I think the intent of publishers in cases such as this is clearly to try and put reviews in the best mood possible, although none of them will ever admit it. Unfortunately this leaves it up to the reviewer's conscience on how to react to his surroundings, or whether to attend at all. While I don't think we'll ever be able to say that no one is influenced by these sort of conditions, I also don't believe it would be right to say that anyone attending these events is automatically compromised in some way.

I think it is pretty easy for a reviewer to get out of touch with people that play games, and this is just the start (and I think the most minor). I feel like the fact the amount of games reviewers have to play is more of the problem.

I think reviewers sometimes loose sight of what they should be doing at times. I feel like the biggest offender of this is the Zelda series, which is almost always reviewed on its merits. However of late it seems to be judged on its lack of innovation and sticking to the same thing. To me that type of comment is reviewing what Zelda is not, not what Zelda is. Just because this reviewer played every game in the series, doesn't mean the newest Zelda is not a great game.

I feel like this happens a lot more not in the review, but looking back at a review. I remember EGM gave FF8 a really high review score, then years later named it one of the most disappointing squeals ever.

I think they are opportunities to foster good will. Human psychology isn't clever enough to filter out atmosphere, good deeds, being treated well, etc. It's human nature to feel good about being treated well, and if it doesn't directly influence the review, it can indirectly, by putting you in a "good state of mind", in which you are more likely to be more positive.

By reading they're behavior, I can only assume the publishers know that and that's why they employ these methods. Why wouldn't they? Of course they want to trick you by employing nefarious subtle psychological trickery. They got millions riding on it.

This is why the visiting team's locker room is not nearly as nice as the home team's.

Perhaps some writers are able to parse this out and steel themselves against the goodwill gestures, but it is my guess that most do not.

And even if you hated the game, I would question whether you you hated it as much as you would have if you didn't have a nice robe.

I can sympathize with the desire to retain control over the review copies and to help minimize leaks, but I think the conditions of these events are unnecessarily lavish. This seems like overt bribery to me. It seems to put the reviewers in the unenviable position of having to choose between a late review, or having their integrity questioned.

The evil part of me wishes that one of these events would backfire horribly and that everyone who attended would give the game in question a horrible score. I'm not sure how else to deter this type of thing other than to prove to the publishers that they are not cost-effective.

Also I wouldn't ask the professionals their opinion on this. Of course they're going to say it doesn't affect them. Gerstmann's quotes in particular sound a little over defensive.

Just saying.

I agree with the author, Hsu's quote at the end is on the money, but perhaps it isn't the professional's, its the timing. If you want a proper opinion that isn't at risk, read an outlet that has reviewed it after retail release. Of course, these outlets also tend to be small, for those very reasons.

A bit of a catch 22, if you ask me.

I dunno if I'm missing the point here but I would think that being on the same level as "the common reader" is better then being in a situation under certain conditions. And also "playing on a whole 'nother level" with people in the saaaammmeee situation, meaning locked up to review a game with the same expetitions, bouncing the same ideas back and forth. Like I said I do believe I'm missing the point of the question but I would think that playing and reviewing a game/games with the general public, and gettin their own public opinion,rather that a "pro" opinion, gives a better understanding and grasp what game "X" would play like for the general public and how they would recieve it. Umm I'm confusing myself now. I think I'm starting to ramble on and missing the point altogether. I gotta get a better grasp on my writing skills. HA! Oh my, it's gettin close to the end of the work day, Ugh. But yah, ending thought. General gamers/Gamers in general probabley give a better sense of what a game has to offer the the bullet point presentation that some, not all, reviews tend to give games. k....now I'm done. Sorry to go off on a wild tanget and go no where and waste peoples time with my nonsence and rambling but I feel better. :O) Thanx.

There is something about this that is bugging me. The FTC is trying to make sure that smaller gaming websites don't get review copies while the bigger sites get pampered like this by a developer.

So a lesser known site getting a review copy is a bribe but larger media outlets getting this kind of Hollywood treatment isn't?

Righty-o.

I agree with these outlets getting the review copies and the preview/event access but giving them everything first class is a bit over the line for me.

As a journalism student, I'm pretty much bombarded with the ethical ramifications of accepting gifts, favors, etc. on a regular basis. In my experience, the general consensus is to avoid any semblance of impropriety on the journalist's part. For example, if free food is being offered at event, even something as insignificant as a sandwich, it's the journalist's responsibility to decline, as that could be perceived as an appearance of bias.

Ha.....after reading other peps comments mine seems a little off. Sorry, my bad. but I kinda agree with the whole "being compromised" by the game companies who are holding these events. It seems like they are "buying a review", but not really buying but like.....coerce or ummm giving a hint hint nudge nudge, as if to say..." you like this game don't you?"

I think this kind of a situation has a bit of a stink to it. Reviewers sent to an event like this just seem more likely to get swept up in the fun of going somewhere cool to be one of the first people to play the full version of a new game.

The thing that worries me the most about this scheme is consensus. Is the thinking on the publisher's side that they are going to get these people together, to play the game and talk about it and get swept up in the excitement of the whole scene?

I like to think that most reviewers are clear-headed enough to try to not let something like this color their reviews, but you have to also be a bit realistic.

Not having the game with you means that you have to make your judgment based off that allotted time with the game. Where as a reviewer who has the code in their possession can take the time to step away from the game for a bit, this type of event forces a rapid time table that in the end has to push out hastier decisions of game quality from at least some reviewers.

It is a bit like getting a shot while at Disneyland. The shot would suck, but the rest of the experience may be good enough to forget the shot took place at all.

Even for the single player- a six hour ride probably seems jam packed when it is a large chuck of a day when you have a few shorts days to experience the game.

I don't know. I could go on about this for a long time. In the end I do not think Modern Warfare ended up with a much better score than it was destined to earn in the first place.

It kind of seems like it and Uncharted 2 were proclaimed the best games of the year before they even came out. I played almost every major game to come out this year (minus all the sports games that were not Tiger Woods) and while Uncharted 2 and Modern Warfare 2 were good- I think Assassin's Creed 2, Borderlands and Batman are all better games.

@Kyle: I've yet to be won over by a free sandwich. Sandwich offers come at peak meal times and are often nicely presented but disappointingly bland. That's not the sandwich with which favor is bought, but one that keeps me from passing out as I stand around listing to politicians yap.

I have a feeling these sorts of events are only going to become more prevalent.

My advice for the consumer? Become as savvy as possible. Know the conditions of a review, know what that could mean, and get information from alternative sources -- friends, Twitter, Facebook, etc.

Really great points, everyone. Well said. I think Derek summarizes it well.

@Jasmine: Well, yeah, no journalist is going to be swayed by a sandwich, but, with the amount of scrutiny and integrity questioning that comes with the job, I can see why there's such an extreme stance on the whole issue.

@Derek - I agree that it's not right to say that anyone attending is automatically compromised and I truly don't think that they are. What worries me more about this sort of thing is the public perception of it. It often forces the reviewers into a defensive position that they don't deserve to be in.

To be frank, having to review a game and having a deadline... doesn't that take away from most of the experience. That's why it's best not to have a review event. Rather you get your review copy weeks in advance and you have time to play and check the game out for it's flaws. You don't have a set amount of time to complete the game you just play it stress free and check as many things as you can about the game.

I wouldn't way all reviewers are compromised but when reviews come out and it seems like If you read a few reviews you've read them all, it's just ...I don't know how to put it. It seems, but is not true, that some reviews are alot alike. Forgive me if I don't give a example, but some reviews of games have some of the same general idea. This maybe a good/bad example but look at MW2, most reviewers mention the No Russia/airport scene. Yes we know its in there but ,as a reader, give me something different that every other reviewer is not giving me. I love reading reviews but , for example, I don't want to read about a airport scene a million times. I just think that these sponsored event highlight certain aspects of games and then they want the reviewer to tell the world. Which is fine but if a ton of reviewers write about the same thing....k....I don't know what I am getting at. End point. As a reader I want to know about other things that other reviewers are NOT talking about in their reviews. It's a catch 22, reviewers want the best info about games in their review to get readers to read. But how about something thats not showcased by a ton of others writers about the same game. I dunno. Once again I lost myself. Hope I'm not pissing anyone off here. Thats not my goal. I'm just finding it hard to express my opinion. LOVE VIDEO GAMES! LOVE REVIEWS! LOVE BITMOB! EVERYONE KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK! I KNOW I CAN'T STOP READING THEM! Good or bad, they inform me thats for sure! Annnnnnnnd I digress.

@Fozzy You bring up a really good point. A publisher can bring you all the fuzzy slippers they want, but if they hand you a game and tell you that you have mere hours to write an official review, the added stress may negatively impact the reviewer's state of mind.

Reviews aren't as useful and have less of a place in this digital world. When you only had the pages of EGM, EGM2, and Gamepro as the only source of preview material you would stare at the same five screenshots for days thinking about how it would look in motion. Once the review came in your were able to make a decision on purchase and whether or not you thought it was worth your money. Today you get video preview, video sneak peeks, betas, demos, and once a game is out other gamers post 30 minute gameplay video clips. What use is some random reviewer's opinion?

Nigel- Knowing the reviewers I trust will always be big to me. Videos, screenshots, etc. can all be a bit devious. Think about all the videos shows as gameplay that are actually cinematics.

One of the best reviewers out there is youself. Absorb everything that you read about a game that spikes a intrest, Then make up your own mind about it. Knowing where to look to get intrested in a game of choice is the other side of the equation.

I believe its the publishers totally trying to butter up people and persuade good reviews. Anybody attending any of these events should never write an official review just in case the individual is influenced by any fun-filled events, even if only a little.

I'd say that as long as reviewers are forthcoming (maybe as a sidenote on the review) I don't see a problem. It's better to disclose the circumstances behind the review than to give the reader the opportunity to let his imagination run rampant with conspiracy theories.

I think something like the Kane & Lynch GameSpot controversy is a bigger issue than review events. PR people are going to try and influence reviewers because that's their job. But the journalist's job is to not let this affect their review, even if the PR turns from pampering to threats.

Full disclosure on review events wouldn't hurt, but I think it brings up more issues than it resolves. If a reviewer discloses that they played at a review event, is he or she more reliable than someone who didn't disclose? Does the review score of Game X get an asterisk because it was done over a weekend at a 5-star hotel? And aren't there deeper issues if reviewers have to explain the circumstances of their review for readers to trust them?

The current form of reviewing games is rife with problematic things like this. I don't really have too much opinion one way or the other as it's foolish to act like any reviewer's opinion is the unquestioned word of god as it is. So it doesn't make much difference WHY they are biased since everyone has their own bias anyway. The real problem is the game companies and the players being convinced that a game being good or bad is entirely on the shoulders of the professional reviewers. It isn't anymore. It's pretty much all left to word of mouth on social sites on the internet and personal taste.