It’s something I haven’t really thought about much, to be honest, and I’m not sure how many of us have; there doesn’t seem to be a lot of talk about this concept on Teh Intarwebs, relatively speaking. But in my research for tonight’s interview with Jordan Weisman of Shadowrun and WizKids fame, I couldn’t help but notice that the ill-fated Shadowrun for Xbox 360 and PC (which I should point out is almost NOTHING like Mr. Weisman’s actual work) got relatively low scores, and mostly due to one fact: the reviewers felt that there was very little content present for a full-priced $60 game. It had 9 maps, 7 weapons, 7 spells, 6 techs, and 3 game modes. Ok, so they were probably right about that fact. Sixty bucks for so little is probably inexcusable, even if there were promises of more content coming.
But does that define a review score? I’ve played Shadowrun, and I’ve enjoyed it. There was a lot of promise present in that relatively sparse offering, as well as a FPS system that belied the opportunity of rich strategy behind it. If I were to review it, and cost were not a factor, I’d have given it an 8 or 8.5, easily. From the tone and words of the reviewers’ writings, it wouldn’t be too much of a stretch to assume their scores would fall into a similar line. So what happened? Would Mass Effect 3 have gotten higher scores and garnered less anger if it had sold at $30?
Reviewers are accountable to 3 Forces in their world: their employer’s best interests, their readers, and The Truth. I have not listed these in no particular order; typically this is the order of importance, and for a reason. If a reviewer is not mindful of his employer’s needs and interests, he may end up damaging them in some fashion; after all, a reviewer is the public face of a journalistic company. And let us not forget, it is just that: it is journalistic, yes, but is foremost a company, and companies are in the business of making money. If a reviewer hurts the bottom line, the employer may cut them loose either because they can’t afford another such mistake, or perhaps even because they can’t even afford to pay them anymore.
It’s priority #2 that is the main issue at stake here: the readers. Sure, this ultimately ties back to Priority #1, but it is because of the readers that the score is dropped. Let’s face it; though it’s a flawed practice to live and die by, readers pay attention to review scores when making their purchasing decisions. So a reviewer has to keep this in mind. If they rate a game like Shadowrun at an 8.5 at launch, even though it’s not necessarily worth the launch price, readers will see the score without even reading the article (especially now thanks to sites like Metacritic which emphasize the importance of the score and downplay the intricacies of the written word) and will act accordingly. Then you have upset readers on your hands. “You’re a bunch of sellouts!” “[company name] obviously bought you out!!!” “who is this dumfuk he needs 2 b fired imedietly!!!!!!!” And such.
The problem here, though, is that Priority #3 is ultimately sacrificed on the altar of Mammon. The bottom line is this:
Truth almost never wins out when journalism is dependent on money to survive.
Is this really The Way Things Should Be? After all, a game’s price is temporary at best (Shadowrun now goes for $10 for a new copy), but a review score is forever. It doesn’t go away. How can we hope to be accurate, truthful and considered to have a shred of integrity when we as an industry cannot even reconcile these two elements?
Just think about that, Gaming Industry. Let it roll around in your marble for a while. Surely we can find an alternative?
