Rich Stanton slags off Future, says Rockstar bought scores and bullied sites, and that the industry is bent, all from his Twitter account. Awesome.
Fill your boots - http://www.grcade.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=32062
Nothing new sadly.
Story of the year contender, right there!
I don't understand. So the publication wanted an interview/info on the game, so they give reviews to get the "scoops"?
wtf^^...thats how the industry works. Its on every website the same shit...even on Eurogamer. But the most important thing for me is: How you treat your staff!
The RAM Raider has been saying as much for years.
Although I guess it has a bit more credibility when someone does it on the record.
This is why I don't like reviewy type stuff on VG247 (no offence Dave) because if you don't stick you 2 cents in, the pubs can't moan.
EG are pretty much only guilty of getting caught up in general gamer hype. It is a shame that PCGamer are implicated in some way, they always seem like a bunch of good guys and reading something like that is a little disheartening.
Pat and co. Is the mag industry as seriously fucked up as this?
Not wanting to sound like a cynic here, but so what?
Its only videogame journalism, its on a par with music & sport journalism. Their reporting on stuff that doesn't really matter really.
Yes theirs money in it, yes you enjoy it, but come on Rockstar buying reveiws? So the fuck what?
It doesn't raise my taxes, doesn't affect my qaulity of life & thats that.
Meh, i guess i just don't take videogames seriously enough.
@Zinc I'm with you. Give em all tens I want the interviews and insight.
Well, the gaming sphere is our hobby and passion (and for a bunch of people, their jobs and even lives) so I guess people here would see something like this as a bit of a scandal. I think, in all honesty, gamers hate to see their industry follow the music industry into the depths of marketing controlled empires.
As someone who's formative years were spent worshipping music it was depressing as fuck to see how it's just normal that all reviews are bought by advertisers and that you are only picked up if you can be sold in droves after being streamlined out of something unique.
I guess we had a good number of years where we could trust reviews, say that our £40/$60 was worth it before putting it down and to now start to see the cracks in something we hoped wouldn't follow music and movies into a shallow, hollow grave is just a bit shit.
What insight. PR-prepared stump speeches that shy away from answering questions that might actually be interesting?
I think that if something is worth doing, it's worth doing right. Journalism is as stimulating and relevant as people allow it to be.
There might be 10 bad media/sports journalists for every good one, but thankfully we all have the option not to read those guys, and stick with the ones who give half a fuck.
zincs point of view is obviously fair enough, but "why give a shit" could be said for anything from religion to healthcare to taxes depending on where you care to put it.
There aren't any dead african babies in my backyard, but there are some annoying potholes on my street.
Hunter S. Thompson started out as a serious reporter, covering everything from the rise of the Hells Angels to music and sport. It's not the assignment, it's what you do with it.
I don't think gaming will get less interesting for any of us, because people start putting a bit of pride and craft into their work.
Personally I only see a point in journalism that's worth reading, either for entertainment value, or information.
Games are already being given all tens, whether it's based on incompetence or corruption is less important. Allowing a publisher to piss in your ear just gives them a really novel urinal. It doesn't inspire an appreciation for what you do.
I'll back that SlayerGT.
Hunam if you hear a song you love, do you give a shit if Rolling Stone poo poo it?
Its your opinion that matters.
That doesn't hold a lot of weight coming from someone who's posting on the VG247 forums :P
Why care about [random internet forum post]?
Lol, You shouldn't.
Thats the point.
I realize it's not the main issue here, but I always felt that GTA IV was overrated, and this only confirms that it doesn't fully deserve the incredibly high average it holds on gamerankings & others.
The first time I played GTAIV, I honestly got so bored in the first hour that I quit. Between the bowling, "dating",getting "drunk", and changing outfits, I honestly felt like I was playing some twisted version of The Sims. I was like where are the guns? Where are the missions? After driving around a bit and accidentally getting drunk with the cousin again, I just gave up.
Yeah, I'm sure it's a great game & all, & I will give it an honest try again some day, but it was a huge disappointment after all the massive hype.
Completely unshocking revelation is completely unshocking.
90% of day one review scores or either bought, bribed, coerced or flat out threatened - give us a high score or we'll cut you off in a heartbeat. The bigger sites score high in return for ad revenue, and the smaller sites are bullied into high scores and coerced into them for high scores.
I've been on both sides of the fence. I've been asked to give a certain score by a publication (not disclosing who for, but I refuse to do it), and I've also had publishers shut my own site off their radar completely for one negative review, despite the fact that we were giving all their other games honest high scores of 8s and 9s.
The game? Battle: Los Angeles.
The fact that anyone pays any heed to day one reviews scores is fucking hilarious. Why do the think there was such a huge disparity in the scores for Resident Evil 6? The majority of the high scoring ones were bullshit reviews by journalists too fucking spineless to be honest.
Find an honest publication and stick to it. Aggregates are utter bullshit.
@ Ireland Michael
Wow, for that POS!? Wow...
But yeah, this is sad. It also proves why EDGE scores are so erratic. At least with sites like IGN, they pretty much give every single big game a high score because of threat / bribe / other things.
EDGE is the one that probably only works for super HIGH bribes or something. Still even if that's the case, it doesn't mean the writing staff is to be blamed. Maybe there are some corrupt writers but most of them usually give more honest reviews which are then butchered by editors, suits, bosses and some times PR people from that FREAKIN game.
Really, having PR people from game X edit the review for said game is A REALITY and is beyond sad.
As one of the many, many writers and editors Rich managed to paint as a lying weasel this week, I feel compelled to draw your attention to his retraction, published yesterday:
Here's an excerpt:
"There’s one tweet I especially regret, can’t even remember what it was in response to, but I basically said ‘Future is bent.’ That is an outright lie, and I deserve to be pilloried for it – not just because it’s untrue, and I am telling you now it’s untrue, but because I’d have no way of knowing. I haven’t worked there, in the building, in years."
I've worked at Future for a year and a half and have yet to encounter a single example of score-fixing. Rest assured that the second it happens, I'll resign.
Looks like someone called in the lawyers...
Wow, that was a huge "BENT". amiright!?
As a strawberry float, apparently...
I wondered about the pudding references... Is it some internet slang I've missed?
"Any info to spill on Cod reviews/ad pressure?
Actually, no. COD always earned the reviews, good series"
He voided his entire opinion here.
@Zinc: I reckoned it was probably that site has a bad language fix-o-bot that replaces all "fuck"s with "strawberry float"s...
What's weird is that no site that's worth anything actually ran the story. Is that because Stanton was lying (why would he?) or because he was absolutely right and no-one dared? Or 3) he's a good mate and if they did bring loads of attention to him it could ruin the man?
Probably a bit of all 3.
I would go with the obvious answers.
The story is ignored, like pretty much any media criticism in games journalism, because it strikes a nerve that no one wants struck.
People want their Metacritic scores. They don't want to be told how ridiculously flawed the method behind them is. People want a predictable consensus of positive opinions of the games they buy, because it allows them to believe that they're smart and informed consumers, rather than just compulsive, gluttonous ones.
And games reporters in turn probably want to forget that they back that sort of nonsense on a daily basis, without ever raising a flag on any of it.
It's possible that he's lying, but I can't make sense of that. If he just wanted to flip people the bird, he could've done so anonymously, RAM Raider style. If your sole purpose is to take someone down, you would want to be smart about it, no?
I think it's safe to assume that it hurts his career.
That's a shame though. It shouldn't be impossible to build a career on telling the truth, especially in a form of journalism.
I think the reason why people worshipped Old Man Murray is because, even though they were satirical, they were also utterly merciless, and they revelled in having an opinion, instead of constantly trying to apologize for it (like so many games journalists out there).
I think it's healthy to find out early whether you want to be popular or whether you want to be trusted. Games journalism as a field seems to me like a place, where most of the people in it are constantly stuck in a grey area between the two.
It's a real shame, confusion and apprehension doesn't make for very good journalism.
@ Mike - can I just say it defnintely didn't go unnoticed; Isaw Jim Sterling of Destructoid and Pat from this site both talk to him on twitter, but neither site mentioned this story.
@Mike: My guess is that in EG's case, it was probably mostly number 3. To prevent any shit from impacting forcefully with any fans, they probably just let the story die. They even had a (very interesting) podcast about reviews, and they never really brought up the issue of transparency or integrity on the journos side.
Seriously though, if a well-respected journo in any other media came out and said something like this, it would be published. I think it's extremely difficult for games journalism to be taken seriously when accusations of this nature from a well-respected journalist don't make the news.
Unless, of course, Stanton is mentally ill and no-one wants that brought to attention or something. Very strange, imo.
Definitely makes it tempting to slap on the tinfoil hat.
I think the truth is that every field of journalism has problems handling criticism.
But most of them will still indulge in it. This sort of "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" approach is pretty unique.
Again I think games journalism suffers from anxiety. They're obviously far too close to the multi-billion dollar businesses they're covering, and secondly I don't think games journalists sport the kinds of diplomas that you'd find in a lot of other kinds of journalism. They may be great writers, but I'm not sure they grasp that responsibility.
Running a story like that would be good for the profession and ultimately the industry, but not for the people writing it.
You must log in to post.
© videogaming247 Ltd.