It is not a foreign concept to have those with the most vested interest in a product involved in the reviews and impressions that publications and the public at large has of their wares. Whether it is a passive role in looking at feedback and implementing it for future iterations, or responding to criticism directly in order to quash some of the detraction that may arise from negative publicity. Sometimes jobs can depend on the perception of the product, which impacts how it will perform in the marketplace at times. Also, it’s a bit of pride in having something you’re promoting out in the open and ready for staunch criticism.

It doesn’t always seem this way, however, like when the head of a major publisher calls out a gaming publication for not including their well-received game on their best of list for 2008. Peter Moore of EA’s Sports division has taken Eurogamer to task over the omission of FIFA 09 on their Top 50 for the year of 2008. The game was reviewed at 8/10, a high score by any account, and has sold pretty well in the European market, so why the snub? Unfortunately, that’s not really the point. Perhaps Moore has a point that a game could have just a little more mind paid to it considering its performance and obvious quality in the genre, but having an industry pointing out such a fact on their own blog seems like little more than chest beating and trying to drum up more hype for their title.

Whenever you have a strong personality and any level of criticism, there is bound to be a clash. Directors and writers may scoff at stinging reception for their latest film, just the same way that David Jaffe (creator of God of War) might fire off a few choice words for anyone that would put a damper on his work. There seems to be a big difference in downplaying some negative points of a game that you don’t agree with, but making a fuss about a Top 50 list that is as much opinion as the reviews themselves. It seems more of a sleight at the publication for their process, which didn’t necessarily benefit EA in this case, rather than a play on the merits of the product.

When major players in the industry take point on their product’s reception, it can certainly seem like a way of manipulating the opinions of the readership and the publications that they present to. Like the pleading that the other Peter made to reviews of Fable 2 in order to try and gather a “new perspective”, it seems that they are trying to make the views of the press adhere to their own marketing proposals rather than understanding the audience they are catering to. We know that critical reception can play a significant role in how bonuses are dolled out in some cases, and in some genres the audiences reception can certainly reflect in sales, especially for new IPs designated for “hardcore” gamers.

Genuine concern for a product that you’ve poured your heart and soul into is warranted, I’d say, and is especially concerning when sales are faltering along with critical discussion, although the merits of the product are specifically noted in reviews. Without talking about a product, people tend to forget about it until the next iteration appears (this is true for sports games especially) but when you try and press your own methods onto something as arbitrary as someone’s top 50 games, it comes off as a bit scathing and desperate.