My oh my.
NOTE: Link is to the result of Gamespot's marvelous achievement.
Printable View
My oh my.
NOTE: Link is to the result of Gamespot's marvelous achievement.
Those are some really bad user reviews, makes me wonder whats going on with the game, the site gave it a 6 users a 2, thats a big difference.
Here you go.
Warning: Link to Penny Arcade comic has "grown-up words".
I think that this will make things a little more clear.
Game Rankings Review
Uh, well, I won't ever trust their scoring criteria. Ever.
Compared to
Gamespy
Gamespy
Every single user review cuts it down to a bad game.
Don't you just love it when The Internet strikes back? :smash: :laugh4:
This amuses me.
However, as a warning for the future, try to be a little less... "creative" with the thread titles. I was about ready to move the thread to the crapper or the backroom before I read what it was about. :tongueg:
Interesting, to say the least. Amusing when you consider the massive advertising from Gamespot.
This thread proves the saying: "never judge a book by its cover".
The more modern term would be "Never buy a game without renting it first." :tongueg:
Or you can put this on:Quote:
Originally Posted by Kekvit Irae
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
What's this? Game review sites/mags want to give better scores to big sponsors? Shock! Horror! :laugh4:
To be fair though, I watched the video review and I think his review of the game was pretty sloppy- it almost sounded like he had an axe to grind himself. Ok, he thinks the plot is bad- fair enough. But he keeps going on and on about it. Storylines can be very subjective- different people like different things. I think it's sufficient for a reviewer to say the plot was boring, convoluted, and/or shallow with unsympathetic/uninteresting characters, cite a few examples and move on.
I agree with Xiahou, the review wasn't that great and that publishers influence gaming magazines isn't exactly new either.
I read the review as well. He wrote down what he thought. I did not see much excess in his review and he did give it a 6.0. All he said was that the game does not live up to its potential. Several other sites that have reviewed this game say the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Well, different people might see it differently.... But I think when it's compared with the other video reviews I've seen on the site, he appears to go out of his way to bash the game's plot, characters, ect. The technical points were, of course, valid. Bad controls and AI can be big negatives for a game, but overall- the video review seemed a bit unprofessional when compared to others from the site. Also, with the amount of crapping on the game he did, a 6 doesnt really even seem warranted. :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by CrossLOPER
Is it possible the YouTube review is a pre-edit version or something?
Damn, i missed the video review :furious3:
I have no idea what the heck you're trying to convey.Quote:
Originally Posted by CrossLOPER
From an unnamed Gamespot staff member on the gamespot forums:
The main problem here is that no one in the entire editorial team was aware that this was about to occur, least of all Gerstmann. We're very clear in our review policies that all reviews are vetted by the entire team before they go live - everything that goes up is the product of an entire team's output. Our freelancers are especially guilty of making snide comments, but those are always yanked before the review goes live, because everyone in the office reads these reviews and makes sure they're up to our standards before they get put up.
If there was a problem with his reviews, then it would've been a problem with the entire team. Firing him without telling anyone implies that anyone else on this team can be fired at the drop of a hat as well, because none of us are writing any differently or meaner or less professionally than we were two years ago before the management changed. I'm sure management wants to spin this as the G-Man being unprofessional to take away from the egg on their face that results after a ten-year employee gets locked out of his office and told to leave the premises and then no one communicates anything to us about it until the next day.
Also, despite the fact that this occured two weeks ago, there was no way they were going to fire him then; the last big games didn't come out until just before Thanksgiving, and there was no doubt that management knew that the rest of the reviewers would refuse to write any reviews after his termination, which is indeed what is happening. After thanksgiving nothing major comes out in games; everything is either before thanksgiving or comes out in January. They waited to fire him until they knew that any strike or walkout by the rest of the staff wouldn't have much of an effect.
Also, keep in mind that these salespeople do have axes to grind with editorial. I know a lot of people busted their asses to get not only this large deal with Eidos done, but also other huge ad deals. The salespeople and the marketers are the ones who have to deal with the publishers when a heavily-advertised game gets a bad review, so obviously they like it if every game that comes out is peachy keen and gets a 9.0 or above. If a salesperson knows anything about unprofessional review practices, then that says a lot about the management team that we have in place because not a single other member of the editorial team had heard word one about this until Jeff was fired. Surely site management would want to let us know about their concerns before firing the most senior staff member and one of the most respected game critics in the industry? If they're sharing their concerns with the salespeople and not with us then that says a lot about their priorities.
No one wants to be named because no one wants to get **** fired! This management team has shown what they're willing to do. Jeff had ten years in and was **** locked out of his office and told to leave the building.
What you might not be aware of is that GS is well known for appealing mostly to hardcore gamers. The mucky-mucks have been doing a lot of "brand research" over the last year or so and indicating that they want to reach out to more casual gamers. Our last executive editor, Greg Kasavin, left to go to EA, and he was replaced by a suit, Josh Larson, who had no editorial experience and was only involved on the business side of things. Over the last year there has been an increasing amount of pressure to allow the advertising teams to have more of a say in the editorial process; we've started having to give our sales team heads-ups when a game is getting a low score, for instance, so that they can let the advertisers know that before a review goes up. Other publishers have started giving us notes involving when our reviews can go up; if a game's getting a 9 or above, it can go up early; if not, it'll have to wait until after the game is on the shelves.
I was in the meeting where Josh Larson was trying to explain this firing and the guy had absolutely no response to any of the criticisms we were sending his way. He kept dodging the question, saying that there were "multiple instances of tone" in the reviews that he hadn't been happy about, but that wasn't Jeff's problem since we all vet every review. He also implied that "AAA" titles deserved more attention when they were being reviewed, which sounded to all of us that he was implying that they should get higher scores, especially since those titles are usually more highly advertised on our site.
I know that it's all about the money, and hey, I like money. I like advertising because it pays my salary. Unfortunately after Kasavin left the church-and-state separation between the sales teams and the editorial team has cracked, and with Jeff's firing I think it's clear that the management now has no interest at all in integrity and are instead looking for an editorial team that will be nicer to the advertisors.
When companies make games as downright contemptible as Kane and Lynch, they deserve to be called on it. I guess you'll have to go to Onion or a smaller site for objective reviews now, because everyone at GS now thinks that if they give a low score to a high-profile game, they'll be **** Everyone's **** scared and we're all hoping to get Josh Larson removed from his position because no one trusts him anymore. If that doesn't happen then look for every game to be Game of the Year material at GameSpot.
they grow up so fast :thumbsdown:
Meh. Pretty poorly written review anyway, just like the majority of writing on Gamespot.
Bunch of spineless people. :thumbsdown:
I mean the writers partly, the management and salespeople fully and the Publishers are guilty as well. Yes, we all want to make money, but some of them want to make more than that and apparently they're all willing to give up their integrity to maximise profit.
The writers are the least to blame, their choice is integrity or job, hard to choose when you have a family to provide for. My favourite german online magazine outsources tests when they host servers for the game for example to avoid that they can be blamed for bias. They also linked to some articles some time ago that dealt with how Publishers influence the gaming press with launch events, lots of alcohol, nice girls etc. to give them better reviews.
Was also interesting to see ads for the Postal movie on the site because their article about Postal said it was good for an Uwe Boll movie but ultimately only for weirdos and pretty bad. :laugh4:
Well, seems like they have a backbone and that may be why it's my favourite magazine, they seem open and honest. :2thumbsup:
Well, we can all change this by not buying Kane&Lynch and spreading the word I guess but it still sounds like the business is in need of a change. :smash:
Best imho, www.eurogamer.net. Their reviews are usually spot on and they are all a joy to read.Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoffrey S
Thanks, that was indeed rather harsh, but then the game probably deseveres it.Quote:
Originally Posted by R'as al Ghul
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoffrey S.
I agree with Fragony here, Eurogamer reviews are usually a notch above the rest, although far from perfect.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Videogame 'journalism' doesn't really have high standards.
One must wonder if the people behind this decision considered the fallout and damage to the site's reputation. Who wants to read reviews written by people who could be fired if they don't give hyped games a 9? If no one is reading then no one is viewing the ads.
It's the only site I've found which seldom does import reviews or big flashy previews; when I see a game on their front page I know it is already available or will be within days. They usually only list the PAL release dates for upcoming games. That alone makes it my main port of call for gaming. That the reviews are generally decent is a happy bonus.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
So what else does this Publisher make?
Anything viable or would it be an easy one to blacklist?
If it was Paradox I would be most upset, they are a very credible group.
Jeff Gerstmann... I wonder if he has an independent review blog that we can support?
Where's the Hitler comment from? A user review or the one by Jeff? ~:confused:
What's the issue here anyway?
Maybe I will give the site a check, since that is one thing I really want to cut down on: pre-release hype. Just the review, or even better word of mouth.Quote:
Originally Posted by frogbeastegg
Deus Ex: Invisable War, these are the guys that screwed you pc-gamers over to give us xboys something we can understand. Consequently, they are responsible for the downfall of Lookinglas studio, and are known for their terrible support and rushed releasesQuote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
(like kane&lynch), if you want a reason to hate them, these are a few good ones. :beam:
I'd assume the Hitman games, since they are by the same developer as Kane& Lynch.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Yo-ho, yo-ho, a pirate's life for me...Quote:
Originally Posted by Kekvit Irae
O...k...?Quote:
Originally Posted by CrossLOPER
There are stores where you can lend games for money, usually they have DVD videos as well, you can theoretically enter the store with a sabre and force them to give you a game but I suspect Kekvit prefers the monetary approach. :bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by CrossLOPER
You see, folks, that is a MUCH better explanation than a picture with no explanation or a quote without meaning. I was about to delete posts for stupidity and/or being off-topic before Husar explained what it was about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Yes, folks, there are stores in the US where you can lease out games for a period of around 5-7 days instead of paying full price for them.
Check out Gamespot's official response to the community outcry at Jeff Gerstmann's firing...
http://www.gamespot.com/news/6183603...s&subj=6183603
I took the liberty of bolding all the BS... as if you needed any help in spotting it. :wink:
But wait... it gets better!Quote:
Gerstmann, GameSpot part ways
After nearly 11 years of news, reviews, and previews, editorial director's tenure ends; GameSpot editors address controversy surrounding his departure.
By Staff, GameSpot
Posted Dec 3, 2007 9:18 pm PT
The past week marked the end of an era at GameSpot. After over a decade in a variety of editorial roles, Jeff Gerstmann's tenure as editorial director has ended.
"Jeff was a central figure in the creation and evolution of GameSpot, having written hundreds of previews and reviews, and anchoring much of our multimedia content," said Ricardo Torres, editorial director of previews and events. "The award-winning editorial team he leaves behind wish him nothing but good luck in his future endeavors."
Due to legal constraints and the company policy of GameSpot parent CNET Networks, details of Gerstmann's departure cannot be disclosed publicly. However, contrary to widespread and unproven reports, his exit was not a result of pressure from an advertiser.
"Neither CNET Networks nor GameSpot has ever allowed its advertising business to affect its editorial content," said Greg Brannan, CNET Networks Entertainment's vice president of programming. "The accusations in the media that it has done so are unsubstantiated and untrue. Jeff's departure stemmed from internal reasons unrelated to any buyer of advertising on GameSpot."
"Though he will be missed by his colleagues, Jeff's leaving does not affect GameSpot's core mission of delivering the most timely news, video content, in-depth previews, and unbiased reviews in games journalism," said Ryan MacDonald, executive producer of GameSpot Live. "GameSpot is an institution, and its code of ethics and duty to its users remains unchanged."
Tune in later in the week to hear editors' tributes to Gerstmann on the HotSpot podcast and GameSpot's weekly Webcast, On the Spot.
Turns out Eidos is so desperate to recoup their losses for the costly fiasco known as Kane & Lynch that they're resorted to fabricating reviews and scores on the game's official website!
http://www.gamebump.com/go/official_...out_its_scores
http://www.kaneandlynch.com/Quote:
Official Kane & Lynch Website LIES About Its ScoresPosted 5:26pm Sun Dec 02, 2007 by Aaron Dunlap
At the heart of this Jeff Gerstmann controversy is the unconfirmed notion that Eidos was upset with GameSpot's 6/10 review of the game. While we have no way of knowing if that is actually what happened, it seems that Eidos might just be completely delusional about the media reception for the game.
If you go to the official Kane & Lynch website and watch the flash intro that plays before the main content appears, you'll see two excerpts from reviews flash by with a 5-star rating for each. The problem is, those reviews did not issue a 5-star, or 100% rating.
It lists a GameSpy review with the quote, "It's the best emulation of being in the midst of a Michael Mann movie we've ever seen." This quote doesn't exist from GameSpy's review. It's pulled from some early E3 2007 coverage that would have been published at least 5 months ago. The preview issues no kind of score or rating that could be perceived as a 5-star rating.
In fact, GameSpy's actual review gave Kane & Lynch a 3-star rating. Three stars, on a 5-star scale, equates to a 60%, or 6-out-of-10 score, which is exactly what Gerstmann gave the game.
The Kane & Lynch webpage also lists a quote from Game Informer: "A mercenary, a psychopath, & a bundle of cash... what could go wrong?" and also lists it with a 5-star rating. That quote also does not appear in Game Informer's review, it seems to be pulled from an early preview. And if you guessed that Game Informer's actual review gave the game a 5-star score, you'd be both wrong and stupid. They gave it a 7/10.
It's common for game PR to include preview quotes on early advertisements, as those are the only kind of quotes available before the game's release. Never before, however, have I seen preview quotes being paraded around as reviews, and also given completely imaginary scores to boot.
Delusion. Complete delusion.
Screenshots of the website are included after the jump.
UPDATE: GameBump (that's us) gave Kane & Lynch a 1-star review. And no, it's not a joke.
UPDATE UPDATE: Apparently people are mad at Eidos because "Eidos Bashing" is the thing to do.
Can't they get done for false advertising?
As for Gamespot. Fftt almost as bad as MoOIII... where the lead designer was fired... the game company said it something like this: 'We have empowered him to pursue game designing as a freelancer, just not with us.'
The term "Pirates" means nothing to you when applied to games? :inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by Kekvit Irae
Not when the topic at hand is Kane & Lynch and GameSpot.Quote:
Originally Posted by CrossLOPER
Haven't been any banner-advertising for a few days on gamespot. Way to destroy a strong brand.