10 Misconceptions You Have About Being A Games Journalist

2. Review Bribes Aren't Much Of A Thing

We've all heard angry accusations of Publication X being paid off by Publisher Y to up the review score for Game Z as an underhanded means of promoting the game. In actuality, this virtually never happens. It's a witch hunt with no witches. First and foremost, publishers have much more practical means of, shall we say, obscuring a game's faults than some blunt attempt to pull the wool over consumer eyes. That's what trailers are for! Secondly, no self-respecting publication would accept a bribe. It's a blatant compromise of objectivity and the resulting review would be totally worthless. Besides, for both the giver and taker of a bribe, the consequences of being found out are far heavier than the temporary gain€”which would be extremely small. After all, we're only talking about scores from the one or two sites stupid enough to accept a bribe. If publishers are guilty of any shady practice, it's setting unreasonably tall content embargoes in an effort to hide a game's mediocrity long enough for pre-orders to roll in. But even that is an uncommon tactic. A more realistic danger is how interwoven games journalists are with their subject. Indeed, the threat is subjectivity, and a subtle need to pay a project which could very well have been made by people you consider friends a compliment. Are review scores bought? Unfortunately, yes, but extremely infrequently. Of course, if a review bribe were offered to any credible publication, you'd know. That proposal would be plastered all over their front page and they'd be the most famous thing in gaming for a day. The guilty studio would be burned at the stake and the site in question would be showered in praise. And all would be right with the journalistic world.