Yes because Gamespot has done so much harm to the world of video gaming? If you really don't like it that much don't go to that site. I hate IGN but instead of wishing death upon its staff I simply don't go there. Stunning I know.
Ignorance breeds what was ignored.
Such a cynical poet.
Cynicism tis the life force and fluid that flows threw me veins.
And I love you guys who think that a reviewer is a bad addition to a game dev team. A good grasp of the medium and having a broad understanding of game mechanics has to be the most unreplaceable skill on a team. The biggest barrier to innovation is that the industry doesn't really take the creative/non-technical side of the equation very seriously.
Hope he makes something good.
To me, its the same idea as a film critic becoming a director. Being able to rip apart a finished product in no way qualifies you to help create that product. In fact, some reviewers are so far gone in their own world of critique and perfect-world ideals that I wouldn't want them mucking up my real-world working-on-deadlines project. He might be a good developer, he might not, but being a reviewer isn't a positive in my book.
But then, I pretty much can't stand critics of any medium and avoid them whenever possible.
since i don't know what developer he's actually gone to, and don't know the terms of his employment, obviously it's hard to speculate as to how the deal shapes up. But i highly doubt he's been taken on simply because he's "OMG GREG KASAVIN!" (not saying that's what you've said, at all). I would've thought he's been employed because he's the right candidate for the job, and having years of writing experience for a respected games site probably contributes to that.
so, i don't own a Wii (will do eventually), and i didn't follow Gamespot's apparently terrible coverage of it (not being sarcastic, it did sound like they got it all wrong). Does this mean i'm still allowed to like them and their site?
No, because according to at least five people here, the Gamespot staff have been taking time off from their busy schedules to shit in PA forumers corn flakes every morning.
Seriously, what the fuck is with all the venhemence? Guys write stuff about a cultural form with little social impact. You don't agree. You either stop reading as their opinions do not align with your own, or you get the fuck over it. You don't go walking around saying "I WISH [SUCH AND SUCH] WOULD DIE."
Jesus, if it wasn't for the fact that CNet owns GameFAQs, I'd say we were getting pretty close to there right now.
I like Kasavin. He is generally the most pleasant of the Gamespot reviewers, and he just seems like a nice guy. I know he championed the Neo-Geo on multiple occasions, so he should be commended for that, at least
Alex Navarro is my favorite guy over there, though. His review of Robocop for the Xbox was hilarious.
for purest comedy gold, watch the video review of Big Rigs.
That is still one of my favorite pieces of video they produced, ever.
[spoiler:7e662ac7ee] He tries playing the "game" for a few minutes, they get some shots of the more prominent bugs (or "features"), gets up in frustration, walks around outside for awhile like he's contemplating life or something, then just collapses on the ground [/spoiler:7e662ac7ee]
No, because according to at least five people here, the Gamespot staff have been taking time off from their busy schedules to shit in PA forumers corn flakes every morning.
My 2 cents for you.
Reviewers have a heard time reviewing games, and I respect other reviewers reviews on games. Everyone has unique opinions that celebrate there ideas in an amazing assortment of ways.
Gamespot does not take part in that.
Gamespot gets money under the table from every corner of the fucking VG industry. When I see a regular review site populated by assorted views from public and industry press I applaud that said sites courage. Gamespot is the amount of years of cancerous asshats who could not hold there own opinion and sucked it fucking hard in the fire. There dislike of the Wii was a clear sign that they have no fucking journalistic integrity.
Now, you want to talk about how Gamespot deserves a tear for one of there losses then I say go cry for it in some other public barn house.
Gamespot's "losses"? They're just staff members. People leave companies all the time. It's not like the CEO left. They get someone else.
And making accusations about dodgy under-the-table deals for which you have zero evidence is just childish. So they thought the Wii was a bit dodgy! Oh MAN! CONSPIRACY!
Yes because Gamespot has done so much harm to the world of video gaming? If you really don't like it that much don't go to that site. I hate IGN but instead of wishing death upon its staff I simply don't go there. Stunning I know.
Ignorance breeds what was ignored.
Such a cynical poet.
Cynicism tis the life force and fluid that flows threw me veins.
And Blue Wizards life force is running out.
Neva on
SC2 Beta: Neva.ling
"Everyone who is capable of logical thought should be able to see why you shouldn't sell lifetime subscriptions to an MMO. Cell phone companies and drug dealers don't offer lifetime subscriptions either, guess why?" - Mugaaz
And making accusations about dodgy under-the-table deals for which you have zero evidence is just childish. So they thought the Wii was a bit dodgy! Oh MAN! CONSPIRACY!
Look deeper.
Who funds Gamespot? What features does Gamespot support on other websites? What are the backgrounds of the reviewers?
And making accusations about dodgy under-the-table deals for which you have zero evidence is just childish. So they thought the Wii was a bit dodgy! Oh MAN! CONSPIRACY!
Look deeper.
Who funds Gamespot? What features does Gamespot support on other websites? What are the backgrounds of the reviewers?
Its a conspiracy! Gamespot is run by Sony, You heard it here first.
JWashke on
0
Options
Vicious_GSRDudePrincipality of ZeonRegistered Userregular
edited January 2007
Laugh it up, I will let this thread run it's course without me now.
And making accusations about dodgy under-the-table deals for which you have zero evidence is just childish. So they thought the Wii was a bit dodgy! Oh MAN! CONSPIRACY!
Look deeper.
Who funds Gamespot? What features does Gamespot support on other websites? What are the backgrounds of the reviewers?
i do believe we're through the looking-glass here, people.
here's how i read any review. I'll look at the score, to get a general tone for what i'm about to read. A high score means it'll have lots of praise, and maybe a couple of flaws. A low score, the inverse. A middling score, well, there'll be bits of both. Then i read the review, and look for areas they praise, and areas they criticise, and what these particular aspects contain. If there are issues i feel would put me off a game, i won't buy it. If there are things they highlight, that wouldn't bother me or put me off, then i won't count it.
This formula has got me by just fine. Yes, their apparent (and again, i've not read it) scathing reaction to the Wii was very unusual, and uncharacteristic. But it does not mean that the whole site is on the take, and should be wiped from the face of the internet.
I really like Greg, I do believe he has the talent to be a great game designer.
And Fucking François Truffaut was a movie critic before turning into one of Cinema's greatest directors.
Fuck you haters.
Tarantino was a fucking movie store clerk. What someone did beforehand hardly even matters.
Do you people think that everyone in the gaming business right now went straight into it after college after receiving extensive and exclusive training in the field? Fuck no. The vast majority most likely came out of other fields that had a lot less to do with video games than actually writing about them.
I was under the impression that just about ALL major reviewers accept bribe money/privileges in exchange for high review scores. It seems strange to bitch about Gamespot in particular.
Film is such a different medium from video games though. The translation from game critic to game designer, especially in areas regarding QA, seems perfectly natural.
The difference in medium doesn't really matter to my argument. Film and books are wildly different too, but I'd make the same argument about book critics.
I'm not saying critics can't help create that which they criticize (though I would say life-long critics end up crippling their own creative faculties). I'm just saying that being one has no meaningful bearing on being the other, despite what your "common sense" might say.
As a sidenote, genius though Truffaut might be, his auteur theory can lick my nutsack.
Film is such a different medium from video games though. The translation from game critic to game designer, especially in areas regarding QA, seems perfectly natural.
The difference in medium doesn't really matter to my argument. Film and books are wildly different too, but I'd make the same argument about book critics.
I'm not saying critics can't help create that which they criticize (though I would say life-long critics end up crippling their own creative faculties). I'm just saying that being one has no meaningful bearing on being the other, despite what your "common sense" might say.
As a sidenote, genius though Truffaut might be, his auteur theory can lick my nutsack.
Why doesn't the difference in medium change things in your eye? There's hardly a field quite like QA, unless you count audience screenings or you happen to be in the director's chair.
I'm not saying critics can't help create that which they criticize (though I would say life-long critics end up crippling their own creative faculties). I'm just saying that being one has no meaningful bearing on being the other, despite what your "common sense" might say.
As a sidenote, genius though Truffaut might be, his auteur theory can lick my nutsack.
that's what i'm saying, that i don't reckon they've gone "hey, Gamespot guy! you must know games, have a job!", but more looked at what he knows, what he can do, and employed him on his own merits.
As for Truffaut's auteur theory.. i guess it'd derail the thread too much, but i'm interested by what he meant by that, and where your objections come in.
I'm not saying critics can't help create that which they criticize (though I would say life-long critics end up crippling their own creative faculties). I'm just saying that being one has no meaningful bearing on being the other, despite what your "common sense" might say.
As a sidenote, genius though Truffaut might be, his auteur theory can lick my nutsack.
that's what i'm saying, that i don't reckon they've gone "hey, Gamespot guy! you must know games, have a job!", but more looked at what he knows, what he can do, and employed him on his own merits.
As for Truffaut's auteur theory.. i guess it'd derail the thread too much, but i'm interested by what he meant by that, and where your objections come in.
Well I hope that's what they did. I was just objecting more to the statement that it's common for reviewers to enter design spots and that its a very 'natural' transition.
On auteur theory - his idea was that a movie does or should reflect the personal attitudes and 'preoccupations' of the director above all else, that the movie should be an extension of the director and little more. Now, taken by itself and by those who understood it during his time, that's not necessarily a bad thing. But for a lot of self-obsessed directors, it became an excuse to marginalize all the other immensely creative and vital parts of the moviemaking process, such as actor, cinematographer, screenwriter, etc. It provided a venue for explosive egos, and in France's case, 'justification for their intensely personal and idiosyncratic films'. I hate films like that. I just think it was a very flawed ideal that even its initial champions eventually moved away from.
And making accusations about dodgy under-the-table deals for which you have zero evidence is just childish. So they thought the Wii was a bit dodgy! Oh MAN! CONSPIRACY!
Look deeper.
Who funds Gamespot? What features does Gamespot support on other websites? What are the backgrounds of the reviewers?
i do believe we're through the looking-glass here, people.
here's how i read any review. I'll look at the score, to get a general tone for what i'm about to read. A high score means it'll have lots of praise, and maybe a couple of flaws. A low score, the inverse. A middling score, well, there'll be bits of both. Then i read the review, and look for areas they praise, and areas they criticise, and what these particular aspects contain. If there are issues i feel would put me off a game, i won't buy it. If there are things they highlight, that wouldn't bother me or put me off, then i won't count it.
This formula has got me by just fine. Yes, their apparent (and again, i've not read it) scathing reaction to the Wii was very unusual, and uncharacteristic. But it does not mean that the whole site is on the take, and should be wiped from the face of the internet.
People seem to ignore the fact that Gamespot awarded the Wii Best New Gaming Hardware for 2006.
It is no easy task winning a 1v3. You must jump many a hurdle, bettering three armies, the smallest.
Aye, no mere man may win an uphill battle against thrice your men, it takes a courageous heart and will that makes steel look like copper. When you are that, then, and only then, may you win a 1v3.
I'm not saying critics can't help create that which they criticize (though I would say life-long critics end up crippling their own creative faculties). I'm just saying that being one has no meaningful bearing on being the other, despite what your "common sense" might say.
As a sidenote, genius though Truffaut might be, his auteur theory can lick my nutsack.
that's what i'm saying, that i don't reckon they've gone "hey, Gamespot guy! you must know games, have a job!", but more looked at what he knows, what he can do, and employed him on his own merits.
As for Truffaut's auteur theory.. i guess it'd derail the thread too much, but i'm interested by what he meant by that, and where your objections come in.
Well I hope that's what they did. I was just objecting more to the statement that it's common for reviewers to enter design spots and that its a very 'natural' transition.
On auteur theory - his idea was that a movie does or should reflect the personal attitudes and 'preoccupations' of the director above all else, that the movie should be an extension of the director and little more. Now, taken by itself and by those who understood it during his time, that's not necessarily a bad thing. But for a lot of self-obsessed directors, it became an excuse to marginalize all the other immensely creative and vital parts of the moviemaking process, such as actor, cinematographer, screenwriter, etc. It provided a venue for explosive egos, and in France's case, 'justification for their intensely personal and idiosyncratic films'. I hate films like that. I just think it was a very flawed ideal that even its initial champions eventually moved away from.
sir, i agree with your views. I thought for a second you were going to argue that the idea of a directorial style was a sham, in which case, i'd have had to hurt you a little.
Oh hell no. Watch a couple Hitchcock, Tarantino, or even Boll movies in a row and the influence of a director is clear. I just don't like directors, or anyone, cocking up movies with 'its all about me!'
Oh hell no. Watch a couple Hitchcock, Tarantino, or even Boll movies in a row and the influence of a director is clear. I just don't like directors, or anyone, cocking up movies with 'its all about me!'
as a Film Studies student who did the likes of Almodovar and Luc Besson, i know how it is *high5*
I was under the impression that just about ALL major reviewers accept bribe money/privileges in exchange for high review scores. It seems strange to bitch about Gamespot in particular.
Same here.
hambone on
Just a bunch of intoxicated pigeons.
0
Options
Vicious_GSRDudePrincipality of ZeonRegistered Userregular
Oh hell no. Watch a couple Hitchcock, Tarantino, or even Boll movies in a row and the influence of a director is clear. I just don't like directors, or anyone, cocking up movies with 'its all about me!'
as a Film Studies student who did the likes of Almodovar and Luc Besson, i know how it is *high5*
From what I can tell, the art house film Directors are truly all "My movie is a part of me and only exists because I let it be!"
I am a Sheridan media student myself, I have seen some dark times.
*shit not supposed to be posting here anymore! MERDE!"
I didn't mind Greg. But let me chime in with the Jeff hate. And it isn't about the Twilight Princess review. Fuck, I wasn't at all surprised when I saw who was reviewing it, looked at the score and then down at the thumbnail you had to click to get to the video review.
If you want to understand how absurb Jeff seems to those of us who don't agree with him, just think about a new reviewer joining a magazine and for his first review ripping into the next big 360 game because he doesn't like being stationary while playing or using dual analog sticks.
Yeah, Jeff is pretty much a dinosaur in my eyes. He should be writing for a site that operates under the IGN model - keeping a stable of reviewers platform specific and nothing else.
I find Jeff hilarious and don't really get your analogy. He said the controls had no finesse and there were times when he'd rather just attack with a button. He didn't say he doesn't like moving or using motion controls.
Just that they feel a little sloppy which I agree with mostly due to the lack of 1:1 controls. When you can win a fight by shaking the Wiimote like crazy or spinning it by the wrist strap doesn't exactly make it great controls.
I'm not complaining about the controls as I love the Wii Zelda and especially love the aiming controls for the ranged weapons. But I respect his opinion.
I find Jeff hilarious and don't really get your analogy. He said the controls had no finesse and there were times when he'd rather just attack with a button. He didn't say he doesn't like moving or using motion controls.
Just that they feel a little sloppy which I agree with mostly due to the lack of 1:1 controls. When you can win a fight by shaking the Wiimote like crazy or spinning it by the wrist strap doesn't exactly make it great controls.
I'm not complaining about the controls as I love the Wii Zelda and especially love the aiming controls for the ranged weapons. But I respect his opinion.
Ever play any fighting game ever? Or hell, even previous Zelda games? You can win fights just by mashing buttons. Does that make Street Fighter sloppy? How 'bout Ocarina of Time?
Edited for relevancy: I always liked Kasavin, seemed like one of the few gaming journalists who took his job seriously. I still like Gamespot but only because it's not IGN.
It provided a venue for explosive egos, and in France's case, 'justification for their intensely personal and idiosyncratic films'. I hate films like that. I just think it was a very flawed ideal that even its initial champions eventually moved away from.
I'm just going to say, for the record, that every good film ever made has been idiosyncratic and personal. And while I like edgy, in your face games, I don't like "edgy", "in your face" games, if that makes any sense. What it is and what it aspires to be are totally different issues.
Things should aspire to be good. But good things are usually idiosyncratic and personal.
RedShell on
Homing In Imperfectly?
Pokemans D/P: 1289 4685 0522
It provided a venue for explosive egos, and in France's case, 'justification for their intensely personal and idiosyncratic films'. I hate films like that. I just think it was a very flawed ideal that even its initial champions eventually moved away from.
I'm just going to say, for the record, that every good film ever made has been idiosyncratic and personal. And while I like edgy, in your face games, I don't like "edgy", "in your face" games, if that makes any sense. What it is and what it aspires to be are totally different issues.
Things should aspire to be good. But good things are usually idiosyncratic and personal.
Every good film has certainly been personal, in a way, but still managed to connect with viewers as a whole. And idiosyncratic, in this sense, means 'so odd and disconnected as to have no meaning to anyone but the maker'. At least, that's how lots of films of that time turned out. It's a total disregard for audience or any other human in general. It leads to shitty art-house movies that show black-and-white clowns crying into a bowl of soup. That shit's fucking stupid.
I find Jeff hilarious and don't really get your analogy. He said the controls had no finesse and there were times when he'd rather just attack with a button. He didn't say he doesn't like moving or using motion controls.
Just that they feel a little sloppy which I agree with mostly due to the lack of 1:1 controls. When you can win a fight by shaking the Wiimote like crazy or spinning it by the wrist strap doesn't exactly make it great controls.
I'm not complaining about the controls as I love the Wii Zelda and especially love the aiming controls for the ranged weapons. But I respect his opinion.
Ever play any fighting game ever? Or hell, even previous Zelda games? You can win fights just by mashing buttons. Does that make Street Fighter sloppy? How 'bout Ocarina of Time?
Edited for relevancy: I always liked Kasavin, seemed like one of the few gaming journalists who took his job seriously. I still like Gamespot but only because it's not IGN.
Yes but fighting games are still 1:1 pressing X won't make Ryu starting punching like crazy and pressing A once wouldn't make Link do several swings. Don't get me wrong I love Wii Zelda and like the controls but they do lack Finesse, And sometimes I would rather mash a button then swing the controller randomly.
Posts
Cynicism tis the life force and fluid that flows threw me veins.
No, because according to at least five people here, the Gamespot staff have been taking time off from their busy schedules to shit in PA forumers corn flakes every morning.
Seriously, what the fuck is with all the venhemence? Guys write stuff about a cultural form with little social impact. You don't agree. You either stop reading as their opinions do not align with your own, or you get the fuck over it. You don't go walking around saying "I WISH [SUCH AND SUCH] WOULD DIE."
Jesus, if it wasn't for the fact that CNet owns GameFAQs, I'd say we were getting pretty close to there right now.
That is still one of my favorite pieces of video they produced, ever.
[spoiler:7e662ac7ee] He tries playing the "game" for a few minutes, they get some shots of the more prominent bugs (or "features"), gets up in frustration, walks around outside for awhile like he's contemplating life or something, then just collapses on the ground [/spoiler:7e662ac7ee]
XBL/PSN-Polaris314/Twitter/DJ P0LARI5
My 2 cents for you.
Reviewers have a heard time reviewing games, and I respect other reviewers reviews on games. Everyone has unique opinions that celebrate there ideas in an amazing assortment of ways.
Gamespot does not take part in that.
Gamespot gets money under the table from every corner of the fucking VG industry. When I see a regular review site populated by assorted views from public and industry press I applaud that said sites courage. Gamespot is the amount of years of cancerous asshats who could not hold there own opinion and sucked it fucking hard in the fire. There dislike of the Wii was a clear sign that they have no fucking journalistic integrity.
Now, you want to talk about how Gamespot deserves a tear for one of there losses then I say go cry for it in some other public barn house.
And making accusations about dodgy under-the-table deals for which you have zero evidence is just childish. So they thought the Wii was a bit dodgy! Oh MAN! CONSPIRACY!
And Blue Wizards life force is running out.
"Everyone who is capable of logical thought should be able to see why you shouldn't sell lifetime subscriptions to an MMO. Cell phone companies and drug dealers don't offer lifetime subscriptions either, guess why?" - Mugaaz
Look deeper.
Who funds Gamespot? What features does Gamespot support on other websites? What are the backgrounds of the reviewers?
Its a conspiracy! Gamespot is run by Sony, You heard it here first.
(Sony is not that smart by the way)
here's how i read any review. I'll look at the score, to get a general tone for what i'm about to read. A high score means it'll have lots of praise, and maybe a couple of flaws. A low score, the inverse. A middling score, well, there'll be bits of both. Then i read the review, and look for areas they praise, and areas they criticise, and what these particular aspects contain. If there are issues i feel would put me off a game, i won't buy it. If there are things they highlight, that wouldn't bother me or put me off, then i won't count it.
This formula has got me by just fine. Yes, their apparent (and again, i've not read it) scathing reaction to the Wii was very unusual, and uncharacteristic. But it does not mean that the whole site is on the take, and should be wiped from the face of the internet.
And Fucking François Truffaut was a movie critic before turning into one of Cinema's greatest directors.
Fuck you haters.
Do you people think that everyone in the gaming business right now went straight into it after college after receiving extensive and exclusive training in the field? Fuck no. The vast majority most likely came out of other fields that had a lot less to do with video games than actually writing about them.
You know, because he's a fag.
I'm not saying critics can't help create that which they criticize (though I would say life-long critics end up crippling their own creative faculties). I'm just saying that being one has no meaningful bearing on being the other, despite what your "common sense" might say.
As a sidenote, genius though Truffaut might be, his auteur theory can lick my nutsack.
Programming is a mite bit different than editing.
As for Truffaut's auteur theory.. i guess it'd derail the thread too much, but i'm interested by what he meant by that, and where your objections come in.
Roger Ebert wrote the Russ Meyer crapfest Beyond the Valley of the Dolls.
So background can be pretty irrelevant.
On auteur theory - his idea was that a movie does or should reflect the personal attitudes and 'preoccupations' of the director above all else, that the movie should be an extension of the director and little more. Now, taken by itself and by those who understood it during his time, that's not necessarily a bad thing. But for a lot of self-obsessed directors, it became an excuse to marginalize all the other immensely creative and vital parts of the moviemaking process, such as actor, cinematographer, screenwriter, etc. It provided a venue for explosive egos, and in France's case, 'justification for their intensely personal and idiosyncratic films'. I hate films like that. I just think it was a very flawed ideal that even its initial champions eventually moved away from.
People seem to ignore the fact that Gamespot awarded the Wii Best New Gaming Hardware for 2006.
http://steamcommunity.com/id/BlindProphet
Same here.
From what I can tell, the art house film Directors are truly all "My movie is a part of me and only exists because I let it be!"
I am a Sheridan media student myself, I have seen some dark times.
*shit not supposed to be posting here anymore! MERDE!"
If you want to understand how absurb Jeff seems to those of us who don't agree with him, just think about a new reviewer joining a magazine and for his first review ripping into the next big 360 game because he doesn't like being stationary while playing or using dual analog sticks.
Yeah, Jeff is pretty much a dinosaur in my eyes. He should be writing for a site that operates under the IGN model - keeping a stable of reviewers platform specific and nothing else.
Just that they feel a little sloppy which I agree with mostly due to the lack of 1:1 controls. When you can win a fight by shaking the Wiimote like crazy or spinning it by the wrist strap doesn't exactly make it great controls.
I'm not complaining about the controls as I love the Wii Zelda and especially love the aiming controls for the ranged weapons. But I respect his opinion.
What? Yeah, I wasn't saying that ALL critics WILL be great Directors/Writers/Whatever. I'm just saying that it is irrelevant.
The thread should have ended after this post.
Ever play any fighting game ever? Or hell, even previous Zelda games? You can win fights just by mashing buttons. Does that make Street Fighter sloppy? How 'bout Ocarina of Time?
Edited for relevancy: I always liked Kasavin, seemed like one of the few gaming journalists who took his job seriously. I still like Gamespot but only because it's not IGN.
I'm just going to say, for the record, that every good film ever made has been idiosyncratic and personal. And while I like edgy, in your face games, I don't like "edgy", "in your face" games, if that makes any sense. What it is and what it aspires to be are totally different issues.
Things should aspire to be good. But good things are usually idiosyncratic and personal.
Pokemans D/P: 1289 4685 0522
That is not something that should have been limed.
Yes but fighting games are still 1:1 pressing X won't make Ryu starting punching like crazy and pressing A once wouldn't make Link do several swings. Don't get me wrong I love Wii Zelda and like the controls but they do lack Finesse, And sometimes I would rather mash a button then swing the controller randomly.
2) On Zelda: No shit, genius, because there's one attack button.