I think the aspect of the job is super interesting in that you aren't being paid to give your opinion of a game, but rather what you think others will think about a game. That's probably one of the reasons why the pay is so much higher. Normally you'd play a game, write up your opinions on it and give it a corresponding score. Here, your opinion is merely a piece of the puzzle. In that situation, I imagine you have to sit down and question whether something that clicked with you is universal. You have to ask, "I think this thing is good/bad, but how sure am I others will see it that way?"
It sounds pretty similar to what Michael Pachter does, only confidential. And while the money is certainly a plus, I'd rather review games for a publication. While increasing the risk of readers and potential employers questioning my journalistic integrity is certainly a downside, the main reason is the job just sounds stressful. Everyone--even analysts--get things wrong. This might not be as big an issue once you've acquired some professional clout, but it sounds like your job hangs by a thread in the early days. It just seems painfully stressful, and that's not something I'd want to do for very long.
And to answer your original question, it sounds like the issue isn't journalistic integrity necessarily, but the amount of time it would take an editor to verify your integrity. I'm sure there are trustworthy writers out there who have done mock reviews. But if there's someone with around the same experience as the mock reviewer sans financial relationship with a game company, then it's easier for the editor to just pick the latter guy or girl.
Log in to comment