A reader notified me of your current topic, so I figured I might as well respond. Since I've met you in person, I'm sure you'll put this situation in a fair light. Don't prove me wrong.

We fully anticipated the question of bias in our handling of Dragon Warrior VII. We don't deny, nor parade, that three staff members worked on the copy editing of Dragon Warrior VII. In fact, those involved rather enjoyed it, and others were envious of our good fortune. One staff member, Sean, even managed to play the game in its entirety. No one else on staff played DW7 before Jake had the review copy, with exception of the E3 disc both sites had the chance to play.

This was the role of three individuals. The credits list Sean, Doug, and myself, not "RPGamer staff". Even with this clarity, we chose Jake to do the review, because those who have had the chance to work with Enix here in Washington would be called biased, and we likely would be. Jake lives on the other side of the country, and never saw the game before the review copy arrived. Jake played the game, in its entirety, and wrote the review, without any input from the three in the credits.

In fact, when I read his review, I was disappointed at the score. Am I biased? Yes. Did I write the review? No. Did I request or require any changes based on my thoughts of the game? Again, no. The review is the of Jake, and Jake alone. While reviews by RPGamer staff are from "RPGamer", each reviewer has their own voice.

I'm sure many people reading this will say "yeah, but he runs RPGamer, he's just covering his ass." To that, I reply that I'm being straight up, and you can believe me, or not. Maybe if we gave it a 10, you could have a stronger case against an RPGamer bias. GIA gives DW7 a 4 out of 5. RPGamer gives it an 8 out of 10. How can two sites have the same score, but one be questioned for being biased? It doesn't make any sense.

In closing, I enjoyed my chance to put my name in a game. I grew up with Dragon Warrior, from the first to the present, and I've now done something I used to only dream of. I also made sure RPGamer treated the game like every other review, with a clean slate from the very beginning. Would I do it again? I don't know. It was a lot of work, and I do have a site to run.

--Mikel / FireMyst

You seem to be mainly concerned with attitudes being tempered because certain staffers worked on the game.

If you'll turn your attention to our Dragon Warrior 7 news archive: http://www.rpgamer.com/games/dq/dq7/dq7news.html

You'll notice Doug Hill has not written a story for the entire year of 2001. Prior to that, he did, but he was not working for Enix until approximately May 2001, so you needn't be concerned with the prior stories. As a news writer and former Head of News, Doug had nothing to do with reviews in any form for any game.

On to the concerns of Seán Peters. As Head of Media, I saw no reason to specifically not let him update for the game he was working for. I encouraged it, in fact, as I felt Seán had the best knowledge of the game, therefore giving him an advantage in naming the screens presented to our audience. Again, as a memember of the Media dept, he had no contact with the review itself.

To the third staffer, to the issue of Mikel Tidwell. As stated in his own letter, and our Q&A column for the day located at http://www.rpgamer.com/ask/googleshng3/ag110801.html, Mikel was specifically NOT arranged to review the game so such questions of bias could not come up. Mikel did do a cursory edit of the review, but any changes he would have suggested would have been along the lines of where to place a comma or the rewording of a sentence to facilitate understanding. His opinions did not enter into our review. He may be our boss, but he's not our god.

Unfortunately, the other two names on the list are unfamiliar to me as they do not work for RPGamer. You seemed to be under the impression they were, so please stand corrected.

RPGamer is a part time job for the majority of our staff. We do it for the love of the game, which I assume is your motive as well. The involvement of three members of our staff in the game was discussed thoroughly in both our IRC channel, our Q&A column, and in spot places throughout the site. We deliberately kept mention of this out of our news, media and/or reviews coverage because to me at least, it's rather uncouth to brag about such things.

I hope this, along with any other letters you've received, will clear up the issue. Long winded, but it works.

-Paws =^^=
Head of Media

I was more than a little upset, and in fact insulted by your insinuation of bias stemming from Mikel, Doug, and my involvement with Dragon Warrior VII. And yes, it is just Mikel, Doug, and I, those names are not "all RPGamer staffers". Neither Chris Chimiy nor Dustin Brown have any affiliation with the site other than knowing both Mikel and I personally. Also, what the credits do not show is level of involvement. Both Mikel and Doug had to leave the project in early stages. My estimate is that they did no more than 20% of the copy edit, and that number's probably a little high.

I'd like to make clear that regarding Dragon Warrior VII, all I've done for RPGamer is download publicly available screenshots and post them on RPGamer, as per my job as media staff. I was completely uninvolved with the review process, except for giving Jake some minor pieces of advice on gameplay.

Now, unless there's something that I'm just not seeing, the RPGamer review of Dragon Warrior VII is unbiased. First of all, as Mikel pointed out, both RPGamer and the GIA gave the game the same score. Not only that, but RPGamer gave the localization of Dragon Warrior VII a 7. Not an 8, 9, or 10, but a 7. If there were a place for bias, I'd think it would logically show up in the section that the three RPGamer staff were a part of. If either the final score or the localization score was a 9 or 10, I could see grounds for an accusation of bias, but not when the final score is the same as virtually every other review, and the localization score is less than flattering.

Finally, I find it very insulting that you would judge a person that you've never met, and know nothing about save for his employment at RPGamer and work on Dragon Warrior VII, so insecure that he would need to pressure someone to give his work a higher score than it deserved. I'd hope that next time you choose to call someone out for bias, that you actually think about it before resulting to ill-thought out claims and semi-personal attacks.

-- Sean Peters, writing as neither RPGamer staff nor a former Enix employee, but as an individual taking offense to nothing but inflammatory tripe

RPGamer considers itself a professional site, I'll assume. I believe this is the case. A professional site that generates visitors, and thus revenue, through its presentation of itself as a media outlet. Not a fansite, not an homage to a genre, but an actual media outlet. By thus being a member of the media, the site has a moral responsibility to be unbiased, as its visitors (revenue generators) rely and put trust in the frank communication of thoughts as presented by an educated critic of the genre. By being involved in the production of a game that is covered, the site breaks said trust and then compounds the breach of ethics by not informing its visitors. Whether or not the specific members of the site that worked on the game did or did not do the review is irrelevant -- by association the review is biased.

When I say biased, I don't mean that the final review was slanted in any way -- I haven't read the review, and I don't know whether or not it has an off-centered point of view. That's irrelevant. The point to note is the breach of trust -- the audience has a trust in the media, and the actions break the trust. When one reads the review, one has to ask whether it was fair, and if the review isn't fair, is the site fair? The problem is again compounded by not giving full disclosure and the site owner being involved. Again, whether or not there was actual slant is moot, it's the fact there COULD have been a slant that, in my opinion, violates journalistic ethics.

I think any site that considers itself professional would be embarassed to be involved in such a way. Back to Media Ethics 101 for RPGamer.

Of course, this is all assuming RPGamer considers itself professional.

-AK

As you may know, I worked at RPGamer from October 2000 January 2001 as part of the news staff. I also wrote reviews on occasion. I posted quite a bit of news each day, so stayed in close communication throughout the day with the other staff, particularly my news editor at the time, whose name is listed in the picture you posted yesterday, and the editor of the site, whose name is also listed in that picture.

They're great guys. They do excellent work. If you had told me two days ago that they were involved with the localization of Dragon Warrior VII, I would have laughed at you. Then again, if the site is still run the way it was when I was there, I really wouldn't have had any way of knowing that they were involved with it unless I had been in charge of either the news or interaction section.

The news editor and the site editor probably wouldn't have let me in on this unless I had been writing the review for Dragon Warrior VII. But I feel confident that if I had been writing said review, they would have let me in on it, because they would have wanted the audience to know about it. I've come to expect nothing but professionalism from them and I would be seriously disappointed if they hadn't mentioned that.

Now, here's the trick: There is one person on that site whose name does not appear in that picture, who has the authority to post reviews without having them approved by Doug or Mike, and who more often than not insists on writing the reviews of big-name RPGs by himself.

And guess who wrote the DW7 review.

Overall, this reflects badly on RPGamer's image and if I were in Mike's position I'd probably revise the review and issue an apology. I'm not ticked at RPGamer over this-- no reason for me to be-- but I do think that they owe it to their readers to disclose this sort of thing. Moreover, I always got the impression that the sort of professional attitude that leads to full disclosure of this nature is heavily encouraged at RPGamer and I wouldn't want that to change.

-Nij

I've had a few run-ins w/Tidwell and found him to be an inconsistent person. Once he took me to task at RPGFan because my yen conversion was off by a dollar or so. I told him not to waste my time w/such a trivial matter and asked if it really mattered...he replied it mattered to him. I would think he needs to pay more attention to his own site.

Course that's not even quite as good as the story about me running into him at E3...oh well, what do you expect from a site that features a dragon-humping-title logo?

Nicole

Dear Chris:

Maybe this covert criticism towards everyone's favorite Mike-Tidwell-run-site is perfectly objective, but the GIA's almost holier-than-thou prejudice towards all things RPGamer has been blatantly -- nay, painfully -- obvious since... well, since I can remember. It's ranged from the minor (this current situation) to the downright juvenile (an all-out mockery of RPGamer's letters column with absolutely no subtlety whatsoever a few months ago). I don't know if it stems from the fact that some of the GIA's staff, Andrew V in particular, was originally on RPGamer (or Square.net) and had some kind of falling-out, or if it's just a more complex version of the typical old-school argument (RPGamer = 4 NOOBYS!), but it's one of the few disappointing flaws in an otherwise mature organization.

-- Nistelle

Journalistic ethics exist to be kept, not kept & broadcast. Does it really matter whether GIA or RPGamer tells everyone that the personnel involved with the game are being sequestered from its coverage, as long as they are in fact? GIA's readers really don't have anything other than a footnote in a single article to assure them of its steps to remain impartial. I'm certainly not calling GIA's journalistic integrity into question here, but the foundation you're basing your own question on appears to contain a lot more sand than concrete.

Jake Alley, who provided RPGamer's official review, had nothing to do with DW7's development or localization. Furthermore, none of RPGamer's archived news articles were written by any of the three involved with the development process. All their articles are bylined (a practice, incidentally, GIA should have implemented years ago), which leaves me pretty confident their coverage wasn't influenced by the three involved persons.

So what it all washes out to here is a matter of assumed innocence vs. assumed guilt. GIA is a professional organization, and likewise RPGamer. I, along with thousands of others, assume GIA is providing responsible coverage until evidence to the contrary surfaces. In the absence of any similar evidence toward RPGamer--and indeed, in the presence of a paper trail exhibiting a trend of responsible coverage--criticizing the site's journalistic ethics seems to fall somewhere between unfounded and inflammatory.

--Bill Johnson

First thing, I don't normally read RPGamer, so I'm not really familiar with their reviews. With that in mind, here goes.

1) The person who reviewed the game is not one of the guys in the credits. Good.
2) The game is a game that would normally be previewed (i.e. hyped) and reviewed by RPGamer. Good.
3) The review, while short, seems even-handed (in the absence of playing the game, my copy hasn't arrived yet), other than giving it a total of 8 when no category scored over 7 (whole > sum of parts?). Okay.
4) Does not mention involvement of RPGamer staff in development. Bad. Very Bad.

I'm in a profession where job is to provide my opinion and expertise to my clients. One of the most important things they (law school/bar society) tell us is to avoid not just a *real* conflict of interest, but even the appearance of a conflict of interest. And that's where RPGamer screwed up, big time.

See, the problem with a conflict of interest (real or apparent) is that someone always finds out. That's way you have to be clear and up-front about it. Now, even if there was no undue pressure, influence, whatever, on the game reviewer, you have to wonder.

It's also very important in this whole game-review/preview/promote website industry. If you read a lot of reviews, people admit they are playing beta copies, press releases, whatever. But the question of influence (monetary or other) exerted by publishers over these sites is a concern. Something like this really brings RPGamer's credibility into question, even if they didn't actually do anything wrong. And if RPGamer's credibility goes, it negatively affects all other similar websites, even if they are "semi-pro".

Last thing, I happen to think localization is important, especially for "hardcore" RPG players, and, in my opinion, the RPGamer staff involvement with this aspect is more serious than if one of their guys/gals was a graphic designer or something.

For what it's worth, the GIA's approach is good. I'd keep the reminder attached to every preview/review, though.

Orin the Lawyer - reads GIA, doesn't read RPGamer - conflict of interest?

As far as the actual act of parlaying one's thankless job as a game reviewer/webmaster into a better games industry job - well, I'm all for it. Hey, the games industry is damn hard to break into, and there are all kinds of talented kids (me, f'rinstance) competing for the same few opportunities. So if you see a chance, you take it, and I admire and envy RPGamer's staff for actually getting that break. And if it means a slightly better English translation, then we all win.

But... did RPGamer actually practice poor editorial judgement by providing coverage to DW7 while secretly working on the game? Sort of. Their review - which was written by a different staffer - was balanced, and their news reporting on the game prior to this date was straightforward. Still, they should have told readers what was going on.

And perhaps secrecy was required by Enix America. In that case, they had every right to do what they did, because... hell, who's going to pass up an opportunity like that just because you might somehow sacrifice the integrity of your fan site?

Chris Kohler

I could go into a vitriol-laden soliloquy about no journalism being truly unbiased: we all have our own preferences and ways of looking at things, and these biases will come out despite our striving to be "objective." (Sorry, my literary theory class has taken over a good portion of my brain.) Instead, I'll assume that bias is inherent in everything we do. Full disclosure for the media because it acknowleges some of this bias.

That said, it's imperative for any media outlet to give full disclosure. If we expect the media to be minimally biased and honest about their biases, full disclosure is beneficial not only to us, but also to them. An example: about a year ago NPR's "All Things Considered" reported on GE and the EPA's ultimatum to remove all the nasty chemicals they (GE) dumped into the Hudson River. Unfortunately, NPR failed to disclose that GE was one of the show's underwriters. That failure weakened an otherwise excellent report: did NPR go soft to appease a donor, etc.?

Regarding RPGamer's situation, I did wonder how they gave DW7 an 8 of 10, when the average of the component scores was 5.8. (I know, I know, "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts," blah blah blah.)

Give my thanks to Zak for a solid review of the game--his writing has given me the impetus to scrape together $40 to buy it.

Theophrastus

The person that did the review was not one of the individuals listed on that screenshot, the review was not particularly effusive in favor of DW7 (and perfectly in line with the GIA review), and I don't see the particular interest a copy editor would have in propagandizing a product anyway.

Seems pretty clear cut that some of that site's staff being involved somehow in DW7 doesn't make them any less objective than they would have been otherwise. The reason they didn't blatantly advertised it may simply be a result of it being such a non-issue.

As for the idea of "ethics" in video game "journalism", excuse me while I stifle my laughter. Just about every major gaming site and all magazines are supported by advertisements from video game console/publishing companies. More like a subsidy in a lot of ways. I don't know anyone that takes a video game review without an ample sized grain of salt, and if some game magazine can trash a game whose publisher has bought space in their magazine, I can trust them to be honest. For a video game website, I probably would expect honesty to be even more likely, as anyone involved is likely unpaid (or paid nothing close to anything resembling compensation for their work), and doing it because they love games and all that jazz. *shrug*

C. David Kreger

P.S. I know I'm not 133t or anything, and am getting old, but can someone please explain exactly what a "fanboy" is? I am really hoping it isn't what I think it is, that which I would refer to as an obsessive retarded dork....

Chris C Tilton
www.gamemusicchronicle.com

I don't know if this affected the review they gave the game though. I noticed the guy who did the review was not on that credits list, and he wasn't afraid to critisize the game, but then again did not go very indepth with the flaws as the GIA's review did. The fact that it got an eight out of ten does not raise a flag because DW7 has gotten many rave reviews over in Japan and even the GIA's review was a very positive 4 out of 5. Still I don't think many people would take this review seriously if they knew the DW7 connection. It's kind of like if I saw a review of a Mario game in Nintendo Power, I'm probably going to take it with a very big grain of salt.

In general, I think there are some bad ethical practices here. Even if the reporting of DW7 and the review of DW7 was not influenced by RPGamer staff working on the game, it's still going to look bad any way you slice it. This kind of thing just brings their crediblity down.

On a final note, I was wondering what you thought of the game. Since you used a screenshot of the game ending credits I'm assuming you've might have played it. Of course then again, you could have just gotten it from somewhere else on the web I guess. Also, what do copy edit people do anyway? Do they just go over the script for spelling and grammer errors or is it something else?

Pendy head webmaster of the Dragon Quest Dragon Warrior News Network

I'm not quite sure what the RPGamer staffers did in the translation, localization, playtesting, or whatever department. So I'm working on an assumption here...

Since there's very few errors on the RPGamer site, perhaps those staffers could've put more effort towards checking the dialogue. It's not so much that they worked on the game, but that certain things in the final product needed a double-check.

It's kinda like hiring Marlon Brando and ending up with him doing little more than slapstick routines with a dwarf. Or signing on Roger Ebert as a screenwriter only to end up with "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls."

Okay, I admit it... it does look bad when an independent reviewer shows up in the credits for a professional game. But to use a bad metaphor, I'm more concerned with the child of the father than the father of the child.

-Alan, part-time snob (and part-time hick)

Shadowcat