Game Journalist May Have Been Fired Over Negative Review [Slashdot]

[Gameguy]

It would be funnier if reviewers stayed honest in the written portion of their review and just gave the game a high score anyway.

"This is the worst game I've ever played. It's full of bugs, has a boring story, poor voice acting, is way too short yet feels way too long at the same time, and made me throw up. 9.0/10.0."

[Gamereviewgod]

Reviewers in general are a terrible way to gauge a game, especially because of their bias.

Nobody working at a game magazine or review site wants to get fired over giving a game that is supporting their site a 5.0/10.0, it's job suicide.

Except the one example we have of that ever happening was a case of mismanagement and complete misunderstanding for editorial standards. Reviews, contrary to popular belief, are not biased. I'm not saying that they can't be influenced mentally (working close w/ devs on previews suddenly makes things personal), but never biased. And, if they were paid for (since I'm sure that's coming up), I'd actually make a decent wage instead of a pittance doing what I do.

[Griking]

He got a severance package. Part of getting that was agreeing to not discuss why he was "released".


I guess that makes sense. Most people don't get severance when they're fired.

[j_factor]

Except the one example we have of that ever happening was a case of mismanagement and complete misunderstanding for editorial standards. Reviews, contrary to popular belief, are not biased. I'm not saying that they can't be influenced mentally (working close w/ devs on previews suddenly makes things personal), but never biased. And, if they were paid for (since I'm sure that's coming up), I'd actually make a decent wage instead of a pittance doing what I do.

So how exactly does a game like Final Fantasy VIII get 9's and 10's across the board virtually everywhere? I'm not saying Squaresoft paid everyone off, but it does seem a bit curious that not a single contemporary review from a major publication had anything negative to say about a game that was so highly flawed. Outside of the gaming press, calling it a great game is very much a minority opinion.

[WCP]

So how exactly does a game like Final Fantasy VIII get 9's and 10's across the board virtually everywhere? I'm not saying Squaresoft paid everyone off, but it does seem a bit curious that not a single contemporary review from a major publication had anything negative to say about a game that was so highly flawed. Outside of the gaming press, calling it a great game is very much a minority opinion.

Seems most gaming websites will have their resident FF fan review all the FF games. Certainly, any hardcore FF fan that has been waiting as long as it took for a new game to come out might look past some of the obvious flaws. I'm curious what IGN, GameSpot, 1up, etc, etc, gave the game, and which particular reviewer they had on the game. I'd bet dollars to donuts that Jeremy Parish was the 1up reviewer, and he would give just about any Square game 1.0 higher than the average reviewer. I have no idea who reviewed that game for 1up, and have no idea what the review was, so I'm probably way off base, but it just seems that each gaming website has their own personal JRPG guy that tends to score JRPG's higher because of their unabashed love for that style of game.

[Gamereviewgod]

So how exactly does a game like Final Fantasy VIII get 9's and 10's across the board virtually everywhere? I'm not saying Squaresoft paid everyone off, but it does seem a bit curious that not a single contemporary review from a major publication had anything negative to say about a game that was so highly flawed. Outside of the gaming press, calling it a great game is very much a minority opinion.

Because the majority felt it was a great game at the time of review. It's an opinion, and regardless of the flubs, it was a technical marvel, just like VII was. Battle Arena Toshiden won over a lot of people too. Sometimes technology sells, and hindsight is what it is.

[skaar]

I guess that makes sense. Most people don't get severance when they're fired.

Sure they do.

Anyway, this whole thing ultimately doesn't matter. You can prove that people are being misled and lied to and for the few that'll stand up or protest you'll have hundreds who just don't care enough to bother.

Apathy isn't just limited to game reviews.

[j_factor]

Because the majority felt it was a great game at the time of review. It's an opinion, and regardless of the flubs, it was a technical marvel, just like VII was. Battle Arena Toshiden won over a lot of people too. Sometimes technology sells, and hindsight is what it is.

I'm not talking about hindsight. I bought the game on release day. I liked it in the very beginning, but I grew to hate it over the course of the game. I went on web forums and usenet to bitch about it, only to find pages and pages of other people bitching about it. The game was disliked right away. The reviews were not just a difference of opinion, it was like they were talking about a different game entirely. And it wasn't just some of them, it was all of them.

And that was just one example. In short, I find it extremely hard to believe that reviews are not biased.

[Gamereviewgod]

And that was just one example. In short, I find it extremely hard to believe that reviews are not biased.

There is no reason to be biased. None. You don't get any more ad dollars for a positive review. It doesn't work that way. EA doesn't suddenly start throwing money at your site if you like Tiger Woods 13. Sites that ripped Operation Raccoon City still have ads for ORC too. It's only logical to advertise new release games on a video game website.

If I send a link to a review to a PR person who sent me a review copy, and the text lambasts a game, I get the same response as a glowing review:

"Thanks."

That's it. I did my job, they do theirs, life goes on.

Edit: And just to note, I could find 10,000 forums posts hating Call of Duty the second it comes out, but that doesn't mean the critics in question are any less "right."

[Daria]

There is no reason to be biased. None. You don't get any more ad dollars for a positive review. It doesn't work that way. EA doesn't suddenly start throwing money at your site if you like Tiger Woods 13. Sites that ripped Operation Raccoon City still have ads for ORC too. It's only logical to advertise new release games on a video game website.

If I send a link to a review to a PR person who sent me a review copy, and the text lambasts a game, I get the same response as a glowing review:

"Thanks."

That's it. I did my job, they do theirs, life goes on.

Edit: And just to note, I could find 10,000 forums posts hating Call of Duty the second it comes out, but that doesn't mean the critics in question are any less "right."

Just because reviewers aren't being offered payoffs doesn't mean some of them don't operate under some sort of bias. And I'm not talking about what did or didn't happen with the whole Kane & Lynch fiasco, I'm talking more mundane influences like as WCP suggested, having a Final Fantasy fanboy write up a review on a FFXIII. I do think established, more popular series, tend to get forgiving reviews more often than they probably deserve.

[Gamereviewgod]

Just because reviewers aren't being offered payoffs doesn't mean some of them don't operate under some sort of bias. And I'm not talking about what did or didn't happen with the whole Kane & Lynch fiasco, I'm talking more mundane influences like as WCP suggested, having a Final Fantasy fanboy write up a review on a FFXIII. I do think established, more popular series, tend to get forgiving reviews more often than they probably deserve.

Everyone has a bias. I don't like Final Fantasy, or JRPG's for example. I wouldn't write a review for a game like that. I'm not the person people turn to when they need a review for one either. It wouldn't be fair. So, of COURSE the Final Fantasy fan should be reviewing Final Fantasy. Are non-fans suddenly going to rush out and buy the 13th game of a series if they didn't play the first 12? No. It only makes sense to give the material to someone with the needed background, and that person is -clearly- the fan on the staff.

And a franchise didn't become established without becoming popular in the beginning. Plus, unlike other mediums, video game sequels tend to improve as the numbers climb. I find it almost funny to play Uncharted 1 after Uncharted 2. The quality in the second is amazing comparatively. Gameplay mechanics are smoothed out, ideas are expressed better after the basic engine isn't a focus, and fan criticisms are taken into account.

[Melf]

There is no reason to be biased. None. You don't get any more ad dollars for a positive review. It doesn't work that way. EA doesn't suddenly start throwing money at your site if you like Tiger Woods 13. Sites that ripped Operation Raccoon City still have ads for ORC too. It's only logical to advertise new release games on a video game website.

If I send a link to a review to a PR person who sent me a review copy, and the text lambasts a game, I get the same response as a glowing review:

"Thanks."

That's it. I did my job, they do theirs, life goes on.

Edit: And just to note, I could find 10,000 forums posts hating Call of Duty the second it comes out, but that doesn't mean the critics in question are any less "right."

Companies take review scores seriously, and while you don't see any outright influence, I'm sure it's there. Publishers pressure developers for games that score good, and they even link developer bonuses to Metacritic scores (http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2012/03/why-linking-developer-bonuses-to-metacritic-scores-should-come-to-an-end.ars). I'd be surprised if they weren't also using their advertising dollars to influence scores.

[j_factor]

There is no reason to be biased. None. You don't get any more ad dollars for a positive review. It doesn't work that way. EA doesn't suddenly start throwing money at your site if you like Tiger Woods 13. Sites that ripped Operation Raccoon City still have ads for ORC too. It's only logical to advertise new release games on a video game website.

It's not just ads. There have been cases of game publishers no longer providing review copies to certain publications, or threatening not to. There is also the possibility of a negative review harming relations between the site/mag and the publisher for things like journalistic access. Operation Raccoon City was widely panned; that's one thing. But if a game is widely expected to garner high praise, everyone falls in line. Roger Ebert can be the only major critic to give Full Metal Jacket a negative review, but you won't find that kind of dissent in game reviews outside of user reviews and absolute nobodies. If the user reviews and the little-known sites (or back in the day, fanzines) are posting some well-written, well-considered negative or middling reviews, I find it hard to believe that the reason a game is getting universal 9's and 10's from every major publication is strictly because everyone agrees it's perfect.

[kupomogli]

but it just seems that each gaming website has their own personal JRPG guy that tends to score JRPG's higher because of their unabashed love for that style of game.


Just because reviewers aren't being offered payoffs doesn't mean some of them don't operate under some sort of bias. And I'm not talking about what did or didn't happen with the whole Kane & Lynch fiasco, I'm talking more mundane influences like as WCP suggested, having a Final Fantasy fanboy write up a review on a FFXIII. I do think established, more popular series, tend to get forgiving reviews more often than they probably deserve.

I doubt most Final Fantasy fanboys would give garbage like FF13 an above average score of 7/10 no matter how much bias they have. FF13 isn't just a love it or hate it type of game. It was bashed from the very start by most people. Apparently the gameplay gets really good about 20 hours in, but do you think anyone is going to overlook how shitty the first 20 hours was? I quit after six hours. I couldn't stand playing the game anymore and I'm pretty sure most people felt the same.

Final Fantasy 13 was probably given to its resident JRPG fans, but the Metacritic score of 82 is more than likely a payoff. The 10/10 score from Famitsu for Final Fantasy 13-2 is a pay off for damn sure.

When you have a video gaming site like IGN rate FF13 a 8.9, then at the end of the year rate it as the most disappointing release of the year and mention how everyone in the department hated the game, you know there's some foul play going on.

[Daria]

Are non-fans suddenly going to rush out and buy the 13th game of a series if they didn't play the first 12? No.

OT: That's kind of amusing when that's exactly the audience Square was aiming for with that release.

[TonyTheTiger]

Any medium of this nature (be it a game review magazine, a radio show, or a TV program) lives or dies by its ad revenue. That's just pure fact. Regardless of the quality of a publication, if everybody pulls all their ads at the same time then that publication is going down the tubes...fast. And it's what happened to a lot of people in other mediums. Bill Maher lost his show Politically Incorrect for the same reason. Don Imus, same thing. Lost his job (for a while) when advertisers pulled out. So people in a position to air their opinions are definitely at the mercy of the people keeping the lights on. Say something that bothers them (regardless of the innate quality or lack of quality of the speech in question) and they are free to bolt, taking their money with them. Call it a cruel reality.

BUT, that doesn't mean there isn't a silver lining here. If anything, the good that comes out of this whole situation is that it helped establish something of a check and balance in that system. While publishers can pull ads because they're pissed about something, they are now on notice that they'll be publicly shamed should they try to use their position to strong arm people, which can ultimately do a lot more harm than a bad review. Sony got caught with egg on its face back when it was allegedly sending out instructions on how to review Lair. So there's definitely incentive for these companies to stay out of the business of micromanaging reviewers.

So, do I think reviewers are at the mercy of publishers paying the bills? Absolutely. But does that mean they can't be objective? Not really.

[Berserker]

Advertising is a game of subtle influence. Threatening a writer's integrity directly or overtly must seem lazy and foolish to most within that sphere, and I doubt it happens very often. But we know it can happen, because we've seen it has happened. That's not to say that industry-funded reviews have no objective value, but I think people today are more conscious of how the game works. That's why we check Metacritic first now.