Proof that game reviews are balls

[Wiglaf]

That was my point. You still try to claim this discredits all reviews on any site with ads, ever, but your own sources specifically mention how a new guy is responsible for this nonsense.

Doesn't it concern you that the biggest site for game reviews is so obviously whoring itself out for ad money? That it has just been caught firing an editor for not giving an advertisers' game a higher score? Don't you think maybe other review sites, like IGN (which gives a lot of dubious scores) and Gamespy (ditto), are influenced in the same way?

And I seem to also recall pointing out that if indeed Jeff was fired for sticking to his guns on the review, this actually proves the points several of us made countering the OP.

No, not really. Jeff was in his editorial position for what, a year, before getting canned? Who's to say Gamespot wasn't like this before, or that other sites aren't like this now?

The only way to be sure is to not be on the payroll of people you are supposed to be objectively reviewing. Common sense.

Not to say that Wiggy is 100% correct, or even right in this instance, but, this the big reason that Consumer Reports does not accept advertising.

Bingo. The site sells virtually everything -- exclusive coverage, spots on the front page, the background images, pop ups, etc -- to the same people it's supposed to be reviewing. That, in and of itself, ruins this site's credibility.

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by Wiglaf

No, not really. Jeff was in his editorial position for what, a year, before getting canned? Who's to say Gamespot wasn't like this before, or that other sites aren't like this now?

You would have to believe that Gamespot staff were faking reviews (which a look at scores doesn't really support as we established earlier) then Jeff suddenly decided to stop and thus got fired.

Or you could believe that reviews have always been fair, and that recent management changes caused the pressure against Jeff, leading to him being fired for sticking to his guns.

Or he could have been fired for any number of other reasons.

None of us here knows the facts for sure - but the sensible ones find the other scenarios much more plausible.

[Wiglaf]

Or you could believe that reviews have always been fair, and that recent management changes caused the pressure against Jeff, leading to him being fired for sticking to his guns.

Always been fair? Too optimistic, since they've been taking money from these companies for years now. Probably mostly fair, but apparently not always.

Originally posted by Asher

Owned indeed...

You originally claimed he was fired for being an incompetent reviewer, which was pretty illogical given the circumstances and has now been thoroughly discredited.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Wiglaf

You originally claimed he was fired for being an incompetent reviewer, which was pretty illogical given the circumstances and has now been thoroughly discredited.

I never made that "claim", I said it was a strong possibility.

[Wiglaf]

You claimed it and you know it.

[Asher]

It's looking more like he was fired for not playing the game all the way through, actually.

[Wiglaf]

Yes, that is called claiming something sister.

[DrSpike]

I'd say it's more of a leaning than a claim.

[RGBVideo]

Using gamespot.com as a source when debunking conflict of interest -suspicions about gamespot.com... crazy? no, just standard Asher-trolls again.

[Asher]

I think it's relevant to hear both sides of the story.

Why would you listen to the claims of people who get fired and not the people who fired them? That'd be stupid and irrational, a "standard VJ-troll"?

[Kataphraktoi]

There is still nothing here that is proof-just potential conflict of interest and his-word-against-their-word situation. Its not like the games are so terrible with great reviews.

[Wiglaf]

Originally posted by Kataphraktoi
There is still nothing here that is proof-just potential conflict of interest and his-word-against-their-word situation. Its not like the games are so terrible with great reviews.

It's not a potential conflict of interest, it is a conflict of interest. Taking money from people you review creates by definition a conflict of interest. The fact they fired their most popular editor, and that several other senior writers quit, with one alleging ad pressure, is also strong evidence.

Why would you listen to the claims of people who get fired and not the people who fired them? That'd be stupid and irrational, a "standard VJ-troll"?

It isn't "debunking," which is what you called it.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by DrSpike


You would have to believe that Gamespot staff were faking reviews (which a look at scores doesn't really support as we established earlier) then Jeff suddenly decided to stop and thus got fired.

Or you could believe that reviews have always been fair, and that recent management changes caused the pressure against Jeff, leading to him being fired for sticking to his guns.

Or he could have been fired for any number of other reasons.

None of us here knows the facts for sure - but the sensible ones find the other scenarios much more plausible.

I for one, am not convinced ALL or most game reviews are subject to overt corruption. Im not even sure all game reviews are subject to subtler forms of influence. However in buying games, I think I would rely more on the substance of the review (supplemented by demos, discussion on sites like this, etc) rather than the numerical score in making decisions. A fortiori, I wouldnt use summaries of review scores as guides to the quality of libraries for various platforms.

[DrSpike]

No, but they are a decent starting point, especially within genre, for picking games to research.