Reality check in games journalism - a short essay

[FrieChamp]

So I’ve been thinking about what my 3000th post on this magnificent, digital billboard could look like.

I heard excellent suggestions like fabricating a “MapCore collage made of noodles, glue and glitter” or displaying the work I did on Crysis, but I decided to talk about something else instead, in the form of an essay. Let me know what you think!

I’d like to talk about multiple things actually, game industry related, that have been floating in my head for the past weeks pretty much freely and independently, until last week, where they began to intersect and form this ball of wool, which I am now trying to unwind.

Interestingly like a real ball of wool, I start to believe, that this is in fact about one, curled up string (of thought) made up by lots of tiny ones and not a cluster of loose threads.

It is just hard to see.

Influence and control in media is a topic that has been around in TV and literature for a while, but has been ignored by us gamers naively for the longest time. The past week could have been something like a wake up call, for some of us, if not, maybe the following lines will explain what I mean.

The month of November was an extraordinary month for gamers, we saw lots of highly anticipated and critically well (and not so well..) accepted titles to be released, just on time for Thanksgiving in the States and the holiday season in all western countries at the end of December.

The entire year has been extraordinary – we have heard Hollywood actors whine about people rather staying at home playing Halo 3 than going to the movies, European gamers could finally wait in line to spend their hard earned Euros on a Playstation 3 and numerous sales records have been broken.

This essay is not meant to recap the year 2007 in games though or attempt to top the euphoric statements by publisher representatives that are being quoted by traditional media exceedingly often.

I would like to talk from the perspective of a passionate gamer and consumer for almost 15 years, as somebody who has had a view on the games industry from the inside for 3 years, but who is not on the payroll of any company currently whatsoever, because he is studying economics and the structures behind media related corporations.

I would like to talk about what is happening in “games” right now and where this ship is heading to, because sometimes I feel like I am on an overpriced boat cruise, filled with tourists and people from the press, on its way to mystery harbor and everybody is being super excited, absolutely clueless, yet very proud and too busy posing for photos with the ship crew to take notice that the captain is “Jaws” the big, white shark himself.

I realize that to know where you are going, you need to be aware of where you are coming from, but if you are too short sighted it will be too late when you are about to hit the iceberg. So even if very recent events have confirmed my concerns, I am trying not to close in my thoughts on a specific time line or hesitate to draw in other types of media for comparison.

One of said events definitely was the announcement that Activision is merging with Vivendi Games, which holds one of this industry’s shiniest gems: “Blizzard Entertainment”.

Blizzard expects a turnover of 1.1 billion Dollars in 2007, but is dwarfed by Vivendi Games parent company – “Vivendi” – which is internationally active in all types of media. “Activision Blizzard” (as the company’s stocks will be listed as at Wall Street) climbs up to be the number one contender for the title “biggest games publisher worldwide” and demonstrates heavy competition for “Electronic Arts”, which has been the industry’s leader for several years. The deal could become exemplary for media conglomerates pushing into the market with investments of previously unknown scale in this sector.

The second event, which actually predated the merge by a few days, was the firing of editorial director Jeff Gerstmann from “Gamespot” for dubious reasons.

Rumors started to swell immediately after his departure, that the editor has been let go for his review style and scores, particularly for his take on the game “Kane & Lynch”, which was developed by the Danish studio “IO” and published by British “Eidos Interactive”. The game received a “6.0”, which is by industry standards, on the lower end of the average game scale. According to insider information by various online publications, Eidos was not amused and allegedly threatened CNET (Gamespot’s parent company) to pull its ad campaign off the website if the review wasn’t changed.

CNET issued a statement in which they deny pressurizing any websites in its network and try to reassure everyone that Gamespot is taking its “editorial integrity extremely seriously”. So far Eidos has refused to comment, just like Gerstmann, who most likely fears to breach a post employment non disclosure agreement.

So it remains to be seen if Gamespot readers will ever get a definite answer to the question why Gerstmann lost his job, but chances are, that there is merit to all these rumors and CNET’s new management has something to do with it. Even if not – merely the thought, that games journalism might be shmeared in some cases, is a bitter taste for every hardcore gamer and in a case like this, where thought grows to nearly overwhelming suspicion, especially the most dedicated readers feel traumatized.

Could one of the biggest and most respected game news and review websites on the web bow to a publisher, if just enough cash changes hands? How much responsibility do the editors have, how much influence do publishers have on them and who are the men that stand behind the websites and magazines?

Let’s take a look at Gamespot’s competition. It doesn’t take much journalistic research, just a good eye to find the “about us” link on the competitor’s websites, which is in most cases buried under dozens of flashy images and banners. For example, Gamespot’s biggest competitor “IGN” has been wrapped under the wings of Gamespy’s network not too long ago. Gamespy is in fact part of Fox Interactive Media, which (you might already guess by the name) belongs to Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation.

Another big games website that specializes on video clips of games called “Gametrailers.com” has been bought by MTV Networks, which again belongs to another company: Viacom, USA’s 3rd biggest media owner.

So big media conglomerates already have the means to spread biased information among gamers, which doesn’t necessarily mean that they do, but the idea that they “could” is scary enough.

The question you might ask yourself is now “why” they would do it, which builds the bridge to the Activision - Vivendi Games merge, in which case a huge media company now owns a big games publisher. That begs the question what would happen if both editors and publishers suddenly sit in the same office and are fed by the same hand...

The reviewers have always been a light of guidance to many gamers. Unimpressed by marketing fluff and flashy ad campaigns (Average Joe might easily fall for), they have notoriously fought through gazillions of horrible games to select a small choice of products that are truly worth purchasing - or so the general perception of game journalists might have been up till now.

Ghost stories about exclusive on-site reviews, invitations to pompous press events and after show parties that might affect the editor’s verdict on the title, made gamers worldwide shudder, but what if reality is even worse and there is more to it than the occasional cocktail and exclusive hands on (as Gerstmann’s firing let shockingly shimmer through)?

If the editors lose their credibility, they have lost everything and we gamers lose our only source for neutral product information. The source that is even more crucial to us than the movie reviews in our newspaper, because it makes a difference if you waste 10 bucks on a bad flick, or more than 60 on a bad game.

That is also why the reviews are so important to the publishers. Games aren’t becoming cheaper to make, they are becoming more and more expensive. Studios and publishers aren’t making single games anymore - they are building franchises, which include multiple sequels, console adoptions, movie licenses and merchandising. With all that money spent on marketing, especially when establishing a new franchise, the publisher cannot afford to have bad reviews. In particular on influential sites such as Gamespot, a bad score can mean tremendous losses in sales and danger the entire franchise.

So the question whether it was fair game by Eidos to threaten CNET with business terminations (provided that this actually happened) is not an easy one to answer. If this ultimately lead to the editor being fired though, it is safe to say, the worst move was performed by CNET/Gamespot.

Maybe this is also why independent sites like Penny-Arcade, Kotaku, Shacknews or “Yahtzee’s Zero Punctuation reviews” increase in popularity and cause hardcore gamers to turn away from corporate run websites and magazines.

This could widen the gap between hardcore and casual gamers even further, but also shows that a relatively young type of media is beginning to mature. With all positive and negative side effects that growing up brings. I believe for once it is time for us to see beyond the screen and face reality.

Sources:

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=31138

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=31120

http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3164656

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=31135

http://mediaowners.com/

http://www.gametrailers.com/aboutus.php

http://corp.ign.com/

http://www.newscorp.com/management/fim.html

Apologies for any spelling or grammar mistakes.

[e-freak]

-snip-

Edited August 8, 2021 by e-freak

[Cybbe]

Well played, Frie

Congratulations with your 3000, and I must say, that I can't help but agree, though I fear that the people reading the reviews might not be able to see this coming, and will just keep on further endorsing the corporate control over how games are publically perceived. People are gullible, and the reviews can be very convincing, and it really does threaten credibility everywhere. At this moment, I don't know how much of an impact it'll have on GameSpot, but despite all this outrage, I don't think it'll do much. I'd probably be willing to bet that they'll recover and (re)build a (new) base of readers, either unaware of the transpired events, or unaffected by them.

Then again.. Word of mouth can have a huge effect. I guess we'll just have to wait and see what transpires in the next month or so. Maybe they'll even put out a pretty statement.

[Steppenwolf]

Actualy there is nothing new about this topic. Hell more then a decade ago many print magazines already had a bad reputation for favouring certain companys/publishers and giving often ridiculous high scores to mediocre and bugged as fuck games. Now it has arrived to the internet. Doesn't surprise me at all. It's capitalism and these things happen.

Personaly i trust opinions on forums or impressions from demos a lot more then any game test. This is why demos are so important. games can have the best scores i dont care about them if they dont come with a demo. There is always something fishy going on about "top games" without a demo.

[Cybbe]

Actualy there is nothing new about this topic. Hell more then a decade ago many print magazines already had a bad reputation for favouring certain companys/publishers and giving often ridiculous high scores to mediocre and bugged as fuck games. Now it has arrived to the internet. Doesn't surprise me at all. It's capitalism and these things happen.

Personaly i trust opinions on forums or impressions from demos a lot more then any game test. This is why demos are so important. games can have the best scores i dont care about them if they dont come with a demo. There is always something fishy going on about "top games" without a demo.

Like how the nintendo magazine would always 10/10 nintendo published games ;D

[mabufo]

Actualy there is nothing new about this topic. Hell more then a decade ago many print magazines already had a bad reputation for favouring certain companys/publishers and giving often ridiculous high scores to mediocre and bugged as fuck games. Now it has arrived to the internet. Doesn't surprise me at all. It's capitalism and these things happen.

Personaly i trust opinions on forums or impressions from demos a lot more then any game test. This is why demos are so important. games can have the best scores i dont care about them if they dont come with a demo. There is always something fishy going on about "top games" without a demo.

Like how the nintendo magazine would always 10/10 nintendo published games ;D

Nintendo Power has to be the perfect example of this that there ever has been.

[PogoP]

It's hearing things like these 'scandals' that are beginning to deter me from the game design industry.

I'm very passionate about gaming/game design, yet it seems that the majority of the game design industry is very unprofessional and unorganized. I would love to design games for a living, but I would not like to work under the harsh, unrelenting hand of the publisher.

I just don't know what to think any more. Why can't game design be that awesome, fun industry where people can truly express themselves that I used to think of?

Went off on a tangent there

[Fletch]

Just for writing that much, I should delete one of your old posts and knock you down to 2999

[Izuno]

Quick! Reply to your own thread!

[m8nkey]

I respectfully disagree with your well constructed essay Frie. This is nothing new. I've been exposed to adverjournilism marketing on radio, tv, papers and magazines my entire life. Even disguised as current affairs. As you mentioned in your article, the Internet has given a voice to independents like Zero Punctuation, Penny Arcade and the like. There's also review aggregators like Metacritic that can assist puting a bias review into perspective.

I don't take any "profesional" reviews of anything seriously for this very reason, I'd place more faith in the words on a personal blog or a forum. I know what I like and it's often at odds with what's critically acclaimed.

I think if anything, it's becoming easier to bypass this obvious and redundant marketing bullshit although it is here to stay.

[FrieChamp]

Maybe you are interested in the 4players.de "Kritischer Herbst" which was an article series on the topic which was caused by the heavy crits on gothic 3 where the devs and publisher went postal about those magazines who scored the game "negative".

Ah I remember the incident but don't recall reading such an article series, I'll check it out, thanks!

I respectfully disagree with your well constructed essay Frie. This is nothing new. I've been exposed to adverjournilism marketing on radio, tv, papers and magazines my entire life. Even disguised as current affairs. As you mentioned in your article, the Internet has given a voice to independents like Zero Punctuation, Penny Arcade and the like. There's also review aggregators like Metacritic that can assist puting a bias review into perspective.

I don't take any "profesional" reviews of anything seriously for this very reason, I'd place more faith in the words on a personal blog or a forum. I know what I like and it's often at odds with what's critically acclaimed.

I think if anything, it's becoming easier to bypass this obvious and redundant marketing bullshit although it is here to stay.

Interesting take on this and I don't think we necessarily differ in opinion. It's just a matter of sensitizing the masses, because I didn't mean that "nobody" was aware of what's been going on behind the scenes for a long time.

Quick! Reply to your own thread!

Phew!

[Sa74n]

nice read, frie.

i never read reviews on any of the corporate sites. metacritic sure is a nice indicator if you dont trust your source of reviews but if i'm genuinely interested in a game i will try it out no matter the scores. kane and lynch got average reviews but i really like the setting and characters (and even tho previous io games had their deficiencies they were all good games).

i surely can imagine reading a review of a game that has ads scattered all over the page leaves a strange impression. and firing a guy over a bad review cuz of an ad deal is just wrong. but if that was really the case remains to be seen - no need to point fingers before people know what really happened

[Thrik]

It's already been confirmed. Other GameSpot editors have also attested to it, and indeed one was saying how when the guy got to work (he's been there for 10 years) he was simply locked out of his office and asked to leave the building.

Pretty bad.

[Cybbe]

Sources?

[Thrik]

Check out the GameSpot staff blogs for a start. I saw all this when I was at work so I have no idea what the links are now.

There's very little in the way of disagreement that this actually happened though. If there was there would have been a denial, not GameSpot editors writing about what happened and saying it's a disaster.

I dread to think of how culture in the GameSpot office has been affected by this. Imagine going from thinking you're working for an editorial where a good, informative opinion is what matters, to suddenly realising it's all driven by PR contracts and that your job is on the line if a publisher objects.

It's an atrocious state of affairs for GameSpot, and it's even more worrying that the attitude from publishers is that they this is normal, accepted, and fine. The industry seriously needs to look at other entertainment mediums and note how they've gotten past early problems like this (50+ years ago).