Former GameSpot reviewer sheds light on more PR hijinx
by Xav de Matos 
{ May 29th 2008 at 2:30PM }
In an interview with former GameSpot reviewer, Alex Navarro, MTV Multiplayer Blog was able to extract a telling tale from the newly appointed community team member at Harmonix regarding the oil-to-water relationship public relations practitioners have with the press.When tasked to review an unnamed Wii launch title, Navarro was sent a note along with his copy of the game--which he provided as evidence to Steven Totilo.
The note read: If the review is 9.0 or higher you can post immediately. Lower than 9.0, could you please hold until launch day, November 19th? Thanks.
"And that's not the first time I got something like that," Navarro told MTV. Navarro, who left GameSpot after the public and controversial firing of then-reviews editor Jeff Gerstmann, said GameSpot ran their review for this game based on a copy bought in a store and they panned it for what it was.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
itsburnsie @ May 29th 2008 2:44PM
You stay classy, Gamespot.
Y-I-K-E-S!
Neuromancer @ May 29th 2008 2:53PM
Honestly that sounds pretty reasonable to me.
Now if they'd attached a wad of cash to the game that would have been a little shady.
brytdavis @ May 29th 2008 2:58PM
And we're surprised by this why, exactly?
Meh ... it's a non-story.
andyg8180 @ May 29th 2008 3:06PM
that sounds typical of many places... I dont think its necessarily a bad thing... you give extra love to the games you feel will really make it... Why destroy a title's rep before the game even comes out...
I think its a good move because instead of a player immediately writing it off, they can do more research and say, hey i really want this... oh it got a 7.5? Well, its out today, it still looks good... instead of, oh snap it got a 7.5... it comes out next week? screw it, i dont want it...
Corey @ May 29th 2008 6:22PM
This is exactly why this IS a bad thing. Having early access to reviews is about the only thing you can do in terms of research. Sure you can look at previews, but those usually go one of two different ways:
The first kind of preview is on that is handpicked by the developers. They send the screenshots to the previewer and tell them the key features of the game, or they invite the previewer over to their offices and show them someone else plating the game.
Or there are the "Hands-on" previews that usually only look at the positives of the game. If there are negatives, the preview usually ends wit something like: "we hope that these issues will be taken care of by the time the game launches."
As you can see, neither preview gives an accurate and non-biased look at the game. If the review score is not great and withheld until the game is released, there is very little you can do in terms of research. Therefore, you are more likely to blindly purchase a sucky game that you've been looking forward to instead of possibly being warned beforehand, so at least you would have some idea whether or not you still wanted the game.
Chase @ May 29th 2008 3:09PM
So, what did Alex do? I think that's more of a story than what is posted. Also, if he could name titles and reviews that would be great.
Xav de Matos @ May 29th 2008 3:41PM
A company asked him to refrain from telling your fellow gamers a game was bad until after the launch of a system where the title was one of few so we could only see the good reviews and view the bad ones after the release.
If that isn't shady what is?
Neuromancer @ May 30th 2008 10:44AM
OK but Xav the company is giving them a free copy of the game to review. All they're asking in return is if it gets a bad score that they just hold off on the review until release day. They're not asking the reviewer to alter their score in any way.
If the reviewer doesn't want to do it because it would jeapordize their strict moral code (like a modern day samurai or something), they can wait until launch and buy the game like everyone else. Then they can feel good in the morning.
There ain't no such thing as a free lunch, or a free game. Everything's got a cost. The cost in this case seems reasonable to me.
psyborg @ May 29th 2008 3:17PM
Its called an embargo, and its fairly normal that they only lift if the score is 9 or above. EA does with every single title I believe.
Xav de Matos @ May 29th 2008 3:39PM
That isn't what an embargo is.
An embargo is when a company holds reviews or information in lieu of exclusivity or street date. This is asking him to keep quiet on a review if it's bad until after the game is out so people are flooded only with good reviews.
Odog4ever @ May 29th 2008 3:21PM
If you don't think that every outlet that gets free review copies of games don't get notes like that, then you are naive.
It's up to the reviewers to have integrity and not blindly follow a PR person bidding. He did say that GameSpot ran their review on that un-named game based on a copy bought in a store instead so that's good.
Ed @ May 29th 2008 3:45PM
Red Steel??
Matt @ May 30th 2008 10:53AM
No doubt in my mind that Red Steel is the game in question. This is classic Ubisoft tactics.
psyborg @ May 29th 2008 5:22PM
Ugh I know what Embargo means, I pretty sure they both fit under the term. Even if they do not, thats clearly not the point of my post. My point is that this is common practice and EA does it all of the time.
Xav de Matos @ May 29th 2008 5:27PM
It sucks that some readers are OK with this type of activity. This kind of conduct is exactly why the Joystiq network doesn't sign embargoes or keep anything given to us.
Dron @ May 29th 2008 5:40PM
I agree Xav, this is just ridiculous, a lot of people base their game purchases/ pre-orders on reviews from sites like gamespot. This isn't as bad as actually paying for a good review but its still very shady. I wonder how widespread this practice is...
Ben! @ May 29th 2008 5:46PM
I'm fine with it. I actually thought this was common knowledge (and a common practice)
Homer 918 @ May 29th 2008 5:53PM
WTF! How can you be ok with this? Not only is it highly inappropriate it opens the door for all sorts of even worse activities and demonstrates clearly the wall between marketing and journalism was made of paper at Gamespot.
ZeroCorpse @ May 29th 2008 8:27PM
The problem with this sort of thing is that I CAN'T RETURN A CRAPPY VIDEO GAME ONCE IT'S OPENED.
If I walk into a bad movie at the theater, I can always walk out and get a refund if the movie isn't more than halfway through (and sometimes if it is).
If I get a bad meal at a restaurant, I can send it back to the cook and not be charged for it.
If I want to know if a music CD is good, I can listen to the tracks online before committing to buy it, and even if I do get it and open it, I can probably resell it for close to what I paid for it.
Video games, however, are $60 or more when new. And if they suck, you cannot return them for a refund. You might be able to sell, but at a significant loss.
If you bought the video game based on the absence of a review and lots of glowing (and manipulated) previews, then you've been deceived into making a blind purchase-- Especially if the publisher makes it IMPOSSIBLE for you to get a review prior to a launch day purchase.
This is dirty pool. It should cease.
Chris @ May 29th 2008 11:34PM
Then read the reviews before you go out and buy the game. They're not being paid to give a bad game a good review, they're just releasing the review later. Nothing is stopping you from reading a review before you go and buy a game, and nothing is forcing you to buy a game on launch day either.
Vindieselsmokedurdadspollforcoke @ May 30th 2008 1:21PM
Lame Lame Lame... This just answers all the questions i have ever had about questionable reviews. i.e. GTA4...sorry that game is not a 10 out of 10. Anyone know of any good places to read reviews!!!!