Sacked Duke Nukem PR Redner responds

By Robert Purchese Published 21 June, 2011

Picking reviewers "is a selection process".

2K Games' now-sacked US PR firm The Redner Group has written an essay-length justification for threatening to withhold future games from journalists who wrote "venom filled" reviews of Duke Nukem Forever.

The Redner Group, a one-man operation working out of "a bedroom-turned-office", called the infamous Twitter outburst "a brain fart of epic proportions".

That tweet said "too many went too far" with their reviews of Duke Nukem Forever, and that "we are reviewing who gets games next time and who doesn't based on today's venom".

"I overreacted when I read the [unnamed] review and I vented on Twitter. It was an act of passion on my part that lacked objectivity," wrote Jim Redner, who is The Redner Group, on Wired. "In my opinion, someone had gone over the top to attack the game and those who spent their lives trying to make it. Ultimately, I committed a cardinal sin in marketing."

Jim Redner's actions were explained as acts of frustration borne from the Duke Nuke Forever campaign being a "labour of love"; a rash decision that proved costly. 2K Games swiftly detached itself from The Redner Group amid the allegations of media blacklisting.

"Publishers are under no obligation to send out copies of their game for review."

Jim Redner, The Redner Group

Jim Redner, however, denies the implication of threatening to blacklist journalists. Not sending reviewers copies of games is a different thing, he argued.

"Publishers are under no obligation to send out copies of their game for review. They reserve the right to pick and choose who they want to send their game too, just like writers have the right to publish a review in any manner they choose. It's called selection. It's a choice," he wrote.

"Hopefully all PR professionals make their selections based on any and all data available. They should weigh past coverage, personal information gathered from conversations and past dealings.

"I personally have sent first-person shooter games to one editor knowing that he likes FPS games, but then not sent him a copy of a game based on our national pastime because I know he finds baseball boring. That's not blacklisting. It's a selection process."

Jim Redner said there are usually around 200 to 400 copies of a game available "for media purposes". Requests for the game are normally "double". And Duke Nukem Forever requests were even higher, which meant turning down "hundreds of requests".

"Originally, before we had to push the launch from May to June, I recommended only sending a few copies out for review. We knew the game would receive a wide array of scores, from low to high. I recommended sending no more than 10 per cent of what eventually went out," Jim Redner revealed.

"We knew the game would receive a wide array of scores."

Jim Redner, The Redner Group

"I had hand-picked certain key editors that I felt would enjoy the game for what it is. I based my selections on previous coverage and personal conversations. It is a selection process. The idea was to generate the highest possible cumulative scores for the game at launch. "

Redner wrote that "reviews are subjective" and that one person's opinion is "never wrong". "So long as the review is fair and the critique is backed up by facts, I respect their opinion," he explained.

"It is my opinion that when someone exceeds their journalistic integrity and publishes a scathing, derogatory, uncalled-for review, I have the right to question it. Integrity isn't a badge that can be waved around to suit your situation. It is a lifestyle," Redner added.

"If you ask for a copy of the game for review, you have an ethical duty to provide a fair review of the game. You do not have to like the game. You do not have to publish a glowing review. However, you must be fair and accurate. You owe it to your audience, yourself and the video game community."

Why, asked Jim Redner, should he send a copy of the game to someone who "unfairly" writes "over-the-top stories"?

"Let's look at this in a different context. If I walked up to you today, and you hit me in the face as a form of greeting, do you think that I should I approach you again tomorrow? Would you?" Redner pressed.

"Hardworking people, including myself, spent thousands of hours away from family and friends working on Duke Nukem Forever. The game is what it is, but we poured our hearts into bringing the game back from video game purgatory. That single story hurt and I acted rashly, vented my frustration and I am paying for my actions, more so than you know.

"Shouldn't the journalist have to pay for his? Should I continue to support him?"

Closing, Jim Redner declared that PRs like he "should not supply games to journalists who are capable of such hatred".

"Life is too short to surround ourselves in such baseless hatred," Redner stated. "We should focus on the hundreds of other writers who are capable of being fair, even when writing a poor or low scoring review. Reviews are subjective but fairness should always be a constant."

Eurogamer's Duke Nukem Forever review awarded 3/10.

The first 15 minutes of Duke Nukem Forever.

Picture of Robert.

About Robert Purchese

Bertie is Eurogamer's Senior Staff Writer. When he's not hunting down news stories he's often found playing with his kids or gabbling about fantasy games and strange online worlds. @Clert on Twitter.

Read more articles from Robert by visiting the Robert Purchese archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (85) Latest comment 11 months ago

Comments for this article are now closed, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • Ranger101 #1 11 months ago

    Movie industry critic model*

    /thread

    *By this I mean - take Mark Kermode as an example of a highly subjective, cross-genre, vitriol movie critic. He's lambasted the past three Pirates of the Caribbean movies - did he get blacklisted for the forth movie's critics preview? No. Professionalism works both ways. Disney has not blacklisted Mr. Kermode from all Disney critic previews because he was subjective in his reviews - movies are a personal experience and should be reviewed as such.

    For those who haven't heard Kermode's Pirates 3 review: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6Q5FESHol0
    Edited by Ranger101 at 21/06/11 @ 11:35

  • CptFantastic #2 11 months ago

    I totally agree with his theory, journalists are thieving cowards who hide behind their keyboards, that slate an obviously wonderful game with lots of talented and well-managed staff that created a game many years ago, and have also tirelessly ensured that the legacy of the more famous predecessor be upheld to its highest standard.

    Nevermind the fact I'm a journalist he didn't send a copy to and that the this game has tits in it.

  • bobfish09 #3 11 months ago

    He's right though, whether the review is good or bad, it should be factual and honest, not just emotional ranting or praise.

  • ZeroAX #4 11 months ago

    I really can't argue with the fact that video game reviewers just suck at their job. They can't see past the confines of what they are used to.

  • BuffoonBassoon #5 11 months ago

    i sorta agree with him tbh. does that make me a bad person?! :(

  • Sodding_Gamer #6 11 months ago

    He has a point.

  • X201 #7 11 months ago

    We now need a follow up comment from Eurogamer's Tom Bramwell.

    "I'd just had to sit through a press screening of Brother's in Arms: The Rise of The Turbo Hitler, and I was feeling a little emotional and may have said things that were true.

  • PaletteSwap #8 11 months ago

    Honestly, they should keep a low profile. Conning people into buying this damaged beyond repair PoS is one thing, but it's inane to go after anyone who rightly so points out because they were virulent. Crap games deserve colorful and virulent reviews.

    Beyond damaging the Duke property, they're going to extend the taint to everything 2K related by giving people the impression 2K will do anything to cover crap games. That seems an unfair price to pay for the actually good games 2K puts out.

  • Shikasama #9 11 months ago

    All very well and good, aside from the fact that Brammers has confirmed that EG ARE blacklisted by 2k.

    So yeah, argument falls on its arse.

  • GiarcYekrub #10 11 months ago

    I kinda agree with everything he says, its a joke that some of the review got so uptight about the humour of duke itself and marked it down on one its main selling point, I think Eurogamer itself was one that got its knickers in a twist over that one trying to look at it in an absurdly PC way.

  • CaLeDee #11 11 months ago

    Pick and choose reviewers to inflate the initial score? That's just dirty.

  • Geordiemp #12 11 months ago

    Subtle humour by EG, a long discussion on some journalists being over zelous on reviews of the game....

    Then the last line

    Eurogamer's Duke Nukem Forever review awarded 3/10

    Comedy timing, just great !

  • Jolly_Armadillo #13 11 months ago

    Agree reviewers should be reviewing it as a game not reviewing how politically correct it is or whatever.

    If it offends you then you can't give an unbiased review of a game so should just pass it on for someone else to review.

    Feels like the eurogamer review was marked down because some people may find it offensive, which shouldn't be the case because as said before that's not the part your meant to be reviewing

  • jellyBelly #14 11 months ago

    Goes to show how biased a large part of entertainment reviews and journalism is. Trust this place though

  • kentmonkey #15 11 months ago

    He's right though. There are plenty of reviewers that put 'factual' critique in their review, only for it not to be factual.

    Stuff like: 'The controls are abysmal and the developer should be shot for forcing such an awkward scheme on to the player' are quite common sentences. As is the reply in the comments thread of 'why didn't you change them in the options then. Oh, wait, you didn't even bother checking that you could, did you'.

    There have been a number of reviews on EG, especially more so over the past 18 months, where 'facts' haven't actually been facts at all. They've been mistakes by the reviewer in question. It's just very lazy and easy to criticise something when you haven't bothered to spend even a few seconds/minutes seeing if there is a way to rectify that 'error'. And not enough research is done either.

    Again another EG review was of the Master System re-release of Sonic The Hedgehog on the Virtual Console when the reviewer gave it a really low score and asked why people would even purchase it when the near identical and vastly superior Megadrive version was available. Well, as the comments thread quickly showed, perhaps because the Master System version was a totally different version of Sonic (not virtually identical at all). That wasn't an opinion, it was passed off as fact. A few months later, the exact same reviewer made the same comment again in another review on EG.

    I can accept opinion differing, but I do detest it when reviewers base their review on facts that actually don't exist at all. Or decide to take an approach with their review to stand out from the crowd at the detriment of the title they are reviewing.

    I think Duke Nukem deserves a lot of the shit it has had thrown at it. I really do. But if a games developer/publisher doesn't think that a publication gets their games or isn't the right audience for it, why not use their power to refuse code? After all, we stand up for the right for the reviewer to have and express his opinion, why not the publisher/developer?

    His Twitter comment was a brainfart but only because he put it on Twitter. Thinking that to himself privately and saying it in the correct medium, to the intended audience, would be fine. Putting it out on Twitter for everyone to see never ends well. Unless you're Shinji.

    (and choosing who you think will like your game and sending them review code is just marketing, unfortunately. Games sites and magazines know this, that's why a lot of previews are almost always non committal or glowing with praise only for the review to be less popular. Why would they openly say that it's a sack of shit before they get the opportunity to review it? If you read between the lines a comment such as 'but truth be told, X game needs to make the most of it's remaining development days to get it up to the standard that the fans will be demanding' are quite revealing. But it's not going so far as to say 'actually at this point in time it's a laughable experience and one we can't wait to get our claws into when it's finally released'.

    I may not agree with the approach, in an ideal world every publication would get the opportunity to review it, but as long as they aren't asking for positive scores and are just trying to maximise their potential to receive positive scores, they're also not doing an awful lot wrong other than clever marketing).
    Edited by kentmonkey at 21/06/11 @ 10:41

  • LiamK #16 11 months ago

    "it should be factual and honest, not just emotional ranting or praise. "

    In judging whether you like something or not emotion has a large part to play. Otherwise people would be making 10/10 games all the time using the "facts" of what makes a game good or bad.

    And saying that you shouldn't give something a bad review because lots of people put effort into it is a fairly ridiculous thing to say. Since all games require some effort to make, should all reviews just focus on the nice things? When the next piece of rubbish comes dripping out of the gaming producers pipe should the review say "well, it's fairly terrible and actually gives you cancer, but the texture mapper's family is really nice. 7/10."

  • Gecks #17 11 months ago

    his point about OTT vitriolic reviewers is totally invalidated by his further point about the "selection process" of sending copies of games to reviewers who are more disposed to enjoying them.

    what on earth is even the point? presumably eurogamer and the like will just buy a copy of any similarly high profile game and review that - you're just costing them £39.99 every so often.. it's all so petty.

  • Eraser #18 11 months ago

    A one-guy company called The Redner Group? lol

  • Vortextk #19 11 months ago

    Agreed with his comments that reviewers shouldn't lash out at the game and the people who made it looking to inflict genocide on those people. If the game sucks, discuss why it does and move on. The internet game's community is bad enough in this regard and we don't need professionals sinking to their realm of idiocy, whining and raging.

    But, of course, I also agree with 2k's quick cut with him because what he said was a little too inflammatory in such a public place. Being a bit more snide in this regard, i.e. "You know the duke didn't kill any reviewer's family if we could hold off on the public execution guys" might've gone over better? Sitting in anger it's hard to make a confident and smart decision though, especially if it feels personal, so maybe there wasn't any good answer for him.

  • IronGiant #20 11 months ago

    Crap game got crap reviews, honestly what did they expect. Maybe they should start paying publishers to print glowing reviews of games that are turds. Do you think activision will send review copies of the new COD game to reviewers who scored the last game less than 9/10?
    Edited by IronGiant at 21/06/11 @ 10:46

  • jablonski #21 11 months ago

    As I said in the comments of the actual DNF EG review, I'd rather it was reviewed by someone who was a little less interested in letting us know what a righteous liberal he was, and a little more concerned with the actual game.

  • RageRiot #22 11 months ago

    Truth is, if the game didn't suck this wouldn't have happened.

  • minimong #23 11 months ago

    I came to the decision years ago to take game reviews with a pinch of salt.If I fancy a game, I buy it and it works for me.Trouble is too many people DO put faith in reviews.

    Makes me wonder how many great gaming moments they have passed over.

  • Sodding_Gamer #24 11 months ago

    It's not the greatest game sure. But all gearbox did was finish a game that 3D Realms never got round to do it. That's dedication right there. And very brave to put it out despite it's flaws. A lot of game websites like IGN/Gamespot have had some poor reviews that lash out on games for bucking trends and what not. IGN especially. If it's not like COD they bash it big time. They overlook so many facts and just say they hate it because it's not like their favourite game. And that simply isn't fair.

    Forever is a poor game. But 13 years ago it would have been gold. I bow my hat to Gearbox for taking that giant leap and actually getting it out and having something that is a nice throwback to my childhood.

  • agparrot #25 11 months ago

    Why, asked Jim Redner, should he send a copy of the game to someone who "unfairly" writes "over-the-top stories"?

    I think what he is trying to say here is that Rob Fahey cost Eurogamer their review copy.

    In terms of the broader story, and separate from kentmonkey's excellent appraisal of factual inaccuracies in reviews, I often get the feeling that a reviewers concept of 'value' is skewed by what they think a game is 'worth', when they haven't had to pay for it. I just don't think imagining you've spent £40 on something, and actually having spent £40 on something are the same thing.

    Unless you are super-rich, of course.

    This is why I think Duke Nukem got 3/10 - somebody had to put their hands in their pockets to buy it, and that cost a point, or two, of extra criticism when the score went up at the end.

    All in my uninitiated opinion, of course.

  • SleepyDeathFred #26 11 months ago

    There's a difference between jokes that are ironically sexist (to an extent) and jokes that are actually sexist. The problem with irony is that people tend to forget they are being ironic pretty quickly. However, as Stewart Lee says, its utility is that it allows stand-up comedians to work two crowds simultaneously.

    Seemingly the game actually is just crass and misogynistic rather than satirizing these attitudes.

  • jablonski #27 11 months ago

    @agparrot

    If it as tit-for-tat (you deny us a review copy, we'll take you to the cleaners), then that's just as unprofessional as taking a bung for a review

  • madgerald Verified Studio Head of PR & Marketing, Colossal Games LTD #28 11 months ago

    Having been responsible for sending out review code for a large publisher in the past; I can totally see where he's coming from.

    You get requests from all over the place; from sites you've never dealt with in the past to sites that claim to have been following the game's development yet haven't published a single article about said game. People love freebies! When you've only got a handful of promos to handout, you do have to be selective. You want to reach out to as many relevant gamers as possible. So, on occasions, Mr. Gaming Blog which is read by his mum and his dog might not get a copy of a game to review. Also, you do look at how a site's covered your games in the past.

  • Tomahawk #29 11 months ago

    Redner handled this wrong but I absolutely agree in this case for the blacklisting of certain news sites, I can't remember which guy was reviewing Duke Nukem on EG but he should certainly stop writing them.

    Instead of telling us why Duke isn't relevant today and explaining why you don't think he is relevant to you, why don't you actually let the gamers decide what is and isn't relevant to them?

  • Gecks #30 11 months ago

    @kentmonkey
    "But if a games developer/publisher doesn't think that a publication gets their games or isn't the right audience for it, why not use their power to refuse code"

    if Super Redner Baseball 2k11 is reviewed only by Super Redner Baseball enthusiast sites, and gets 10/10s across the board, and a subsequent 'perfect' metacritic rating i may be more inclined to purchase it - after all, i have no vested interested in plumbing but mario plays a decent game. a good game is a good game - there's no door policy in game shops so there should be none for reviewers.
    Edited by Gecks at 21/06/11 @ 11:32

  • uknortherner2000 #31 11 months ago

    @Gecks: "presumably eurogamer and the like will just buy a copy of any similarly high profile game and review that - you're just costing them £39.99 every so often.. it's all so petty."

    Reminds me of the final months of Amiga Power years ago. They managed to piss off just about every publisher and developer going that none of them would send out review copies to them.

  • spongebob #32 11 months ago

    What review is he talking about, what publication ran it?

  • silversun #33 11 months ago

    I kinda have to agree with what he is saying to some extent ,and it not only duke nukem that has been a victim of this , i could name many other games.
    However i understand a review is only one person view and i always buy my games based on my own desicion , however reading the web i get impression alot of other people dont.

    The other thing that need to be said is the holding back of games from reviewers is not right thing to do.

  • Sodding_Gamer #34 11 months ago

    Eurogamer gave this a 3 out of 10 because Rob made them buy a copy from Zavvi for £159.99

  • HyperTails #35 11 months ago

    People need to shut the fuck up criticising Duke. Gearbox delivered Duke. Just Duke. Nothing more, nothing less. They delievered what people wanted, and they got all upset over the humour.

    Seriously, all the whiners, you obviously don't like FPS games unless you're a US marine killing muslims or Russians, so please, leave your whining at the door.

    On topic, i'm glad that they cut this guy loose. Reviewers should make proper reviews, not full of venom, that I do agree with him on. Blacklist IGN though, but not because they complained, more because you'd be doing a public service.

  • Eldritch #36 11 months ago

    Since when does a single person working straight from their bog make a group? One's a crowd?

  • agparrot #37 11 months ago

    @jablonski.

    I don't think it was tit-for-tat in that direction, I'm sure the score is not related to the absence of review copy per se, but that the score included the sense of personal loss incurred via having to pay for the game.

    I think there was initially some tit-for-tat in the review copy not being sent in the first place, however.

  • monkian #38 11 months ago

    Not everybody likes everything, reviews are just an opinion, but in the bigger picture, if your game is genuinely good, your average review score will reflect that, even if it does get some badly judged, biased and venomous review. Just make sure everybody who requests a copy gets one.

    The only publishers that need concern themselves are the ones that use these kind of underhand aned corrupt tactics to trick people into buying games before the real reviews surface, it's all about deceiving the customer when you know your game is bad.

    The best review for a bad game is the lack of reviews out there before it hits the shops.

  • BuckEntropy #39 11 months ago

    I was applauding at first, because he was basically just telling it like it is. But then he went all "it's about the fairness" and lost me.

    Does that also mean a review that goes over the top with LOVE is unfair? You can't have it both ways, and there's ultimately no fairness to opinion. And the very fact of the practical (and industry wide) 3-11 ratings scale exposes the ultimate myth of objectivity, it's all manipulation and marketing in the end.
    Edited by BuckEntropy at 21/06/11 @ 11:12

  • Findus #40 11 months ago

    But doesn't it also work the other way also when reviewers review games and heap praise only to be caught out later when there are bugs and game breaking features that where never mentioned.

    Take F1 2010 for example. It was reviewed as one of the best racing game in years yet the reviews failed to take into account corrupt saves, impossible race AI, fake timings, incorrect fuel simulation as well as others yet still reviewed the game possitively and even won a BAFTA (o_0)

    Of course reviewing is a personal process but surely making an opinion and heaping praise when there are fundamental issues found quite quickly into the game only adds to the be speculation that there is a lot of behind the scenes stuff the reader is not privy to /tinfoilHat.

    Wasn't Jeff Gerstmann who worked at Gamespot fired after pressure from Eidos over the review he gave Kane and Lynch?

  • DiamondIce #41 11 months ago

    It is fine to slate or praise a game so long as it is all done objectively and professionally.

    Some of the reviews that I have disliked the most are not the ones with a low score at the end (for a game I like) but those that slate it for silly reasons or do so in an unprofessional way.

  • pinebear #42 11 months ago

    I'd much prefer an insightful review that's published a few days or a week after release instead of an early or release day review that relies on being in the publisher's good books.

  • craigy Verified Senior Developer, Eurogamer Network #43 11 months ago

    Sounds like The Murphy Group from Entourage.

  • Odessa #44 11 months ago

    I think the journalists made everything correct. if 100 or more reviewers gave an avg of 70% than it is probably 70% for most of the people.

    But there are other people who like it more and again others who do not like it at all.

    And as gamer i do not buy a game cause of one review. when i am not sure i check more reviews and then build up my own oppinion.

    If they would only send the review to people who give it a 10/10 then everyone would think this is perfect game i have to buy it, and then 70% of the people would be pissed cause for them it is not.

    So i hope it stays how it is and Gamers/Readers do not forget that a review is the oppinion of one person. it gives you a hint but if you like a game or not is your own desicion. (eg farmville would have got 1/10 and still 80mio would play it ;) )

  • SonicUk #45 11 months ago

    I never ever bother to believe what "reviews" say about a game simply because 85% of the time they get it so completely wrong. Whether its giving a crap game (Brink, Grid) a really great score, or giving a really good game (Duke Nukem, Sniper Ghost Warrior, Blacksite) a really crap one, they never seem to have any consistency whatsoever and as others have pointed out rarely seem to display any sense of knowledge of a series history or factual evidence to support their biased comments. I read what you have to do in a game, look at any gameplay footage, screenshots and interviews I may find, hopefully play a demo if one is available and then make up my own mind and with the exception of Op Flashpoint Dragon Rising (which coincidentally got good reviews) I havn't got it wrong in many years and I do buy games often. If I listened to reviews I wouldn't have half the games in my collection and would have missed out on some awesome games simply because a reviewer said wrongly they were crap. Sadly, it seems as though there are a lot of gamers out there who are either gullible or too scared to admit on the forums they like a particular game that got bad reviews because they don't want to stand out. I'm gladly not one of them and would much rather be an individual and try something for myself than follow the heard because that's what everyone else does.
    Edited by SonicUk at 21/06/11 @ 11:26

  • bad09 #46 11 months ago

    I really don't see why this is news. I know some still think reviews are actual buying guides rather than some blokes opinion but reviews have been corrupt like this since the beginning in games mags. Piss off a publisher and you don't get goodies next time, simple. It's also why when gaming press get an interview with someone high up the important questions we want to know answers to are ignored and it's more a lip service PR stunt.

    I actually liked the way 2K got rid of them to make it seem like they were unaware of this bullcrap going on. It worked to with people on here saying "good for 2K" :)

    The gaming industry has always sold on lies and hype, gaming press is a useful tool for this. Use it only for a bit of news and some banter with other gamers nothing else, ignore the reviews as they will be untrustworthy at lot of the time, besides no one actually knows whether a game is good or not but you yourself. Using reviews to decide what YOU buy is silly, I'd have missed so much good gaming over the years if I bought games based on opinions of a reviewer.

  • Vortextk #47 11 months ago

    That's funny sonicuk. I find more people admitting to liking shit games because they want to stand out, not the reverse, like you and your list. It makes them feel unique and special to not follow review scores, to buck the trend.

  • scuffpuppies #48 11 months ago

    Game Journalists = People who haven't enough talent to actually work in a development house.

    I've been working in this industry for over 19 years, from Ocean, Psygnosis, to SEGA and SCEE, and to this day out of the hundreds of journalists I've spoken to, bar 6 people whom I now class as friends, nearly all have been complete cocks. Unfortunately Eurogamer are an equally guilty party, and remember on two occasions several of us left the studio for several hours when they visited.

    I know journalists are a necessary evil, and are a useful marketing tool....but that doesn't mean they have to act like tools.
    Edited by scuffpuppies at 21/06/11 @ 11:44

  • whoyouknow #49 11 months ago

    He's right. He made a bad move while he was representing a flawed game but he is right.

  • Branoic #50 11 months ago

    Wait, what? Take Two's PR firm was one guy working out of a converted bedroom?!?

  • MaybeLater #51 11 months ago

    Give over. A PR Prat blathering on about Integrity, Honesty and Obvectivism and in the world of Games Journalism no less, let alone journalism in general. Then he has the audacity to claim stat. stacking is acceptable business practice. Not a drop of moral fibre to be seen in the entire torrid affair.

  • schnide #52 11 months ago

    I doubt anyone will really read this comment, but the guy is talking absolute arsecake and I'm shocked that anyone would agree with him. His analogies are way off, the fact is that all these reviewers can't be wrong or at least proves what they wrote isn't baseless hatred. Fact is that the game was far, far poorer than it should have been and the PR team's job is to insulate sales from that as best they can. If that involves threatening reviewers with not getting access to their games in future, then that's what they'll do if they can, and that's what they've done with EG.

  • spongebob #53 11 months ago

    Seriously, what was the review that got this guy so pissed? I want to read it :)

  • Whitster #54 11 months ago

    "Hardworking people, including myself, spent thousands of hours away from family and friends working on Duke Nukem Forever. The game is what it is, but we poured our hearts into bringing the game back from video game purgatory. That single story hurt and I acted rashly, vented my frustration and I am paying for my actions, more so than you know."

    I too spend many hours away from my family, friends, and home every year and am not always appreciated for it, in fact I sometimes take criticism also. It's called having a bloody job, get over it!
    Edited by Whitster at 21/06/11 @ 12:13

  • AceGrace #55 11 months ago

    I don't really take notice of reviews. If I think I am going to like a game, I probably will.

    EG does seem to have consistancy issues though.

    Edited by AceGrace at 21/06/11 @ 12:28

  • petran79 #56 11 months ago

    At least on movie reviews you read that there is a better movie out there or an older movie that works much better.
    In most game reviews it looks as if the reviewer was born yesterday and no game except this one exists.

    Eg animal humper 5 is the best game ever, even better than ah 4, since that game was the best last year and all previous games go to the garbage bin, since they are old and outdated.there is a such trend in movies too but fortunately not so dominant as in video games.

    I stopped caring for video game reviews if they are written in this manner

  • Liquidoodle #57 11 months ago

    Jim Redner you get +1 Internets! Have to say I agree with the fella :) personally I read a review after I have played the game to see if I agreed or not.

  • Optyk #58 11 months ago

    Which review is he talking about? The EG one?

  • SEVQA #59 11 months ago

    "spent thousands of hours away from family and friends working on Duke Nukem Forever."

    Well I have wasted thousands of hours away from family and friends watching Duke Nukem Forever loading screens!

  • schnide #60 11 months ago

    @Optyk

    He's talking about the numerous different reviews which have given the game a score of around 50 on Metacritic.

    As an aside though, I read elsewhere that Tom Bradwell (he of EG editorship) has confirmed that EG is no longer to be given advance copies of 2K Games titles due to the way that several writers spoke about Duke Nukem Forever on a video podcast.

  • coolbritannia #61 11 months ago

    "We knew the game would receive a wide array of scores." - Jim Redner, The Redner Group

    "We"? It's just one guy!

  • Cjail #62 11 months ago

    "If you ask for a copy of the game for review, you have an ethical duty to provide a fair review of the game. You do not have to like the game. You do not have to publish a glowing review. However, you must be fair and accurate. You owe it to your audience, yourself and the video game community"

    Ok let's pretend you are reviewing Duke Nukem Forever; do as he says and put emotions aside: no love no hatred, you don't have to like what you are playing, your emotions aren't important to the score (joy, fun, boredom, frustration,etc...) you just have to measure objectively Duke Nukem Forever like you would measure the length of a table using a ruler...look at DNF strictly from a technical point of view!
    Technically the game is terrible: terrible graphic for console, very long load times, frame rate drops, poor textures, poor/bad overall performances, etc...

    So after this cold analysis what score would you give to Duke Nukem Forever simply considering these technical, objective, undeniable, measured by machines, characteristics?


    Edited by Cjail at 21/06/11 @ 13:19

  • Killface #63 11 months ago

    "If I walked up to you today, and you hit me in the face as a form of greeting, do you think that I should I approach you again tomorrow? Would you?"

    Well if you hadn't walked up to me brandishing a dildo and a piece of excrement screaming BALLS OF STEEL I wouldn't have hit you!

    And to be fair 80% of reviewers had to purchase retail copies of your dogshit game to review it anyway, publishers obviously want reviews swayed in their favour at launch, but refusing to let half the journalists play it early. This is just further acknowledgement of how unreservedly awful a product your client created and sold for the same price as a millenia of better titles.

    Games are not cheap and you seem to have been in the business of misleading the general public, which is not hard, but don't think for a second you could pull the wool over the eyes of thousands of internet savvy gaming enthusiasts who had to purchase your offensively "past your sell by date" game to find out how awful it was.

    P.S. Glad 2K sacked your sorry ass and no doubt when I walk into my local game store there will be a stack of pre-owned copies from unsatisfied customers. I understand that everyone in production of this HAS to, at least, fain excitement for this, but I predict that after the "shit" storm is over and everyone has gone back to not caring, Mr Randy Pitchford will have an interview and let slip he knew it was this bad, but couldn't say it. Gearbox is better than this, Come on guys.
    Edited by Killface at 21/06/11 @ 13:29

  • MichaelDesloover #64 11 months ago

    @Scuffpuppies: Sorry, but journalists are not failed developers or people who didn't make it/got stuck on the ladder. I work for 10+ years already as a reviewer, most of those years were as a volunteer completely unpaid (and that goes for most people in this industry). I/we do it for the pashion for good games, not to try to annoy developers at all. If in the end we get experience from covering all those games and get better at it, does that really mean we're stuck down the ladder? I doubt so. In fact, I'm pretty sure that my regular job (outside gaming as a management consultant) is pretty much at the high-end, writing articles is an extra job in itself really that you have to want to do, nobody is gonna spend so much time just to annoy you!

    I find it a shame that you and other devs would leave for a while if you see journalists, that's a complete lack of empathy combined with an unhealthy dosis of tunnelvision. If you really get to know them, they're just excited young people trying to learn how you try to create an engaging way of entertainment.

    btw, to add to the discussion here: some of my scores are things I feel good about, some of them I'm not entirely sure...in which case I try to describe what I feel and what could be better. For me the process of playing games, finding good innovations, discovering what I feel and putting it on paper is a key aspect of games. I like to game, and it's simply more fun when I can share stories about it, just like everyone else does with friends, at events, on fora and so on. The difference is the medium.

  • kinky_mong #65 11 months ago

    Why do all these Duke-apologists think that anyone who doesn't like this sub-standard game must be a brain-washed moron who only likes army shooters where you play as a marine killing foreigners?

    There's plenty of examples of great FPS games in lots of varied settings, and the one unifying reason they're all better than DNF is they don't try and hide archaic game design behind a has-been character and poor attempts at humour.

  • ajaxpliskin #66 11 months ago

    Wow, this guy's a hero!!! Good luck with the future Redner!

  • spongebob #67 11 months ago

    "I overreacted when I read the [unnamed] review and I vented on Twitter. It was an act of passion on my part that lacked objectivity," wrote Jim Redner,

    He is talking about one specific review as well. Anyone know what?

  • Raiko101 #68 11 months ago

    If Eurgamer had given this game a 7 or an 8, and I had bought this game as a result, i'd feel as if i'd been scammed. I've played a good few hours of it now and i've seen the entire game through. It's bargain bin quality at best. Unfortunately a lot of work has gone into ithe game, but it's not about rating a game based on how much effort has gone into it, rather how well it plays and how fun it is. This game is completely lacking in both areas. It wouldn't have held its own 10 years ago. Land of the Babes is a better game than this and that game has become quite out-dated itself.

  • Ranger101 #69 11 months ago

    @spongebob - Probably 1UP or Destructoid, lowest scores for the game from higher profile sites.

    It probably is Destructoid - they take pot shots at the various development teams and 2KGames for releasing the game: http://www.destructoid.com/review-duke-n...
    Edited by Ranger101 at 21/06/11 @ 14:43

  • Ptarmigandalf #70 11 months ago

    So, basically, he sent it to the reviewers he personally believed would give the best scores, and he got a bucket of bile in return - I wonder what he would have got from non-hand-picked reviewers, then... explosives?

  • OliverH #71 11 months ago

    @MichaelDesloover

    It's perfectly ok to talk about gut feelings, fun factor etc. in a review. However, one should be well aware that these are very personal experience and in no way can be generalized or assumed to be in any way applicable to others. More, they are in no way a justification for slinging mud - when someone did a bad job, that can still be pointed out in a collected manner. As for scores, I personally feel they should less be based on diffuse feelings which others may or may not share but on specific, nameable points - which of course should also be factual, not based on not reading the manual etc.

    Frankly, those people here who lambast Redner for not being able to take criticism miss the point completely. Suppose you were writing your reviews in print. Suppose you showed it to the editor. Suppose he looked at it, shredded it in front of your eyes and told you that as you are obviously unable to contain your verbal incontinence, you should consider working out of the toilet room so that you can flush down your fabrications rightaway, what would you do? You'd probably decide that that's the last review you've written for the guy. And justly so. There's criticism and there's criticism. And even IF someone is doing a bad job, there's still the option of respectful criticism. Frankly, what some reviewers produce in such situations, however, seems to be mainly targeted at acquiring a certain kind of readers who love mudslinging. It's perfectly valid to do things to acquire readers. But if you do it at someone's expense, you can't expect them to be happy about it - or even support you in doing so.

    It should be noted that while we're talking about games here, games PR and games journalism is still business. And as such, all participants can very much expect professional conduct from each other. And if one side demonstrates unprofessional conduct, i.e. by confusing the Jerry Springer Show with solid journalism, then it is very valid of the other side to disassociate itself from them.

  • HyperTails #72 11 months ago

    @Ranger01

    1UP sounded like the Daily Mail. Spent the whole review talking about how insulted they were.

    And Destructoid is such a bollocks site, esp that fat fuck Jim Sterling, that they are a complete an utter waste of space. And so are the morons that post in the comments section of that drivel.

  • azix2 #73 11 months ago

    LOL. funny the comments people make here. I pretty much said the same thing when they first reported about what he did. It made perfect sense yet typical gamers freak out about it. IMO he should have sent the game to the people who would appreciate it. That's what its all about. You follow reviewers because you like the games they like, so if the reviewer likes it then you know you would appreciate it and by then you should know if you would or wouldn't agree with the particular reviewers score. The publisher was being stupid dropping this guy, they should have taken his side in the matter and explained it further

  • Stompy #74 11 months ago

    Post deleted at 23:13:35 17-04-2012

  • Stompy #75 11 months ago

    Post deleted at 23:13:35 17-04-2012

  • OliverH #76 11 months ago

    @Killface

    "Well if you hadn't walked up to me brandishing a dildo and a piece of excrement screaming BALLS OF STEEL I wouldn't have hit you! "

    Thanks for providing a perfect example for what I pointed out in #71. It's comments such as this which makes some editors believe that reviews have to sound like they were written on a gutter submarine.

  • DrStrangelove #77 11 months ago

    I quite understand his point, although if there should be no venomous, idiotic reviews, there would be no Top Gear anymore. And that would be the most saddening thing I can imagine.

  • AOFanboi #78 11 months ago

    Cry me a fucking river, Redner, neither you nor the devs or publisher are OWED any success just because you spent a lot of time and money making SHIT. If you want success, make something GOOD. A reviewer isn't your momma putting your juvenile scribbles on the fridge door while calling it a wonderful piece of art. The reviewers are there to PROTECT us consumers from spending our money on SHIT. In this case, yours.

    And, nice one asking for objectivity when you so easily lose your cool (and thus objectivity) yourself... the only objectivity you can put in a game review is technical stuff like texture quality etc., but you failed even there... the rest is necessarily subjective, like fun or playability.

    (As an aside, this entire brouhaha reminds me of the "A COMPANY IS AT STEAK!" thing thrown out in a fit during a discussion of dead-before-launch" MMO Dawn back in the day. There is no relationship between effort and success, between dreams and reality. You just have to make something GOOD - or at least have a skin thick enough to take criticism instead of crying in public like that.)

    What I cannot fathom is why there are so many apologists and defenders in the threads here. I mean, here I thought the games industry had moved on from its juvenile and sexist past, but then this thing comes along and wrecks everything that has been accomplished since the naughty nineties. "Take it for what it is"? Well, that is exactly what the negative reviewers do! The emperor has no clothes on, the hype was a lie, and the game deserves the same fate the plethora of other crappy FPS also-rans get. The 14 years since its inception do not do the final product any favours.

  • OliverH #79 11 months ago

    @AOFanboi
    "What I cannot fathom is why there are so many apologists and defenders in the threads here. I mean, here I thought the games industry had moved on from its juvenile and sexist past, but then this thing comes along and wrecks everything that has been accomplished since the naughty nineties. "

    Nope. You're doing the wrecking all by yourself. Claiming that the industry had moved on from its juvenile past while engaging in juvenile rants is merely demonstrating what's wrong. A lot of "Fanbois" are still stuck in their teens and believe that reviews should be written as if you still were in highschool.

    @DrStrangelove

    Please, tell me, are you seriously using TopGear as a source of information as to what car to buy? I mean, have you bought a Bugatti Veyron just because Clarkson was awed by it? TopGear has precious little to do with reviews and quite a bit with the smell of pheromones and burnt rubber - and that's why people watch the show, not to find out whether they should buy the new Lotus Elise.

  • Bluetooth #80 11 months ago

    He's right, Duke is a FUN game. Definitely not perfect, but definitely not 3 out of 10.

    Same with Alice, the most creative and inventive game for a long time. A 5 from Eurogamer - worse than Homefront.

  • Collymilad #81 11 months ago

    He's not right in any way.

    So what, the really bad reviewers had something against him or the people who made the game? Ridiculous, and if that's not the case, they have every right to review it. Trying to cut them off from future reviews is just pathetic.

    If you're games good enough, you shouldn't be bothered about who gets hold of it and who doesn't. Just because you basically got caught red handed admitting you want to have the best chance to rip people off, don't go off on some massive rant about it.

    And are we doing stupid analogies today? (regarding the face punching thing)

    Ok: Say I serve you a shit sandwhich one day and you say it tastes awful. Then I try and stop you telling other people how bad it tasted. Who's in the wrong there?
    Edited by Collymilad at 22/06/11 @ 03:44

  • OliverH #82 11 months ago

    @Collymilad
    Sorry to say, you miss the point completely. The point is not that he got negative reviews, the point is that they were written in an unprofessional way. And he's not trying to cut them off from future reviews, he's simply not giving them freebies anymore. They have every possibility to buy the game and review it. But if he gives you a free lot and you use it to shovel shit at him, why should he give you the very tool to do so for free in future? If you want a professional relationship with someone, behave professionally. If you can't do that, expect them not wanting to touch you with a ten foot pole. It's nothing remarkable, really. And demanding more professional behaviors from others while one isn't adhering to the same standards is not going to fly.
    Edited by OliverH at 22/06/11 @ 09:30

  • Gecks #83 11 months ago

    @OliverH,
    redner's point about vitriolic reviews is totally redundant as he states that he is perfectly happy withholding review copies for people he assumes won't like them. this is at best acting in a petty manner, or at worst cooking metacritic scores. THAT is the issue here. all this stuff about professionalism is smoke and mirrors - he doesn't like that duke nukem was poorly received and is perfectly happy to act in a non-professional manner in response:

    "I had hand-picked certain key editors that I felt would enjoy the game for what it is. I based my selections on previous coverage and personal conversations. It is a selection process. The idea was to generate the highest possible cumulative scores for the game at launch. "

    i.e. if a reviewer rated duke nukem forever poorly, but in a professional manner, jim redner would still have advised 2K Games to no-longer send them review copies of similar titles.
    Edited by Gecks at 22/06/11 @ 10:42

  • OliverH #84 11 months ago

    @Gecks

    "that he is perfectly happy withholding review copies for people he assumes won't like them. this is at best acting in a petty manner, or at worst cooking metacritic scores. "

    No, it isn't - because anyone can still buy the game and review it once it is launched. The talk about metacritic score manipulation is plain and simply humbug over the mid- to long term. And the fact that he already HAD to do such a selection and STILL got negative reviews demonstrates that if the game has shortcomings, all selection won't fix any scores.
    Second, you talk as if people had a right to free review copies. Sorry to say, TANSTAAFL. I frankly don't know a single field of business where it is practice to send review copies to everyone and their mother AND their friend who might write a review. Face it, review copies are part of marketing. As such, they are used in a way that generates money -precisely what Redner says: He wants to have a maximum of good rep at launch. That's his bleeping JOB!!! What do you think he's been hired for??? Going down 5th avenue handing out DVDs to everyone who wants one??? He says he sent copies to a copy of editors he believed would like the game. Should he have sent one to "Christian gamers"? To organizations against violence in gaming? Now that would have been a great job. His job is not mass distribution, his job has always been a selection process. 2K wouldn't need a PR guy to send review copies to all major gaming mags.

    "i.e. if a reviewer rated duke nukem forever poorly, but in a professional manner, jim redner would still have advised 2K Games to no-longer send them review copies of similar titles. "

    No, that is not what he says at all. He says he judges based on previous coverage and personal conversations whether someone is likely to enjoy the game or not. Just because someone disliked DNF doesn't mean he is likely to dislike the next game. But if he disliked DNF and voiced that in an unprofessional manner, then it is very much unlikely that he would treat other games more professionally.

    When you call his statements petty, sorry to say, but I think you simply don't get what this guy's job is - or that of a company to begin with. If you can accuse him of anything, it's two things:
    A)He failed in his task to generate good rep at launch - which of course, isn't his failure alone, you can only do so much with the substance you work with.
    B)He should have realized that losing his temper in public is a no-no for a PR professional, and that the average gamer is unlikely to understand what he gets at anyway.

    It should be noted in this context that there is no such thing as a right to pre-launch copies of a game and that getting them is a monetary advantage for gaming mags, as it makes them more attractive for readers to have pre-launch tests. Anyone who believes that not giving someone a free reviewe copy pre-launch believes nothing less than that it is the job of gaming publishers to sponsor the gaming industry. If they gave them the money directly, there would be an outcry and talk of bought reviews - but if they give them a financial advantage indirectly, then supposedly, reviewers have some kind of moral right to it. Sorry to say folks, but this is business, on both sides, and in business, things rarely are free.
    Edited by OliverH at 22/06/11 @ 15:36

  • Gecks #85 11 months ago

    @OliverH
    "And the fact that he already HAD to do such a selection and STILL got negative reviews demonstrates that if the game has shortcomings, all selection won't fix any scores."
    no, he didn't do such a selection - 2k gamers (in their defence) ignored his selection and sent copies out to a wider array of publications.

    "anyone can still buy the game and review it once it is launched. The talk about metacritic score manipulation is plain and simply humbug over the mid- to long term."
    so why do any qualitative selection at all? he gave a list of critics he thought should get PR copies to 2k based on how highly he thought they'd rate the game. of course this sort of behaviour doesn't work; everyone is going to review duke nukem forever and similarly high profile games. however it is the intention and subsequent attempted justification behind his actions that is bullshit.

    the idea that games critics should be entitled to 'free' copies of games is some of of privilege is crazy. you realise that in the worlds of film, music, theatre and the like, the press do get a 'free lunch' in terms of access to screenings, CDs and tickets? obviously we are talking about professional critics, and insinuating that i think he should send review copies to "everyone and their mother AND their friend" is a strawman. this is an industry where a huge website like eurogamer getting blacklisted by 2k games is hardly a unique event, but at least it normally happens behind closed doors rather than petty twitter bravado.
    Edited by Gecks at 22/06/11 @ 15:40