Proof that game reviews are balls

[DrSpike]

I chastised him in the other thread. He will behave now.

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by Wiglaf

No, it really doesn't. They just fired the editor of the site for giving a bad review to a game that gives his boss hundreds of thousands of dollars.

You just cannot expect objectivity when you're paid by the people you are supposed to review. Simple fact.

The review is not out of line with other sites' reviews though. This doesn't help your argument that he was fired for the review.

I agree it's a shame big site reviewers can't be totally independent in practice, but over time Gamespot have shown that they will call a turkey a turkey, and they often highlight flaws in games other sites don't pick up. This undermines your argument further.

[Asher]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Theres always a more polite way, and a less polite way, to make any point, IMHO.

Yes, and politeness stops working at some point. The thing that hurts is always the meaning behind the message. Being all polite to tell someone to **** off accomplishes the same thing, just with a facade of niceness.

Doc, this used to be a forum where we were all friends, in a kinda intrawebbish way.

LOTM, if you want friends, look somewhere other than the internet.

[Wiglaf]

The review is not out of line with other sites' reviews though. This doesn't help your argument that he was fired for the review.

http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/xbox360/kaneandlynchdeadmen

I count six or seven highly positive reviews there.

I agree it's a shame big site reviewers can't be totally independent in practice, but over time Gamespot have shown that they will call a turkey a turkey, and they often highlight flaws in games other sites don't pick up. This undermines your argument further.

BS. They take ads from Firaxis and gave Warlords like a 9.0. IGN somehow thinks MOO3 is a 9.5 or whatever. Halo 3 is apparently completely flawless despite being a rehash of its predecessors. Look at their Assassin's creed review and compare it to other sites'. Coincidence that Assassin's creed had almost as much ad space as Kane and Lynch? Who knows.

We shouldn't have to guess.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Wiglaf


I love how you ignore the fact that Kane and Lynch and Asasssin's creed and just about every other hyped game dominates Gamespot's page with ads on release. Just because you went to the site once and saw a lot of Coke ads in the midst of this scandal. Nice.

I "ignore it" because I use adblock plus. I don't see ads at all. I checked now to see where most of their ad revenue is coming from, and you make it sound like if games don't advertise on gamespot they're screwed -- I don't think this is the case.

Get over yourself.

It says nothing of self-importance to ask people to stop asking others to do their dirty work. If you're genuinely "wondering" something, so much so to the point of posting about it, do your own research.

Get over yourself, Wiggy.

No, it really doesn't. They just fired the editor of the site for giving a bad review to a game that gives his boss hundreds of thousands of dollars.

This is the whole point of contention here. Stating it again doesn't make it so. Try again, Wiggy.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Wiglaf

http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/xbox360/kaneandlynchdeadmen

I count six or seven highly positive reviews there.

Average was 67, thus Gamespots 6/10 is not "out of line". Try again, Wiggy.

BS. They take ads from Firaxis and gave Warlords like a 9.0. IGN somehow thinks MOO3 is a 9.5 or whatever. Halo 3 is apparently completely flawless despite being a rehash of its predecessors. Look at their Assassin's creed review and compare it to other sites'. Coincidence that Assassin's creed had almost as much ad space as Kane and Lynch? Who knows.

We shouldn't have to guess.

As I said, IGN is the worst of the bunch typically. They let fanboys write game reviews, regularly. MOO3 is an example.

MOO3 got 6.7 on Gamespot BTW -- more undermining...

[Wiglaf]

It only undermines the argument if you can show me a game that advertised heavily on the site and then got panned. How about you do legwork?

My point is that this research is a) impractical to do and b) unnecessary.

IF YOU ARE PAID BY PEOPLE YOU REVIEW, YOU WILL BE BIASED.

Period. Basic fact.

[Solver]

Originally posted by Asher

Well, instead of wasting our time with pointless meandering, why don't you give us an example of a mostly 8/9 rated hyped game that deserves a "poor" score?

Scores are subjective, though. Some people just don't like some games. Say, I don't like AoE3, which was hyped and mostly got good scores. So I'd give a lower score. Means that I don't like it, not that the game objectively sucks. Question is, have reviewers never been in a situation where they just dislike a well-received game? I believe it probable that generally, a reviewer who's more likely to like the game is chosen to do the review. And heck, that's probably a good practice, too.

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by Wiglaf

http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/xbox360/kaneandlynchdeadmen

I count six or seven highly positive reviews there.

.

The average is 6.7 - well in line with Gamespot's tendency to be 0.5-1 lower than other sites. And the user score is even lower.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Asher

LOTM, if you want friends, look somewhere other than the internet.

Evidently you didnt read the whole sentence.

Why do you post here, anyway? What do you get out of it?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
It only undermines the argument if you can show me a game that advertised heavily on the site and then got panned. How about you do legwork?

I don't see any heavily advertised games right now to check. Do you?

As you know, I'd already checked. You chastised me on that, too. Make up your mind.

[Solver]

Oh yeah, Warlords is probably a good example. It averages 84 on Metacritic, while IMO it's an exactly average expansion. Which probably means 7.0 out of 10.

[Wiglaf]

Originally posted by DrSpike


The average is 6.7 - well in line with Gamespot's tendency to be 0.5-1 lower than other sites. And the user score is even lower.

Irrelevant. Let's go back to this:

The review is not out of line with other sites' reviews though. This doesn't help your argument that he was fired for the review.

Why not? They paid gamespot, not those other sites that gave it a 6.7. If anything, this hurts Asher's argument that Gerstman was fired for not playing the game.

[Asher]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Evidently you didnt read the whole sentence.

Why do you post here, anyway? What do you get out of it?

I hope to learn from others. I read most threads on the site, even if I don't post in them, because they're educational. In areas where I've got knowledge, I contribute it.

I don't think there's any place for people who don't know what they're talking about, admit as such, then continue posting about it. It just gets in the way of real conversation.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
Gamespot doesn't make ad money unless it makes publishers happy. True or false.

False -- most ads aren't from game publishers.