Gamespot fires honest reviewer, sh*tstorm ensues.

[evilbutterfly]

Re: Gamespot fires honest reviewer, sh*tstorm ensues.

Well, this got off topic...

but anyway, the point of this event is Gamespot's willingness to fire an editor from the urging of its sponsors, aka selling out.

..and of course many people even pay money to subscribe to Gamespot's news, and such a blatant act of disrespect towards the site's customers is drawing many people away from the site.

Well I think it goes without saying that everybody thinks it's wrong.

Whether an outcry on the internet will change anything or not...well...yeah I guess we'll see.

[Chromer]

Re: Gamespot fires honest reviewer, sh*tstorm ensues.

It doesn't help also that Gamespot is also partners with Microsoft. Say what you will, but if Microsoft is contributing to my paychecks, I'd be pretty forgiving of their games as well.

Also, the reason 8.8 is so mem-worthy is not because of the people who went around going, "Ha ha. TP got an 8.8." It was the Nintendo fans who sent death threats and other bull**** just because Jeff gave it an 8.8.

[cC@Zz]

Re: Gamespot fires honest reviewer, sh*tstorm ensues.

Well I agree with him.

Kane and Lynch is a ****fest.

[Relambrien]

Re: Gamespot fires honest reviewer, sh*tstorm ensues.

Just like Halo 3 being overhyped when it's really the same thing over again with slightly different graphics and weapons

Sorry to take it off-topic somewhat, but I have to respond to this.

Say you have two games: Game A and Game B. They're both the same in every aspect except graphics (same dialogue, same maps, you get the idea). Game B has superior graphics, but it came out after Game A. Which game deserves a better score?

Game B, obviously. If Game A got a 10, so should Game B. Games need to be reviewed alone, on the quality of the game itself. You can't compare Halo 3 to Halo 1/2, say it's pretty much the same thing, and use that to give it a much lower score. If it's the same thing with prettier graphics, then Halo 3 deserves a higher score than Halo 1/2 (I haven't played any, so I don't know just how similar they all are, but you get the idea). Why? Because Halo 3 is a better game.

[Squeek]

Re: Gamespot fires honest reviewer, sh*tstorm ensues.

And yet, when most reviewers review franchise games, they always say

"This is not as good as the one before it" or "This is almost the exact same thing as the one before it".

I find it amazing that this holds true for everything except for Halo.

[Relambrien]

Re: Gamespot fires honest reviewer, sh*tstorm ensues.

And yet, when most reviewers review franchise games, they always say

"This is not as good as the one before it" or "This is almost the exact same thing as the one before it".

I find it amazing that this holds true for everything except for Halo.

EDIT: Oh wait, I think I misunderstood you. You're saying that most franchises tend to lessen in quality over the years, aren't you? If so, then ignore any irrelevant part of the next paragraph.

You misunderstand me. I was only using Halo as an example, since it's well-known. Also, such a line is perfectly acceptable, but using that to affect the overall score of the game is a no-no. For instance, here's a couple mini-reviews I'm just thinking of off the top of my head. Don't sue me for this; it's only an example of what I'm talking about:

The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time.
Great story, great characters, wonderful dungeons. A few minor annoyances with the jumping system and the "guide" character Navi, and a bit of confusion in the story at points, but still an incredible game. 9.2/10

The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess.
Continues the tradition set by earlier Zelda games. Great everything, but may feel a bit boring or repetitive for people who have played OoT. 9.6/10, though people who have played OoT may not like it quite as much.

Those are made-up reviews obviously, and aren't meant to reflect any sort of actual points about either game.

Bottom line: Games that are more or less the same as their predecessors, but improve on one aspect, deserve a higher score than their predecessors. However, people may not enjoy the game as much if they've played the predecessor already. If a numerical score system isn't being used, then this really isn't very relevant.

[Squeek]

Re: Gamespot fires honest reviewer, sh*tstorm ensues.

http://www.gamespot.com/search.html?...=zelda&x=0&y=0

Ocarina of Time: Perfect 10.

Twilight Princess: 8.9

Twilight Princess (Wii): 8.8

Yeah that makes sense.

Look, they even gave the Virtual Console release of Ocarina of Time an 8.9. WHAT THE HELL. IT'S THE SAME GAME.

[Relambrien]

Re: Gamespot fires honest reviewer, sh*tstorm ensues.

Like I said, I only used the two as an example; I'm not claiming either of those "reviews" are at all accurate. You could substitute in any franchise game that fits the "more or less the same thing as a predecessor" criteria and it would work.

And I'm not trying to say what reviewers actually do, I'm saying what they should do. Since many have played previous games in the franchise, they may be more apt to give the game a lower score if it doesn't seem "fresh and new," when really, that bias should be thrown out in terms of a numerical score.

[Squeek]

Re: Gamespot fires honest reviewer, sh*tstorm ensues.

Reviewers should use a ten-point scale, but it's rare that they do that either.

No scores below 4, no scores above 9.5. That's the standard.

Personally, I saw Kane and Lynch and would've given it less than a 6. It looks like a horrible waste of time. I generally love shooters, too.

[Reach]

Re: Gamespot fires honest reviewer, sh*tstorm ensues.

This is kind of sad. =/

Generally I'll read the reviews to get a feel of a game, but I don't take the score they gave to be the end all be all. It is their opinion, after all. I just use it as a ballpark to give me an idea of whether it's worth time. Going around saying 'oh well tp deserved at least x' is retarded, since the scale is subjective (His criticisms of tp were merited and honest anyway). It's no more reliable than movie reviews.

If the game sucks it deserves a ****ty rating. D: The fact that they actually fired him is a pretty bad sign, imo. I want an honest review over one that appeals to some preemptive notion of how good the game should be. There's no point in even reading the reviews if they aren't going to be honest.

[Tokzic]

Re: Gamespot fires honest reviewer, sh*tstorm ensues.

Sorry to take it off-topic somewhat, but I have to respond to this.

Say you have two games: Game A and Game B. They're both the same in every aspect except graphics (same dialogue, same maps, you get the idea). Game B has superior graphics, but it came out after Game A. Which game deserves a better score?

Game B, obviously. If Game A got a 10, so should Game B. Games need to be reviewed alone, on the quality of the game itself. You can't compare Halo 3 to Halo 1/2, say it's pretty much the same thing, and use that to give it a much lower score. If it's the same thing with prettier graphics, then Halo 3 deserves a higher score than Halo 1/2 (I haven't played any, so I don't know just how similar they all are, but you get the idea). Why? Because Halo 3 is a better game.

This isn't true at all. Gaming, just like anything else, is supposed to advance constantly.

We stop playing games for a reason - we get bored of them. If all games are just copying old successful games, then they aren't fun, and they aren't good. Originality is a key part of games, and just making a new story doesn't cut it.

[zidart]

Re: Gamespot fires honest reviewer, sh*tstorm ensues.

This isn't true at all. Gaming, just like anything else, is supposed to advance constantly.

We stop playing games for a reason - we get bored of them. If all games are just copying old successful games, then they aren't fun, and they aren't good. Originality is a key part of games, and just making a new story doesn't cut it.

but that brings problem number 2... people complaining of the change on franchises... (example : wind waker, final fantasy XII, sonic heroes) besides if a game's gameplay is perfect and the sequel adds some stuff to it without harming it then it still should have a higher score

[Relambrien]

Re: Gamespot fires honest reviewer, sh*tstorm ensues.

This isn't true at all. Gaming, just like anything else, is supposed to advance constantly.

We stop playing games for a reason - we get bored of them. If all games are just copying old successful games, then they aren't fun, and they aren't good. Originality is a key part of games, and just making a new story doesn't cut it.

That's a subjective viewpoint. If you take a certain game, and only copy and improve it, then obviously the new game is better. A person who's played the old game may not enjoy it as much, but when comparing the two, the newer one is most certainly better.

"Better" does not mean "more enjoyable." At least, not the way I'm describing it.

[plasmix]

Re: Gamespot fires honest reviewer, sh*tstorm ensues.

Sorry to take it off-topic somewhat, but I have to respond to this.

Say you have two games: Game A and Game B. They're both the same in every aspect except graphics (same dialogue, same maps, you get the idea). Game B has superior graphics, but it came out after Game A. Which game deserves a better score?

Game B, obviously. If Game A got a 10, so should Game B. Games need to be reviewed alone, on the quality of the game itself. You can't compare Halo 3 to Halo 1/2, say it's pretty much the same thing, and use that to give it a much lower score. If it's the same thing with prettier graphics, then Halo 3 deserves a higher score than Halo 1/2 (I haven't played any, so I don't know just how similar they all are, but you get the idea). Why? Because Halo 3 is a better game.

Nope, developers design subsequent games in a franchise with respect to previous games. Why shouldn't we rate them as such?

Sequels, ideally, are supposed to both surpass the previous game's standards, and meet those of the present.

[dAnceguy117]

Re: Gamespot fires honest reviewer, sh*tstorm ensues.

This is terrible. I think the discussion in this thread needs to be much less about criteria for reviewing games and much more about how unjust this is, and how big of a threat this kind of thing is to everything in the videogame business. I myself think Twilight Princess deserves more than an 8.8. OH NO. Absolutely not important in this matter.

It doesn't matter how much a company spends on advertisement. That should not be a free pass to manipulating people who want to find out how worthwhile the game is. Therefore, firing a reviewer over the tone or content in their review of a game for which its publisher threw around a lot of money is not only thoroughly unjustified and wrong, but also a threat to game reviewers everywhere.

Reviewers become afraid of losing their job, so they're forced to give good reviews to unworthy games higher scores. Warped and bloated is the first effect from this scenario, but it's possible that things could get worse from here. Let's say publishers pick up on the fact that poor games can get good reviews by paying money for advertisements. Publishers of an already extremely successful franchise have the most money to spend on advertisements that boost both public attention of the game and review scores, and the rich get richer. Next, they then consult with the developers working on future projects, and say that they can save money by cutting the staff working on the projects, and make deadlines sooner. These actions result in games of less quality, but with money spent on advertisements, the same revenue could be made. My guess would be that there would then be a period of sub-standard games, in which great games are a rarity, and developers who continue to try to do things the right way are driven either out of competition or into malpractice. Obviously, at some point, consumers would stop paying attention to advertisements and game reviews, but after all these events.. well, it's a long, long trail, but the videogame industry could become pretty stagnant, at least for a time.

Alright, so that's really long and winded. Improbable possibilities are still possibilities, however, and problems must be nipped at the bud. No matter what the effects of this firing are, only negative situations can come of them. If this rumor proves to be true, it's just one misstep that could lead to anything from an insignificant slip-up with no major effects to a huge crash.