Player 1 — Justin Massongill

There’s nothing wrong with a review event — as long as the reviewer in question has the ability to realize that yes, these companies are trying to surround you with a positive experience to influence your opinion of the game. I’ve had personal tours of booths at E3 and PAX from companies, with a representative standing over my shoulder watching me play, and I’ve told them to their face that I think the game needs some polish before it hits the market. As long as a games writer is able to keep their opinion objective — a trait I’d expect from anyone doing this in any sort of professional manner — it doesn’t matter where or how they played the game.

Many film critics base reviews of movies on viewings that take place weeks before theatrical release, at pre-screening events. Reviews that come from these events are no less valid in the eyes of society, so why should a review of a game be held to a different standard? Granted, at film events the company isn’t feeding you and giving you drinks, but if that sort of thing conflicts with a reviewer’s morals then said reviewer can decline the free consumables.

The argument has been made that a review event isn’t an ideal environment to play a game. You know what else isn’t an ideal environment to play a game? On anything less than a 50″ HDTV with full 5.1 surround sound. That doesn’t stop less financially well-off reviewers from posting excellent reviews on a regular basis. It all comes down to the reviewer’s sense of integrity, which has surely been reflected in his or her previous stories.

My colleagues mention that two to three days isn’t enough time to properly review a game. Why not? Many games’ total playtime ends up between ten and twenty hours, so why are two eight-hour days of playtime not sufficient to form a valid opinion? In games that last longer than twenty hours, I agree that more time should be spent with the title before drafting a review, but for shorter titles this is an unsound argument.

What it really comes down to is a site’s professionalism and integrity. If a blog I trust runs a review and makes it known that their review is based on experiences that took place at a review event, I’m fine with it. If someone I don’t trust runs a review from a review event — well, I didn’t trust them in the first place, did I?

Player 2 — Peter Silk

It was good that Edge had the integrity to hold the review of Halo: Reach when they felt the review event didn’t cut it. But I also thought it was telling that in their announcement they admitted that they don’t rule out review events altogether. They go on to say:

At the best of times we’re not keen on the restrictive nature of review events, whose intensity can’t help but affect reviewers’ experiences.

This tells me they don’t go far enough, because if I’m reading it correctly it seems like it ought to be an ultimate deal breaker. It seems obvious that a review event affects a reviewer’s experience of playing the game in some way. We don’t know how, or to what extent, but that’s the point: we don’t know. At best this makes them unreliable. I wouldn’t trust my judgement about a particular sandwich right after brushing my teeth; I fail to see why a reviewer, even one with the best intentions, should trust their judgement about a game when under conditions that obviously affect their experience.

While Justin rightly points out that even playing the game on a slightly cheaper TV affects the experience, at least that is still representative of how someone might ordinarily be expected to play the game in the wild, while review events introduce far too much artifice. Even the most vigilant are not always aware of what factors may be subtly biasing their opinion.

To me this is really very obvious stuff which is being obscured in the clamouring to get that review out. Some would say that the events have just become a necessary evil. But if we are truly at the point where the only way of doing it is to have these review events then we might as well just dismantle the whole apparatus now, because it will have turned into a pointless exercise.

Player 3 — Sam Jordan

While review events can distort the reviewer’s opinion of a game, my real problem comes on the side of ethics. As a videogame writer (be that full-blown journalist or blogger) you are expected to have a certain amount ethical basis in your work. You are supposed to give your subjective opinion of a game, but one that isn’t based on any outside influence. As Jon says, he’s felt uncomfortable at one of these events, again something Pete notes about Edge who said they’ve never been keen on the idea of somebody watching over them as they play.

But what does it say about this industry? If sites like Joystiq –a mainstay of videogame journalism– accept these conditions, doesn’t that mean that the PR machine has a grip on the reporting? People, such as our own Justin, say that it doesn’t really affect reviewers and that unless you’ve got the top kit, you’re not getting the full experience. To me though, it’s less about the exact details of these events (although reviewing a game in two days is far too short a time) and more the principle that companies can demand that news outlets go to a hotel, play their game under the close eye of the development team and eat their free drinks and food.

It’s not about what happens at the events and hell, some reviewers might even find they have a better chance at giving an honest review. Edge, while still going to the event put their foot down and decided to do the right thing. But numerous sites still use them, displaying how game companies have a tight hold on the media’s coverage. If more websites just said “no” and simply refused to review the game until they had their own copy, then that control publishers like Microsoft and Activision have might be diminished. Yes, readers would have to get their review late, but that’s the thing with principles: they overwrite practical consequences like having to get web traffic.

Player 4 — Jon Ruggiero

I’ve had the great fortune (or misfortune, depending on who you ask) of attending one of these industry events. Specifically, the Crysis 2 Community event at PAX this year. The event was a somewhat formal get-together in a swanky Seattle bar, where free food and drinks were offered alongside the game. Just from my brief time there I feel I can say that reviewing a game under these circumstances is wrong, the complete opposite of how you want to review a game.

First there’s a pressure involved during your play time. While you sit there playing, there’s someone else waiting to take your spot. You’re here to review the game, but so are thirty other people. Seeing the developers there adds to this pressure factor. It’s a psychological component that, though seeming meaningless to some, is a legitimate factor in how you’ll feel about the game.

Second is a problem I noticed while playing the game myself: there is way, way too much distracting you from the game at hand. At review events you’re normally given food and drinks, usually as a thank you for coming out and seeing your game. Dealing with edibles while you’re “on the clock” and reviewing could cause some problems. Not to mention that, again, crowds will be a problem, causing background noise and other random distractions.

Reviewing a game at an event is akin to reviewing it in the middle of a mall’s food court. To review a game properly (in my opinion) all you need is a quiet evening at home, just you and the game. No need for glitz and glamor to ruin a good thing.

Editorial, Article Tags: Edge, Halo: Reach, Player Select, Review Events

Next: Privates Won’t Be Coming to XBL, Microsoft Tells You to “Put Some Clothes on Before You go Out”

Previous: Halo Reach Xbox 360 Bundle: It’s Shiny And Pretty

Tweet