Cracked published an article today that pissed a lot of people off. (I’m not linking to it, but here’s a Pastebin of the relevant section.)
This is nothing unusual, of course, what with Cracked being renowned for clickbaiting rather than particularly rewarding content, but today it crossed a line from being relatively inoffensive clickbait into perpetuating some bullshit that has been on the rise for a few years now: the assumption, among certain members of the public, that game journalists are inherently corrupt, and that good review scores are frequently “bought” by publishers, particularly those who are advertising on the site in question.
The assumption that this sort of thing is going on probably goes back to “Gerstmanngate” back at Gamespot, when Jeff Gerstmann was let go following a mediocre review of Kane & Lynch from Eidos, and the story runs that Eidos put pressure on Gamespot to let Gerstmann go because they were ploughing a lot of money into the site at that time, paying considerable amounts to “reskin” all of Gamespot with a Kane & Lynch theme. It took several years — and Gamespot purchasing Gerstmann’s new online home Giant Bomb — before the full story came out, and it actually wasn’t all that different to what it appeared to be in the first place, though there were a few other factors at play, too.
The fact is, in this instance, Gerstmann didn’t do anything wrong, and Gamespot’s behaviour in this instance was highly irregular for the rest of the industry — so much so that it’s an incident still talked about today, and one which hasn’t been recreated since. And yet somehow we’re still plagued with the assumption that the big gaming sites — and indeed some of the smaller ones — are in cahoots with the publishers, with stacks of cash regularly changing hands in exchange for good review scores. The Cracked piece’s evidence for this was the disparity between Metacritic critic aggregates and user review scores for a variety of popular titles, including Mass Effect 3, Call of Duty Ghosts and a few others — neglecting to take the commonplace practice of “review bombing” into account, whereby Metacritic users deliberately skew their scores in one direction or the other in an attempt to influence the overall user rating. (This also happens on Amazon.)
I can categorically state that any respectable site worth its salt in today’s modern gaming industry is completely independent from developers and publishers, and has no moral or financial obligation to be nice to people. Reviews of video games are the opinion of one or two people at most, and common practice in the industry sees people who are interested in particular genres being given games of that type to review — it makes sense, since they have the specialist knowledge, and giving a game of a particular type to someone who clearly is not experienced in that genre often attracts accusations of bias in the other direction, so sites can’t really win.
Packets of money do not change hands in exchange for review scores. The most contact your average video game journalist has with a publisher during the review process is a couple of emails back and forth requesting review codes, and perhaps another when it’s all over sending a link to the publisher’s PR representative sharing the review. Review events such as the writer of the Cracked piece describes are relatively unusual, and most outlets deliberately eschew these tightly-controlled environments in favour of giving their reviewers adequate time to spend with the game and get a good feel for it, rather than playing edited highlights with a PR person breathing down their neck. These events do occasionally happen, of course, particularly for big games, and they can be useful — Call of Duty events can be a good opportunity to test out the games’ multiplayer modes before the game goes live on public servers, for example — but for the most part, lavish, PR-funded events tend to be for previews rather than reviews, and again, no money exchanges hands. Because why the hell would it?
The Cracked piece is based on a number of completely unsubstantiated assumptions, and on a number of flat-out inaccuracies. Publishers do not pay either outlets or individual reviewers for the right to quote their words on box art or in trailers, for example; nor do any but the most disreputable publications charge publishers for reviews — look at the recent controversy over Indie Game Mag, for example; they’ve since released the person who was attempting to charge for reviews and ditched his policies, since pretty much any games journalist or outlet with any respectability was genuinely shocked and disapproving of what was going on there.
I’ve worked for a number of different magazines and online outlets over the years — both paid and unpaid — and all have been the absolute picture of honour, respectability, professionalism and ethics. Ironically, the rest of the Cracked piece actually made some fair points about the state of the industry in 2013 — though I disagree fundamentally with its core assertion that the industry is teetering on the brink of a crash — but, J.F. Sargent and Dave Williams, your unsubstantiated allegations about the games press are massively disrespectful to those of us who work our arses off every day to bring people the latest news, views and opinions about what’s hot in gaming, and it’s extremely disappointing to see that even after widespread criticism of the Cracked piece today, it still has not been edited, modified or clarified.
Perhaps this is revenge for all the times people have referred to Cracked as lowest-common-denominator Internet clickbait with absolutely no journalistic integrity; unfortunately, pieces like this one today only go to prove that there’s more than an element of truth to those allegations.