If you wanted to play Modern Warfare 2 early you were in trouble. You had to accept a free flight to Santa Barbara, be put up in a nice hotel for a couple of days and play the game with your journalist buddies. It’s hard sometimes.
Ars Technica have an interesting article up about the review day and some of the wider issues it brings up. The article is all about the review event and although stops short of passing judgement, acts as a nice eye-opener. Essentially Activison know their game is big enough that they can make some journalists bend their code of ethics to fit. To me that’s very worrying, if a little expected.
The fact some reviewers and publications went to this press day and didn’t acknowledge it in the review makes me lose my already waning faith in most gaming press. I know I’m in the minority of people who read these reviews, but to me it really matters where the game was played. I don’t so much care what’s in the game -I can usually guess that- I want to know how it makes you feel, how good it is.
Image: Flikr/tkksummers
Quick! fix that typo before anyone important notices!
I’m also hoping that I can erase this comment
@jymkata: Dammit I can’t.
Now it’s going to be fixed and I’m going to look super-stupid
@jymkata: Damn you! *shakes fist*
It doesn’t surprise me, but I wish the article named names on the other publications that were there that happened to neglect disclosing the context in which their review took place. Shady though it was, at least disclose it so that the reader can make up their own mind in terms of it’s relevance.
Looking at a large site like IGN, who had their review up practically at 12:01 AM of launch day, it, it doesn’t surprise me that any of those details happened left out of their published review. Not that a site that keeps the obnoxious likes of Greg Miller on staff has much credibility to burn anyway.
It’s hard to believe that review days even exist. Surely anybody who takes a career into writing/journalism has some integrity? I can’t imagine giving a game favourable review or slanting the coverage in anyway. It seems like people get entrenched in that PR world and it doesn’t seem odd to get paid to review something.
“I want to know how it makes you feel, how good it is.”
Um, how would a reviewer be compromised in their ability to express this simply by being given a hotel room in which to play the game? And how is Activision shady for setting stuff like this up. Was the hotel room full of free candy, beer or hookers?
The funny thing to me is that people actually think Activision gives two shits about MW2 reviews.
@Naughton: The point is that Activision and other companies pay for journalists and writers to play their game. Sending a free review copy is one thing, but giving them free food, drink and a comfy hotel is dodgy, and for somebody to accept that (I think) is unethical.
But even if they do accept the invite, they don’t disclose it. I’ve never ever seen a review that says “the publisher paid us to go play this game”, but it seems it’s normal practice for some sites/mags. So maybe not the hookers, but free candy & beer I’m sure.
I can see why this would be considered dodgy, but let’s remember that we are talking about Modern Warfare 2. I know some around here are down on it, but it’s a triple-A title, and a great game. It would have gotten 9’s from most reviewers either way.
Now if Tony Hawk: Ride was only reviewable under similar conditions, and all the reviewers who attended gave it 8’s and 9’s, even though it’s shit, then I’d see a problem. But the argument as it stands is pretty weak.