Topic: Journalism Reform is here!!! Bloggers beware!!

[vudu]

We get virtually all of our games for free.  There are cases where somebody will review a game that they've bought and we didn't get a review copy, but that's pretty rare.

Pale bought his own copy of Kingdom Hearts 358/2 Days.  I wonder how this will affect his review?  Who am I kidding?  Kingdom Hearts could murder his first born and he'd still give a 9.0.

[GoldenPhoenix]

We get virtually all of our games for free.  There are cases where somebody will review a game that they've bought and we didn't get a review copy, but that's pretty rare.

Pale bought his own copy of Kingdom Hearts 358/2 Days.  I wonder how this will effect his review?  Who am I kidding?  Kingdom Hearts could murder his first born and he'd still give a 9.0.

Kingdom Hearts can never be bad, that is the truth.

[EasyCure]

We get virtually all of our games for free.  There are cases where somebody will review a game that they've bought and we didn't get a review copy, but that's pretty rare.

Pale bought his own copy of Kingdom Hearts 358/2 Days.  I wonder how this will effect his review?  Who am I kidding?  Kingdom Hearts could murder his first born and he'd still give a 9.0.

Kingdom Hearts can never be bad, that is the truth.

I've honestly never seen the appeal...

[Nick DiMola]

Chiming in on this, PixlBit is *mostly* getting games for free with the exception of a copy here or there that we've purchased with the sole intent of review.

Basically like Jon said, myself, Chessa, and Neal have been able to call contacts we've already established, informed them of our move, and ask them for multiplatform review copies.

As far as disclosure, I'd have no problem making a report available announcing each and every product we've received from publishers. Generally speaking, people deserve to know, and I think that making that information available is in everybody's best interest.

Finally, I don't feel that receiving or not receiving a review copy sways our opinion (PixlBit and NWR included) in the least. At the end of the day, all we are looking to do is provide coverage. We don't care about hurting publishers feelings and would never write a good review for a bad game just to appease someone. As former PR Manager I can attest to the fact that I had to email links to very scathing reviews published by the site, and in the end no one really had anything to say about it. They know whether the game is good or bad well before they put the game in the mail. The only instances where I've seen an averse reaction is with indy or start up developers who are unbelievably tied to their product and are unable to see past the flaws and shortcomings.

[BlackNMild2k1]

So Mr. DiMola.... how many millions would you say NWR has made from money hats from the publishers for ummm favorable reviews and things of that sort?

[Nick DiMola]

I'll let you know when I'm done counting.

[mac<censored>]

Kingdom Hearts can never be bad, that is the truth.

I've honestly never seen the appeal...

Isn't that the game where you can kill Mickey, again, and again, and again...?

[EasyCure]

Kingdom Hearts can never be bad, that is the truth.

I've honestly never seen the appeal...

Isn't that the game where you can kill Mickey, again, and again, and again...?

Nope. I'm so uninterested in anything Micky/Disney related that even killing the little bastard (or any one of those other toons) can garner my attention.

[broodwars]

Kingdom Hearts can never be bad, that is the truth.

I've honestly never seen the appeal...

Isn't that the game where you can kill Mickey, again, and again, and again...?

No, it isn't.

[vudu]

Finally, I don't feel that receiving or not receiving a review copy sways our opinion (PixlBit and NWR included) in the least. At the end of the day, all we are looking to do is provide coverage.

But don't you think that if you review a 5-hour game that you had a blast with--say, MadWorld--your ultimate opinion of the game is going to be influenced by whether or not you had to pay for the game?  If you dropped $50 on it you might be pretty pissed off that you beat the game in one night, whereas if you didn't pay anything for it you probably wouldn't mind quite as much.

[Nick DiMola]

Well in my honest opinion I believe the example you gave comes down to the way a game is reviewed.

It needs to be understood that there is a difference between a review and a recommendation. If you notice on PixlBit, we have both. NWR has both as well, but typically you'll need to skip to the last paragraph to read it.

A review needs to assess the game from a critical standpoint, taking cost completely out of the equation, whereas a recommendation can explore the value that a game provides. MadWorld is a great example of the differences. From a critical standpoint, it was in Neal's opinion that it was a very well made game. When looking at it from a recommendation standpoint, you can recommend that people only rent the game rather than buy it.

I think it's hard to get that perspective actually without getting the game for free. Had you paid for it, you could go the direction of Ian where you might force yourself to like it because you spent so much, or you could dislike it more because you felt ripped off. In an environment where you have nothing to gain or lose, you are able to give the most evenhanded evaluation. But I will definitely say that it's very important to understand the difference between a review and recommendation. People have tended to blur the lines of the two concepts (understandably so), but you should never base a purchase directly on a score.

[UncleBob]

A review needs to assess the game from a critical standpoint, taking cost completely out of the equation, whereas a recommendation can explore the value that a game provides.

I don't think you can so easily separate those two though. If you did, you'd have to review Virtual Console, WiiWare, and full-fledged Wii titles on the same scale.  You can't though.  No one expects to enjoy Super Mario Bros. the same way that they enjoyed Super Mario Galaxy - one's $5 and one's $50.

Look at it this way...  SMG was a great game, right?

Now, pretend it was the exact same game, but Nintendo was selling it to everyone for $5.

Do you not think that should be factored into the review?  I mean, when games are reviewed, they get compared to earlier games and similar games (including those on other systems) - can't you compare the price as a part of the quality?

In an environment where you have nothing to gain or lose, you are able to give the most evenhanded evaluation.

But we're not in a "Nothing to gain or lose" situation when publishers are giving out free copies of games.  You stand to lose future gifts if you tick off the publisher.

However, if you have to base your review of the game off the exact same criteria the majority of your audience will be viewing it from (i.e.: spending $50-$60 on it), you have nothing more to lose than your audience does.  I mean, you're going to review a game with "nothing to lose", yet those reading the review have $50-$60 to lose.

[Nick DiMola]

But we're not in a "Nothing to gain or lose" situation when publishers are giving out free copies of games.  You stand to lose future gifts if you tick off the publisher.

Like I said, this is untrue. It's a popular misconception carried by viewers of websites. In the history of my time at NWR there was literally only one time where someone was angry at our assessment of the game, and when it came down to it, they were simply unable to detach themselves personally from their product. I have had phone conversations with PR reps in which I told them about our last review and requested the next one all within the same 5 minute phone call. Believe it or not, they have an idea of what to expect as far as review scores go before they release a game.

Like I said in regards to the pricing and ramifications, that's something that's saved for the recommendation. Right now the game is $50 or $60, but what happens when it's in the bargain bin? Is the game better now that it's cheaper? By separating the two thoughts, you have a time-safe piece that doesn't need to be questioned when the price changes of the product in question.

In response to your SMG question, the price is irrelevant. Prices change, so your critical review can not reflect that. As for older games, it makes sense to merely recommend them because they aren't a new product unseen and unknown. People are only buying or not buying them, so you may as well tell them if they should or should not do so.

[UncleBob]

Did we all forget so quickly about Midway, UbiSoft and EGM?

http://www.vgmwatch.com/?p=1137

[Nick DiMola]

Well bear in mind that I didn't start writing for NWR until after that whole ordeal. So I have not encountered anything of that sort since I have been a part of the industry.

Honestly, if they would have banned us from review copies for a review they weren't happy with, so be it. Everyone has a price on integrity; mine and others at NWR can not be bought.

[BlackNMild2k1]

Ted DiBiase(The Million Dollar Man) says "Everybody has a price".

I'll just assume whatever that price is, is has not and is not likely to be met.

[Caliban]

So Mr. DiMola.... how many millions would you say NWR has made from money hats from the publishers for ummm favorable reviews and things of that sort?

I'll let you know when I'm done counting.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Loved your answer Mr. DiMola.

[UncleBob]

Honestly, if they would have banned us from review copies for a review they weren't happy with, so be it. Everyone has a price on integrity; mine and others at NWR can not be bought.

Well, of course I expect you and EGM and any journalist who wants to be taken seriously to say something like that. 

[vudu]

I think it's hard to get that perspective actually without getting the game for free. Had you paid for it, you could go the direction of Ian where you might force yourself to like it because you spent so much, or you could dislike it more because you felt ripped off. In an environment where you have nothing to gain or lose, you are able to give the most evenhanded evaluation.

Like I said in regards to the pricing and ramifications, that's something that's saved for the recommendation. Right now the game is $50 or $60, but what happens when it's in the bargain bin? Is the game better now that it's cheaper?

Life doesn't happen in a vacuum and neither should game reviews.

Most people not only seek high quality games but they also seek value.  They don't want to spend $50 on "the best 5 hours of their life"--they'd rather wait and spend $20 in six months.

When you review a FPS for Wii do you compare it to other FPSs on Wii?  How about on competing systems?  Whether you make a direct statement in your review or you just think about it while forming your opinion, you can't ignore everything that's going on in the outside world. 

[Dirk Temporo]

I'm...uninterested in anything...Disney related

:|

Disney has done some amazing stuff, especially recently. Did you see Wall-E?

[mac<censored>]

Kingdom Hearts can never be bad, that is the truth.

I've honestly never seen the appeal...

Isn't that the game where you can kill Mickey, again, and again, and again...?

No, it isn't.

Well that sucks then...

[GoldenPhoenix]

I'm...uninterested in anything...Disney related

:|

Disney has done some amazing stuff, especially recently. Did you see Wall-E?

Pixar did Wall-E, though they are owned by Disney. Bolt wasn't a bad movie, if I recall that was done more in house. And of course we have the new animated movie The Princess and the Frog coming out made by Disney that seems to be an attempt to go back to their classic stuff.

[BlackNMild2k1]

The Princess and the Frog & Rapunzel are in the works at Disney right now and both are traditionally animated 2D movies.