Have you ever felt that a video game has been given a bias review score in Gamespot?

Hey guys I'm in my third year at university doing journalism, as the title suggests I'm working on my dissertation and its on objectivity in video game magazines and websites.

Basically its about whether or not game reviews are affected by sponsors/owners/advertisers so I was really hoping someone of you guys could answer these questions. I've done the same poll on the Nintendo Official magazine website and I'm going to compare the results

You have no idea how much of a help this would be, I've had responses from editors and journalists at CVG, Playstationlifestyle.com, thegamerstudio.com and a freelance journalist for IGN so far but now I want to get the view from readers

I really hope that some of you guys could help me out with this

Feel free to comment as comments are important to be included in it, which game do you feel was given an unfair review and why?

Thanks guys

Technically yes

every single review ever made is biased...

In any case, I'd like to point to Tom Mcshea and Carolyn and their over-the-top personal reviews.

You seem to be making a distinction between bias based on bribes and/or company pressure and bias based on personal preferences and ideals. In the case of the former, I'd answer the question negatively, but in the case of the latter I'd answer positively. You seem to be focusing on the former, but the survey question is unclear...

I think some of the reviewers clearly prefer certain genres to others, and as such I feel that some of the reviews aren't very fair.

Unless you have zero opinion on an issue one way or the other you're always going to be bias...I'm of the opinion that a completely unbias review would be totally flat and uninteresting. That being said, you seem to be referring especially to "payed bias", and in that case I'd have to say no (except that one particular case everybody seems to talk about =P)

(Also I'd like to remind you that for any sort of study/survey in this website you first need to ask permission from the Community Managers ^_^)

Since most people in the gaming media has no formal training/education/experience working as a real journalist, they also lack the tools to help make them able to do the best "unbiased" review. Which in itself is a oxymoron.

They don't get paid to be unbiased, they get paid to play a game and give their own opinion on it, its just us "laymen" who put them on a pedestal like their opinion is worth anything more than a friends or one's own.

So the answer to your question Yes i always see bias reviews , but i dont expect them to be anything else.

The 360/ps3 version of Sonic Unleashed, comes to mind. It received a 3.5, which is an even lower score than what '06 got, and you don't need to know anything about Sonic in order to tell that's a total joke.

from advertisers? well there is the jeff gerstman thing, and if you look at the video above, this guy who freelanced for a video game website was not allowed to post his review because the game was seen as negative.

I see nothing wrong with personal reviews because there isn't much space for objectivity in a form like that, but if they're biased towards anything it's creating controversy and gaining more views/clicks on every individual article by exploiting a largely impressionable audience such as gamers.

Besides, these days you should outright ignore review scores; bribery isn't illegal and is very much present ever since Gamespot's Jeff Gerstmann debacle

Reviews of music, games, movies, tv, etc are reviews of an artistic medium, and as such there is no way to be completely "objective" because ultimately a game review is about how much enjoyment you'll get out of a game and an emotional reaction is always subjective by nature and varies from person to person. When someone screams about bias/bribery/scandal/etc in a review, what they are usually saying is "I don't agree with that review and anyone who disagrees with me must be lying because my opinion is obviously correct". For some reason, this is a concept that a lot of gamers don't seem to grasp. In film if a movie buff reads a review that they don't agree with, the normal reaction tends to be "hmm, that reviewer is an idiot. I thought this movie was great" or "WTF, that reviewer has no taste whatsoever if he liked that movie". In games, the same disagreement results in cries of a "lack of objectivity" which makes absolutely no sense.

Even in instances where Gamespot adjusted a review due to public outcry, this isn't done because the review is "wrong". It's done because the review is not an accurate representation of what Gamespot's readers expect, and those are two very different things. The review is still an opinion, but they chose an opinion that doesn't directly conflict with the majority of their readership because that's what gives the readers the most value.

The only time I would call a review "biased" is when it's inherently dishonest. This would be in instances where external influence such as advertisers impact a review, for example.

-Byshop

is this a trick question? of course, there is little objectivity.

not only are they influenced by outside sources, but, they rarely even get the basic and technical facts of a game in their reviews.

I can't remember the last review I read that just appropriately dissected a game and game me a competent list of unbiased information.

I'd answer both cases positively.

What's that one particular case ?

Oh and ,speaking of community managers, I can't see the Moderator Mark under your profile photo,

What happened ? You ain't no mod no more ? Life is expensive when you lose your job, especially when you get married and become two ! Don't say I didn't warn you !

@elkoldo: I gave my badge to Al Pacino...we was really persuasive, with his trench coat...

@korvus: He's way too old for this stuff now though....I bet he can barely turn on a PC

What's the particular case anyway ?!

@elkoldo: The guy who got fired from GS supposedly for trashing a game that had payed (one way or another, depending on where you get your rumours) for good reviews. This dates back from 2007 though.

@korvus: Yeah I guess you're talking about the guy who wrote the review for Kane and Lynch Dead Men.I can't remember his name though.Read about him in an Iranian magazine like 7 years ago (Geeez ,time flies that fast)

To be honest,(and no offense meant), at some point ,I believed Tom MacShea was pretty much the same , given his review on Last of us.But later he made me change my mind for his review(and sure his score) on Beyond.

@elkoldo: At least 2 people mentioned his name on this thread already XD

Also, I really don't get the hate Tom got over TLOU...plenty of people don't like that game...personally I felt the gameplay was bland and the story is nothing new...yes, I liked the main characters and I cared for Ellie, but at the end of the day I thought Tom's 8.5 was overly nice. It is possible to dislike games most everybody likes without being payed for it.

I dislike plenty of popular series like The Witcher, Hitman, Far Cry...etc, etc....They're good games, I just don't care for them. Been waiting to get payed for disliking them but so far, not a single cent =P

Jeff Gerstmann over their (the editorial team he was director of) review of Kane and Lynch: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/116360-Jeff-Gerstmann-Explains-His-Departure-From-Gamespot

-Byshop

Oh , I hadn't read previous posts :D

Say what you like to say about Last of us , but the truth can't be covered, all the acclaims that Last of us received were almost merely for it's unprecedentedly touching story.Prior to playing Last of us I ,for one, hadn't wept due to any video game or any movie,and even in general ,in my life due to anything. Tom had rated it 8 (not even 8.5 right?) and that was suspiciously low.

Anyway ,I hate those games too ,plus Cod ,Battlefield (which ,again ,have been suspiciously sticking to GameSpot's top 5 games for months) , which makes two of us.

"Been waiting to get payed for disliking them but so far, not a single cent" Lol here

You know I hate to talk about it, but I guess you're a kind of guy that could cure my depression in a week's time,if only you were here ! Some of your posts in other threads also gave laughs today, not to re-mention the infamous trench-and-fedora dude. =P

Oh you mean like what IGN did with Shadow Hearts and God Hand?

@elkoldo: But that's the thing, I hate the idea a lot of people here have that "if I don't like it, it's crap". I dislike a lot of good things, it's called "personal preference"...not RIGHT preference, not WRONG preference, just personal, and it doesn't have to match anyone else's because I don't need anyone's validation. At the same time, just because I don't consume something doesn't mean other's shouldn't...trying to change other people's opinion on something they like is also a way of you (not you specifically, general "you") getting validation on your tastes.

Well over half of the games I deeply enjoyed last year were indies...they aren't popular, they didn't receive accolades, they weren't talked about in every gaming website, nobody gives a crap what their metacritics score is and yet, to me they're all better than the latest blockbusters for the simple fact that I.Had.Fun.Playing.Them. Isn't that a great notion? ^_^

You can tell me your IQ is 200 or you are the fastest runner in your city because you eat lettuce, I think that's great, but I'm still not going to stomach the damn thing, it'll still make me gag; that doesn't make it unhealthy, it doesn't make it terrible and it certainly doesn't mean nobody should eat it, if you like it, then enjoy...it's just not for me =)

Also, still searching for the guy in question. Found 2 Turks, 1 Australian an a Chinese grandma in the premises but no signs of the Korean =P

according to a staff member that left GS after the event, it wasn't so direct as Eidos saying "here's some money, so give me that 9-10 score." the publisher spent a bunch of advertising money on GS and seemingly expected more for their money than the presence of their own ads. the management of the time were appalled when they got negative feedback from their revenue stream (advertisers, regardless of who consumes the advertising) and that's where the backlash came from on gerstmann.

gertsmann has stated himself that the management team that fired him back then has left.

link (farewell gamespot)

link

I have no doubt that a lot of people think that bias based on bribes or company pressure regularly or at least sporadically occurs. But these claims are almost exclusively based on circumstantial evidence and/or speculation, so in my boundless optimism I will grant the reviewers the benefit of the doubt. ;-) I feel there is no clear indication of this kind of bias taking place. And given the amount of bias inducing factors that can't be controlled when reviewing a game, the perceived bias can just as much (and in my opinion more likely) be the result of elements unrelated to bribery/pressure.

I agree and would go a bit further...is it really such a big issue one way or the other? Do most gamers decide whether to buy a game or not based on a score? Are people really jumping up and down for the release of a specific game and when the game gets a 6 they refuse to buy it?

If I were to make a list of the deciding factors of whether to buy a game or not (based only on my personal preference) Youtube gameplay videos would be number 1 and game reviews would be last...

I agree that no one should inflict their opinion on others' ,or insult them on the basis that their idea contradicts theirs.

I also almost agree with you about the fact that the sole aim of gaming is to have fun , but I believe if this medium can evolve beyond having fun (its sole aim), then it needs something different ,that can speak a few new words, be it blockbuster or not.(such as the aforementioned Last of us, speaking of father-daughter stuff was quite new in this medium ) , but then again , you're correct ,not even this, is for everyone.

If you can't find that guy , send somebody else ,just make sure he's wearing a trench coat , with nothing under it =P

The infamous Kane and Lynch thing is unfortunately a counter example to what you suggested here.That means bribes do occur.However I ,too, tend to be optimist , as much as I can.

I said 'almost'. ;-) I would see the Kane and Lynch incident as a very dated exception to the rule. Also, just to be clear, it was not a case of bribery, but advertiser pressure. And the reviewer was not to blame here, the management was. And as pointed out in another comment, the management team in question is no longer in charge. Gerstmann and Gamespot have also publicly talked things out and cleared things up, although some people see that as a cover-up, since Giant Bomb (of which Gerstmann is now part) is a sister site of Gamespot, so anything said by its members is immediately not trustworthy (seeing as it is arguably protection of interests).

I pondered on saying similar things, but I refrained from doing so, because I didn't want to look like I actually condone the practice. If it actually happens, then one could indeed argue that it matters little (or at least SHOULD matter little), but I would still find it very disappointing and objectionable, perhaps to the point that I might stop visiting the website. I felt like my point should be that I see no convincing proof, not that it doesn't matter if it's actually the case. That said, I agree. Especially if this is exclusively about scores. The fact that scores apparently matter so much is a sad state of affairs in my opinion. When content is also altered as a result of bribes/pressure it would be more objectionable, but, as I said, in both cases I haven't seen convincing or sufficient proof.

(First I'd like to apologise to everybody for the semi-OT rant, so feel free to skip to the TL; DR section =P)

Now for you, elkoldo. That wasn't quite my meaning, I believe games can be more than just fun, I would use the word "enjoyment", but even watching an emotional story that saddens you can be "enjoyable", in a sense, and this is mainly the reason why I enjoy indie games, because it's about the emotional journey, and they leave you thinking way after you finish the game. It's ONLY about the story, the graphics are poor/below average, the gameplay won't win any awards and there's probably little gameplay to be had anyway so story is all you have left. There are several examples of this: (this is obviously my personal opinion, nothing more)

"To The Moon" - Where you go on a journey through an old man's memories starting at his last and slowly going backwards through his dreams, his accomplishments, the things he forgot, his personal tragedies and it's incredible heartbreaking to know beforehand whether his plans will succeed or fail, especially when you see him sacrificing so much and know it won't matter. The very first memory, when everything makes sense just made me cry, it was incredibly sad but beautiful. It's an 8-bit game with only simple (beautiful) soundtracks, you walk around clicking on items and people...most people won't pay the $5 the game costs, even knowing it's going for autism research, because it's not AAA.

"Dear Esther" - So ambiguous (the author says it's intended) you'll make out of the story whatever you will...if you let yourself go and just complete the game (what pieces of monologue you get are random and some are contradictory) you'll come up to your own conclusion what the game was about...to some people it's about dreams, to some it's about death, to me was about toxic guilt...I really can't describe how deep the game will take you if you let it. Most people describe it as "a shitty walking simulator"

"Papo&Yo" - You play as a deeply scarred abused child who has this scary-looking but very friendly monster as a best friend and the only "person" in the world who makes him feel safe. The problem is that the monster has an addiction and whenever he indulges in it he turns into an abusive friend as well. You can play it as a platformer game and not give a crap, but if you put yourself in his shoes (not hard for me since I was abused physically and verbally by my parents throughout my entire childhood) you'll feel the hopelessness he's feeling and not feeling safe anywhere in the world no matter how pretty everything seems is a pretty strong message, as it is the game's message of breaking the circle of violence. To most people it's a childish platformer with no real challenge.

"Brothers: A Tale of Two Sons" - Lighter story than the rest, but it's still a deeply moving tale that revolves around the message "You can't do everything alone but sometimes you have to". You have to control 2 characters at the same time with opposite parts of your keyboard/controller....It's so confusing at first but then it's actually quite fun and you almost forget the message. Close to the end of the game though, something so profound for the characters happens that you as the gamer have trouble even finish the game. To most people it's a 4 hour game with little replay value so it's wasted money.

As you see, opinions are like underwear; I only like wearing mine and most people change them often so in the end, it doesn't really matter what others' personal preferences are and it should never dictate your enjoyment.

There's a lot more examples but I'll PM you about it if you're interested. But after playing all of these games, to me storywise, TLOU is mostly just a game where 2 people try to stay alive and not get eaten by zombies (infected, if you want to be picky =P).

And now to not be completely off-topic, after this wall of text, how do people expect gaming journalists to be unbias in their reviews? (See? This was relevant for the thread =P)

TL;DR: Bla bla bla, bias!!

@korvus: Yeah sure, PM me about them.Beyond was the last blockbuster I played and is probably gonna keep it that way, 'cause I'm not interested in any of the scheduled AAAs in 2014, so I better start playing some meaningful indies,gotta say I hadn't even heard the name of these indies you referred to, Brothers aside.

Oh don't mind walls of texts, they're cool as long as they don't say bullshoot, and yours definitely don't. =)

What's TL;DR by the way?!

@elkoldo: "Too Long; Didn't Read" AKA "Wall of text crits for over 9000!" =P

@loafofgame: True, I didn't mean bribe is inconsequential, of course it isn't (at least from a moral point of view). I simply meant that a review (especially if we're speaking exclusively about the score) won't sway my idea of buying a game one way or the other =)

Yeah just watch Tom McShea or Carolyn Petit

The Neverhood (1996)

Powerslave (1996)

Turok: Dinosaur Hunter (1997)

Golden Axe II (1991)

The Dig (1995)

All these games got unfairly low scores.

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3

Escape From Butcher Bay

Splinter Cell: Conviction

These games (among others) got way too high of ratings, especially COD: MW3 and Butcher Bay

Sometimes, I feel like game reviewers favor BIG name games and franchises and are cruel to the smaller games, or don't appreciate them.

Yes, since there's no such thing as an unbiased game review.

I don't take it that seriously so not really. Review is a review, who cares?

@Korvus:

" ..is it really such a big issue one way or the other? Do most gamers decide whether to buy a game or not based on a score? Are people really jumping up and down for the release of a specific game and when the game gets a 6 they refuse to buy it?

If I were to make a list of the deciding factors of whether to buy a game or not (based only on my personal preference) Youtube gameplay videos would be number 1 and game reviews would be last..."

(I just wish you had fixed the quote button before resignation :| )

C'mon man.Reviews, namely the scores, manipulate people's minds.Look at Heavy Rain : Metascore at the time of release 91=> UK's top selling game for a month, overall worldwide sales exceeding 3 million copies.Beyond : Metascore at the time of release 72=>almost never seen in any region's top 5 sellings' chart after a couple of weeks,overall worldwide sales 1 million.Or the era-defining Last of Us : Metascore at the time of release 96=>Over 3 million copies in only a few weeks' time, turning the page in PlayStation history in terms of fast selling, overall worldwide sales exceeding 6 million copies, and all that only on one platform.

Let's be honest to ourselves, it got everything to do with the scores.

@elkoldo: Mods can't fix jack, unfortunately. We just hope that by spamming the devs things get done.

But yeah, you're probably right, but you can't deny that it's a sad reality. If I can watch a gameplay video and make up my own damn mind whether I like a game or not why would I go to metacritics and let a bunch of numbers (by random people, no less) dictate whether I buy a game or not? Especially because we know most reviews are either fanboys or haters so 1/10 and 10/10 (1/100 , 100/100) will abound.

For crying out loud, there was this group of people here last week arguing that if you don't enjoy a game you should ALWAYS vote it 1/10 because it didn't matter if the game did some things right if you didn't enjoy it, therefore if you did enjoy it but the game was flawed you should always rate it 10/10 because the enjoyment overrules the flaws...I don't get these binary reviewers...are these the people we're allowing to choose our video game purchases?

Biased? Nah. But I do think that most sites and magazines kinda cruise along at hype-appropriate review scores.

Well almost every review is biased so yes.

And @korvus

What happened to your moderator status?

@korvus: Yeah it's definitely a sad reality.Sad but true.All I wanna say, is that it stinks when a goddamn number, decides the fate of a game ,and whether the players should pay for that game or not.I just wish everyone could make up their own minds, by the means of watching gameplay on YouTube or anything else, regardless of the score.

@gamerno66666: Lost it in a poker game =(

wtf? isn't review supposed to be a personal opinion of the person who writes it?

i don't really know what you mean by biased, unless you mean getting payed by someone to actually NOT write an honest opinion about the game.

i'm actually more harsh towards games that are my preferred genres and i believe the same goes for reviewers too. i prefer to read a review of an RPG game for example, that has been written by a person who knows RPG.

The fact that scores mean someting points to a lot of people being indifferent, lazily opportunistic and/or impatient (and maybe naive). Scores don't manipulate people; people LET scores manipulate them. In my view that has nothing to do with a lack of intelligence (as so many people often disrespectfully claim), but with the aforementioned attitude which results in an unwillingness to put a little effort into doing proper research.

@Pikminmaniac: I wouldn't necessarily say their reviews are over the top they are just their opinions which sometimes differ from other people's opinions.

The problem with Carolyns reviews are that people on the internet are immature and don't understand her sexuality. Therefore whenever she says something they abuse her. The problem is not always the reviewer but the people reading and commenting that make it an issue.

I would have been fine with Carolyn's GTAV review until her personal emotions and judgment got in the way of her GTAV, so she failed to do her job in that review clearly. Otherwise, I'm fine with her as a reviewer and I'm sure that Tom has been off the mark in specific cases, such as Zelda.

her job is to write down her opinion on a game, so how did she fail that? if that is how the game made her feel, then it's all legit.

game review CAN NOT be objective. there is no way to objectively measure how good a game is. they are just opinions.

This. People get this in terms of art reviews, movies reviews, music reviews, etc, but for some reason gamers seem to think that their medium is different somehow.

-Byshop

Of course every review is biased in some way shape or form, we all have different Opinions but the truth is, it's up to the gamer who reads it to take on board how the reviewer feels, but of course it is always blown out of the water by fanboys who seem to think that if their beloved game isn't reviewed the way they want it, then they blame the reviewer to be anti whatever game, gamers now want every game they love to be a 9 or a 10 non of the other scores matter anymore to many.

It's not just her bias, it's her inconsistencies in some reviews

Not once.

I'm glad we have reviewers like Carolyn who are brave enough to point out that GTAV is in fact a very misogynistic game. People seem to forget that she applauded virtually every other aspect of it. So if she had some kind of agenda then it was remarkably low key... But as soon as she DID point out a flaw, people went crazy and this was all anyone in the comments section was talking about. It was an absurd reaction and if there is a genuine problem with any part of any game, I'd much rather she pointed it - since misogyny is something a lot of gamers might like to know about before buying it - instead of jumping on the band wagon of giving a game like this a perfect score.

Obviously it's everybody's right to disagree with GS' reviews but you can't come to a site like this just to reinforce your own opinion. That is not the purpose of a review. I mean, if you're not prepared to face the possibility that a review may not reflect your expectations of a game before release, why do you bother reading reviews for anything at all?

As Kevin Van Ord himself said - it is to be a portal, not a mirror.