Monday, April 26, 2010

Stop the presses! Print media has a reason to stay alive/10

As someone who has paraded the 'gaming print media is dead' flag for some time now, it is very refreshing to be proven wrong. As an Aussie, the choices of Hyper and ... well, there aren't exactly a lot of choices for local non-platform specific news outlets. We do have access to the odd US/UK import, but by the time we shell out the monetary equivalent of two cups of coffee, the news is outdated and content mostly irrelevant.

Then BAM! Game Informer has the balls to go all Aussie with the latest news and game announcements while also throwing in relevant features regarding issues that are close to home. And at a price that barely deserves the name of 'price'!? Frankly, there is nothing to complain about while going through every issue cover-to-cover ... until I hit the numerical reviews.

While I have admitted being wrong to print media being irrelevant, I'll fight to the bitter end about my hatred of using a numerical symbol to grade an experience after using several hundred words to do the same thing. Numerical scores serve only to please fanboys who believe 'game x' is infinity times better than 'game y' because a reviewer scored it .2 higher. Actually, that is an understatement. Those numbers also give studio executives a quick justification for their dirty tricks.

Its no secret that publishers and business peoples alike look to review score collecting sites such as Metacritic for a quick evaluation on the success of games. Some publishers even determine the payment for the development team. High aggravated review scores on sites like Metacritic keep investors happy, while anything under, lets say 80%, is deemed insufficient and will see heads roll. Since publishers know the bulk of 'hardcore' game sales take place in the immediate launch window, they will put embargo's on major publications that do not say the game is absolutely perfect.

And here we find gaming publications faced with the dilemma of ethics of reviewing a game honestly but later, or being the first review available to the public just because your review has a 10/10 at the end. Those who think they can fight the system can just look at what happened in GameSpot HQ when longtime reviewer Jeff Gertsman gave latest ad-funded release Kane & Lynch a 6/10. For aspiring reviewers it does not paint an optimistic image for what we can do ...

But alas, in my first issue of Game Informer as a subscriber I see this issue addressed 2 pages in! Editor Chris Stead does not hide the honest fact that numerical scores are set up to serve the non-gamers who have money invested in these projects. It was refreshing to have someone from the journalism field come out and admit it. Along with the issues of sites like Metacritic, Stead also brings up the issue of how individual publications have different standards for reviews.

From his letter response in Game Informer #5

'It doesn't matter that every publication scores their games to their own criteria, much like we do as set out on the Reviews Intro page. Some are highly damning of bugs and mistakes, others will cop such things if the addictive storytelling or innovative gameplay overrides them ...

I urge you where possible to educate yourself on a publication's judging criteria, but understand why scores average around the 6 to 7 realm. Because if you were to start dropping 5s for an average score, and giving 4s to what you would usually give 6s the context and reasoning behind such a thing will not be understood in the broader global market...'

Stead hits the nail on the head right there with the issues around sites like Metacritic. Different publications use different systems to evaluate games for reviewing purposes. But we still see review scores grouped together without proper clarification as to why individual magazines and websites such scores. I know every time I have been involved with reviewing for different publications the standards are never the same. One mans 7/10 is another mans 5. It can be universally understood when a critic says 'game x is fast paced and entertaining, and should not be missed for fans of incredible action'. But in our ADHD obsessed world, 9.2/10 is somehow much easier to understand.