Support NeoGAF

[jschreier]

It's not like the reviewers are making big bucks for throwing out this stuff. It's simply expected of them. As Gerstman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Gerstmann) was clear proof of - in the games media you give good reviews to companies throwing lots of money at your site, or you may very well end up fired.

Just FYI, the reason everyone always brings up Gerstmann is that these situations are so rare that we can only really remember one of them. While there are certainly subtle influences and outside factors that affect how video game sites operate, cases like "give this game a higher score or else you lose your job" are anomalies, or else sites like mine would be reporting them whenever they happened. And yeah, this stuff would come out; writers don't like to stay quiet.

 

[Tom Nook Sawyer]

And yeah, this stuff would come out; writers don't like to stay quiet.

Sounds like something someone who's paid off would say

But seriously, I'd bet the accusations of money-hatting far out-number any actual incidents by a sizable number. And the fact that we haven't heard of any since the GameSpot one is evidence of that

 

[chadboban]

No, OP. No.

What must end is the salt about numbered reviews. So a series of review scores about a game people were anticipating weren't as high as hoped. So fucking what? There wasn't all this crying about Titanfall or Killzone or BF or KI or Stryder or TR or Thief. But now a game some put all their hope in came up just a little shorter than hyped (and still a good game by all measures!) and suddenly a review system that has been in place and useful for over 20 years must be flawed and must go rather than accepting some imperfection? No room in your egos for that, guys? All of the reviews with numbered scores offer lengthy commentaries and usually a summary of bullet points at the end, so it's not like they don't offer details and justification along with a number that can be of some use to those having a hard time figuring out what all of the preceding text means in relative terms. The number is the only way to measure how a review team feels about a product in the context of a marketplace full of similar games. It's the answer to the subjective, "which one might be better" number in the opinion of that reviewer or team. Whether you agree with the opinions or not is immaterial. It's someone's opinion, and should be weighted with all other opinions. Numbers shouldn't affect you beyond helping add a relative context to their opinion on the game compared to other games released recently or relative to other games in a given genre or franchise.

So no, how about some of you find something else to attach so much emotion and self-security to. It's just a product (that you didn't make, nor own stock in), and games are largely imperfect. That's okay. Most games will not be metacritic 90s. That's fine too. If you need MC 90s and/or GoTY commentaries to feel good about a purchase you've been looking forward to, you're doing gaming wrong.

This kind of conversation along with the existence of system warriors/fanboys are really a referendum on the insecurity and sensitivity of large cross-sections of the gaming populous. That needs to be addressed, not review score styles. If you like a game, go enjoy it. If you can't handle reviews, don't read them. But no, the 20+ year-old system -- a system older than many of you -- isn't the problem here. Believe that.

 

[crozier]

The problem with numbers is that they invite unwanted comparison and lack context. A 0.1% difference in score shouldn't mean that 'x' game is better than 'y' game, but in the real world that's exactly how grades function. My favorite reviews (by far) come from Rockpapershotgun and I'd like to see more sites ditch the measuring stick and be forced to write accurately about the game they're reviewing.

 

[Tain]

No, OP. No.

What must end is the salt about numbered reviews. So a series of review scores about a game people were anticipating weren't as high as hoped. So fucking what? There wasn't all this crying about Titanfall or Killzone or BF or KI or Stryder or TR or Thief. But now a game some put all their hope in came up just a little shorter than hyped (and still a good game by all measures!) and suddenly a review system that has been in place and useful for over 20 years must be flawed and must go rather than accepting some imperfection? No room in your egos for that, guys? All of the reviews with numbered scores offer lengthy commentaries and usually a summary of bullet points at the end, so it's not like they don't offer details and justification along with a number that can be of some use to those having a hard time figuring out what all of the preceding text means in relative terms. The number is the only way to measure how a review team feels about a product in the context of a marketplace full of similar games. It's the answer to the subjective, "which one might be better" number in the opinion of that reviewer or team. Whether you agree with the opinions or not is immaterial. It's someone's opinion, and should be weighted with all other opinions. Numbers shouldn't affect you beyond helping add a relative context to their opinion on the game compared to other games released recently or relative to other games in a given genre or franchise.

So no, how about some of you find something else to attach so much emotion and self-security to. It's just a product (that you didn't make, nor own stock in), and games are largely imperfect. That's okay. Most games will not be metacritic 90s. That's fine too. If you need MC 90s and/or GoTY commentaries to feel good about a purchase you've been looking forward to, you're doing gaming wrong.

This kind of conversation along with the existence of system warriors/fanboys are really a referendum on the insecurity and sensitivity of large cross-sections of the gaming populous. That needs to be addressed, not review score styles. If you like a game, go enjoy it. If you can't handle reviews, don't read them. But no, the 20+ year-old system -- a system older than many of you -- isn't the problem here. Believe that.

Great post.

 

[rjcc]

unfortunately, people want numbers.

end of story.

 

[NervousXtian]

Gertsmanngate

Yeah, we know about that situation. Something Gamespot did back in 2007 doesn't mean the entire system is corrupt. I'm sure there's some bad eggs out there still, but tossing that out as proof that the whole system is corrupt is wrong.

Just FYI, the reason everyone always brings up Gerstmann is that these situations are so rare that we can only really remember one of them. While there are certainly subtle influences and outside factors that affect how video game sites operate, cases like "give this game a higher score or else you lose your job" are anomalies, or else sites like mine would be reporting them whenever they happened. And yeah, this stuff would come out; writers don't like to stay quiet.

I kind of feel for you man, because when you're battling people like Dire you just can't win. Logic isn't on their side, emotion is. It's been years since the Gerstmann thing, but here it is again, brought up as to why your entire site is a sham.

 

[Dire]

Just FYI, the reason everyone always brings up Gerstmann is that these situations are so rare that we can only really remember one of them. While there are certainly subtle influences and outside factors that affect how video game sites operate, cases like "give this game a higher score or else you lose your job" are anomalies, or else sites like mine would be reporting them whenever they happened. And yeah, this stuff would come out; writers don't like to stay quiet.

The reason I mention Gerstman is that it's so ridiculously over the top that it's impossible to even try to deny what happened. But to get to that point it really required a slew of incredibly improbable missteps and situations:

1. You need an editor who decides he does not want to "play ball."
2. You need a publisher who is completely overt with their pressure and dumb enough to knee-jerk pull adds immediately as opposed to simply black balling a site, refusing to offer pre-release review copies, etc.
3. You need a company to immediately and openly cave in to said pressure (as opposed to deciding to not renew said employees contract / relegating employee to menial tasks / etc) once again making it mind numbingly clear what's going on.
4. You need a wave of "rumors" to reach mainstream saturation in spite of said editor facing potential legal consequences if any of it was able to be shown to lead back to him since he was under a nondisparagement agreement.
5. Finally the nondisparagement agreement getting nullified due to a fortunate course of events provides complete clarity opposed to a handful of people still trying to say: "lol conspiracy theory - CNET already said the firing had nothing to do with the review. Shocker - fired employee has a chip on his shoulder regarding former employer!

"We do not terminate employees based on external pressure from advertisers," CNET spokesperson Sarah Cain told Joystiq, though she refused to specify if Eidos had attempted any such pressure.

Most of that stuff is so absurdly over the top that it's something you'd expect to see in a Hollywood rendition of the games industry - not reality! Most other situations, and reality in general, are far less clear. Eidos and Gamespot both had a number of viable alternatives that could have effected the same result without the shit storm that followed.

 

[NervousXtian]

So, bring up the next case of something like that happening if it's so widespread.