GameSpot Reviews Blog
It's only been a month or so since I formally transitioned to GameSpot's reviews team from the previews crew, but in that short time I've already been offered several "exclusive review" opportunities for the site. Some are for high-profile games that would no doubt afford us plenty of traffic were we the first to review them, while others are for games that publishers are likely desperate to raise awareness of, even if that means drawing attention to a review that might end up being less than positive. Regardless, my response is always the same:
GameSpot doesn't do exclusive reviews.
This has been the case here for as long as I can remember, and should come as no surprise to anyone who's ever taken the time to read our Review Guidelines. Not only could agreeing to an exclusive review invite a perceived conflict of interest where scores are concerned, but it would lock us into posting our review on a certain day, probably at a certain time, and almost certainly before we've had an opportunity to spend as much time checking out any online features as much as we'd like. Even ignoring the score stuff that's a problem, because we post our reviews when they're ready, and not before.
Reviewing online multiplayer games in a timely fashion is always going to be difficult because, ideally, we like to play on regular servers with regular folks before making our final judgment. That's a blog entry for another day, though. To get back on-topic, it's my experience (close to 10 years ago, admittedly) that publishers involved in discussions for exclusive reviews often have some level of expectation when it comes to the score. Back in the day, when I was working on print magazines in the UK and the games industry wasn't nearly as professional or under as much scrutiny as it is now, I know for a fact that there were exclusive reviews being given to magazines in exchange for front covers and guaranteed scores. For the record, I was never a part of anything like that, but I was still affected by it.
One now-defunct publisher, who shall remain nameless, had the stones to complain about me to my boss when our exclusive review of a much-anticipated Nintendo 64 game, which was promoted on the magazine's front cover, only awarded the game in question the equivalent of a GameSpot 6.0. No score had ever been promised or even discussed prior to the publication arriving on store shelves, but I guess someone at the publisher got in trouble when it hit and tried to shift the blame onto yours truly. It didn't work, and while I still find the idea of exclusive reviews uncomfortable, I'd like to believe that the deals behind them aren't nearly as shady as they used to be.
So yeah, don't expect GameSpot to be posting any exclusive reviews soon. We'll do our best to be timely as we always have, but ultimately we place more importance on accuracy than on being first.
I definitely support the stance on avoiding exclusive reviews if only because it skews reader perspective too, making it difficult to work out how much value to place on it.
IGN recently scooped an exclusive on a certain major franchise which was fun to read, but I wasn't quite sure how to take the incredibly high score - was the exclusive given because they'd suggested the score already from their impressions? Was it the other way round? Were they completely unrelated? I'd hope for impartiality (although reviewers being fans and therefore susceptible to hype is another discussion) but even so it makes it very difficult to interpret and so the review simply becomes less useful.
Gamespot apparently takes pride in enough time with a game, and deifnes a quality review in this way. For us READERS (read: customers), quality is however defined in other terms, because we can only read the words (or view the video). For me, a quality review on gamespot is, in prioritized order:
1) Least 4 "pages" long. The longer the better. 2) Referring to other games - thus placing it somewhere in a world where i can relate to it based on other games i've played. 3) Referring to other civilizational or society-concepts, thus taking games seriously, as well as making the review far more enjoyable to read. 4) Of a certain LIX-number or intellectual standard, thus appealing to me as an intelligent reader. (the words i don't understand, i'll just look up myself. But don't "talk down" to me - that's banned)
Currently i DO NOT think that Gamepots reviews are very good - especially in 1). The best reviews and articles are courtesey of... i think it's called Escapism magazine or something like that. Gamespy's articles are a wee bit better than Gamespot's. Despite being so big, Gamespot does have a good way to go in the game-review department - returning to it's roots.
I'd say I'm a big fan of you guys reviews, I believe they are well written and they get the main points across, I actually try to read all game reviews even for games I'm not interested in. It doesn't bother me that I don't agree with you guys all the time, I completely understand a review is one mans opinion. I only buy a game after a thorough research anyway.
Well I understand wanting to give valid reviews and not using hype as a score booster but GS has fallen hard and far. Look at games like Assassin's Creed and No More Heroes, they do not deserve AAA status but got it. Reviews here have been bad for around 6 months now and don't seem to be getting any better. A exclusive review would be nice especially for a big hit title. GS was at the top at one time now it is barely staying alive. The annual membership went up and quality content went way down. I understand why many are leaving and IGN is now booming.
Perhaps GS might hit a diamond in the rough and find the next greatest thing, but i agree with you and GS' decision in keeping true with the guidelines and policies. I always come here to check out the reviews and consider scores when purchasing my next game, thanks for keeping the tradition and value here at GS!
I agree with Bob above me. I understand and appreciate your willingness to fully experience all of a games features and modes before posting a review, but that doesn't change the fact that 90% of sites post reviews before you guys do. And I don't think it's fair to say that those sites aren't reviewing the game completely. Perhaps they have a different relationship with the publisher than your site does, and get access to the game earlier. But being as excited about games as I sometimes am, I'll be damned if I wait a week after release for GS's review in order to make my decision. And I think this is where alot of your readers stand.
@ShockG707: That was a game that divided a lot of folks. I think perfection is a stretch, but personally I'm a big fan.
Am I the only one who thinks this blog is a "credibility boost" since the massive problems in Nov. 2007 and the now subsequent dismissal of Josh Larson?
@greasemonkey42: Again, this blog is not a forum where we plan to spend our days answering the most popular question that you're not supposed to post in the Ask GameSpot forum. But, for what it's worth, we have a review of Soulstorm in the works.
Being on the review team, can you tell me when Warhammer 40K: Dawn of War: Soulstorm is going to be reviewed?
It's been over a month, this is no minor game, and yet i see others like the C&C3 getting reviewed in a day.
I am of the mind that I would rather wait for your review if its done right. I understand that you guys are very short staffed right now and applaud you for attempting to put some transparancy into the process. Shouldn't have to be done, but...
I still consider GameSpots reviews to be the most comprehensive, detailed, and honest ones out there. I read other reviews as well to get as much info as possible, but I won't be abandoning GS anytime soon.
Glad to hear you'll be doing more reviews Justin!
While I can definitely respect the decision by Gamespot to not post exclusive reviews, the problem that I have been noticing is the length of time it takes Gamespot to post a review for anything.
I have been reading Gamespot for years and it is something that I have only recently started to notice since about November of 2007. Games that come out both high profile and not game spot is usually one of the later places to post reviews. My problem with that I that I typically use the reviews to decided on which games to purchase. Many times have I been saved by a Gamespot review that says that a game doesn't live up to its hype or that its too short or doesn't have much replay value and I've saved myself an easy 55 bucks to rent over purchase. Yet when a game comes out and I have to wait for some times up to a week over the other sites and magazines, it can be frustrating. Most times I just go to game stats and compare 4 or 5 reviews to give me what Gamespot usually delivers in 1. I appreciate the desire for quality over expedience but every once in a while it would be nice to get a actual release day review.
I dont think it is, with all due respect. The Reviews for FIFA 08 and The Club (for example) never made it to PC. I dont think we will get PC reviews if they arent posted within 2-3 days of the console reviews. =[ That seems to be the trend.
Frontlines has been 4 pc out for two months. No review????
dryden555, we publish reviews ahead of game releases pretty regularly. It's not always possible, though. We're working hard to make our coverage as timely as possible, but never at the expense of accuracy.
Login to rate this comment
/ (+0)