A recent blog post by freelance game reviewer Nich Maragos has turned in to a minor public relations debacle for IGN/GameSpy. The post, written early yesterday, indicates Nich's displeasure with edits made to the text and score of his review of Donkey Konga 2 for GameSpy. The article's editor added "an extra star and a half ... from its submitted version, along with several laudatory phrases that I didn’t write and certainly don’t mean," Maragos said in the post. "I hated the game. It’s not a 3/5," he added.
The review has since been taken down and Maragos has updated his post with a conciliatory message, saying that the issue "was resolved pretty quickly after my initial complaint." But what was the issue exactly? And what ramifications does its resolution have on other game reviewers and editors?
"Yes, it was edited, but no, it didn't go beyond the usual editing scope," said GameSpy Editorial Director John Keefer when asked about the changes made to the review. Keefer refused to identify the editor assigned to the review, but noted that the editor "feels terrible about how this happened." The edits were made to correct what the editor saw as too much of a music focus in Maragos' original review, Keefer said. "We scored the orignal game four stars and this new version hasn't changed much aside from some gameplay tweaks and music selection," Keefer said.
While defending his editor's decisions, Keefer also acknowledged some problems with how GameSpy handled the situation. "This was a rare breakdown in communication," he said. "We did not talk to Nich about changes before we made them, a move that goes against our standard policy." Keefer would not reveal the exact wording of the internal policy, but did say that the "common sense" policy "has been addressed with the editor and ... reinforced with the entire staff." GameSpy has "a very open relationship with freelancers and try to address their concerns whenever possible," Keefer said.
For his part, Maragos confirmed in an e-mail that he was no longer angry about the situation. "I felt wronged at the time, but they've done a very quick and exemplary job of addressing the problem, so I'm satisfied. It seems to have just been a communication error."
This attitude seems to have done little to silence Internet message board accusations of advertiser-influenced bias, charges that Keefer vehemently denies.
"We are NOT influenced by ad buys, tech licensing deals, the fact a beta was on FilePlanet or the fact a game may use GameSpy Arcade," Keefer said. "Conspiracy theorists may not want to hear this (or believe it), but editorial integrity demands a separation of church and state. I was in the newspaper business as an editor and writer for 15+ years before coming to the gaming press. That stuff wouldn't fly in the newspaper biz and I try to make darn sure it does not happen here."
What of the removed review? Keefer said that it may be assigned to another writer, but any replacement review would be examined to "see how well the new writer justifies his score." In any case, I think it's safe to say that GameSpy's editors will be very careful not to make any unauthorized edits to that or any other review any time soon.
Watch this space for my personal thoughts on this issue in the coming days.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Does GameSpy ever disclose its business dealings with companies in its reviews? As in, if they use GameSpy as their Internet multiplayer is that prominently featured in the review? Every future Nintendo game should have the disclaimer (GameSpy is providing Internet multiplayer for the next-generation console). It's ugly, but most journalistic entities don't do that much additional work with the companies they cover. If GameSpy was really interested in this wall between edit and business, it would create two seperate companies.
ReplyDelete(CNN always mentions its relationship to Time Warner when covering any of its other properties.)
Also, I wonder how many publications that Erik Wolpaw writes for noted in their Psychonauts review that he worked on the game? I checked Gamespot's review; not a mention.
Lots of ethical lapses in the air...
Well, I guess more proof that game journalism has a bit of catching up left to do before it is on par with general media.
ReplyDeleteWhen I was editor-in-chief of a site, I on occasion would adjust scores or reviews of others. Primarily because one person didn't grasp that we scored by .5 increments, not .1 but also because I felt some reviewers were too generous...that they were practicing grade inflation which I wanted to avoid. Though I do suppose this goes back to the question of whether a review can be wrong.
They provide the same service for PC games. Do all of them also need an asterisk? What about Mario Kart Double Dash?
ReplyDeleteOK, let's review this situation. Freelance reviewer post review. Editor decided to edit the review. Anyone who misses the point here might want a dictionary.
ReplyDeleteI assume that had the review been edited DOWN everyone would praise GameSpy's integrity and such. Truth is, that reviews are edited. Scores are edited. Either up, or down. I can see several reasons why the edit was justified (reviewer "hated" game, review didn't focus on all sides of game, game was MOTS sequel of another game that got a 4 on the site). But that doesn't matter.
Of course the review was taken down. When a reviewer tells the site that he refuses to have his name next to an edited review, that piece will not be published, or, in this case, taken down. Get a grip and find another place to cry wolf.
"But that doesn't matter. "
ReplyDeleteSure it does. If you need to significantly change a writer's opinion, you should pay a kill fee and reassign the article.
I also wonder why the game was assigned out. If one of the internal editors had formed enough of an opinion of the game to say, "It's too low," he should have reviewed the game. If the goal is to maintain consistency with earlier reviews, that noble and all but impossible.
If you just change a rating because you gave an earlier version a better or worse review, you're not trusting your reviewer. It may be MOTS, but maybe it has tweaks that make it better. Or worse.
As far as I'm concerned, you should only edit ratings when the text and rating don't match. You pay a freelancer to get his or her opinion; if you feel that opinion is "wrong," you kill the article and reassign it.
"Of course the review was taken down."
I think most people think that it should never have been posted in the first place.
"They provide the same service for PC games. Do all of them also need an asterisk? What about Mario Kart Double Dash?"
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely. Well, maybe not an asterisk, but at least those with built-in GameSpy browsing should be noted on both the GameSpy and IGN sites. (And maybe they do.)
To put it another way, maybe Mr. Keefer should be asked if the editorial part of GameSpy has ever criticized the GameSpy matchmaking service in a review. Despite this supposed wall, I'd be very surprised if they'd find it kosher if it said, "The GameSpy matchmaking service comes up short, lacking X, Y, and Z." You see that in other reviews from time-to-time.
But if a review from GameSpy or IGN praises multiplayer and doesn't mention a relationship between the parent company and the developer/publisher in developing said multiplayer, that's a serious ethical lapse.
I wanted to add...having played Donkey Konga, a 1.5 out of 5 is absolutely WRONG for DK2. So yeah, I've decided reviews can be wrong. 1.5s are scores that should be saved for crap like Tarzan Untamed, not for solidly made, if not amazing productions like Donkey Konga 2.
ReplyDelete"We are NOT influenced by ad buys." That's pretty damn funny. I know for a fact that their Senior Editor went ballistic after his review score was changed to keep an advetriser happy.
ReplyDelete"If one of the internal editors had formed enough of an opinion of the game ... he should have reviewed the game."
ReplyDeleteBut that's not feasable. A reviewer has one game to review, the Editor has an entire site to take care of.
That editor _should_ have an opinion about games, and he _should_ know and compare reviews. If reviewer X says a game is just a remake and gives it 2, the site can't have another review that says the same and gives a 4. Consistency is what the reader is looking for. I read site/magazine X because that publication's reviews apply to my taste. The only way to maintain that is to make sure reviews are consistent. That's why every publication have submission guides and rules, if you don't apply to them, you get edited, or canned. And that's what Editors are all about. Again, assume for the sake of argument that the reviewer would've given the game a 5/5 score and the editor would've edit it down to 3.5, would everyone be screaming "ethics"? I think not.
I agree, and so did GameSpy that the review should'nt have been published in the first place, and that's why it was removed. That was the mistake they made, not editing the review.
"That editor _should_ have an opinion about games, and he _should_ know and compare reviews."
ReplyDeleteMy point was only that in order to have that opinion, I assume the editor has actually played the game enough to form said opinion.
If an editor is going to overrule a writer to the extent of significantly changing a review score or altering his or her opinion, it has to be one from a significant amount of play; at least as much as the writer. And if you put in that much time, you might as well review it yourself.
"If reviewer X says a game is just a remake and gives it 2, the site can't have another review that says the same and gives a 4."
Why not? I assume there's more to the review than that one sentence, so as long as each writer justifies his or her opinion, I don't really get the problem.
If you're going to use multiple freelancers, you will never have consistency. It's a noble goal, but if you try to force that on your publication, you're essentially creating one that reflects the editor's opinion, not those of the those of a staff of writers. And I'd personally rather have more opinions than fewer ones.
I'd say that Gamespot is an example of a site that does a lot of work at keeping its reviews very consistent. Read 10 reviews there; you'd be hard pressed to tell them apart. There's little room for the writers to breathe. They have to cover X, Y, and Z, and they usually do it in a very specific order. And the ratings all seem to fall into a very narrow range. Gamespot is a nice resource, but it's certainly not an entertaining read.
"That's why every publication have submission guides and rules, if you don't apply to them, you get edited, or canned."
Well, sure. But I'm pretty sure most sites/magazines don't get specific, like, "Look at our past reviews of the series and make sure your score is more in line."
"Again, assume for the sake of argument that the reviewer would've given the game a 5/5 score and the editor would've edit it down to 3.5, would everyone be screaming "ethics"? I think not."
Probably not. But the writer might still have been pissed.
It's like this, folks: Writers write. Editors edit. If you want your work untouched, don't submit it for publication to another outlet. Keep your fierce independence, post your reviews on your blogs, and pray someone reads them while you starve to death.
ReplyDeleteIf, however, you want to be a paid professional in the industry--and judging from the arrogance I see slung around this and other blogs by people who barely work in the industry--I'd say it's time to accept that everything you say isn't golden and that a publication has the right to alter your work as it sees fit. They are paying you, and that's part of the deal. If you don't like it, return the check and get back to work. Those fries aren't going to cook themselves.