Jump to content
rllmuk
Sign in to follow this  
Beertiger

GameSpot to lose more credibility?

Recommended Posts

That was a pretty open and transparent FAQ, but I'm sure we're going to have to endure people clinging on to the conspiracy theories now, even if it ultimately means calling every member of Gamespot's editorial staff a liar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
what?!

I wouldn't say "broken microphone lol" and still not saying WHY he was fired at all is open and transparent.

And the text of the game review HAD to be changed because the keyboard was broken I guess. (Cue Gamespot removing the keys S,H,I and T from all their reviewers keyboards.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That was a pretty open and transparent FAQ, but I'm sure we're going to have to endure people clinging on to the conspiracy theories now, even if it ultimately means calling every member of Gamespot's editorial staff a liar.

so broken mic, and adjusted reviews dont ring alarm bells?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
so broken mic, and adjusted reviews dont ring alarm bells?

I guess that also means the five star fake ratings are just an adjustment of reality for Eidos. To deal with broken reviewers.

Way-hay! Gamespot go from reputable to becoming Amiga Action for the new century.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That was a pretty open and transparent FAQ, but I'm sure we're going to have to endure people clinging on to the conspiracy theories now, even if it ultimately means calling every member of Gamespot's editorial staff a liar.

Ahahahahahaha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That was a pretty open and transparent FAQ, but I'm sure we're going to have to endure people clinging on to the conspiracy theories now, even if it ultimately means calling every member of Gamespot's editorial staff a liar.

Calling all mods. Mk's account has been hacked.

Although it's a clever retort. Let's examine it closely.

That was a pretty open and transparent FAQ

Here we've set up the conception that the the FAQ was totally honest and without flaw.

but I'm sure we're going to have to endure people clinging on to the conspiracy theories now

Prong one of the two pronged attack. Label anyone who has doubts on the spin some sort of tinfoil nutjob who probably believes that a yeti killed JFK.

even if it ultimately means calling every member of Gamespot's editorial staff a liar.

Prong two, and one of my favourite strategies. Attribute extreme or unjust motives to the doubters against innocents. This works on several levels, the best bit is it silences posters who would otherwise ask more questions because they don't want to be seen as some sort of dickhead. It also moves the target away from the company. (Has anyone here said this was the work of other Gamespot editors?) So, criticise C/Net and you're calling all Gamespot editors liars. And making Baby Jesus cry or something.

If this was what you meant, hey mission accomplished. Otherwise I'm more than happy to take your word for it purely because of your post count. If your post had come from some newbie with a post count of 2 I'd accuse them of being a schill.

This sort of thing has happened before. (Remember the mass Edge staff sacking?) I guess if we tolerate this, then our reviewers will be next. And the game reviews scene will be neutered. Heck, this guy was thrashed for pointing out Kane and Lynch was in his opinion an average game. What happens when the next Rise of the Robots comes out?

Do we start using 77% as the new 1/10?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LOL

The audio was inferior. The microphone inserted the word "ugly" when it meant "lovely".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Above: A couple of children goad each other into ever more melodramatic ad hominem attacks.

If you think that the entirely unremarkable edits that were made to the text review are 'proof' of manipulation there's no point even discussing this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you think that the entirely unremarkable edits that were made to the text review are 'proof' of manipulation there's no point even discussing this.

The edits significantly affected the tone of the review. This is pretty basic language stuff, MK! It's not proof that the review was deliberately manipulated to mollify potential conseqences from Eidos, but to say the edits were "unremarkable" is either deliberately disingenuous or naive.

Also, there were no significant audio problems in the video review, and there was easily enough footage. Terrible, terrible excuse for taking it down.

I do like your outright dismissal of anyone who thinks something other than you, though. Nice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That they edited the substance of the review while keeping the score the same, rather than the other way around, says a lot about the editorial standards over there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That was a pretty open and transparent FAQ, but I'm sure we're going to have to endure people clinging on to the conspiracy theories now, even if it ultimately means calling every member of Gamespot's editorial staff a liar.

You're kidding yes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Above: A couple of children goad each other into ever more melodramatic ad hominem attacks.

If you think that the entirely unremarkable edits that were made to the text review are 'proof' of manipulation there's no point even discussing this.

You're kidding yes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The edits significantly affected the tone of the review. This is pretty basic language stuff, MK! It's not proof that the review was deliberately manipulated to mollify potential conseqences from Eidos, but to say the edits were "unremarkable" is either deliberately disingenuous or naive.

Would you prefer "routine" then? Gerstmann thought the game was worth a six, and even people in this thread have said that the review read like a complete slating.

I don't necessarily believe the faulty microphone story, but the video review was very scrappy compared to their usual production standards.

People can believe what they like, I was just expressing frustration that there will be some people who have made their minds up now regardless of what new facts come to light. Which provoked a load of childish insults from people seemingly intent on proving that that's exactly how they're going to act.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also, there were no significant audio problems in the video review, and there was easily enough footage. Terrible, terrible excuse for taking it down.

I'll echo those sentiments - I've just listened to the original review from Gamespot through my setup at work, designed for monitoring broadcast quality audio - the audio's fine, not brilliant but perfectly intelligible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Would you prefer "routine" then? Gerstmann thought the game was worth a six, and even people in this thread have said that the review read like a complete slating.

Has it been confirmed that Gerstmann actually scored it 6.0 himself?

Even if he did, surely the right way to do things is to change the score to better fit the review rather than change the review to fit the score.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Surely the right way to do things is to change the score to better fit the review rather than change the review to fit the score.

Not necessarily. He thought it was worth a six, subsequently someone felt that the review didn't come across as balanced. Of course a less plausible explanation is more exciting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Above: A couple of children goad each other into ever more melodramatic ad hominem attacks.

A self convinced 'expert' with no means of finding any info other than the usual public outlets everyone else has, shrieks "authority!" with not a single shred of evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Would you prefer "routine" then? Gerstmann thought the game was worth a six, and even people in this thread have said that the review read like a complete slating.

Why is the score the better expression of his true feelings about the game than a few hundred words? Do you honestly think that Jeff would stand behind those edits as honest reflections of his point of view?

Looking at the edits, it's the sort of thing you'd imagine gets done to freelancers copy all the time. Both the K&L print and video reviews are hardly great works of games journalism and come across like (honest) forum posts, but those mealy-mouthed publishers-pleasing edits are laughable. You see this all the time in crappy internet games reviews: "it's no fun but <insert press-release bullet point here>" "the fighting is broken but <some guff about the storyline>". You feel like you're always reading between the lines.

Advertisers on the phone? Throw them a a bone! Change the tone!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not necessarily. He thought it was worth a six, subsequently someone felt that the review didn't come across as balanced.

Uh, no, it's not a balance issue. Their official stance is, the review score and review text did not fit eachother. So rather than lower the store - a trivial change - they edited a fired writer's review to be closer to their perception of what "6/10" should mean. But without changing his list of criticisms and praises. It makes me wonder whether the text of the review actually matters to them, compared to the summary points and score.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OK. I see where you're coming from. However given the circumstance there are now other consequences for Gamespot. By putting out one small fire they've created a firestorm of consequences. Such as loss of readership and subscriptions. It doesn't matter how much Gamespot cozies up to Eidos, without those readers eyes they have nothing to offer.

Yeah, I agree it all went tits up. This time. Like I said earlier, this is the one you found out about, what about the others that have gone under the radar?

Anyway, not sure what to make of this anymore. I originally thought that it was a fact that he was fired because of the review, you know, that is was official. Whilst it's still possible, and maybe likely, I can see now that's not the case (Not because of the Q&A, just because I originaly did think it was an official thing) so I'll have to see where it goes. I still think the relation between publishers and the press is not in the best interests of the readers, to put it lightly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Uh, no, it's not a balance issue. Their official stance is, the review score and review text did not fit eachother. So rather than lower the store - a trivial change - they edited a fired writer's review to be closer to their perception of what "6/10" should mean. But without changing his list of criticisms and praises. It makes me wonder whether the text of the review actually matters to them, compared to the summary points and score.

Think we're talking at cross purposes here. They (and for all we know, Jeff - why do we assume the review was written/rewritten/edited after he left?) changed the tone of the review without removing any of the actual criticisms, yes? So it is a balance issue.

And no, I don't think that the review text does matter to them so much, beyond ensuring it's factually ok.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you mean by balance issue? They just padded it out with compliments?

Edit- From the looks of it, they hardly changed a thing as far as the substance of the review goes. It doesn't read much less critically to me. Weird:

[it's a great idea that's] [it's a bummer that the multiplayer is] mucked up by a few different things.

If anything, they've made that more critical (the second one is the new version). All they seem to have done is made it more colloquial and added obligatory review fluff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not necessarily. He thought it was worth a six, subsequently someone felt that the review didn't come across as balanced. Of course a less plausible explanation is more exciting.

As someone who writes reviews myself, I don't go, "This is worth a 9, I'll tailor the review to that." I write the review, and based on the text the game then gets a score.

I can't help but feel that you're getting the process the wrong way round, and if you're not then Jeff is a pretty poor reviewer.

The score should be given based on the text. The text should not be written based on a score.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And let's face it, they'd have dropped some criticisms too if they hasn't already published the original review.

Come on now, you don't really believe that Jeff might have made those edits himself do you, MK? You're on a wind-up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Come on now, you don't really believe that Jeff might have made those edits himself do you, MK? You're on a wind-up.

Actually, wasn't Jeff the guy in charge of reviews? Who did make these edits?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It does read a bit less like an angry forum post now. It now reads like a review on one of those crappy American advertising-supported games websites.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.