Jump to content
IGNORED

Latest gamesTM scores


Swainy
 Share

Recommended Posts

Being that naive is astonishing, coming from someone older than 14.

Why? I assumed the collective maturity was sufficient enough to take stock of my comment and move on, though I can sympathise with their reaction (despite me not expecting it).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why? I assumed the collective maturity was sufficient enough to take stock of my comment and move on, though I can sympathise with their reaction (despite me not expecting it).

I'm not talking about the collective maturity (I doubt it even exists here, by the way), but about the fact that you apparently thought that writing on a public forum that a magazine was telling its reviewers what mark should be given to a game before the game was reviewed was something perfectly fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not talking about the collective maturity (I doubt it even exists here, by the way), but about the fact that you apparently thought that writing on a public forum that a magazine was telling its reviewers what mark should be given to a game before the game was reviewed was something perfectly fine.

It has been done in the past and no problems occurred, moreover the gamesTM chaps have always been very open with the public. I was just following suit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It has been done in the past and no problems occurred, moreover the gamesTM chaps have always been very open with the public. I was just following suit.

Yes, but unfortunately (unintentionally, I'm sure) you've made them look like a bunch of wankers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, but unfortunately (unintentionally, I'm sure) you've made them look like a bunch of wankers.

They aren't a bunch of wankers at all. Despite all this, I do still respect Mart and Darran because I know they are passionate and knowledgeable gamers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, but unfortunately (unintentionally, I'm sure) you've made them look like a bunch of wankers.

Ooh no.

He's made himself look like a...

Videogame magazine scores. Not worth the square inch of paper they're written on.

Whatever next?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely this goes on with every mag ever?

It seems a throwaway comment was taken to heart, and we all know how much Cacophonus loves to argue.

I'm quite surprised some of you are talking as if GamesTM hgave done a terrible thing. To be honest, I always thought mags (especially ones which don't have bylines or a few reviews by different writers) would have a discussion to agree on a final score.

Especially if it was well known that a writer could have a vested interest in saying it's the greatest game ever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They aren't a bunch of wankers at all. Despite all this, I do still respect Mart and Darran because I know they are passionate and knowledgeable gamers.

I'm sure they're not wankers, it's just that your initial comments about capping or distribution of certain marks didn't make them look too good. I'm glad that you mentioned it because as a consumer it's good to know how these things work.

That said, I'm sure it won't stop anyone buying GamesTM because it's one of only a tiny handful of decent games mags.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They aren't a bunch of wankers at all. Despite all this, I do still respect Mart and Darran because I know they are passionate and knowledgeable gamers.

And now, you can respect them from the dole queue.

EDIT: Oh wait, I forgot about your highly lucrative and influential job as a tester.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh brother,

Cacky makes a remark which when you think about it makes perfect sense. An editorial team took a decision to alter his score of a game.

who gives a monkeys arsecrack. 8 or 9, so what they're still great scores and hardly likely to deter anyone who was thinking about picking these games up.

14:00 BST can't come soon enough :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh brother,

Cacky makes a remark which when you think about it makes perfect sense. An editorial team took a decision to alter his score of a game.

who gives a monkeys arsecrack. 8 or 9, so what they're still great scores and hardly likely to deter anyone who was thinking about picking these games up.

14:00 BST can't come soon enough ;)

The original point was that they didn't alter it, they told him what the score was going to be before he reviewed it. Do you see the difference?

Obviously since then, empires have fallen, mountain ranges have risen, oceans have drained and life on Mars has been found...

God, it's bloody hot here at work. 30degrees and rising! :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The original point was that they didn't alter it, they told him what the score was going to be before he reviewed it. Do you see the difference?

Obviously since then, empires have fallen, mountain ranges have risen, oceans have drained and life on Mars has been found...

God, it's bloody hot here at work. 30degrees and rising! :P

I'm really cold.

I moved desks and now I'm right under the air conditioning vent.

Brrrrrrrr!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well having read through 19 pages of this (as some have rightly noted) car crash of a thread, I can say two things. I will:

a ) get a black ballpoint pen and some Tipex and alter the 8 to a 9 when I receive the latest edition of GamesTM (just to keep Cac happy)

b ) make sure I get a big bottle of Tipex so that I can just efface all scores in future editions.

I know it's been discussed before at length and to death, but do we need scores any more? This is an interesting case in point where the editorial team may (or may not) have ammended a reviewer's bottom-line score but it's not yet apparent whether they have also ammended the text so that "it reads like an 8". Let's face it, from the text, I personally couldn't tell the difference between an 8 or a 9 and I really really don't care either. Perhaps GamesTM and others should adopt the uk.rec.video-games.misc approach of PLAY, WANT, BIN? i.e. "It's great, we can't put it down", "It's OK, not too shabby at all", and "It's pants, take your money elsewhere".

Or perhaps AC Nexus could get a rating of:

Fanboy: 9

Middlecore: 8

Lightweight: 3

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cacky's review of ACNexus in GamesTm is *more* positive than that on NTSC-UK.

Bizarrely the criticisms he makes are different on both.

Reading the NTSC UK one, you'd think there's no learning curve problems whatsoever.

Reading the Games TM one you'd think there's no slowdown whatsoever.

Perhaps it's all in the editing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know it's been discussed before at length and to death, but do we need scores any more?

Honest ones, yes. Definitely IMO. Reviews are so unimaginative and passionless I really can't tell what's great and what's a pile of shat. I get details of the game in the text and a (hopefully honest) opinion of quality in the mark.

Unless the reviewer actually says 'it's great' or 'it's shat' I can't tell. And what's the difference between comments like that and a score out of ten anyway?

Ideally I might vote to drop marks/scores but not today.

Back to the thread..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really don't know how UK laws about employment work, and we don't really know what happened/happens between Cacophanus and GamesTM, but comments like this :

Indeed. Though I've always taken reviews with a pinch of salt usually, this makes me think about giving GamesTM future scores a tablespoon. If that makes sense.

could bring some troubles to Cacophanus.

I'm being melodramatic, maybe, but that's the lawyer in me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reading the NTSC UK one, you'd think there's no learning curve problems whatsoever.

Reading the Games TM one you'd think there's no slowdown whatsoever.

It might be that he has written the two reviews differently because their expected readership is different. It might be that he doesn't expect NTSC-UK readers to mind a big learning curve, but to be very picky about slowdown, and vice versa about Games readers.

I don't think the incident makes me worry about Games's integrity, if you know a particular freelancer is likely to be somewhat generous in scoring certain types of game then it is perfectly reasonable to consider knocking a piont off the score they give.

Link to comment
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
 Share

  • 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.