"Opinions don't matter anymore..."

[pseudopseudo]

In the aftermath of a backlash against reviewer Jeff Gerstmann of Gamespot - "Dennis" of VG Resource Center gives us one of the best editorials (http://vgrc.ddstuff.com/articles-474.html) I've read in a while. The topic: gamers hating on game reviewers - it really brings to light how embarrassing some "hardcore gamers" can get.

People read game review sites, not because they want to hear somebody's opinion on a game to make up their own mind, but because they want to hear somebody agree with them on a game. These people describe themselves as masters of everything gaming, and preach their gospel across the internet, not because they have something interesting to say (because most of the time they don't) but because they want to hear agreement with their opinions without argument. So, when a dissenter posts something that contradicts the popular opinion, all hell breaks loose on the wide world of the Internet.

Apparently, flaming game reviewers isn't just for trolls anymore. I think this kind of editorial is well overdue.

[KingGorilla]

Not to reference the idiocy more than is warranted. But this is getting more fuckign attention than the Neverwinter 2 Story getting ganked from 1-up. Whether by design or by accident, Jeff got Gamespot a shit-load of plug with that review-score. And I guran-damn-tee that the Podcast this week will focus on it, and that news.

[BleedTheFreak]

What was the review in question? What was the original story?

[michaelwhite]

I think this thread was meant for me and GrinR, everyone else can stay out.

[Vandenh]

Agree 100% with this editorial.

The Zelda review made some valid points that I like reading and I will still buy the game. Better that someone points out what to expect from a game instead of do some fanboy service and give 100% praise. The problem is that Wii fans *want* this game to be the best ever on gamerankings (just like the GoW fans attacked EG for giving it an 8/10... maybe low, but the text of their review made perfect sense). Maybe we should just get rid of scores and write a review with opinions.

[Monroeski]

He's acting like this is the end of the world.

"Something dawned on me today: Opinions don't matter anymore."

What this guy is not factoring in is that the kind of people that will get mad enough about a game review to write emails/complain on message boards are a very small minority, even amongst the population of gamers. A vocal minority, but minority nonetheless.

Many of my friends are more-than-casual gamers, and I'm the only one who is even registered on any internet message boards.

[pseudopseudo]

What was the review in question? What was the original story?
If you'd actually read the editorial, he has links to the original review.

Seriously, save yourself some time and actually read the thing before asking questions that are answered by what you're supposed to be reading.

[Megalith]

Whew, thank god video games are so important.

[Dired]

The problem with the NWN2 review was his general gripe was "this D&D game sucks because I hate D&D". The funny part is that NWN2 really does have many horrible problems with it, and a low score is perfectly legitimate for as person who has any idea of the genre he's reviewing. The game is bad (in my opinion, and yeah, I've been playing it), but not for the non-reasons he gave, making the review useless to everyone. But the review read like "Dallas will lose because I don't like sports".

As for the value of feedback for a review of a game that hasn't been released yet, well, what are you expecting?

[EvilBob46]

What was the review in question? What was the original story?

http://www.gamespot.com/wii/action/thelegendofzelda/review.html?sid=6161993

Where Gerstmann gave an 8.8 to the game because:

1) The graphics are sub-par from a technical point of view (good artistic wise)
2) The sound effects in the game are weak. The Wiimote speaker that is used a lot outputs low quality sound with occasional cracking. The game also uses synthesized music for the most part which he feels is unacceptable and oudated at this point.
3) He feels the gameplay "hasn't evolved much."
4) The controls can be imprecise (although this was not a complaint in a lot of other reviews)

EDIT: Interestingly, I don't think the Gamecube version will have imprecise controls or the sound effect problems. And that leaves a game with somewhat outdated graphics that doesn't deviate far from the established Zelda formula. Which is kind of what people were expecting and something people will enjoy, so I wouldn't worry much about 1 reviewer's opinion.

[pseudopseudo]

Whew, thank god video games are so important.
Important enough for you to troll an internet community devoted to video games, apparently.

[Megalith]

What...didn't they say that this was the first Zelda with an orchestral score...

[EvilBob46]

What...didn't they say that this was the first Zelda with an orchestral score...

The game has some orchestrated music. It's mostly still synthesized though.

[michaelwhite]

I thought Phil Collins wrote the music for Twilight Princess?

[bean19]

An editorial that snipes at fanboyism != ground-shaking. Fish in a barrel, etc.

[civil_dead]

I too agree with the editorial. But one thing that he didn't touch on was the age of the people trolling the boards about the review. If you read them they literally read like they were written by someone under the age of 18, in many cases someone under the age of 15 or 12. I know this is a broad generalization, but I've had a lot of experience with kids in my former life as a teacher and kids at that age (for the most part, I know some EA readers are youngins) just can't handle being challenged, either in thought or in action. What you essentially have is an adult (the reviewer) trying to explain to (and I'm not trolling here) children why their pre-formed opinions might not be accurate and the result is what you see happening. I'm not surprised.

The lack of maturity on the GameSpot/GameFaqs/IGN/1Up baords is pretty much why I stopped reading those sites and read EA nearly exclusively (unless I'm searching for news items that may not have made their way here yet). It's also why I decided to subscribe soon after finding this place. It's worth it.

[BleedTheFreak]

If you'd actually read the editorial, he has links to the original review.

Seriously, save yourself some time and actually read the thing before asking questions that are answered by what you're supposed to be reading.

Wow. Got some sand in your vagina today, maybe? A small case of the Mohave Taco, perhaps? Lighten up, maybe that information should have been noted in the original news item, so folks would know if they would care at a glance or not (some folks maybe don't care about Zelda, crazy I know). Maybe not. Anyway. Carry on with being rude, as you will.

[pseudopseudo]

Wow. Got some sand in your vagina today, maybe? A small case of the Mohave Taco, perhaps? Lighten up, maybe that information should have been noted in the original news item, so folks would know if they would care at a glance or not (some folks maybe don't care about Zelda, crazy I know). Maybe not. Anyway. Carry on with being rude, as you will.
Man, I'm in a great mood. I'm just trying to tell you that if you weren't so lazy, you wouldn't have had to post and ask.

The news post isn't about the review specifically, it just uses the review about Zelda to segue into talking about a bigger problem. That's right, the editorial isn't SOLELY about the new Zelda game...

...which, once again, is something you'd know had you actually read the thing to begin with instead of taking all that time to think up the witty (read: overused) "sandy vagina" retort. You're the one thinking up zingers like that, and I'm the one being rude?

[Johan]

I think that this ties into the larger issue of people within the gaming community, including some here, flaming all over companies and individuals for missteps and mistakes, whether real or perceived.

I've just been absolutely amazed at the vitriolic spewage we've had pouring out against Sony...against reviewers...against each other...

pretty harsh and amazing stuff. I wouldn't be surprised if I drew some flames myself for this comment. Under 20 posts, and there have already been some flames above me.

Put out the fires and enjoy the hobby. Sheesh.

[KingGorilla]

Man, I'm in a great mood. I'm just trying to tell you that if you weren't so lazy, you wouldn't have had to post and ask.

The news post isn't about the review specifically, it just uses the review about Zelda to segue into talking about a bigger problem. That's right, the editorial isn't SOLELY about the new Zelda game...

...which, once again, is something you'd know had you actually read the thing to begin with instead of taking all that time to think up the witty (read: overused) "sandy vagina" retort. You're the one thinking up zingers like that, and I'm the one being rude?
Sorry, can't understand the accent. :D

Had to say it, had to lighten the mood.

[Jambe]

Johan123: I agree completely. I have to say that I myself am prone to becoming a bit passionate when confronted with people who are "turds for the sake of being turds," but otherwise I'm about as easygoing as they come.

I think "Dennis'" VGRC article wasn't all that special. What he's saying can be summarized with the phrase, "People marked by uneducated opinionatedness and social incompetence are more prevalent in our world than intelligent, reasonable persons, and it's a sad time to be a human." Really, now — who didn't know that? Oh, right! The people marked by uneducated opinionatedness and social incompetence didn't know that. SURPRISE!

[serioustommy]

Wow. Got some sand in your vagina today, maybe? A small case of the Mohave Taco, perhaps? Lighten up, maybe that information should have been noted in the original news item, so folks would know if they would care at a glance or not (some folks maybe don't care about Zelda, crazy I know). Maybe not. Anyway. Carry on with being rude, as you will.

I wish I have a vagina...

[civil_dead]

I wish I have a vagina...
Well, in a pinch some sand will do...

[Matuliska]

Hi. Long time reader, first time poster :)

Does anyone else see the irony in this editorial? This could have just as easily been written by these forum posters about this reviewer. Its pretty ridiculous that this reviewer has lowered himself enough to sink into an opinion fight with some forum posters. Personally, I disagreed with his opinion too. So what? He's entitled to his opinion as much as the next man, and just as much as those forum posters. Personally, I have had a lot of Gamespot reviews I disagreed with. Now I will not read the site anymore, because I don't think that their review accurately reflect the preference in games (pretty graphics= high score. Sorry, had to throw my own opinion in there :p ). That's how these things work. A review and a reviewer only has as much weight as the number of people who read it. Not that it makes it more or less accurate, it just alters its effect on the market. If you don't like the review this man does, then your best recourse is not to read the column. If you disagree but respect him, as a reviewer, then continue doing what you are doing. I guess that in the end, this his done more to increase this reviewers profile more than any positively accepted review could have done.

[KingGorilla]

Reviewers get pretty fucking sick of the ruckus created by a goddamned number. I have a feeling that what happened to Jeff was just the last straw for the writer in question. And for Jeff too, he worked hard to review the game...you know all that writing no one gives a flying fuck about, the editing, the re-writing he had to do for what may be the biggest game of this year. And you have to know he was dancing a bit in apprehension of what his "low" score would do to the fanboy-base.

[Jambe]

Welcome, Matuliska. I'm a long time reader and new poster, as well. I think the point of the article is this:

You can agree or disagree with whatever the bloody heck you want to so long as you do it in a civilized, respectable manner. Most people who troll the internet (and indeed, most people period) have lost that civilization and respect over the years. Oh, woe are we!

[Matuliska]

Welcome, Matuliska. I'm a long time reader and new poster, as well. I think the point of the article is this:

You can agree or disagree with whatever the bloody heck you want to so long as you do it in a civilized, respectable manner. Most people who troll the internet (and indeed, most people period) have lost that civilization and respect over the years. Oh, woe are we!


I just hope that Gamespot realizes how valuable this guy is to them right now. Nothing like a little controversy to up your profile. So he's complaining that the internet can be a cruel place? That's a very Hitler-esque thing for a fag to say. Of course it is. Its very interesting the persona's people without identities take on. Now that's something I would have liked to see an editorial on. A plea for a civil internet. The internet has evolved its own language and its own rules. Sadly, those rules conflict with the language rules of general society, and have a bad habit of alienating people and groups of people. I think that a small but vocal civil internet community could go a long ways toward some of the hatred that gets spread on the internet. Part of the first step is to get people to realize that what they are spewing really is hatred. Thought starts with language, and when you language starts with "fag" and "Nazi", the thoughts that follow will be predetermined.

[crashedout]

Some of the more intelligent and less popular sites are getting rid of numbered reviews. Their reviews are now more of a perspective, what they like and don't like. I for one am for this,

It is not just games...any type of review comes with bias, you have to pick it out and determine if you care or not. And to complicate the matter further a reviewer's expectation can severely alter their view. Since its my time and money I gravitate to the people who are very critical and like the same things I do. I realize this and attempt to debate my position logically and politely but sometimes that gets lost in the exchange.

[TrackZero]

Apparently, flaming game reviewers isn't just for trolls anymore. I think this kind of editorial is well overdue.

A good editorial, to be sure. But you of all people should be the one rallying against him using, of all things, a stereotype to make his point. I actually do read gaming sites for people's opinions, and dare I say it, I'm "hardcore". I found Gerstmann's review solid and certainly didn't flame him for it. So I guess I'm against people making broad sweeping statements about the state of affairs for me and my ilk.

Besides, if we're going to group people together, I find it's the more emotionally immature "hardcore" gamers (who usually are younger) being the ones who flame when their opinion isn't agreed upon. And since I'd say the majority of the "hardcore" (goddamn I love double quotes) are generally now of an older average age, it's faulty to then blame the entire group for what only the vocal minority (of minors) are doing.

[RUSKULL]

wow, hold old is this guy? Sixteen? He lets forum trolls get the better of him, which makes him no better. I smell a new Derek Smart being born ;)

[TrackZero]

A review and a reviewer only has as much weight as the number of people who read it. Not that it makes it more or less accurate, it just alters its effect on the market. If you don't like the review this man does, then your best recourse is not to read the column. If you disagree but respect him, as a reviewer, then continue doing what you are doing. I guess that in the end, this his done more to increase this reviewers profile more than any positively accepted review could have done.

Bang on Matuliska (and I second the welcome to EvAv). It's just the same reason some rentals places have certain "picks" from different employees. People need to realize that the best way to trust feedback is to find someone who's tastes largely sync up with their own. For me, personally, I find I generally agree with Gamespot's reviews, so I check them first. While places like IGN hold little value for me since it seems they have different things they look for in their gaming experience. It's just personal preference.

Though the number system I believe does have some merit, especially when you sync them into an average score like at gamerankings (or for movies, rotten tomatoes). Depending if the weighting is being performed properly, of course. As a busy person, I also don't always have time to sink my teeth into every review (especially for games which didn't have my attention in the first place), so number ratings can be better since I may notice games that otherwise I never would have bothered with.

[TrackZero]

Sorry, can't understand the accent. :D

Had to say it, had to lighten the mood.

Oh snap! That was beautiful.

[51|RandoM]

It is just another aspect of the Internet Anonymity Effect(tm).

On the Internet, you're not who you are, you're what you say.

[MaiXu]

"Opinions are like assholes, everyone's fucked one."

[TrackZero]

I think that this ties into the larger issue of people within the gaming community, including some here, flaming all over companies and individuals for missteps and mistakes, whether real or perceived.

I've just been absolutely amazed at the vitriolic spewage we've had pouring out against Sony...against reviewers...against each other...

pretty harsh and amazing stuff. I wouldn't be surprised if I drew some flames myself for this comment. Under 20 posts, and there have already been some flames above me.

Put out the fires and enjoy the hobby. Sheesh.

I thought we'd covered this in previous threads. People are impassioned about their hobby and what they like to see coming down the pipe. Since we're the type to spend time discussing it in forums, it's no surprise you'll have people complain. If the conditions:

a) People perceive something good possibly happening which doesn't pan out.

b) People are promised something that doesn't pan out.

You're going to get negative comments. And as we know, many promises get made and broken during console launches. In the case of Sony, they've done this to themselves. You can't go around promising the moon, fail to deliver and expect anything other than negative feedback, it's just going to happen. And since you then start losing people's goodwill, you'll get even more slander on top as people go elsewhere for the experiences they're looking for.

Anyways, I don't see anything out of the ordinary. I know some people have been going on and on about "hating", but I don't see much that's above and beyond.

Then again, I have Zeal, phantomhitman and Megalith all on my ignore list. You should probably so the same, it'll save you seeing 1/3 of the trolling on the entire site.

[TrackZero]

"Opinions are like assholes, everyone's fucked one."

That's how they roll in China eh? ;)

[BigJonno]

So now we have three big reviews in the last couple of weeks that have caused major controversy. Neverwinter Nights 2 on 1up, Gears of War on Eurogamer and now this.

What people need to realise is that reviews are just opinions and not the Gospel of Ultimate Truth. If it's a good review, you'll be able to gauge the reviewer's tastes against your own and make up your own damn mind. Both the TP and GoW reviews base the majority of their criticism around a lack of innovation and some occasionally imprecise controls. I fail to see how anyone with a couple of functioning brain cells could read either of the reviews and not figure out if the game was worth their time or not.

Personally, I thought the NWN2 review was dreadful, but even then I was able to tell that I could safely ignore the review as the main point seemed to be that the reviewer didn't like D&D 3.5. That said, I think the game has a lot of legitimate problems, but a lot of good points as well, which should've been discussed.

[Sloth]

I read reviews to give me an idea of potential bugs or poor implementation. I'm not necessarily looking for a score or thumbs up. I want to know things like, does it crash alot, are the graphics dodgy, is the camera angle troublesome, or does it run slow.

[TrackZero]

It is just another aspect of the Internet Anonymity Effect(tm).

On the Internet, you're not who you are, you're what you say.

True, unless you do post like you talk in real life. Which is pretty much how I roll. (Those who know me IRL on the board would agree to that.)

Well, that's not completely true, I suppose for my posting purposes, I remove "fuck" from being every 5th word to come out of my mouth. I curse way more in person.

[TrackZero]

So now we have three big reviews in the last couple of weeks that have caused major controversy. Neverwinter Nights 2 on 1up, Gears of War on Eurogamer and now this.

What people need to realise is that reviews are just opinions and not the Gospel of Ultimate Truth. If it's a good review, you'll be able to gauge the reviewer's tastes against your own and make up your own damn mind. Both the TP and GoW reviews base the majority of their criticism around a lack of innovation and some occasionally imprecise controls. I fail to see how anyone with a couple of functioning brain cells could read either of the reviews and not figure out if the game was worth their time or not.

Personally, I thought the NWN2 review was dreadful, but even then I was able to tell that I could safely ignore the review as the main point seemed to be that the reviewer didn't like D&D 3.5. That said, I think the game has a lot of legitimate problems, but a lot of good points as well, which should've been discussed.

Well, the Eurogamer review doesn't count either. Since they didn't review the complete game. They never even touched the multiplayer, at all, and then called it a "review". Sorry, but ignoring half the game does not a review make, and that's not just my 'opinion' on the matter.

Unless you want people to start reviewing movies and only watching the first half. ;)

[IrateRecluse]

I think the main problems are that a) game reviewers at larger sites, just by being at larger sites, get a free helping of "authority" that they wouldn't get otherwise, regardless of whether they deserve it, and b) game review sites pretend there is one specific idealized audience playing games that looks, unsurprisingly, just like game reviewers. Both of these are sort of automatically a kind of power grab that other people are going to react to, right or wrong.

It makes me think, in fact, of all of the reviews of Katamari Damacy that knocked it for being too short (or the original Wario Ware for that matter). It might be the case that for a very specific (angry) idealized user, the shortness should drop the game a few points... I guess. But I can think of many, many gamers, casual gamers, and non-gamers where any sensible review for them would have rated the game much, much higher than, say God of War.

I'm almost inclined to say none of this matters anyway, as there have been a few recent studies indicating that game reviews have no correlation at all to game sales or the games that players end up playing. But I actually (I will admit) have a grudge against game reviewers because, when I was in the industry, the stuff they would say, sometimes really, really thoughtlessly, would get parroted by our publishers in really simplistic ways, and then we'd have to slavishly implement very watered-down versions of whatever it was reviewers thought they wanted. This did not help the games I worked on.

[BigJonno]

Well, the Eurogamer review doesn't count either. Since they didn't review the complete game. They never even touched the multiplayer, at all, and then called it a "review". Sorry, but ignoring half the game does not a review make, and that's not just my 'opinion' on the matter.

Unless you want people to start reviewing movies and only watching the first half. ;)

Actually, they specifically stated they were doing two seperate reviews because they wanted to review the multiplayer in a live environment ('scuse the pun.) It's a pretty good idea. The other options are to review it as a whole before the multiplayer can be accurately examined, or wait until some time after release and not be able to provide any kind of review to those who want it.

[Sandman]

You think this is bad? Wait till Halo 3 gets an 8.8 from somewhere. Last I checked that was a good score, hell 6.5 may be a good score for the right game. Sites should just do away with the points thing and go to a thumbs up or thumbs down system....with the occasional thumbs way up or thumbs way down or something like that.

[TrackZero]

Actually, they specifically stated they were doing two seperate reviews because they wanted to review the multiplayer in a live environment ('scuse the pun.) It's a pretty good idea. The other options are to review it as a whole before the multiplayer can be accurately examined, or wait until some time after release and not be able to provide any kind of review to those who want it.

Yeah, I know they said they were doing two reviews, that's because their build didn't support multiplayer at the time, not because they wanted to test it in a live environment though. Nor did they seem to recognize at all how much the game was designed for co-op (which to many could still be considered the single player campaign), they seemed to only note it as deathmatch and wrote it off.

They shouldn't have posted a review, as a game is a complete item, not just the half you want to acknowledge. The reason they got flack is because they only scored it for that single player, noticeably dragging down the gamerankings score of every other reviewer out there who did review the complete game. (As again, my movie analogy could be modified to simply review a film and ignore all of the scenes with a particular actor, just because you haven't gotten around to it yet....)

Though really, in that situation, Gamerankings should have removed the review entirely from the listing until they properly did it. So they're more at fault in this case. Though since Gamerankings seems to try to be a faceless neutral party, it's no surprise Eurogamer got more of it pointed directly at them.

[TrackZero]

You think this is bad? Wait till Halo 3 gets an 8.8 from somewhere. Last I checked that was a good score, hell 6.5 may be a good score for the right game. Sites should just do away with the points thing and go to a thumbs up or thumbs down system....with the occasional thumbs way up or thumbs way down or something like that.

As long as that 8.8 Halo 3 review covers the entire game (single and multi), I'd care less. But you're right, all the little fanboys would go buck wild in the forums attacking said reviewer.

[Jambe]

I think the main problem is that a very voiced and, for lack of a better term, self-infatuated segment of the gaming world is almost always present when it comes to venues that encourage user-participation — especially in forum-esqe environs wherein instant replies (instant gratification) are encouraged. Wow what a sentence. "Trolling" and "fandom" and "hardcore-touting" is a byproduct of this environment. You know, like the drunk people at a party — they go around making fools of themselves while most everybody else watches and giggles.

I don't know when established mediums stopped writing for rational audiences and started putting so much weight on ignoramuses because it's likely been a sort of "microevolution" in and of itself — tiny steps culminating in an industry press that's becoming more and more lacking in terms of trenchancy. Why do you think most people can't get along without a numerical score at the end of a review? Because they have the attention span of a fucking flea, that's why. This whole issue is just a mirror of real life events, though. The moral? People are becoming more and more dumb as time progresses?

[Captain Awesome]

Sticks n' stones...

[BigJonno]

All the other multiplayer reviews were based on PartnerNet multiplayer, not in a full Xbox Live environment. You can't compare splitting multiplayer and singleplayer into two seperate reviews to only watching half of a movie. There are people who will never, ever play GoW multiplayer. They don't give a shit about it. I really think that seperating single and multi player review scores is a damn good idea. Gamespy have been doing this for a while now, but no-one's asking for them to be pulled from Gamerankings.

If Eurogamer had towed the line and given GoW a 9 or 10, this wouldn't have been an issue. It's the fanboys getting their knickers in a twist because it was "only" given 8/10 that's caused the controversy. It's a relatively small amount of people pointing to the allegedly incomplete review as a problem.

As it was, they still "only" gave it 8/10 after reviewing the multiplayer.

[Jack9]

Sticks n' stones...
Make you post angrily on message boards. Give it a rest.

[TrackZero]

Why do you think most people can't get along without a numerical score at the end of a review? Because they have the attention span of a fucking flea, that's why. This whole issue is just a mirror of real life events, though. The moral? People are becoming more and more dumb as time progresses?

Or it could be because we weren't evolved to handle a global sized monkey sphere and we're trying our best to adapt to a situation where the word "mob" doesn't even begin to describe the size of specific social groups that we need to interact with (especially when online) without just pandering to the lowest common denominator.

That or the fact that you can make the most intelligent statement ever, but when 100,000 people can read it and reply back at will, you're simply going to have some people tell you to drop dead.

Personally I prefer the later. I think it's a misconception (like that crime is often higher in a city versus the in the country, which isn't true at all) due to perception. You're only seeing the vocal minority, and you assume the group of likeminded individuals is larger than it is in reality.

[Captain Awesome]

Make you post angrily on message boards. Give it a rest.

ok there cowboy.

[Disgustipated]

"Opinions are like assholes, everyone's fucked one."

We're dicks! We're reckless, arrogant, stupid dicks. And Gamespot reviewers are pussies. And fanboys are an asshole. Pussies don't like dicks, because pussies get fucked by dicks. But dicks also fuck assholes: assholes that just want to shit on everything. Pussies may think they can deal with assholes their way. But the only thing that can fuck an asshole is a dick, with some balls. The problem with dicks is: they fuck too much or fuck when it isn't appropriate - and it takes a pussy to show them that. But sometimes, pussies can be so full of shit that they become assholes themselves... because pussies are an inch and half away from ass holes. I don't know much about this crazy, crazy world, but I do know this: If you don't let us fuck this asshole, we're going to have our dicks and pussies all covered in shit!

[TrackZero]

All the other multiplayer reviews were based on PartnerNet multiplayer, not in a full Xbox Live environment. You can't compare splitting multiplayer and singleplayer into two seperate reviews to only watching half of a movie. There are people who will never, ever play GoW multiplayer. They don't give a shit about it. I really think that seperating single and multi player review scores is a damn good idea. Gamespy have been doing this for a while now, but no-one's asking for them to be pulled from Gamerankings.

If Eurogamer had towed the line and given GoW a 9 or 10, this wouldn't have been an issue. It's the fanboys getting their knickers in a twist because it was "only" given 8/10 that's caused the controversy. It's a relatively small amount of people pointing to the allegedly incomplete review as a problem.

As it was, they still "only" gave it 8/10 after reviewing the multiplayer.

Heh, well I'm no fanboy, but the fact is, it's a 9/10 game at the least, even just based on single player. Claiming otherwise is mere nit picking to just be different (and as my original suspicion at the time, for them to garner website hits and presence in the online gaming community that they never had before this fiasco).

As for splitting review scores. It's a nice concept in theory, but I doubt you'll ever see it as an industry wide standard, and it'll cause more confusion in the long run (in averaged scoring) than any good for many people, unless you're specifically only checking those sites participating in that new review style.

[Captain Awesome]

We're dicks! We're reckless, arrogant, stupid dicks. And Gamespot reviewers are pussies. And fanboys are an asshole. Pussies don't like dicks, because pussies get fucked by dicks. But dicks also fuck assholes: assholes that just want to shit on everything. Pussies may think they can deal with assholes their way. But the only thing that can fuck an asshole is a dick, with some balls. The problem with dicks is: they fuck too much or fuck when it isn't appropriate - and it takes a pussy to show them that. But sometimes, pussies can be so full of shit that they become assholes themselves... because pussies are an inch and half away from ass holes. I don't know much about this crazy, crazy world, but I do know this: If you don't let us fuck this asshole, we're going to have our dicks and pussies all covered in shit!


Team America?

[Disgustipated]

Team America?

;)
song: ["End of an Act"] I miss you more than Michael Bay missed the mark, When he made Pearl Harbor. / I miss you more than that movie missed the point, And that's an awful lot, girl. / And now, now you've gone away, And all I'm trying to say, is: Pearl Harbor sucked and I miss you. / I need you like Ben Affleck needs acting school, He was terrible in that film. / I need you like Cuba Gooding needed a bigger part, He's way better than Ben Affleck. / And now, all I can think about is your smile, and that shitty movie, too! Pearl Harbor sucked and I miss you. / Why does Michael Bay get to keep on making movies? / I guess Pearl Harbor sucked, just a little bit more than I miss you.

[BigJonno]

Yeah, that's Team America.


Heh, well I'm no fanboy, but the fact is, it's a 9/10 game at the least, even just based on single player. Claiming otherwise is mere nit picking to just be different (and as my original suspicion at the time, for them to garner website hits and presence in the online gaming community that they never had before this fiasco).

Here we go, the entire point of the editorial. IT'S NOT A FACT, IT'S A GODDAMN OPINION! It's one person's rating on a very broad scale that no-one agrees on anyway. Holy shit, he didn't agree with the majority of reviewers! Even worse, he didn't agree with you. Boo-frickin'-hoo!

He may be a loon who is completely out of touch with every other gamer on the planet, but that doesn't make him wrong. It doesn't invalidate his opinion or the review.

[vherub]

reviews are an issue that will not be laid to bed until people realize that all reviews are not equal. You need to find someone whose tastes are most similarly to yours, and follow that reviewer. We all have that one friend who loves every movie/dvd he sees, right? So you don't put much stock in his reaction if he loves the new bond movie, because he loves all the bond movies, the 5th element, matrix revolutions, etc.

I hold Firefly as one of the top tv series ever made, so if someone does not like it, that is a warning sign that their other opinions may be far from my own judging system.

Similar thing with games, to a point. If a game is seriously flawed in some way (glitchy, broken gameplay), I want to know beforehand. So I pick and choose the content from a review that interests me when I am unaware of how closely the reviewer's likes/dislikes align with mine.
The major difference is the close connection between the internet, videogames, and an adolescent need to identify with another product or person. Which sometimes leads to tempertantrums that are amplified severalfold online.

[Opty]

Here's the problem: major websites should not have one and only one review for each game. They should have at least three so enough people's differing opinions on the game are properly given. Also they need to get rid of the current ratings systems and go with: "Buy", "Rent", "Stay away!" because that gets their point across better than "8.8" could ever do.

[Dag Nasty Evil]

Here's the problem: major websites should not have one and only one review for each game. They should have at least three so enough people's differing opinions on the game are properly given. Also they need to get rid of the current ratings systems and go with: "Buy", "Rent", "Stay away!" because that gets their point across better than "8.8" could ever do.

Three reviews ala' EGM? Sounds like a great idea but most people wont care to have three reviewers on the same game, instead of doing three different game reviews. Personally I'd prefer no # scores and rather a in-depth editorial making mportant points so people know whether or not a game will apeal to them.

[Nazriel]

Maybe we should just get rid of scores and write a review with opinions.

Computer Gaming World (CGW) tested that out for a few months this year. It was a like/dislike split in feedback that I saw on it. A old point at the moment as it relaunched as Games For Windows (GFW) and has brought scores back...

But using the full 1-10 scale and not the 6-10 school scale. :) If there is going to be a scale of 1-10, 5 better damn be the average, and GFW/1up is doing that. So tired of every game being a 7.2 and up (random number example) unless it's obvious junk. :cool:

[Captain Awesome]

But using the full 1-10 scale and not the 6-10 school scale. :) If there is going to be a scale of 1-10, 5 better damn be the average, and GFW/1up is doing that. So tired of every game being a 7.2 and up (random number example) unless it's obvious junk. :cool:


I think it should be a color coded menu like that silly Terrorist alert system we use here.

[Jambe]

Or it could be because we weren't evolved to handle a global sized monkey sphere and we're trying our best to adapt to a situation where the word "mob" doesn't even begin to describe the size of specific social groups that we need to interact with (especially when online) without just pandering to the lowest common denominator.
I'm inclined not to agree. I'm in college right now and I can safely say that a sizable quantity of people my age (18-24) are proverbial "jacks of all trades" — opinionated on myriad topics without the factual basis requisite for such viewpoints and irrational to the point of hilarity. It occurs to me that many people think they have an opinion that matters because they've never been shown the value of understanding an issue. They're privy to a wealth of knowledge, and it seems many think that by merely being exposed to an issue they automatically develop an intrinsic understanding thereof and are thus warranted a "bitching podium" without any effort to comprehend the it.

Giving a score to appease the debilitating lack of deductive capacity in a general audience is just that, and nothing more — a reflection on the overall pathetic human condition. I generally associate reasonable thought and behavior with civilized discourse, so perhaps it would be safe to say that I myself am a minority as well? I realize a lot of perception has to do with local phenomenon but idiocy and pervasive laziness of thought is not tied to locations.

[Jambe]

That or the fact that you can make the most intelligent statement ever, but when 100,000 people can read it and reply back at will, you're simply going to have some people tell you to drop dead.

Personally I prefer the later. I think it's a misconception (like that crime is often higher in a city versus the in the country, which isn't true at all) due to perception. You're only seeing the vocal minority, and you assume the group of likeminded individuals is larger than it is in reality.
Yeah, this is true. The "bitching podium" effect skews perception quite handily. I meant to include this in my previous post, but I am a ninny. I don't mean to imply that a person is becoming stupid, but merely that people are. I see it everyday — it's like a cascade effect. You get enough people together and they generally begin acting similarly, oft regardless of prior affiliation, and again, regardless of rationality. Forums, political debates and rallies, school scenarios, you name it. My issue isn't that mankind is doomed to live as cavemen, but merely that our cognitive capacity is so thinly spread over various strata that the more effective and logical "fine tuned" sort of thinking is no longer perceived necessary or useful.

Ugh, I swear... I can dance around a topic all day and think it through and through but communicating it is a pain. There'll be a coherent sentence here someday... Someday...

/edit and furthermore, if users requiring a score at the end of a review isn't a product of "cognitive laziness," what is is a result of? I think people just don't want to have to read anything, personally. I can read ten reviews without scores and one with a score and never notice the score at all, because I don't give a shit about scores. They're a numerical representation of a critique on art. Inherently this is a lacking representation as much is lost in the conversion from worded review to numerical score. Segregating the various characteristics of a game and giving them a point value system or weighted scheme only further confuses the issue as the interpretation of said characteristics may well vary from person to person and is much more readily explained verbally.

/addendum2x: I think you just missed my point a bit, TrackZero. We've the same perspective on the issue, I was just being a bit of a tart. My sarcasm is a bit wonky, I guess... I pointed out that the problem was a "voiced and, for lack of a better term, self-infatuated segment" — that was me trying to satirically define fandom. The rest was just a broad statement regarding people at large — that they're dumb.

[Siraris]

This is SO TRUE it's not even funny. This guy Dennis is my new hero. It's too bad that paradoxically this opinion will only draw the ire of all the same people he's writing about, thus nothing will change.

I've been saying for a while now that everyone on the internet knows everything about everything. It is clearly apparent in the console wars, when news comes out about one of the manufacturers and people post saying things like "AH HA I could have foretold this!" or "No way this is what's going on, this is really the facts here!".

These kind of people are going to get a serious wakeup call when they take a step into the real world.

[Jambe]

This is SO TRUE it's not even funny. This guy Dennis is my new hero. It's too bad that paradoxically this opinion will only draw the ire of all the same people he's writing about, thus nothing will change.

I've been saying for a while now that everyone on the internet knows everything about everything. It is clearly apparent in the console wars, when news comes out about one of the manufacturers and people post saying things like "AH HA I could have foretold this!" or "No way this is what's going on, this is really the facts here!".

These kind of people are going to get a serious wakeup call when they take a step into the real world.
Well, that's the thing, isn't it? His piece isn't anything special. It's an observation of social ineptitude. The people that understand the article didn't need to read it and the the people he's talking about aren't going to get it anyhow — the very definition of futility.

[Rirath]

This "editorial" (rant) is barely worth a glance. Doesn't change the fact Gamespot is being stupidly hard on just about every game out there these days and their scores no longer match up with the averages. They're playing by their own set of rules, and those rules seem to change whenever they feel like it.

They've went from being my first choice to barely worth a glance.

[AnthraxKitty]

Man, there are so many topics I'd like to talk about, but I can't quote all these posts...

1. I see a lot of "you're obviously going to get negative responses" responses. This is completely true. I think the real problem aren't negative responses, but personal attacks, e-mail spamming, and stuff like that, all of which has happened to Gertsman. I actually feel a little bad for him. I'll admit, I'm a slight Gamespot fanboy. I love their shows and podcasts, and they all seem like real funny, professional guys. I rarely ever disagree with their reviews, because I like the critical viewpoint. To me, that is what's best for the consumer, and that is what I think reviews are all about: giving you on idea on if you should fork over 50 or more dollars for something. Not how great it is.

2. I HATE the EGM style of reviewing. Having multiple viewpoints is fine, but I have not read EGM in five years because a. there is no organization, just mostly pictures and blurbs and b. the reviews seem to be nothing but glorified message boards.

3. Indeed, people do just look at the numbers and don't even bother reading. I've reviewed a couple games before for local newspapers. My only feedback was "oh yeah, you gave that game an 8, right?" I'm all for getting rid of numbers and just forcing people to read. I liked the idea of a "buy, rent, stay away!" meter that was mentioned here.

4. 8.8...I still don't get why people are offended. If you look at the average of the game's scores and you see something like 9, 10, 9.5, 8.8...is that one 8.8 going to sway anyone, especially knowing it's from a very critical source?

[pseudopseudo]

1. This is exactly the reason I submitted this as news. There is some awesome, legitimate conversation going on. That's why I love this place.

2. TrackZero and KingGorilla... dammit, not fair. You started picking on me after I fell asleep. Bastards. ;)

3. I think one of the things that got me most when I read this article is this: 8.8 is a DAMN GOOD SCORE. 2 tenths of a point away from a 9. That's the reason I think the outrage is so ridiculous - this game still got rated a lot better than the majority of shit out there.

[PsychoticVile]

I have to agree an 8.8 is a great score it even says great right under the number on Gamespots website. For people to get bent out of shape is ridiculous. He is right about his review and most Wii titles will be that way though they are not going to have the graphics and musical scores like the PS3 or 360 will.

Anyways if there is a game I am deciding to buy I will always buy it if Gamespot gives it an 8.0 or higher and sometimes on the 7.0 or highers depending on the reasons they gave it that score.

[Sl1pstream]

This "editorial" (rant) is barely worth a glance. Doesn't change the fact Gamespot is being stupidly hard on just about every game out there these days

Try reading Edge magazine or even Eurogamer on a weekly basis and then repeat that. Gamespot is not being that hard on games. They're being fair, it's just that people are too stupid to realize that everything above an 8 makes a great game. Where was all the outrage when Chromehounds only scored a 4 on a lot of websites? That's right, nobody gave a shit because it wasn't a franchise that actually had a lot of fanboys.

[Jack9]

Someone trying to accentuate the harmlessness of words by posting a worthless comment is ironic, pointing it out is not. Stay out of public school Captain Awesome, it produces the finest illiterates in America.

[Spigot]

That's a great article and spot on.

Not to reiterate this point for the umpteenth time, but not only does it point out the fact that people don't want to read differing opinions on their favourite game, it also highlights how broken the numeric review system is.

8.8 is a stellar score. Not perfect, but it is something most games could only wish for. To cry that it's not getting a 9.5 or 10/10 or whatever... yeesh.

If it had scored in the 6's or lower, then I could almost see people getting up in arms... after it comes out. Bah.

[nemyhlovecraft]

Not to point out the obvious, but isn't this editorial a bit hypocritical since he's basically flaming against the people that have a different opinion than he does (ie. the people who flamed him for having a different opinion than they).

Also, just got Wii and have played Zelda for 2 hours. He couldn't be anymore wrong about the graphic allure of the game. The character models are easily as detailed as those from Resident Evil 4 and though some textures lack resolution in places the art direction really brings it all together. I seem to remember that was one of his biggest gripes. Gabe over at PA seemed to have covered the other pieces of his review that he found lacking insight, and I tend to agree with him.

[Johan]

Someone trying to accentuate the harmlessness of words by posting a worthless comment is ironic, pointing it out is not. Stay out of public school Captain Awesome, it produces the finest illiterates in America.

*does a double-take*

Hey there! I teach in the public schools...and I'll have you know that, after my wife read your post for me (I can't read...sadly...but that's not necessary as a teacher, anyways), I was offended when I finally figured it out (took a few minutes). I asked her to type a response for me, which she mostly came up with, so 'get off teh baeks uv duh publik skoolz!'

*Honey, could you read what you just typed for me?*

;)

[Captain Awesome]

Someone trying to accentuate the harmlessness of words by posting a worthless comment is ironic, pointing it out is not. Stay out of public school Captain Awesome, it produces the finest illiterates in America.

Worthless comment indeed.

*does a double-take*

Hey there! I teach in the public schools...and I'll have you know that, after my wife read your post for me (I can't read...sadly...but that's not necessary as a teacher, anyways), I was offended when I finally figured it out (took a few minutes). I asked her to type a response for me, which she mostly came up with, so 'get off teh baeks uv duh publik skoolz!'

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/11/11/nz.text.ap/index.html

[Zeal]

The backlash against his review just confirms the fact that Nintendo fanboys are the most rabid, retarded, and all around mentally fucked up bunch of people anywhere.

I mean come on, grown men in their 30s playing Wii games.

Classic example of Peter Pan Syndrome.

Look it up, it's a very real disorder.

[Malovech]

The backlash against his review just confirms the fact that Nintendo fanboys are the most rabid, retarded, and all around mentally fucked up bunch of people anywhere.

I mean come on, grown men in their 30s playing Wii games.

Classic example of Peter Pan Syndrome.

Look it up, it's a very real disorder.

Let me preface this with saying, I would never own a Wii, but my girlfriend would.

That being said, I wish the Xbox360, PS3 and even the PC had the same desire to innovate and explore new modes of gaming that the Wii/Nintendo does. I don't entirely agree with their low-tech, graphics aren't important approach, but I do like that they aren't stuck in a rut with only 3-4 major genres and no attempts at creating new ones. If anything, I'm just glad the Wii is around to be the "avant garde" of gaming, maybe MS or Sony can rip off some of their ideas and make them better.

[fleshlight]

It is just another aspect of the Internet Anonymity Effect(tm).

On the Internet, you're not who you are, you're what you say.

Or, the one I like more, the Penny Arcade Internet Fuckwad Theory:

Average Person + Anonymity + Keyboard = SHITCOCK!

[cp#]

In response to this editorial I can only say.. no shit reviews (or opinions) don't matter. I am right and you are wrong and Zelda is the shiznit.

[civil_dead]

The backlash against his review just confirms the fact that Nintendo fanboys are the most rabid, retarded, and all around mentally fucked up bunch of people anywhere.

I mean come on, grown men in their 30s playing Wii games.

Classic example of Peter Pan Syndrome.

Look it up, it's a very real disorder.
I totally agree with you, Zeal. The way some people completely involve themselves in videogames like Halo is downright ridiculous. I mean, can you imagine actually dedicating a part of your life to something as stupid and mundane as a sci-fi story about aliens? I mean, what the hell? Those people should get out of the house more.

I'm right on with you on this one. Superfans of videogames, they's retards.

[EternalGamer]

This is all fine and good, but it doesn't change the fact that Gerstman is out of freaking mind. I'm not upset about the review but I have played Zelda for about 8 hours now. If it ended anytime soon it would still be by far the best game I have played in years. Play it for yourself and you'll understand.

From soley a numeric standpoint the review is absurd because there is no way in hell this game deserves to be in the same company with the other games that have recieved an "8.5" on Gamespot's scale. If they were that hard on every game, maybe it would make since. But scoring this one game harsher because it is "Zelda" is incredibly misleading. When you look at all the games that now stand above it on the rating scale, you'll see how absurd it is.

But that is a minor complaint. My major problem is that his complaints about the game are just unwarranted. He complains about minor aesthetic issues that only effect the play experience in incredibly microscopic ways and his wishing that it was more innovative is completely unsubstantiated. This is a complete re-imagining of Zelda. It has a much more prominent narative with production values and cinematics that feel like they belong in a Squaresoft title. The art direction takes some huge chances, but what makes it all work so well is the way that it intentionally plays on the thematics of the series.

Composers know that great music is a combination of repetition and variation and that's what Zelda does--it plays off the themes of the series in a way that makes it unique and fresh and that is actually something that is much more difficult to do successfully and is more far rewarding for the player than just going in a completely new direction and leaving everything behind.

[Sl1pstream]

I totally agree with you, Zeal. The way some people completely involve themselves in videogames like Halo is downright ridiculous. I mean, can you imagine actually dedicating a part of your life to something as stupid and mundane as a sci-fi story about aliens? I mean, what the hell? Those people should get out of the house more.

I'm right on with you on this one. Superfans of videogames, they's retards.

Sci-Fi vs Boy in Skirt.

Hmm :rolleyes:

Difference is, for it's time, Halo was one of the first (if not the first) FPS that played like a FPS should play on a console. That can't be said about Zelda as the controls (except for the Wii controller) and even the attacks haven't changed much since OoT.

He complains about minor aesthetic issues that only effect the play experience in incredibly microscopic ways

Like making every sound come out of the remote's speaker while that speaker doesn't seem to be good enough to handle that task? Maybe not having a full orchestral soundtrack or even voice acting while every other game these days has just that?

[EternalGamer]

Every sound does not come through the remote speaker. You could completely eliminate the sound from the speaker and still play the game with full sound. The only thing that comes through it is minor promps and sound effects from the weapons. And it does has an orchestral soundtrack. The music is a amazing, synthesized or no. I doubt 95% of the people can even tell the difference between the two. I sure as hell would not have known that if someone else had not mentioned it.

[KingGorilla]

Or, the one I like more, the Penny Arcade Internet Fuckwad Theory:

Average Person + Anonymity + Keyboard = SHITCOCK!
Major Nelson added in an essential part of the equation. Mountan Dew.

[cp#]

The backlash against his review just confirms the fact that Nintendo fanboys are the most rabid, retarded, and all around mentally fucked up bunch of people anywhere.

I mean come on, grown men in their 30s playing Wii games.

Classic example of Peter Pan Syndrome.

Look it up, it's a very real disorder.

Wow you are finally going on my ignore list

[Serapth]

Every sound does not come through the remote speaker. You could completely eliminate the sound from the speaker and still play the game with full sound. The only thing that comes through it is minor promps and sound effects from the weapons. And it does has an orchestral soundtrack. The music is a amazing, synthesized or no. I doubt 95% of the people can even tell the difference between the two. I sure as hell would not have known that if someone else had not mentioned it.


As a non-Nintendo fanboy ( and unbiased by the whole franchise in general ), I could see giving this game an 8. Art direction wise, its an amazing game. Graphically from a computer perspective its pretty meh, especially contrasted against next gen ( yeah yeah.... Nintendo isnt about graphics... ). The lack of speech is irritating to me. Its like they started to, but then realized how much more work it would be to port it, or something.

The tutorial aspects are horrid. You spend alot of the beginning wandering around looking for WTF to do. Hell, I spent over an hour looking for a far to put be parts in, because the game pretty much tells you to. Oh, but low and behold, no jar until later. The instructions on fishing are downright wrong ( google any TP forum and look for "HOW DO I FISH!" posts ).

This isnt a game without faults. Its a good game, but not amazing, atleast so far. Hey... 8 is a good game, is it not???? WOW!

I'll give a second review once im farther in, if it keeps my interests that long. New Wii, GoW, NWN2 all fighting for my minimal gaming time. This game isnt good enough to make draw me back in right now.

[EternalGamer]

Serapth, I didn't have that problem at the beginning. I finished the village area in probably an hour total. But regardless keep playing. I doubt you are to the good stuff yet. You've barely scratched the preface.

Honestly, I have a hard time understand how anyone could not be floored by the game, but I can assure you that it continues to improve.

[Rirath]

Difference is, for it's time, Halo was one of the first (if not the first) FPS that played like a FPS should play on a console.

Please play Goldeneye.

That can't be said about Zelda as the controls (except for the Wii controller) and even the attacks haven't changed much since OoT.

But since you're talking the original Halo when you're talking about Halo's controls, why not talk about OoT when talking Zelda's controls? OoT perfected the lock on system.

[Serapth]

Serapth, I didn't have that problem at the beginning. I finished the village area in probably an hour total. But regardless keep playing. I doubt you are to the good stuff yet. You've barely scratched the preface.

Honestly, I have a hard time understand how anyone could not be floored by the game, but I can assure you that it continues to improve.


I guess my question is, if you hadnt had previous Zelda experience, would the beginning have taken you longer? Most of my time was wasted chasing dead ends.

Heres an example, I spent 20 minutes locked in the cell. You know, where you shatter the box in the corner. Thing is, I had never been in that form before ( apparantly its from prior games ), and didnt even think to try to attack. I just spent time going from square to square trying to dig my way out. Or, by headbutting every square inch. Then, I do the attack, im out of there in seconds, and then a minute later, I get a tutorial telling me I can do attacks in that form.


UMMMMM,,,,,, huh? Sorry, but thats just sloppy design. Now that ive done it, I know, but it was frustrating while I was figuring it out. Had that tutorial comment come, you know... when I could use it, that would have been a completely different thing. Its a small detail, but makes a huge difference to someone new to the series.

[Divorced]

If you'd actually read the editorial, he has links to the original review.

Seriously, save yourself some time and actually read the thing before asking questions that are answered by what you're supposed to be reading.

Actually, if you just spent the same energy simply answering his question and being a decent person instead of some self-appointed Internet-usage cop prick, you might find life a bit more bearable.

[TrackZero]

I realize a lot of perception has to do with local phenomenon but idiocy and pervasive laziness of thought is not tied to locations.

Agreed, I never stated they were. Merely that in a large enough sample of people, you will get idiots, period.

[Serapth]

Agreed, I never stated they were. Merely that in a large enough sample of people, you will get idiots, period.


Large enough sample size???

Shit, I find a big enough sample size is 2. Give me 2 people and I will find you 1 idiot!

[TrackZero]

Well, that's the thing, isn't it? His piece isn't anything special. It's an observation of social ineptitude. The people that understand the article didn't need to read it and the the people he's talking about aren't going to get it anyhow — the very definition of futility.

Mmmm, awesome point. It puts a bow tie on this thread nicely for me. ;)

[TrackZero]

Large enough sample size???

Shit, I find a big enough sample size is 2. Give me 2 people and I will find you 1 idiot!

Well, you're a glass-is-half-empty kind of guy. :)

[pseudopseudo]

Actually, if you just spent the same energy simply answering his question and being a decent person instead of some self-appointed Internet-usage cop prick, you might find life a bit more bearable.
I was just trying to make the point (albeit not jovially, as I usually do - I guess being serious was a mistake) that usually, if you have questions about an article, reading the article will answer the questions. Imagine that shit! There're too many dumbasses who'll flame something without even taking the time to read through everything...

...one of which I assume you are, since you didn't read further into this thread to find that I wasn't trying to be a "self-appointed Internet-usage cop prick" at all. I'm really sick of getting flamed by you lazy people that get super defensive at the drop of a hat.

Go troll IGN or 1UP, where you're not expected to read everything you actually post about.

[Serapth]

Well, you're a glass-is-half-empty kind of guy. :)


I WISH!!!

With the way I drink, I would be happy with the glass being 1/4 full. Even if its mostly backwash.

[pseudopseudo]

With the way I drink, I would be happy with the glass being 1/4 full. Even if its mostly backwash.
That made me throw up in my mouth a little bit.

/feels queasy

[KingGorilla]

Actually, if you just spent the same energy simply answering his question and being a decent person instead of some self-appointed Internet-usage cop prick, you might find life a bit more bearable.
Killing you may have the same effect, nay a superior one.

[OrangePulp]

This is all fine and good, but it doesn't change the fact that Gerstman is out of freaking mind. I'm not upset about the review but I have played Zelda for about 8 hours now. If it ended anytime soon it would still be by far the best game I have played in years. Play it for yourself and you'll understand.

Admittedly I haven't played it, but based on the fact that this is a continuation (of sorts) of Ocarina of Time (based on what I've read), 10 gets you 5 I'd disagree with you on that point. And that's exactly what this article is about.

As an example: I think the original Crash Bandicoot is one of the finest games of all time. Should I think that anyone who doesn't agree is an idiot? I use this example because I find that many, many people don't share this opinion. But it's the same for Crash as it is with Zelda; it's just an opinion.

That didn't come out as clear as it was in my head; oh well, I don't really feel like rewriting it, so take from it what you will.

[Wolvie]

Well, it's about damn time somebody grew some BALLS and told it like it is. Fanboys hate when someone says their game wasn't sent on high from god. So as a result, we get constant whining and bitching frrom these frothing idiots.
Whether or not NWN2 was good or not, isn't the point, what IS the point is someone gave an opinion toward it. And as a restult, the fanboys whined this opinion off the internet...this is a sad day for honesty. Why? Because video game sites are now more afraid then ever to say what they think. So ya better get used to seeing 9.5 ratings, because god forbid, some gamers might have to deal with the fact that their game actually sucks. Boo fuckin hoo, deal with it, because, ya know what? Life isn't always fair.

[Jambe]

The backlash against his review just confirms the fact that Nintendo fanboys are the most rabid, retarded, and all around mentally fucked up bunch of people anywhere.

I mean come on, grown men in their 30s playing Wii games.

Classic example of Peter Pan Syndrome.

Look it up, it's a very real disorder.
Easily one of the most disgusting, narrow-minded and bigoted posts I've seen on these forums. Bravo.

[Jambe]

/edit Double post. Wonky.

[RMan]

Yea, I'd say if you want a number, get it from gamerankings, that's about the only way you're going to get a "reliable" score. As far as the finer oppinions of a review, you can't rely on any site, IMO gamespot is the best, but obviously not perfect. I find reading two or three reviews from the middle of the road on gamerankings to be the best route if I'm on the fence about picking up a game.

[Apex]

Personally I think it has more to do with the quality of Game journalism. Ive read too many crap reviews from egotistical reviewers to give a damn. Im a developer and it irritates me everytime I see some reviewer talk about an entire teams project as 'crap' or as if he could do better. I think theres still a lot of room for improvement myself.

[Spigot]

Yea, I'd say if you want a number, get it from gamerankings, that's about the only way you're going to get a "reliable" score. As far as the finer oppinions of a review, you can't rely on any site, IMO gamespot is the best, but obviously not perfect. I find reading two or three reviews from the middle of the road on gamerankings to be the best route if I'm on the fence about picking up a game.
This is by far the best way to go about reading reviews these days. I usually read one or two high scoring ones and then a couple of the low scoring ones to see what they liked and what they didn't. Even then, sometimes the reasons why a reviewer gave it a low score may mean nothing to me. Take the latest Splinter Cell game. A lot of people have been whining about the multiplayer because it's quite different from Chaos Theory's MP. Some reviewers have even used that to skew their reviews quite negative.

I could care less about the MP aspect of the game. So as long as I keep reading that it has a strong singleplayer component, I'm happy. Others WILL take the different MP into account when purchasing or playing the game, so that part of the review is good for them.

It's about looking for what is important for YOU in a game when you read a review. If the game has what you're looking for, then get it, score be damned. There are a lot of games that don't necessarily garner impressive (and in this day and age, that seems to mean higher than 9 out of 10... sadly) scores that are still a whole bucket of fun.

[EGO]

Is this guy talking about people who read or people who *write* reviews?

I find most people on the net to be arguementative idiots and most reviewers to be self-serving assholes. So, to that end, I don't bother reading reviews or comments, because they're mostly comprised of the writer attempting to be "witty" and turn a phrase rather than being objective or if subjective, clearly stating it's "opinion" versus spouting shit as if they're some sort of authority. :rolleyes:

[Spigot]

He's talking about people who read reviews and go off the deep end when the review they're reading doesn't synch up with whatever their views on a given game are.

I think it was the overreaction, even by web idiot standards, to Jeff Gertzman's review that prompted this little editorial that is basically a plea for everyone to realize that reviews are just opinions.

[Oskin]

I havent been home for a few days and i read his review just before I left, so i missed all the "freaking out about the article" thing on the internet. As far as i'm concerned (being a nintendo and a Zelda fanboy myself), I though it was a great review and 8.8 out of 10 is a good score for me. He pointed out the bad and the good things of the game. I must say though he said something in his article (correct me if i'm wrong) something about TP being like all the other Zelda and he made it sound like its a bad thing (maybe because he was expecting something different)! Which I don't agree but again its his opinion. I still think people are freaking out over nothing and I totally agree with VG.

If you compare his review with the IGN review, you can see that the both point out some of the same issues with the game and IGN gave it a better score. Why? Because they both have different opinions... You can't make out your opinion on a game by just the score next time read the freakin article before judging it. Sure Gamerankings is a great site, you can have the "general" opinion and normaly when a game hat 40% you know that maybe the game is not good... But thats it, that wont be enough for you to have a well informed opinion.

[Sion]

I met Gerstmann at E3 once year. He was the coolest fat guy I'v ever met. If I was gay, I would so go for him.

[KingGorilla]

I have some San Francisco jokes to go with that if you like?