Exclusive Reviews: A Conspiracy Theory
Leading up to the release of Grand Theft Auto IV we couldn’t help but notice that many major publications were making mention of “Review Events”, presumably held by developer Rockstar and publisher Take Two, for large swaths of the mainstream gaming press. Shortly thereafter, we were treated with IGN’s exclusive review of GTA IV, written by Hilary Goldstein, which scored the game a perfect 10/10. In fact, every category from presentation, to graphics, to gameplay also scored an unmitigated 10/10. IGN hasn’t granted such a rating since Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, nearly 10 years ago.
We’re not ones to indulge in rumour and speculation, but something about the circumstances revolving around the review of GTA IV rubbed us the wrong way then, and after reading an excellent editorial from another trusted source, that rub just got stronger.
An editorial by Ben Fritz, titled “Exclusive reviews are ethically troubling“, slammed the nature of the “exclusive review” which is peculiar to the gaming industry. (Thanks to Don Maddox at Gamesquad.com for pointing us in the right direction.) Although published nearly a month ago, Ben Fritz is the games editor for Variety, a notable and venerated publication with significant influence. More importantly, Variety’s main order of business is the film industry, and enjoys a certain distance from the game industry and traditional games media outlets.
Our own initial misgivings centred upon these aforementioned “Review Events”. What, exactly, is a review event? We don’t know, but they aren’t unprecedented: Microsoft hosted one for the launch of Halo 3, for example. Unfortunately, the shape and nature of these events never seems to be fully disclosed, with only scant mention of them. However, we get the impression that publishers host these events in controlled locations, games editors attend by invite only, and they’re given several days to play the game with the intention of having enough hands-on time to inform an educated opinion and write a corresponding review.
There are a myriad of ethical and practical issues that come immediately to mind. For starters, it stands to reason that an invite to such an event is contingent on being in the host’s good graces. What happens when you show up then publish a review for GTA IV scoring it a mere 3/5 or some equivalent? It’s likely you don’t get an invite next time. At the very least, just the thought of falling out of favour would be present in the mind of the reviewer.
Moreover, there are issues regarding the length of time a reviewer has to spend with the game during these events, and whether the game is played in real-world conditions. A week to play a game like Grand Theft Auto IV is too short. Considering it took XboxMass.com over two weeks of our spare time to just get through the main story, let alone thoroughly experience the robust multiplayer, one wonders if these review events are set-up precisely to limit players from getting into the potentially ugly bits.
And what conditions are they played in? Is a Rockstar representative hovering over shoulder, pointing reviewers in the right direction, encouraging them along, explaining the confusing bits? We don’t know. But staff must be present, so they must have a purpose (read: agenda). The game must also be set up on the highest-end equipment imaginable, with perfectly tuned televisions and surround sound stereo systems. None of this is rocket science.
While much of this is speculative, there exists the very solid fact that these events exist for a reason. Since these events are created by those who only stand to gain from the game’s success, it only follows that these events must be set up in the games’ favour - by way of contrast, there couldn’t possibly be a reason a review event is set up to the game’s detriment.
On top of the issues we have with review events, Ben Fritz comes along and adds fuel to the fire with his own critique of the nature of the exclusive review. While distinct, the issues revolving around these two aspects of videogame reviews are not mutually exclusive.
Case in point: “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?” – Ben Fritz, Exclusive reviews are ethically troubling
Being outsiders to the mainstream gaming press, we could be entirely off-base with our assumptions revolving around these review events. Editors could very well have a nearly complete version of the game in their hands weeks before the events - this would diminish our argument. These review events could be mere parties meant to liquor up the editors and whisper sweet nothings in their ears, and were sure many are just that.
Nevertheless, we’re led to wonder lately about the integrity of the mainstream gaming press. First “Gerstmangate”, now this. We’re not sure where this will lead us or anywhere at all. One thing is for certain, though: the impartiality of reviews of major game releases is dubious at best.
Then again, maybe we’re just jealous we weren’t invited to the party. 
peachey @ May 23, 2008