Game reviewers draft a 'Bill of Rights'

by Ludwig Kietzmann { May 28th 2008 at 9:30PM }

Though you may begrudge them for stamping a 4.5 across Highly Anticipated Shooty Game, or daring to rate The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess an outrageous 1.3 points lower than what you felt it truly deserved, game reviewers are known to have feelings too. Sensing the beating hearts beneath these calculating judgment machines, MTV Multiplayer's Stephen Totilo has asked several reviewers to lay out the circumstances necessary for the wishfully "perfect" review. Their requests aren't as lofty as you might expect.

Compiled in a "Bill of Rights," reviewers' requests include being granted access to a game's online mode during the review process, as well as receiving a final boxed copy of the game prior to the review. "I think all a reviewer should really have in their disposal is exactly what the person purchasing the game will have," says Giant Bomb's Jeff Gerstmann.

Sometimes, even a review copy of the game is hard to come by on time, with critics asking to receive final code a week before the review gets underway. Modern production schedules frequently prevent this, forcing writers to peer into the future and take the publisher's word on what will be fixed in the final code. Oh, and developers? Please don't peer over their shoulders while they're playing your game. Check out the full Game Reviewer's Bill of Rights on MTV Multiplayer.

Tags: Critics, Reviews

Related From Joystiq

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

rodrigo es chingon @ May 28th 2008 9:46PM

okk

BananaBoat @ May 28th 2008 11:45PM

Does anyone else find it hilarious that Denis "Delay" Dyack would be up in arms over people reviewing (or in his case...previewing...for eternity) games before they are finished? Perhaps someone is sore from the past year+ of bad previews for Too Human?

The "Bill of Rights" for reviewers is good in theory..but the damn thing itself says that it's not possible with the way development and magazine deadlines go. In other news, MTV Multiplayer was later viewed tilting at windmills.

Jhongerkong @ May 28th 2008 9:46PM

We should know if the reviewer beat the game to completion.

psychoticdream @ May 28th 2008 9:58PM

yes we do.. but we will never see that implemented since everyone wants to be "first" to have an "exclusive review"

Geist @ May 29th 2008 1:19AM

This isn't always possible, nor is it necessary in many cases. I don't want to have to power through 40+ hours of Persona 3 to review it, nor is it necessary to see that it's a good game.

Jhongerkong @ May 29th 2008 1:25AM

We should still know at least how far they got into the game.

ComradeTrotskii @ May 28th 2008 10:02PM

I understand that these guys are fighting for marketshare and advertising dollars but if they were really concerned about reviewing the final product they could simply delay their reviews until they get a final copy and finish the game. Of course that would mean missing out on 'ROLL UP, ROLL UP, FIRST EXCLUSIVE 10/10, GET YOUR HYPE HERE FOLKS!'

(Now I realise that's likely the fault of the company these guys work for rather than the individuals, but y'see what I'm getting at)

Deck @ May 28th 2008 10:05PM

I think the problem is that they don't have enough time to review a game. They have what.. maybe 1 week to review a high profile release? While maybe juggling one or two other games as well.

Take GTAIV or Mass Effect... I don't think either of those games can be correctly summed up in just 1 week of play time. You need multiple weeks to really experience the true game, in all of its glory and all of its bad. Though, that'll never happen. I just think too much is smashed into a small period.

ScottyGEE @ May 28th 2008 10:35PM

That's also why people say Assasin's creed got panned...

But man mass effect is awesome =)

Geist @ May 29th 2008 1:22AM

I don't think you do, for either of those games, because everything that the game offers you (gameplay-wise, not story-wise) is available to you immediately. Dialogue in Mass Effect does not change it's mechanic, nor does driving and whatnot in GTA4. Now, playing it to make sure it doesn't do this, and that things in the game don't get dull or stale is important, but if you're a professional game reviewer (ie have no other career obligations), it should not take that long to experience what a game has to offer.

Easo @ May 29th 2008 12:13PM

Geist
I have to disagree with you. For some games, I can see not finishing to write a review on them. Racers, fighters, RTS , and sports games are all genres that I wouldnt mind the reviewer playing for an afternoon and pumping out the review in the evening. But for RPGs, fps, and action/adventure games, I would like for the reviewer to complete at least 75% of the game before passing judgement on it. The only exceptions should be for games that are fundamentally flawed. Meaning that something is wrong with the holy trinity of gaming: controls, gameplay,and technical presentation.

If you only review the first half of a game, then games like DMC4 score higher than they desirve. How the hell does DMC4, which requires the player to backtrack through THE ENTIRE GAME, get rated above a 9? Did they only play through half of the game before writing a review, who knows.
So with that said, I agree with Jhongerkong and Deck. Reviewers should play all of the game before they write the review, or at least let us know what percentage they were able to complete.

Anticrawl @ May 28th 2008 10:10PM

Oh my god! Jeff Gerstmann escaped internet prison! Quick someone call the internet police!

*grabs shovel*

I'm going Gerstmann hunting.

rasgueado @ May 28th 2008 10:16PM

Game Reviewer's Bill of Rights? They play games, and then tell people about them. How about they start by going off and F*&king themselves.

DangerMouse @ May 28th 2008 10:18PM

Lol, bill of rights? There's only one rule...beat the competition to the review. Ready, Set....GO!

Geist @ May 29th 2008 1:29AM

In my spare time, I review games for a website that's not top billing, but is the top gaming website in Canada, and I find most of these things pretty obvious. There's a company I won't name that is somewhat notorious for sending out nothing but sleeved CDs with the name of the game printed on it. Hell, recently I got a game that was on a DVD-R, with my name and the game's name written on in Sharpie. I mean, come on. It was a damned good thing my roommate owns a modded PS2, because it wouldn't work on mine.

Warlord @ May 29th 2008 8:56AM

What reviewers should do, when told that their copy will not reflect the final product, is to review what they have. Score the game based on what they have. If a particular feature doesn't work well, or the load times are a bit high, review it and mark them down for it.

A few bad scores later, and game companies will stop sending you "review" versions that are different than the release.

At least give two scores, one that is based on what you got, and one that is based on what it is "supposed" to be like.