Today it's about GameSpot. A very well established site that gets tons of viewers and tons of content. What they also seem to get is tons of controversy in terms of their reviewing of games. There seems to be rather clear circumstantial evidence suggesting that they don't exactly do the unbiased part of reviews so well. And of course that's not completely possible to do anyway, but here's the story in a sentence for everyone.
One of their most notoriously critical critics (even downsizing the fantastic Zelda: Twilight Princess) was fired a few months ago for giving a genuinely bad game a bad review because the Spot was making money off their publisher.
Adding to that sentence, there's matters to consider like a mysterious anonymous editor posting about it in the forums talking about how wrong his termination was. Another is that the entire visual theme of the place, at the time, REVOLVED around promoting that one game. See what I mean? It's fishy. Of course they denied it, but I still think at least a modicum of bullshit is in that denial.
A more recent instance has popped up, causing me to start writing in this here journal again. It involves the infamous Grand Theft Auto IV, which as we speak is getting more perfect scores than any game preceding it. It's absolutely impressive, and in my eyes even a bit ludicrous. These reviewers are pointing out flaws, and yet it's boundary-pushing and all that happy horse shit. I think timing has a lot to do with it. This game is released when there's literally NOTHING ELSE COMING OUT and everyone's high over the last November, chock full of amazing shit like Mario Galaxy or Call of Duty 4, is worn off. It's been a relatively wan influx since then and then all of a sudden BANG, a stellar title rolls out. I just find it a little superlative to score this game 10's, but so it goes. I've never played it, maybe it will be the first game to make me cry, but I doubt it. It's fucking GTA. You commit crimes for people or yourself in a better looking city and with multiplayer. But I digress. (and don't get the wrong idea, I'm still excited as dick to play it)
So of course the suspense comes when we all wonder what the fuck GameSpot is going to give it. Mind you, I was only going to hear what the score was, as I have not visited the site since the past controversy. There's enough there to tell me it's fucked up. Anyway, the score rolls out. And it is... a 9.5! a 10! A PERFECT 10 LADIES AND GENTLEMEN! HURRAY THE TRADITION CONTINUES! EVEN GAMESPOT LOVES IT!
Fuck that site. They actually CHANGED their fucking rating after it was published. Sure, it's entirely possible the reviewer had a change of heart and decided yes, this game is amazing and deserves a 10. What's more likely is politics upped that score. GTA4, too, has ads about the site, and I'd imagine an angry fanbase is just so hard a thing to deal with. Jokes I tell you, nothing more.
What really bothers me most about this is that, really, it's hard to single just these guys out, and it's also hard to single out just video game sites. The potential for this kind of shit going into reviews is sadly high. What's even more sad is how utterly unsurprising it is. It just backs that age-old "money talks" thing. That or just being a bunch of pussies about dealing with disagreement. I can understand the latter, considering that even I bite my tongue when confronted with someone who loves something I hate (Across the Universe being a choice exception). But this is different. This is a task laid unto you, and social pleasantries or whatever shouldn't factor in. A review is there to inform people who have not experienced a work (of art or otherwise), or to those who have give something they can use in comparing their own opinion or even augment it. That's not happening if money or politics are getting factored in.
What sucks is that it's tricky to find good honest ones, and this is especially true in video games, I feel, where reviews are ostensibly a bunch of rattling off of mechanical elements of the game and not so much about the feeling one gets while playing. Adding to that is that everything about reviews is bullshitable. Anyone can write glowing praise about something they hated. Go back and read an old book report you wrote to see what I mean. So imagine how easy it is to say you love or hate a bunch of mechanical elements about a game without even lying about how you feel about the goddamned thing. So petty and easy to lie about it's ridiculous.
So really it boils down to an issue of trust on the reader's part. We choose to trust the thoughts and ideas of certain people and their taste in things. We trust that they're well read/watched/played (haha)/listened/jerked off (porn) and we trust that they have a good discerning eye/ear/dick (porn)/hand (video games/porn). On top of that, they have to have a good writing style. You also have to WANT to read what they're saying or hear in this day and age. But that comes after the trust, because if you don't trust the source, you could give a shit what they're saying. The only exception is if you trust their untrustworthiness, like the Onion or SomethingAwful I suppose.
GameSpot, unfortunately, is no exception. They're unveiling their practices, and it's both laughable and sad. I'm sure they're in good company, but they slipped up and made it known. It sucks because it throws into question what earns trust. I used to read their reviews because of their penchant for being particularly harsh, even when it went against my own thoughts on a game. I just can't anymore, and it kind of sucks. Maybe I'm being unfair, considering GTA4 is a high profile game that would cause that kind of tension, but I don't think so. The previous title, Kane & Kynch, was high profile as well, but definitely not on the level where it warranted payola to get involved and get a critic fired. I suppose it's worth noting, though, that they did keep his score up. But to counter that, Jeff Gerstmann's firing led to the departure of at least five other GameSpot employees. I mean shit's just gotta be all kinds of retarded, right? I don't feel like I'm being unfair. What makes me wonder if I am, though, is the fact that I may well trust someone who does the exact same thing, only are a little more crafty. Perhaps the thing to do is read it/watch it and decide for ourselves the value of their opinion. It's just hard for me to not hold a grudge to a group that takes the whole review thing so lightly and likely sees it as more of a business opportunity. And besides that, like I said, there's plenty of sites reviewing in that mechanical style anyway. To lose one is not a significant thing. I may change my mind on this, but for now I just can't support a site that functions this way.
I suppose I can go ahead and say that Zero Punctuation is probably one of the better game critics out there today. Watch his silly reviews. That's him talking, and that's his thoughts about it, it's clear and it's funny. If it's all bullshit, he's spectacular at it and he's worth a view on that alone.
Blah, whatever. I'm posting it and leaving it here.
No comments:
Post a Comment