Gaming on the Clock: Has Speed Superseded Trust in Reviews?

by Lerako on May 3rd, 2021

On May 3rd, 2021, Mike Diver of Gamingbible.co.uk made the following comment on his Twitter account, and in doing so, opened what he described as a “Pandora’s Box of boisterous boys” in response.

So what has gotten everyone so worked up about a seemingly innocuous tweet that seems to be more inclusive to would-be reviewers? To answer that, we need to dive deeper into the intention of the games reviewer, and their impact not only on the potential sales of the title, but the trust to be fostered between the games reviewer and the games player.

On this site, we’ve been writing about videogames for years, and while we aren’t paid to do so, we do still try to deliver feedback on a game in as accurate a manner as possible, because that’s the most important take-away from our reviews.

Finishing a videogame is crucial to that accuracy, and if, for whatever reason it’s not possible to do so in the time of release or other mitigating factors, the reviewer should open their article with a caveat that they haven’t beaten the game to completion.
Is this standard for reviewers?
No.
Because their readership might be inclined to go elsewhere for a more knowledgeable and complete source – and that would be bad for business.

Unfortunately, the compromise that the industry currently adopts is that the reviews must be made in time to the games release, and so each reviewer is required to experience the games under the scrutiny of a time limit, coming in under the wire and potentially giving their overview of the game without experiencing the full title.

While I can empathize with the pressure of writing under the gun, I must also acknowledge that the reviewer’s efforts in this system can be described as dishonest at best, and is deceitful at its worst.
The reader needs to be able to trust their chosen source, because they are about to put that trust to the test when investing in the reviewers title.
With AAA releases serving as the most expensive entertainment option, it’s one that deserves an informed reviewer.

So, does one need to be ‘good at games’ to write about them, or stream them, or be involved in making them?

You would hope so – and nobody should slight you if you should choose to seek out a more venerable and accurate source in any of the above examples. 
But for the sake of argument, if one does fail in that regard, you’d hope then that they would have the knowledge to accurately summate the experience of the game as intended.
Especially considering that anyone reviewing, streaming or developing games professionally is often being compensated monetarily to do so, with the size of the audience often reflecting the significance of that reviewer/streamer/developer.  
If one isn’t able to progress further than the tutorial stage, or fails to grasp the control of the game in an objective setting due to their own skill or inexperience, they should not be expected to editorialize their experience for the benefit of those interested in the game, because it paints the game in an inaccurate light.
In that same regard, not finishing the game as the developer intended from a narrative standpoint puts the reviewer at a similar disadvantage, as they’ve missed out on the conclusion of their decisions and investment to that point. 
It’s the joke without the punchline. 

Unless specified, the reader will always assume that the reviewer has completed the game in question, as that’s precisely what they’ve been paid to do. Even in an instance where the reviewer hasn’t completed a title 100%, they can use that to inform the reader that the games replay value is greatly expanded by this unseen content.
But in the case where a reviewer has not completed the game in question, and doesn’t offer any view to the contrary, they stand to offer an uninformed review. 
In all scenarios, the one to miss out on the most, and be at the receiving end is the audience: 

Being uninformed creates a poor review that does not reflect the game and can mislead consumers; being uninformed while streaming creates a frustrating or boring stream that wastes the time of those watching; being uninformed while making a game creates a frustrating gaming experience that could have been prevented during development. 

Does one need to ‘finish a game’ to review it, or publish an opinion and score? Again, you’d hope so, because that’s what would paint the intended experience in the most accurate light. If the game was too difficult to complete regardless of investment, that knowledge would be instrumental to any player – but if the game was too difficult to complete because the reviewer wasn’t given enough time to experience the title, that will ultimately translate into an uninformed review – one of which, is not entirely the reviewers fault, but rather the system which enforces it.

If you’re passionate about writing reviews, or streaming, or developing on your own time and on your own investment (as we have done) you will have more freedom on what you can choose to do and when you choose to do it.
Once you choose to do the same thing professionally, the expectations about your work will increase exponentially, and you’ll notice a higher demand of your skill and delivery, as is the case with any job.
To us, the freedom has meant more than the allure of a salary, and writing is just something that makes us content; the audience is a nice bonus.  

So where do we go from here? Who can really be trusted? Is the notion of having a review out first going to trump having an accurate one forever?

Pandora’s Box has been opened, and there’s nary a boisterous boy in sight.

Categories: News