View Full Version : ign.com guilty of "tainted", influenced review scores?


joeblow
09-08-07, 06:57 PM
Hmmm, interesting article (http://vgmwatch.com/?p=1111) that has one example of how the video game review industry might be involved in unethical behavior when evaluating games...


Taint or Mere IGNorance?
Posted in Video Game Media Watch, IGN, Journalism, The Games Industry by David Gornoski on the August 21st, 2007

I have always been a strong opponent of relying on game previews and reviews for a publication’s bread and butter. I firmly believe that much of the problems of corruption and taint that exist in the game media stem from a dependency on publisher exclusives. When a publication makes exclusive game previews and reviews their prime attraction for readers, it cedes power to game publishers. Some publications are often coaxed to cheapen their journalistic standards in an effort to “outbid” competing venues for the exclusive story. This dynamic ends up punishing the honest publications that do uphold their journalistic standards in all cases. I’ll share my take on this topic in greater detail at another time.

There are many stories that illustrate the taint introduced in the game review process. Recently, I was informed of an unfortunate event involving 2K Games and IGN Entertainment. I spoke with a former IGN.com editor who wished to remain anonymous to avoid any apparent conflict of interest (The individual is still employed in the game media). I will let the individual’s story speak for itself. Below, I have paraphrased the journalist’s recollection:

The review embargo for Prey [for Xbox 360] for all press outlets was up on a Monday I believe. But I happened to know through the grapevine that 1up.com had an exclusive review for the weekend. I think they planned to post the review on the Friday before. So the Monday before that Friday, I hear Doug Perry [Former EIC of IGN 360] speaking with Marci Ditter [2K Games PR manager] about this review exclusive. I knew [IGN writer] Tom McNamara was on the review of Prey. I also knew he hadn’t even played the game yet because we’d talked about it that very morning.

I hear Doug saying to Marci something along the lines of “No, I’m sure it is a great game. I’m pretty sure it is going to do well. That’s why we want the exclusive. We don’t want the exclusive on crappy games… ” so on… He gets off the phone and heads over to Tom and asks him, “Tom, what were you thinking you were going to give Prey?” That’s sort of a no-no to begin with, but Tom says, “I haven’t even played it. I have no idea.” Doug persists, “No, but if you were gonna guess… like 9 or higher, right? Nothing lower than an 8, obviously?” (These are pretty much direct quotes.) That’s when I say, “Doug, you can’t ask him that crap.” Doug replies, “Well, we can talk about ranges of scores. That’s okay.” He then proceeds to ask Tom for a score range. Once again, Tom replies that he has no idea. I scolded Doug again and he went back to his desk where he calls Marci Ditter and says that he’s sure it will do 9 or higher. Apparently, 2K Games had shopped the score around to 1up.com previously. After they refused, Marci Ditter had attempted to sell IGN 360 on the exclusive as well by asking for a 9. After I made a big fuss about it, Doug decided not to take the exclusive either. They ended up publishing the review as a non-exclusive with rest of the game media.

While IGN’s Doug Perry did not take this particular offer, the damage had already been done on the review’s integrity. He pressured the reviewer to score the game before he had played it. The IGN editor ended up giving the title a 9 out of 10. We can only assume it was his honest opinion of the title. However, the review was still tainted. Editors should never prod their staff in a particular score’s direction in order to gain an exclusive review. It’s reported that Doug Perry has left IGN to take a leadership role at an upcoming Turner Broadcasting game publication. Let’s hope IGN and Turner’s publication can maintain a professional and honest review process. Millions of trusting readers deserve nothing less. 2K Games deserves even more heat. There is no excuse for PR firms to bully game media outlets by using score requirements to sell exclusive coverage. Yes, the industry’s got a lot of slutty publications that like to walk the streets. But publishers, show some respect for once. Stop the pimping. Game consumers demand honesty when deciding where they should spend their hard earned cash.

A note to all guilty publishers and media outlets: Discontinue this unethical, dishonest form of business. You are dragging the rest of the game industry down. If you continue to abuse consumers’ trust, you will be exposed.

VGMWatch.com attempted contact with IGN editor Tom McNamara for his take on the review process for Prey but has yet to receive a response as of this publishing.

_Avarice_
09-08-07, 07:01 PM
I wouldn't be surprised in the least if developers/publishers shopped the exclusive review around in exchange for the most favorable rating. A lot of people (fools) depend on these ratings and make purchase decisions based on them.

A fool & his money are soon parted :-)

footbag
09-08-07, 08:10 PM
Thats funny, I was a bit surprised when the review for Prey came out and IGN gave it a 9. I played it and it was good, but a 9 should be a knockout game. The devs of Prey must've won out anyways and got themselves a good review. Either way to give a score before you review something is BS.

FrankJ.Cone
09-08-07, 09:59 PM
These sites are supported by ad revenue. The words videogame and journalism really do not go together! The review sites live or die on the $$$ supplied by the game makers. How harsh can they really be?

Honestly Lair and its scores seem to show more objectivity than I could have ever expected. A game with that much advertising dollars spent and it scored that low (58% on gamerankings) its jaw dropping.

ChrisFB
09-08-07, 11:43 PM
I have begun to notice that for one reason or another the site that gets a big game early and reviews it ahead of time...tends to be high. Without any knowledge of this particular thread or issue, I was mulling over this exact line of thought a week ago (I guess that makes me special, Kneel Before Zod!)

tusloj
09-09-07, 06:53 PM
what a blow to ign's integrity.

Dralt
09-09-07, 08:31 PM
If you assume some professional review sites are willing to trade ad revenues for positive reviews, you should wonder if they would be willing to trade ad revenues for negative reviews. (on some games that must fail for strategic reasons)

In both cases, it's a number and money.

Gai
09-09-07, 08:45 PM
what a blow to ign's integrity.

IGN had integrity? :p

Supermans
09-09-07, 09:18 PM
I guess Factor 5 missed out on this opportunity with IGN..lol..

HeadRusch
09-09-07, 09:19 PM
Guys...they are reviews, entirely 100% subjective, its like accusing Siskel and Ebert of deliberately trashing certain movies when, in the end, they can simply say "We just hated it" and boom, there goes the arguement.

What publishers need to do is get people to review the game THEMSELVES and tell all the major review sites to go pound sand.......

deveng
09-09-07, 09:39 PM
To a certain degree I like the gamerrankings.net rankings, as they kinda do am average score, to get the ballpark figure of the game. That way even if a couple of reviewers love it, and a couple of reviewers hate it, it evens out at the end. Similarly many of these gaming websites, have the users average score as well. The only problem with that is if fanboys particularly give bad reviews towards other console games and sway the average down. I think demos, and word of mouth from people who have similar interests (like here on AVS for example) is a good way to gauge the quality of the game. I have done many 'blind' buys based on peoples reviews here, and rarely have I been disappointed.

_Avarice_
09-09-07, 09:43 PM
Guys...they are reviews, entirely 100% subjective...
Of course they are. But the problem is that so many people rely solely on these reviews!! They're lemmings, I swear :p

epsilon72
09-09-07, 10:20 PM
I always use the metacritic average score to give me an overall indicator of how good a game is before buying - I don't have the money to waste on subpar games.

I don't doubt that there might be problems with individual review sites *coughIGN1UPGAMESPOTcough*, but usually the average score matches what my perception of the game is, if I do buy it (except for in the case of graw 1 and Gears of War....I hated those games)

dpe8598
09-09-07, 10:43 PM
I have begun to notice that for one reason or another the site that gets a big game early and reviews it ahead of time...tends to be high. Without any knowledge of this particular thread or issue, I was mulling over this exact line of thought a week ago (I guess that makes me special, Kneel Before Zod!)

There is a direct reason for this. I was listening to one of the site podcasts recently (I think 1up) and they were talking about how sometimes the embargos are specific terms. For instance, the site can have a copy of the game, but the review can only come up before the game comes out if they review it a 9 or higher. If they review it less than a 9, then they are breaking the embargo and they have to wait until release date to put up a less favorable review. The sites have no choice but to accept these terms, because otherwise they cannot get an advance copy.

schticker
09-09-07, 11:35 PM
Average the reviews loosely, and see if the negatives are consistent and relevant to you. Then, rent the thing and decide for yourself. Why is this hard?

confidenceman
09-10-07, 12:30 AM
It's kind of a crazy situation. The most successful review sites (no reason to name them) depend financially on getting exclusives and on having their reviews up as early as possible. Publishers have found all kinds of ways to tie reviewers' hands (qualified NDAs, exclusivity deals, etc.) when reviewers want to get access to early material. Early reviews mean more readers, pricier ad-space, and future exclusivity deals.

The big review sites are also "big" not because of their honesty, but because their reviews are generally favorable. People who buy lots of games (and the advertisers that depend on those buyers) want to read positive reviews (70+). Occassionally review sites give lower scores, but average games rarely receive the average scores they deserve. Most sites claim that a score in the 50's (or 5's, depending on the scoring system) is "average," "mediocre," or "meh." Few, though, actually give average games these average scores. Regardless, poorly reviewed games still sell well (Wii Party, Spiderman 3, Mario Party 8, etc.).

Other industries work very similarly. The film industry has had this sort of relationship with the film press for the past fifty years. Reviews *are not* a good way to judge whether a game is good or not. Only if you find a specific reviewer (not an entire review site) whose perspective you respect and often agree with should you buy a game they recommend to buy.

If review sites wanted to avoid undue influence from publishers, they would decide to review games free from exclusivity deals. There are sites that do reviews that *do not* do exclusivity deals or NDAs (needless to say, these do not include any of the sites named so far in this thread). Here's (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/11/arts/television/11game.html?ei=5070&en=89897d68015d841d&ex=1189569600&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1189397649-Z1ST5Jh5Djaw34gwUUfWfw) a NYT article on this subject. And there was also an episode of Bonus Round (on gametrailers (http://www.gametrailers.com/bonusround.php?ep=8&pt=1)) devoted to blog sites and their resistance to being coerced by publishers (which is why most game bloggers refuse to call themselves "journalists"). Spend some time looking for sites that do reviews you respect who do not do exclusivity deals or NDAs.

Otherwise, rent!!! If you're embarassed to rent from a store, rent online. Or buy old games at significant markdowns. Take a risk; you might find a gem that you like that no one else did. At the low price of a rental or a mark-down, you can afford the risk. I rarely buy games at full price. I entered the PS2 library only a year ago, and found a ton of fantastic games for very cheap.

Anyhow, the politics of game reviews are more involved than simply "being influenced." Don't buy a game solely based on an anonymous review from one of the big sites.

_Avarice_
09-10-07, 12:46 AM
Who would be embarrassed to rent a game from a store??

confidenceman
09-10-07, 02:02 AM
Who would be embarrassed to rent a game from a store?? Exactly.

Not sure why else people would feel compelled to buy instead of rent.

lacombo
09-10-07, 03:35 AM
more and better demos will likely wipe out reviews for most people.

I just use sites and mags for info anyway and even thats not that good anymore. ask a few trusted peeps who buy/rent everything for my reviews unless I already feel good about a game.

Dralt
09-10-07, 04:27 AM
I always use the metacritic average score to give me an overall indicator of how good a game is before buying - I don't have the money to waste on subpar games.

I don't doubt that there might be problems with individual review sites *coughIGN1UPGAMESPOTcough*, but usually the average score matches what my perception of the game is, if I do buy it (except for in the case of graw 1 and Gears of War....I hated those games)

If the average review site is corrupt, I would guess the average review score is also doubtful, no?

methos75
09-10-07, 10:44 AM
This has always been an issue, EGM once had all ads and game reviews pulled by Accliam for scoring one of their games low, yet more recently has been blasted for the rumoured inflation of PS2 games in exchange for exclusives and ads, though the Lair review makes that seem unlikely. And GI is well known for rating games based on the chances at exclusive cover stories and mis-scoring games lower than they should be because of their readership, the Paper Mario review for example, and they are constantly bashed even by other magazines and sites.

Xeme
09-10-07, 01:51 PM
Well I remember a few days ago GS had a review of Gundam Warriors or whatever it's called. When the review was out, there was a full page ad on the PS3 main page for the same game.

Gamespot gave it a 5/10 (which is really low for GS if you look at their average scoring), the video review ripped the game to shreds, the reviewer basically said that the game is total trash and it's an example of what NOT to do in a game.

I don't know about IGN because I'm not a regular reader. But I trust gamespot for being relatively fair and accurate in their reviews. Sure, there's always a conflict of interest, but I think GS understands that in order for their ads to be effective, people have to read their reviews. For people to do that, they need to be fair.

BTW the Gundam game is only one example. I remember the same happened a little while ago with a game called Inferno (PC game). Full page ad, the review shreded the game.

P.S.
I don't work for GS the above is only my personal opinion.

dpe8598
09-10-07, 06:05 PM
Well I remember a few days ago GS had a review of Gundam Warriors or whatever it's called. When the review was out, there was a full page ad on the PS3 main page for the same game.

Gamespot gave it a 5/10 (which is really low for GS if you look at their average scoring), the video review ripped the game to shreds, the reviewer basically said that the game is total trash and it's an example of what NOT to do in a game.

I don't know about IGN because I'm not a regular reader. But I trust gamespot for being relatively fair and accurate in their reviews. Sure, there's always a conflict of interest, but I think GS understands that in order for their ads to be effective, people have to read their reviews. For people to do that, they need to be fair.

BTW the Gundam game is only one example. I remember the same happened a little while ago with a game called Inferno (PC game). Full page ad, the review shreded the game.

P.S.
I don't work for GS the above is only my personal opinion.


To be fair, both IGN and EGM have also both given bad scores to games taht were prominently advertised on their sites. THe latest spiderman comes to mind.

Conspiracy*
09-11-07, 12:24 AM
If you assume some professional review sites are willing to trade ad revenues for positive reviews, you should wonder if they would be willing to trade ad revenues for negative reviews. (on some games that must fail for strategic reasons)

In both cases, it's a number and money.

Perhaps the reviewers underwent some kind of gaming epiphany in the year between prey and heavanly sword. 9 vs 7.

At what point does conspiracy turn to reality?

Personal rant*

Im DAMN tired of seeing xbox logos at the end of EVERY single EA commercial/advertisement./end rant

jkwest
09-11-07, 11:10 AM
Go look at IGN's main site. On the right where they have the top ten games, look at how many are for the X360 compared to the PS3...

Plus, when they have a review up for a cross platform game, it always links you to the X360 version...this just happened to me yesterday with EA's skate...

it pisses me off...:mad:

GalvatronType_R
09-11-07, 11:19 AM
I'll say this for Gamespot: judging by Jeff Gerstmann's brutal (but fair) review standards, he's definitely not on the take.