For some sites, reviewing video games isn't about helping consumers make better decisions, nor is it about serious criticism of the art form. Game reviews, and the process of writing them, is a scramble to get the first review out—an exclusive if possible—in order to get the most readers to sell the most ads. Reviewers will do a lot to get their hands on a game as early as possible, and with the very real financial reward given to sites that get the reviews out the quickest, the publishers have more power over the process than most readers probably realize.

When reviewers can't speak freely



Reviewing games in general is a tough process, simply because it can take upwards of 20 hours to fully play a title, and that may or may not include multiplayer time. It's not as simple as listening to an album or watching a film; there is a substantial time commitment. Games often come with "review guides" for this purpose, and the packets can come with cheat codes, descriptions of key scenes, and even "advice" on what should be pointed out in the review's editorial.

In many cases, there are things that the publisher asks you not to mention the review. In the vast majority of cases, this isn't ethically troubling: who wants to give away plot twists in a review anyway? In other cases, things get slippery: for sites running reviews of Metal Gear Solid 4, there is apparently a long list of things that reviewers can't mention. The issue is that we're not talking about plot, it has been rumored that reviewers are being asked not to comment on the length of cut scenes or the size of the game's install on the PlayStation 3's hard drive.

The review on IGN UK is frank about this. It begins, "In return for letting us play Metal Gear Solid 4 before its release, Konami issued us with a list of things that we're not allowed to discuss. This list of prohibited topics is pretty long, and even extends as far as several facts that the company itself has already made public." Later the reviewer notes that "One of those things that Konami doesn't want us to talk about is the 'total length of cut-scenes'."

These aren't small omissions, but relevant information gamers would probably want included in a review. Would you sit through an hour-long cut scene? Would a 30-minute cut scene be any better? Until the game is released, you won't know much information about these movies; in order to get access to the game, reviewers agreed not to give you that information. Financially, it's a good move. It's the gamers that miss out.

The value of exclusive reviews

The next issue, and this is perhaps even more troubling, is the act of handing out exclusive reviews. This is basically the only way that print can compete with the online media these days: the writer gets to play the game, write the review, and then the rest of the sites have to hold their reviews until the time is up on that exclusive. Whenever you see the words "exclusive review," keep in mind that the outlet in question was essentially handed a check. Exclusive reviews are huge business, draw in huge numbers of readers—and that's worth a whole lot of money and prestige. Keep in mind that the rush of readers isn't the only power of exclusive reviews: gaming blogs like Kotaku, Destructoid, and, yes, Opposable Thumbs, often work as chop-shops when it comes to reviews. If the review talks about the game's length, or includes a list of weapons or interesting features, that data will then be talked about across the blogs. Since everyone will link back to the original review, the Google score goes up, the site gets weighted heavier in searches, and the review gets an even longer tail. It's very literally impossible to put a dollar amount on the value of an exclusive review.

Imagine you have a hot game, and most of the gaming media wants to get that exclusive review; they know the money they are worth for their sites or magazines. The publisher then gets to pick and choose whom to give that gift to. The criteria for that choice? No one who wants to keep their job will ever say, but with so much at stake, the publisher has a huge stick to wave, and even without an exclusive, reviewers seem more than happy to withhold important information from readers. Imagine what temptations are there when there is all that money to be made?

Other pitfalls



These aren't the only things you have to look out for; in some cases games that aren't finished are reviewed. You may hear about what the developer promises to fix or change before launch—or you may not. Sometimes members of the development team are in the room when this goes on. It's hard to know how to take a review like that. After all, it's not the game you'll be buying at release, and if the reviewer says it's easy to jump in and play, will it be easy for those of us who don't have the guy who designed the control scheme telling us exactly how to play?



Exclusive reviews of big-name titles like Grand Theft Auto IV are worth a large dollar amount

Game reviews are a lot like laws and sausages: the process of creating them is rarely pretty. The difference is, with reviews, you do want to know what went into them. Is this an exclusive? Was the game reviewed a finished version? Did a developer walk the reviewer through the game? What aren't people allowed to say? I will say that I've never been asked to do anything I've been troubled by when writing a review, but we've also never dealt with the exclusive issue. We often buy games at retail and spend more time than other sites playing them—which is not to say that other sites don't write thorough, honest, and informative reviews.

It's not that there is much direct evidence that the system is corrupt, but when all the major players are this defensive about the process of reviewing games, and there is this much money at stake, it's important to read reviews critically and try to figure out what could have influenced that all-important final score. Gaming is one of the few art forms where being able to critically review a release is this political, and if people are becoming more distrustful of professionally-written reviews, that could be a healthy reaction. The publishers control the careers and fates of review sites in a very real way; with everything from ad revenue, to access to future games, and even your job being on the line, it's not surprising that high review scores are so common.

Further reading