Support NeoGAF

[LukeSmith]

From IGN regarding Halo 2 review: "Those worried about spoilers, can rest easy. Bungie has implemented a number of restrictions that will keep us from revealing major plot points. You can read IGN's review and still enjoy plenty of surprises playing the single-player campaign."

http://xbox.ign.com/articles/561/561325p1.html?ui=ign_newongames_1

Now, I work in print journalism and have worked in news and currently work in arts and culture at an Alt weekly. I think it's incredibly interesting that IGN has said "Bungie has implemented a number of restrictions ... major plot points."

This doesn't seem like journalism, really. And while I know people will say, "IGN isn't journalism anyway" -- save it, that's not really the point.

The point is, what is it about developers that can dictate editorial content? That doesn't seem to be quite how journalism should work. I know tons of people here work specifically in the game industry though considering the whole recent Game Informer "Paper Mario" review situation I doubt anyone will offer any comments of worth.

Does anyone else see this developer control of editorial content as a problem? Kasavin? Chespace, you guys out there? Does it seem to anyone else that these sort of restrictions by developers are counter-intuitive to the very nature of "review." Were IGN to break the Bungie rules, would they be punished by not getting review code or get shut out of screenshots and potential exclusives -- if that is the case, aren't gaming journalists really just well-paid, poorly concealed advertisers?

Thoughts, anyone?

 

[skip]

it's usually pretty easy to avoid putting spoilers in a review, as long as you speak in vague terms and concentrate on the implications that the SPOILAR! has on the game. that said, I'd never ever sign anything that dictated the content of a review. if it means loss of exclusivity, so be it.

 

[IJoel]

I completely understand why Bungie is doing this and absolutely agree with it. It's really simple. If they want to have a review before release date, they have to agree not to reveal any story information. Otherwise, you'd have every online site trying to outdo the other by posting more and more distinctive information and, well, in the end ruin the experiences of many gamers.

 

[Datawhore]

It's called an NDA. There's no reason journalists shouldn't be bound by them before product ships to retail.

If they are going to post a review before the game comes out, this is completely logical.

If they choose to do an independent review after it ships to retail they can say whatever the fuck they want about the story. This is pretty much standard for any product review, electronic or otherwise.

 

[TheGreenGiant]

if the imposition has nothing to do with score. Yes.


if like driv3R; exclusivity = 9.9/10. then no.


I don't think BUngie cares too much about affecting the score as much as saving the story.

 

[ManaByte]

Remember The Flood in Halo 1? Remember how you didn't hear ANYTHING about The Flood before the game was out? Yeah.

 

[G4life98]

allowing a company to dictatae how indepth a review can be...makes me question the integrity of the reviewer and site.

 

[TheGreenGiant]

Remember The Flood in Halo 1? Remember how you didn't hear ANYTHING about The Flood before the game was out? Yeah.

you remember wrong. I heard about FLOOD and how the game went from tactical to serious sam.

 

[IJoel]

allowing a company to dictatae how indepth a review can be...makes me question the integrity of the reviewer and site.

Because we all know the depth of a review is dictated by how much they reveal from a story.

...

 

[LukeSmith]

I completely understand why Bungie is doing this and absolutely agree with it. It's really simple. If they want to have a review before release date, they have to agree not to reveal any story information. Otherwise, you'd have every online site trying to outdo the other by posting more and more distinctive information and, well, in the end ruin the experiences of many gamers.

Right, no story spoilers. But, I would assume that online has a date of November 7, which is why we'll see the reviews then (TXB, IGN, who knows who else) -- but what if someone breaks that date? Clearly there (theoretically) should still be no story reviews, but these embargo'd (Not Before such and such a date) -- what if someone breaks that? R*/Nintendo/whoever doesn't advertise with them?

If it's related to advertising ultimately than aren't their problems with that?
I'm just playing devil's advocate here, and I'd like to see how it works in game press, as I know how it is where I work.

Good comments so far, though.

 

[LukeSmith]

Because we all know the depth of a review is dictated by how much they reveal from a story.

...

Nah, IJoel, I think you were too reductive with his post and tried to reduce it to him trolling the thread. I would tend to agree with him. Bungie saying, "you can or can't talk about this feature" a la Spong's discover of two player in Grand Theft Auto San Andreas, effectively shitting on what was to be some Playstation (OPM?) magazine exclusive.

I understand an exclusive interview in journalism, but I don't necessarily think when Bushy sits down with Charles Gibson or Kerry with Jon Stewart it has anything to do with advertising, but when it comes to game magazines, exclusive content sort of just makes me wonder. I think that is what G4life98 may have been getting at.

 

[G4life98]

Because we all know the depth of a review is dictated by how much they reveal from a story.

...

sometimes yes, but the real question is where do you draw the line once you start accepting these restriction? what if next time it is a new gamplay mechanic they want to keep secret?

 

[fennec fox]

If someone "breaks the date" on some important and NDA'd piece of news, then usually what happens is that all the other game outlets call up the company and ask if it's all right for them to talk about it as well. It's similar to what you saw with "real" news sites today -- once word got around that ABC News was sitting on a videotape of Azzam the American, it was only a few hours before ABC and every other news outlet showed it on TV.

As for the person that actually broke the date -- that would be breach of contract, which you could get sued for, but in reality what usually happens is that the company in question would stop talking to you for a while. Advertising is a wholly different issue -- every pro games media outlet I know effectively segregates their editorial and advertising department, so the writers (save the editor in chief) don't have to concern themselves about outside pressure while writing their text.

I repeat -- when a magazine or website (at least, every one I am familiar with) gets an exclusive on some game or another, neither money, nor advertising, nor promises of review scores are involved.

 

[IJoel]

Nah, IJoel, I think you were too reductive with his post and tried to reduce it to him trolling the thread. I would tend to agree with him. Bungie saying, "you can or can't talk about this feature" a la Spong's discover of two player in Grand Theft Auto San Andreas, effectively shitting on what was to be some Playstation (OPM?) magazine exclusive.

I understand an exclusive interview in journalism, but I don't necessarily think when Bushy sits down with Charles Gibson or Kerry with Jon Stewart it has anything to do with advertising, but when it comes to game magazines, exclusive content sort of just makes me wonder. I think that is what G4life98 may have been getting at.

No. Read his post where he questions the integrity of a reviewer for agreeing to a NDA that has nothing to do with either depth, quality or the score.

The reviewer isn't selling out for agreeing to this at all. It's assurance for Bungie that online sites won't spill out the beans ahead of time.

As for exclusive content, that's a different thing that I'm not even debating. All I'm debating is for the gamer's protection.

sometimes yes, but the real question is where do you draw the line once you start accepting these restriction? what if next time it is a new gamplay mechanic they want to keep secret?

It's VERY easy where to draw the line. You simply draw it when it conflicts or goes against your intent when writing the review. The intent of a review is not revealing story information about a game, but to provide insight on the quality of it. As long as they don't restrict the reviewer from criticizing the game, all should be good.

Again, you're just fishing for something that's not there, at least in the case of Bungie with the Halo 2 review. I'm not certain about GTA: SA.

 

[GhaleonEB]

This entire thread is a fucking joke. Bungie is saying, "if you want to review the game early, you can't ruin 3 years of hard work for our fans."

If the websites don't want to do that, then they can review it after the game ships. There are no strings attached.

Remember "The Crying Game", and its big secret? And how Miramax asked all film reviewers who saw advance screenings not to spoil it? And how 99% of them did that because they knew that Miramax was right?

Or how about book reviewers, reviewing the new Harry Potter books, somehow none of them reveal the big twists at the end?

Do you seriously see some conspiracy on Bungie's part here? They have worked for 3 years to keep the story a secret. Keeping specific plot points out of the public eye for two fucking days before the game is released is a reasonable request.

Want to know something else? The vast majority of Bungie's fans agree. The #1 fan site, HBO, asked its visitors if they would rather have their forum shut down than risk some asshole posting spoilers there after the leak; 77% voted to shut it down rather than take the risk of having the game ruined. The forum is now shut down at their request. Bungie.net, Bungie's official site, is running the same poll - shut the forums down rather than risk story spoilers. The result so far: 70% of Bungie's registered fans want the forums shut down rather than risk spoilers.

What the fuck does that tell you? If you are Bungie, it tells you that your fans don't want the story spoiled for them. So in making this request to early reviewers, Bungie is not making some draconian imposition to skew review scores or taint journalism; they are trying to honor the wishes of the people that made them the company they are: Their fans.

Bungie.net poll:

http://www.bungie.net/Forums/posts.aspx?postID=915999&viewreplies=true

 

[M3wThr33]

Looks like Metacritic posted a snippet from OXM's review.

Spoiler

You'll be surprised and stunned by some of the turns that not only imbue the story with great depth and meaning, but indelibly impact the actual game you're playing... Halo 2 is the single greatest achievement on the platform. [Dec 2004, p.44] 97

 

[Flynn]

That's crap.

I bet Ebert doesn't have to sign anything before he sees Revenge of the Sith.

EDIT: And if you're such a goddamn fan of Halo what are you doing reading reviews anyway? You already KNOW that you're gonna buy the game. If you want a pure experience untainted by spoilers and other people's opinions stay away from boards and don't read articles.

 

[Keio]

Now, if reviewers are not allowed to discuss certain aspects of a games story - and the story actually had sub par b-movie twists that would cause the reviewer to cringe - restrictions posed by a tight NDA would actually impact the substance of a review and remove means from the journalist to argue that a game would not be worth more than the score it received.

Or the argument would be reduced to "well, the story has some stupid things", without giving the opportunity to discuss the problems in more detail - something that in my opinion is one aspect of a GOOD review.

I agree with the view that if you want to avoid spoilers, just don't read reviews and especially all the excessive pre-release hype. Especially now that the previews have turned into completely unsubstantial gushing, because the NDAs withhold most of the information. How many people were pained to read spread after spread of GTA:SA previews hyping only the fact that you get fat when you eat too much and saying that we'll find out more next month when we get another nugget of info to chew?

 

[DCharlie]

i have avoided EVERYTHING to do with Halo 2 single player campaign

Today i buy famitsu and fan through it , i look at a few images and go "Wow... "
before the penny drops that i'm looking at Halo 2...

so, thanks to them, with a few weeks to go, i've had some spoilers dumped on me. F*cking Famitsu cockmasters

 

[Ghost]

From IGN regarding Halo 2 review: "Those worried about spoilers, can rest easy. Bungie has implemented a number of restrictions that will keep us from revealing major plot points. You can read IGN's review and still enjoy plenty of surprises playing the single-player campaign."

http://xbox.ign.com/articles/561/561325p1.html?ui=ign_newongames_1

Now, I work in print journalism and have worked in news and currently work in arts and culture at an Alt weekly. I think it's incredibly interesting that IGN has said "Bungie has implemented a number of restrictions ... major plot points."

This doesn't seem like journalism, really. And while I know people will say, "IGN isn't journalism anyway" -- save it, that's not really the point.

The point is, what is it about developers that can dictate editorial content? That doesn't seem to be quite how journalism should work. I know tons of people here work specifically in the game industry though considering the whole recent Game Informer "Paper Mario" review situation I doubt anyone will offer any comments of worth.

Does anyone else see this developer control of editorial content as a problem? Kasavin? Chespace, you guys out there? Does it seem to anyone else that these sort of restrictions by developers are counter-intuitive to the very nature of "review." Were IGN to break the Bungie rules, would they be punished by not getting review code or get shut out of screenshots and potential exclusives -- if that is the case, aren't gaming journalists really just well-paid, poorly concealed advertisers?

Thoughts, anyone?

I know you said it isnt the point, but i think it is...

"IGN isn't journalism anyway"

Well in the broad sense it is but more accurately they (and virtually every game related publication) are just independant voices for game publishers to push their games on to consumers. I cant see that changing though because the mags and the sites need the publishers to be nice and give them access to their games through development so they can sell copies/get hits.

 

[Flynn]

I know you said it isnt the point, but i think it is...

"IGN isn't journalism anyway"

Well in the broad sense it is but more accurately they (and virtually every game related publication) are just independant voices for game publishers to push their games on to consumers. I cant see that changing though because the mags and the sites need the publishers to be nice and give them access to their games through development so they can sell copies/get hits.

Movie reviewers need the studios to give them early access to movies. Granted, all the cheap-assed "60 Second Preview" guys gush over ever movie, but at least cinema has a handfull of David Denbys, Roger Eberts and Pauline Kaels that can't be bought.

 

[Spainkiller]

if that is the case, aren't gaming journalists really just well-paid, poorly concealed advertisers?

Thoughts, anyone?

Your post stopped making sense there. Luckily it was near the end

 

[Mrbob]

I think Halo 2 is a special case. It's the most anticipated XBox game (most anticipated game?) ever. I wouldn't mind read what they say, but no matter what they say we know the game is good and we are going to buy it regardless. So in that case, I'd like to be able to read the review without having the game ruined for me spoiler wise. Actually, I'm conemplating not reading the review, just for the reason I don't want to be spoiled anything at all. Even though I already know one pretty big twist. Stupid forums when this game got leaked. And for that reason alone I can see why Bungie would want reviewers to not talk about ruining the plot.

 

[LukeSmith]

Your post stopped making sense there. Luckily it was near the end

Touche.
Today was pay day. le sad.

Movie reviewers need the studios to give them early access to movies. Granted, all the cheap-assed "60 Second Preview" guys gush over ever movie, but at least cinema has a handfull of David Denbys, Roger Eberts and Pauline Kaels that can't be bought.

Don't forget AO Scott and David Edelstein. Interestingly enough, former Times film crit Elvis Mitchell was actually working side by side with a movie company while reviewing their work, conflict of interest anyone?

Now, if reviewers are not allowed to discuss certain aspects of a games story - and the story actually had sub par b-movie twists that would cause the reviewer to cringe - restrictions posed by a tight NDA would actually impact the substance of a review and remove means from the journalist to argue that a game would not be worth more than the score it received.

Precisely my point, though said better by you, obviously.

 

[Nerevar]

Now, if reviewers are not allowed to discuss certain aspects of a games story - and the story actually had sub par b-movie twists that would cause the reviewer to cringe - restrictions posed by a tight NDA would actually impact the substance of a review and remove means from the journalist to argue that a game would not be worth more than the score it received.

umm, the reviewer could still say "this game is filled with plot twists that would make a b-movie film director cringe" and tank the games "story" score to get the point across. Look, you people are making a big deal out of nothing. The people reviewing these games are people, and able to draw the distinction between review restrictions and story restrictions. And I would hope these people have the integrity to stand up and refuse to write a review under restrictions that they thought were unfair.

 

[Timedog]

This entire thread is a fucking joke. Bungie is saying, "if you want to review the game early, you can't ruin 3 years of hard work for our fans."

If the websites don't want to do that, then they can review it after the game ships. There are no strings attached.

Remember "The Crying Game", and its big secret? And how Miramax asked all film reviewers who saw advance screenings not to spoil it? And how 99% of them did that because they knew that Miramax was right?

Or how about book reviewers, reviewing the new Harry Potter books, somehow none of them reveal the big twists at the end?

Do you seriously see some conspiracy on Bungie's part here? They have worked for 3 years to keep the story a secret. Keeping specific plot points out of the public eye for two fucking days before the game is released is a reasonable request.

Want to know something else? The vast majority of Bungie's fans agree. The #1 fan site, HBO, asked its visitors if they would rather have their forum shut down than risk some asshole posting spoilers there after the leak; 77% voted to shut it down rather than take the risk of having the game ruined. The forum is now shut down at their request. Bungie.net, Bungie's official site, is running the same poll - shut the forums down rather than risk story spoilers. The result so far: 70% of Bungie's registered fans want the forums shut down rather than risk spoilers.

What the fuck does that tell you? If you are Bungie, it tells you that your fans don't want the story spoiled for them. So in making this request to early reviewers, Bungie is not making some draconian imposition to skew review scores or taint journalism; they are trying to honor the wishes of the people that made them the company they are: Their fans.

Bungie.net poll:

http://www.bungie.net/Forums/posts.aspx?postID=915999&viewreplies=true

IAWTP

This thread is stupid.

 

[satterfield]

Even if Microsoft had not asked us to keep major plot points to ourselves, we would have done it anyway. No one in the industry wants to ruin anticipated games like Halo 2 for everyone.

 

[Azih]

HERMIONE DIES AT THE END OF HALO2!

 

[CrimsonSkies]

90% of the reviews in magazines and websites are tripe today. So I personally could care less what Bungie has requested. IGN could just wait until the game releases to review it if they actually thought it mattered. Big whoop. When GTA: SA can get a 9.9 on the site then there really isn't much more that needs to be said.

 

[Deg]

From IGN regarding Halo 2 review: "Those worried about spoilers, can rest easy. Bungie has implemented a number of restrictions that will keep us from revealing major plot points. You can read IGN's review and still enjoy plenty of surprises playing the single-player campaign."

http://xbox.ign.com/articles/561/561325p1.html?ui=ign_newongames_1

Now, I work in print journalism and have worked in news and currently work in arts and culture at an Alt weekly. I think it's incredibly interesting that IGN has said "Bungie has implemented a number of restrictions ... major plot points."

This doesn't seem like journalism, really. And while I know people will say, "IGN isn't journalism anyway" -- save it, that's not really the point.

The point is, what is it about developers that can dictate editorial content? That doesn't seem to be quite how journalism should work. I know tons of people here work specifically in the game industry though considering the whole recent Game Informer "Paper Mario" review situation I doubt anyone will offer any comments of worth.

Does anyone else see this developer control of editorial content as a problem? Kasavin? Chespace, you guys out there? Does it seem to anyone else that these sort of restrictions by developers are counter-intuitive to the very nature of "review." Were IGN to break the Bungie rules, would they be punished by not getting review code or get shut out of screenshots and potential exclusives -- if that is the case, aren't gaming journalists really just well-paid, poorly concealed advertisers?

Thoughts, anyone?

I think its fine. Developers should be allowed to dictate reviews. Afterall its their property.

 

[WarPig]

...if that is the case, aren't gaming journalists really just well-paid, poorly concealed advertisers?

Thoughts, anyone?

Actually, I think we do a very good job concealing it, thank you.

As has been said above, though, if Bungie is facilitating a publication's coverage by providing pre-release access to the game, they can set all the restrictions they like. It's their sandbox and their toys. If we don't like it, we can wait to buy the retail version. These restrictions aren't dreadfully encumbering, though, and I don't see them impacting the integrity of anyone's review a-tall.

DFS.

 

[ferricide]

what i always find frustrating about these threads, as an actual principled game journalist, is that everyone in the industry is always grouped together into one fetid pit of talentless hacks. (see: penny fucking arcade newsposts.) meanwhile a distinction is made in this thread between ebert and shitty movie critics. oh, it hurts.

and there's nothing to resent about the honest question of the original post. that's all it is. it's not insulting.

i can't speak for every publication out there right now. but certainly anyone who's got a head on their shoulders can figure out which ones are trustworthy, right? it's pretty obvious. at good publications, concessions are made about content only in rare cases, and it never impacts the score or the meat of the review.

and as was stated, you can certainly talk about "the plot is lame and incompetent" without specifics, if need be. typically in a print mag, anyway, there's not room for specifics. decontextualized specifics don't even make sense, either, so if a readership isn't already intimately familiar with a game's plot, it's hardly worth trying to explain what's wrong with it in specific detail. thus it's not something you'll really have to work around on a regular basis.

and just as importantly, as shane satterfield mentioned, readers don't want to know that shit. so why would you tell it to them anyway? only an overinflated sense of self-importance would drive people to do that.

read mark macdonald's review of halo 2 in the new EGM (about to come out) if you want to see a reasonably elegant -- or at least, completely honest -- treatment of the problem.

and movie critics, even good ones like ebert! -- in fact, any entertainment journalists -- have to deal with the spoilers issue from both fans and companies. i've read comments in his reviews that address it. so there goes that rather un-researched argument. go digging in his reviews archive if you don't believe me.

as for whether exclusives dictate scores and content too much -- i'm sure it happens. but it doesn't happen everywhere, and that's important -- no, essential -- to remember.

 

[WarPig]

and as was stated, you can certainly talk about "the plot is lame and incompetent" without specifics, if need be.

Yeh. As a f'rinstance, I thought I did a reasonably decent job of that with Metal Gear, although I probably should have put a finer point on the final judgment.

DFS.

 

[Diablos]

This doesn't seem like journalism, really.

Welcome to the modern age. Fox news doesn't really seem like journalism, yet 75% of the country watches it. It's a shame things are like this now.

That's why you can't take these reviews too seriously anymore. It's always better to rely on message boards and independent sites to get better impressions and reviews of PC and video games. For example, I want to know if GTA: SA truly is a lot like GTA3 (a game I enjoyed quite a bit), because I thought Vice City sucked. You can bet I'll be browsing these forums to find out.

Another example: I'm willing to bet that MGS3 is filled with cinematics and codec conversations, but no magazine review is going to hold that against the game. They might mention it and how much it annoys them, but somehow, it is still game of the month! Gold! Editor's choice!