GameSpy wishes for the Fallout fans to die

[bossjimbob]

For a good preview example, check out the one recently done on Depth of Peril, on this very site. VD was critical where he needed to be and analyzed the shortcomings. And he's not a paid professional, yet has more tact and class than most that do. Funny huh?

It read like a review even though he was tinkering with alpha code. Seems more appropriate for internal feedback and usability testing than a preview piece, to be honest. Also, you have to understand that giving "unbridled" and "brutally honest" feedback on a work in progress can do more harm than good when said game is incomplete (and not to mention piss off some hard working developers). Remember that a for-profit game publication doesn't want to damage relationships with studios that they *need* to generate their content. There's no sense being a dick if only to look cool to a small segment of readers.

 

[robur]

Seems more appropriate for internal feedback and usability testing than a preview piece, to be honest.

Especially as it opens with this line here:
"I showed this preview to Steven Peeler, an industry veteran and Depth of Peril's lead designer."
Big no-go. I have never shared ANY article with a designer - earliest they got to read it was when they had the printed mags in their hands.

 

[deadairis]

Looking at the Depth of Peril preview, I've noticed one thing very early -- most of the negative things he mentiones, the designer has to correct him on. Details are missing (such as the use of rage), and more importantly, the designer points out that regarding these issues, he "will probably fix it before you put up the preview."

That sort of misinformation is fine, when you're not costing anyone their jobs in the immediate or long-term. Put up a preview talking about problems in a game that never actually show up in the final game, or worse yet that you're just wrong about, and you haven't just hurt someone's feelings. You've cost sales of the game, for something that isn't actually the team's fault. It isn't even real.

I just did a preview of Kane & Lynch (here's a link: http://xbox360.gamespy.com/xbox-360/kan ... 182p1.html ) where I did, in fact, point out some issues I saw. The GameSpy team is great at honestly saying what we've seen, and giving some great analysis.

But people who get on the hype train and stay on even after a bad review -- thinking back as a consumer and a writer, I think most of the Matrix games suffered from this, as well as Star Wars Galaxies -- well, that's their fault. VD's preview is a great example of where being critical in previews can bite you back. They aren't reviews; they're previews. Bought Enter the Matrix because you liked the previews and couldn't wait for the reviews? It's really not the editors to blame, here.

I believe that the onslaught of previews is
deemed to create a hype that can only disappoint - and does a game that has five previews in one magazine really sell more than one that has only one or two?

I believe it is the awfully written content in said previews that creates the hype. There is never a negative word spoken in the previews or any critical analysis. If "gaming journalists" would be a little more critical, hype might not be a problem. For a good preview example, check out the one recently done on Depth of Peril, on this very site. VD was critical where he needed to be and analyzed the shortcomings. And he's not a paid professional, yet has more tact and class than most that do. Funny huh?[/quote[/url][/i]

 

[deadairis]

Whether it's the best way to do it or not, the current marketing schedule works as well as anything. Part of that is the per-unit return; you can't hope that three months of excitement will move someone to blow 60 bucks.
I think we may see this change in the years to come, with a lite or non-extant E3. Cycles will be less based on the E3 date, and more games might come out more times, spreading out marketing timelines differently.

Previews, I think, often come off sounding as hyperbolic when, say, you weren't offered anything negative to talk about and no one will answer questions otherwise. My recent Bioshock preview, on the otherhand, is unabashedly positive. I've seen enough games 3 months from release to be able to see that Bioshock has a real shot at being not just good, but stunning. Even then, though, potential issues were still raised. I'll also note that just about all GameSpy previews make clear when we get actual hands-on, some screens and a speech, or what.

I think game-writing as movie-writing is an interesting idea, but is it tenable? Look at how much actually gets released about a movie before it's released -- very little, and most of it fluff.

Let me ask you and everybody else another question: why is it that there are sometimes as many as three, four previews of one game before it finally sees its release day? Why not run it like the film business, doing one article on it 3-6 months before it gets released and then maybe another one when you can actually put your hands on playable code a.k.a. a first screening of a few scenes?

I believe that the onslaught of previews is deemed to create a hype that can only disappoint - and does a game that has five previews in one magazine really sell more than one that has only one or two?

 

[robur]

Whether it's the best way to do it or not, the current marketing schedule works as well as anything.

I think it might be time to retire when we are to become but mere marketing instruments. Call me old but I miss the days where we could call game companies and set up a visit without the drama that are global PR plans nowadays.

 

[Bradylama]

There's no sense being a dick if only to look cool to a small segment of readers.

This is actually a more significant problem than one would think. If game journalists weren't overcrowded by "clever" manchildren they probably wouldn't be so eager to make themselves come off as the next Maddox (God forbid) and actually be critical without being an asshole.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Looking at the Depth of Peril preview, I've noticed one thing very early -- most of the negative things he mentiones, the designer has to correct him on.

Examples?

...Put up a preview talking about problems in a game that never actually show up in the final game... You've cost sales of the game, for something that isn't actually the team's fault. It isn't even real.

If it's real enough to be in the preview copy, it's real enough to be in the preview. That's the problem with the industry - you worry too much about hurting feelings and costing sales, instead of actually reviewing what you have in front of you.

VD's preview is a great example of where being critical in previews can bite you back.

Care to elaborate?

 

[deadairis]

Edit: (this sentance added) Man, sorry about getting ranty! This particular topic is near and dear to me.

Sure thing.
Choice one:
"Steven: Only the warrior uses rage. The rogue has momentum, the priest has faith, and the mage has mana. All 4 of them work differently. Momentum and rage start at zero and go up based on different things while mana and faith start full. There are other differences also, of course. This does mean that the mage and priest don't have to wait. They can burn through their power at the very beginning of a fight. Right now I do think the warrior and rogues power (rage/momentum) goes up too slowly and that is what you are seeing. This will be improved. Actually, I'll probably fix it before you put up the preview "
And we know from the rest of the preview that the previewer knew the other classes exist. So, he raised a point about play balance and fun that...doesn't exist. It might exist in some form in the final product, but the whole issue he mentioned is actually a balance feature.
Choice two:
"Steven:...It is all temporary and written by me and only meant to be placeholder text. "
This preview dings the game for placeholder text. That's...unbelievable. It's like complaining that you were looking at cars, and you liked one, but you didn't like that ugly sticker listing the price and stuff on it. He should have, if he was uncertain (and he should have been ) asked the dev if that was placeholder text. And if so? Not mention it. That's no more relevant to the actual game than the color of the chair the programmer sits in.

The issue isn't that we, the "industry" "worry too much about hurting feelings and costing sales." If you're too positive, you're lying just as much as if you're being too negative. But if you're too negative and you're wrong, you're not just "hurting feelings." You're "reviewing what you have in front of you," instead of previewing it. The real issue there is if someone doesn't take another look at the game -- because you made something up. That's not an issue of hurting feelings; that's an issue of failing the reader whose time you've taken up. It certainly doesn't help that you run the risk of -- literally -- sending an entire project crashing, and people's jobs with it, because you didn't actually get the facts right.

I'm not being hyperbolic about that either. And that issue doesn't stop with previews; it's even more important to have your facts correct when you review something than when you preview it. Should previews be negative when it's appropriate? Yes. See, again, my Kane & Lynch preview -- but not how careful I am when discussing the main issue (the aiming camera). When you write, you have a responsibility to the reader and the company you're writing about, and it's honesty.

I can't promise that from everyone in the industry, but it's how I work.

Looking at the Depth of Peril preview, I've noticed one thing very early -- most of the negative things he mentiones, the designer has to correct him on.

Examples?

...Put up a preview talking about problems in a game that never actually show up in the final game... You've cost sales of the game, for something that isn't actually the team's fault. It isn't even real.

If it's real enough to be in the preview copy, it's real enough to be in the preview. That's the problem with the industry - you worry too much about hurting feelings and costing sales, instead of actually reviewing what you have in front of you.

VD's preview is a great example of where being critical in previews can bite you back.

Care to elaborate?

[/i]

 

[DarkUnderlord]

Remember that a for-profit game publication doesn't want to damage relationships with studios that they *need* to generate their content.

But they can afford to damage their reputation with their consumers by glazing over blatantly obvious errors and omissions?

Also, you have to understand that giving "unbridled" and "brutally honest" feedback on a work in progress can do more harm than good when said game is incomplete (and not to mention piss off some hard working developers).

Isn't that the point though, to provide feedback? If all a preview is, is simply a hype machine of all that's good, then what's the point? If all we're seeing is the handfed "nice bits", why even bother? And then what about the actual review itself? Most games these days are published by only a handful of companies. If a gaming journalist dares point out problems in a big game in the actual review, you think that publishing company is going to be nice to them next time around or cut them out of the loop completely?

That sort of misinformation is fine, when you're not costing anyone their jobs in the immediate or long-term. Put up a preview talking about problems in a game that never actually show up in the final game, or worse yet that you're just wrong about, and you haven't just hurt someone's feelings. You've cost sales of the game, for something that isn't actually the team's fault. It isn't even real.

So you're admitting that your main concern when writing a review is not to harm sales?

VD's preview is a great example of where being critical in previews can bite you back. They aren't reviews; they're previews.

And yet praising a game to high heaven doesn't run any risks. It's funny, that.

Bought Enter the Matrix because you liked the previews and couldn't wait for the reviews?

Maybe it's because the developers didn't buy enough ad space?

If you want to do reviews, just take a look at Battlefield 2142 in Metacritic. "80" from Gamespot, "84" from IGN. Average gaming journalism review is 80%. That's a pretty good title, right? Well, now take a look at the user score. 5.9 / 10 or 59%. That's a 20% difference between what gamers think of it and what the "professionals" want to push.

Compare that to Fallout's score. Fallout got 89%. User feedback? 10/10 or 100%. Are you really telling me there's only a 9% difference between Battlefield 2142 and Fallout?

Let's go for something else though. Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel. Official Xbox Magazine = 82%. Gamespy "A competent and occasionally compelling hack-and-slash, but fans of the PC games will continue to dream of the true RPG they'll never get, and fans of Dark Alliance would presumably rather play "Dark Alliance II." but what do they give it? 75. It's only 5% worse than Battlefield 2142 so it can't be that bad, surely? But it's overall rating is pulled down to 66%. You know who did that? It wasn't "the professionals", it's the raft of smaller, almost indie sites on the bottom of that list that drag it down with scores like "30". So while the professionals are lathering it and giving it a passable grade, the smaller sites (who have nothing to lose) give it an honest review.

Go through any game you like and you see the same pattern again and again. Scores around the 80% mark, even for crappy titles. Take Enter the Matrix. You wanted us to check the reviews? Xbox Addict = 100, Gamezilla! = 91. There are 12 sites which give it 80 or higher. Even IGN manages a 72. GameSpot and GameSpy come in at 60 yet what really pulls the average score down to its final 65%? The 7 sites down the bottom who dare go below 50. In fact, if you stop at GameSpy's 58 and only count that and everything above it, the average score is 75%.

So why should we trust reviews again?

 

[deadairis]

That sort of misinformation is fine, when you're not costing anyone their jobs in the immediate or long-term. Put up a preview talking about problems in a game that never actually show up in the final game, or worse yet that you're just wrong about, and you haven't just hurt someone's feelings. You've cost sales of the game, for something that isn't actually the team's fault. It isn't even real.

So you're admitting that your main concern when writing a review is not to harm sales?

Uh, no, I don't think so...
where?
I'm happy to admit that a concern when you write (well, when I write, not you) a review is to be correct. I'm not going to write a review and put in something I made up, or a negative point that isn't real. Like, say, Shadowrun -- which I gave a 2/5 to. The issues in the review are the real issues, not ones I made up based on something that got cut from the game a year ago.
That would be lying. And I will certainly admit to trying very hard never to lie.
Really, you don't feel like you're stretching to the point of silliness here?

 

[robur]

When you write, you have a responsibility to the reader.

Fixed. Yea, beat me.

 

[deadairis]

When you write, you have a responsibility to the reader.

Fixed. Yea, beat me.

Zing ; p
I do think that you have to be honest about who you're writing about. If Bob Dylan gave a bad interview, you wouldn't make up fun stuff and pretend he said it because that would entertain the reader.
You owe the reader the truth, for reading.
You owe the subject the truth, for being your subject.

 

[sabishii]

Looking at the Depth of Peril preview, I've noticed one thing very early -- most of the negative things he mentiones, the designer has to correct him on. Details are missing (such as the use of rage), and more importantly, the designer points out that regarding these issues, he "will probably fix it before you put up the preview.

You do realize he purposefully let the designer correct him, right? How can this specific preview hurt the game/designer if in the end all the facts were corrected by the designer, so that the reader still gets the correct facts in the end?

 

[deadairis]

Looking at the Depth of Peril preview, I've noticed one thing very early -- most of the negative things he mentiones, the designer has to correct him on. Details are missing (such as the use of rage), and more importantly, the designer points out that regarding these issues, he "will probably fix it before you put up the preview.

You do realize he purposefully let the designer correct him, right? How can this specific preview hurt the game/designer if in the end all the facts were corrected by the designer, so that the reader still gets the correct facts in the end?

Good point. Like I said -- "That sort of misinformation is fine, when you're not costing anyone their jobs in the immediate or long-term. Put up a preview talking about problems in a game that never actually show up in the final game, or worse yet that you're just wrong about, and you haven't just hurt someone's feelings. You've cost sales of the game, for something that isn't actually the team's fault. It isn't even real. "

How does this come around?
A) he shouldn't, really shouldn't, have the developer doing the preview for him. You want an unbiased preview? One that will point out negatives? You can't have the developer doing the preview with you, let alone be submitting text to him for okaying. He should have gotten his facts straight first;
B) He should have applied a hard enough critical eye to avoid making false claims in the first place -- if he is going to have the dev commenting, why not let him comment on new, interesting things -- not correct basic facts?; and
C) Things get quoted, often out of context. Think those negative sound bites won't show up in a competators sale's briefing to a major retail chain? What about on GAF?

I have a hard time taking a preview written with a dev suppling the facts and copy editing as being a great source of unbiased information.

That noted, and I apologize for not getting the name of the dev, I really applaud the dev for his community involvement with the project.

 

[bossjimbob]

But they can afford to damage their reputation with their consumers by glazing over blatantly obvious errors and omissions?

Errors and omissions with what, preview code? I'm not following you.

Isn't that the point though, to provide feedback? If all a preview is, is simply a hype machine of all that's good, then what's the point? If all we're seeing is the handfed "nice bits", why even bother? And then what about the actual review itself? Most games these days are published by only a handful of companies. If a gaming journalist dares point out problems in a big game in the actual review, you think that publishing company is going to be nice to them next time around or cut them out of the loop completely?

Actually, no. With a preview, it's not the writer's job to provide developer feedback (unless they are asked for it, and in which case that wouldn't make it into the article). Lots of publishers fund usability testing and public play testing for that very reason. Though it would be nice if they invited journalists for such an event, it could be construed as a conflict of interest. The press is supposed to be impartial, remember.

I'm not saying previews need to be the butt-kissing hype peddlers they often turn out to be, but that it is indeed difficult to be objective and critical at the same time. Some writers choose the play-by-play "this is what I saw/did" during the session, while others wax philosphic about what they imagine the game's potential to be. Most educated readers can see through all that (one would hope) and wait for the official reviews, then compare them to reader feedback. There's always going to be a notable difference in scores (for better or worse) between the press and the consumer, as there will also be a large difference in the quality of said feedback.

Perhaps I just don't see what the big issue is here. I don't want a writer/journalist spoiling my experience (before the game is complete, no less) by critiquing mechanics and systems before they're even in beta. It would be inaccurate. And I don't expect them to hold the developers' feet to the coals on something as insignificant as a game. The Iraq invasion, sure, but not a sequel. In fact, I'd find it highly annoying to read. Provided they are honest with their opinion when it comes review time (and remember, we're dealing in opinions, not facts, hence the big gap between the Oblivion-loving press and the Bethesda-hating Codexers) I'm satisfied.

I don't agree with every review I read. My tastes are different, as are yours. But that's not enough to ruin my day.

 

[DarkUnderlord]

That sort of misinformation is fine, when you're not costing anyone their jobs in the immediate or long-term. Put up a preview talking about problems in a game that never actually show up in the final game, or worse yet that you're just wrong about, and you haven't just hurt someone's feelings. You've cost sales of the game, for something that isn't actually the team's fault. It isn't even real.

So you're admitting that your main concern when writing a review is not to harm sales?

Uh, no, I don't think so...
where?

In your answer. "That sort of misinformation is fine, when you're not costing anyone their jobs". In other words, if it was a small indie developer working on a game for fun, you'd write that sort of stuff in because nobody really loses their job, right? Oh wait, that's not what you meant? Then by all means, elaborate.

But then you go on "you haven't just hurt someone's feelings. You've cost sales of the game". Again, not much about "it's important to get facts right just for the sake of journalistic integrity", you're more concerned about them losing their jobs. What you're effectively saying is that if you do see something that does really suck, you're not even going to mention it purely on the off chance that it might be changed in the full version and thus make you look like a dick. Sorry, lose developers their jobs (You don't seem to be all that concerned about looking like a dick).

Thing is, of course you shouldn't mention something that you know got cut a year ago. That's called mental retardation and despite the fact that the gaming media already suffers from that in huge amounts, it's still not something that should be done. However, as I said, how do you know "it's incorrect" if that's what you've seen? For example, VD got given a hands on preview. He saw something that was a problem. Under your methodology, he shouldn't have said anything because it's a bad thing and someone might get fired. Why though? He's seen something and it's a problem, so he should mention it. What does the developer then say? "This will be improved". In other words, he admits it's a problem. He then says "Actually, I'll probably fix it before you put up the preview".

Of course a preview of a game 12 months or however long before release isn't going to be the full version but does that mean problems that are seen (and, despite your suggestions otherwise, actually do exist) shouldn't be mentioned? Again in VD's preview, VD points out another problem and the developer responds "Now that you brought it up, I might tie this to some of the difficulty stuff, so easy mode might be like it is now, but in hard mode they might stay dead a long time."

I shudder to think of how good Oblivion might've been if instead of sucking Todd's penis, some of the previews actually said "the AI was scripted", instead of ranting on and on about how AWSUM that dog being set on fire by the AI was which funnily enough, turned out to be a lie about the AI system that everyone perpetuated. But I suppose that's okay because they didn't hurt sales, did it? It only increased them and that kind of misinformation is okay, right?

See, that's the thing. You forgot that the good stuff shown in previews can change too. Yet you don't seem to be worried about that.

I'm not going to write a review and put in something I made up, or a negative point that isn't real.

I'm sorry, who said anything about putting in stuff that is made up and not real? I'm talking about things you've actually seen and then giving an opinion on those things. Are you trying to infer that VD just made those problems with Depths of Peril up? Because that's what you seem to be doing yet if you read the review, you'll see that all of them are real problems that VD saw and commented on in his preview.

Again, I supposed if he'd just rabbited on about how awesome it was, you'd be okay with that? Even if he was talking about how awesome quests were going to be, even though he didn't actually see any?

Your job is to critique games based on what you see. Don't try and talk bullshit about lies and things you know have been changed. Let's stick to the shit you saw in the game and get you to comment on that. Even if it's bad. Even if it's good. That's supposed to be your job, not simply being an extension of their marketing department.

 

[deadairis]

That sort of misinformation is fine, when you're not costing anyone their jobs in the immediate or long-term. Put up a preview talking about problems in a game that never actually show up in the final game, or worse yet that you're just wrong about, and you haven't just hurt someone's feelings. You've cost sales of the game, for something that isn't actually the team's fault. It isn't even real.

So you're admitting that your main concern when writing a review is not to harm sales?

Uh, no, I don't think so...
where?

In your answer. "That sort of misinformation is fine, when you're not costing anyone their jobs". In other words, if it was a small indie developer working on a game for fun, you'd write that sort of stuff in because nobody really loses their job, right? Oh wait, that's not what you meant? Then by all means, elaborate.

Sure thing. If you don't get any circulation, write whatever you like. If you get a real chunk of people relying on you, don't go amateur hour. Get the facts. Get them right. If you're going to cost someone their job, do it because they screwed up -- not because you're sloppy, lazy, or just wrong.

Someone might buy a game that turns out terrible because they saw a good preview. Well, you know, a preview isn't a review. I really don't have any empathy for anyone who can't figure that out and expects reviews of finished products from previews of partially done ones.

<snip>You don't seem to be all that concerned about looking like a dick.
<snip>

Nope, not even a little. I'm concerned almost entirely with doing right by my readers and my...what's the noun? Subjects? The games and creators of games that I cover, as well as anyone or thing else that I cover.

 

[GhanBuriGhan]

This is certainly unprofessional. Some of the locals here and on other forums could be a little less aggressive in their posting too, though.

Any one else thought the google ads to this thread are dead funny? -This is what I got:

Is your Church changing,
doing things that are not found, or are forbidden, in the Bible?
ChristianBibleInfo.com

Eternal Torment?
Is it Biblical? Find out here ...
www.helltruth.com

End Public Speaking Fear
Eliminate fear of public speaking in four hours or your money back.
www.SpeakingWithoutFear.com

 

[DarkUnderlord]

Sure thing. If you don't get any circulation, write whatever you like. If you get a real chunk of people relying on you, don't go amateur hour. Get the facts. Get them right. If you're going to cost someone their job, do it because they screwed up -- not because you're sloppy, lazy, or just wrong.

If only the gaming media at large had followed that advice when it came to their Oblivion previews. Read any of those again and the game reads like the second coming. Thankfully our previews here do get their shit right and report what we actually see. VD's pretty good at that.

Someone might buy a game that turns out terrible because they saw a good preview. Well, you know, a preview isn't a review. I really don't have any empathy for anyone who can't figure that out and expects reviews of finished products from previews of partially done ones.

And yet you seem to have all the empathy in the world for someone who reads a bad preview and misses an otherwise good game. Why aren't those people told that "it's just a preview"?

Your philosophy is essentially:

• Incorrect facts that increase sales = good
  Incorrect facts that decrease sales = bad

That sounds like the motto of a marketing department.

 

[deadairis]

Sure thing. If you don't get any circulation, write whatever you like. If you get a real chunk of people relying on you, don't go amateur hour. Get the facts. Get them right. If you're going to cost someone their job, do it because they screwed up -- not because you're sloppy, lazy, or just wrong.

If only the gaming media at large had followed that advice when it came to their Oblivion previews. Read any of those again and the game reads like the second coming. Thankfully our previews here do get their shit right and report what we actually see. VD's pretty good at that.

Man, that 94% metacritic average isn't going to turn your head about Oblivion anyways, is it?

Someone might buy a game that turns out terrible because they saw a good preview. Well, you know, a preview isn't a review. I really don't have any empathy for anyone who can't figure that out and expects reviews of finished products from previews of partially done ones.

And yet you seem to have all the empathy in the world for someone who reads a bad preview and misses an otherwise good game. Why aren't those people told that "it's just a preview"?[/quote]

You're hit upon a pretty key point. Worst case scenario with a good preview/bad game situation, if someone actually reads the review? they're excited about the game, realize they shouldn't be, don't buy it. Publisher and developer learn a lesson, and the consumer is aOkay.
Negative preview followed by a good review, the worst case scenario is that the consumer doesn't care about the review, because they read a bad preview and lost interest. Consumer loses out a game they'd want, and the publisher and developer are punished for putting out a good product.

Why am I more concered about the second situation? Because it's the crappier one, and it's the one that's more easily avoided. Just make sure, 100% sure, that whatever you call a game on in a preview is a legit issue. Calling a preview build out for being unbalanced is simply silly. Doing so when you haven't asked the developer how far the balance is actually done in the game is worse. And calling that responsible writing is the dead end of the whole thing.

Boy, I really don't know what you're reading, but it's fun to guess what your responses will be.

 

[John Yossarian]

You're hit upon a pretty key point. Worst case scenario with a good preview/bad game situation, if someone actually reads the review? they're excited about the game, realize they shouldn't be, don't buy it. Publisher and developer learn a lesson, and the consumer is aOkay.
Negative preview followed by a good review, the worst case scenario is that the consumer doesn't care about the review, because they read a bad preview and lost interest. Consumer loses out a game they'd want, and the publisher and developer are punished for putting out a good product.

I thought the worst case scenario in the highlighted case would be gamers completely believe the preview and disregard the review (just like they did in the other worst case scenario), buy the game, and devs and publishers are rewarded for a crappy product, which encourages them to make more.

 

[deadairis]

You're hit upon a pretty key point. Worst case scenario with a good preview/bad game situation, if someone actually reads the review? they're excited about the game, realize they shouldn't be, don't buy it. Publisher and developer learn a lesson, and the consumer is aOkay.
Negative preview followed by a good review, the worst case scenario is that the consumer doesn't care about the review, because they read a bad preview and lost interest. Consumer loses out a game they'd want, and the publisher and developer are punished for putting out a good product.

I thought the worst case scenario in the highlighted case would be gamer completely believes the preview and disregard the review (just like they did in the other worst case scenario), buy the game, and devs and publishers are rewarded for a crappy product, which encourages them to make more.

Well, the second case issue is less that they disregard the review and more that they miss it all together. That noted, consumers ignoring reviews, resulting in the production of tons of crap?
Yeah, well, certainly after the summer of The Rise of the Silver Surfer and Spiderman 3 rocking theaters, that isn't going to stop. But this goes back to how important it is to have people actually read reviews -- if they don't, or if they don't care what they say (as opposed to disagreeing with the points, which makes the review just as useful in the end), then it's really the consumers who lose. We can't make people read reviews, but we can make sure that if we say something negative in a preview -- which is inherently not a critique (which is why it's not called a "review") -- it's 100% true, for all the reasons above.

 

[robur]

When you write, you have a responsibility to the reader.

Fixed. Yea, beat me.

Zing ; p
I do think that you have to be honest about who you're writing about. If Bob Dylan gave a bad interview, you wouldn't make up fun stuff and pretend he said it because that would entertain the reader.
You owe the reader the truth, for reading.
You owe the subject the truth, for being your subject.

Exactly my point. If stuff sucks, you gotta talk about it. You owe it the reader AND the developer. If the developers read the preview, they might point it out to their marketing guys and get some extra time.

There was an incident in Europe about a REVIEW of Geoff Crammond's Grand Prix 2. People wrote it was too hard and similar things. The game did not get released as planned. They took it back in to tune and tweak it and it went out a few month (2, 3? forgot) later - and they had new reviews and they would actually be different.

"Hooray, all is awesome" previews don't serve anybody. Except the marketing department. We all have seen enough games to know that if crucial game mechanics are screwed, they won't get fixed despite everybody telling so.

Sorry, really don't want to sound cranky. But I think "fair and balanced" can be achieved - and my average between 0-100 is 50. If it's 70, why not jettison everything else below and have a 0-30 rating, to open a new can of worms here?

 

[robur]

Just make sure, 100% sure, that whatever you call a game on in a preview is a legit issue. Calling a preview build out for being unbalanced is simply silly. Doing so when you haven't asked the developer how far the balance is actually done in the game is worse. And calling that responsible writing is the dead end of the whole thing.

Can a preview only contain things seen/played? What about personal commentary of the person who has written it? With his/her ideas, inputs, suggestions? Or are those to remain on the cutting room floor of the game developer, not in the mag though? Hm.

 

[deadairis]

When you write, you have a responsibility to the reader.

Fixed. Yea, beat me.

Zing ; p
I do think that you have to be honest about who you're writing about. If Bob Dylan gave a bad interview, you wouldn't make up fun stuff and pretend he said it because that would entertain the reader.
You owe the reader the truth, for reading.
You owe the subject the truth, for being your subject.

Exactly my point. If stuff sucks, you gotta talk about it. You owe it the reader AND the developer. If the developers read the preview, they might point it out to their marketing guys and get some extra time.
<snip>
Sorry, really don't want to sound cranky. But I think "fair and balanced" can be achieved - and my average between 0-100 is 50. If it's 70, why not jettison everything else below and have a 0-30 rating, to open a new can of worms here?

I think we're in agreement about the goal of previews -- probably in implimentation as well. As for ratings, well, that is a can of worms, isn't it? 1up.com reviews the way you're suggesting. We review with the explicit note that most games are 3.5/5 -- it's in our (GameSpy's) review scale. The why's of that...I dunno. Certainly, score aggregators rely on a scale standard, so only one site changing to to the 5 is "average" hurts the consumer's ability to use aggregators.