“Metal Gear Solid V is so excellent in its overall quality that mere words couldn’t possibly begin to express how sublime it truly is…” carped in every worthless pre-release panegyric; not only because of how trite such phrases were, even on day one, but for the behind-the-scenes look in which said game was reviewed by critics that got early access to it. I had the naïveté to think such inconsistent effusiveness from reviewers was mellowing out with other AAA examples (1) but I was sorely mistaken. Perfect 10’s by a dozen big-name sites were abound; better yet, laughably contradictory statements like Gamesradar’s declaration of V giving more player freedom than that found in the likes of “Dues Ex, Dishonored, and Hitman”…well…except for some pesky parts where you’re FORCED into combat scenarios (2). But that’s not the juicy bit!
Gamesrardar’s review-in-progress also raised eyebrows with a particular disclaimer:
“For fear of spoilers, Konami invited journalists to review the game at five-day 'boot camps' tied to strict NDAs (non-disclosure agreements). We played between 9am to 5pm, with no unsupervised play outside these hours.” (2)
This writer also specified UK reviewers in attendance were using a chicken hat (invisibility cheat) in order to run through the main mission with little consideration given for side-ops or Mother Base parts of the game (2). RockPaperShotgun was another site that divulged similar information on these review boot camps (3). In case you were curious about why so many game reviews seemed like self-congratulatory PR pieces to go on the front of the inevitable GOTY edition front cover or why questionable elements like microtransactions didn’t get as much as a peep from certain glowing reviews you have your answer now. Have they fallen this far?!?! Well…perhaps a more apt question would be framed on them continuing to spiral out of control; “fallen” suggests these kinds of reveals couldn't have been seen coming.
The point remains: you have crystal clear examples bandied about of game critics in highly unethical bivouacs set up by Konami with the clear intention of disallowing an ‘objective’ assessment of the game. And before we shift back to the main thrust of this blog, allow me to quash any sort of ‘Grr! Konami’ enthusiasm that may ignore Kojima altogether. A similar review camp situation also happened with Metal Gear Solid IV back in the day with Gamespot disclosing some unsettling info, even talking about those ‘from the development team’ also attending these events and even wining n’ dining with reviewers (4). Don’t think for a moment such popularity as Kojima’s couldn’t have been willingly used by him in a manipulative fashion.
In the sake of fairness with me slamming the laughable contradictions of Gamesradar’s piece, I do believe that—at the very least—I should give a scintilla of obeisance to both them and RockPaperShotgun for apprising this information. They certainly weren’t under obligation to do so by your ordinary games media’s journalistic standards. And yet they still did it. No doubt anticipating how quickly this info would be disseminated across sites like Neogaf or elsewhere, and the possible repercussions within their own circles, but they still went through with it. Now, let me pose a question: which sites didn’t disclose such information? I encourage...or better yet URGE you to check out MGSV’s metacritic and/or gamerankings aggregate scores, filter through the earliest of released reviews for it, and see just how many of them didn’t bother to pass this news along to their readers.
Some may be more reticent of this unethical trend in ‘gamez jurnalizm’ but make no mistake that you, as a reader/consumer, are getting an inherently lesser evaluation overall. While MGSV’s case about restrained time and corporate-directed playtime is a more special case, I’ve tried to remain more flexible when it comes to time spent (especially for the likes of big RPG’s) because having a crunch time is routine for any big site and employees do their best to oblige. The greater emphasis for me is the ENVIRONMENT with which that crunch time happens. The relaxed environment of a reviewer’s home, local studio, or what have you is undeniably easier for one to focus on the product versus a controlled, expenses-paid locale. Heck, my friends’ five-ish hour playtime with MGSV held more value to me over ANY reviewer’s thirty-plus hour published impression around launch because his natural setting made it easier for him to discuss minor issues. And we haven’t even touched on the goodies the gaming press sometimes receives.
At this point, unethical practices abound in this regard; from getting goodie bags (5), to being treated like some VIP with vehicle rides (6), or other means are ways which practically every AAA publisher has done at some point in order to drum up positive bias. This type of chicanery employed by the marketing/PR is done with one goal in mind: making a reviewer’s thoughts about the game inextricable to the associated experience. It plays with the mind similarly to other psychological tricks like microtransactions; regardless of how fortified the defenses (which often aren’t when I see the typical reviewer) its undeniable publishers are desperately trying to make that once-in-a-lifetime treat or event intertwined to their time with the game proper.
I may be leveraging a lot of Real Discomfort against The Phantom Pain reviewers (ugh) here but these sorts of practices among the AAA industry are more the rule rather than the exception. And if any legit writer for a big site happens to stumble upon this blog, understand the issue at play here: by agreeing to attend such an event (if asked) you’ve already signed off on giving your/your site’s readership an innately lesser evaluation by default. Even IF there’s no direct conflict of interest at play—the obvious kind of free goodies and such—the distraction of this different environment and the likely jerry-rigging of this special place if online components are in the game, such as with The Master Chief Collection (7), make it fundamentally impossible for it to be considered the best effort you could muster. It simply can’t happen.
External pressures in today’s ad-driven world (for most gaming sites) makes this a tough thing to stomach for the typical writer. I don’t want to sound so detached in this upbraiding to the point of disregarding realities of how desperately competitors would be clawing to get that exclusive early review out for bigger hits. I mean…just look at the site I’m writing this from. Popularity most often thrives on here and elsewhere on either being among the first, the radically different (typically a lower score), or both. Here’s the thing: being radically different is still a fine option. Heck, it’s certainly one I’m more than happy to see versus just having my biased feelings being fed so I can just say “what an outstanding review!” to a piece I agree with. And though the skullduggery on both parties is rather frustrating, I’m content with castigating journalists more because it contradicts their very job’s intention.
While the notion of willingly stripping yourself of that “Elit3 @ccess” may be tough, especially if you’re having to think about potential lost revenue, could I reiterate that ‘radically different’ option still being a viable one? I mean in this day and age, with the frustration over much of gaming media now, you could be looking at a profitable future by refusing that exclusive access and being public about it. Even if in disagreement with the game community of a game's quality ninety percent of the time, you may still be respected by them more than the majority of others just because you avoided mixing business with pleasure in this one critical aspect.
Links:
(1.) http://n4g.com/user/blogpos...
(2.) http://www.gamesradar.com/m...
(3.) http://www.rockpapershotgun...
(4.) http://web.archive.org/web/... http://www.gamespot.com/new...
(5.) https://twitter.com/misterb...
(6.) http://arstechnica.com/gami...
(7.) http://www.polygon.com/2014...
Pick up the pace in this vibrant shooter.
Rockstar Games is dedicated to GTA 6 and GTA Online now, but Red Dead Redemption 2's new sales report proves RDO needs more attention.
Personally I liked that RDO wasn't smash hit but it proved that players were really there for the single player portion of the game and should settle take two execs down off their micro transactions high horse a little ongoing
A Ghost of Tsushima PC player witnessed a terrifying "bug" when the hornets in his game grew to gigantic sizes.
Hope everyone enjoyed the blog. Please feel free to leave any thoughts and/or questions below. :)
Okay...so I just had to squeeze a blog in. :P
Nice blog beans. I don't think it'll amount to a change of any kind in the state of things.
You did get to vent though, so that's a plus.