While I completely agree that the timing seems tied to the Kane & Lynch review I just took the time to read a few of his reviews and personally don't see why so many people are saying that they actually trusted his opinion. He bitches that Zelda doesn't add much to the series and gives it an 8.8, but then gives Halo 3 a 9.5 which is guilty of exact same flaw. His review scores are flaky at best, bring up a list of his reviews and try to make sense of them - Halo 3 gets 9.5 but Bioshock gets a 9.0 and VF5 gets 8.5?
He really did seem hellbent to give a game a lower score than other sites just to throw off averages or to draw users and his reviews do seem extremely nitpicky and guilty of the overanalyzing and "playing just to get through the game" sin that Gabe & Tycho were just ranting against less than a week ago. Which is it? Do we want our reviewers to bitch and moan to the point that we can't tell if a game is actually fun or do we give publishers the ok to shitcan people that tend to be too critical?
You realise that that doesn't really matter right now, right? Diversity of reviewers' opinions is actually a really good thing for the industry, even if not many people agree with the reviews that buck the trend. In fact, it is fucking vital for any kind of critical press. Any threat to that diversity is bad, bad news.
Also, your last question, if you meant it seriously, was retarded.
Zetetic Elench on
0
PharezonStruggle is an illusion.Victory is in the Qun.Registered Userregular
While I completely agree that the timing seems tied to the Kane & Lynch review I just took the time to read a few of his reviews and personally don't see why so many people are saying that they actually trusted his opinion. He bitches that Zelda doesn't add much to the series and gives it an 8.8, but then gives Halo 3 a 9.5 which is guilty of exact same flaw. His review scores are flaky at best, bring up a list of his reviews and try to make sense of them - Halo 3 gets 9.5 but Bioshock gets a 9.0 and VF5 gets 8.5?
He really did seem hellbent to give a game a lower score than other sites just to throw off averages or to draw users and his reviews do seem extremely nitpicky and guilty of the overanalyzing and "playing just to get through the game" sin that Gabe & Tycho were just ranting against less than a week ago. Which is it? Do we want our reviewers to bitch and moan to the point that we can't tell if a game is actually fun or do we give publishers the ok to shitcan people that tend to be too critical?
You realise that that doesn't really matter right now, right? Diversity of reviewers' opinions is actually a really good thing for the industry, even if not many people agree with the reviews that buck the trend. In fact, it is fucking vital for any kind of critical press. Any threat to that diversity is bad, bad news.
Also, your last question, if you meant it seriously, was retarded.
Simple way to put it. "You can agree or disagree with a reviewer's opinion if you want, that doesn't matter. What does matter is that it's their opinion and not the opinion of the people paying them."
Usually,this kind of thing is will blow over like other internet drams and fads. But this particularly Raw Deal seems to have struck a chord with the internet community. Not just the internet community,but the gamer community and the journalistic community in particular.
Its not often these days you see outrage over integrity that actually seems ..impassioned.
While I completely agree that the timing seems tied to the Kane & Lynch review I just took the time to read a few of his reviews and personally don't see why so many people are saying that they actually trusted his opinion. He bitches that Zelda doesn't add much to the series and gives it an 8.8, but then gives Halo 3 a 9.5 which is guilty of exact same flaw. His review scores are flaky at best, bring up a list of his reviews and try to make sense of them - Halo 3 gets 9.5 but Bioshock gets a 9.0 and VF5 gets 8.5?
He really did seem hellbent to give a game a lower score than other sites just to throw off averages or to draw users and his reviews do seem extremely nitpicky and guilty of the overanalyzing and "playing just to get through the game" sin that Gabe & Tycho were just ranting against less than a week ago. Which is it? Do we want our reviewers to bitch and moan to the point that we can't tell if a game is actually fun or do we give publishers the ok to shitcan people that tend to be too critical?
You realise that that doesn't really matter right now, right? Diversity of reviewers' opinions is actually a really good thing for the industry, even if not many people agree with the reviews that buck the trend. In fact, it is fucking vital for any kind of critical press. Any threat to that diversity is bad, bad news.
Also, your last question, if you meant it seriously, was retarded.
No, it's not. Last week, everyone was on this bandwagon of "reviews mean nothing because these reviewers are too negative and don't see a game for it's positives" thanks to the whole Assasin's Creed issue. Last week, absolutely NO-ONE on this site would have said that they trusted this guy's reviews.
I agree that if he was truly fired just due to Kane & Lynch that it's insane and will only hurt video game journalism. However, if the Kane & Lynch thing didn't happen, and he lost his job for being too negative, there are a ton of people who would have been in favor of it because he is the exact type of reviewer we were railing against last week.
DragkoniasThat Guy Who Does StuffYou Know, There. Registered Userregular
edited December 2007
Well...I mean I don't know about that...since from what I understand people are pretty much on the fence about AC. Some people really like it and some people do think it's overly repetitive. Also...his review still doesn't matter...it's that (if he did...not sure it's been verified) he may have been fired over it. Really, it could have been any reviewer on the site.
I agree that if he was truly fired just due to Kane & Lynch that it's insane and will only hurt video game journalism. However, if the Kane & Lynch thing didn't happen, and he lost his job for being too negative, there are a ton of people who would have been in favor of it because he is the exact type of reviewer we were railing against last week.
I've always been a Jeff fan, but I do agree with this. While people don't necessarily agree with his past reviews, it seems that everyone is in agreement that if the deciding factor of losing his job was attributed to Eidos ad revenue/spineless CNet, it'd be a travesty.
No, it's not. Last week, everyone was on this bandwagon of "reviews mean nothing because these reviewers are too negative and don't see a game for it's positives" thanks to the whole Assasin's Creed issue. Last week, absolutely NO-ONE on this site would have said that they trusted this guy's reviews.
I agree that if he was truly fired just due to Kane & Lynch that it's insane and will only hurt video game journalism. However, if the Kane & Lynch thing didn't happen, and he lost his job for being too negative, there are a ton of people who would have been in favor of it because he is the exact type of reviewer we were railing against last week.
I fail to see the problem here. Quibbles over reviewer opinions take a backseat to publishers dictating by proxy what reviewers of their products should say.
This is pretty easy to understand. We may not agree with his opinions, but he's a well respected journalist who's been working at GS for 11 years and has now been - if that insider post is to be believed - locked out of his office without warning because he expressed his honest opinion. Which is his job. We can respect and sympathise with that.
It is not hypocrisy to lambast reviewers for being unobjective assholes, then turn around and defend their right to be like that.
If a ran a website and paid someone to review games and felt that repeatedly they were far too harsh it would certainly be within my rights to can them.
Again, if he got fired SOLELY for Kane & Lynch, I'm entirely with you. Originally, I was entirely with you. However, after reading his other reviews, I have a much harder time imagining it was just this game. He is a very negative reviewer and I can't imagine this being the first time his reviews have caused them issues.
As much as I hate IGN, this would actually be a great chance for them to get some fairly good credibility with gamers by immediately offering him a position. Frankly, I haven't put much stock in Gamespot or IGN for a long time, but it would be a great kick in the balls to what has to be one of their bigger competitors.
It is not hypocrisy to lambast reviewers for being unobjective assholes, then turn around and defend their right to be like that.
If a ran a website and paid someone to review games and felt that repeatedly they were far too harsh it would certainly be within my rights to can them.
Again, if he got fired SOLELY for Kane & Lynch, I'm entirely with you. Originally, I was entirely with you. However, after reading his other reviews, I have a much harder time imagining it was just this game. He is a very negative reviewer and I can't imagine this being the first time his reviews have caused them issues.
We're on the same page. What I said does not preclude firing the incompetent. If that were the case here and gamespot just had the worst timing ever, I'd feel bad. However, they have not come out and said anything one way or another and people closer to "the industry" than you and I have not suggested otherwise either. Eidios is getting shat on the worst and they've been very quiet on the matter as well.
I just realized that you have to watch an ad to get into the Gamespot homepage, and then the main page is so covered in ads that it's hard to navigate. Now that their review credibility is gone the only reason to go there is for the performance guides, and I'm not even sure those are useful anymore. I guess I can go there to leave negative feedback on the ads.
but doesnt that just mean that SBAllen or Gamefaqs made a joke poll for no reason, and then it "accidentally" leaked? Why make that poll anyway? I smell bull, but I dont mind.
Posts
edit: fits nicely. I'll wear this for a couple weeks in support
You realise that that doesn't really matter right now, right? Diversity of reviewers' opinions is actually a really good thing for the industry, even if not many people agree with the reviews that buck the trend. In fact, it is fucking vital for any kind of critical press. Any threat to that diversity is bad, bad news.
Also, your last question, if you meant it seriously, was retarded.
Manipulate our readers today! Dial 0-int-grty & ask for John Larson
Also, see here: http://www.destructoid.com/
Simple way to put it. "You can agree or disagree with a reviewer's opinion if you want, that doesn't matter. What does matter is that it's their opinion and not the opinion of the people paying them."
Its not often these days you see outrage over integrity that actually seems ..impassioned.
Final Fantasy XI -> Carbuncle - Samash
No, it's not. Last week, everyone was on this bandwagon of "reviews mean nothing because these reviewers are too negative and don't see a game for it's positives" thanks to the whole Assasin's Creed issue. Last week, absolutely NO-ONE on this site would have said that they trusted this guy's reviews.
I agree that if he was truly fired just due to Kane & Lynch that it's insane and will only hurt video game journalism. However, if the Kane & Lynch thing didn't happen, and he lost his job for being too negative, there are a ton of people who would have been in favor of it because he is the exact type of reviewer we were railing against last week.
?
anyway, just like Destructoid to get Josh Larson's name wrong. People are gonna be emailing and calling for "John" and looking like idiots.
3DS Friend Code: 2165-6448-8348 www.Twitch.TV/cooljammer00
Battle.Net: JohnDarc#1203 Origin/UPlay: CoolJammer00
I've always been a Jeff fan, but I do agree with this. While people don't necessarily agree with his past reviews, it seems that everyone is in agreement that if the deciding factor of losing his job was attributed to Eidos ad revenue/spineless CNet, it'd be a travesty.
I agree. Been awhile since the last internet gaming forum meltdown :P
nevermind, Gamefaqs caught it and the poll is down now.
3DS Friend Code: 2165-6448-8348 www.Twitch.TV/cooljammer00
Battle.Net: JohnDarc#1203 Origin/UPlay: CoolJammer00
I fail to see the problem here. Quibbles over reviewer opinions take a backseat to publishers dictating by proxy what reviewers of their products should say.
This is pretty easy to understand. We may not agree with his opinions, but he's a well respected journalist who's been working at GS for 11 years and has now been - if that insider post is to be believed - locked out of his office without warning because he expressed his honest opinion. Which is his job. We can respect and sympathise with that.
MineCraft: Menetherin
Steam: Vloeza_SE++
which would have been about a year ago when he released his 8.8 for tp ironically enough
edit: admittedly that was pretty much restricted to Gfaqs and neogaf
The Witcher is good though
If a ran a website and paid someone to review games and felt that repeatedly they were far too harsh it would certainly be within my rights to can them.
Again, if he got fired SOLELY for Kane & Lynch, I'm entirely with you. Originally, I was entirely with you. However, after reading his other reviews, I have a much harder time imagining it was just this game. He is a very negative reviewer and I can't imagine this being the first time his reviews have caused them issues.
*cough* SHILL *cough*
:P
*looks up from counting his money* What?
CNet fixed it. Pic of hacked poll:
lol bamelin beat me to it already
FFS he could have at least spelled descent right.
results page.
3DS Friend Code: 2165-6448-8348 www.Twitch.TV/cooljammer00
Battle.Net: JohnDarc#1203 Origin/UPlay: CoolJammer00
can't wait for someone to do it again
I can't believe the absolute shit storm this has created. I must say, I'm enjoying this a lot.
We're on the same page. What I said does not preclude firing the incompetent. If that were the case here and gamespot just had the worst timing ever, I'd feel bad. However, they have not come out and said anything one way or another and people closer to "the industry" than you and I have not suggested otherwise either. Eidios is getting shat on the worst and they've been very quiet on the matter as well.
may? he already is.
3DS Friend Code: 2165-6448-8348 www.Twitch.TV/cooljammer00
Battle.Net: JohnDarc#1203 Origin/UPlay: CoolJammer00
http://boards.gamefaqs.com/gfaqs/genmessage.php?board=3&topic=39882639
but doesnt that just mean that SBAllen or Gamefaqs made a joke poll for no reason, and then it "accidentally" leaked? Why make that poll anyway? I smell bull, but I dont mind.
3DS Friend Code: 2165-6448-8348 www.Twitch.TV/cooljammer00
Battle.Net: JohnDarc#1203 Origin/UPlay: CoolJammer00