About Us | Game Reviews | Feature Articles | Podcast | Best Work | Forums | Shop | Review Game

Go Back   GameCritics.com Forums > Video Games Discussion > Game Industry News

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-12-2004, 04:19 PM   #1
Doug Troy
Surly McDouchebag
 
Doug Troy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 900
Rep Power: 14 Doug Troy is an unknown quantity at this point
Game Informer destroys own credibility. More at 11.

Game Informer scores Paper Mario 2 a 6.5/10. Why, you ask?

Quote:
GI-Jeremy wrote:

Lisa and I both knew that our Paper Mario scores were going to cause controversy. Yes, we know that many people out there will love it. We also know that it is a well-made game. However, it also WILL NOT appeal to many people - I would safely say that more people will dislike it than like it. Why? Like we said in the review, it's a very kiddie game - it's target audience is clearly young gamers - I would say 10 and under. For that reason, we had to score it low. Remember, we aren't scoring games strictly on our personal opinions, we're also scoring them based on how much we think THE GAMING PUBLIC will like them. We've all played games that we personally disliked and scored them well because we've known that most people will like them, and we've also scored games low that we love, because most people won't enjoy them.

For example, I really like the bizarre frog golf game Ribbit King, and I gave it a 7, because it's just not for everyone. Paper Mario 2 also scored low because it's just not for everyone. If you think it's a 10 in your book, it's a ten in your book, and that doesn't change if we disagree. We're here to guide you on what games to pick up, but ultimately your personal opinion is what will make you buy a game or not.

I hope this helps.
That came from a post on the GI boards that no longer exists.

So, any thoughts from actual critics on this matter?
__________________
"I actually talked to an Iraqi cabdriver last year in Salt Lake City about the war. He said it was like the US came and weeded his garden, but pulled out most of the vegetables in the process. Needless to say, he had mixed feelings. So I stiffed him on the tip. USA! USA! USA!"
Doug Troy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2004, 05:08 PM   #2
Daniel Weissenberger
Dinosaur Nativity!
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 701
Rep Power: 13 Daniel Weissenberger is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: Game Informer destroys own credibility. More at 11.

Just so we're clear, these people are basically saying that their job is to point out which games are going to be popular, so that people can hop on the bandwagon more quickly?

They don't call themselves critics, do they? Or even reviewers? Because they shouldn't.

Although it's nice to see that kind of honesty, and it's so entertaining that I hope it wasn't deleted because it was some kind of fake.
__________________
Max: It's a fantasy. You know, the dragons have the crystal, the elves want the crystal, the women in the chainmail bikinis haven't picked a side yet.
Daniel Weissenberger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2004, 05:41 PM   #3
EnduroGamer
Just Passing Through
 
EnduroGamer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Cascade Foothills
Posts: 7,592
Rep Power: 28 EnduroGamer is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: Game Informer destroys own credibility. More at 11.

Nobody can make the claim that they know what another's tastes are going to be, let alone what the gaming public's tastes are.

It took me a while to understand this, but the critic can only give us their opinion on a game and allow for us to decide whether or not to value that opinion and expertise.

The best selling games of the past few years have been from the Grand Theft Auto and Madden franchise. So, according to this, the GI reviewers should assume that any game that doesn't feature football or open-ended gunplay is obviously something that the "gaming public" is not going to appreciate.

Now, a better statement, but still a bit erroneous, would be if they came out and said that based on polling information and survey's they have reason to believe that their readership's tastes don't mesh with Paper Mario's kiddieness. But even then, the critic really has to just focus on their tastes and experiences and tell it like it is--at least according to them.

To borrow from an old bumper sticker,

"Review 'em all and let the gamers sort 'em out!"
EnduroGamer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2004, 11:58 PM   #4
Gouty
I don't even like Pokemon
 
Gouty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 544
Rep Power: 13 Gouty is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: Game Informer destroys own credibility. More at 11.

Let me get this straight, you weren’t completely taken by an RPG instantaneously in the middle of a videogame trade show? Go figure.
Gouty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2004, 09:05 AM   #5
Chi Kong Lui
Next-Gen Site Owner
 
Chi Kong Lui's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Nutley, NJ
Posts: 4,773
Rep Power: 22 Chi Kong Lui is on a distinguished road
Re: Game Informer destroys own credibility. More at 11.

As most of our regular readers already know, GC is the complete opposite of what GI claims to do with its reviews. I tell our critics all the time "don't quantify the value of the game to the reader. Only quantify the quality of your own experience." We played around with the idea of doing a separate consumer advice rating which is what we think the reader will enjoy, but ultimately thought that was confusing and unncessary since the copy states who we think will enjoy the game and for what reasons in the consumer advice for those who actually *read* the reviews.

I also find it hilarious that they cite the two reviewers as if two of the same opinions are more convincing than one. Their second ops have always been worthless since they more or less parrot the main review. What's the point?

Second, building off of what Enduro says, than all Madden games should be rated below average because most casual gamers don't have the interest or the knowledge to understand the complexities of playing the sport. I know I don't.

Chi
Chi Kong Lui is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2004, 09:50 AM   #6
Mike Bracken
Next-Gen Poster
 
Mike Bracken's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Oakland, CA
Posts: 2,854
Rep Power: 18 Mike Bracken is on a distinguished road
Re: Game Informer destroys own credibility. More at 11.

Not to derail the conversation, but thank god you said that Chi. I haven't been able to play and enjoy a football game in years because the friggin' things are so complex now that I'd need to spend a year or two as an NFL coach just to understand what's going on in the 4,000 formations the game throws at me.

The saddest thing about this is that despite all the complexity, guys find 2 or 3 cheap plays that work over and over every year anyway...

Mike B.
__________________
The Horror Geek.com
http://thehorrorgeek.com
Reviews, Rants, and News from The Horror Geek

My game collection: http://users.ign.com/collection/sadeian
Mike Bracken is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2004, 05:09 PM   #7
fortninety
16-bit Poster
 
fortninety's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 148
Rep Power: 11 fortninety is an unknown quantity at this point
Send a message via AIM to fortninety
Re: Game Informer destroys own credibility. More at 11.

Remember folks, this is the same publication that last summer reviewed Enter the Matrix and gave it a high score despite admitting that it was not a good game, but since the Matrix was cool at the time, a high score was somehow deemed appropriate.

There are plenty of piss-poor game journalism to point towards, but this practically tops them all. I know a review is ultimately just an opinion, but still, the arrogance which GI displays simply shows how severely flawed the way business is handled, not amongst themselves, but in general. And some people wonder why game journalism is not taken seriously?

By the way, here's the response from the editor in chief from the GAF...

Quote:
Ok look...I need to clear something up. First off, I'll fess up a little. I'm Andy McNamara, EIC of GI (I'm screwing up my anonymous status here, so bear with me, and yes, I know you don't give a shit who I am). Jeremy, who wrote the post that you so openly quote, is extremely misunderstood in this whole matter.

We do not, and I will repeat, we do not review games based on what people will think of the title. I called him on it this morning, and he was upset that the whole thing is not being understood the way he had intended it to be. The internet, as we all know, is full of trappings and misunderstandings.

Yes, Jeremy and Lisa do not like the game. As EIC I challenged them on the review many, many times. All the staff knew that the review would not be openly accepted. But the reality is, whether you choose to believe it or not, they did not like the game.

I have not played the game in its entirety. I personally believe the game to be better than the 6.75 that they scored it. But when I challenged them on it over and over they stuck to their guns (and I gave them a crapload of grief on their reviews). I admire them for that. They went against the grain, and they believe and stand by the scores they gave.

What are we to do? Force people to change their scores? Change the scores because we know that people will be pissed? I think you already know the answer to that question, as we let the review fly. We are not changing reviews to please the public. If that was the case, we would have given this an eight and been done with it.

I know Jeremy stated in his post that he felt he was considering the game buying public when he was writing his review, but what he was trying to convey was that he felt that our reviewer's point-of-view is not unlike others in the gaming public, and that by making their views known, he was serving gamers (which IS something we are trying to do). Not everyone loves this type of game - I think our review is proof of that.

Rip on Game Informer all you like, but I won't force someone to change a review. Yes, I will question and challenge them on what they write, but in the end an opinion is just that - an opinion. Who am I, or anyone else, to question anyone's view? The world needs more media that will pick a stance and stand by it in my personal opinion.

Both of them (Jeremy and Lisa) are harcore gamers, and both loved Superstar Saga. They both didn't like The Thousand Year Door. So be it.

I respect the Gaming Age forums crowd as the hardest of the hardcore, and love to read these boards, but at times I think things get a little out of hand.

I see all kinds of tastes that find their way here, and I think people are a little quick to call others wrong or stupid for a differing opinion. It's a video game. God knows I love them. And I love the ones I like even more, which is one of the reasons I visit these boards - to read what people who are passionate about games like myself have to say about games.

Video games are truly the greatest entertainment medium in the world. And I, like you, love to argue over right and wrong, but at some point you just have to let things go as a point you simply can't agree on.

Cheers,

Andy


PS: I believe this is the point where you call me stupid and say that my magazine sucks.
Also, here's an article that also points to several larger problems with the medium as a whole. It's pretty good and totally spot on...

http://biz.gamedaily.com/features.as...n=media&email=
__________________
www.FORT90.com
fortninety is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2004, 05:07 AM   #8
Chi Kong Lui
Next-Gen Site Owner
 
Chi Kong Lui's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Nutley, NJ
Posts: 4,773
Rep Power: 22 Chi Kong Lui is on a distinguished road
Re: Game Informer destroys own credibility. More at 11.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike_Bracken
Not to derail the conversation, but thank god you said that Chi. I haven't been able to play and enjoy a football game in years because the friggin' things are so complex now that I'd need to spend a year or two as an NFL coach just to understand what's going on in the 4,000 formations the game throws at me.
I knew I was in trouble when I played NFL Street, a supposidly dumbed down non-purist football game, and I still thought the game was too complicated!

Chi
Chi Kong Lui is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2004, 12:48 PM   #9
Sajon
128-bit Poster
 
Sajon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Here.
Posts: 1,513
Rep Power: 16 Sajon is an unknown quantity at this point
Send a message via AIM to Sajon
Re: Game Informer destroys own credibility. More at 11.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Troy
So, any thoughts from actual critics on this matter?

I think they just proved they don't know a goddamn thing about critcism. I think anyone who is a real critic would be shocked and offended by such a disgusting statement. They have no--ZERO--credibility with me from now until the Earth falls into the Sun. I cannot believe someone would actually admit that openly. So by their logic Home Alone was a great movie and The Bridges of Madison County was a great book? This stance is idiotic and embarrassing, and it would be LAUGHED OFF by any critic in any other medium, I assure you. Is this what we are? Is this what critics think journalism is? Jesus. That is so sad a I may cry. This industry is in fucking diapers if that's the case. Speaking of "kiddy" their personal integrety reaches about age 6.

Grow the fuck up, Game Informer.

-Matt

P.S. I don't believe that jazz about his post being "misunderstood." He unambiguously stated that GI reviews games based on popularity not critical opinion. What's to misunderstand? That he was actually lying and we were supposed to somehow know that?

Last edited by Sajon; 10-17-2004 at 03:07 PM.
Sajon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2004, 08:53 PM   #10
Kin Korn Karn
Moderator
 
Kin Korn Karn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Austin
Posts: 3,765
Rep Power: 20 Kin Korn Karn will become famous soon enough
Re: Game Informer destroys own credibility. More at 11.

Well put, Sajon.

Just my two cents, as everybody here is in agreement and I'm already stating what has been stated: I'll never knock a bad score, but I'll knock the reasoning for it. GI screwed up big time here. This is one of the many reasons I never EVER put any weight into the scores the gaming mags give. I'll come here and discuss a game to determine its good and bad prior to picking up a game.

Gaming mags, to me, are pure sources of ENTERTAINMENT. This is especially true now more than ever since they cannot possibly compete with the lead-time to publishing given the nature of the internet. They do not allow for discussion of said reviews and content. It's a static enviornment. Once the general public understands that you need more than a printed score in a magazine to help you to determine whether or not a game is good for you these things will continue to happen. I reckon that most people who read GI read the reviews as gospel, and that is sad. But, I'll digress.
__________________
He who reads this is a fools folly.
Live Gamer Tag: Craig T Vector
PSN Gamer Tag: Craig_T_Vector
Kin Korn Karn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-18-2004, 08:45 AM   #11
Hypatia93
Figuring It All Out
 
Hypatia93's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: On an island.
Posts: 2,124
Rep Power: 16 Hypatia93 is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: Game Informer destroys own credibility. More at 11.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kin Korn Karn
Well put, Sajon.

Just my two cents, as everybody here is in agreement and I'm already stating what has been stated: I'll never knock a bad score, but I'll knock the reasoning for it. GI screwed up big time here. This is one of the many reasons I never EVER put any weight into the scores the gaming mags give. I'll come here and discuss a game to determine its good and bad prior to picking up a game.

Gaming mags, to me, are pure sources of ENTERTAINMENT. This is especially true now more than ever since they cannot possibly compete with the lead-time to publishing given the nature of the internet. They do not allow for discussion of said reviews and content. It's a static enviornment. Once the general public understands that you need more than a printed score in a magazine to help you to determine whether or not a game is good for you these things will continue to happen. I reckon that most people who read GI read the reviews as gospel, and that is sad. But, I'll digress.
Precisely.

I read that fluff not for dogmatic reasons, but just for filler. (I find it so very hard to read outside of work anymore, and magazines are about the most I can do.)

I come HERE to find out the real skinny about a game. I rarely buy a game hot off the press anymore, and so where do I turn for honest and informed information? GameCritics.

(Btw, Chi.. how much did you say I'd get for that plug? )
__________________
“I have never been able to find out precisely what feminism is: I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat."
-- Rebecca West, 1913
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
– Theodore Roosevelt, 1918
Hypatia93 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2004, 07:01 PM   #12
The Walking Man
New Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 17
Rep Power: 0 The Walking Man is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: Game Informer destroys own credibility. More at 11.

Personal bias on the part of reviewers is not exclusive to Game Informer.

Gamepro gave Jak III a perfect score while they gave Ratchet & Clank: Up Your Arsenal a 4.5 out of 5.

Gamepro professional credibility = 0.000000000000001
The Walking Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
About Us | Privacy Policy | Review Game | FAQ | Contact Us | Twitter | Facebook |  RSS
Copyright 1999-2010 GameCritics.com. All rights reserved.