The Cut Scene - Video Game Blog by Variety

Speed Racer, Echochrome, more reviews debate to enjoy while I'm prepping a huge story

Sorry for the relative quiet, but I'm working on a really big story that will be going online. Trust me, this is the kind of thing Variety does best. You guys will be grateful I put the time into it. Plus there will be a related interview with one of the big names involved available exclusively here on The Cut Scene.

Meanwhile, here are some things to enjoy...

-Brian Crecente review Warner Bros.' "Speed Racer" videogame for Variety. He says it's a viscerally fun racing title for the Wii, but doesn't have much of the movie/TV show's personality.

-Tom Chick reviews "Echochrome" for Variety. He loves how the game flips the perspective that players are used to, but finds that playing it for too long is frustrating and, quite literally, headache inducing.

-On MTV's Multilayer blog, Stephen Totilo asks whether critics have to "finish" a game in order to write a fair review and includes some questions about me and my "GTA IV" review.

Me on X-Play discussing exclusive reviews

I was on G4's X-Play yesterday discussing the "exclusive reviews" issue that has become such a hot topic since I criticized IGN recently. The other interviewee was GamePro's Chris Morell, who's obviously not there to defend IGN, but provides some enthusiast press perspective, plus a really smoking '80s style collar flipped up look. (Whereas I, like always, look like a major dork)

IGN just provided a statement to defend their reviews policy:

THQ sold $1 billion of Nickelodeon games? We've known that for three months

Just because a publisher issues a press release doesn't mean we have to print it as news.

Case in point: THQ brags in a press release headline that "THQ's Nickelodeon Portfolio Surpasses Billion Dollar Mark as Company Announces Extensive New Lineup for 2008." The same day, numerous game websites run stories with a headline focused on that $1 billion number. They include Kotaku, Joystiq, 1up, IGN, GameDaily, the Escapist, GameIndustry.biz, and probably plenty of others. (Note: I'm not including sites that just reprint press releases, clearly labeled as such, with no introduction or comment.)

For the record, that's old news. THQ announced that in February as part of its last earnings report, when it stated, "During the quarter, total lifetime Nickelodeon franchise net sales surpassed $1 billion..."

I understand why THQ wants to re-emphasize that fact as it unveils its new slate of Nick games, but I don't think journalists should be re-printing it as exciting news.

Just as importantly, nobody should be taking it as evidence that THQ's Nick games are doing great (as several of the sites linked above did). Along with that February earnings report, THQ CEO Brian Farrell said on a conference call with analysts that "In a very competitive year for kids titles, ‘Ratatouille’ and our Nickelodeon titles did not perform to forecast." (As I wrote on this blog at the time.)

So, THQ revealed the details on its upcoming NIckelodeon-based games. There's the actual news.

IGN: We trade editorial placement for exclusive reviews that benefit us

I'm really not the type to get into feuds, but I'm also not the type to abandon my positions or to let a public insult go unanswered.

Which is why, of course, I have to address IGN's response in GameDaily to my post about the ethical problems with "exclusive reviews." Particularly since their response was simultaneously so paltry and also so revealing about exactly why this practice is really troubling.

It also ties in nicely to some reporting I've been doing on this subject, which I'll be including in this post, along with responses to some other questions I've been getting.

But first, what IGN told GameDaily:

[VP of games content Tal] Blevins made sure to point out the benefits of such premiers to IGN's readers. "We really want to try to get our reviews up the day of release or preferably a couple of days before so people can read our reviews before hand and use that information to make a purchase decision."

This has nothing to do with exclusivity. IGN could get its review up on release day or a few days before without negotiating a deal to do so exclusively. How would its readers be hurt if other websites also put up their review at the same time? The only people benefiting from IGN doing so exclusively are IGN and its advertisers.

The following comments taken from GameDaily are by Hilary Goldstein, who's editor-in-chief of IGN's Xbox channel and wrote the "GTA IV" review in question:

My position as editor-in-chief in the Xbox channel is to actually try to get [exclusive reviews]. It's not like somebody kinda calls you up and says, "Hey, we have the exclusive on this." It's my job to actually secure that. And that's just constantly being in contact with PR...

If you looked at our site, that entire week was all GTA tops on IGN.com, which was something we'd never done before. So it was an entire week leading to the review. That's how we get exclusives of any kind. We have real estate which is the placement of a story and that's what we negotiate with. Whether it's news or features or reviews, our bargaining chip is to basically say, "I will put it here if you let me have this." So we basically gave them top on IGN.com for five days, which is a huge deal, and that, to my understanding, is what sold it...

For us on the 360 side we have more than twenty stories that go up every day and we only have ten spots that editorial can place them in each day. That's, basically, our bargaining chip. If you want something to be seen and the higher you want it to be seen, we want the exclusive out of it. That's pretty much how we got the review. It's not that the review wouldn't have been topped if we put it up on Sunday with everybody else, but it was more that we were going to give them a lot of exposure leading into the review.

OK, so Goldstein has just admitted two things. 1) Before writing the review, he spent six months negotiating with the company whose product he was reviewing to get an exclusive on it. Which makes the whole thing even more troubling. Even though he didn't promise a good review, he was the person most involved in horse trading with Rockstar in order to get the benefit they granted him of an early embargo on his review. So it's not just IGN overall in an ethically troubling position of negotiating for favors before a review, it's the actual person who reviewed the game.

2) IGN trades editorial placement in order to get exclusive reviews. Goldstein admitted it with, apparently, no shame. So when you go to IGN.com and you see content at the top of the page, don't be under the mistaken impression that it's necessarily what the editors think is most newsworthy or interesting. It could just be something they gave away so that they could get an early embargo and a traffic boost over the competition on something else down the pike.

To address an obvious criticism somebody will probably bring up: Yes, of course, all publications including Variety tend to give better placement to exclusive news stories. And we all as reporters endeavor to keep our scoops exclusive. A reporter has some interest in keeping a story exclusive as a reward for his or her hard work in finding out the news. But no legitimate publication or professional journalist I know of ever guarantees placement. Even in the occasional situation when I get "offered" an exclusive by a source, if I choose to take them up on it, the story ends up where the editors choose to put it.

Back to Goldstein:

To me, my problem with online journalism in general is that nobody does their due diligence. Nobody from Variety called us and said, "Hey, would you like to comment about this?"

Because it was an opinion piece. Not a reported piece. I knew all the relevant information and was offering my perspective. As is evidenced in this interview, there is nothing IGN could have told me that I didn't already know.

So if Variety didn't get the game early then you're looking at somebody, I don't know, who had a grudge on his shoulder because he didn't even have the game yet and we'd already put out the review. He says in blog post, "If I had the game right now I would have broken the embargo." To me that goes against your ethics.

Surely this is a joke. But for the record: As a mature adult, I am capable of making arguments that are not driven by personal grudges. It would be nice if those responding to me were mature enough to address my actual point without making a personal accusation.

And my ethic, by the way, is that I only agree to an embargo if it's the same embargo that every other publication is adhering to. Once somebody else goes, I go. It's that simple. I don't know any other professional journalists who disagree. You may piss off a source for a little while, but you get more respect from readers (which, incidentally) ultimately makes you a publication that sources are more interested in working with anyway).

Goldstein again:

And of course we gave it a 10. But so did everyone else. There's not a person out there, even in the complaints, nobody said "this game is awful and IGN's giving it a 10." Everybody said that this game is brilliant. So what? Instead of telling people, "get the game" we were telling them "really get the game." It's sort of nit picky.

OK, so, obviously this guy missed the point. To repeat myself: "I'm not saying that 'GTA IV' doesn't deserve a 10." I have a problem with the concept of an exclusive review, regardless of what the conclusion is.

And guess what? Turns out I'm not the only one. I checked in with the folks at Ziff Davis (1UP/EGM) and here's what James Mielke, editor-in-chief for videogames, told me in an email:

[W]e do not actively pursue exclusive reviews with publishers, despite the windfalls we may reap in terms of online traffic or newsstand sales. This is something we did, admittedly, at one point pursue, but have decided to withdraw from as of the last couple of years for various reasons...

As the years passed, more and more publishers started getting bolder, offering us exclusive reviews of certain games they held in high regard, but only if we could guarantee scores of a certain grade or higher. We politely declined. The downside, however, was that certain competing publications accepted these offers, which not only undermined what every other enthusiast publisher like Ziff-Davis was doing in regards to our editorial integrity, but were also very sloppy in keeping that information quiet. Once word got out that various gaming publications were essentially 'for sale,' it became impossible for us to negotiate deals of this kind any more, for fear of guilt by association. Occasionally, a publisher will let us run a review online earlier than other websites, but there are never any guarantees or promises made as a result. Plus, we never go after them.

What about IGN's other big competitor, GameSpot? Here's what Justin Calvert recently wrote on their reviews blog:

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 [emphasis mine] 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.

So, EGM/1Up and GameSpot and (to the extent anyone cares) Variety agree. I think the question now is: How do gamers feel? Are they annoyed that the publications they trust for news and information trade away their editorial space in exchange for exclusive reviews that benefit them and not their readers? Is it at all disturbing that the same individual who spends months engaging in that exact horse trading is then the one who sits down to write a review that's supposed to be objective and unbiased? Do they think they would benefit if any and every publication had the same embargo and just competed on how good their reviews are?

If the answer is "yes," I think gamers should let their opinions be heard by IGN and GameInformer and whoever else engages in these practices. That's my opinion as a gamer, anyway. I've obviously done so (perhaps at greater length than anyone cares).

Finally, to address some questions/criticisms that have been sent my way:

-What's your problem with Rockstar? Are you just mad that you didn't get a copy earlier? And after they gave you all that time to talk to Dan Houser... How ungrateful!

This has nothing to do with Rockstar. Its publicists have every right to give copies of their game and set embargoes in the way that best serves their goals. It's not Rockstar's, or any publisher's, job to defend journalistic ethics. That's a job for journalists and readers.

And for the record, Rockstar was nice enough to get me a copy last Friday, which was perfectly adequate to get my review done by Tuesday (even if I didn't sleep a lot in the 3.5 intervening days).

-Variety and its partner Reelz Channel ran a video review of "Iron Man" that they advertised as "first." Hypocrite! Hypocrite!!!

There is a difference between "exclusive" and "first." Variety has a long tradition of running reviews well before films open because our readers are traditionally industry professionals, not regular people wondering whether it's worth seeing (though that's changing somewhat on the Web).

But we don't do so by negotiating with a studio for an early embargo. In fact, the Hollywood Reporter typically runs its movie reviews on the same day as Variety. Sometimes they even beat us. Consumer media, on the other hand, typically don't want to run a movie review before opening day, because that's when their readers are most interested (obviously some weekly TV shows, like "Ebert and Roeper," go a little earlier). We compete with them by trying to attend every festival and screening that we can, not by trading favors with one of the companies that we cover. Sometimes, one of our film critics just told me, we break embargoes when we feel like we have a good reason. And yet, somehow, Variety survives.

Matt Damon is a hypocrite! (according to one website quoting another website quoting a videogame developer who never talked to Damon)

Here's a great post from veteran videogames writer and regular Variety reviewer Tom Chick about how shaky allegations spread through videogame websites and blogs.

I don't want to steal Tom's thunder -- you should really read his post -- but he's basically pointing out that the whole thing started with an MTV Multi-player post reporting that an employee at High Moon Studios said Matt Damon isn't in their "Bourne Conspiracy" game because he objected to the violence.  Then Kotaku and Blue's News both "reported" (and I use the term very loosely) that Matt is "OK With Movie Violence, Not OK With Game Violence." (I should note that Blue's News later apologized. Which is very admirable.)

MTV at least talked to someone who it believed had spoken to Damon (though it later turned out the person hadn't), but Kotaku and any others who went off its post are making allegations about the actor's position on media violence based on what another website said somebody at a developer said about why Damon didn't want to be in his videogame.

Most importantly, Tom writes, "nowhere in this train wreck of a telephone game does Matt Damon ever say he's not OK with game violence! Furthermore, he doesn't even say he's okay with movie violence. You'll note that Jason Bourne kills relatively few people, and he certainly doesn't shoot them. In fact, he takes pains to disarm his opponents and throw away their guns."

Now, based on a Boston Globe interview that MTV later linked to, it does seem Damon shares his childhood development expert mother's concerned about the impact of media violence on young kids and that played a role in his decision not to appear in the game. But as Tom says, without somebody talking to Damon directly, all we've got is hearsay and implications. And the result is vague headlines and accusations of, as Kotaku wrote, a "double standard." Classy.

Exclusive reviews are ethically troubling

IGN.com just came out with its review of "Grand Theft Auto IV" and it's a perfect 10 rave.

I want to note up front that I haven't played much of "GTA IV" yet, so I have absolutely no basis to claim it's not a 10. The bits of it I have seen in previews are really good. So I'm not at all accusing IGN of being dishonest in this particular case.

HOWEVER... what the hell is with the concept of an "exclusive review?" Is anyone else as troubled by this entire concept as I am?

I just got an email from an IGN publicist titled "FYI: Exclusive GTA IV Review @ IGN.com, scores 10" alerting me that "IGN.com, the Web’s leading videogame and entertainment information destination, has posted the first and only review of Grand Theft Auto IV." I'm reminded of when Game Informer ran an exclusive review of "Mass Effect" a few weeks before any other outlet and gave that game a 9.75. I was shocked since I really didn't think "Mass Effect" was that great (and said as much in my review), but of course it's very possible that the Game Informer folks just disagreed with me and that's well within their rights.

(Though I have to say I still found the Game Informer review problematic, since they gave "Mass Effect" an almost perfect score despite noting that "most of the skirmishes, which begin and end in the blink of an eye, run into balancing issues, problematic AI, and a difficulty in comprehending what is transpiring" and "it controls admirably, but it doesn’t live up to the large stage the story sets or the standards you’ve come to expect from action games and RPGs." Those are pretty significant faults.)

However, anyone who knows anything about videogame journalism knows that when an outlet gets a review copy of a game, they agree to an embargo -- not to run their review before anyone else. In these cases, Game Informer and IGN.com clearly got permission from Microsoft and Rockstar, respectively, to run their reviews before any other outlet. And it means they got their copy of the game pretty damned early in order to have the review ready to run early.

Of course, once one outlet runs a review, nobody else feels beholden to an embargo and they probably start running their reviews soon. So I expect we'll start seeing more "GTA IV" reviews popping up on websites over the weekend. (Having only gotten my copy today, you won't see one in Variety for another few days).

But being the first outlet to review a highly anticipated new videogame is a big deal. It means a major boost in Web traffic or magazine sales. Anybody who cares about "GTA IV" has probably read the IGN review already, or will very soon. And every major videogame blog is probably linking to it. I have already had several friends e-mail it to me and of course here I am writing about it.

So, we have a situation where a publisher gives a videogame website or magazine a major commercial advantage by providing an early copy of the game and an early embargo so they can run the "exclusive review." This probably results in more magazine sales or Web traffic and thus more revenue.

So, again, I'm not saying that "GTA IV" doesn't deserve a 10, or "Mass Effect" its 9.75. But how can we trust a videogame review when the outlet running it has been given a major commercial favor -- one that's worth money -- from the publisher of the game? You never see a paper or TV station getting special access from a movie studio or TV network or book publisher to run an "exclusive review." Imagine the L.A. Times or Roger Ebert touting their "exclusive review of 'Iron Man.'" Absurd, right? So why do we tolerate it for a videogame?

Exclusive reviews are really ethically troubling, for all the reasons I've outlined above. And I'll state it flat out: I personally don't trust any review labeled "exclusive." Is anyone else as disturbed by this practice as I am?

(I should note that, of course, every videogame publication and lots of newspapers, including my own, run "exclusive" news and feature stories that sometimes result from cooperation with a company. But I consider reviews  to be an entirely different beast. Even if a company cooperated on a news or feature story, the facts are still the facts. You can't report something that's incorrect <and still be doing your job, at least>. But reviews are entirely subjective, so if a critic is being influenced inappropriately in any way, the whole thing is worthless even though we as readers can't prove there's anything "wrong.")

Update (4/26): Perhaps I was wrong about one thing. Even though IGN ran its review yesterday, nobody else seems to have one up. Not even IGN's biggest competitors GameSpot and 1UP . Apparently they're all waiting on an embargo that Kotaku says is tomorrow (Sunday) morning. That truly blows my mind. In my world, if I had a story or review ready to go and was waiting on an embargo, the minute somebody else ran the same review or story, I would run mine. If a publisher or studio or whatever gave me a later embargo, tough sh*t. Any self-respecting publication with a "Grand Theft Auto IV" review ready should be running it now. If mine was ready, I know I would. (Mini-preview: I've been playing it a while and it's really good. But it's not 10/10 "best since 'Ocarina of Time'" good. It does have faults.)

Why are videogame journalists being treated like overgrown 10 year-olds?

Wow, now this is a serious marketing stunt. I'm not really sure how I feel about a videogame publisher and its PR agency going to such elaborate lengths, though. Sierra and its team sent the guy a mysterious cell phone and then took three hours out of his life to drive him all the way around San Francisco, show off some content from "The Bourne Conspiracy," and then give him a sh*tload of schwag, some of which was disturbingly personalized (because, you know, he's a secret agent now. Just like Jason Bourne!).

But there's obviously no legitimate reason to put a journalist in a  luxury car, drive him on an indirect route, take him to a rented warehouse, and give him "a mini-backpack[,] a flashlight, a 2gig USB drive hidden in a black rubber bracelet, a Sony MP3 player containing some of the music from the game, a game fact sheet/booklet and of course the case itself which looks like it would comfortably fit an Xbox 360" along with "a dossier on me that included my name, known associates and habits" and "four large black and white photos [taken of him that day]." Schwag is schwag, but isn't this really ridiculous and over the top? (picture of it all on the left)

I mean this as absolutely no disrespect for the writer at hand, Flynn Demarco, who I'm sure is an upstanding guy and a good journalist, etc. etc. But... aren't stunts like this a tad bit insulting to gamers and game writers? Sure, some of us write for publications that are unapologetically not just for fans, but by fans. And there's nothing wrong with that. But we're also supposed to be journalists.

This isn't something that serves a legitimate purpose for a journalist, however. It's a fanboy fantasy come true, as evidenced by the kotaku fanboy comments like "I wish stuff like that happened to me :)" and "Flynn, you lucky bastard, you might have the coolest job on earth."

And yes, other entertainment journalists get wined and dined in their own ways and get plenty of schwag. But with the exception of the infamous "Pearl Harbor" premiere aboard an aircraft carrier, I've never heard of something so absurdly time wasting and insulting to a mature professional as this. I highly doubt it's how Roger Ebert or A.O. Scott or Joe Morgenstern were escorted to a screening of "The Bourne Ultimatum."

I would obviously never get in a car sent to me by strangers for no discernible purpose, but if somehow I did get suckered into this, I would be pissed. That's 3 hours out of my life for an event that substantively should only take one hour, if not for the accoutrements made to razzle and dazzle me. Don't we all have stuff to do with our time? Like our jobs? I can just imagine the reaction of my editors if I explained that I took the afternoon off to go on a pretend spy mission. Let's just say I wouldn't be writing this blog on variety.com anymore.

Now, of course, I don't write for a fan publication and so this wouldn't happen to me. But as a fan myself and a reader of publications like Kotaku, I'm a bit weirded out, if not offended. Can't publishers have the confidence to just present their wares without treating journalists like overgrown 10 year-olds? And shouldn't videogame writers demand to be treated like, ummm, adults?

[Before anyone accuses me of being a cranky codger, I should note that I'd love to go on a fake spy adventure. Sounds totally rad. But I'd want to do it as leisure, not "work." Speaking of which, based on the overwhelmingly positive reactions in the Kotaku comments, I highly recommend that Sierra create some kind of a contest giving a few lucky fans a super spy adventure just like this for a day.]

Update (4/13): Joystiq apparently went on the exact same ridiculous ego-stroking fanboy marketing stunt game demo. And they too wrote it up without an ounce of irony.

Update (later in the day on 4/13): Joystiq's Chris Grant argues that this counts as irony in their recounting of the adventure. I think that's more irony about the embargo than the ridiculousness of the whole event, but still, it should be noted:

The game looks [REDACTED] with all sorts of [REDACTED] action and [REDACTED] moments. You play as [REDACTED], a [REDACTED], who is trying to [REDACTED], with all kinds of [REDACTED] trying to stop him*.

Those wacky videogame journalists

You know you're in an interesting profession when you arrive at a preview of Sega's upcoming "Iron Man" and "Incredible Hulk" videogames (more on those later) at Marvel's Los Angeles offices and one of the 20 or so other journalists there for the event has show up -- at Marvel's offices, I must again repeat -- wearing a Spider-Man t-shirt.

Now that's maturity, professionalism, and a total lack of awkwardness.

And no, I didn't get the sense there was any irony involved.

With great love for a video game journalist comes great responsibility

I was all set to make fun of this story in GameDaily titled "Love in the time of Game Journalism" since, really, who cares about the love lives of game journalists except maybe other game journalists?

But upon reading it I'm man enough to admit that it's kind of interesting to consider how weird it is to be dating or married to someone who plays an obsessive amount of video games for a living, but probably also loves games and would be nerding out to a significant extent regardless. How much can you complain and how much can you be supportive?

Only part of my career is game journalist, and it's for a non-enthusiast publication at that, but even still I'm more than tired of the jokes about how I "have to play this game because I have a deadline, baby." On the other hand, I understand the awkwardness my profession can cause for my wife. Mainly because when we have company over and they see four game consoles, two of which are the same (my own 360 and a debug), dozens of games, a rock band kid and guitar hero guitar, etc., they understandably assume I'm the normal kind of person who would have all that crap, which is an obsessive gamer. Then if we explain that I get most of it for free and that I play for pay, that sets off the same round of annoying jokes.

In other words, I don't think dating is particularly hard if you have a modicum of social skills and can overcome the stereotype of someone who plays video games for a living (though let's be honest stereotypes exist for a reason and many game journalists in my experience fit this one). But explaining your career to strangers is an annoying extra burden that the significant other has to shoulder.

(Photo is the ultimate gift to buy that special game journalist you're trying to woo.)

Gears of War 2... Who cares if it has been "announced?"

It's time for the video game industry to get over its obsession with titles being officially "announced."

Let's get real. Barring global catastrophe, there is going to be a "Gears of War 2." I know people who have seen levels being built for the game. People who work at Microsoft have casually referred to a "Gears" sequel in conversations with me as if it's obvious and not a big deal. But of course we all know it's coming. What are the odds that a multi-million selling action title published by a console manufacturer as an exclusive wouldn't get a sequel? About the same as Mike Gravel sweeping the primary elections today.

Nonetheless, videogame websites and blogs are abuzz today because the latest issue of GamePro teases a "Gears of War 2" story on the cover. "'Gears of War 2' officially confirmed?" is the urgent question in GameSpot's "rumor patrol." Then everyone followed up with "breaking news" follow-ups like this one on GamesIndustry: "Gears of War 2 announcement "complete nonsense.'"

Treating an official announcement as "news" is just another way that the gaming press allows publishers and publicists to control them. Imagine if political reporters refused to say last year that any of the candidates were running until they made their official announcement speech? Or if TV reporters treated it as a big deal when ABC announces that "Grey's Anatomy" will be back next fall. It's ridiculous, so why do we tolerate it in the videogame world?

The working assumption in every story should be that "Gears of War 2" is in the works. It's a fact and should be reported as such. If and when Epic/Microsoft shares details about the game, then sure, that's interesting. And maybe that'll happen as soon as GDC in two weeks. But someone official saying the game is coming, or saying they haven't made any announcements yet, is not news. If game journalists and players want to incentivize publishers to stop treating us like idiots, we should completely ignore the existence or non-existence of an "announcement."

(Oh, and if you're wondering when "Gears 2" will come out, consider this fact: When New Line got the rights to make "Gears of War" movie, producers said they are aiming for a summer 2009 release. Who knows if that will happen given the writers' strike and other development issues, but my guess is they'd love to come out the same year as the game sequel.)