This is a recent post from my blog at address removed by moderator.com. There's a little bit of blatant self-promotion here, but I am also looking for honest opinions on the subject.
........
[The names of the site and the game I am about to discuss have intentionally been changed for two reasons. 1) I don't fancy the idea of being sued for libel. 2) One of my friends works for the site in question.]
I recently finished my review of GameX and can only describe it using some variation of the word "dreadful." Curious to see what other critics thought, I paid Metacritic a visit only to find that I didn't have the harshest tongue around, except for one rogue score. At the top of the heap, a full 40/100 points above the average, sat the score from SiteX.
As a devout fan of unreasonably trashy Van Damme flicks I know that some people?s opinions can vary wildly from the norm, so I decided to see what the other side had to say. SiteX had nearly all of the same complaints as everyone else, only relegated to the role of minor issues and condensed into two, last-second paragraphs. Perhaps I'm simply a less forgiving critic.
Then I saw them - two advertisements for GameX sucking up prime real estate along either side of the page. It's only natural that advertisements for a new game will coincide with a review. Still, the combination of such prominent advertising and a massively divergent score is suspicious under any circumstance. As if that wasn't enough to raise an eyebrow, it turns out that the parent company of SiteX and the reviewer are directly involved in creating the strategy guide for GameX.
Now we have a problem.
When you operate a website, it's always beneficial to have nice things to say about your sponsors. When you don?t, you have to smile politely and hope that they have the maturity to deal with it. Holding the contract for the strategy guide is a different story entirely, because you have a vested interest in the game's success. Bashing the game at that point would be like opening a restaurant and telling the customers you have cockroaches in the kitchen.
I'm not ready to lay down the gauntlet and cry "sell-out" just yet. Perhaps the reviewer honestly enjoyed the game, or developed a dysfunctional fondness for GameX to cope with the repetition of writing a guide. In any case, the reverberations of the GameSpot/Gerstmann scandal are still being felt throughout the industry. The difference this time is that no one got fired, the advertisers are happy, and most people don't care about GameX in the first place.
Does it even matter then?
It does to me. As a critic, I strive to uphold the trust of my readers, but instances like this bring the credibility of everyone under suspicion. I review on a freelance basis, and the publisher of GameX hinted that my opinion would determine the outlook of receiving future products from them. My score will stand because I have my integrity to uphold, but that doesn't mean that others haven't given in.
As a gamer, I read reviews just like everyone else. I expect and like to think that I'm getting an honest opinion, but my conversation with the publisher of GameX and my skepticism of SiteX's review call the honesty of every paid reviewer into question. I know that most critics are reliable, but I also know that some have collapsed under pressure. How am I supposed to tell which is which?
We can't expect the guilty to incriminate themselves, so self-policing certainly isn't the way to instill faith. Pulling advertisements isn't the answer either, unless you feel like paying membership dues. The best way to encourage honesty is for you, the reader, to take an active role in your site of choice. If you see something peculiar, call "shenanigans." No reviewer should be so pompous as to think his/her opinion to be unquestionable, and it will send the message that you care about the integrity of the site.
........
[The names of the site and the game I am about to discuss have intentionally been changed for two reasons. 1) I don't fancy the idea of being sued for libel. 2) One of my friends works for the site in question.]
I recently finished my review of GameX and can only describe it using some variation of the word "dreadful." Curious to see what other critics thought, I paid Metacritic a visit only to find that I didn't have the harshest tongue around, except for one rogue score. At the top of the heap, a full 40/100 points above the average, sat the score from SiteX.
As a devout fan of unreasonably trashy Van Damme flicks I know that some people?s opinions can vary wildly from the norm, so I decided to see what the other side had to say. SiteX had nearly all of the same complaints as everyone else, only relegated to the role of minor issues and condensed into two, last-second paragraphs. Perhaps I'm simply a less forgiving critic.
Then I saw them - two advertisements for GameX sucking up prime real estate along either side of the page. It's only natural that advertisements for a new game will coincide with a review. Still, the combination of such prominent advertising and a massively divergent score is suspicious under any circumstance. As if that wasn't enough to raise an eyebrow, it turns out that the parent company of SiteX and the reviewer are directly involved in creating the strategy guide for GameX.
Now we have a problem.
When you operate a website, it's always beneficial to have nice things to say about your sponsors. When you don?t, you have to smile politely and hope that they have the maturity to deal with it. Holding the contract for the strategy guide is a different story entirely, because you have a vested interest in the game's success. Bashing the game at that point would be like opening a restaurant and telling the customers you have cockroaches in the kitchen.
I'm not ready to lay down the gauntlet and cry "sell-out" just yet. Perhaps the reviewer honestly enjoyed the game, or developed a dysfunctional fondness for GameX to cope with the repetition of writing a guide. In any case, the reverberations of the GameSpot/Gerstmann scandal are still being felt throughout the industry. The difference this time is that no one got fired, the advertisers are happy, and most people don't care about GameX in the first place.
Does it even matter then?
It does to me. As a critic, I strive to uphold the trust of my readers, but instances like this bring the credibility of everyone under suspicion. I review on a freelance basis, and the publisher of GameX hinted that my opinion would determine the outlook of receiving future products from them. My score will stand because I have my integrity to uphold, but that doesn't mean that others haven't given in.
As a gamer, I read reviews just like everyone else. I expect and like to think that I'm getting an honest opinion, but my conversation with the publisher of GameX and my skepticism of SiteX's review call the honesty of every paid reviewer into question. I know that most critics are reliable, but I also know that some have collapsed under pressure. How am I supposed to tell which is which?
We can't expect the guilty to incriminate themselves, so self-policing certainly isn't the way to instill faith. Pulling advertisements isn't the answer either, unless you feel like paying membership dues. The best way to encourage honesty is for you, the reader, to take an active role in your site of choice. If you see something peculiar, call "shenanigans." No reviewer should be so pompous as to think his/her opinion to be unquestionable, and it will send the message that you care about the integrity of the site.
