Have you received hacking attempts?

There “may” have been some “tampering”.

Since we implemented our “Skip it, Play it or Buy it” review ranking system (see: http://www.avault.com/announcements/buy-it-play-it-or-just-plain-skip-it/ ) we’ve seen abnormal traffic patterns with a couple of the “Skip it” reviews. Which lead us to believe that we *may* be the victims of hacking attempts and/or denial of service attacks. Instead of fighting fire with fire, we’ve decided to offer an olive branch by allowing publishers and developers to publicly express their disagreement with our review. We know of no other site that is approaching reviews in this matter, and we believe that the gaming community at large may benefit from this open format.

Which reviews were they?

I have a feeling that these “unusual traffic patterns” are the actions of one or two disgruntled employees, or even just the work of a couple of fans. I wrote reviews for other sites about ten years ago, and I’ve been flamed… almost always by fans, but on one occasion by an employee of a game company… just because I gave a bad review to a game that they happened to like and/or worked on. I doubt that most companies would condone this kind of behavior from their employees if they were made aware of it, if only because it could cause a PR backlash. “Such-and-such company was caught altering unflattering reviews of one of its products!” does not tend to go over very well with most people.

I think this is a great idea, even if it was for the sake of avoiding hack attempts. I’ve always wondered what the hell developers where thinking when they implemented shitty feature x. Or what happened? Was it the publisher that pushed it too soon? Poor design and attempts to fix came too late? I’m definitely interested to hear their defenses against the negative slander thrown against their hard work… or lack of, you never know. :p

I think this would also be a good time to point out to the publishers and developers that we review the game in the condition that we received it. If a patch is available by the time we receive the game for review, that’s one thing, but if we write a review, with a recommendation to “skip it”, and a later patch significantly improves the gameplay, we are not going to go back and change the review just because a patch makes it better.

While a patch that significantly improves the game might be worthy of a news item, we reviewers have a day job too. We simply don’t have time to go back and rewrite a review just because a new patch was released; and furthermore, we have a responsibility to our readers to say “if you DON’T patch this game, this is what you get.”

A-m-a-z-i-n-g!

Given GameSpot’s review of my latest game, at first glance, this is a good idea though I don’t see the merit. Its not like anything a developer is going to say is going to change the review content, context or score. So why bother? Plus, it will just look like we’re whining or crying over sour grapes.

e.g. compare Mike (Avault) and James (OutOfEight) reviews to the hatchet job that GameSpot did of our latest game and you – if you have played the game like those two reviewers – will IMMEDIATELY notice that Brett Todd **never** made it past the first mission in the game. Heck, even his opening commentary already laid the foundation for what the review was: an attack on us and our hard work. The same thing they’ve been doing for years if you go and take a look at everything Derek Smart or 3000AD related on their site. Of course I’m an easy target, but thats besides the point.

Point is, you can still review a game you don’t like – even a bad game that you liked – an be objective and un-biased. The problem is that most people don’t seem to understand that some of these reviewers with an axe to grind, abuse this priviledge. The end result? They alienate their readers, lost all credibility etc. Yet people wonder why these sites are be being sold, closing, writers playing musical chairs with the various sites etc. Eventually there is nowhere to run. And THIS attitude is why – for the most part – reviews are becoming meaningless because gamers no longer pay any attention to them, other than to get the gist. Word of mouth and demos are the strongest method we have now of getting our games the recognition they deserve without unscrupulous writers and sites taking centerstage.

Of course when someone like the head EA honcho comes out and says that they gauge games by Metacritic scores (we’re all still laughing at that one) and of course reward their devs based on that, you not only see where the corruption starts but what the end result would be.

Some reviewers and sites treat our work and medium like we were on an episode of American Idol where it is OK to be rude, condescending and unprofessional. But Gold help us all if we – as developers – returned the favor. Of course, someone like me who has no PC fiber in his body, doesn’t care. When some of us (e.g. myself, Denis Dyack, Vin Desi etc) DO speak out, we’re attacked, vilified and such.

An opinion is protected speech, but most people don’t realize that regardless, sites do make money off those opinions which they *sell*. That makes it a financial gain and is no longer protected as such. But thats a whole other discussion.

Apart from all “shady business” and such going on at some sites (see GameStop), the advent of the Internet just means that more “no name, no experience” folks are wearing “reviewer” hats and doing hatchet review jobs in hopes of making a quick buck.

Make no mistake ALL of these sites make money off our work – be it a good, bad or ugly game. In retrospect, the more controversial, the more hits. Funny thing is that even the publishers know this and capitalize on it. Look no further than Ars latest editorial on EA’s Dante’s Inferno shenanigans and see how the cpm money trail works.

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2009/09/eafail-the-story-of-the-worst-pr-campaign-in-gaming.ars

@ Dr Smart: “So why bother? Plus, it will just look like we’re whining or crying over sour grapes.” Well for one, opinions differ – while we strive to get the right game into the right reviewer’s hands, that’s not always possible. Some people just aren’t going to like a game no matter how good it is, and even though we pride ourselves on our “unbiased opinions” they’re still opinions. There may be something about a particular game that appeals to a niche audience, and the parents of that particular child should have the opportunity to put that out. No, we’re not going to change our score or recommendation, but the more opinions expressed, the more informed the consumer. Personally, I’d like to see comments on all of our reviews – both positive and negative.

Indeed. But that does not address my question. If its just opinions, then it is still a pointless venture for a dev because the effort is largely inconsequential and a waste of time.

Also, if its just an issue of commentary, then you can just enable the comment system on the review blog page. I can’t see what having a separate [moderated] comment section does since the end result – and premise – are by and large the same. Both of which are inconsequential. e.g. if I want to complain about a review, I’m going to do it on my site, not on some special page setup by the review site. Which is what I expect my dev colleagues (assuming they even bother) would do as well.

Maybe I’m missing something?