|
IRISH004 -> RE: GTA IV (4/28/2008 9:27:07 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ER1CKSON
Don't know how it was exclusive, there were 2 other companies that reviewed the game before IGN. [:D] But, I agree....money is quite often tossed around when it comes to reviews in the gaming industry.
I not sure about that but it was suppose to be an IGN exclusive until Sunday.
quote:
What’s with IGN’s Exclusive GTA IV Review?
[image]http://www.next-gen.biz/images/dothr.gif[/image]
By Tom Ivan
Print | Send to a friend | Email the editor
[image]http://www.next-gen.biz/images/dothr.gif[/image]
BLOG - Many people flock to IGN to read reviews, especially when the site gets an exclusivity period as it had with its Grand Theft Auto IV review.
[image]http://www.next-gen.biz/images/stories/ign_gta_iv_review.jpg[/image]
Unlike IGN, the likes of CVG, Kotaku and 1UP (and I’d imagine all of the other consumer sites) had their GTA IV reviews embargoed until Sunday. IGN’s review of the game was published on Friday. Variety’s Ben Fritz has an interesting piece about the whole situation, “Exclusive Reviews Are Ethically Troubling”, over on The Cut Scene blog.
Here are a couple of excerpts:
“… Anyone who knows anything about videogame journalism knows that when an outlet gets a review copy of a game, they agree to an embargo -- not to run their review before anyone else… IGN.com clearly got permission from… Rockstar… to run their reviews before any other outlet. And it means they got their copy of the game pretty damned early in order to have the review ready to run early.
“Being the first outlet to review a highly anticipated new videogame is a big deal. It means a major boost in Web traffic or magazine sales. Anybody who cares about GTA IV has probably read the IGN review already, or will very soon. And every major videogame blog is probably linking to it.
“I'm not saying that GTA IV doesn't deserve a 10… But how can we trust a videogame review when the outlet running it has been given a major commercial favor -- one that's worth money -- from the publisher of the game? You never see a paper or TV station getting special access from a movie studio or TV network or book publisher to run an "exclusive review." Imagine the L.A. Times or Roger Ebert touting their “exclusive review of Iron Man.” Absurd, right? So why do we tolerate it for a videogame?
“Exclusive reviews are really ethically troubling, for all the reasons I've outlined above. And I'll state it flat out: I personally don't trust any review labeled "exclusive." Is anyone else as disturbed by this practice as I am?”
quote:
Exclusive Reviews: Ethically Troubling?
[image]http://kotaku.com/assets/resources/2008/04/ignGTA-thumb.jpg[/image]Variety's Ben Fritz thinks so. Provoked by IGN's 10/10 rating of Grand Theft Auto IV, he draws a line that seems to connect "exclusive" first-crack reviews of games and superior, almost historic ratings (as is the case in GTA IV.)
For example, Game Informer gave Mass Effect a near-perfect 9.75 out of 10, while citing many problems that might otherwise lead to a lower score (and the fact Ben himself doesn't think it even comes close, but never mind that.) Without passing judgment on GTA IVs 10/10ness, he thinks that exclusive reviews are "ethically troubling" at minimum.
"But how can we trust a videogame review when the outlet running it has been given a major commercial favor — one that's worth money — from the publisher of the game? You never see a paper or TV station getting special access from a movie studio or TV network or book publisher to run an "exclusive review." Imagine the L.A. Times or Roger Ebert touting their "exclusive review of 'Iron Man.'" Absurd, right? So why do we tolerate it for a videogame?" For the record, Ben says he never labels a review exclusive. Neither do we.
|
|
|
|