Review Events and their Impact on the Industry

In previous blogs I've asked you, the people of Giant Bomb, if you thought professional reviews are "just opinions" and whether or not they are preferable to community reviews (jury's still out on that one, by the way). Well, this blog follows in the same vein. After reading this article on Kotaku, I'm curious to know what Giant Bomb thinks about review events, how they impact the industry and whether or not they are a necessity of today's video game scene.
 
Personally, I think a lavish review event could easily color the opinion of a professional journalist, and in that respect, yes, it's bad for the industry. However, I also think that any journalist who allows themselves to be influenced by such external factors probably
 
A) Doesn't have a lot of pull in the industry anyway, or won't for long.
B) Would find a way to be influenced even if the event wasn't around.
 
Basically, I'm saying that any journalist who allows their opinion to be colored in such a way is probably pretty dishonest and need not be listened to, which would be all fine and dandy if we could just weed the buggers out. Unfortunately, the dishonest journalist is not so quickly plucked from a crowd.
 
So to sum up, let me restate my question: what do you think about AAA-title review events? Do they hurt the industry, and if they do, is there a way around them?

In previous blogs I've asked you, the people of Giant Bomb, if you thought professional reviews are "just opinions" and whether or not they are preferable to community reviews (jury's still out on that one, by the way). Well, this blog follows in the same vein. After reading this article on Kotaku, I'm curious to know what Giant Bomb thinks about review events, how they impact the industry and whether or not they are a necessity of today's video game scene.
 
Personally, I think a lavish review event could easily color the opinion of a professional journalist, and in that respect, yes, it's bad for the industry. However, I also think that any journalist who allows themselves to be influenced by such external factors probably
 
A) Doesn't have a lot of pull in the industry anyway, or won't for long.
B) Would find a way to be influenced even if the event wasn't around.
 
Basically, I'm saying that any journalist who allows their opinion to be colored in such a way is probably pretty dishonest and need not be listened to, which would be all fine and dandy if we could just weed the buggers out. Unfortunately, the dishonest journalist is not so quickly plucked from a crowd.
 
So to sum up, let me restate my question: what do you think about AAA-title review events? Do they hurt the industry, and if they do, is there a way around them?

I thought you meant things like GameSpot's launch centers, but after reading a bit of the article, I felt something a bit shady about review events.

Review events like those sound more like a necessary 'evil' than anything else. Not an ideal way to play a game let alone review one, but a way that does ensure the press get their hands on the game and can play it to its fullest strengths.

Nonissue. If anyone can be swayed by publishers doing nice things for them, they're too weak for the industry. Publishers are doing things like this for journalists all the time. Taking them out to exclusive clubs, sousing them with alcohol, letting them sit in more-expensive-than-should-be-allowed cars, etc. Godfather 2 took them out on a fucking YACHT and gave everyone a bottle of Cristal.
 
I think I might agree with Jeff that being able to play alone and comfortable just gives a better view of what the game is. On a big-ass TV in a nice chair, I'm going to be full attention on the game. Besides, look at the games they named! Bioshock. Halo. GTA. Modern Warfare. These things were guaranteed great reviews anyways. If you think it's an issue, then petition your site to post how pampered they were when they got to review it.

"If anyone can be swayed by publishers doing nice things for them, they're too weak for the industry. "

" Review events like those sound more like a necessary 'evil' than anything else. Not an ideal way to play a game let alone review one, but a way that does ensure the press get their hands on the game and can play it to its fullest strengths. "

"I agree with this for the most part, but that philosophy is assuming the journalist's primary intent is to review a game, and not to take advantage of the perks provided by publishers/developers. I think there's certainly a portion of game journalism to whom that theory doesn't really apply."

 Like a good neighbor, Twilight condoms are there.

Movie reviewers go to Cannes in the south of France and Aspen for film festivals, and I don't see it coloring their abilities to write cohesive reviews.  I'm not going to say that personal biases don't find their way into their critiques.  They do as they would under any circumstance, I just feel that the better members of the gaming press conduct themselves professionally in those situations just as the better film critics do when they are sent to a beautiful locale to cover a movie's junket.  As 'core gamers, most of us have a list of video game resources that we trust.  If their review of a game states something, we are inclined to believe them.  However, for those other websites, we are likely to dismiss their critical blurbs just as easily as we would discount a movie's promotional tag line "Best comedy of the year ~ David Manning/Ridgefield Press".