Jeff Gerstmann canned from Gamespot for K&L review?

Leebo33 · Post by **Leebo33** » Fri Dec 28, 2007 6:32 pm

ScoopBrady wrote:But feel free to keep taking potshots, I'm just here to keep the peace.

Sorry if you took it as a potshot. I meant to point out the cultural differences. Around here "f*ck you" can be used as a warm greeting to an old friend and I'm not too far from a place where Santa Claus was (justifiably) booed. I know that the midwest is definitely known to be a more friendly place so I was just thinking maybe my idea of "bitter" discourse and yours are totally different.

I totally disagree that cynical and bitter go hand-in-hand. I'm probably as cynical as they get, but also very giving and always laughing. I can't think of a single person in real life, where tone and facial expressions accompany the words, who would describe me as bitter.

Leebo33 · Post by **Leebo33** » Fri Dec 28, 2007 6:49 pm

double post

dbdynsty25 · Post by **dbdynsty25** » Fri Dec 28, 2007 7:00 pm

How do you double post 17 min. later?

Post by **ScoopBrady** » Fri Dec 28, 2007 7:02 pm

dbdynsty25 wrote:Wow, this thread really took a turn. Who'd have thought that tiny little pot shots would spin it out of control, rather than the ethical consequences of being on the take. LOL.

No doubt. I went from preventer to instigator in just under a post. Oh well, just to reiterate, good job everybody on keeping that conversation civil and not starting a site war. I'll work on keeping my mouth shut.

Post by **ScoopBrady** » Fri Dec 28, 2007 7:06 pm

And for the record, I apologize to Leebo and JRod for calling them negative. I was a bit perturbed from having my initial preventative post taken the way it was and let that cloud my judgment.

Leebo33 · Post by **Leebo33** » Fri Dec 28, 2007 8:20 pm

dbdynsty25 wrote:How do you double post 17 min. later?

Aren't you still banned?

Leebo33 · Post by **Leebo33** » Fri Dec 28, 2007 8:52 pm

ScoopBrady wrote:And for the record, I apologize to Leebo and JRod for calling them negative. I was a bit perturbed from having my initial preventative post taken the way it was and let that cloud my judgment.

I apologize as well. I took Scoop's comment "And remember, when you start pointing your finger there's three more pointing right back at you" personal because it sounds like something you would say to a child. It's not something I would say to a bunch of adults, but I know that he didn't mean it that way. Just as I hope he realizes that it wouldn't make sense for me to make a blanket statement about midwesterners because it would make absolutely no sense to piss off half the board if I was pissed at him. If I thought he had a pea-sized brain I would just say so and wouldn't need to make a blanket statement.

I thought we had a good conversation going, I had just admitted to being wrong, I thought things were good, and when Scoop jumped in I felt it was unwarranted. Even though it seems like his intention was to make peace, I didn't take it that way because his words managed to imply that some posters were hypocrites, bitter, and judgmental. Since he's called me out several times I obviously thought he was talking about me (and JRod). In my opinion, if you are trying to commend us for keeping it civil, the post should have been simply without all the additional commentary: "I'm glad all parties involved have been able to keep this thread civil. I know Jared doesn't want a site war on these forums so let's continue to keep this thread civil. If it starts veering towards a site war I will lock this thread." In my mind, he may as well have said, "I'm glad you miserable judgmental hyprocrites kept in line because I've been keeping my eye on you."

Post by **ScoopBrady** » Fri Dec 28, 2007 9:32 pm

Check your pm Leebo.

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Sat Dec 29, 2007 2:13 am

Sure EA isn't going to overtly say give us good reviews.

But if you want to keep getting flown out to FL or CA for these events, all expenses paid, chance to hobnob with NFL players and so on, the message is clear.

You don't antagonize the people who are giving you these things.

It's an issue with the media which cover Hollywood. They get press junkets too.

Look at how much Hollywood wets itself over the Golden Globe awards. Like foreign media have some better judgement on the crap Hollywood puts out than the domestic media.

But these days, Hollywood relies on international revenues so it wants to cultivate all media.

Post by **Jared** » Sat Dec 29, 2007 3:09 am

Sorry for the long delay...on vacation and have been away from the computer the last two days. To address some things in this thread.

1) To make this point clear, I'll quote Shawn (bold ours):

sdrotar wrote: I am fully versed in the ethics of journalism, and that's why I've never accepted a dime for any publisher for any of my content - ever. I simply can't stress this enough. I have a real editing job; my games coverage is simply an expression of my love for the medium.

2) Let's also make it clear that PK retracted what he said about Shawn being paid by XBox.com and EA. He assumed that Shawn was being paid since they are "big" site. It's a reasonable assumption, but he was wrong and he corrected that mistake.

3)

sdrotar wrote:It's hard to be pressured by someone who doesn't compensate you - and that's exactly why I don't accept any.

Well, it seems like you're equating compensation with pay here. However, you can get compensation without pay. Since you are getting publicitiy from Microsoft and EA for your own site and work, you are getting compensation. And just because you're not getting paid by XBox or EA doesn't guarantee objectivity or (also important) the appearance of objectivity.

For example, it's clear that Pasta Padre gets preview copies of games from EA, to provide screenshots, impressions, etc. That's his compensation. It's also clear that Pasta Padre is not very critical of EA games (e.g. his March Madness coverage). Is his compensation from EA affecting his coverage? Is it making him less likely to slam bad games by EA? I don't truly know. However, the appearance of impropriety is clearly there, and any perceived (true or otherwise) lack of objectivity will be seen through those lenses.

These ethical issues are also there for Shawn's work as well, since he is "compensated" by Xbox.com and EA. That's where the discussion lies here.

4) However, there's a really big "logistical" problem here. Sports gaming journalism is supported primary by the sports gaming companies, whether it be by advertising in gaming magazines and websites, or by providing preview code, screenshots, and interviews. Unless you are writing for somewhere like Newsweek, or are writing with no compensation (advertising or otherwise) from gaming companies, there will always be conflict of interest somewhere. There are conflicts in writing about preview code, getting exclusive screenshots, going on press junkets paid for by the gaming company, etc. And logistically, it is difficult to have content while being independent from the industry.

That's why it's important to discuss the ethics involved, in order to try and figure out what is ethical and unethical in gaming journalism; and to figure out how to get solid, meaningful content while maintaining journalistic integrity.

5) Shawn, responding to your last post, it's unfair to say that PK was "spreading falsehoods" about you. He assumed that you were being paid in two posts, and then quickly retracted it when you said otherwise. He still believes that there are ethical issues, even knowing that you are not paid by XBox or EA. That's not pontificating, that's not chest-thumping, that's not defamation of character. There are still ethical issues at hand, and that's what he's talking about. I understand that you're offended, but overreacting and painting PK as a defamer is not fair to him or yourself. Most of us have stated that we like your work, and we're not out to get you.

6) As an aside, let's not continue the potshot war in this thread. Thanks.

DivotMaker · Post by **DivotMaker** » Sat Dec 29, 2007 9:47 am

wco81 wrote:Sure EA isn't going to overtly say give us good reviews.

But if you want to keep getting flown out to FL or CA for these events, all expenses paid, chance to hobnob with NFL players and so on, the message is clear.

You don't antagonize the people who are giving you these things.

I can see how some, if not many would share your perceptions, no argument there. What surprised me is the reaction I have received from EA Tiburon since TW08 was released and I panned the PC version when it was launched as well as agreeing with every 360 user who is complaining about the online play issues as well as other community-found bugs. The Tiburon TW team has taken the feedback very seriously and welcomes the bad with the good. They were not antagonized by the negative feedback...they were energized by it and see it as an opportunity to improve and give users what they are looking for. The Executive Producer told me point blank, "if we don't focus on what users are complaining about, we will never get it right." They have taken the tack that "they don't assume to know everything that the TW user would like to see in the game", and are relying heavily on user feedback to improve the game. This kind of mentality is unheard of for EA Sports and it could not come at a better time for the TW Community. That being said, the proof will be in the pudding so to speak once TW09 is released and the community will see just how "intently" Tiburon was listening.

So to your point that in order to stay in good graces with EA and keep the invitations coming, this is not true for at least one EA Sports franchise that I know of. I just hope the remaining EA Sports titles (NHL excluded as it is very apparent that David Littman is listening to the hockey community) take this same mindset to work with them when they produce the 09 and beyond titles.

Rodster · Post by **Rodster** » Sat Dec 29, 2007 10:29 am

Responding to Divot, one thing I have noticed from EA in the last year is that they are asking questions and at least are showing they do care about their products.

FIFA and their NHL franchises have made the biggest improvements. TW this year is a better product than last year. IMO it was only held back from the putting animations and mechanics which were in last years game as well. The rubberband AI bug is a concern but hopefully will get addressed as well. NBA Live 08 is a better product than last year. (edit: not hard to do after last years effort

) I've also read that March Madness is also good this year.

The only two franchises that lag behind is Madden and NCAA Football, not that they are bad but they could be much much better. So back on topic.

I don't have any problems with guys like Shawn or Divot being flown to EA preview events because IMO EA is actually starting to produce some good to quality sports games. Maybe that's a result of EA listening to the complaints and trying to fix them.

JRod · Post by **JRod** » Sat Dec 29, 2007 7:06 pm

DivotMaker wrote:
wco81 wrote:Sure EA isn't going to overtly say give us good reviews.

But if you want to keep getting flown out to FL or CA for these events, all expenses paid, chance to hobnob with NFL players and so on, the message is clear.

You don't antagonize the people who are giving you these things.
I can see how some, if not many would share your perceptions, no argument there. What surprised me is the reaction I have received from EA Tiburon since TW08 was released and I panned the PC version when it was launched as well as agreeing with every 360 user who is complaining about the online play issues as well as other community-found bugs. The Tiburon TW team has taken the feedback very seriously and welcomes the bad with the good. They were not antagonized by the negative feedback...they were energized by it and see it as an opportunity to improve and give users what they are looking for. The Executive Producer told me point blank, "if we don't focus on what users are complaining about, we will never get it right." They have taken the tack that "they don't assume to know everything that the TW user would like to see in the game", and are relying heavily on user feedback to improve the game. This kind of mentality is unheard of for EA Sports and it could not come at a better time for the TW Community. That being said, the proof will be in the pudding so to speak once TW09 is released and the community will see just how "intently" Tiburon was listening.

So to your point that in order to stay in good graces with EA and keep the invitations coming, this is not true for at least one EA Sports franchise that I know of. I just hope the remaining EA Sports titles (NHL excluded as it is very apparent that David Littman is listening to the hockey community) take this same mindset to work with them when they produce the 09 and beyond titles.

But see here's the problem.

Why do you get flown to EA to see Tiger. And why do you have access to some of the producer's. You said at one time you did some consulting or 3rd party work for Tiger. I can't remember which.

But you don't do any reviews or "journalism" for any site. You seem to pop up around Tiger time, to talk about tiger. I have never figured out why you have such a strong vested interest in Tiger.

We only issue is that if you are apart of EA Sports to do paid or unpaid community outreach and you don't disclose that. You said you weren't an EA community liaison.

The difference between you and others, is that you only really post on forums. It's centered around Tiger and often times it's very favorable towards Tiger. You aren't doing reviews, or previews.

Okay I'm going to draw a similarity to how the big boys play ball. The days of buying congressman off are largely dead. Yes you have some cases where a congressman is corrupt but the FBI will get you at some point.

The key now is access to gain influence. Access is what lobbyists and power players try to get. Let me give you an example. Let's say the railroad lobby and companies what a certain bill or appropriation money for something. And I'm not talking about some "bridge to know where" but something that isn't sinister or self-serving. So what this lobby does, is invite the sub-committee to a research trip to let at one of the research facilities in the country. This isn't a golf in scotland research trip and the congressman are hearing from those in the industry. But what the railroad lobby does is pull out all the bells and whistles. For lunch, a rail company brings in an antique train, along with the corporate chef, to serve a very nice lunch of NY strips. And to top it off, later than night the lobby is having their quarterly meeting at a nearby 5-star resort. Congressman and their wives are invited.

Nothing in that example is illegal. They didn't say I'll give you 100,000 if you vote for my project. Instead they are getting one-on-one time which can be just as effective.

When I think about EA Sports and their access to game journalists, I think about how special interests influence congress. I see so many similarities between the two.

EA Sports might not do it like Eidos and force a staff member to get fired. It's not paying off these guys but they are influencing the opinions that go on the press trips or get early builds. And they also know that through one-on-one time, it's hard to say a game is crap if they flew you in to Tiburon to let you play with Game X before anybody else. Yes they will say they aren't influence but it's more difficult to say something bad but truthful about someone's effort if you know them personally.

Anyway, I think Jared's post on this said it the best. I just took 2000 more words to get there.

Dave · Post by **Dave** » Sat Dec 29, 2007 7:15 pm

Is the internet really so jaded that companies soliciting feedback is seen as a bad thing?

Some might be swayed, but not everyone, as evidenced by Divot panning the PC Tiger 08. Golf games seem to be his thing, that's why he mostly posts about Tiger, the only golf game in town.

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Sat Dec 29, 2007 9:20 pm

JRod wrote: The days of buying congressman off are largely dead. Yes you have some cases where a congressman is corrupt but the FBI will get you at some point.

The key now is access to gain influence. Access is what lobbyists and power players try to get. Let me give you an example. Let's say the railroad lobby and companies what a certain bill or appropriation money for something. And I'm not talking about some "bridge to know where" but something that isn't sinister or self-serving. So what this lobby does, is invite the sub-committee to a research trip to let at one of the research facilities in the country. This isn't a golf in scotland research trip and the congressman are hearing from those in the industry. But what the railroad lobby does is pull out all the bells and whistles. For lunch, a rail company brings in an antique train, along with the corporate chef, to serve a very nice lunch of NY strips. And to top it off, later than night the lobby is having their quarterly meeting at a nearby 5-star resort. Congressman and their wives are invited.

Nothing in that example is illegal. They didn't say I'll give you 100,000 if you vote for my project. Instead they are getting one-on-one time which can be just as effective.

You can't buy congressmen?

Look at the laws which Congress has been enacting.

It doesn't have to be as overt as Duke Cunningham or that guy who was caught with $90k in his freezer.

Being wined and dined by lobbyists may not technically break Congressional rules (many of which BTW are opaque to the public). But the congressmen are trying to hide these perks.

Rodster · Post by **Rodster** » Sat Dec 29, 2007 10:12 pm

Dave wrote:Is the internet really so jaded that companies soliciting feedback is seen as a bad thing?

Some might be swayed, but not everyone, as evidenced by Divot panning the PC Tiger 08. Golf games seem to be his thing, that's why he mostly posts about Tiger, the only golf game in town.

Yeah I tend to agree it looks like Divot is a golf freak and that's his type of game. Nothing wrong with that. Hell 75% of all my games are either sports or racing and the large percentage of that is racing.

DivotMaker · Post by **DivotMaker** » Sun Dec 30, 2007 11:05 am

JRod wrote:1. Why do you get flown to EA to see Tiger. And why do you have access to some of the producer's. You said at one time you did some consulting or 3rd party work for Tiger. I can't remember which.

2. But you don't do any reviews or "journalism" for any site. You seem to pop up around Tiger time, to talk about tiger. I have never figured out why you have such a strong vested interest in Tiger.

3. We only issue is that if you are apart of EA Sports to do paid or unpaid community outreach and you don't disclose that. You said you weren't an EA community liaison.

4. The difference between you and others, is that you only really post on forums. It's centered around Tiger and often times it's very favorable towards Tiger. You aren't doing reviews, or previews.

1. Why do I get invited to the TW Community Day event? Simple, I have invested hundreds upon hundreds of hours of my time with the TW franchise as well as the PGA TOUR Gold franchise before it and with EA Sports. I have beta tested every single EA PC Golf game that has ever been released with the exception of PGA TOUR 486, TW07 and 08 (the latter two were not beta tested by the community). I have had various volunteer roles with EA for the TW Community as Community Leader and now moderator of the TW forums. I have been contracted in the past by EA to photograph and film 6 of the PGA TOUR Golf courses that have appeared in the game starting with TW04. EA has another process they use for digital imagery now. I have enjoyed a releationship with EA for the past 10 years and the relationship became more formal in October 99 when I approached EA about participating in the design and features phase of the game's development. I no longer have time for any of that any longer as my career consumes the majority of my non-family time. I barely have time to play games these days, so when I do it is mostly Tiger on PC and 360. I will be participating in a feature/design session with EA in January at their request. These are just some of the reasons that I am invited to events such as this.

2. See above. I don't have time to do any journalism. I just spend what spare time I have to play the game and support the community on the forums. I also participate in other game and hardware discussions here too.

3. I have no "official" title nor and I compensated for what I do other than a free version of TW when it is released. Interestingly, I panned TW07 for the PC very hard as well as TW08 when it came out and EA accepted the criticism and asked me for clarification on the issues I criticized them for (most notably the lack of community beta testing and the removal of the Course Utilities from 08). I also don't disagree with TW08 360/PS3 users who complain about issues still not resolved with those games and EA agrees with the users. I believe Tiburon is on the right track from an "attitude" standpoint. The big question remains, "can they deliver on what the user complaints have been as well as improving the game". This is why I and a few other active participants in the TW Community will be participating in the Feature/Design discussion for TW09 coming up this next month. They are doing the right things.

4. When I post on forums, I post what I SEE in the game and my perceptions. If you haven't noticed, I have been especially brutal in my forum posts about certain aspects of TW07 and 08. I have also agreed with many posts that have criticized the game for various reasons. I will continue to post what I SEE and how I perceive the game just as anyone else does. I don't worry about EA seeing what I have posted because I have already communicated my criticisms to them directly.

I hope this clears things up for you....

DivotMaker · Post by **DivotMaker** » Sun Dec 30, 2007 11:06 am

Rodster wrote:
Dave wrote:Is the internet really so jaded that companies soliciting feedback is seen as a bad thing?

Some might be swayed, but not everyone, as evidenced by Divot panning the PC Tiger 08. Golf games seem to be his thing, that's why he mostly posts about Tiger, the only golf game in town.
Yeah I tend to agree it looks like Divot is a golf freak and that's his type of game. Nothing wrong with that. Hell 75% of all my games are either sports or racing and the large percentage of that is racing.

You nailed me to a T....

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Sun Dec 30, 2007 12:25 pm

Jared wrote:2) Let's also make it clear that PK retracted what he said about Shawn being paid by XBox.com and EA. He assumed that Shawn was being paid since they are "big" site. It's a reasonable assumption, but he was wrong and he corrected that mistake.

Exactly. And my usage of the term "on the dole" suggested that Shawn was being paid for his services by EA and MS, not paid special bonuses for writing what both companies wanted. And I was quick to retract that when Shawn corrected me.

That said, I still say it's pretty murky ethically to write PR for one site while writing gaming journalism for another. My thoughts on that won't change. Nor will my wishes of good luck and success to Shawn and 5WG.

Jared, your dissection of the ethical issues and the overreaction by both sides was too spot-on and too rational. Well done.

Happy New Year,
PK

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Sun Dec 30, 2007 12:30 pm

wco81 wrote:Sure EA isn't going to overtly say give us good reviews.

But if you want to keep getting flown out to FL or CA for these events, all expenses paid, chance to hobnob with NFL players and so on, the message is clear.

You don't antagonize the people who are giving you these things.

Ding-ding, we have a winner. It's only human nature to be nice to people who are nice to you. And it's one of the reasons why it's very hard for journalists on any beat -- sports, games, politics -- who accept goodies to be objective.

And the gaming companies aren't stupid. They have set up preview access to their titles and executives through only a handful of conduits, all of which involve preferential perks of some sort. That way they can control who receives the access, the screenshots, and in what venue. The big companies have the major and mainstream gaming press by the balls.

EA and other gaming giants are providing junkets, goodies and advance screens for more than advance publicity of their games and to provide gaming sites with content. They're also doing it to create good will, to grease the skids, to curry favorable coverage and to make friends in the media. I'm not an authority in much, but this is one field I know: I've been on both sides, working as a professional journalist for 5 1/2 years and having worked as a PR professional for the last 14 years.

Well said, WCO.

Take care,
PK

Rodster · Post by **Rodster** » Sun Dec 30, 2007 1:02 pm

DivotMaker wrote:
I panned TW07 for the PC very hard as well as TW08 when it came out and EA accepted the criticism and asked me for clarification on the issues I criticized them for (most notably the lack of community beta testing and the removal of the Course Utilities from 08).

I believe Tiburon is on the right track from an "attitude" standpoint. The big question remains, "can they deliver on what the user complaints have been as well as improving the game". This is why I and a few other active participants in the TW Community will be participating in the Feature/Design discussion for TW09 coming up this next month. They are doing the right things.

Divot I hope EA fixes the PC side because it looked like they mailed it in. Graphics as in player models took a major step back and the core mechanics to the game stood still. Whereas the 360 version showed very nice improvements to the core game and as well as graphics.

JRod · Post by **JRod** » Sun Dec 30, 2007 3:18 pm

wco81 wrote:
JRod wrote: The days of buying congressman off are largely dead. Yes you have some cases where a congressman is corrupt but the FBI will get you at some point.

The key now is access to gain influence. Access is what lobbyists and power players try to get. Let me give you an example. Let's say the railroad lobby and companies what a certain bill or appropriation money for something. And I'm not talking about some "bridge to know where" but something that isn't sinister or self-serving. So what this lobby does, is invite the sub-committee to a research trip to let at one of the research facilities in the country. This isn't a golf in scotland research trip and the congressman are hearing from those in the industry. But what the railroad lobby does is pull out all the bells and whistles. For lunch, a rail company brings in an antique train, along with the corporate chef, to serve a very nice lunch of NY strips. And to top it off, later than night the lobby is having their quarterly meeting at a nearby 5-star resort. Congressman and their wives are invited.

Nothing in that example is illegal. They didn't say I'll give you 100,000 if you vote for my project. Instead they are getting one-on-one time which can be just as effective.
You can't buy congressmen?

Look at the laws which Congress has been enacting.

It doesn't have to be as overt as Duke Cunningham or that guy who was caught with $90k in his freezer.

Being wined and dined by lobbyists may not technically break Congressional rules (many of which BTW are opaque to the public). But the congressmen are trying to hide these perks.

You just said the same thing I said.

Duke Cunningham was caught. I said the days of buying off a congressman is mostly dead. Meaning you can't give a guy 100,000 dollars for a vote. You will be caught.

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Sun Dec 30, 2007 3:31 pm

They'll come back after the heat dies down.

It goes in cycles.

There's just too much money in Washington.

JRod · Post by **JRod** » Sun Dec 30, 2007 4:01 pm

wco81 wrote:They'll come back after the heat dies down.

It goes in cycles.

There's just too much money in Washington.

No it won't because why break the law when doing in the legal way is just as effective. Maybe unethical but very effective.

Post by **Jared** » Sun Dec 30, 2007 5:47 pm

pk500 wrote: And the gaming companies aren't stupid. They have set up preview access to their titles and executives through only a handful of conduits, all of which involve preferential perks of some sort. That way they can control who receives the access, the screenshots, and in what venue. The big companies have the major and mainstream gaming press by the balls.

That's why I think things like going on a paid press junket to Vancouver or Central Florida for preview coverage is one of those borderline things for freelance journalists. If you don't go, then no preview access. But if you go, then there are issues. At a personal level, do you want to rip the people that just sent you on a free trip to a nice place? People who were probably really nice when you discussed the game with them? And if you rip into them (and I'm talking about fair criticism), are you risking not getting invited to the next community event?

It's very difficult, and I think you have to look at the work of each freelance writer individually to see signs of bias. The problem is that, at least for preview coverage, virtually nobody is critical. Previews are essentially glorified feature set listings, that tell you nothing about the quality of the game. For example, check out these quotes from previews of NBA Live 07 (a horrible game, as attested by it's Game Rankings score of 61.9%):

http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/729/729828p1.html

And more than just adding features that should already be in the game, the team at EA Canada also added the slick Total Freestyle control feature and the most-advanced version of ESPN Integration yet.

...

While we are still aching for some ESPN presentation, like a full-fledged halftime show with in-game SportsCenter highlights from Steven A. Smith, this stuff is great. Still, getting all this content for the price of the game and an Xbox Live subscription is an amazing bargain and one has to wonder when EA is going to start charging fees for this stuff.

...

Only the finest players in the game have access to these moves. Come crunch time, studs can enter a fourth level of superstar which EA is calling "In the Zone." Roll off a 360 on the stick for the sickest moves in the game.

The only negatives (other than noting features missing in NBA Live 06) were in the final two paragraphs, after 1 2/3rd pages of positive coverage:

On the floor, NBA Live 07 does some good things and some bad things. The AI seems a bit smarter, as defenders will sag off of Shaq when he is at the three-point line, but they'll try and smother a shooter like Antoine Walker so he can't get off an uncontested J. Also, the inside-out game and good ball movement is rewarded, as mentioned before. The camera has been brought back to resemble the current-gen version instead of the disaster that was NBA Live 06. The animations don't appear very lifelike and some of the jump shots look a bit silly, if not completely fake. Players also have the uncanny ability to dunk through the backboard. Visually, the framerate is still a big problem and we can't understand why next-gen titles aren't running at 30, if not 60 frames per second. The ball physics on the rim are especially unrealistic and need a lot of work.

EA still has a few weeks left to work on NBA Live 07 and will need every second to iron out the framerate issues and gameplay issues we've seen. Still, it is a nice improvement over NBA Live 06 with All-Star Weekend, Freestyle Superstar and a deep dynasty mode. Still, that's not saying much.

Don't you think that, in a preview, these issues might need to be somewhere other than buried in the last few paragraphs?

And virtually ALL previews are like this. And it seems like this is simply because of access. If you write a harsh preview, you're risking losing access. So previews end up being worthless dreck like the IGN NBA Live 07 preview above.

When I see someone writing fair, honest previews that focus on both the positives and fundamental gameplay problems, then that person isn't being influenced by access. But there are very few writers out there that give fair preview coverage, and it's my opinion that access is what biases this coverage. And this is a major ethical problem in gaming journalism.