Spookie Posted June 1, 2010 Share Posted June 1, 2010 Copied and pasted from GAF. Sums up my issues with the big names like IGN, Gamespot, Gameinformer and so on. It's fairly ****ing brutal but at the same time nothing new or surprising. Warning: It is google translated so it may sound a little wonky in spots. Money controls the reviews of games.Games journalist Jesper Nielsen's preview wasn´t positive enough. He had written a preview of the game 'Assassin's Creed' because there was high expectations. But the game did not live up to the expectations, said Jesper Nielsen, who therefore wrote a sharp criticism. "When the publisher found out what I had written, they threatened to stop their ad dollars, unless the article was removed from the site. And they demanded that I should not review the game when it was finished," he said. It ended with advertisers, according to Jesper Nielsen, making sure that he did not review the final game for, the ad-funded free magazine, Gamereactor. This interpretation of the story is confirmed to Politiken, by a source close to the decision, but is said to be false by Gamereactors director Claus Reichel, who calls it a 'quality-decision' letting different journalists write previews and reviews. The story of advertisers who rages and interferes with games reviews, is far from unique, says Jesper Nielsen: "There is clearly an opportunity to negotiate, reviews and publicity. The worst case is where you go in and negotiate peoples opinions. But there are also talks about how much publicity a game gets, and whether it appears on the front cover. It is more accepted. Publishers can almost buy whole articles or features." Jesper said. The end effect is that users will not be presented with new, good games, unless the company behind the game has a great marketing machine in the back, he says. 'So it is money that talks, instead of quality, "said Jesper Nielsen, who now works for game magazine Hyped.nu. Director for Gamereactor Claus Reichel does not want to be interviewed, but would like to respond to questions via email. He denies that advertisers have something to say. "There is never a demand from publishers to a review, and if there should ever be raised demands for an article, it would be rejected", Claus Reichel writes. Jesper Nielsen's description of the culture around gaming reviews, however, is backed up by several sources in the game industry. One person being, Peter Larsen, who has sat on the other side of the table. Until a year ago he worked as a PR-chief in Pan Vision, which distributes computer games in Denmark, and he has experience with pushing to provide good reviews. According to him the possibility to stop advertising in the magazine is a strong card in negotiations for the review of a new game: "I have had hold of the owners of the magazine, when I for example watch a particular game, which elsewhere is estimated to 9 out of 10, and in this magazine only get 6 out of 10. So we can put them on ice in regards to ads . And you will not buy a the cover of a magazine,if you see the game get a bad review inside the magazine. " Can you tell more about putting a media on ice? "It is something like not spending money on their media. As a public relations man you keep an eye on each score in every piece of games journalism. If someone consistently does bad reviews and gives low scores, then you will not send them copies of the next game. You can also not place ads with them," said Peter Larsen, who no longer is employed in the gaming industry. Morten Skovgaard, editor of the user paid "Gameplay" magazine, admits that the game industry is "very PR-driven". "But for GamePlays case I find that the relationship is relatively equal, although they sometimes want to press for that one game to be received in a certain way," he said. Some things, however have to be taking into consideration, if you want to live from writing about computer games, he says. And is comparing the media to a tabloid magazine. "Let us say that "Se & Hør" (danish weekly tabloid magazine) have a great sensational story about Prince Henry. So they think, 'OK, we could score some readers on this one number, but then we would lose all access to the crown the next five years if we bring it'. Do not tell me that there is a very pragmatic balance there, "he said. At DR's (Danish National Television) TV-Show 'Troldspejlet', which also reviews computer games, Tv License should keep advertisers without influence. But the long-standing host of the program, Jacob Stegelmann, has also experienced that advertisers are pushing to influence journalism. Among other things, he wrote a weekly column for BT (danish Newspaper), where an advertiser demanded that an ad should be launched together with one of his articles, where he mentioned the particular game. 'But of course, I said stop immediately. It would compromise all journalistic principles, "he said. The Host says that amateur critics in particular, can be influenced by being invited on paid trips abroad. "It can be very difficult to break away because of the massively positive propaganda, you are exposed to in that context. Many inexperienced game critics seem to be influenced by that' says Jacob Stegelmann. Then a blog post from the same paper: The bought out Games Journalism.Today, in Politiken my colleague Lea Wind-Friis writes on the relationship between advertisers and game journalists in the Danish games industry - and that is not always a pretty sight. Advertisers have too much power - particularly because many online media and printed magazines like Gamereactor only exists because of ads from the same industry they cover. In other words, there is a huge problem in games journalism, because it is only very few who manage to attract "independent" advertisers who do not directly benefit from being able to influence how the media covers the games. Like "forgetting" to send copies of games to review, to freeze the media out of important press trips / meetings or completely withdraw advertising dollars until the media has "made amends." This kind of direct or indirect power struggle is daily life for many in the gaming press. One problem is that gaming media are generally too poor to attract independent advertisers, and here a large part of the blame obviously accrue to the media itself. They have narrowed their audience significantly by focusing on the traditional male game consumer, and it also makes that larger advertisers not see reason to advertise. But another fundamental problem is that readers have surrendered power to advertisers. When something is free, there should ring a few alarm bells, because this is an opportunity for media not to sympathize with the reader, but with the advertisers. It is them who pay the party. And it is also those who are gatekeepers and sets out guidelines how a small game media can operate: how easy is it to gain access to game developers, how much should the media write about a particular game, or when it can have copies of games to review etc. Good journalism costs money. And if there is no direct user fees, then it is easy just to follow the cash flow and see where the media gets the money from. In the printed game magazines in Denmark, Gamereactor earnings solely comes from advertisers. In Gameplay there is only a few ads because it operates on user fees. But the people behind the magazine also runs the translator Company "Character", which localizes games and game manualsfrom English into Danish. So Gameplay write and reviews the same game that the company has localized to Danish. What games they localize, the magazine unfortunately does not inform, when they write previews or reviews. Neither whether it actually is the translator/localizer, who also reviews the game. Game Plays editor, Morten Skovgaard, says in the above article "Some issues are however forced to be taken if you want to make a living from writing about computer games." It would be interesting if he could elaborate on what specific terms, this is - and why both the media themselves, and apparently also the readers of game media is either resolved or do not care that advertisers and game distributors are allowed to determine the rules of game journalism. It is this laid back style that always undermines game journalism's credibility. I wonder if there will ever be time, balls and / or money for a final showdown? I doubt it. I bolded some recent tactics employed by R* and Ubisoft are the publishers who flew everyone to Venice for ACII. Sources: http://politiken.dk/tjek/digitalt/spil/article984256.ece http://blog.politiken.dk/klik/2010/06/01/den-k%C3%B8bte-spiljournalistik/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duality Posted June 1, 2010 Share Posted June 1, 2010 And this is why I simply do not rely on internet publications for my game reviews. IMO the last great PC Gaming print publication is the aptly named "PC Gamer". I have never been led wrong by their reviewers at least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrunknMunky Veteran Posted June 1, 2010 Veteran Share Posted June 1, 2010 Just as well I can spot a bad game a mile away :happy: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacer Posted June 1, 2010 Share Posted June 1, 2010 These insights aren't new or anything, but they are the reason why I always take game reviews with a grain of salt. The only way I've seen to get around this is to read opinions and reviews from multiple places, especially from sites that are not directly funded by the publishers of the games they are talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrunknMunky Veteran Posted June 1, 2010 Veteran Share Posted June 1, 2010 Best way to review a game is to obviously try it yourself, but on the other hand it's why I like video reviews. It's one thing to read a game has bad AI, but to really understand how bad, a video can show you and then there's no escaping it. You can argue til your blue in the face but the results are clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spookie Posted June 1, 2010 Author Share Posted June 1, 2010 Best way to review a game is to obviously try it yourself, but on the other hand it's why I like video reviews. It's one thing to read a game has bad AI, but to really understand how bad, a video can show you and then there's no escaping it. You can argue til your blue in the face but the results are clear. :huh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrunknMunky Veteran Posted June 1, 2010 Veteran Share Posted June 1, 2010 Instead of just posting emoticons why not reply with something worthwhile. As I'm sure you're aware not every game receives a demo, so when you can't try a game yourself a video review is far more valuable than a wall of text. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massiveterra Posted June 1, 2010 Share Posted June 1, 2010 This is why I'm happy there are services like Gamefly. As much as people love accusing Jim Sterling/Destructoid for trolling or fishing for hits, I generally agree with their reviews Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spookie Posted June 1, 2010 Author Share Posted June 1, 2010 One of the original sources is taking questions over at GAF now. He got a 5 start hotel suite, a full AV setup and all the room service he could order while reviewing GTAIV. :| Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts