No it's not ok to manipulate review scores
So it has recently come to our attention that EA Norway has tried to manipulate review score's for Battlefield 3. As you might expect i was outraged by this, but what upset me more was the fact that there are people actually defending EA.The first claim that people mad is that "everyone does it so it's ok". Firstly everyone doing it is baseless speculation and unless someone can provide evidence of "everyone" doing it i'll disregard this. Don't get me wrong i've realized publishers have done this in the past Ubisoft(Assassins creed) and Rockstar(Red Dead Redemption) come to mind.
Secondly even if other people do it that doesn't make it "ok". If we really want gaming to be taken seriously as a medium of entertainment, this attitude of it being ok needs to change. Or do we wan't to be stuck in an era where manipulating reviews and having no credibility becomes the norm, therefor discrediting all of "gaming journalism". Gaming journalism has garnered a lot of criticism as it is, some rightly so with it's flaimbait headlines designed to incite flame wars, even when the content is entirely unrelated. And some unfairly, with fans getting upset because a game they love doesn't get a 10/10 which immediately follows a temper tantrum and them discrediting the reviewer. Maybe it's the infantile nature of gaming that's holding us back from being taken seriously, but that's another topic for another time.
Lastly people have been saying it's ok because EA put a lot of money into Battlefield 3. Ok, firstly shouldn't the game be able to stand for itself, if Battlefield 3 is as good as these same people that are hyping it think it's going to be then shouldn't it sell it's self and garner the positive reviews it deserves because it's a GOOD GAME! Putting a lot of money into a game does not mean you have the right to tell other people that your game is good. Nor does a high development budget make a game good.