All I can say s that I'm glad you never mock reviewed any of the games I tested as my brief stint as a professional game tester. Great company, great job, terrible games.

No questions just wonder how they could let Godfather 2 out the door is my comment. Thanks for keeping it real.

I'm glad you came out and admitted that you did this. Many other reviewers wouldn't want to wreck any credibility they had. But in my opinion, your credibility is even better than it used to be. If that's even possible.

This is no big deal as far as I can tell. Thanks for letting us know though.

Thanks, Shoe. Your honesty is always welcome. A few questions: Do you know of people who have performed similar work while actively reviewing games for magazines/Web sites? Is this a common occurrence for freelance writers looking to make ends meet? And do you feel it colors their judgment of the final product?

Well look who sold out. Just kidding, we trust ya Shoe.

Thanks for starting out with a clean slight. Not that you needed to. Everybody respects you cause your "Dan Mother f**king Hsu".

This is one of the reasons why people will continue to follow you Shoe. It's so refreshing to see this kind of transparency/integrity in media, and it only helps to build on the good will that you gathered from all your fans from the EGM days. Bitmob is a superb site and I only wish for you guys to get better as time goes on. I'll do my part in spreading the good word about the site.

Thanks Shoe. I never expected anything less from you after years of reading EGM with you at the helm. By the way, James Murff, Wanted: Weapons of Fate isn't actually terrible. It's not very good either, but it's a fun rental at the very least.

Thanks for being open and informative about this. :)

I don't understand the concept of "mock reviews" or why it would be a conflict of interest. If all you are doing is reviewing their game as you would if you were on EGM's review crew, then how is it any different then writing for Gamespy and Gamespot at the same time? I just don't quite get the job title but it sounds interesting. It's cool for you to be open about it, either way. It seems you and the staff go out of your way to keep the doors open to viewers, which goes a long way to establishing a different vibe on this site--in that way I respect this post a lot.

[quote]Do you know of people who have performed similar work while actively reviewing games for magazines/Web sites? Is this a common occurrence for freelance writers looking to make ends meet? And do you feel it colors their judgment of the final product?[/quote] Brett: I don't know of anyone personally, but I do know that, while I was on EGM, some of our freelancers were approached with these opportunities. Since they aren't our employees, we couldn't stop them (this was absolutely a no-no for us, however). But we did tell them that they wouldn't be allowed to cover that product anymore or review its direct competitors. Reason (and this addresses Allstair's question): You're accepting money from that company. I think that pretty much says it all. :) GameSpy/GameSpot are two separate, independent media groups, so that's not the same situation. So let's say I talk about Godfather II someday here on Bitmob or on our podcast. You guys deserve to know that I worked with EA on that specific title -- so it's out in the open and you all know everything that has happened behind the scenes. It is a very strict mock review. The feedback I give them is very neutral and objective, as an outside consultant/contractor. But still, I received payment for my services, and my readers need to know that. Also maybe of interest to this discussion and what Brett asked about: http://www.vgmwatch.com/?p=1107 Lemme know if you have any other questions! -shoe

It's always good to be honest in such manners. In any event, the industry actually needs to do this more often. Quality assurance is an area of game development that seems to have suffered in recent years. The way it should work is that the publisher would use your comments to improve the final quality of the product. There are so many games nowadays plagued by design decisions that just boggle the mind. And too many games are being released with game-busting bugs. I guess that falls under the description of "game tester" rather than "mock reviewer," but there are too many games with serious bugs in them nowadays, and it would be beneficial if it was reinforced to game companies that it is better to release a high-quality, thoroughly-tested product rather than shove it out the door and just decide to patch it later on down the road. If publishers know that reviewers will consistently call attention to serious design flaws, maybe it will encourage them to take more time to test, polish, and finish their products before retail, not after, if indeed at all.

Well, mock reviews only sometimes can help in "fixing" a product. Some companies use them to set internal expectations on how a game will review, before all the reviews hit the sites and magazines. They need a third-party's confirmation that a game is good, not good, etc. Some companies will try to make some easy, last-minute tweaks that won't affect the game's release. They'll look at a mock reviewer's comments and say, "We can fix that" and "We can't fix that" and work accordingly. Some companies, if they think the comments are valid and critical, may even delay a game completely to fix a ton in the hopes that they can get better reviews (and correlating better sales, of course). Naturally, they can only fix so much since the product is near-complete by the time we mock review them. But a delay to revamp some things can still happen. I've been involved with all three scenarios.

And this is why I'm here. Thanks for the heads up Shoe, I'm looking forward following this site for a different viewpoint of the industry.