Yeah, fair play.

This guy is soooooooo professional. The words he uses. He is a "smart" guy.

He said "puerile".  The journalistic stereotype is complete.
 
Still, he's quite right about actually having some evidence before making such unsubstantiated claims.  Oh man!  I said "unsubstantiated"!  This journalistic thing is catching!

I hate to berate a fellow Australian who's active in the video game industry, but he does seem a tad unprofessional. Surely, he must have expected that some people would be a little dubious about an exclusive review getting a perfect score. I mean, if he wrote for Hyper then he's probably a straight-shooter, but this type of reaction seems par for the course.

While he's right, the first thing you need as a critic is thick skin. People are going to talk shit relentlessly, no matter what you write, and 95% of the shit talking is going to be braincrushingly stupid. Sadly, a huge amount of people think the job of a critic is to validate popular opinion, and there's no convincing them otherwise.

He'd do well to treat his reviews like action heroes treat explosions: Detonate and walk away without looking back.

He's gotta be above this shit. Do your job and deal with it.

All other reviews leaking are perfect or near perfect scores and are in chorus with what this dude's first review said.

Shocking!

@kashif1 said:

@SpartanAmbrose said:

Bravo, sir. Bravo.

where is that from

You've never seen Citizen Kane? It is a classic, widely regarded as one of the best films ever!

....rosebud.....

I agree with the point of the note, but he also tells people to grow up and not send out toxic notes when he himself is writing a note that is slightly toxic and immature. Just sayin'.

I'm DonutFever and I approve of this message.

I'll always be skeptical of exlusive reviews, I can't help it. But I can see his point. Still, he has to realize that's the standard internet reaction to any high or low early review. Plus it's the sequel to Arkham Asylum, it's not exactly surprising to hear really good things about it.

Yo Batman is probably gonna be a good game.

Did this "exclusive" review really shock the world?

It's always hilarious and sad when journalists have mental breakdowns.

Reading this made me extremely happy. Both because the exact people who he is talking to have posted on this thread and because it's nice to see people called out for being stupid. People are always so quick to think that anything like this just HAS to be a publicity stunt. I'm not saying it never has been, but, as he said, get some proof before spouting all the stuff nobody else cares to hear. Complain to yourself, cause that's the only person who cares what you're saying.

I love when this shit gets slung around here. Yeah, the GB guys are TOTALLY in the pocket of Big Gaming, talking about Occam's Razor of urine...those corporate BASTARDS.

It's a 2-way street. Look at the early Dragon Age 2 reviews, also the early GTA4 reviews. You can't tell me IGN didn't get something out of throwing out a big fat '10' for that game.

It may not be payoffs in cash, but even if it's just an agreement that their quote will end up on the back of the box, it's still the carrot on a stick. I feel bad for reviewers and early reviews that are honest and accurate, because they tend to be few and far between.

@Krakn3Dfx said:

It's a 2-way street. Look at the early Dragon Age 2 reviews, also the early GTA4 reviews. You can't tell me IGN didn't get something out of throwing out a big fat '10' for that game.

It may not be payoffs in cash, but even if it's just an agreement that their quote will end up on the back of the box, it's still the carrot on a stick. I feel bad for reviewers and early reviews that are honest and accurate, because they tend to be few and far between.

Who's to say they weren't honest. At the end of the day, reviews are just opinions. And reviewers don't even get the call, that's all office management, guys in suits shaking hands type deals, all they can do is write the review, if they felt it was a "10" or "5/5" then it's their opinion. If some reviewer got the exclusive review for Skyrim, that review is only "exclusive" for like a week and most people wait until their site of choice covers the game anyway. But to say they got the exclusive review just because they told a guy that I will give your game a perfect score, is kinda dumb, when other places ending up giving the game high scores.

There are soem shady deals going, but it's not as rampant as most people believe it to be.

I'm always suspicious of 10/10 reviews, period.

That was pretty poorly written, and immediately painted its writer as a whiny child in my mind. Yeah man, the internet, as a collective consciousness, has always been a dick. That's not going to change. However, it's his job as a professional journalist to take attacks on his character in stride, and to not respond to what he admits are baseless accusations with little to no evidence supporting their claims.

While screaming "paid review" every time any given outlet manages to get a hold of a game before the rest of the world does is pretty silly, his little temper tantrum about it is even sillier.

I agree with the sentiment of people being dicks but this is not the avenue to discuss it in.

I agree with this guy on every one of his points. Hell, yes.

@Hunkulese said:

I agree with him 100%

I agree with him 100%. Internet anonymity begets asshole behavior.

Do not know who this man is....Doesnt matter. Love him now.

Man, what a whiny rant. If you get an exclusive review, expect people to be skeptical of your impartiality, especially if you give the game a high score, and especially among people who don't have some preexisting trust of you. That's the way it works. If you can't take it, don't make exclusive deals that make people question your reviews. And really, if you can't take criticism, don't become a critic.

As I think Jeff said in his last Jar Time - preferably reviewers should be getting no perks related to games they are reviewing. Sometimes you make concessions to deliver a needed product or review to your audience, like accepting a game a week earlier with a review embargo so you can get a review out in a timely fashion, but things like early exclusive reviews are a different beast. You're not doing it for your audience, you're making a deal with a publisher to get an advantage over the competition. Further, if publishers/developers have any sense, they're giving exclusive reviews to publications/reviewers they expect will give them a great score, or at least a better score than others.

So yeah, I'm going to treat exclusive reviews with more skepticism. That's not a knock on the dude's integrity, it's just the reality of the situation.

He's totally right, but you never talk back to the internet, EVER.

I think it was on the Tested podcast over the weekend where Gerstmann was talking about this but  like he said... to a point he does have a point.  Then he kinda just goes off the deep end.  Guy obviously needs to grow some thick skin.

Looking back at this thread, the OP kinda left out some key parts of that post.

Fucking WOOT! It's about time someone really broke the nitty gritty of the P.C. bullshit and flat-out said it.

But watch...I'll bet he is forced to retract the statement and offer an apology on behalf of the company...or gets fired for having an excellent opinion and then gets hired by Giant Bomb...which I wouldn't be opposed to.

@iAmJohn: This isn't like some of the infamous scandals that surrounded Driv3r, where accusations of payoffs for good reviews were thrown at some particular places (like EGM's 8.5 score) when most reviewers were saying "yeah, that game is pretty much middle of the road average" to "this game is pretty fucking bad". We're talking about Arkham City, a game that pretty much any gamer in the world could look at and say "that's going to be a great game" and any editor or reviewer that got their hands-on time with it was able to say "that's going to be a pretty great game if they tighten some stuff up".

@CptBedlam said:

This is not about calling out other opinions, this is about calling out the deals and conditions that are in place behind the scenes when it comes to exclusive reviews.

To the people who applaud this guy: you are all naive fools.

Please show me ONE exclusive review with a shit score that hit before an embargo ended. Nothing? Okay...

On the inverse, please show me ONE exclusive review that hit where the majority of the other reviews that came out after it were bad reviews for the game. Nothing? Okay...

@jakob187 said:

@CptBedlam said:

This is not about calling out other opinions, this is about calling out the deals and conditions that are in place behind the scenes when it comes to exclusive reviews.

To the people who applaud this guy: you are all naive fools.

Please show me ONE exclusive review with a shit score that hit before an embargo ended. Nothing? Okay...

On the inverse, please show me ONE exclusive review that hit where the majority of the other reviews that came out after it were bad reviews for the game. Nothing? Okay...

Army of Two 40th Day .... exlusive review on IGN with 8.5 score. Majority of the reviews that followed gave it worse scores.

@MooseyMcMan: Jerk.

Regarding the article: I agree with him. Reviewers are people too and sometimes they like games more (or less) than others. Their reviews are not meant to be the sole guiding light in your quest to buy the perfect game for you.

I am conflicted on the notion of exclusive reviews and their legitimacy though.

I love how Jeff responds to this guy's bullshit. You can listen to it on the Tested Octobercast...

Why would people think this game getting a 10/10 meant he was paid off? Arkham Aslyum almost won game of the year from tons of sites and got great review scores. This is a sequel and I thought that meant they would keep the format the same and just make everything bigger and better. Well, thats what they did and it worked. I agree this game deserves a 10/10. Anyway, shouldn't people be excited that a Batman game got a perfect score? I mean come one, its the goddamn Batman! GOTY so far imo.

@CJduke: This is not about what score the game deserves but about the bullshit that guy wrote.

You know what, good for him. I hope he doesn't take too much flak for this, because he's exactly right.

@spilledmilkfactory: Like everyone else who agrees with this guy, you are wrong.

I'm sure their history of high scores and getting early reviews have no connection. This game happens to be good but Lair wasn't and it got a good score. So yes, an early Play review means a good score every time. There's never been a time where that wasn't the case. Not rocket science. He picked the most critically acclaimed game of the year to make a stand on, as if every early review deal they make is identical to this game winning legit perfect scores. Its enough to sway the simple, I guess.

@CptBedlam said:

@CJduke: This is not about what score the game deserves but about the bullshit that guy wrote.

What bullshit did he write? Are you saying the review is bullshit or his blog comment? Maybe he was lying and he did get paid off or something, but its not like he needed to, the game is great. Its not like he gave a 10/10 to dungeon siege 3 and said its better than Diablo or something. Furthermore, if people are worried about video game review corruption, I sure hope they are skeptical and worried about nearly every major corporation and business practice that is out there nowadays. It's all about making money, old news.

@CJduke:

1. He admitted he didn't even finish the game when he wrote that review.

2. The "everyone does it" argument is bullshit. Shady stuff is still shady. And exclusive reviews are shady because of the ties and deals that are always in place. I have never seen an exclusive review with a bad score. Guess why...

3. It doesn't matter at all whether the respective game in the end deserves the good score or not. The problem with exclusive reviews is that there isn't even an option to give the game anything but a good score.

LOL @ telling people "to grow the fuck up" in a letter with 50 f-bombs and written basically on some it's my party and I'll cry if I want to shit. In the words of Keith Murray, "Oxymoron, don't be dumb."

@CptBedlam said:

@CJduke:

1. He admitted he didn't even finish the game when he wrote that review.

2. The "everyone does it" argument is bullshit. Shady stuff is still shady. And exclusive reviews are shady because of the ties and deals that are always in place. I have never seen an exclusive review with a bad score. Guess why...

1. I did not know he admitted to not finishing the game before he wrote the review, he is obviously an idiot then for writing this blog piece and QQing.

2. I'm not making an "everyone does it" so its ok argument. I'm saying its a video game review. If people are this worried about what some random journalist got paid to write about a video game, then I hope they are worried about all the corrupt things in this world that are actually important. You are right, shady stuff is shady stuff. And its everywhere. The least of our worries should be about some corrupt game reviewer wrote about a game. This type of behavior/business is nothing new.

We need to blow up the internet..and the moon, that reviewer guy too.