There's a very interesting and quite damning editorial up on Gamearena concerning Australian games "journalism" by someone who's been in the field for a number of years. Richie Young, former editor of the Official PlayStation 2 Magazine, slams the self-important attitudes of many of his colleagues, questions their journalistic integrity, and reveals some of the shenanigans that local games reviewers endulge in...
1)Fact: games reviewers have been offered either sex or money to change a review score. To quote the PR person I am referring to: "I will do ANYTHING if you can change the score. Just tell me what it will take..."3)Fact: PR companies identify journalists they want to impress... and go about in unashamedly. This includes campaigning them for better coverage by using elaborate gifts like dinners, overseas trips...
5)Fact: most game reviewers get paid little, which increases the likelihood that they will fall into the trap of temptation. This is not their fault, but a reality of the industry.
There's a second part to the editorial coming up soon, but who knew this sort of thing was so prolific around these parts!
"but who knew this sort of thing was so prolific around these parts!"
It's not. Every industry has it's share of rogue elements. Just because you hear of a cop committing murder, does that mean the whole industry is corrupt? No.
I can gurantee you no one has ever been offered sex to change a review score. From my 6 years of experience in games journalism I know of no confirmed instances of any of the "facts" Richie has put up.
Here's a comment from Screen Play that sums up my feelings;
"What a steaming pile of sensationalist, sanctimonious horseshit.
I've been a games journalist for about 17 years. I launched PC PowerPlay and Atomic, I was the deputy editor on Hyper 15 years ago, I have either personally written hundreds of games reviews, or been overseeing editor of them.
And like Jason, have never once been offered sex or money to influence a score. What an insanely ridiculous assertion.
Nor have I once had any form of conversation prior to a reviews publication with the games developer, distributor, PR agency, anyone at all where an attempt has been made to influence the score via any means, including but not limited to advertising, travel, dinner, sex or money.
Richie's most ludicrous assertion is that "2)Fact: be careful when you read an "exclusive" review. You probably already know this, but they are much-more-often-than-not tied to agreements about coverage or minimum scores.
What's "much-more-often-that-not" mean? Say, that 75(percent) of the time there's a pre-publishing agreement for coverage or scores according to Richie? I can tell you that it's 0(percent), actually. Or at least in my experience.
Yes, we are sometimes asked if we'll run a certain game on the magazine's cover, of course a PR or marketing person is going to raise that possibility with us, however we do not make a commitment to do so and it's never attached as a condition to "exclusive" access.
I can also tell you that Richie's assertion that "travel and dinner" is used to win favour with journalists (and yes, Richie, we are journalists) absolutely does happen, but that happens in every single industry, as Richie well knows, and is most certainly not in any way a form of corruption.
You want to develop a good relationship with someone you work with? You buy them a beer. But in no way has this ever affected scores. It just makes for a better personal relationship with the PR and distributor people we journos deal with every day.
And I can tell you that in comparison with every other form of journalism I've been involved in gaming has the fewest the cheapest and the rarest of these 'junkets'. Richie should well and personally know, for example, just how rewarding it can be to be a sporting journalist.
Of course, in all this I speak only from personal experience, the 17 years I've had at four separate publishing companies, thousands of conversations with hundreds of games industry people, working alongside dozens of my colleges, and under the direction of professionally and ethically run magazine and online publishers.
If Richie wanted to make a splash as figurehead of the new Games Arena site, he could have instead chosen to provide some of the decent "journalism" he feels is so lacking. Instead he chose to position himself on some righteous high horse where he alone is honest and professional.
Richie, you've unfairly cast a shadow over the games industry, its PR and marketing tactics. You've unfairly tried to blacken the reputation of your colleges, you've accused publishing houses of being without ethics or morals.
And all to devalue the worth of games journalism to the Australian public, to whom, presumably, you are now its only reliable and honest source of journalism.
For shame."
To clarify, I wasn't the one who wrote that on the Screen Play comments, it was Ben Mansill.
"But how will gaming journalism, a relatively new field, gain any credibility when certain prominent outlets or even entire publishing groups whore out their editorial integrity (if I can even call it that)?" --Dan "Shoe" Hsu, Editor-in-Chief
True, but all Richie's article has done is create sensationalist articles like "Australian Games Journalism a Shambles". It does nothing to help the problem.
There are problems with Richie's article: not much of a journalistic article without some REAL facts, as opposed to opinion/suspicion, no names or instances that truly delve into the issue to gain credibility, no conclusions that have meat and reflect insight..
When I read what he writes I ask myself what makes what he says credible (and he hasn't outlined any of the following points I'd have to consider):
Who is this guy and what really is his point? Ok I've read (from another source) that he was such and such and edited x and y mags for a while . Apparently he's been around the block. So f*cking what. Doesnt sway an opinion if the article isnt focused or convincing.
His point? is it AUSTRALIAN JOURNALISTS who are corrupt, and not really worthy of being called 'journalists' at all?! is it our industry that Richie is slamming? I dont think that is a fair accusation to make about his article.
All he seems to say is that you shouldn't trust reviews at face value, and that you should be aware that there are things that go on behind the scenes (poorly written, though, without credibility through names or specific manifestations of this). He also has a gripe with some of his colleagues' self important attitude - so what? it might, or might not be true, but I've seen people in every single job position on this planet believe that they are more important than what they are, and give themselves titles that might not be that accurate.
Its obvious that gaming companies need as good a review as possible because good reviews sell. Bad reviews might sell as well through heavy marketing although they are going to have a much harder time. And shit, some games are great and deserve far more than what they get in a review - it seems that reviewers sometimes are blind to the love and care of game and bring it down because of performance issues or bugs etc but does anyone truly believe that a games reviewer is going to change the facts about a games' graphics, performance, sound, gameplay etc because of sex (laughable. Period) and money? (always a possibility, but how would you justify the credibility of the review then?) i.e are AUSTRALIAN games reviewers to blame for how they review? I've found them to be subjective on certain subject matter, but far far more innocent and objective in picking out as much detail as they can from games they review. They seem far less sensationalist and awed by big publishers/developers grand epics and they are, to my mind, certainly not as aloof or corrupt in their work as Richie states.
There are many variable extras that a reviewer is confronted with when reviewing a game. It should always be as objective as possible but the reality must include certain temptations to sway a review, if ever so slightly, in order to meet a specific, more personal goal. A commision of some sort (debatable how many people are 'corrupt' in their profession), maybe being light on an Australian game in order to support the developer for the greater good of the industry? It shouldnt be ruled out but these are details that require more depth in analysis and certainly a more effective journalist would know how to discuss this in a balanced way!
The real shame is that Richie's article does not offer CONSTRUCTIVE attention to our struggling gaming industry here in Australia which would have given more credibility to his point and wouldn't alienate a large portion of hard working reviewers and industry people, as well as amateurs like myself. Instead, he leaves a sour impression of 'facts' (more like opinions) that we should be aware of about the 'behind the scenes' workings related to game reviews and their reviewers. BTW, anyone have a problem with the term 'journalist' for games reviewers? who gives a f*ck what they are termed if they can cover decent ground in an article - and Richie in my opinion ironically HASN'T!!!
....maybe he doesnt claim to be a journalist, in which case his article shouldn't have too much weight....
this is not just australian journalism, but all of them.. ign , gamespot.. they all are paid to give better scores... let's face it... a bad review for an important game can have a large impact on sales.. so it's understandable.. the same thing happens in the film industry.. This will always happen.. it's definitely not surprizing. I know first hand that this happens.. especially with large sites like ign and gamespot.
Game journalists that think they're better than game developers? Tell me that isnt so.
Hmm so publishers who spend big on advertising can't influence game review score.
Check out Halo 2 on metacritic and ask yourself is it really worth 30 odd perfect 100(percent) scores?
I haven't read all of this, just don't have the time to, but... AC#7, you are spot on. The attitude I have gotten from some of these creeps, and not just from a small scale event of local rag, but I am talking E3 utter wankers.
ya i agree, I am sick of these game journalists.. they come across as know it alls and think they know everything when it comes to why a game is good etc.. what would they know.. seriously.. they are wankers. I can't stand them actually. Even at the big websites you get some real idiots who just ooze bitterness.. before they play your game it's like they already know what to give it and have a pre-judgement .. most of the time they hardly play the game unless it's something they are interested in. I notice that video game magazines however are a bit more forgiving and the journalists are better than internet sites.
I remember working on a racing game and reading the ign reviewer say .. before he even played the game.. " I don't care for racing games and don't like them, this seemed like it didn't do anything new " etc.. I got bored of it after a while.. like if he doesn't even like racing games then his already going to give it a bad review.. even if the game was good.
I have seen and read about of so many dodgy practices and dubious reviews from game journalists. What do you expect? When there is no industry watchdog for gaming journalism, this stuff will remain rife. There is absolutely nothing to keep them honest.
I've had one give me so much attitude like he knew all about me or something and new all about what went on in a particular project.
The guy didn't know d*ck!
He wasn't, I was on that project - my name is in the credits after all. No need to off-load your resentment at not being hired as the world's greatest whatever on to me, pal... it's not my fault that no one will recognise your "genius" and your stuck as a game jurno.
Yet this guy with his bad hair, pasty skin and yellow teeth, thought he knew me some how and had the right to creep on up to me at a conference, and start his slimey attack.
Turns out it was some guy on the team that got fired and had a grudge against me, that was spreading crap. If that isn't bad enough, to get this jerk coming up to your face and alluding like he knew from first-hand experience... made me sick.
He really came across as some kind of stalker. And the last I knew, this guy was working for the local rags - I hope he addressed his hygiene however.
Like any profession some games journos are creeps and others are great people. The really arrogant ones tend to be the most insecure. They think that by attacking everything they are holding up some great journalistic tradition. They believe that by being critical they help the industry in a sea of other people who have gone soft. In a certain way they are right, but you have also see merit around you, and try to really work out why something bugs you rather than spout bile because a game does do exactly what you want it to.
As to the rest of the stuff about the industry, it's a crock of bull. Show me an industry where PR people don't try to influence people to get a positive result for their product. That's their job. As a games journalist it's your job to see through the crap and get the info you need to make the best article possible. People don't always do their job properly, but that's true in every industry.