Two weeks ago, I sent an email to Doug Perry in an effort to clarify his take on the IGN review process of Prey. In an effort not to rush a final assessment without attempting to clarify a few of his claims, I decided to wait. I have yet to receive a response to my clarification request from Mr. Perry. Nevertheless, I think there are some key issues in Perry’s review policy defense that need to be addressed.

There is no question that Doug Perry tainted the review process of Prey for Xbox 360. This fact is evident in his own testimony of the situation. But more importantly, Perry’s letter actually promotes a tainted review process. I find this to be totally unacceptable. Let’s review three key items of journalistic misconduct defended in Perry’s letter.

Doug Perry [emphasis added]:

The issue in the mind of the “source” … is whether a game score should be discussed
internally, as part of a staff, and externally with a publisher prior to
scoring and finishing the game. Discussing the score of a game with a
publisher can be a tricky business… If handled correctly, you can indeed have these conversations without breaking any ethical codes. You can discuss the score of a game without selling your soul to the devil…
Tom didn’t know the score because he hadn’t finished the game. I said,
‘Tom, what do you think of this game? Could you score it now? If so,
what would you honestly give it? I need to know your honest opinion
because we might have an exclusive here’…The emphasis on the conversation wasn’t by any means to
pressure anybody into scoring the game higher…
The point was to gauge whether he could determine how good the game
was, and whether it was worth getting an exclusive on. This way I could
provide a range (for instance, “The game is between a 7 and an 9″) which
could then help the publisher decide whether they wanted to go with us
or not…
There is nothing wrong with talking with staff members about how good a game is,
how one should score it before it’s reviewed, and whether it should be a
top story or not.

Journalistic Misconduct #1: It is absolutely wrong for an editor to discuss a game’s score or range of scores with the reviewer of the title before the reviewer has played or reviewed the game. Perry emphasizes that this practice is not intended to “pressure” the employee into giving a higher score. But intentions matter not in this situation. A writer’s view on a product is psychologically effected when their boss asks for a score (or range of scores) for the product before he has played or reviewed the game. For example, if the employee hears something along the lines of “You think you’ll give it a 8 or 9?” it produces undue pressure on the individual to please the boss and score it in that ballpark. This is unacceptable when the product has not been properly evaluated by the individual. Readers of the publication expect a game review to be fair and untainted. They deserve product reviews that did not get their scores before tested. No editor score pitches or PR deals should be anywhere near the review process of a game. That leads us to another journalistic misconduct.

Journalistic Misconduct #2: A game reviewer should not be aware of any PR business deal that requires a certain score or range of scores to secure an exclusive story on the game. This is pretty straightforward. When an individual knows that the promise of a particular score range is integral to getting an exclusive story, it provides psychological pressure to “help the company.” Assume a reviewer knew a publisher wanted a 8 or 9 secured before handing a publication an exclusive story. Why would he/she want to go against the employer’s business interests by scoring the game lower? The fact that this angle is even present taints the entire review process.

Journalistic Misconduct #3: Game publications should never barter scores with PR firms in order to gain exclusives. I was shocked to see Perry openly defend this practice in his letter. Again, personal intentions are a non-factor. It is principally wrong to use score promises to gain exclusives. Yes, the deal apparently didn’t go through with the Prey review. But Perry argues that discussing scores with PR firms is a perfectly acceptable practice. It’s not about whether an editor doing this practice thinks he can handle the PR firm’s pressure. It’s about principle! A PR firm’s job is to maximize sales of a game product. The game publication’s job is to provide an unbiased, trustworthy critique of the product free of any taint. The publication’s editorial integrity is compromised when PR deals are potential factors in the product reviews it provides. The dialog should simply never happen.

What happens when the promised score range used to gain the exclusive review is not delivered? In other words, a PR firm is told the game will get a 8-9. The publication subsequently gets the traffic-generating exclusive review. However, despite the taint, the reviewer gives the product a 7. Obviously, this would represent a violation of the agreement made between the two firms. With this scenario, it simply would be impossible to have continuous exclusivity deals with PR firms engaged in this practice. Thus, we see that in order for score promise-for-exclusivity deals to work, both firms must stay true to their word. Games involving these deals have been scored for business’ sake before being properly evaluated. Once again, readers are getting a raw deal.

It is unfortunate that Perry advocates practicing these misconducts in game journalism. If he continues these practices at GameTap.com, the publication’s review integrity will be damaged. But what is much more alarming is the possibility that this is a common practice in some circles of the game media. Recent emails and phone calls from industry insiders would suggest it may very well be. See, at the end of the day, this issue transcends Perry. It’s not about individual character either. It’s simply a matter of sloppy journalism.

VGMWatch is not in the business of judging personal integrity. We’re simply looking for principle. Journalistic ethics are unchanging. They are not neglected or pushed aside for faith in personal character. That is the essence of professionalism. The game media should always seek it.