Let's talk about game review media events---tightly organized, often somewhat lavish press events where the gaming media is holed up inside some nice hotel for a few days to review a game. This is what was on offer for Metal Gear Solid V.
The only reviews for MGSV: The Phantom Pain you'll be able to read at this point are from reviewers who spent time playing in these "boot camps" or a handful of critics well-connected enough to land a review copy before launch.
The rest of us? Too bad.
This is how the game industry and video game press works: The industry controls access through its PR channels; we in the press navigate this, balancing our need to bring readers information and insight against an industry that controls all the levers of access to content. It's a balancing act, and a not-uncommon one across trade media.
So if you're a prominent critic writing at one of the top video game sites, maybe you got a review copy of Metal Gear Solid V early. If you're not in this very top tier, you probably got invited to the media event. I was invited. But since I don't accept paid travel, the cost-benefit analysis for this sort of thing rarely works in my favor. And as fun as it would be to get my hands on The Phantom Pain early, I don't relish the idea of being stuck in a hotel playing it 8 hours a day.
Indeed, these type of media events aren't a great idea to begin with---at least not for reviews. (Preview events make more sense.) Paid travel and expenses aside, I think these events blur the line between industry and media too much. It's not just a film-screening, it's several days of structured play-time with supervision. NDA's (non-disclosure agreements) restrict what attendees can cover in their review prior to launch as well. And while that's normal even for review copies, it's also just one more way the publisher restricts media's ability to speak frankly about a game.
For fear of spoilers, Konami invited journalists to review the game at five-day 'boot camps' tied to strict NDAs (non-disclosure agreements). We played between 9am to 5pm, with no unsupervised play outside these hours. That's a maximum play time of 40 hours, assuming no stoppages for eating, drinking, stretching… or reality. So you're trying to complete a 35-50 hour game (or longer, depending on your play style and the nature of your 'completion'… I can't say more), that you've been anticipating for five years, in a realistic window of 30-35 hours. On one hand, you're finally immersed in one of the deepest, most experimental, open-worlds in history – overwhelmed by side-missions, upgrades and secrets – on the other, haunted by a tick-tock race to reach the 'end' without knowing when that is.
This isn't all that much different from how game critics are supposed to handle game reviews even outside of these events. You receive your review copy three or four days ahead of launch---or sometimes on launch---and are expected to play 40-50 hours or more over the weekend. Or that day. Somehow.
It's not how games are supposed to be played. You don't ask film critics to watch movies on fast-forward. It's why I so often don't get reviews written by embargo. I just can't play video games this way, and don't believe I'd be able to offer an honest judgment of them if I did.
Now strap critics into an environment where they have handlers, food and drink provided by the game company itself, nothing to do but play the game all day (with supervision) and then eat and drink in the evening. It's bizarre. As with all press events, whether at E3, GDC, or one of these private settings, the wining and dining is real. Parties are thrown. Little tasty snacks are carried around by servers on trays, and the bar is open. None of this will make a bad game good, but it can make a good game seem just that much better. If it didn't work, they wouldn't be spending money on these types of things. Sure, Konami may not want spoilers, but this type of controlled environment is antithetical to the nature of criticism. I need time alone with a game to really review it properly. I need to play it and see, after three or four hours, if I even feel like playing it anymore.
This is why I say #GamerGate misses the forest for the trees. The relentless focus on indie developers is outlandish to me. These are small fish in a very, very big pond. The web of Patreon accounts and industry friendships between indies and game journalists is a footnote compared to the influence the multi-billion dollar AAA business holds over gaming media. There's nothing at all wrong pointing out where indie devs and game journalists have had questionable relationships, but to say it's a bigger problem than AAA is absurd.
I mean, I have no doubt Metal Gear Solid V is worthy of its excellent review scores. I have no doubt that if it were terrible, the many game writers who attended these "boot camps" would say so. But what about that space in between a bad game and an excellent game? How many points is Konami buying on Metacritic this way? Not through direct bribery, but through exerting control over the way critics play and review their game. That costs money, even if nobody's lining anybody's pockets.
And how aware are readers that this is what's going on? How many of the gaming sites who attended disclosed their attendance? Can you tell, reading a review from Site A and one from Site B, which is the site with a review copy and which is the site attending a boot-camp? Only if they say, and they don't all say.
At some point next week I will have something to say about Metal Gear Solid V itself and not the review process or Konami's decisions in regards to reviews---unless somehow review copies go out sooner than launch day to those of us who couldn't attend. In the meantime, it's rocking a 95/100 on Metacritic. Not too shabby.