tom says, “I haven’t even played it. I have no idea.” Doug persists, “No, but if you were gonna guess… like 9 or higher, right? Nothing lower than an 8, obviously?” (These are pretty much direct quotes.) That’s when I say, “Doug, you can’t ask him that crap.” Doug replies, “Well, we can talk about ranges of scores. That’s okay.” He then proceeds to ask Tom for a score range. Once again, Tom replies that he has no idea. I scolded Doug again and he went back to his desk where he calls Marci Ditter and says that he’s sure it will do 9 or higher. Apparently, 2K Games had shopped the score around to 1up.com previously. After they refused, Marci Ditter had attempted to sell IGN 360 on the exclusive as well by asking for a 9. After I made a big fuss about it, Doug decided not to take the exclusive either. They ended up publishing the review as a non-exclusive with rest of the game media.
While IGN’s Doug Perry did not take this particular offer, the damage had already been done on the review’s integrity. He pressured the reviewer to score the game before he had played it. The IGN editor ended up giving the title a 9 out of 10. We can only assume it was his honest opinion of the title. However, the review was still tainted. Editors should never prod their staff in a particular score’s direction in order to gain an exclusive review. It’s reported that Doug Perry has left IGN to take a leadership role at an upcoming Turner Broadcasting game publication. Let’s hope IGN and Turner’s publication can maintain a professional and honest review process. Millions of trusting readers deserve nothing less. 2K Games deserves even more heat. There is no excuse for PR firms to bully game media outlets by using score requirements to sell exclusive coverage. Yes, the industry’s got a lot of slutty publications that like to walk the streets. But publishers, show some respect for once. Stop the pimping. Game consumers demand honesty when deciding where they should spend their hard earned cash.
A note to all guilty publishers and media outlets: Discontinue this unethical, dishonest form of business. You are dragging the rest of the game industry down. If you continue to abuse consumers’ trust, you will be exposed.
VGMWatch.com attempted contact with IGN editor Tom McNamara for his take on the review process for Prey but has yet to receive a response as of this publishing.
on August 21st, 2007 at 2:21 pm
Good read. Journalists need to band together instead of eating each other. We’re just hurting each other and the industry if we don’t keep some level of integrity about us, and hold PR reps to the same ethical standard. It’s going to come back to bite us all in the ass.
on August 21st, 2007 at 2:35 pm
The episode described above is indicative of a disquieting long-term trend in games journalism. Since publications are desperate for publishers to hand them reader and revenue boosting exclusives, those publishers and PR people try to influence the reception of their title by doling out exclusives only to sympathetic publications. It is unethical, obviously, for publications to offer an artificially inflated review score in return for the guarantee of exclusivity. I assume this happens all the time with respect to game previews; so-and-so will let you in to see their newest game, provided you don’t mention the title’s more obvious shortcomings.
This conflict is prevalent because journalists are dealing directly with publishers who are absolutely willing to strike a corrupt bargain to bolster the image of their product. And shame on any journalist who accepts such terms; he or she is only perpetuating the trend that makes it more difficult for games journalism to be taken seriously by both publishers and the public.
on August 21st, 2007 at 2:42 pm
There was actually a similar scandal, albeit on other terms considering reviews of Megaman X8. Capcom burned several business bridges with many gaming publications prior to the game’s publication. As a result, several fans speculated that reviewers were told specifically to give the game bad reviews. This was mostly dismissed until a reviewer came forth anonymously to say he was in fact told the range of scores to give the game before he had even played it.
I will actually say the same. Early in my career as a freelance writer and reviewer, I had a difficult time scoring reviews due to a refusal to “play ball”. Luckily the sites I work for now don’t fall into the pattern of money before truth. But I can tell you that reviews don’t even have to be exclusive to be partially paid off.
Reviews have become much less actual reviews, and now just final version previews. Companies and magazines are given release versions to play far before they hit the market, obviously to meet deadlines. However, reviews of games in this fashion are actually missing the point of reviews, to tell the gamer what the playing experience is like. You need to do more than just run through the game by yourself to do this, but a competent writer can simulate a playing experience without even playing the game.
Back in the days of playstation, publications encountered trouble through scandals involving publishing independent FAQs and Walkthroughs without permission. The same can be said for reviews. With a bit of flowery language any writer can read one review, change the language, and turn it into ANY score from 1-10. Case and Point the Wii. I have seen review scores for games like Wario Ware ranging from 3-10 and all it takes is changing “A majority of the microgames play smoothly, but some of the motion controls are more desensitized than they want to be” to “Unfortunately, the motion controls don’t translate as well as Nintendo hoped, creating games that frustrate as you swing the Wiimote this way and that trying to get your movements to register.” Both are true, but can be tacked on to reviews with VASTLY different scores.
So what’s to keep someone from altering the scores so easily like that? Well one would hope unbiased opinion would, or the integrity of the games journalist. Unfortunately in a world with big business like ours, objective opinion does not necessarily pay. Most fans won’t say a thing about a paid off review outside of complaining in a forum or two, and if they aren’t exposed, NOTHING stops a publication from doing it, and sadly its really a good business practice. It allows you to churn out reviews like crazy, and gain support from anyone willing to pay a few bucks. But… its scumbaglicious.
This is why fans trust blogs and fan-reviews more than anything else. Sine they are written for no money with no support, it can be said that they are the most pure form of the review. Unfortunately they are tainted by something different, rampant fanboyism. Someone who hates a system or game irrationally will write an irrational review.
The best thing that can possibly be done, is to continuously expose any company that participates in such scummy business practices. The power is in the hands of the fans, and with out a reader base, publications will fail. In my opinion, I think that if fans knew what was going on behind the review scenes, they would make themselves heard. I think that gamers are a bit more intelligent than to trust a reviewer who has been proven to be a fake, or to even stay silent about it. Gamers are quite a vocal group of people after all.
on August 21st, 2007 at 3:29 pm
That explains how EA gets good reviews. I’ve long wondered how they get such positive reviews for games I find lackluster and generally lower quality. It’s even worse on the PS3, where they continue to make a great platform look weaker than the not so great competition.
on August 21st, 2007 at 8:11 pm
Hence, the reason why niether of those two work at IGN anymore. Old story.
on August 21st, 2007 at 9:53 pm
Mako, was this story reported previously at another outlet? I’m curious to see where you heard this event.
Regardless, VGMWatch is not so much in the business of making new news as much as finding and reporting stories that help illustrate important lessons and points for the game media.
on August 22nd, 2007 at 4:15 am
This story raises some concerns for me. I’m not certain why the source in question gets to remain anonymous when Tom McNamara–who isn’t even portrayed as having done anything wrong here–has his name brought up repeatedly and linked to anonymous accusations of shady behavior.
If the guy who provided the tip is still in the industry, then yes, it’s problematic for him to go on the record about this stuff. But that’s part of the burden of professionalism. You basically can’t throw anything at anyone in a public forum because a) people will just discount it as some jerk trying to smear the competition and b) if your outlet has been around for any length of time, someone there has made a mistake in the past, and as a representative of the outlet, you will be made to answer for their mistakes, no matter how unrelated they might be.
Also, if the story’s accurate, then Doug and Tom would clearly be able to tell who the mystery tipster is, thus defeating one of the biggest reasons to be anonymous here, fear of reprisal somewhere down the line from an incestuous industry. I don’t see how the stated reason for anonymity (avoiding an apparent conflict of interest) actually applies, considering we already know this person still works in the industry for an IGN competitor. So the apparent conflict of interest is still there; it’s just that we don’t know which site or magazine to think less of because they’ve got someone out there spreading dirt on the competition.
Also, Doug Perry is over at GameTap, to be specific. Their news/reviews/previews site seems to be in beta at the moment, but there are a bunch of familiar names attached to it. Was Perry or the 2K rep contacted for this article, because really it seems to reflect most poorly on them, and they should get the chance to respond to the allegations if they’re so inclined.
I’m all for VGM Watch trying to expose shady doings in the gaming journalism world, but I think it should still hold itself to the standards it wants to see applied in the mags and sites it covers.
on August 22nd, 2007 at 11:36 am
I’m going to protect my sources if they request anonymity, regardless of what frivolous accusations can be made about them “desiring to smear the competition.”
What 2k Games and IGN engaged in was journalistic wrongdoing. Plain and simple. To attack attempts to expose behavior such as this is severely misguided and really serves no benefit to the industry.
I attempted to track down Doug Perry but could not find any current relevant contact information. He’s welcome to present his side of the story.
One thing Im growing rather tired of is this smarmy gentleman’s agreement between leading game journalism outlets. It’s a refusal to support journalists criticizing competing media outlets without being smeared by questioning their motives for doing so (despite having absolutely no evidence to support such an accusation).
When the NY Times did several exposes on Rupert Murdoch and News Corp a few weeks ago, the industry largely accepted the truthful reports and findings they provided on the outlet. They didn’t spend their time using a red herring like motives for why the NY Times did the stories. No, the facts revealed in the NY Time pieces were taken for what they were. The game media could learn a few lessons from the more respectable news media.
on August 22nd, 2007 at 5:22 pm
I’m not sure it taints IGN as much as it does a single guy who has since left. Tom stuck to his guns, so that speaks as well of the site as Perry’s alleged smarminess speaks ill.
FWIW, Jane Pinckard said she felt the PR pressure when she was at 1up.
http://www.gamegirladvance.com/archives/2007/08/21/selling_a_review_score.html
on August 29th, 2007 at 12:27 pm
As someone new to the Game Journalism scene, I appreciate articles like this because it reinforces my beliefs in being honest and holding my volunteer reviewers to be honest.
I think instead of fighting to see who can get a review up first, we should be looking at improving the quality of our content.
on September 7th, 2007 at 2:43 am
I’m not surprised to read this.
A publication I write for was hassled by the PR group who handles 2K games in Australia when they weren’t happy with the score we gave GTA San Andreas.
They criticised the reviewer, questioned his writing ability and qualifications, and threatened to pull the advertising funding and not offer us any more games unless we changed it.
We didn’t budge though.
Oh, and the score we gave - 90 out of a possible 100.
on September 8th, 2007 at 7:25 pm
I do notice that IGN gets their reviews alot earlier than other sites. Some kind of connection?
on October 3rd, 2007 at 4:00 am
This is something I came across early in my journalism career when some titles at Future Publishing would push my review scores a point or two higher without even ever playing the game, turning a 7 or 8 into a 9 or 9.5. It was irritating but, by that point, there was very little I could do about it except complain to these editors.
Needless to say they didn’t care too much.
Thankfully I now work for a website and am pretty much in charge of gamign content. I get plenty of guidance on things I need help with but the scores are left to me to decide - when there’s any doubt then one of the editors will play the game and lend and opinion if I’m torn. We still battle for exclusives and we do use a few incentives, but it’s often limited to promising recurring coverage on a game or providing longer reviews.
I’m very glad that I’m in a situation where my integrity is kept intact and it’s just a shame that larger sites which get more hits can’t always say the same.
Joe
Bit-tech.net