Review Events Are Wrong, Simple as That

Kotaku recently ran an article about the touchy issue of review days; where publishers pay for journalists to stay at a hotel, give them all the food they could want and let them play their game in time for publication. The writer mentions the fact that he was recently invited and attended a review day for Activison’s Modern Warfare 2.

These review events are designed to give reviewers a chance to play through the game as the ‘œdevelopers intended’, with huge TVs, 5.1 surround sound and a, err: ‘œswimming pool and hot tub’. It talks about how a increasingly large amount of writers attend these review days with game publishers not sending out review copies, in favour of using these events to show-off their games.

The article attempts to give a balanced view of the issue, bringing in industry magnates such EGM’s Dan “Shoe” Hsu and Jeff Gerstmann, who argue for and against the idea of review events. The article lists reviewers attending events held by Rockstar, Bungie and Activision.

Bungie for example, claimed that the reason it held review days was because it was concerned about leaking story lines, citing playing as the Arbiter in Halo 2 as one plot point they’d have liked to have kept hidden. Review days give the developers more control over who plays the games, instead of shipping countless discs out all over the world; Bungie has a better chance at keeping its precious story lines under wraps. The multiplayer question was also brought up, suggesting that it’s hard for reviewers to experience multiplayer when a game isn’t released. Review events offer the writers a chance to play against other reviews and ‘œA handful of QA guys who were instructed to take it easy’. Not exactly true to how gamers really experience online play.

Obviously review events aren’t a new phenomenon but then we’ve only recently learnt about them, which brings me onto another issue: disclosure. The writer claims to have visited a review event for Grand Theft Auto IV, but looking at that review, I can see no mention of any review day. Receiving a review copy and not mentioning it is one thing, but being paid to travel out to play the game? Surely that’s worth mentioning?

Despite a genuine attempt to offer a balanced argument, I personally feel that the article is more self-justification rather than actually tackling the issue; companies are still paying for journalists to play their games. Perhaps I’m being far too naive, perhaps this is simply the reality of videogame journalism? If so, reality sucks. I’m not just using this as chance to rip on Kotaku, they wrote a great article, which raises good points, but all it does is legitimise review events even more.

I feel like these industry figures, who I have great respect for are being controlled, explicitly by publishers. Activison recently bullied publications by not sending out review copies to sites, forcing them to attend a review event in order to play an early copy of the game. They did this because they know that they can; sites want, even need to publish their reviews before or bang on the release date of a game. It’s the need to have the review up before anyone else, to brandish ‘œEXCLUSIVE’ and get the journalistic equivalent of “FIRST” in comments. They do this because they need to make money, so going to a review event in order to get another x million hits is worth it to them.

Then there’s the fact that this isn’t how gamers play games. They play them in their living rooms, are not wined and dined upon and do not have hot tubs and swimming pools to retreat to. Then we’re told: “There’s nothing lavish about being cooped up in a dark hotel room for two days. It’s annoying.” Reviewers are so entrenched in a world where getting flown somewhere to play a videogame, with free food and drink is ‘œannoying’. They don’t see it as wrong, and if they do then it’s just: ‘œFuck it, we need this review out’.

I’m not suggesting that people are taking money from Activision to give it a better score; there’s no conspiracy here. The problem is one of principle, which right now is seriously important. Rupert Murdoch recently asked the question: “How will journalism survive the internet age?” suggesting that good journalism is an expensive commodity. I believe it will “survive” (which is an alarmist way of putting it) through blogging, but when faced with things like review events you can see his point. Bloggers should have the same rules as the New York Times. I’m not suggesting that blogs need to remain neutral, opinion is what fuels blogs (such as Negative Gamer), but they should have the same code of ethics. It has been argued that bloggers don’t have the same responsibility as newspapers but I disagree completely. Blogs can still maintain ethical practices as well as still being “blogs”. Engadget has a manifesto of sorts which is a great example of an ethical policy that makes sense:

Engadget has a strict policy against keeping free stuff. Units provided to the staff by companies for review are always returned, and anything else sent to us is given away to the readers. We don’t take free dinners from PR people, we don’t take free trips, and we never accept gifts of any kind. It’s hard to believe it’s that simple, but it really is. Our editorial is never for sale, and never will be.

That should be the policy of all bloggers, especially if you’re making money or have influence on other people’s. If we want journalism to thrive in videogames (and trust me, we do) then these muddy policies of “Yeah review days are bad, but we need to get the review about before anyone else.” needs to stop. I’m not suggesting that people who go to review days are evil, I’m suggesting that if all reviewers say no to publishers, then review events won’t exist and companies like Activision won’t have such control over publications.

Videogame journalism is important, and for you the reader, being able to know that writers haven’t had any influence in reviewing a game is vital. If we just say, ‘œOh well, it’s not the end of the world.’ then we are devaluing videogames and its coverage dramatically.