OPM Batman Arkham City Reviewer Is ****ed Off At Accusations of Corruption

[Chaos Raiden]

Before I begin, I want to make it clear that the following is me speaking for myself and does not reflect the views of Official PlayStation Magazine Australia or any other publication.

So. A couple of weeks ago, I wrote a world exclusive review of Batman: Arkham City for Official PlayStation Magazine Australia. We worked hard for that review: because of reasons, I had two days to play the game and produce copy in time for deadline. And before you ask: no, I didn't play it the whole way through before writing the review. That’s just the reality of publishing – sometimes you don’t get to do reviews in ideal circumstances.
Did my opinion change after playing it to completion? It sure did – for the better. Here’s a text I sent to my editor after I finished it:

Just finished Arkham’s story. Holy ****. **** 10 – this thing should’ve got 11.

In any case, the review has leaked onto the internet – as reviews are wont to do sometimes – and from what I can tell the reaction has been largely negative. As soon as they see the source, the game, and the exclusivity, people do the math:

Official Magazine + Big ****ing Game x World Exclusive = obvious corruption.

And look, I can understand why you’d be cynical. Games journalism doesn’t have a sterling record of quality and integrity, and – to be perfectly honest – neither do I. I’ve written enthusiastic previews for games that turned out terrible, I’ve been taken on junkets and plied with free booze and t-shirts. But one thing I have never done, and never will do, is let PR dictate my opinions.

Warner Bros. didn’t give me money to give their game a positive review. The only time I even interacted with Warner Bros. was when their PR rep handed me the disc. There was no editorial or managerial pressure to write a favourable review. I wrote a favourable review – a very favourable review – because I ****ing love the **** out of that game.

I’ll admit that the text is a bit hyperbolic in places, but it isn’t engineered hyperbole – it’s the natural sort of hyperbole that occurs when you experience something incredible and want to share it with somebody. I wrote that review to convince you motherfuckers to buy the damn game. I want you to buy the damn game because the damn game is rad as balls.
And really – do you think that Warner Bros. and Rocksteady don’t know that? Do you think they’re ignorant of the fact that their game is totally brilliant? Because I don’t think they are. I think they know very well how good the game is, and I think they know what sort of response it’s likely to receive. Given that, why on Earth would they bother wasting time and money trying to BUY good reviews when they know they’re going to get them for FREE?

It’s important in magazine publishing to write for your readers, and I’m certain that at least 90 percent of mine are going to love Arkham City. Which is great! As a critic, there are few things I love more than being told that my work has encouraged someone to try a great game. I know there are people out there (not a lot, but they’re there) who trust my opinions, who trust me to be honest, and I work ****ing hard to make sure that I am. There are some games journalists who couldn’t say the same, but personally-? I don’t know any.

So **** you guys. **** you for your constant sneering derision, for your endless unfunny “journalist in quotation marks” jokes, for your automatic assumptions of corruption, for all the times you sent someone an email full of vile personal insults because they gave some game you like a bad score, and for all the other toxic, squalid, and puerile bullshit that defines your contribution to videogame culture. Grow the **** up for Christ’s sake. Or if you can’t do that, at least have the decency to keep your mouth shut once in a while.

Again: it’s right to be sceptical of games journalists. It’s right to be sceptical of big exclusive reviews that give massive scores to blockbuster titles. But if you’re going to accuse (or even insinuate) that a review is the product of corruption, that the journalist must have accepted cash for comment or anything like that, then here’s a tip: get some proof. Hell, not even that: get some evidence. Even the tiniest little shred will do. Get some evidence and use it to support your assertions. Otherwise, what are you even doing? I’ll tell you what you’re doing: you’re being a jerk.

Stop being a jerk.

Oh, and guys? The suggestion that I wrote the review the way I did so that I could get a quote on the box is… absolutely right. You got me! Ever since I was a child, I have longed – YEARNED – for a chance to get something I wrote printed on a videogame box. Truly it is my one great ambition, my one driving passion, and to this day it remains painfully unfulfilled. I don’t know if Arkham City will be my salvation, but I can assure you that I did everything in my power to make it so.

Idiots.

Source: http://gamingbolt.com/opm-reviewer-...uption-for-giving-arkham-city-a-perfect-score

Source: http://www.eegra.com/pages/show/title/04_10_2011_Stop_being_jerks__jerks_/

 

[Teimurazor]

Lol, they accuse him of corruption for giving AC 10/10?!
This game is a freaking diamond, shining brighter then the sun itself

 

[Dark Drakan]

Everyone always screams corruption at games getting 10/10 because they believe that unless the game is the best form of media out and even makes their breakfast for them it doesnt deserve a 10. However they are the same people that believe games that get a 7 or 8 out of 10 are terrible and a flop. They have to get their heads around the scoring systems first and the fact reviews are a persons opinion, then and only then will they stop complaining and jumping to conclusions of foul play.

 

[LordOfDarkness]

People are just bloody stupid at times and need to grow up.

 

[Vergil'sBitch]

I suppose it just maybe me thinking out loud but surely no game is worth 10/10?
Is it only worth that much if you like it (ie on your own opinion) or by the scores (on average) that everyone else is giving it. Surely reviewers should have and unbiased view when it comes to opinions and ratings?

One of my fave movie tie-ins on the ps2 was Van Helsing. Gamespot gave it 6.9/10, but I'd have given it higher (8.5/10 because that is my opinion.)

I suppose if you look at it one way, the makers/developers 'pay off' the reviewers to get good reviews then more copies of the game will be sold. Batman Arkham City looks good, but it's up to the individual how good it is (tbh, i'd give the game a go, but it's not really my sort of game).

 

[Dark Drakan]

You have to compare games to others in the genre and tally them against each other. If a game feels better in some areas or is worse then that should be a mark against it. However if at the end it feels like its the better game and an improvement then scores must reflect that. I think more reviewers should use the out of 100 score system. That gives them more 'points' to add or take away and give a more rounded score.

 

[wallenb]

Well Batman AA got like an average 9-9.5 score and from just the look of AC, its seems a lot more and then some, so the only real score to give it would be higher than the original. Now i havent played it, and i hardly ever go off of reviews so dunno if its better or not. I really only look at reviews at games that i really dont know if its worth it, and i check lots of reviews or i just look at the walkthrough a little on Youtube to see if anything interest me.

 

[LordOfDarkness]

To be fair though couldn't the score of any game technically go up if we're basing scores on peoples' opinions (Which isn't how they score things). Because a lot of people didn't like Devil May Cry 2 and it got scored bad, I believe. But now a lot more seem to like it, so really its score would need to go up you'd think. But they don't change actual scores as far as I'm aware of.

And to be honest, a game can score 10 out of 10, simply because if it couldn't then 10 wouldn't be an optional number to pick. It would be 1 to 9, then nine would be the highest number (Then we'd be questioning if a game could score a nine and so forth). So whatever way you look at it, a game can score 10 out of 10. But scores/reviews/articles about games or anything can always be biased and should never really be truly listened to, otherwise you're just buying into the 'hype'.

 

[wallenb]

To be fair though couldn't the score of any game technically go up if we're basing scores on peoples' opinions (Which isn't how they score things). Because a lot of people didn't like Devil May Cry 2 and it got scored bad, I believe. But now a lot more seem to like it, so really its score would need to go up you'd think. But they don't change actual scores as far as I'm aware of.

i think all of the people that like dmc2 inevitably came and joined a dmc forum. and also how can a trilogy be complete without the second game? dmc 2 was adored by some and was loved by all

 

[LordOfDarkness]

i think all of the people that like dmc2 inevitably came and joined a dmc forum. and also how can a trilogy be complete without the second game? dmc 2 was adored by some and was loved by all

You're confusing me, I was just giving an example really. I mean, game scores don't get changed once they are made, do they? So surely if a game is released and gets a bad score, but a lot of people either change their minds about it or begin to like it, then it should be re-scored. But that's not the case, I believe. That was my point.

 

[DreadnoughtDT]

Being guilty of saying some gaming sites are corrupt, this article is rather humbling. At the very least, it's given me a new view on things.

I've noticed people saying that games that get a 5/10 are utter crap. Um, excuse me, but 5/10 means average, does it not? It does not mean bad. Bad would be 1/10. But if a game is below 7/10, people treat it as garbage. Even if it's just a decimal point.

EDIT: I just thought of something. If we're allowed to rate a game 10/10, then why can't we give games we dislike a 0/10?

 

[Dark Drakan]

Being guilty of saying some gaming sites are corrupt, this article is rather humbling. At the very least, it's given me a new view on things.

I've noticed people saying that games that get a 5/10 are utter crap. Um, excuse me, but 5/10 means average, does it not? It does not mean bad. Bad would be 1/10. But if a game is below 7/10, people treat it as garbage. Even if it's just a decimal point.

EDIT: I just thought of something. If we're allowed to rate a game 10/10, then why can't we give games we dislike a 0/10?

5/10 is pretty poor in review score terms and yeah its average but most 5/10 games end up in a bargain bin. Most games do at least something right so they would have to be given a point for something, i used to look up the lowest review scores on the net and compare them to other games to see how scoring works and the lowest are quite funny. Even if we hate some games you have to give them them credit for something otherwise your hating on it just for the sake of hating on it.

 

[DreadnoughtDT]

I'm just defending 5/10 games because I've played plenty of games that are given a 5/10 or 6/10 and I still enjoy them. Slave Zero is a good example.

 

[aka958]

5/10 is also a pity score from what I've seen. They've given really bad games like 5/10 when it's supposed to be lower. =O

 

[Dark Drakan]

I'm just defending 5/10 games because I've played plenty of games that are given a 5/10 or 6/10 and I still enjoy them. Slave Zero is a good example.

Only one that comes to my mind that scored poorly but i enjoyed was Enter The Matrix.

 

[Eric]

So a rating of 10 = corruption? The bloody hell?