There's been a bit of a controversy over the last few days about a review of Savage that Gamespot ran and then yanked.

I haven't played Savage, and don't intend to comment on its merits, or lack thereof, as the case may be. It's an RTS/FPS hybrid, in which most players play in FPS mode, but their commander has an overhead view of the battlefield, and plays an RTS game, building structures at which the players can gain new equipment and ammo and such. This strikes me as a good idea--again, whether or not the idea is well executed or not, I'm not in a position to say.

The review, or at least the first page of it, can be founded archived by Google here. Gamespot's explanation for why they yanked the review can be found here.

Evidently, the substance of the complaints from the publisher (iGames, which owns S2, the developer of Savage--basically, the game is self-published) is that they know the reviewer's ID, and that ID only spent a few hours in the game. This, they claim, is inadequate to really get into and appreciate the game's quality.

On the one hand, I've been on the receiving end of some sharp--and, in some cases, I felt, unreasonable -- reviews. Computer Gaming World gave Evolution, one of my games, something like a 30%. (Computer Games liked it, though.) I whined a fair bit to my buddy Johnny Wilson, then CGW's editor, but he basically told me to stuff it, even though I've been known to buy him a single malt or two. The bastard.

On the other hand, I've certainly poked people (sometimes the wrong people) in the eye with a sharp stick (metaphorically speaking), and I've appreciated editors who've stuck by me even under pressure (hi, Jason).

But here's the thing:

1. As originally reported on the DiGRA listserv, the game was rated a 5.4 out of 10; at least per the Google archive, it was actually rated 6.7. This isn't stellar, but it's respectable. If I'd been the publisher, I don't I'd have wanted to make a fuss.

2. Typically, a reviewer gets $200-$300 for a game review. Yeah, I know, by the standards of science fiction, that's a fair bit of change for a 750-1250 word piece (short science fiction typically earns 7 cents a word)--but look at it from a freelance writer's perspective. To make a bare subsistence living, you'd have to write 100 fucking game reviews every year. The reality is that you get a game to review, you jam the disc in, you play it for a bit--probably not more than a few hours, unless it really grabs you and you WANT to play it more than that--and then you bash out some words.

That's all the publisher expects, and that's all they can reasonably expect. The readers may have inflated ideas of the commitment of the people who write for the zine, but more fools they.

This is not a problem limited to game zines (or game websites which, I imagine, pay on the lower end of the scale). It's endemic; Publishers fucking Weekly pays $200-$300 per review. And careers can be made or broken on the results.


So.... iGames bitched to Gamespot, and because they log usage and knew the fellow's ID (presumably because he was comped because he was a reviewer) they could actually prove that the poor sucker had only played the game for an hour or two.

Personally, it rarely takes me an hour to decide a game sucks. Or rocks. It's only the ones in between that might take more time for me to judge. Albeit, if I love a game, I'll play it for a long time, both because I love it, and because I want to figure out why. And that might make for an informed review--but reviews inherently aren't informed. There isn't a zine (or website) in the field that publishes intelligent informed game criticism; bare reviews are all we can expect. (A rant for another time, perhaps.)

So... I almost don't care how long this guy took to form his opinion. He formed his opinion, he wrote it up for whatever pittance Gamespot pays, and that was all that could reasonably be expected of any professional in this field, given what a pittance they are paid.

Then iGames looked at the log, said "Gotcha!" and whined to Gamespot. In iGames's position, I might have done the same. I mean, how often do you actually get the goods on these guys? And they had the logs to prove it.

Where I start to assign some blame is with Gamespot. They know how the system works. They were evidently adequately satisfied with the work of their writer to publish it in the first place. Surely they know that their writers do not play every game to exhaustion before writing a thoughtful review, informed by vast experience with the artform of game design and a career exploring the possible in this nascent and exciting field, a critical essay that will withstand the storms of time and someday stand as a shining examplar of the game critic's art....

Hardly. They commissioned the review, knowing full well that this guy would take his coupla hundred smackers, spend a few hours with the sucker, and turn out readable English prose. That's all they, or anyone, can reasonably expect.

Gamespot should have stood by their man.

Sez I.


posted by Greg at 8:47 PM 9 comments