To Serve Gamers

Posted by Gary Hodges at 11:57 PM May 31, 2008

Gamasutra has an interesting blog up, one I wish more gamers would read and get fired up about.

In a mea culpa over some inordinately kind words gushed in his review of Grand Theft Auto 4, UK journo Simon Parkin points the finger at Rockstar for the admittedly absurd conditions the game was reviewed under. Initially promised review copies of GTA4 a mere week prior to the game’s release, even that scant amount of time was shaved down:

...when review code failed to turn up the week before release, many were left panicking about how they were going to serve their readers in a timely manner with any integrity.

Rockstar’s justification (emphasis added by me):

The reason for the withholding of review code was, according to Rockstar, a result to the game’s leaking onto the internet seven days before its release. Speaking to the company at the time it was claimed that this leak came from an unscrupulous journalist. 



As a result, there was a lock down on all review code: everybody would get their copy just one day before the game’s release, and, despite the wonky logic (after all the game had already leaked to those with the capability to play it so why punish the many for the indiscretion of the few) there were to be “no exceptions, no arguments”. 



At best then, by the time the game had been played, copy written and subbed ready for the Tuesday morning, most journalists (both in the UK and the US) had played for only a few hours, experiencing just a fraction of the game’s content, a situation testified to by various admissions in professional reviews.

On how such limited playtime can positively impact a critical review (as he admits it did his):

By withholding code until a late stage then (be it through design or ineptitude), a PR can force a journalist to rely on marketing hype and information to fill the gaps in their knowledge of the game when writing copy. In this way, control of the critical reaction is shifted back to the PR in a subtle and (arguably) legitimate way.

His somewhat limp solution to all this nonsense?

Perhaps it’s time for the industry to treat reviews as snapshot buying guides, inconclusive first words in the conversation, and to nurture the more fertile and under-populated ground for more helpful and insightful long-view criticism in the weeks and months following a game’s release.

In short: continue passing half-finished, superficial reactions to games on to readers as "reviews", but maybe start going back later when the honeymoon is over to discuss how the game holds up in the cold light of morning.

Don’t get me wrong: I’m not absolving Rockstar in this. Their shenanigans are horseshit, top to bottom. Combine this story with the rumor posted on MTV’s gaming blog that Konami reps have been quietly asking print reviewers to not talk about certain aspects of Metal Gear Solid 4 (namely the installation details and the length of the game’s cutscenes, two of which – according to Edge – are around the 90 minute mark; yes, nine-zero minutes), throw in some talk about the Kane & Lynch/Gertsmann firing, and it’s easy to have a long, self-righteous conversation about evil bastard game publishers and their evil bastard ways.

But let's be honest: there’s plenty of blame to spread around here.

The point conspicuously not hammered home by Parkin - nor even meaningfully addressed - is the fact that Rockstar doesn’t obligate anyone to post a review of GTA4 by a certain date. They might place an embargo that forbids a review being posted before a certain time, but not in the other direction. Deadlines are a time constraint of a journos' own invention; Parkin (or Gamespot, or IGN, or any other outlet you can name) is the one tripping over himself to get a GTA4 review posted after, what, 8 hours of play? with his progress percentage in the single digits.

I have to go back to the last sentence in that first bit I quoted, the line:

From speaking to other editors … this was not an opportunity offered to all and, when review code failed to turn up the week before release, many were left panicking about how they were going to serve their readers in a timely manner with any integrity.

Again.

...many were left panicking about how they were going to serve their readers in a timely manner with any integrity.

To Parkin and the rest: maybe the conversation should be about how serving readers “in a timely matter” and “with integrity” is impossible so long as “in a timely manner” means 12:01am the day of the game’s official release. You have to pick: fast or good. Because reviewing a game as huge as GTA4 after a few hours play doesn't serve gamers at all... it sure serves the deadline, though.

Now, for a little snarkiness:

I wrote the first word of my GTA4 review sometime after logging my 36th hour into the game, once I had completed the main story arc. This required several days of play and - as result - my review did not appear the day of the game's release.

I haven't felt the need to edit or revise it since.