|
|
Post by Head Mutant on Dec 2, 2007 0:05:10 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by PoolMan on Dec 2, 2007 2:01:27 GMT -5
And, uh, language warning. I mean, a Penny Arcade link should tip you off, but it's gaming journalism, so expect naughty language.
|
|
|
|
Post by Head Mutant on Dec 2, 2007 10:40:37 GMT -5
Uh, whoops, yeah. Uh, yup.
|
|
|
|
Post by Al on Dec 2, 2007 13:21:11 GMT -5
I've been watching this over the past day or so and I'm really interested to see what comes of it. Everybody always rages "Boycott this!" or "Sign this petition!" but it seems like it rarely sticks. Gamespot definitely messed up big, here, and I feel bad for the reviewer, but long term memory has never been a virtue of the Internet. Here's to hoping he'll get what's owed him.
|
|
|
|
Post by Head Mutant on Dec 2, 2007 15:53:17 GMT -5
Here's a series of blog entries by a freelancer who's done work for Gamespot and is in touch with several of the writers there right now.As long as memory goes for most things on the internet, I agree... but disagree in certain cases. If true -- and there's as much speculation out there as there is solid fact and insider information -- this has the potential to be a defining moment in games journalism. It's vital that in any field of journalism that there's a barrier between advertising and the writers so that no pressure or influence can be exerted on the opinions and reviews being written. I mean, if MRFH had ad sponsors and they suddenly started exerting pressure for us to give positive reviews to certain movies, that's the day what tiny little shred of integrity (and sanity) we have would depart for good. Cynics have claimed that game companies have long since had a strong hand in what positive spin and reviews are given in online and print games media, and there is certainly evidence to back that claim up. Optimists bank on the integrity of the parent companies to safeguard their writers from the external pressure of game marketers and their lovely dollars, which I'm sure is true in many cases as well. This comes on top of an earlier story this year, when gaming website Kotaku broke a Sony PS3 story earlier than Sony would have liked, and Sony retaliated by "blackballing" Kotaku from future exclusives and press conferences. Kotaku stood firm, Sony eventually relented, and Kotaku's integrity held out. One thing is for certain: CNet and Gamespot are in a world of trouble right now. This isn't a here-today-gone-tomorrow story; it's going to be ramping up for a while to come unless one or both sides of the story can come clean and give us the full scoop. Even if Gamespot is 100% in the right and there was no external influence on Gerstmann's firing, they still have trust to rebuild with their readers and will need to do something to publicly show that their reviews are not for sale.
|
|
|
|
Post by Spiderdancer on Dec 2, 2007 21:07:54 GMT -5
I suspect enough people get their info on games word-of-mouth from forums and so on that this would be stupid anyway. Is the idea that this would allow them to bilk enough early adopters to still make a profit...?
|
|
|
|
Post by Head Mutant on Dec 2, 2007 21:20:32 GMT -5
I think it boils down to the 10-point scale of scoring directly relates to dollars that game companies expect to make. A 9.0 equals megabucks equals blurbs on the box, etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by PoolMan on Dec 3, 2007 1:35:48 GMT -5
I recall a recent Penny Arcade post where Tycho described IGN's rating scale as "a 7 - 10 scale". I think we're seeing the darker side of this effect (albeit not via IGN).
I'm not as old as some people around here (SueSueSueSue); has anything this obvious ever happened in the movie reviewing biz?
|
|
|
|
Post by pfrsue on Dec 3, 2007 6:39:17 GMT -5
I'm not as old as some people around here (SueSueSueSue); has anything this obvious ever happened in the movie reviewing biz? (GrrGrrGrrGrr) I'm sure it has. The movie business has been around a lot longer than the gaming business. Certainly it's common knowledge that the "Four Thumbs Up!" and the "I Have Sacrificed My Firstborn To The Goddess Shiva Because This Movie Is Just So Peachy Keen!" comments that you see splashed on the DVD boxes of bona-fide stinkers are generally quotes of people who are either very obscure, on the take, or arguably don't exist. As to the big name reviewers though, it's hard to say whether their editors lean on them. It's a matter of losing huge amounts of credibility. Like if Justin suddenly told us that Highlander:Endgame was the BEST MOVIE EVER and he wept tears of joy over its cinematic brilliance, we might have to wrap him in tin foil and put him on ice until the technology developed to make him better again. Movies though, can be more easily "fixed" when they bomb their test screenings. (At least I think they can.) It's probably a lot easier to cut a scene or tweak some dialog than it is to fix the programming of a pathetically bad game. I'd guess (and I don't know) that when a game is done, it's pretty much done. Maybe someone can correct me on that though, since I'm elderly and not 'in-the-know' like some of the young bucks here on the forum. |
|
|
|
Post by Head Mutant on Dec 3, 2007 7:25:46 GMT -5
Didn't they have a thing a couple years back where a movie reviewer turned out to be a marketer for a film studio? Forget which one, tho. But that's not really the same thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Head Mutant on Dec 3, 2007 7:37:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by PoolMan on Dec 3, 2007 9:33:14 GMT -5
Didn't they have a thing a couple years back where a movie reviewer turned out to be a marketer for a film studio? Forget which one, tho. But that's not really the same thing. Ah yes, the David Manning Incident. I had forgotten all about that one, surprisingly enough. |
|
|
|
Post by Head Mutant on Jan 22, 2008 11:26:37 GMT -5
|
|
