I spent the last hour reading allegations that Eidos dangled a six-digit advertising deal over GameSpot’s head in order to have long-time editor Jeff Gerstmann fired for the critical tone of his now-pulled 6/10 video review of Kane and Lynch (a text-only review remains). Whatever the real story, Gerstmann is currently out of a job.
Truth be told, game makers have long since pressured gaming media to publish favorable game reviews as a higher score equates to greater sales. And while most publications will tell you otherwise (even self-serving at times), my sources confirm that several outlets have delt with the dilemma and even succumbed to filthy lucre.
The good news is the current publicity surrounding the issue will end up benefiting our favorite hobby in terms of its integrity, or lack thereof. Sadly, I’m not sure my fellow gamers want honest reviews, at least from the critics.
Just look at the immediate online reaction of numerous Zelda zealots given Gerstmann’s confirmed departure. “Good riddance,” said one Kotaku commenter, “I couldn’t stand that guy since he gave Twilight Princess an 8.8/10 (gasp!).” Other inconsiderate and off-topic comments weren’t so civil.
What can we learn from such behavior? Hardcore gamers don’t want truthful reviews from the critics, they want professional assurance to sooth their insecurity or debate ammo for pithy comments. And you know what? Our entire industry panders to their desires. (Most) critics don’t have the guts to call out an over-hyped game for fear of geek backlash, publishers constantly lobby for inflated review scores, and everyone (myself included) from developers to media take review scores way too seriously. The only group I can see that doesn’t care so much about scores is the casual crowd, bless their souls.
As we deal with editorial and industry growing pains, and while blogs help usher in a heightened level of authenticity, there are solutions for those seeking honest reviews when a publication’s consistency is in doubt, however — soliciting recommendations from people you know and trust and crowd sourcing.
The first is self-explanatory — talk with a friend that shares similar tastes. The second involves taking a cue from other consumers, and there is no better way to cut through the hype, offset the critical echo chamber, and find sleeper games than by consulting Amazon.com or Metacritic average user review scores and their accompanying remarks.
Need proof? Wii Sports was discounted by critics (for whatever reason) in 2006 and received an average review score of 7.6/10 according to Metacritic. Joe gamer and all his friends, however, rated it as a 9/10 game. Another popular launch title, Excite Truck, received “mixed” reviews of 7.3/10 while collective users gave it an 8.4/10. This is a prime example of how critical scores are not representative of what the masses say (deflated).
By comparison, critics gush over Twilight Princess while actual users slightly disagree. The same Goes for Mario Galaxy and other high-profile non-Nintendo games with even greater disparity that I will not mention here. This isn’t to say said games are bad or unworthy of your time, only that society does a better job in gauging inflation than the actual critics do.
So even though gamers may not want honest reviews from critics, they still want to know how to spend their limited budgets in a truthful way by comparing notes. Call it power in numbers.
Utter BS… This is simply another reason that gaming review sites are UNTRUSTWORTHY. Most are paid to review a majority of games a certain way. I prefer friends word of mouth or Indie sites. The big boys are all PAID for there glorious reviews of titles. One reason is like sites like Infendo as they are honest about their feelings towards a game.
I look at sites like Metacritic to get a general idea of game quality, but tend to trust user/reader reviews more than the opinions of paid reviewers. It seems that they are becoming furtherly disconnected from the tastes of the general public. Great story, Blake!
This is why I come to places like this and Penny Arcade and listen to podcasts to decide what to buy instead of reading reviews at Gamespot. Jeff should start a blog and poach all the Gamespot talent
Like I say to every review qualm article. I have a reviewer who nearly fits my taste and reviews games accordingly, everybody should find their ‘best fit’ reviewer.
In addition to that, why don’t gamers rent anymore? Seems like the perfect way to circumvent this whole paid reviewers/overhype/whatever thing. Just play the game, and ask yourself, ‘did I like this?’.
Weird. Good read Blake
Of course not, a very large number of gamers are drooling idiots, that’s why many large review sites don’t even bother to have well written reviews let alone fair ones.
This is why I don’t trust review sites at all. Instead I look at the reviews of those who have played the game themselves. Throw out all the perfect 10s and abysmally low scores like 2.5 and lower (they always seem to come from people who are biased or just have some kind of unnatural loathing) and you can generally get a pretty good idea of how the game is going to be
I actually enjoy and tend to agree with Yathzee and his reviews.
This is yet another example of how little the vendors care about “gaming journalists.” Why else do you think the video game companies cover review sites and video game journos with freebies and obscene promo packages (Halo 3′s military bag swag comes to mind). They don’t respect them, and therefore they get away with pulling advertising stunts like this one.
I’m going to exercise quite a stretch here and say that the monumental shift occurring within the video game audiences right now is somehow related to the GameSpot firing. As the audience changes, and encompasses more non traditional people, the user review score will become more important, the professional ones less important, and you will begin to see more desperate behavior on both the part of the vendors (like Eidos in this example) and the journalists that until this point pandered to them with hyped review scores and open arms for swag bags they earned not for any perceivable skill set, but simply for being a shill for the industry.
I, for one, welcome our new Long Tail overlords.
With the amount of money Eidos put into the game, I’m not one bit surprised.
Developers are really hurting. Poor sales of these ‘next-gen’ projects, like Stranglehold, Timeshift, Blacksite, have been selling poorly. Regardless of the reason-poor quality or not- 20M+ projects tanking is not good for the bottom line.
Why do you think so many of these same developers,Midway especially, have been throwing crap at the Wii? They need to have a back-up plan. When they aren’t making money off of the crap, they need to take different steps.
Invest in a six figure marketing campaign, and get rid of as much negative press as possible. And what better site than Gamespot or IGN to do so.
User scores are great, but only if the sites collecting them reject any user score submitted prior to the game’s street date. I see that Gamerankings has changed their user score heading to say “Interest Level” prior to the game’s release, but that’s only good enough if they toss the prerelease scores out on release day.
As for gamers preferring fanfare over honesty, ads like those Kane and Lynch ones are why I use Adblock Plus.
[...] an insightful piece about a recent flak in the gaming industry concerning the rumored firing of an employee from [...]
^Except user scores are also fanboy driven.
On Metacritic, I saw a review(later taken out) that gave the game a 1/10.
The reason? Easy, repetitive game.
I’m no reviewer, but a 1/10 usually depicts an unplayable game.
on FANBOY OWNERSHIP:
If Jeff is for sure let go, than I’m bummed. I shouldn’t care if he reviews something i like with a lower score – because I can retain my own opinion and realize that’s his separate opinion. The ownership that some people have over top-tear franchiss is nuts, and to the point where you’d wonder if the players feel they were part of the development of the game from the beginning. I’ll always be Mario fanboy and it pleases me to know the game has been reviewed highly, but whether it is or isn’t, or is sold or isn’t, it bears nothing to do with the end experience with the game in my with friends and family.
on CRITICAL OBJECTIVITY:
Gerstman has always been clear about the differences of the advertising on their site vs. the critical objectivity. He’s been an advocate for reviewers being honest and clear that if they play a game that’s sub-par, than they’ll review it that way. Maybe he was the only one brave enough to talk about that on his podcasts, but it’s a loss if that’s the reason he may be gone from the gamespot staff.
Gerstmann had an opinion… seems like this is dangerous nowadays?
@DonWii yes user reviews are more fan driven but generally if you eliminate the perfect 10s and perfect 1s and look at several different opinions you will get an accurate image of the game before you buy.
I see too many over-the-top passionate criticism of both professional critic and user opinions here, and I don’t think they are justified.
It is easy to see why there is a disparity between the average critic rankings and the users’ rankings in most games: Professional critics come from a background of having played games all their lives, so they know when a new game is derivative or just a small improvement on an old formula, plus they tend to prefer tougher games that challenge their experience. Casual gamers, even those of us who have been gaming for ten years or so, have not experienced all these games, so we tend to find fascinating some games that improve on an old formula.
I think most critics are fair, but you must take into account that a game that might seem derivative for them could be the exact thing you are looking for as a relatively new gamer.
This happens a lot in the writing world. I have had a lot of my articles pulled for not being “positive”. It’s a sad state in the review industry.
DonWii brings up an excellent point. User-generated scores can’t really be more accurate because they fall prey to their own problems of inflated (or deflated) scores due to fanboy behavior. Should every person creating a score be fair and balanced? Yes. Does the practice match the theory? Because of the very nature of the enthusiast, No, it does not.
As for soliciting reviews from people you know and trust? This absolutely works, but if a person or entity becomes popular well known for being a trusted reviewer, it is only a matter of time before the establishment begins to court them. Is the only answer to maintaining credibility a complete rejection of corporate sponsorship? It’s easy to say YES, but can I ask a news entity to throw away the most powerful and viable way to pay for operating expenses? (granted, this argument is more traditional-news-focused, like newspapers, magazines and television).
Whatever you guys think of “professional review sites” (professional in that they review games in order to make a living), the wall between industry and observers is an important one and should be fought for. Our instinct as intelligent consumers is to dismiss both parties outright, but to do so invites further transgressions and ultimately a breaking down between critics and corporations. It is an uphill battle to increase (or even just maintain) the autonomy and authority of journalists, but it is vitally important that we fight for it.
After all, how long until the corporations dictate the tone/content of ALL the websites we visit?
just one point. you are supposed to take review scores seriously. otherwise they serve no purpose.
if you say you will never do another review again, nor will talk about reviews from other sites then thats fine.
but while reviews may have different uses to different people, one of the original uses was to guage where your money should go.
maybe you dont take budgets and buying decisions seriously, but some people may have an interest in a dozen games but they can only afford 1 or 2, so they read the reviews to see what is worth there money.
you can think that nobody should buy based on reviews, but then honestly, reviews altogether stop serving a practical purpose, score or no score.
then we are also left renting, which can be expensive itself, especially if you got a game that wasnt even worth renting, or buying to find out whats up, and losing out on resale.
reviews hopefully lessen your losses.
for me, money is serious business, and therefore reviews are serious business. whether they are written online or in print.
ps: i dont go by reviews because i always know what i like, and am picky about what i buy, but i can completely understand the use of reviews, and know people that dont have my time or internet savvy/time to keep up with the nuances of every game that looks interesting.
Can we put a moratorium on characters named Kane/Cane/Cain/Kain/etc.? Yes, we get it, the 13-17 year old crowd thinks it’s a cool name, but enough already.