Are We being Lied to by Game Publications?

With regard to Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3's perception (forgive me for splurging on the topic, yet again) are we as gamers at all being lied to?

I scoured through Metacritic's collection of "critic scores" for MW3, and found only but one review below 80. I was not seeking for reviews to back up my opinion of the game, instead, I was looking for a diversity of scores.

Precisely what I mean by a "diversity of scores"...

I don't know if I'm alone in thinking this, but something is apparently wrong if everyone feels the same way of a given piece of media, no matter how widely appealing, no matter how many nor few hours were put into the game's production, and no matter how incredibly deep the storyline. I also don't think how recent the release date can be used as justification for the conformity of review scores.

So I beg the question; do game publications lie to their readers in order to merely get hits? Or in other words, do reviewers at all cover up their true impressions of a game just so that their given site may profit as a result?

I would very much say yes. Call of Duty Black Ops was the largest selling piece of media of all time last year, and that was already eclipsed by Modern Warfare 3, so for one measly intern to write a negative, yet honest review and screw up an entire site's "credibility" among hardcore Call of Duty fans (and at this point, it seems, who isn't a Call of Duty fan, so upsetting Call of Duty fans is almost like upsetting all gamers). And in this economy, that is the last thing any lesser-known gaming site needs, and that is 1) to lack "credibility" and 2) to be different.

According to Metacritic, the only publication either brave or foolish enough to rate Modern Warfare 3 with a 70 is Norwegian site, Gamer.no. I'm not certain as to why they made this decision other than they truly felt, as they said, "[Modern Warfare 3 has a] lack of willingness to add improvements in gameplay show a laziness often found in a complacent game series."

No offense Gerstmann, but...

The incentive to conform is even more apparent when taking into account that Jeff Gerstmann was purportedly laid off from Gamespot due to his negative review of Kane and Lynch. This means that going with the grain can equal more revenue from the game publication's perspective because of the increase in hits and fewer layoffs from the journalist's perspective.

What does this then mean? We should probably be much more keen to game publications' misprioritization of revenue gains over true, honest journalistic reporting; and thus, support those publications that are ambivalent to the negative perception of their reviews, and call out those that lay off otherwise honest journalists for

Tags: Bitmob, Reviews, giant bomb, IGN, Gamespot, scores, Game Reviews, etc

Problem? Report this post

Danny Concepcion

November 20, 2011

Whoops. I accidentally put my comment in your other MW3 piece. I'll paste it here:

I understand where you're coming from. I wish the games didn't sell so well, and don't understand the high ratings either. But I won't go so far as to say publications are all bribed into giving the game positive reviews. I'm sure the Call of Duty franchise will do just fine, regardless of what critics think.

Report | Reply

Michael Lenoch

November 22, 2011

I don't think the writers are being bribed (despite what the picture suggests, that was more for comedic relief). I think however, writers are encouraged to write positive reviews and not be a stick in the mud and not oppose popular opinion.

Jonathan Oyama

On the plus side, I don't think anyone is lying about the new Zelda's ratings. The entire presentation and the realistic motion controls are definitely worth playing through, at least from what I've seen in other reviews.

Jason Lomberg

So your evidence that we're being "lied" to is that a game receives overwhelmingly high scores? Is it possible that, despite its dearth of innovation, Modern Warfare 3 is simply a solid title? How is that proof of dishonesty?

A lot could be written on the subject of journalistic integrity (and lack thereof). When a site publishes an early review, the review is -- more often than not -- positive. Draw whatever conclusions you like from that.

I'm also a proponent of a different scoring criteria for reviews -- one that's focused on the individual experience rather than an objective conclusion. But most sites follow the latter method, and MW3 scores highly in that regard.

I don't see the implicit connection between lots of positive reviews and a cover up.

I guess it's hard for people to believe that companies can still make good games. I get the feeling that lots of people want developers to fail. I don't think that's the message anyone wants to send about the gaming industry.

I certainly never focus on whether my review affects my next paycheck. Besides, there's nothing wrong about enjoying a game if its good.

Granted, it is an assertion of mine, but I do not doubt that there are publications out there that either deliberately assign writers that they feel will write more praising reviews, or tell reviewers to be kinder to given AAA title when reviewing to garner more hits. I make this claim because it is characteristic for reviewers to constantly nit-pick until the point at which a developer achieves near-perfection. And it seems reviewers are giving MW3 too much credit for fear if they don't, they may start flame wars on their review comments sections and convince their fanboy readers that "publication X" is biased or uncredible. Two examples of this behavior are IGN.com and Nintendo Power. Neither source will ever write AAA game reviews with especially low scores or negative impressions.