|
Have you ever wondered if some of the reviews you’re reading are influenced by outside sources? Do some alleged AAA titles get preferential treatment in the media? The answer to both could be yes, depending on where you go to read your reviews, but not here. Part of our mission statement reads: “The Adrenaline Vault (Avault) was launched on November 1, 1995 with the goal of becoming an independent source of unbiased information about video games.” And our team here at Avault takes that very seriously.
Earlier today many of us in the media entered our virtual and physical offices and were confronted with a bit of a scandal that we’d only been mildly aware of surrounding the recently released Duke Nukem Forever game. Now before I begin my rant (yes, I borrowed Alaric’s rant pen for the day), Wired‘s Joel Johnson had this to say this morning about the fine PR folks that we all deal with daily.
“A large part of my job is dealing with people who work in public relations. The vast majority of those whose do PR for video game companies are polite, well-intentioned, and extremely professional. They need us to get their games coverage, and we need them for access to the developers and early code to review in a timely manner. The press and PR relationship may sometimes be strained, but it’s rarely adversarial.”
With this, I have to agree. 99% of my communications with the gaming PR community are friendly, professional, constructive, and enjoyable. There are even a few I game with and with whom I have cordial social ties. Last week our Avault team was wined, dined and schmoozed by reps of publishing houses both big and small, but at the end of the day, none of that affects anything but the timeliness of our coverage (I’ll get to the why for the timeliness in a bit). This is because anyone that has ever dealt with us here at the Adrenaline Vault knows up front that neither our coverage nor our ratings of titles are for sale, and cannot be influenced by shiny baubles. We don’t even let our reviewers keep anything (except for review product) more extravagant than a t-shirt.
 Recently, the Redner Group’s official Twitter account posted the following tweets concerning the first wave of Duke reviews, the text of which awaited me when I checked in this morning.
“Too many went too far with their reviews…we are reviewing who gets games next time and who doesn’t based on today’s venom.”
“Bad scores are fine. Venom filled reviews…that’s completely different.”
Now, I’d like to say that this was a first for me, but it’s not. Usually, when we give a game a poor score, we simply get a thank-you note for the coverage from the PR rep. Sometimes we hear nothing until it’s time to request the next upcoming game, and then we get nothing. (If you’ve ever wondered why some of our reviews come out later than others, this is why. We have to wait for release day to buy it.) But on rare occasions, we get hate mail, forum rants, and threats. After Ed Humphries made an innocent remark about how he was afraid to look forward to BioShock 2, we were bullied and denied a copy. We actually didn’t receive another 2K game for almost a year, when the rep moved on to another position and was replaced by someone who had no knowledge of our “history.” Ubisoft, a company with which we’d enjoyed a wonderful relationship, at one point remanded us to their blacklist, and while they never said it was due to anything specific we’d said, the event occurred almost immediately following something negative we’d said about a sequence of their titles. That relationship has also been repaired, but again, only following the departure of the PR rep involved.
In fairness to Jim Redner, he deleted the above tweets and issued a mass apology via email. In it, he admitted that he overreacted, and was guilty of issuing a response that was both overly emotional and unprofessional. Unfortunately, only time will determine the sincerity behind it.
Our review of Duke Nukem Forever goes live tomorrow night. I’m not going to spoil you on its contents, but I can tell you that none of the above has any bearing on the score the reviewer issued. Reviews are subjective, but they’re based on a reviewer’s personal enjoyment and experiences with a title, and factor in its overall production quality and polish. We will continue to provide you the most unbiased coverage that’s possible under the human condition, and continue to ignore any bullying that may occur behind the scenes. Those PR guys have a job to do, but so do we: To bring you the most honest information available on the Web.
|
My rant pen is mine alone! I actually posted this story in the “Duke Nukem Forever demo!” thread on our forum about an hour ago. When it comes to bile and vitriol you have nothing on me. =)
Does this mean I need to return that new car I was given by a PR rep?
Michele this is one of the best opinion pieces I’ve read on Avault over the past fifteen years. It’s good that our readers realize the price we pay for being honest and unbiased. Thanks.
And we thought the release of the game would be the end of the Duke Nukem Forever saga. LOL!
I’ve actually met Jim on multiple occasions and he’s helped us get some of our previous podcast guests. He’s always seemed like a stand up, professional guy. I had no idea any of this was going on until this morning when I woke up to find a lengthy email in my inbox from him apologizing for comments he had made. I was shocked to see what he said and all I want to say to him is “What were you thinking?!”
The sad thing is that either way, what he said is in reality what they were probably going to do anyways. This incident is just a sneak peek inside the industry that a lot of gamers don’t think about. Great article Michele.
Thanks guys, and yes, Booth. You need to take another week off, drive it to TX, and drop it off at the warehouse, where it will wind up in a Twitter giveaway.
This is why I read this site first, instead of places like Gamespot or IGN. I like the fact that Avault has been around for ages, and that it’s gone through ups and downs, but that in the end, the site is about providing consumers with the opinions of their fellow gamers who happen to also be good and thoughtful writers. I like that Avault reviews teeny little indy games that I’d likely never hear about on one of the bigger sites, because they’re too busy posting breathless, gushing previews and other pre-release hype. I don’t see a lot of that on here (outside of occasionally passing on a press release), and I appreciate that. To me, that says “No special deals here. They send us the game (or we buy it), we post our opinion. End of story.” As it should be.
Too many sites in the gaming industry are devoted to “churn” the same way much of the rest of the media is. The insatiable appetite of the internet for continual information drives people to all of these sites, and some sites (in my opinion) are willing to part with their impartiality for a chance at continued early coverage and “breaking news” (previews, early release copies). I don’t get the sense that that’s what happens here, and that’s what keeps me coming back.
Like the article. Being an Avault reader for roughly 12-13 years I had a hunch you didn’t get the same hookups that other sites may get. Sometimes those big reviewers have way off mark reviews which you can see in sites like metacritic. Keep up the good work, your site has been my homepage for the better part of the past decade and it probably will until everything goes skynet.
Adam it’s very touching to me that Avault is your homepage. Thank you.
Is there some lick to the original comment as well as the apology? Obviously there was an initial reaction that caused the first tweet…
Duke Nukem Forever had a 56/100 on Metacritic. That’s pretty disastrous.
Michele,
This was a great post and commentary on today’s unfortunate events. In fact, when I first read of the threatened ‘ban’ and saw 2K embroiled – I couldn’t help but connect the dots to my situation with them over Bioshock 2. Granted, it was a different PR rep but my situation was completely uncalled for – and the ripples afterwards, including denial of a review copy – just stung. And if you recall, I was as cordial as could be in expressing my fears in playing that game – one that I saw as just more of the same damn thing.
And now, here we are, a couple of years later and I am absolutely chomping at the bit to see the brave new world the original game’s director, Ken Levine, has conjured for Bioshock Infinite.
The point being – if you produce quality, compelling product – we in the press will sing its praises. But we’re just here to call them as we see ‘em – and if what is being rolled out is a title that looks best remembered as the Internet meme it had become – well, buyer beware.
I’m anxious to read Michael’s take on the game – having played the demo (and immediately knocking it to my “Never Play” list). The brief time I’ve spent with the new Duke feels like an ill-advised trip in the Way Back machine. Like a lot of nostalgia, sometimes what we once loved loses its luster when exposed to the harsh light of the times. That was my knee-jerk perception of DNF.
But that’s the fault of the game developers – be it 3D Realms and their decade in the making shifting game design or Gearbox for their recent spit polish. At least the game stands on its own – good or bad.
But for a game with such storied history and now potentially this bad, it takes something monumental to rip the spotlight away from that true disaster and reap more disclaim. Earlier today, 2K (as represented by their PR firm) settled into the throne and lifted that banhammer high.
Hail to the King, baby…
-Ed
@ Adam and Solo: You guys are the reason we’re still here! Thanks!
@ Sean: The original Tweets were removed, but if you do a search of reviews for Duke Nukem Forever, you’ll get a pretty good feel for what prompted the reaction.
And, I didn’t mention this earlier, but my reaction was similar to Turks. Jim has ALWAYS been completely professional until last night/this morning.
Both Alec Meer and Ben Kuchera confirmed my opinion of DNF (that it is a revolting pile of vomit) so I’m really curious of what Mike Smith will say about it.
I might be able to offer a fresh perspective as I am a PR person at a company who has had products reviewed by Avault.
A negative review is a bad thing – for everyone involved. I don’t like getting them, and the reviewers I talk to don’t like giving them. It’s a lose/lose for everybody. On my end it affects the direct livelihood of people I regard as friends (yes, it can be quite damaging). On the reviewers’ end, a bad review is the last step in what amounted to a colossal waste of their time.
And as much as PR people would like to play off bad reviews as a fluke or vitriol, we quite often have to admit that they are true. Its just too bad that we can only admit to this far after the fact. But we eventually learn to forget and realize that our product might have been crap after all, and we move on.
The ones we can’t get over are the bad reviews that were handed out unfairly, the scathing reviews doled out for product that wasn’t nearly as bad. Those sting forever – precisely because we genuinely felt that the negative review was unwarranted. Having said that, this is precisely the main reason why we look to Avault as one of the first – if not the first – outlet that we want to review our products.
While Avault is by no means perfect, they do hold to a remarkably honorable set of ethics that force them to “tell it like it is” far more often than not. And for me, as a PR person, I can deal with whatever score or recommendation that might result because there is simply a greater chance that it is fair (deserved) than at many other media outlets.
I still don’t like bad reviews, but if I were to ever get one from Avault for anything i represent, I’d as least know that it was neither wholly undeserved nor without cause. And at the end of the day – because all of us PR folk need to believe in the products we’re repping – that makes all the difference in the world.
You are absolutely correct about that. I utterly hate giving bad reviews. I always feel like the developers (of even the crappiest of titles) are infinitely more knowledgeable and talented than me. Giving a low score to their product amounts to an admission that there is no hope for me, because if my betters can’t make something worthwhile then I will certainly not ever be able to produce anything at all.
PR Confidential – I appreciate your high regard for the standards that we adhere to at Avault.
We are a relatively small site with only 200,000+ visitors a month.
We stay away from the mainstream and invest zero dollars in promotion. People find out about us through word of mouth. On the flip side our readers visit the site an average of three times a week and rate our reviews as one of the most “respected” and “honest” in the industry. We appreciate when PR companies value these standards and decide to work with us, understanding that we will do our best to be fair but that our focus is to publish the truth no matter what the repercussions.
There’s something to be said for “staying small.” I think, in a way, it keeps you honest because you aren’t really beholden to anyone. No shareholders to answer two, you’re not part of some larger corporate constellation that has to perform a certain way so that some other part doesn’t get shafted, etc.
In the end, I think it’s that kind of air that helps lend credibility to the reviews you guys post. There’s also a clear element of “This is my opinion” rather than “This is objective fact” in the way most reviews are written. By couching the reviews more as opinion rather than fact, you both make it clear that someone else’s opinion might differ, but also allow readers with similar tastes to really tailor how they read your reviews. When you find a reviewer who generally shares your opinion, you can trust that opinion more — while still recognizing it as JUST opinion.
Lastly, I actually think the “Skip It/Play It/Buy It” breakdown is in some ways better than the typical 5/10/100 point score system, broken down by game element. You guys seem to go more for the gestalt experience of the game, and leave the specifics in the body of the review. You know, so you actually have to READ the thing instead of just skipping to the end.
As a writer who is still new to AVault and the “biz”, I’ve found it very hard to simultaneously build relationships with PR contacts and remain objective in how I rate a game. It’s not that my opinion can be bought or altered through smooth words and free swag, but as PR Confidential mentioned, the reviews and rating a game receives have consequences that affect a lot more than game sales.
Sometimes I’m left wondering why a developer would put out a game that is obviously sub-par. They play games, they know their game sucks. I guess they’re obligated to stand behind a project because of the money that’s been invested and would be lost if they refused to finish a title. PR firms seem to be in the same situation. They are paid to get the game noticed, regardless of the game’s merits. But the option remains to deny service to a game that is not deserving of a gamer’s attention or hard earned dollars.
I guess after I’ve been writing reviews for a longer amount of time I won’t feel as guilty or hesitant about rating a game below a 3 (or even 4 sometimes). When you take a 1-5 rating scale, at 3-stars you’re saying a game is at 60/100, at 4 it’s 80/100. Unless a game is absolute trash, I try to give it the fairer of the two choices, if it’s really a 3.5, then it get’s a 4.
Maybe that’s not the right approach, but most games I play are enjoyable to me and in my mind a 3/5 would be bordering the line of ceasing to be enjoyable. A good example is Red Faction Armageddon. I’ve had a blast with the game, but I know people who absolutely hated it, so my 4-star rating would seem absurd compared to their 2-star rating.
I want to remain authoritative, informative and objective but I also don’t want to betray my preferences based on rating averages like Metacritic.
“To bring you the most honest information available on the Web.”
That’s simply amazing. That’s why I read every review and check every score.
Nice article Michele, good to get info in how it works. Very nice indeed
@Angel Munoz, @matthew booth, being able to anonymously post that comment afforded me the rare and exceptional chance to be candid.
Don’t get me wrong here, it does bother me a bit that you guys can’t be bought (even if to a limited degree). Let’s be honest here, free schwag and preferential treatment are two of the most powerful tools of my trade. Take away John Marston’s gun and horse, and he’s just some dude in a hat picking flowers in the desert (i.e. not nearly as compelling a figure).
However, I can also rely on the converse being true – which is to say that I can expect a fair and unbiased review free of mob mentality (industry/public prejudices and preconceptions). For me, that makes Avault a known quantity. And I’ll take that over an irrational, easily-swayed, moody reviewer any day of the week and twice on launch day.
@PR Conf –
And we all know picking flowers in RDR was pointless. Everyone knows you just shoot the herbalist and steal his money instead of racing.
“free schwag and preferential treatment are two of the most powerful tools of my trade”
I can’t speak for everyone else, but those two things go a long way in removing any desire I have to be skeptical or indulge in negativity. That doesn’t mean I won’t be fair, but the use of negativity and hyperbole seem to be running rampant amongst gamers and reviewers. My only guess as to why this is the case is that as a general rule of thumb, gamers and industry insiders ignore their role and responsibility in shaping the gaming industry and culture.
@matthew booth
Yeah, but I’m always trying to be the good guy so I actually picked them thar weeds. I also successfully resisted the urge to kill Little Sisters at every opportunity. It’s just who I am I guess.
I think that there’s another reason for the occasional scathing and sardonic remark here and there. Some reviewers, although adept gamers, are not as handy with verbiage. As a result, they often resort to ripping someone or something a new one to get the cheap laugh. That’s not the only reason of course, but it does happen fairly regularly.
*hack*cough*Yahtzee*cough*cough*
This is why I come here as well. An honest opinion.
P.S. Date on the shortcut for this site:
Wednesday, December 09, 1998, 7:41:00 PM
Wow. 3DFX Monster days. 4MB FTW!
Haha I had one of those! I still remember the FIRST time they tried to convince folks that SLI was the way to go.
Post a Comment