Gamepro Writer Plagiarizes IGN Review

After a forum posted the similarities of both the Gamepro and IGN reviews, Gamepro staff investigated the matter and concluded that their review of Water Warfare had indeed been plagiarized. The writer in question said he used the IGN review as a guide and has subsequently been fired (he was an unpaid Intern). The review in question will remain posted according to Gamepro.

(Hit the page to continue Reading)

When I first heard about this I skimmed over it and didn't think much of it since "pro" reviews tend to mimic each other and sound alike. Just take the reviews for The Conduit where you would be hard pressed to find any review that doesn't mention the words innovation, ground breaking or ordinary. Buzzwords, press release sheets and other things routinely go into "pro" reviews, and combined with the very similar views of the "hardcore" videogame press I wasn't surprised at the similarities.

Of course the review was plagiarized and that opens up or rather re-opens the wound that is the lack of ethics, standards and the overall shady practices of the videogame press. In this case I'd like to touch on the horrible practice of not playing the games you review. Clearly this plagiarizer didn't play the game sufficiently or at all else he wouldn't have needed to steal from another review. Unfortunately this practice is all too common.

I direct you once again to the reviews for The Conduit where multiple reviews admitted to not having played the multiplayer portion of the game. Now while it's admirable that they admitted they didn't play half the game it's horrible that they would think they are qualified to offer a valid opinion. It would be like offering a review of a six course meal after only eating three courses. It's absurd.

The usual excuse for this practice is a lack of time. People will tell you how busy they are and how many games they have to play and review. Others will blame late preview copies or deadlines. Whatever the excuse is the practice is unacceptable, and I believe that this case is the first casualty of such an accepted and widespread behavior in an industry that claims to be professional.

The question then rises; how much of a game do you have to play to offer a valid review? The common sense answer is most of a game. Not some, not half - Most. It's hard to say your review is unfounded when you say you've played most of a game. How much is most depends on the game, but if I were to use a number I would say at least 80%. Games come in all different types so what's most for one game won't be for another, but if your review is based on most of a game then it can be taken seriously.

Source