Greatest Video Game Hero contest

[Azathoth]

Gamespot is the Fox News/MSNBC of the gaming industry, anything you see on their site needs to be taken with a grain of salt because of their very blatant bias.

Which is?

[Monk]

Which is?

Firing an employee for giving a game a bad score isn't something that can be forgotten.

Gamespot hasn't had credibility since the Kane and Lynch fiascal, and with stunts like this it isn't hard to see why they still don't.

[Azathoth]

That is the only thing that anyone mentions. What else have they done?

I'm not sure I understand your analogy. As it stands it seriously comes off as Gamespot setting up characters to lose just to give more modern characters a free pass. If they wanted to do that they should have just cut 20 names from the list and had it much more localized instead of what it is now. Can you honestly tell me what Frogger is doing on a list like this other than to provide someone else with an easy win?

Funny, because if you look at the standings right now almost all the "modern" characters are being smashed. Marcus Fenix is losing to Duke Nukem, Phoenix Wright lost to Little Mac, Nathan Drake lost to Pikachu, Abe lost to Ryu, Nights lost to the Prince, Liu Kang lost to Yoshi (though they're technically both classic characters), Snake beat Crash Bandicoot, Alucard beat Travis Touchdown, Donkey Kong is beating Raziel, Lara Croft beat Parappa (though they are contemporaries), Link is beating Earthworm Jim (though the gap is closing because of 4chan), Fox McCloud is beating Jak and Daxter, Ryu Hayabusa is beating the Nameless One, Mega Man is beating Haggar, Samus is beating Jade, Frogger is beating Garrett, Sonic is beating Ryo "Sailors" Hazuki, and now Bub & Bob are beating Master Chief.

THE ONLY modern characters who have won or are winning so far are:

a. Ratchet and Clank
b. Kratos (won against a contemporary)
c. Gordon Freeman (he ******* deserves it)
d. Wander
e. Niko Bellic (won against a contemporary)
f. Kyle Katarn
g. Dante

I won't comment on Sackboy vs Bo Jackson (who are they?), Cloud vs Chester Laykin, or Pac-Man vs Kirby.

So what the heck are you talking about?

Hey, and just because you think Frogger isn't a hero doesn't mean nobody else does. He's even winning.

[Monk]

Funny, because if you look at the standings right now almost all the "modern" characters are being smashed.

So what the heck are you talking about?

Despite stacking the deck it's still possible to win in any environment. Though many of your examples of classics winning I don't find valid since many characters still have adaptations today. (Lara Croft, The Prince, Snake ect). My original point is that it's unfair to pair up characters who haven't seen video game releases in decades with modern giants as it creates a "David versus Zeus" environment in the voting. Perhaps I didn't provide enough explanation on that point, if so that's bad on me.

If you find Gamespot an enjoyable source of news and reviews than more power to you, I however do not find them such. In my book they share a place with IGN (whose sins I consider just as bad, if not worse).

Hey, and just because you think Frogger isn't a hero doesn't mean nobody else does. He's even winning.

Frogger is an every man, his concerns are basically "Don't die" and "Eat bugs." Not very Hero material if you ask me.

I won't comment on Sackboy vs Bo Jackson (who are they?)

Sackboy is from LittleBigPlanet, I think. Bo Jackson was an athlete back in the 80s here in the US. He had a number of video games. Seems a rather odd choice for the list, but hey if Frogger qualifies why the heck not?

[Azathoth]

If you find Gamespot an enjoyable source of news and reviews than more power to you, I however do not find them such. In my book they share a place with IGN (whose sins I consider just as bad, if not worse).

Well, their reviews are often funny and well-written, but what you have to remember is that they are just personal opinions, and should always be supplemented by the User Reviews, which are probably better indicators of the quality of a game.

I only use IGN to find the status of extremely obscure games (canceled? released? coming out xx/xx/200x?) that barely have a page in Gamespot. What have they done?

Despite stacking the deck it's still possible to win in any environment. Though many of your examples of classics winning I don't find valid since many characters still have adaptations today. (Lara Croft, The Prince, Snake ect). My original point is that it's unfair to pair up characters who haven't seen video game releases in decades with modern giants as it creates a "David versus Zeus" environment in the voting. Perhaps I didn't provide enough explanation on that point, if so that's bad on me.

But this is The Greatest Hero of All Time Competition. The Gamespot staff can't just say "Lol, everyone who visits our site is 12 so we should only include characters from the last decade." That just wouldn't be fair. Of course, one could argue that the Greatest Hero of All Time, just like Greatest Game of All Time, is an inherently fallacious concept, but where's the fun in that?


And finally, the 4chan vote doctoring - how is that any different from what is going on in Afghanistan right now? One of these days, that site is going to destroy an entire national election somewhere just for the lulz.

[Monk]

Well, their reviews are often funny and well-written, but what you have to remember is that they are just personal opinions, and should always be supplemented by the User Reviews, which are probably better indicators of the quality of a game.

I only use IGN to find the status of extremely obscure games (canceled? released? coming out xx/xx/200x?) that barely have a page in Gamespot. What have they done?

I think the most telling point of IGN reviews is how they are sometimes handled. Take Prototype, for instance. The game was given to a guy who doesn't even enjoy the genre and told "Here, you have to play this." He spent two full paragraphs expressing his full and utter contempt for both the genre and how he didn't want to do this, but he was because he had to.

It would be like giving me a hex-based grand strategy game and telling me to "go nuts" ... I don't want to. I wanna play something else, and that's exactly what his review boiled down to. I don't fault the man, just whoever put the controller in his hand. I did much the same (to myself) when i bought Call of Duty: World at War. When I didn't like that game, i had no one to blame but myself.

But this is The Greatest Hero of All Time Competition. The Gamespot staff can't just say "Lol, everyone who visits our site is 12 so we should only include characters from the last decade." That just wouldn't be fair. Of course, one could argue that the Greatest Hero of All Time, just like Greatest Game of All Time, is an inherently fallacious concept, but where's the fun in that?

Oh yes, i see the dilemma they put themselves in by just undertaking this exorcise but that won't win points with me. If you're gonna do it you gotta give every single character a fair shake. It isn't fair (imo) to compare an apple to a jet engine and exclaim in an arbitrary system that one is somehow better. I really think they could have saved themselves a lot of hassle if they didn't try to cover so much history in one go, however that's just my take.

But as you so astutely point out, what's the point of any of it in the end?

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

To explain my contempt for Gamespot, let me start by saying that the Kayne & Lynch fiasco is more of a symptom of the problem than the problem itself. Most of the really major games media sites/magazines have interests, either directly or indirectly, in hyping some releases and giving them incredible leeway. Part of the problem I'd like pawn off to the console crowd, where each set of devotees demands their games receive perfect scores. Case in point, Edge magazine (which is solidly part of the establishment) gave Killzone 2 a 7/10. PS3 fans went ballistic because most other major reviews gave them at least 90 percents and because it was seen as preferring Xbox 360 shooters or something like that. It was a 7/10! If the major game reviewers (such as Gamespot) didn't automatically give large releases 90's then not only were their readers be better served, but they wouldn't run into ridiculous controversies when they decide to honestly review a game.

Another problem is the one Monk mentioned. A review is usually written by someone who does it for their job (which is fine) and they have many other games to review (which detracts from the time they can spend playing a game). That's why Rome/Med2/Empire Total War all got largely uncritical reviews - the reviewers 1) aren't usually all that familiar with a series and 2) don't play enough to realize (for instance) that hey, the AI actually is quite predictable or always fails to do X.

These problems also lead to a failure to treat less published or smaller releases the same way they treat the next Call of Duty. If there isn't a well-placed hype machine behind a game there seems - perhaps coincidentally - to be far less generous review scores. Sword of the Stars got very mixed reviews (Gamespot to their credit gave it a 7.6 which is probably fair) but probably suffered for not sticking to conventions enough while not having a huge marketing budget. Compare that kind of coverage to the (PC only) coverage at Rock, Paper, Shotgun who generally approach games from a gonzo journalism angle and appreciate curiosities and games off the beaten path. They also have far less of a commercial interest in giving a 10/10 to a game who coincidentally has ads plastered all over the website - because RPS doesn't do that.

So in general I'm very suspicious of the major game reviewing firms, and generally wish them mortification. I also find that their website is usually cluttered up with crap such as this "what's your favorite X" so when it gets subverted I smile a bit.