Bioware employee reviews Dragon Age 2. Likes it very much.

[AGiganticPanda]

Bioware employee reviews Dragon Age 2:
http://bit.ly/elxrum

[Calcos323]

Thanks for spreading this around.  Justice must be served.

[Moritani]

Wow. Yeah, I like the games I make, too. But, really? Really? That's just shameful.

[Hakuro de Killer]

I would criticize only if I didn't think I wouldn't do the same thing in his shoes. If I was part of a team to develop a widely popular RPG, I'd promote it too. I think he went the wrong way about it, but can any of you say you wouldn't do the same? This seems to me like its being blown way out of proportion because a guy who made the game gave it a positive review.

Just saying. The only way it would really be newsworthy is if he gave it a negative review, especially considering he works at the company that made the game.

[AGiganticPanda]

It's about disclosing that you worked on the game in the "review." It's news worthy because in journalism (in any fashion) you should make notes about any type of influence that may impact what you're talking about. Like being paid or employed by the product you're giving an objective review about. Of course it's not a "new" thing, but when you get caught people try to make a big deal because... well it's a big deal in the sense of journalistic integrity. Same reason why you shouldn't believe reviews in things like Game Informer or @Gamer, because the relationship is too close to those who directly benefit from those reviews.

[Hakuro de Killer]

It's about disclosing that you worked on the game in the "review." It's news worthy because in journalism (in any fashion) you should make notes about any type of influence that may impact what you're talking about. Like being paid or employed by the product you're giving an objective review about. Of course it's not a "new" thing, but when you get caught people try to make a big deal because... well it's a big deal in the sense of journalistic integrity. Same reason why you shouldn't believe reviews in things like Game Informer or @Gamer, because the relationship is too close to those who directly benefit from those reviews.

Meh. It just seems way too much like tabloid news to me. Never cared much for it. "Oh my god, Charlie Sheen is a monster for drinking all that booze and dating two incredibly attractive women at the same time!" Firstly, that's the dream of every heterosexual man I have met. Second, why should anyone care what someone does in the privacy of their own home, even if its a television star? Why should anyone care that [insert celebrity here] and [insert celebrity here] are getting together, getting married, divorcing, or breaking up? Why should anyone care that a celebrity is doing things that hundreds if not thousands of nobodies have done before? Tiger Woods cheated on his wife? If it was ANYONE ELSE who wasn't a celebrity, it wouldn't be newsworthy.

It sickens me that people actually believe that WHO does the act is worth more to report on than WHAT the act actually is. If you want to believe a game review, that's your prerogative as a gamer. If you don't want to believe it, that's your prerogative as a gamer. But yeah. Just because the review was posted by an employee of the same company who made the game doesn't necessarily mean that it should change anything. So a guy promotes the game his company comes out with. So what? What's the big deal? I think people should believe what they want to believe and not let anyone discourage them from what most would call "ignorant bliss." Its like believing in Santa Claus or God. If you believe, that is perfectly okay, but don't shove it into the face of skeptics. And those who do not believe, that is also quite acceptable, but don't try to force the believers to disbelieve. Both acts are equally arrogant, selfish, and rude.

[AGiganticPanda]

So lets take the argument out of a game review and into game marketing.

http://www.1up.com/news/staged-dante-inferno-protest

Here we have what seemed to be a protest but then was found to be a (poorly executed) marketing stunt. It matters that they weren't actual protesters for a couple of reasons. Some of them are obvious, offending the stereotype of those who normally would protest such things. It also delves that EA was hoping for protesters (selling to that teenage "I don't give a damn" attitude) and didn't get any.

We can go to political ideals, and go into Libya.

http://www.npr.org/2011/03/10/134411798/mass-firms-libya-work-may-have-violated-fara-act

Here's paid academics that went into Libya and wrote articles and created shows about Libya to create interest in their country economics and change Gadhafi's image. The issue is those ties were never publicly explained.  Articles written by certain academics didn't have footnotes saying they were paid for their time is a HUGE issue. It's the idea of their knowledge and respect that gives their words credibility.

Now is the Bioware review on the same level as Libya? Of course not. It's on a similar principal though, and although the review wasn't a "expert" it was promoted review when searching for the game, which can show forethought on the idea that it was promoted to be read more frequently that other reviews that wouldn't have as much of a bias.  Bias and being paid for reviews is an issue, being able to pay and get public debate changed on a certain topic shouldn't be allowed in fashions that hide who's trying to influence you. It's why there was such a big deal about the political action committees.

Game companies have every right to promote their own game. Advertise, do interviews, do marketing, but identified as such that the company is doing it. The issue is promoting their game and not disclosing his pre-built bias to the game.