GMA Corruption Special

No, this isn't a comeback. You can read all about this year's exciting GMA corruption here and here courtesy of Walker, and then feast your eyes on the full, unedited version of The Unreliable Eurogamer piece below that saw the writer, Robert Florence, drummed out of EG for being honest:

There is an image doing the rounds on the internet this week. It is an image of Geoff Keighley, a Canadian games journalist, sitting dead-eyed beside a garish Halo 4 poster and a table of Mountain Dew and Doritos. It is a tragic, vulgar image. But I think that it is the most important image in games journalism today. I think we should all find it and study it. It is important.

Geoff Keighley is often described as an industry leader. A games expert. He is one of the most prominent games journalists in the world. And there he sits, right there, beside a table of snacks. He will be sitting there forever, in our minds. That's what he is now. And in a sense, it is what he always was. As Executive Producer of the mindless, horrifying spectacle that is the Spike TV Video Game Awards he oversees the delivery of a televisual table full of junk, an entire festival of cultural Doritos.

How many games journalists are sitting beside that table?

Recently, the Games Media Awards rolled around again, and games journos turned up to a thing to party with their friends in games PR. Games PR people and games journos voted for their favourite friends, and friends gave awards to friends, and everyone had a good night out. Eurogamer won an award. Kieron Gillen was named an industry legend (and if anyone is a legend in games writing, he is) but he deserves a better platform for recognition than those GMAs. The GMAs shouldn't exist. By rights, that room should be full of people who feel uncomfortable in each other's company. PR people should be looking at games journos and thinking, "That person makes my job very challenging." Why are they all best buddies? What the hell is going on?

Whenever you criticise the GMAs, as I've done in the past, you face the accusation of being "bitter". I've removed myself from those accusations somewhat by consistently making it clear that I'm not a games journalist. I'm a writer who regularly writes about games, that's all. And I've been happy for people who have been nominated for GMAs in the past, because I've known how much they wanted to be accepted by that circle. There is nothing wrong with wanting to belong, or wanting to be recognised by your peers. But it's important to ask yourself who your peers are, and exactly what it is you feel a need to belong to.

Just today, as I sat down to write this piece, I saw that there were games journalists winning PS3s on Twitter. There was a competition at those GMAs - tweet about our game and win a PS3. One of those stupid, crass things. And some games journos took part. All piling in, opening a sharing bag of Doritos, tweeting the hashtag as instructed. And today the winners were announced. Then a whole big argument happened, and other people who claim to be journalists claimed to see nothing wrong with what those so-called journalists had done. I think the winners are now giving away their PS3s, but it's too late. It's too late.

***CENSORED BY EUROGAMER***

Let me show you an example.

One games journalist, Lauren Wainwright, tweeted: "Urm... Trion were giving away PS3s to journalists at the GMAs. Not sure why that's a bad thing?"

Now, a few tweets earlier, she also tweeted this: "Lara header, two TR pix in the gallery and a very subtle TR background. #obsessed @tombraider pic.twitter.com/VOWDSavZ"

And instantly I am suspicious. I am suspicious of this journalist's apparent love for Tomb Raider. I am asking myself whether she's in the pocket of the Tomb Raider PR team. I'm sure she isn't, but the doubt is there. After all, she sees nothing wrong with journalists promoting a game to win a PS3, right?

Another journalist, one of the winners of the PS3 competition, tweeted this at disgusted RPS writer John Walker: "It was a hashtag, not an advert. Get off the pedestal." Now, this was Dave Cook, a guy I've met before. A good guy, as far as I could tell. But I don't believe for one second that Dave doesn't understand that in this time of social media madness a hashtag is just as powerful as an advert. Either he's on the defensive or he doesn't get what being a journalist is actually about.

***END OF CENSORED EXTRACT***

I want to make a confession. I stalk games journalists. It's something I've always done. I keep an eye on people. I have a mental list of games journos who are the very worst of the bunch. The ones who are at every PR launch event, the ones who tweet about all the freebies they get. I am fascinated by them. I won't name them here, because it's a horrible thing to do, but I'm sure some of you will know who they are. I'm fascinated by these creatures because they are living one of the most strange existences - they are playing at being a thing that they don't understand. And if they don't understand it, how can they love it? And if they don't love it, why are they playing at being it?

This club, this weird club of pals and buddies that make up a fair proportion of games media, needs to be broken up somehow. They have a powerful bond, though - held together by the pressures of playing to the same audience. Games publishers and games press sources are all trying to keep you happy, and it's much easier to do that if they work together. Publishers are well aware that some of you go crazy if a new AAA title gets a crappy review score on a website, and they use that knowledge to keep the boat from rocking. Everyone has a nice easy ride if the review scores stay decent and the content of the games are never challenged. Websites get their exclusives. Ad revenue keeps rolling in. The information is controlled. Everyone stays friendly. It's a steady flow of Mountain Dew pouring from the hills of the money men, down through the fingers of the weary journos, down into your mouths. At some point you will have to stop drinking that stuff and demand something better.

Standards are important. They are hard to live up to, sure, but that's the point of them. The trouble with games journalism is that there are no standards. We expect to see Geoff Keighley sitting beside a table of s***. We expect to see the flurry of excitement when the GMAs get announced, instead of a chuckle and a roll of the eyes. We expect to see our games journos failing to get what journalistic integrity means. The brilliant writers, like John Walker for example, don't get the credit they deserve simply because they don't play the game. Indeed, John Walker gets told to get off his pedestal because he has high standards and is pointing out a worrying problem.

Geoff Keighley, meanwhile, is sitting beside a table of snacks. A table of delicious Doritos and refreshing Mountain Dew. He is, as you'll see on Wikipedia, "only one of two journalists, the other being 60 Minutes correspondent Mike Wallace, profiled in the Harvard Business School press book 'Geeks and Geezers' by noted leadership expert Warren Bennis." Geoff Keighley is important. He is a leader in his field. He once said, "There's such a lack of investigative journalism. I wish I had more time to do more, sort of, investigation." And yet there he sits, glassy-eyed, beside a table heaving with sickly Doritos and Mountain Dew.

It's an important image. Study it.

Ubisoft Offer To Drop Assassin’s Creed 2 Embargo For “Very Good” Score

Omar Boulon, the journo who heroically revealed the Dragon Age: Origins review corruption in Canard PC last week, has informed us that another mag has stepped up with details of another dishonest deal. This time, German mag Computer Bild Spiele has revealed that Ubisoft would only provide them with review code for Assassin’s Creed 2 if they would guarantee that they would give it a “very good” score. Computer Bild Spiele did exactly the right thing (and exactly what no British mag would do) by telling Ubisoft to fuck off whilst delaying the review and, in its place, blowing the deal wide open in an editorial.

Here’s the link if you still think we’re making this crap up for shits and giggles.

Congratulations, Boulon / CanardPC and Computer Bild Spiele. And bollocks to EA and Ubisoft (not to mention any mag that takes the deal).

EA Offer To Remove Dragon Age Embargo If 9/10 Awarded

For this story, you can pretty much remove “Eidos” and “Arkham Asylum” from our last few posts and replace them with “EA” and “Dragon Age: Origins”.

Reviews for Dragon Age: Origins are under embargo until 5th November. But, in what’s becoming an increasingly common deal, EA have offered to remove the embargo for anyone who’s willing to guarantee them a score of at least 90% (or 9/10, if you’re that way inclined).

We’ve learned from O Boulon, a staff writer from French PC games mag Canard PC, that his mag withheld their review on the grounds of “honesty” and “good conscience”. You can work out what that means for mags that don’t seem to have a problem taking EA up on this deal, mentioning no names…

And before we get swamped in the Dragon Age fanboys’ semen – we know it’s a decent game, and we’re not disputing whether or not it’s worth a 9. We’re disputing that these kinds of deals should happen in the first place.

EDIT: From Anonymous Knight: “As far as I know, the deal was print only. Online had a different embargo - earlier. I’ve got a mate on [removed European PC mag] who was offered it, but I don’t know about the consoles / officials. Sounds like an over eager EA rep trying to impress his bosses.”

Agreed, but it still shouldn’t happen. We asked PC Gamer editor Tim Edwards about the deal, and he refused to comment.

OPM Dodges Arkham Asylum Embargo With A 9

Still playing “spot the corruption”? There’s still time, as the general embargo hasn’t lifted yet. Ding!

Ding!

Ding ding ding!

Scans of the entire thing here.

By the way, if cunts keep posting numerous anonymous comments as if they’re from several different people, we’re going to start publishing IP addresses. Especially the ones associated with Eidos.

Why Publishers Love Exclusive “Reviews”

This ad is running on the back of issue 86 of GamesTM, out next week. It went to print before the issue of GamesMaster we featured last week was sent out to its readership, meaning that Eidos was privy to the score and text of GM’s “exclusive” before it was published. This, by the way, is very common, as it allows publishers to place borderline hysterical quotes like “Batman is a masterpiece” onto their advertising whilst simultaneously plugging the magazine the quote is plucked from.

For the record, the latest issue of GamesTM doesn’t feature Arkham Asylum on the cover, nor a review, as they didn’t arrange to be excused from the general embargo.

Arkham Asylum: We Have A Winner

Have you been playing “spot the corruption”?

Excitingly, the embargo hasn’t lifted yet. Ding!

Ding!

Ding ding ding!

“With regards an article posted on RamRaider alleging that Eidos has fixed review scores for Batman: Arkham Asylum, we want to state that no discussions have been held about review scores with any magazines. In short there is simply not one shred of truth in this article, except for the title of the game.”

Jon Brooke, Eidos UK marketing manager


Scans of the full review here, if you can somehow heroically endure it.

Eidos Seek 90% Score & Cover For Arkham Asylum In Exchange For Early Review

UPDATE: We Have A Winner

Unlike our no-longer-regularly-updated blog, corruption in the games industry has so far failed to go into hibernation. In the week that Eidos has breathed its last, they’ve decided to go out with a bang by brazenly attempting to artificially hype up their forthcoming Arkham Asylum release.

Several mags have their review code already, but have to sit on their reviews until a hateful embargo expires at the end of the month. But Eidos, ever the helpful fellows that they are, have been offering a way around this embargo. If you dedicate the cover of your mag to Arkham Asylum and guarantee a score of at least 90%, Eidos will allow you to run the review early.

We know that one editor has already valiantly told Eidos to fuck off, but we can’t tell you which to protect our Anonymous Dark Knight. We also asked the usually chatty UK Officially Corrupt Xbox 360 Magazine editor Jon Hicks about it, who tellingly clammed up tighter than a nun’s cunt at the mere mention.

But what of the others? Well, there’s an exciting way to find out in the form of a game that you can play at home over the next month called “Spot The Corrupt Arkham Asylum Review”. You see, Arkham Asylum is a decentish release that’s not quite up to par when it comes to variety and depth. This means even the most charitable outlets should settle at no more than the 80s in their verdicts, but don’t be surprised if you see a few 7s from the pseuds.

This means that if you see a mag turn up within the next few weeks (ding!) that features Arkham Asylum on its cover (ding!) and gives it at least 90% (ding ding ding!), you have a winner.

Exciting…

UPDATE: We Have A Winner

Pretentious Games Journalism (And Something About MCV)

There’s an excellent piece that’s gone up on Robson’s site nicely explaining why mirthless cunts like N’Gai Croal can fuck off. If you’re still unclear about the difference between Old and New Games Journalism, then you’re probably one of those wilfully ignorant self-deluding cockwits who’ll tell anyone that listens that NGJ is nothing to do with the ramblings of the pseuds, because you are one and you’re too embarrassed to admit it. If you’re not a pseud but genuinely don’t know what makes good games writing, then read Robson’s summary.

Also for today, here’s an email we received from an Anonymous Knight who’s got a thing or two to say about the way MCV chooses who gets positive coverage. Enjoy:

Dear RAM Raider,

Over the last few weeks I have become increasingly angry as I turn the pages of MCV and I have finally broken and can keep quiet no longer.

The dirty dish rag of a magazine has run several pieces recently like “30 under 30” and “Industry Dream Teams”. Each one is populated by a denizen of grinning golums who believe that firstly they have some influence over the world around them and secondly that anyone cares. Do none of these children realise that it is their brands and products that are successful and not them? As brand or account manager on “Call of Singstar 09” please don't confuse (convince) yourself that you have anything to do with its creation and or popularity. Anyway that's not my gripe so I will continue after the jump.

Why do these media sluts get to go into the magazines pages? Well, it is certainly not by virtue of their professionalism. As an example one of those so called “Fantasy Team” members (who was an average telesales executive at the time) once offered out carnal favours to anyone prepared to give her career a boot up. She now lives with her current boss.

No, the reason they are all there is simple: Stuart. Either he likes you or your company is prepared to pay him “advertising” money. In return for a large sum of money on an annual basis Mr D will not only refrain from giving you bad press but he will ensure your employees are held up as paragons of the business world. All dressed up as the legitimate business of advertising. This is a joke as an ad in MCV must have about as much impact on your target market as a fart in hurricane. I will call it by its real name for once; protection money.

I know for a fact that one very large publisher was having a sticky time with SD as they had stopped “advertising” a couple of years back. As a result MCV never published positive stories about them and also would go out of its way to slag them off in print and in person. Recently a marketing man was dispatched from the publisher to enquire of Stuart “how much will it cost to stop slagging us off?”. The answer, “£XXX,000 PA”. They negotiated him down to around £XXX,000 and the deal was done. This is why the company’s ads can now be seen all over MCV on a weekly basis and its employees faces regularly grin out at us whilst we go for our Friday morning dumps.

My word that feels better.

Regards,

Anon.

Eidos: Paying For Review Scores

You wouldn’t believe the shit publishers pull in their quest to salvage good review scores out of games that are clearly underperforming. Publishers such as Eidos, with workmanlike shit that’s not worth your money like Tomb Raider: Underworld.

The fun started when Eidos began laying down arbitrary conditions on reviewers before they could be assigned review code.

“They insisted that whoever was reviewing Tomb Raider for each of the Future Bath mags attend a one hour demo in Wimbledon before they were allowed to take away review code. I make that over £600 in train fares and nearly 30 hours of work time wasted to be told how to play a fucking game that’s been around since the dawn of time, or to show off some new sodding mo-cap gymnastics. Ramsay’s stench is all over this.”

Reviewing is politically hard enough when you’ve got the twin spectres of PR and publishers dropping turds on your head, but it becomes even more so when Future Publishing itself joins in. So-called site takeovers are the latest in the marketing man’s armoury in his quest to make editorial sites appear more like a shop front for whatever piece of low grade shit they’re trying to hawk on that particular week.

So the world shouldn’t have really been surprised when Future’s Games Radar changed its name for the day to Tomb Radar, as the risk of shattering the impartial veneer they try to con their readers into thinking exists is easily worth weathering in return for the substantial cash amount deposited into their coffers.

Here’s what James Binns, senior money launderer at Future, had to say in the press release issued by Future as part of the bargain:

“Tomb Raider: Underworld is a great game, well worth the 9/10 scores it is picking up across gaming websites and magazines. Getting the message out there on launch day is essential in the games market and this takeover gives Eidos unprecedented cut through.”

It’s always nice to have Future’s publishing goals confirmed as putting advertising over the truth. But eagle-eyed Pat Garratt of the excellent news site Videogaming247 spotted a slight miscalculation on the part of Binns – the “9/10 scores it is picking up across websites and magazines” don’t exist.

MetaCritic, which has the game down as a painfully average 76% at the time of writing, reveals that the only editorial outlet to have given the game 9/10 is Console Monster (anyone?). Interestingly enough, the 9/10 stuck onto the end of Games Radar’s (sorry - Tomb Radar’s) review is actually in place of the less PR-friendly 86% score it was given in the mag that was the source of the review, PC Gamer.

You might think a disinformation campaign would be more than enough to save an ailing franchise that dreams of being half as good as (ironically) Uncharted: Drake’s Fortune, but you’d be wrong. As again noticed by VG247, it was revealed by Gamespot journo Guy Cocker on his Twitter page that Eidos were asking review outlets to hold back any reviews that scored the recycled crappy-camera-angled shit-fest at less than 80% until Monday. That way, all of those saps who pay their wages have several days to go out and buy it before being warned by reviewers that it’s not worth the money.

“Call from Eidos – if you’re planning on reviewing Tomb Raider Underworld at less than an 8.0, we need you to hold your review till Monday.”

Then, a miracle occurred. The PR firm representing Eidos broke with an ancient tradition held since time immemorial – they told the truth.

“We’re trying to get the Metacritic rating to be high, and the brand manager in the US that’s handling all of Tomb Raider has asked that we just manage the scores before the game is out, really, just to ensure that we don’t put people off buying the game, basically.”

After realising the earth-shattering blow they’d dealt to the turgid name of PR by telling the truth, BHPR quickly retracted the statement and tried to pretend that all of the above was nothing more than a vivid hallucination.

So what’s the moral of all this? Don’t be silly – publishers, marketers, PR husks and editorial shills don’t have any.

Ironic Comment Of The Day

An interview linked to by videogaming247.com caught our eye today. Dan Houser, Rockstar’s co-founder and “creative VP”, had this to say:

“The intellectual property is the main asset in the company. That’s why “GTA” is still relevant 10 years later. We haven’t put one out every year. We haven’t fleeced it. And we haven’t put it on 50 different formats.”

We’d like to personally congratulate Rockstar for not being tempted to fleece GTA by putting one out every year on 50 different formats, as it must have taken a gargantuan level of restraint to settle for only releasing GTA, GTA: London, GTA 2, GTA 3, GTA: Vice City, GTA: Vice City Stories, GTA: San Andreas, GTA: San Andreas Stories, and GTA IV, on the PC, Game Boy Advance, PlayStation, Dreamcast, PS2, PSP, Xbox, Xbox 360, and PS3 in less than a decade.

We’d also like to say “well done!” in a hearty fashion for their treatment of several review outlets, as only the very finest companies pick and choose who they let in for their love-ins based on whether they’ve given them good review scores in the past. Good going, guys, and you just keep on bribing those reviewers with freebies, because it’s not like the readers will ever find out.

Officially Corrupt “World Exclusive” GTA IV “Review” From The Officially Corrupt Xbox 360 Magazine

If you’re sick of that embargo-busting dogshit review we posted last week of Grand Theft Auto 4, you’ll be jumping up and down with apathy at the news that a good citizen has scanned in the Officially Corrupt “World Exclusive” GTA IV “review” from the Officially Corrupt Xbox 360 Magazine. Y’know, the one they’ve been banging on about in full-page ads for the last three months.

The game predictably receives 10/10 which, by the Officially Corrupt Xbox 360 Magazine’s standards, makes it just as good as Perfect Dark Zero. For us, the stand-out quote from the review is this:

“Rockstar was still making the final tweaks as I played, so I can’t say whether my minor grumbles – the cover system stumbling in box-filled environments, slightly over-enthusiastic target lock-on, the occasional pop-up – will be present in the box you buy in two weeks’ time.”

Now hang on – surely you’re not saying you reviewed unfinished code? Surely you’re not admitting that this 9-page Rockstar love-in is actually a preview, what with it not being based on finished code?

We’re curious whether Jon Hicks (who’s a decent fellow, so we’re not giving him any shit) would have still awarded a score of 10/10 if the finished game was riddled with pop-up and had an unreliable cover and combat mechanism.

Whilst we’re asking him, you can read the (p)review here so you don’t have to do anything silly like buying a magazine that’s not satisfied with being merely corrupt, but is no less than Officially Corrupt. Go, Team Future!

[EDIT] Jon Hicks very politely declined to comment specifically when we asked him if he would have given the game a 10 if the unfinished code was sold in that state, and he also passed up the opportunity to settle the big question on everybody's lips: is GTA 4 better than Perfect Dark Zero? He did point out that he stands by his review, though. Thanks, Jon Hicks!

RR Corruption Or Lie Of 2007: Sony

Despite a late flurry of votes for the shameful Gamespot Jeff Gerstmann corruption, Sony still managed to stay comfortably ahead with yet another year packed full of lies, back-pedalling, and shameless bullshitting about the PS3.

Despite years of heckling as press release after never ending press release packed full of lies are issued to the games industry, Sony has still somehow failed to turn the PS3 around into something that isn’t entirely shit.

Read UK:R for some hardcore Sony-baiting, as Cutlack has more time on his hands than we do. We’ll just conclude the mighty RAM Raider Awards 2007 with this video which, despite starting out fairly amusingly, turns into sheer hilarity when Phil Harrison quotes are layered into the soundtrack:

Congratulations, Sony – The RAM Raider salutes you.

Top 5 Misconceptions About Games Reviewers

Having a chat with an Anonymous Knight the other day, we smiled wistfully as he said he wouldn’t make a good games reviewer as he didn’t read many magazines. After we’d finished weeping face down into the rug we like to roll around naked on at remembering days when we were that innocent and naïve, it dawned on us that the comment reminded us about something we started on a while ago but never finished – the Top 5 Misconceptions About Games Reviewers. If it educates just one reader or wannabe reviewer, that’s good enough for us.


1 – Games Reviewers Can Write

Games reviewers being a form of journalist, and journalists being a form of writer, it wouldn’t be massively unreasonable to assume they could string together a sentence without fucking something up. It would also be massively wrong. Like all the misconceptions listed here, we’re not saying that it applies to every working games journalist out there. Just a surprisingly large proportion of them.

Most of the time when you read a review, it’s been tidied up by a sub-ed. It’s their job to take the mangled, ridiculous musings of half-cut lunatics and turn them into something readable. One way of cutting through who can write and who can’t is by reading their blogs or forum posts. They’re not edited, so you know that the authors of the decent ones are worthy of their job title. The rest aren’t just being lazy or ironic – they really are shit at writing.

Yes, they can put ideas and comments about games into a paragraph. No, they have no grasp of how to communicate them grammatically correctly or even colloquially.

(Quick note to the person who’ll spend hours trawling the blog for a typo before posting it in the comments box – well done, ten points to you)


2 – Games Reviewers Know About Games

It used to be said by reviews editors that finding an employable games reviewer is incredibly difficult as plenty of people know about games and plenty of people know how to write, but very few people can boast about possessing both accolades. As Misconception 1 decrees, we already know most of them can’t write without letting their dicks get in the way. Not knowing about games, though – isn’t that slightly disappointing?

Most get away with it with their saviour Google, but it’s the over reliance on press releases and PR trips that poses the biggest danger. Walk through a mag office, and you’ll see mountains of games still in their shrinkwrap. Have a conversation with a reviewer about games, and we mean the big releases, and a look of fear darts into their eyes as they realise one wrong move could expose them for the idle, blagging charlatans they often are.

Some of the funniest (in the unintentional sense) days and evenings we’ve had have been with the staff of mags discussing those little compilations of games they like so much, like group tests or top 100 games lists. Major games come up, and three-quarters of the room are shaking their heads having not even heard of them, never mind played them.

In conversation away from the safety of the old boys’ networks, the biggest giveaways are “I haven’t had chance to play that one yet,” or, if you’re a reader, they’ll always pull the “I can’t talk about that yet because of the NDA” cracker (an NDA being a non-disclosure agreement, which reviewers have to sometimes sign when they’ve played unfinished code and the review they’ve cobbled together off the back of it can’t be published until a date commanded by the publisher or PR).

Mag style guides (the instructions telling reviewers the house rules of the mag) invariably instruct reviewers to lie about gaps in their gaming knowledge so you’ll never find out about it. Yep, the mags tell their reviewers to lie – bet you never saw that one coming.


3 – Games Are Given To Reviewers Based On Their Specialist Knowledge

Another promise the mags are printing every month in the header page of their reviews section is the empty pledge that games are matched up to reviewers who are specialists in certain genres. Bollocks.

Most mags have something like a little white board with all their reviewers’ names written on them, and next to the names go the games they’ve been assigned to review. The big games (6-8 pages) will usually go to the staff writer regardless of the genre, because freelancers get paid by the word and will get assigned whatever small time shit that’s left over randomly, and that includes pickings for staffers from mags completely unrelated to gaming as an old boy favour. As well as avoiding a payout, this also sidesteps the problem of sending the reviewer to the PR/publisher’s office for a day or two to play it, as only freelancers who have their dicks very firmly wedged up an editor’s arse (i.e. ex-staffers) will get an expenses-bonanza like that.

For lesser games, you’ll find that shit which nobody else wants like the flight sims and the hardcore strategy dross does sometimes go to the peculiar specimen in the freelance pool who really does like those kinds of game. The trouble there though is they almost always overrate games from their specialist genre. Got a hardcore racing sim that nobody who plays games for fun will enjoy? Then it'll get 85%, because they like hardcore racing sims that nobody who plays games for fun will enjoy.

We’re tempted to launch into our argument about why more than one reviewer should play every game reviewed here, but that’s for another post.


4 – Games Reviewers Always Complete Their Games

This one is excusable for several reasons. First up, it’s rarely necessary to complete a game to get a decent write up from it. A day or two, or a few respectably sized evening sessions, gives you everything you need to know about whether the code is worth spending money on.

Second up, when a reviewer has only spent an hour or two on a game, it isn’t always their fault. It may be so unfinished that it’s barely playable. It may have a high reliance on multiplayer action, which means there’s artificiality to playing against beta testers or against other mag staff over a LAN. They may be sat in a developer/publisher/PR’s office with a husk on their shoulder telling them what to do and where to go before showing them the door. There may be a stupidly unrealistic deadline of less than 24 hours. The review might be only taking up a quarter or an eighth of a page, in which case other stuff has to take priority, or a freelancer’s only getting £20 for it so can’t be arsed.

Despite the rain of shit flying in reviewers’ faces when it comes to playing decent chunks of games, they’re still often not spending enough time with them. Look at something like Teletext’s GameCentral – when two reviewers are producing reviews daily along with news and letters, how much time are they actually getting to play the things?

If you’re familiar with a game that’s been reviewed you can play a game of “spot the screenshots from the first level”, but the beta code we get to review often comes with codes to skip to later parts of the game, for shame.


5 – Games Reviewers Read Games Magazines

And that’s what takes us back to the comment that re-inspired us to write this post. Most of them don’t even read the mags they write for, although that’s as much to do with cunts like Future being too tight to bother sending copies to their own contributors as it is with laziness.


We could have made this a top 10, but there’s already enough on here about games reviewing being a job that stopped being good many moons ago, and being too commercialised now, and the old boys’ network who still hilariously deny they exist, and the shit pay, and review scores being adjusted in exchange for advertising/covers, and the frequent fuck ups stemming from all of this which you can find out about by sidling up to a reviewer and mentioning Headhunter: Redemption, DRIV3R, Unreal 2 or Doom 3.

The most depressing thing about this list is, really, all 5 of the misconceptions should be standard industry practice. Of course reviewers should be able to string together sentences without getting lost up their own sphincters and ejaculating along the way. Of course they should know about the games industry without having to crib from Metacritic.

Are these unreasonable expectations to have of the people who review games in exchange for your money?

Sadly, yes.

Sony = Liars, EA = Hypocrites, RR = Obsolete

Assuming we don’t have that mental disorder where you think things happen but they don’t, people keep emailing us asking why we don’t update very often any more. It’s because this industry has become such a self-parodying joke, it doesn’t need people like us to deride it.


Par example:

Friday 6th July 2007, Sony Corporation President Ryoji Chubachi announces there are “no immediate plans” for a PS3 price drop.

Monday 9th July 2007, SCEA drop price of PS3 by $100 with immediate effect.

What is there is to say, other than to rub in the knowledge that the PS3 costs £200 in North America, and £425 in the UK?


Par example (deux):

EA CEO John Riccitiello slagging off the industry:

“For the most part, the industry has been rinse-and-repeat. There’s been lots of product that looked like last year’s product, that looked a lot like the year before.”

That’s EA. As in Electronic Arts. Words fail us, because they’ve all been said.


What’s next? The PR departments of the world unite and announce games aren’t selling well because they can’t do their fucking jobs properly? Future Publishing announces the credibility of games journalism is being damaged by the magazine industry reviewing unfinished games? Microsoft announces the Xbox 360 has an inherent design flaw after 18 months of denying it?

It’s actually happened – we’ve become obsolete. There’s nothing for us to do but just sit back here and let the games industry take the piss out of itself until it implodes.

EDIT: We’re so fucking incompetent, we can’t even tell the difference between the “save” and “publish” buttons. Sorry. We’re officially out of date as well as obsolete.

Q&A (Guest Starring… Kieron Gillen!)

On our second Birthday, we made a promise to answer your questions. Actually, we promised to answer your questions if they arrived within an hour of posting with the obvious intention that nobody would notice until it was too late. Several of you asked questions, but missed the deadline. We’ll answer some of them anyway. However, one person managed to squeeze in an email full of questions within the hour, meaning we have to answer them. That man was Gillen.


KG: What's the purpose of your blog?

RR: There isn’t really any one purpose when it comes to what goes up on here now. When I first started over two years ago, I was pissed off. Pissed off with the games industry. Pissed off with how it all works. Pissed off that the mags lie to their readers and treat them with contempt. Pissed off that I would get bollocked if I made anything vaguely resembling a humorous or true comment that wasn’t in step with the company line (which means the advertisers’ line too). Just pissed off that the games industry has become this ridiculous joke constantly begging anyone who’ll listen to be taken seriously whilst carrying on like a corrupt, amateurish sixth-form project. Money money money.

KG: Why do you do it?

RR: That fateful night I started the blog, I thought there was very little chance that I could make a difference. I just wanted to get it out there how the magazines are put together, how we’re told to lie, how we get less than 24 hours to turn around preview code and call it a review, and how we get censored unless we’re rewriting press releases. I thought I might get a handful of readers, maybe 50 or so, who read the games mags and would be interested to hear what really goes on behind the scenes.

I never really thought I could make a difference until word got out and I started getting four-figure daily hits. Then I thought maybe I could. The weird thing is, despite blogging about the lies and bullshit, the majority of mag readers don’t know the blog exists because my main audience is games journos and industry workers who know it all anyway. Even the only place that’s had the guts to print my rants as the RAM Raider is the industry’s trade mag, MCV. I did get a mention in PC Zone though, in a roundabout way...

KG: What drives you?

RR: The purpose is just to have fun. If I want to slag something or someone off and Future Publishing (or even smalltime Nazis like the RLLMUK mods) won’t let me because they’re so fucking pathetic about censorship, I can just bung it on here and people get to read it if they want. The purpose now is just to talk about the games industry, get views from the people inside and outside of it, and to let the mags know that they can’t expect to lie without people finding out about it.

KG: What do you hope to accomplish with it?

RR: One of the things that makes me snigger when I’m being lambasted for being cowardly, and hiding behind my cloak of anonymity and all that bollocks is that the journos who are doing it aren’t criticising me for telling the truth. They’re criticising me because I’m talking about them and their buddies, and they don’t like it. They like criticising games (as long as the publisher hasn’t paid for advertising in the mag, natch) perched up in their magazines and on their little websites, and so they should. As games journalists, it’s our right and our duty to criticise bad games. I know for a fact that you feel no guilt when you’re really sticking it to a bad game, and rightly so.

What the games journos really hate though is the thought that someone’s criticising them. The reviewers are being reviewed. When I’m being called a hypocrite for working in an industry I’ve come to hate as much as I love over the years, that makes me laugh hard. So there’s the purpose: it keeps the mags on their toes, it keeps the readers of the mags informed about what goes on, and it entertains me as well as my Anonymous Knights.

KG: *Is* there anything you can accomplish with it?

RR: When it comes to accomplishments, I think I’ve achieved everything I set out to do and then some. Anything else is a bonus. As long as people enjoy reading the blog and the right questions are there to be asked, I’ll carry on popping up from time to time to ask them. And you’ve got to admit – that Top 10 Least Hideous Games Journos thing was a genius idea…


That’s enough for you, Gillen. And for the record, I don’t dislike you or your work. I just dislike some of your work, and the way it’s treated like lost sections of the Bible by certain people. Now, other questions from other readers:

lips said...
Happy Birthday Rammy! My question - why bother?

RR: Kinda answered that above. Thought I could make a difference, but now I’m just pleased to have a conduit to comment without corporate interests taking precedent.


Neil said...
When did you first see corruption in the games industry?

RR: Very good question. A lot of the very early stuff is well documented already, but the first time I personally felt the baseball bat of corruption was when I had an entire article plagiarised from an Amiga mag by a freelance guy like I wouldn’t fucking notice. I won’t name the guy who did it because I don’t know what he does now, and it was a long time ago. And yes, I do regret not suing.


Bonjela said...
Happy Birthday Ram. Answer this please: there are only two magazines for PC games players, so which is better. Pc Zone or Pc Gamer?

RR: PC Gamer, without a shadow of a doubt. I’ve swung between the two a lot over the years. PC Gamer lost my vote when they redesigned a few years back and got all wanky, but then PC Zone was bought out by Future, and was transformed from an edgy adult games mag into a more sterile version of The Beano, and PC Gamer have reeled in their wankiness a bit. Both mags have their faults. PC Zone’s days are numbered the way its ABC’s are going, but they have some genuinely good writers on board which means it’s a shame. Jon Blyth is superb, and weird Irish kid also has his moments when he’s not hung over, but the combination of Future’s dictatorship and the worst editorial partnership in the mag’s history (Sefton/Porter) has sealed its fate. PC Gamer has a more consistent bunch of writers when it comes to quality, with Gillen (when he’s not being silly) and Walker (when he’s not being wrong) standing out. They’ve also got a good solid editor with Ross Atherton, although he needs to reel in the World Of Warcraft features, and stop Tim Chubby Edwards from being so smug.


Anonymous Knight said...
how long have you been in the games business

RR: I won’t give an exact date, but my first published games mag appearance was in the 80’s.


Richard said...
why don't you actually post anything about people taking bribes and that anymore. More rumours of PR intervention, please!

RR: Two answers to this, really. First, despite how much Future and its bitches made out they didn’t care about the blog, they got in an enormous flap. Hatches were battened down, rumours flew, and management wanted to track down their little leak. The problem is, and I hate to admit this, it kinda worked. The way this info works its way around the office means that when stuff does reach me, it would narrow down the field too much if I revealed it. About 10 people know for certain who I am (not including the ones who have guessed) and that's the way I want to keep it for now. The second reason is that it really, genuinely upsets people when I talk about them, so I hold back unless there’s something I really want to get off my chest. Anonymous Knights even write to me with info, but ask me not to reveal it for what I guess are the same reasons, which I always respect. Surreal, but true.


Anonymous Knight said...
How many games industry staff were in the PS3 get-a-free-TV line?

RR: It was quicker to count the genuine customers, and that was after they had to be bribed to appear in the publicity shots.


That’s it folks – the RAM Raider salutes you.

Edge = Spineless Fucks

Reading Edge is wrong on so many levels, there literally isn’t room on the whole of the web to list them. The pretentious prick-fest that calls itself monthly journalism is getting a lot of attention at the moment because they’ve been even more spineless than usual. And that’s saying something.

Former Digitiser editor Paul Rose / Mr. Biffo usually writes the only page of the “mag” that’s even close to readable every month, and is always refreshingly free of penis-sucking platitudes and over-use of Word’s “Synonyms” option to pick the longest words. This month, Edge has seen fit to pull his monthly opinion page because he commits the unforgivable sin of telling an amusing story about how Sony husk Phil Harrison hijacked a Marillion concert by turning it into a corporate plug for the despicable PS3, contrary to Future Publishing Commandment “Though shalt not biteth the cocketh that fucketh our readers in the arseth for money. Eth.”

Recognising that reporting the truth about Sony cunts and their ridiculous antics is what proper journalists do, Paul has published the article on his excellent blog.

So now you can hate Sony and their nosediving sales figures and read the only readable page in Edge without having to buy it / hang around a newsagent / fish it out the office bin right now, for free. Future, in the meantime, are safe to carry on selling the varnished covers of not-very-popular-in-terms-of-reader-figures-despite-what-they-make-out Edge for another month.

Corrupt Games Journos – Let’s Improve Things

Our thoughts on how journalists are becoming indistinguishable from PR mouthpieces are no secret. MCV (p.17, 3/11/06) published our proposition to lead us not into temptation:


“Every so often, the question of whether games journalists count as being part of the games industry is raised. The question is largely based on semantics: of course games journalists (or at least the specialist press) are just as much a part of the industry as the publishers, the PR and the marketers, but they’re not directly involved in the process of making games.

But the truly important question isn’t about whether or not games journalists are part of the industry.

The question that should be asked – strongly – is: “Are journalists independent of the industry?” If they’re not, the specialist press is in trouble.

In a debate about the first question on Sony’s David Jaffe “cake’s” blog some time ago, I reminded every reader of the true purpose of the games media. The free press is there to commentate, to critique, and to inform the public.

Or, in less flowery terms, to test out games and tell you if they’re worth buying.

To carry out this role competently and fairly, journalists have to be impartial and professionally unbiased. Despite this, publishers pour collective millions into the pockets of PR machines whose jobs are to make sure the journalists are talking about their games.

The PR folk achieve this by lavishing journalists with treats, from previews of games through to expensive trips abroad – complete with a quick look at the code, shoehorned between dinner and a lapdance.

Most press events are overblown and unnecessary. Because of the needless luxuriance of these jollies, which often see journalists being flown to fancy locations around the world, hacks become open to suggestion. Maybe these journalists who are supposed to be taking an unbiased and impartial view of a game aren’t quite living up to their readers’ expectations.

It would be unsportsmanly to suggest journalists are deliberately nice about a game because of the attention they’ve received courtesy of that nice PR man’s credit card. But it’s nothing more than natural to assume that maybe, just maybe, the critics might be slightly influenced, even if sub-consciously, when summing up the latest release.

There you are ready to start ripping the game apart before you suddenly remember how nice Mr. PR Man always is to you, and, oh, the fun we all had on that trip, and those developers are just so dang ‘nice’… where was I? Oh yes, maybe I won’t mention that below-par bit of the game after all…

And that’s where the danger lies. A critic is supposed to approach a game just as a reader of their magazine or website would. The problem is the critic has played several versions of the preview code, interviewed the developers, and been arse-kissed by the PR. In some cases, they’ve actually had their faces scanned into the game or have got to record their voice as one of the characters. They’re as far removed from an everyday purchaser you can get.

One of my Anonymous Knights recently commented that reviewers should be made to list all the free stuff they’ve been given, as well as any contact they’ve had with the game’s makers.

I’d propose something stronger: don’t assign the review of a game to the journalist who’s been to press events and seen previous versions of the code unavailable to the public.

Give it to someone who can approach it with a fresh and unbiased perspective, just like those who eventually purchase the game at retail.

Reviewers are only human, so lead them not into temptation. Otherwise, they’re more a part of the industry than they ever should be.”


The original comment we posted on David Jaffe’s blog a year ago was this:

“I think two issues have been confused here. The first is the notion that games journalists/writers/critics/whatever aren’t part of “the industry”. Just like movie critics are an integral and vital element of the movie industry and music critics are likewise for the music industry, games critics are just a much a part of the games industry. An industry is made of elements that if one was removed, the whole would fail. The movie, music and games industries would be nothing without their respective press, as there would be no interface between the consumer and the creators. The second issue is that games “journalists” simply don’t live up to their job descriptions. The point made about magazines being full of PR puff is valid as, speaking as a UK journalist, most magazines are glorified mouthpieces that pander to PR whims. “Features” start and end with press trips laid on by PR firms or publishers, and result in little more than speculation wrapped up in positive spin. Good, honest, aggressive (but fair) journalism is all but impossible to achieve now, but it’s not always the fault of the journalists. While some are content to sit back rewriting press releases, the specialist UK games press is monopolised by a publishing house which, in association with the selective PR firms, calls all the shots when it comes to what gets covered by its magazines and journalists. This effectively makes the concept of independent editorial thinking and a truly free press a fiction. The only journalists brave enough to stand up and speak their minds are quickly shunned and blacklisted from the “club”, leaving true honesty to be the bastion of the exiled, or working journalists cowering behind a shield of anonymity.”


And here’s a shit quality scan of the MCV article:

Future Haemorrhages Credibility

We’ve already told you about Future’s loss of readers and money. Now we’re going to tell you why.

Future is desperate to put a positive spin on readers flocking away from their magazines along with their money. In last week’s omnipotent trade-weekly MCV (happy now, Lisa?), they summoned their mouthpiece James Ashton-Tyler to take a leaf out of Sony’s book of PR arrogance. In one fell swoop, he brushed aside a suggestion that hadn’t been made in the first place that websites are killing mags all whilst sidestepping the real reason Future is haemorrhaging readers and money.

The discussion about websites taking over from the mags has been limping along for years, but has never been convincing. Although websites provide up-to-the-second news and reviews for free, the writing itself has always been questionable. Even the websites championed as spearheading the online games-info revolution attract the dregs of the industry. The unreliable Eurogamer and IGN lead the way in posting up woefully bad copy that’s uninformed, overly-indulgent or both.

Magazines have always been the place to go to read the views of the industry’s leading critics. You have to pay a few quid for the privilege, and mag lead times mean that reviews might be published a bit later than the instant-update websites, but the money and wait has always been worth it for well-written, funny, honest views to help you spend your money.

Not any more.

Despite Ashton-Tyler’s snide comments in MCV, Future is running scared of its online competition. They’re so frightened, they’ll do anything to compete. They’ll publish official magazines for unreleased consoles that their journalists haven’t played with yet. They’ll set-up “world exclusive” reviews to give the illusion of being ahead of the websites. They’re so desperate, they’ll jump into bed with publishers and lie to their readers to keep the illusion running.

The October issue of PC Gamer is in the shops on Thursday. Inside is an 8 page “world exclusive” review of Company of Heroes. Although it takes Tim Edwards a while to get going (“I could tell war stories all day, but you might want to know how CoH actually plays” says Edwards on the sixth page) but it’s an otherwise reasonable account of the game. From what we’ve played of CoH, it’s a very good game which will probably be worth its 94% when finished. The trouble is, there’s so much dishonesty and deceit around it all, they’re not even trying to hide it any more.

Page 44-45 has a two page advert for Company of Heroes featuring a quote and the score from the review which, remember, is in the same issue. The front cover is adorned with CoH worshipping. “BEST RTS SCORE EVER” lies the front cover, as later on the magazine cheerfully reminds the reader the 95% they awarded Rome: Total War in issue 141. The last time we checked, 95% is higher than 94%.

It screams dishonesty. They’re so desperate to beat the websites to a review, they’ll base the review of the game on unfinished pre-release code. The guy who reviews it will be flown around the white cliffs of Dover in a WWII plane to France, and wined and dined in a luxury hotel and casino. His fellow journalists will be sat in front of preview code to write previews whilst he’s given “world exclusive” unfinished "review" code. Future will give the advertisers the score and a quote from the review as part of the deal. A lie will be told on the front cover.

It’s been going on for years. The RAM Raider has written reviews for magazines from disks with “preview code” written on them. The RAM Raider has written reviews for magazines from code that’s less than 75% finished. It’s becoming more of an open secret now, and the readers are realising.

This is why magazines are dying. They’re dishonouring themselves by reviewing unfinished code and making advertising-for-coverage deals. They’re cheapening the quality of an excellent game by reviewing it through dishonesty.

That’s why Future is haemorrhaging readers. That’s why Future is haemorrhaging money. If its morals and honesty are haemorrhaged too, more readers will realise they’re being lied to.

Would you rather read a “world exclusive” review of unfinished code in conjunction with advertisers, or a later review of finished code that’s independent and uncensored?

FIFA 06: EA Don’t Want You To Know It’s Shit

Sharp-eyed readers recently noticed that http://www.eurogamer.net/ were forced to pull their review of FIFA 06: Road to FIFA World Cup for Xbox360 because it was embargoed until the 2nd December. As the game is going to be released on the 2nd December, and EG gave it an impressive 2/10, it would be easy to assume that EA would rather you all bought it before reading bad things about it.

If you’re thinking of buying it, it’s only fair you read EG’s review first, so here it is. (We’ll remove it as soon as EG put it back up on their site)

(2/12/05 EDIT: EG has put the review back up now the embargo has passed - http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=61919)

Official Xbox360 Magazine Does “It” Again

We had it all planned out. We were going to post a huge critique of issue 2 of Official Xbox 360 Magazine. We were going to scream from the tops of our lungs about how painfully obvious it is that their “world exclusive review” of Perfect Dark Zero was written after playing unfinished code. We were going to crow about how the writer hasn’t even been identified, with a crap cartoon image and the name “Justin Thyme” being substituted for his real details because of the wrongdoing. We were even going to ask how Future can justify asking £6 for a magazine that still has a DVD full of video clips instead of playable demos hidden inside the ridiculous box.

But we’re not going to do that.

Instead, we’re going to ask the brilliantly talented team behind the magazine (Cutlack! He writes the funny bits of UK:R!) to please put a stop to this nonsense. Let’s have no more “exclusives” derived from unfinished code written by journalists unable to even put their name to them. Tell your bosses at your next meeting that you want honesty in your magazine.

Is that too much to ask?