-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Does Jeremy Parish undermine Ziff Davis' credibility?
- Thread starter duckroll
- Start date
- Status
Parish isn't entirely off the hook here. He could have the integrity to write one review and ensure that it's clearly marked as a reprint from wherever it originally appeared, rather than seize on the opportunity to write increasingly vitriolic reviews with each space he's given to do so.ElyrionX said:
My problem with his crusade is that he keeps peppering his comments with statements that make it sound like he's actually trying to provide a retort against the Japanese/import impressions, rather than a critique of the game itself. He just seems so affected by how much praise and excitement the game is getting -- both online and in other publications -- and it bugs me that all this could be causing him to lower his scores even more.
It's also uncool that he has been given free reign on pretty much every Ziff Davis outlet to crusade in, but again it would be absolutely no different if one person gave Shadow the Hedgehog straight 9's across these outlets simply because they thought the game was decent but ended up getting so affected by all the negative comments that they felt they needed to counteract them and give the game a higher score than it really deserved.
It's also uncool that he has been given free reign on pretty much every Ziff Davis outlet to crusade in, but again it would be absolutely no different if one person gave Shadow the Hedgehog straight 9's across these outlets simply because they thought the game was decent but ended up getting so affected by all the negative comments that they felt they needed to counteract them and give the game a higher score than it really deserved.
EmCeeGramr
Member
duckroll said:Clearly not! Because after all, gaming journalism has no standards or set requirements!
I doubt youre... passionate... about journalistic integrity. If this wasnt some precious game to you it wouldnt matter.
DemDereNads
Member
Think the answer to your question is OPM/EGM/1UP never had credibility to start with
This isn't the first time the same guy has reviewed the same game for "different" publications.
This isn't the first time the same guy has reviewed the same game for "different" publications.
Dark made a great point in another thread, in that by having his review in 3 different publications, the average person isn't going to pay attention to the fact that they're all written by the same guy, so they'll simply think the game is getting more than one really bad review, and maybe skip out on it.
And that's kinda bullshit.
And that's kinda bullshit.
Probationsmack said:
Then I think you would be very mistaken. I've personally pretty big on journalistic integrity, and it seems every time ZD disappoints. Over and over. Hey, they steal strategy guides from fan sites. I could care less if Parish doesn't like UGnG, but the issue is how he presents himself to the public online while holding the responsibility of reviewing it three times. Even if this was Barbie's Horse Adventures, this thread would exist, but hey, it wouldn't because Barbie's Horse Adventures isn't a game that Parish would bother crusading against.
Zombie James
Banned
I think it's definitely irresponsible, yea.
The thread title and general thrust of the initial post is incredibly unfair and insulting to Parish, especially since all we have is one score (without accompanying text) and a blog post where he's specifically constrained from going into detail about the game because he has to wait for the reviews to be posted.
If it'd been from the start a discussion about whether Ziff Davis hurts its own credibility by allowing the same person to review the same game for multiple pubs, then there might have been a discussion worth having. I've done it--mainly for NIS strat-RPGs where no one else at the company cared--and I felt kinda weird about it for the reasons several have already echoed. But is Jeremy Parish PERSONALLY responsible for any potential credibility loss for fulfilling his review assignments? No. End of.
If it'd been from the start a discussion about whether Ziff Davis hurts its own credibility by allowing the same person to review the same game for multiple pubs, then there might have been a discussion worth having. I've done it--mainly for NIS strat-RPGs where no one else at the company cared--and I felt kinda weird about it for the reasons several have already echoed. But is Jeremy Parish PERSONALLY responsible for any potential credibility loss for fulfilling his review assignments? No. End of.
Lazy vs Crazy
Member
So you'd have the same problem if he had given the game an 8, and writen in his blog that the game was really good?
Roland Stiles
Member
Halverson gushes about EVERYTHING, ALL THE TIME. Can we start complaining about that? Cause I'm kind of tired of GAF's Parish-vendetta.
EmCeeGramr
Member
duckroll said:
Instead of "your precious game" in the original post, I was actually going to say you wouldnt care if this was barbie's horse adventure. :lol
Roland Stiles said:
So how about a vendetta against Ziff Davis in general?
Probationsmack said:
And now you know that's not true! I seriously have a problem with how certain things are done by publications in general. And since Ziff Davis owns a clear majority of gaming press in general, the hammer falls on them. There still hasn't been any clarification over the entire DoA4 Guide scandal, which is disappointing.
That's all perfectly fine. The problem is that he is reviewing it THREE TIMES. Those reviews could have a negative impact on a great game that probably wasn't going to sell that well anyways. This could steal even more sales from it, as there ARE people who put stock into those reviews. His "opinion" is now making it seem as if three different publications hate the game when, in reality, it's just one nutcase.snatches said:
It's not the same review. If he posted it in three places and made certain to point out that each review was simply a re-print of the original, that's one thing, but he is setting this up as three different reviews from three different sources.
Ghengis Cohen
Banned
We've exhausted Halverson, and everyone thinks he's a joke. But the problem with this situation is if you have a professional opinion you should be content with one well written review, and that should suffice to cover your thoughts on the matter. The fact is if two other people had written reviews and agreed with Parish in the two other publications then his review would have been more validated then it is now, since all we have is one opinion repeated. I could give a **** less about his blog since blogs are worthless anyhow.
I tend to think a lot of the opinions of reviews and the media on GAF are even more batshit insane than Jeremy Parish could ever aspire to be, but I agree with this in practical, professional sense. I'm assuming the only reason this post exists because Duckroll loves the game and is rushing to its defense, but his argument is still valid.
I think it's appropriate for him to do one of the three reviews in EGM so he can present his point of view, but after openly professing his distaste for it, that's all he should be able to do. Organized hatred campaigns like that will only make Ziff-Davis look bad. It's entirely possible that the other reviewers agree with him and gave him the assignments accordingly for efficiency purposes, but the different names and writing styles lend the overall view a lot more credence.
...And while I'm generally bored of that schtick already, it could be interesting to see a venom-filled, bile-laced comic review of it on 1Up.
I think it's appropriate for him to do one of the three reviews in EGM so he can present his point of view, but after openly professing his distaste for it, that's all he should be able to do. Organized hatred campaigns like that will only make Ziff-Davis look bad. It's entirely possible that the other reviewers agree with him and gave him the assignments accordingly for efficiency purposes, but the different names and writing styles lend the overall view a lot more credence.
...And while I'm generally bored of that schtick already, it could be interesting to see a venom-filled, bile-laced comic review of it on 1Up.
snatches said:
why are you so bent out of shape?
Multiple reviews from one person over multiple sites/plublications has been common since back to the days of videogames.com. I really don't think that's a big deal, I'm sure Ziff asigned the slots to Parish prior to him reviewing the game at all, so there's no conspriracy.
EmCeeGramr
Member
snatches said:
:lol :lol :lol
that is the first time Ive ever replied with just laughs.
i disagree with parish on almost every single review (UGNG, NSMB, etc.), but i still think he has put out a lot of great text.
this thread seems like an attempt to have ZD question his employment. f-ing with a dude's source of income just because you didn't agree with his opinions on a game review isn't cool.
this thread seems like an attempt to have ZD question his employment. f-ing with a dude's source of income just because you didn't agree with his opinions on a game review isn't cool.
inthegray said:
I agree.
Wow. Yeah I didn't really see it that way. And upon consideration, Nich is right. The way it's worded, it's awfully unfair to Parish on the whole. What I'm trying to get at is the journalistic aspect the issue. As I said before, I'm trying not to place the blame on any party, but at the same time I'm trying to get feedback on how people feel. The OP is simply how I feel about it from my observation.
I'm questioning how this entire event came about and how responsible the various parties are in this scenario. What bothers me if that a single extreme viewpoint is given a chance to repeat itself over several publications, hence possibly distorting a fair and balanced average on the various ZD publications in general. While the case of a single person reviewing for multiple ZD publications has happened before, it is usually not brought into light.
In this case, it is brought to light specifically because Parish has made his opinion so visible. This in turn casts the shadow of doubt on ZD's entire editorial process. If the blame must fall on ZD, then yes, I think we should move to that direction, and I apologize for making it seem like something personal against him. Some people here might have an agenda against him, I simply have an agenda against the events.
Lord Error
Insane For Sony
You would probably be more bent out of shape if your bonus, salary, or even employment depended on those reviews. I doubt this practice is true for Capcom Japan, but I know for sure some western devs go by that. I bet you wouldn't be looking cheerfully on someone with an axe to grind, giving your game essentially same review treatment in several media outlets, with all those scores counting towards average.snatches said:
Lord Error
Insane For Sony
How much would it help that I make better games, against someone with an axe to grind?Kintaro said:
Seriously, how can you not see how wrong their review system is, if someone can write several reviews like that?
Marconelly said:
Those guys who gave the 7.5 and 6.0 have an axe to grind too? But hell, it'll certainly help to make better games for the glowing praise you would get from EVERYWHERE ELSE (in theory) against someone who has an "axe to grind." Considering that two other people gave the game fair to shit scores, in one magazine, this axe to grind shit, is just that. Shit.
Chris Remo
Member
The thing that undermines ZD's credibility for me is their frequently inaccurate and poorly written news stories on 1UP. I don't know if this Jeremy Parish is one of the guys writing them or not, but honestly I spend a LOT less time on that site now because I really just don't think the reporting and writing quality is up to par. Some of the other editorial features are still good, but presumably that's a different writing staff?
kenta said:
Well, that's all fine and dandy. That's awesome. Especially when you accept that the original was hardcore and niche to begin with and the game, no matter how it scores, will sell for SHIT on a system where software sells for SHIT in the first place! Then, you wouldn't CARE how people reviewed it, would you? FFS!
So, what, they make one of the best 2D platformers in years and they need to "make better games"?Kintaro said:
Of course not, but the problem is, when it DOESN'T sell well...the series will end. While they were remakes, I LOVED Rockman Rockman and Irregular Hunter X and Inafune even WANTED to continue from there...but the poor sales have removed that possibility. Sales DO matter.
I can. I'm using an LCD (beware the ghosting) and the default refresh rate that Windows uses is 60 Hz. When I scroll around on an internet version of his review...I am viewing it at 60 fps (with tearing). It's pretty ironic that I can read reviews of XBOX360 games at 60 fps, isn't it?
dark10x said:
Point #1. 3 people in EGM thought they should have made a better game. Others in other mags loved it. Called opinion. Wheee!
Point #2: If Capcom didn't know those games would sell for shit in the first place, they truly need to get their heads out of their asses. PSP in japan, for the most part = shit for software sales. In the US, Megaman never sold for shit either. Come the hell on.
Ah hah, now you're turning this into a sales argument when I wasn't even talking about sales in the remotest sense, and not only that but you're putting words into my mouth. This entire thing has nothing to do with sales, they are a couple dominos down the lineKintaro said:
If a professional reviewer of whatever kind decides his/her opinion in advance of actually seeing/playing/listening to the subject of the review, then yes, that's unprofessional as hell. Yes, people probably have preconceptions about everything, but bragging about how you're going to slam something in advance is ridiculous.
It's also silly to assign someone with a known bias to review something, and I would question the wisdom of the publisher for that choice. How is that useful for a reader? If the reviewer is likely to give it a very good or bad review based on a priori feelings, how does that provide any value to a reader trying to figure out if it is any good or not?
It's also silly to assign someone with a known bias to review something, and I would question the wisdom of the publisher for that choice. How is that useful for a reader? If the reviewer is likely to give it a very good or bad review based on a priori feelings, how does that provide any value to a reader trying to figure out if it is any good or not?
I'd say they had SOME impact.Swordian said:
Still, the main point is that ZD assigned a reviewer with a negative agenda formed prior to playing a game to review said game in three different publications. That's just not right (especially when the product in question IS actually quite good).
- Status