-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Gaming pubs argue over journalistic integrity
- Thread starter sugaki
- Start date
JohnnyKorea said:
It's not much of an accusation it's just an explanation of how gaming journalism has always worked to people less in the know than us on this board, the casual gamers. It's not news to any of us hardcores, most of us already knew about the integrity of gaming journalism. Still having not read it I can't say much about the content of what he said but what I can say is I do believe in EGM's integrity. Ever since they started waiting to review the final version however they made that distinction be it code or disc I believe they're in a position to be on that high road. This is simply a statement reaffirming their path as a publication in the midst of all of these accusations that need not be named. To me it a non subscriber it even means something cause if I am ever to pick up a gaming mag it's usually an EGM. Still I don't value the opinions of EGM any more than I do people on this board or any online outfit but I do value that integrity. Meanwhile you just seem like a jackass trying to fan the flames, see some drama, and get some hits, what does that say about your integrity?
oldschoolpinball
Member
game informer is my fav. publication at the moment simply because of the in depth interviews
D3VI0US said:
Over a decade ago, Videogames and Computer Entertainment had a policy not to review games until they were out. It meant a delay in reviews, but they were obviously way ahead of their time in being the only magazine to do this (eventually competitive pressures got to them and they started to review stuff early -- I'm thinking here of SF2:SCE for the Genesis, which was apparently final code, but a dramatic shift for the magazine.)
As for this issue, Games.net does us a disservice by only posting a tiny chunk of the editorial on their site. I don't read EGM every month, or any other game magazine, for that matter.
The impression I get is some magazine is doing something bad, and Shoe notes that without naming the magazine, what it's doing or anything else. I can understand protecting sources, but I don't know if this is the appropriate way to bring up the issue.
Just over a year ago (maybe longer, my sense of time no longer exists), there was a relatively mainstream article on the insane junkets in the videogame industry. It would be less worrisome for me to create an actual news item out of that, acknowledge the problem based on legitimate reporting -- stepping out here to say I don't doubt his claims or his sources -- and using that as a launchpad to defend the magazine's integrity.
As it stands, implicit in Shoe's comments may be (again, didn't read'em entirely, thanks Games.net!) the idea that "If Magazine X has great coverage of this hot game and we miss it, chances are they're on the take!"
JohnnyKorea
Member
As far as posting the entire letter from Shoe, I refrained due to copyright issues (didn't want to cause problems in regards to that). If you're really interested in reading the entire story, check out the latest issue of EGM (January).
Dr Zhivago
Member
boutrosinit said:
Edge gave it 8, the 6 was a misprint - if you read the text of the review, it's clear they liked it.
How about this though, relating to a game I worked on : The publisher tells us that Website X has been given the exclusive first review. The day before this review airs, Website Y prints a negative review. Since X had the exclusive, Y must have based their review on preview code. Y just wanted to spoil X's exclusive.
shpankey
not an idiot
So basically, the gaming news entity has become boxing.
btw... I think we all knew this kickback shit was going on, it happens in the government as well and pretty much any industry where there's money to be made.
and when I read Shoe's EGM rant, I took it as "the only people you can trust on review scores is us at EGM and so you should make sure you resubscribe to our magazine and never pay any attention to anyone else". add in a dash of crybaby and a pinch of holier than though. basically, elevating themselves while simultaneously undercutting any other opinions out there.
if you're gonna come out and tattle, you need to name names as well. either that or don't tell us at all. because there's no point in it unless you name names, other than the selfish one's I listed above.
btw... I think we all knew this kickback shit was going on, it happens in the government as well and pretty much any industry where there's money to be made.
and when I read Shoe's EGM rant, I took it as "the only people you can trust on review scores is us at EGM and so you should make sure you resubscribe to our magazine and never pay any attention to anyone else". add in a dash of crybaby and a pinch of holier than though. basically, elevating themselves while simultaneously undercutting any other opinions out there.
if you're gonna come out and tattle, you need to name names as well. either that or don't tell us at all. because there's no point in it unless you name names, other than the selfish one's I listed above.
BlackClouds
Member
EGM is a known shill for large westen publishers like EA, so I don't know what the hell HSU is talking about. They also still pick on publishes with little to no clout in the industry. Ie, if they can diss some small publishers games with impunity, but if they dare took on EA for the drek they put put, they'd get blacklisted from getting jobs in the industry (not to mention pulled ads and free games). So fuck 'em.
What's really interesting is what could make Shoe this upset. It's not like this filth is anything new. So what exactly qualifies as "on the take":
- Having game companies pay for trips (as is the rule for most magazines around the world - though apparentely not EGM). Surely this can't be it.
- Agreeing to a set number of pages to claim an exclusivity. I do believe this is a common practice at EGM though I might be wrong.
- Coverage being negotiated/traded for ads.
- An exclusive review given with a guaranteed number of pages + a guaranteed score.
- Actual money changing hands.
My money is that someone else (should I read Game Informer, Che?) got an attractive exclusive in front of Dan's nose and he's steaming about not being able to do anything about it. My tip is to actually name the publisher, online or in the mag, that will certainly raise a little hell, but it might be worth it if he's after a real change. EGM has that kind of leverage and could change things for the better and to the benefit of all. Unfortuantely (cynical me) this rant seems more aimed at making sure the unnamed publisher gives EGM the exclusive next time.
- Having game companies pay for trips (as is the rule for most magazines around the world - though apparentely not EGM). Surely this can't be it.
- Agreeing to a set number of pages to claim an exclusivity. I do believe this is a common practice at EGM though I might be wrong.
- Coverage being negotiated/traded for ads.
- An exclusive review given with a guaranteed number of pages + a guaranteed score.
- Actual money changing hands.
My money is that someone else (should I read Game Informer, Che?) got an attractive exclusive in front of Dan's nose and he's steaming about not being able to do anything about it. My tip is to actually name the publisher, online or in the mag, that will certainly raise a little hell, but it might be worth it if he's after a real change. EGM has that kind of leverage and could change things for the better and to the benefit of all. Unfortuantely (cynical me) this rant seems more aimed at making sure the unnamed publisher gives EGM the exclusive next time.
VictimOfGrief
Banned
*Zing!!!* :lolchespace said:Ahem, that would be a '97 Integra GSR, thank you very much!
master_shake_05
Banned
This is why I always play through games before I review them, not only to get a full impression of the game, but to assure my readers that I'm not trying to spoil anyone's "Exclusive" or other bogus shit.
BTW, most of the games I've reviewed so far were self-bought retail copies, and nobody wants to give me an exclusive
. I suck..... 
BTW, most of the games I've reviewed so far were self-bought retail copies, and nobody wants to give me an exclusive
. I suck..... 
boutrosinit
Street Fighter IV World Champion
Something happened like this only a year ago in the UK, where a publication and publishing house was named and shamed. Even some journalists who freelance for mainstream lads mags got in the act (cough, some guy who used to edit a big official mag and now writes for either Zoo or Nuts).
I think some of you remember the scores shame that was Driv3r.
A great post on World of Stuart - the site of the great Mr Stuart Campbell I believe - details the whole charade.
For those who can't be arsed to google, the short version:
Atari + Moneyhats = high Driv3r scores on a certain Future-run website and a high circulating Future mag.
Here are the prize moments illustrating the shame, as quoted from Gamerankings. And I'm stunned to find 1up in there, though I believe we grilled Fennec on this very forum when it happened... ;-)
PSM2 Magazine UK
90 out of 100
90.0%
Games Radar UK
90 out of 100
90.0%
Site Profile XGR
90 out of 100
90.0%
Site Profile Web Wombat AU
85 out of 100
85.0%
Site Profile Game Blitz
85 out of 100
Site Profile 1UP
8.5 out of 10
85.0%
Site Profile Ace Gamez
8 out of 10
80.0%
Sadly, despite critical justice being served by way of a 59% average, the game still sold millions. Ah well.
I think some of you remember the scores shame that was Driv3r.
A great post on World of Stuart - the site of the great Mr Stuart Campbell I believe - details the whole charade.
For those who can't be arsed to google, the short version:
Atari + Moneyhats = high Driv3r scores on a certain Future-run website and a high circulating Future mag.
Here are the prize moments illustrating the shame, as quoted from Gamerankings. And I'm stunned to find 1up in there, though I believe we grilled Fennec on this very forum when it happened... ;-)
PSM2 Magazine UK
90 out of 100
90.0%
Games Radar UK
90 out of 100
90.0%
Site Profile XGR
90 out of 100
90.0%
Site Profile Web Wombat AU
85 out of 100
85.0%
Site Profile Game Blitz
85 out of 100
Site Profile 1UP
8.5 out of 10
85.0%
Site Profile Ace Gamez
8 out of 10
80.0%
Sadly, despite critical justice being served by way of a 59% average, the game still sold millions. Ah well.
shpankey
not an idiot
I have no idea of the real reason, but i'd like to think in my heart, that this whole kickback thing is the reason the amazing Next-Generation magazine got out of the business. remembering back to these old days, they were the only magazine that honest to goodness seemed to consistently review fairly. i'd like to believe when this bribary shit started they got out so they didn't lower themselves to this level.
You're probably right, unfortunately.B E N K E said:
who do you write for? i would very much like to be able to use this kind of honest review to help me make my decisions.Master_Shake_05 said:This is why I always play through games before I review them, not only to get a full impression of the game, but to assure my readers that I'm not trying to spoil anyone's "Exclusive" or other bogus shit.
BTW, most of the games I've reviewed so far were self-bought retail copies, and nobody wants to give me an exclusive
shpankey
not an idiot
p.s. can I ask some of you media people a question? ok, we've established that bribes go down [in lots of different forms] but can you confirm another suspicion of mine? do negative bribes also go down? what i mean is, do you have some companies bribe you to give a competing game a lowered score? also, do the system makers bribe you to talk positively about their system? if so, do they also bribe you to talk negatively about a competing system?
just curious how deep this rabbit whole goes.
just curious how deep this rabbit whole goes.
boutrosinit
Street Fighter IV World Champion
Master_Shake_05 said:This is why I always play through games before I review them, not only to get a full impression of the game, but to assure my readers that I'm not trying to spoil anyone's "Exclusive" or other bogus shit.
BTW, most of the games I've reviewed so far were self-bought retail copies, and nobody wants to give me an exclusive
I know your pain bro. I tried out only reviewing stuff I'd completed TWICE over, so that I could be completely independent of the hype and 'sheen' that the game's atmosphere can often trick you with. This worked very well, but sadly, I had to stop doing it this way as I just didn't have the time to review that many games. I now do one or two a month at the most. You just can't get the whole context of a game without completing it and I hated when I was asked to review games for a certain - now dead - U.K mag without being given the time to beat it. I had to 'project' where the quality might end up, ultimately making gambles at the expense of whoever trusted the review.
Not good, particularly as cynically-run publishers are known (and I've experienced this personally) to instruct developers to focus on the first moments of the game, rather than evening out the good ideas throughout the total experience.
I only beat Kameo once before reviewing it - http://www.noooz.com/archives/2005/11/kameo_on_xbox_360_dans_review.html#more
master_shake_05
Banned
No one you'd probably know.....shpankey said:
I used to write various game reviews around the net on different game blogs/forums/etc., until I started my own....
The Linky-Link
Not too many reviews up now, but I'm thinking of getting back into the vibe once the site moves on....which won't be too far away.
P.S. - Okay, well, the Mario Kart review is the only REAL, full-fledged review up, but I've got a few more on my plate (mostly DS games.....lol). Tell me what you think!
chespace said:And since when is a magazine editorial to its readership a "public letter" to the industry?
If you have a problem with what Shoe said, it's a private matter between you and him.
Your editorial (sorry, I mistook it as "news" on your site) only fanned the fire, as it were.
Edit: And I really should stop commenting now, lest I find myself jobless in the morning.
I see you may not reply, but anything you write in a print magazine or on a website is most certainly done for public consumption. It's not a private matter if someone disagrees with a publically available commentary. And especially in a case where an editor is calling his competition a bunch of liars and cheats, I would think it's even more public a matter when you air that out in the front of your publically available magazine.
If it was intended to be a private matter, Shoe should've called up whatever publication he was intending to swat at with his broad brushstroke instead of printing it in the magazine and then having you come here and tell us people should shut up or respond in private.
You can't have it both ways.
Look.
EGM bagged on Total Recall for NES, and Acclaim pulled its ads. EGM held their ground (afaik), and still grew to be the large magazine it is today.
Game Informer did a review based on what they thought public perception would be. Probably 85% of their readership comes from people being hoodwinked into subscriptions by Gamestop emolpyees, not from some outstanding reputation.
EGM bagged on Total Recall for NES, and Acclaim pulled its ads. EGM held their ground (afaik), and still grew to be the large magazine it is today.
Game Informer did a review based on what they thought public perception would be. Probably 85% of their readership comes from people being hoodwinked into subscriptions by Gamestop emolpyees, not from some outstanding reputation.
note: I didn't read this thread, I skimmed it, and I think they're both fine
The problem as I see it, is that there are bad apples in the games business. There are bad apples in every single industry. This is not new news.
The problem here and from the start of this whole thing is that people are making wide sweeping strokes and allegations.
Not every magazine or website is on the take. In fact, I would say there is a majority of game outlets that are straight shooters.
People like to believe there is some complex web of lies going down, when quite frankly everyone in the games business is far too busy to orchestrate such a conspiracy.
The problem here and from the start of this whole thing is that people are making wide sweeping strokes and allegations.
Not every magazine or website is on the take. In fact, I would say there is a majority of game outlets that are straight shooters.
People like to believe there is some complex web of lies going down, when quite frankly everyone in the games business is far too busy to orchestrate such a conspiracy.
boutrosinit
Street Fighter IV World Champion
Master_Shake_05 said:No one you'd probably know.....
I used to write various game reviews around the net on different game blogs/forums/etc., until I started my own....
The Linky-Link
Not too many reviews up now, but I'm thinking of getting back into the vibe once the site moves on....which won't be too far away.
P.S. - Okay, well, the Mario Kart review is the only REAL, full-fledged review up, but I've got a few more on my plate (mostly DS games.....lol). Tell me what you think!
I like it. As a reader though, I always want to read a small example of what a piece of gameplay consisted of. A short description of what it's like to wade through one of the better or worse courses/levels. That always gives me an extra perspective on the game that serves me better than a description of features. That's the only thing I felt your review was missing.
master_shake_05
Banned
Yup, it's a damn shame too....And something that I'm surprised I left out.boutrosinit said:
I tried looking up some earlier reviews, but to no luck.....Damn.
rod furlong
Member
never mind.
master_shake_05
Banned
Nevermind Either.....
fennec fox
ferrets ferrets ferrets ferrets FERRETS!!!
Dude I like dumb ai and floating people!
Seriously, I just really liked Driv3r at the time. All of my friends picked on me for it, but then most of them have embarrassing reviews in their past as well, so we're all even.
Seriously, I just really liked Driv3r at the time. All of my friends picked on me for it, but then most of them have embarrassing reviews in their past as well, so we're all even.
master_shake_05
Banned
:lol :lolbjork said:
But seriously, I don't find G.I. to be all too bad, and I've purchased a few issues here and there without being roped in by GameStop. I find their reviews a little "meh", sure, but on the whole they're usually on time or even earlier than websites with their exclusive leaks....
well, the poor image didn't work out so screw the snark. i really don't see the problem with some parties in the rag-writing game (of broken hearts) being more shill-like than other parties. the fact is that everyone is a shill. the game is fixed. all that matters is that the material is entertaining, down to earth, and maybe even a little enlightening. the major mags and websites could use more geoff keighley and less james "the milkman" mielke.
THERE I'VE SAID MY PIECE AND DON'T YOU FORGET THAT BITCHES
THERE I'VE SAID MY PIECE AND DON'T YOU FORGET THAT BITCHES
Patrick Klepek
furiously molesting tim burton
C'mon, everyone. Lighten up.
Patrick Klepek
furiously molesting tim burton
skip said:
I see your Milwaukee Best and raise you:
cheers!
Having read the editorial in question, the impression I came away with was, 'Yes, this stuff goes on in the world of gaming publications. Our policy is to steer clear. That may cost us exclusives sometimes, but we feel that providing unbiased coverage is more important than being the first to print.' Given the potential legal and ethical ramifications, it's perfectly understandable that Shoe wouldn't care to name names - an idealistic call for reform is all well and good, but in the real world, you have to balance that with the demands of career and family. Making yourself unemployable in the industry you want to reform would be counterproductive at best.
For the non-Ziff industry journalists here: Rather than taking Shoe to task for that editorial, wouldn't it be better to focus your righteous indignation on the offending parties? Seems to me like you're out to kill the messenger here.
Perhaps you should choose a better example - 'entertaining, down to earth, and maybe even a little enlightening' are exactly the adjectives I'd use to describe Mielke (and his work).
For the non-Ziff industry journalists here: Rather than taking Shoe to task for that editorial, wouldn't it be better to focus your righteous indignation on the offending parties? Seems to me like you're out to kill the messenger here.
fart said:
Perhaps you should choose a better example - 'entertaining, down to earth, and maybe even a little enlightening' are exactly the adjectives I'd use to describe Mielke (and his work).
bjork said:
:lol
I was in Gamestop the other day looking around. While the clerk was casually conversing with me, I noticed these "GameInformer gives it a 9.0!!!" signs fucking dangling from nearly every inch of shelf space in the store (I think it was for King Kong in this particular instance). Momentarily forgetting where I was exactly, I came a breath away from blurting out, "Who gives a fuck about GameInformer?"
Similar threads
- Locked