Support NeoGAF

[Dilbert]

apparently including that he decided to slam the game before playing it, and that he was assigned the game with a known bias against it.

Look, I don't know who the **** this guy is, or why people care. I made a statement in general since it was implied by others in this thread that a) he prejudged it and b) he has a known bias against a certain style of game.

If it applies to Parrish, great. If it doesn't apply, great. I am extraordinarily unhappy with a lot of reviews that I read -- whether they have to do with movies, music, games, books, restaurants, or whatever -- because the reviewer's obvious agenda destroys whatever information content might have been there. Yes, I still do think that a reviewer ought to strive to be tabula rasa, even though it is probably impossible to achieve completely.

 

[Kintaro]

The problem is, not only was he assigned to write a review eventhough he had a known bias against it before even playing the damn thing, he was assigned to write 3 differnet reviews for 3 different publications / websites. Seriously, how can anyone defend this?

Whoa whoa whoa. Where is the PROOF he was slamming the game before he even played it? Now THIS is just coming out of thin air.

 

[duckroll]

whoa, I don't think Parish decided his opinion before playing the game, just that he stated his hate for the game before the review got published.

Yeah let's cut this bullshit off RIGHT NOW. Parish reviewed the game based on how he felt. What is being called to question is not his professionalism in in the actual review, but the fact that his polarized opinion pretty much monopolizes ZD's UGnG reviews to date.

 

[levious]

The problem is, not only was he assigned to write a review eventhough he had a known bias against it before even playing the damn thing, he was assigned to write 3 differnet reviews for 3 different publications / websites. Seriously, how can anyone defend this?

where's that coming from? I really doubt that's true, if people really believe that then no wonder there's so much backlash about this.

He stated his opinion of the game prior to his already written review got published. Not prior to playing the game, if the opposite is true then that's a very different situation.

 

[drohne]

you have to look outside the game to explain a four -- sorry, three separate fours -- for goku makaimura. you don't look at that score and wonder what's wrong with the game. you look at that score and wonder what's wrong with the reviewer.

 

[NichM]

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.

I've been wondering why everyone is accusing Parish of judging UGnG before he played it, and now I think I know why: it's based on a misreading of his blog post. He'd already played a review copy and submitted his review text based on that--then, once the game was released in Japan, he was free to discuss his general opinion--which it's important to note had already been formed based on the game itself, not his preconceptions of it--without going into specifics. This wasn't "I can't wait to slam the games in reviews"; it was "I slammed the game in reviews and now I can finally talk about why."

 

[drohne]

This wasn't "I can't wait to slam the games in reviews"; it was "I slammed the game in reviews and now I can finally talk about why."

...or if he hasn't quite told us why, he has at least told us who he wishes to offend.

 

[duckroll]

I have added a disclaimer to the first post about this. Since this thread was started based on my curiousity of ZD's credibility, it would be lame to let falsehoods continue to spread in this thread. It doesn't help the debate at all.

 

[kenta]

Then what, exactly, were you trying to say?

I was just trying to point out that you said "they should make a better game" when (a) it's a remake, and (b) ultimately there are very few people who make decisions about the way a game ends up, everyone else just obeys orders. So in that regard it's not quite fair for them to lose out on potential bonuses/etc simply because of one person's distaste that happens to get smeared around several different places

 

[Kintaro]

you have to look outside the game to explain a fours -- sorry, three separate fours -- for goku makaimura. you don't look at that score and wonder what's wrong with the game. you look at that score and wonder what's wrong with the reviewer.

Wow. Truly. Just, wow.

 

[Roland Stiles]

...or if he hasn't quite told us why, he has at least told us who he wishes to offend.

Maybe that's what his reviews are for?

 

[drohne]

i dunno -- if toastyfrog gauges his success by the number of readers he manages to alienate, he can add me to the tally. i think he writes as well as anyone who's paid to write about games, but he'll be hard-pressed to do anything this memorable again.

 

[Lord Error]

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.

I already said I believe he's entitled to give whatever score he wants (whether he has an axe to grind or not). What makes the whole thing unfair is that he can give multiple scores, and if he really hated the game and thus requested he reviews it multiple times, he easily gets away with it.

 

[HeadsUpSevenUp]

Ziff Davis... credibility...??

 

[duckroll]

(a) it's a remake

Here's ANOTHER falsehood that needs to die. The game isn't a remake any more than every single GnG game is a "remake." The series doesn't really have a timeline or continuing storyline. How can anyone call it a remake when all the stages, bosses and enemy placement/patterns are different? There are new weapons, different gameplay mechanics, and the entire difficulty system and armor systems are revamped. Is every single Dynasty Warrior game a remake too? Food for thought!

 

[Kintaro]

I was just trying to point out that you said "they should make a better game" when (a) it's a remake, and (b) ultimately there are very few people who make decisions about the way a game ends up, everyone else just obeys orders. So in that regard it's not quite fair for them to lose out on potential bonuses/etc simply because of one person's distaste that happens to get smeared around several different places

a) This game is not a remake.

b) It may not be fair to them, but them's the breaks for taking on the job. If the company focuses on ONE person's review of the game, and determines lay offs based on that ONE PERSON, then **** that company in the ear. However, as I can already said, while one person is reviewing it for 3 places, there are 2 others who scored the game low (EGM), and 3 other places who scored it high (Play, Famitsu, and Edge). Now, if the game starts scoring low all over the board, then yeah, make a better game. Making a better game, remake or not, should always be priority one.

 

[elostyle]

I appreciate different takes and viewpoints on games like Jeremy, eurogamer and a bunch of other sites frequently have to offer. Might as well read press releases otherwise and go purely by gamerankings. Which usually doesn't tell me if I like a game or not. I get a much better idea by taking multiple different takes on a game into account. You know, the written text.

What do you expect him to do? Give a game he doesn't like a great score because...uh..... someone else might like it?

 

[EmCeeGramr]

The problem is, not only was he assigned to write a review eventhough he had a known bias against it before even playing the damn thing, he was assigned to write 3 differnet reviews for 3 different publications / websites. Seriously, how can anyone defend this?

Skip was bieng sarcastic.

 

[Swordian]

I'd say they had SOME impact.

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).

Maybe I've missed something, but where was it said he had formed a negative opinion before playing the game? The post on his personal website, he hasn't talked about it on his 1up blog, was after the EGM review came out.

 

[Y2Kev]

I appreciate different takes and viewpoints on games like Jeremy, eurogamer and a bunch of other sites frequently have to offer. Might as well read press releases otherwise and go purely by gamerankings. Which usually doesn't tell me if I like a game or not. I get a much better idea by taking multiple different takes on a game into account. You know, the written text.

Or take three of the same opinions!

 

[skip]

and if he really hated the game and thus requested he reviews it multiple times

way to bring in a brand new false assumption to muddy things up further.

 

[duckroll]

Hey guys, stop making up shit about Parish, it's getting annoying. Can we just stick to the facts and discuss that, please?

 

[kenta]

a) This game is not a remake.

b) It may not be fair to them, but them's the breaks for taking on the job. If the company focuses on ONE person's review of the game, and determines lay offs based on that ONE PERSON, then **** that company in the ear. However, as I can already said, while one person is reviewing it for 3 places, there are 2 others who scored the game low (EGM), and 3 other places who scored it high (Play, Famitsu, and Edge). Now, if the game starts scoring low all over the board, then yeah, make a better game. Making a better game, remake or not, should always be priority one.

I was unaware that the game isn't a remake, but the point of the statement was that it sticks to the GnG formula. Also nobody ever said a company will base layoffs on review scores but rather they'd base bonuses and other rewards on them. Regardless, this entire thing just boils down to a personal level of sympathy for people in that position so it's pointless to even carry the discussion further

 

[XiaNaphryz]

Can we just stick to the facts and discuss that, please?

Hooray for GAF!

 

[dark10x]

Hey guys, stop making up shit about Parish, it's getting annoying. Can we just stick to the facts and discuss that, please?

I heard Parish actually feasts on children. True story.

 

[Ceb]

I can't really say much about Parish doing one online and one print review, as (for example) 1UP and EGM feels interchangeable in many ways. Assigning him to two print magazine UGnG reviews feels weird though. Imagine if all reviews for the PS platforms in EGM were written by the corresponding OPM authors. That would be incredibly pointless and a huge disservice to gamers. ZD should make an effort in trying to mix things up a little. If doing so had still resulted in poor scores for UGnG, say a 4 in EGM but a 6/7 in OPM, then so be it. At least the game had gotten a fair chance.

I also think it's impossible to not bring Parish into this. If I was in his position, I'd have declined to write three reviews of the same game. Feels like the only reason to accept that job would either be due to some severe lack of funds or a burning desire to trash UGnG.

 

[Greenpanda]

I'd say "yes," but since when has ZD has credibility?

I've always been under the impression that everyone at ZD cut from the same vaguely homosexual, self-serving "game journalist" as Poor-ish.

P.S. Another good story about Parish: He is so bad at rhythm games that he has yet to complete the first level of PaRappa. Prediction: ZD has him write every review they put out of Elite Beat Agents.

 

[dark10x]

I also think it's impossible to not bring Parish into this. If I was in his position, I'd have declined to write three reviews of the same game. Feels like the only reason to accept that job would either be due to some severe lack of funds or a burning desire to trash UGnG.

Based on his own statements outside of the reviews, it seems he is fueled by a burning desire to trash the game.

 

[drohne]

ouendan...now there's a game that deserves savaging simply because its fans are annoying. whenever i encounter the word "ouendan" my brain automatically appends "is the best game on the nintendo ds," and i wouldn't even venture that proposition out of spite for the nintendo ds

 

[Kintaro]

I was unaware that the game isn't a remake, but the point of the statement was that it sticks to the GnG formula. Also nobody ever said a company will base layoffs on review scores but rather they'd base bonuses and other rewards on them. Regardless, this entire thing just boils down to a personal level of sympathy for people in that position so it's pointless to even carry the discussion further

Never said I wasn't sympathic towards them. Would suck to have bonuses and shit like that tied to review scores and/or sales. But considering the nature of the company/business, how else would it be done (not sarcasm, truly curious. Can always do performance based bonuses and so forth...meeble meeble off topic). But even then, surely employees would be quick to point out "Hey dude, it was just this ONE GUY (if it turns out to be the case, we're really short on scores across the board here), all the others loved it!"

Besides, would love to see the GnG formula kicked up a notch to bring up to modern standards. If the design was great, it would still beat PSP throwing-ly hard and addictive.

 

[Greenpanda]

ouendan...now there's a game that deserves savaging simply because its fans are annoying. whenever i encounter the word "ouendan" my brain automatically appends "is the best game on the nintendo ds," and i wouldn't even venture that proposition out of spite for the nintendo ds

probably, but they at least ought to find someone who gives good scores to non-Megaman games to review it

 

[skip]

the word from 1up/ZD on this matter:

1) too many misconceptions and false assumptions about the sequence of events.

* EGM's third reviewer is now the 1UP reviewer. I assigned Jeremy the G'nG 1UP review first, which meant that he had to write for EGM as well. EDIT - The assignment was made with no prior knowledge to Jeremy's thoughts on G'nG. he's one of my best writers and I trust him completely to back up his opinions.

* Before making any public comments, he played the game and wrote his review. It wasn't until the EGM scores hit subscribers that he started talking about the game on his blog.

* Because of a communication breakdown among the reviews editors in the building, I didn't know until today that Jeremy was also assigned by OPM to write their review. we try to avoid this in most situations, and are currently talking internally about what to do moving forward.

2) I posted this in Justin's reviews thread, but it's worth mentioning here: ZD's publications are not entirely "separate." 1UP, EGM, CGW, OPM and GameVideos all work on the same floor, we write for each other, we share a lot of the same writers, we share a lot of ideas, we all appear on the 1UP Show and on each others' podcasts.

it's a concerted effort on the part of ZD to integrate print with online, hence "The 1UP Network."

/done

 

[Flynn]

the problem is, Jeremy then went on to spout his same minority opinion in two other major publications as well. This is when it becomes a problem - but, that's Ziff Davis' fault.

If I was Ziff Davis, I'd be bending over backwards to include minority opinions in my publications.

Do we really need one more review that says the same thing as the hundred others?

 

[levious]

* Because of a communication breakdown among the reviews editors in the building, I didn't know until today that Jeremy was also assigned by OPM to write their review. we try to avoid this in most situations, and are currently talking internally about what to do moving forward.
/done

great, now three pages of, "OMG, Parish new this policy yet said nothing so he could spew his venom over three publications!"

 

[duckroll]

Hey skip, I appreciate you taking the time to clear up this matter, really.

I'm glad ZD feels the same way about multiple reviews from a single source, and try to avoid it if possible. It's definitely a step in the right direction and I hope this ends most of the rumors and mudslinging that resulted in my thread in the first place.

Mods feel free to lock and/or archive this thread. ^_^

 

[drohne]

I'm glad ZD feels the same way about multiple reviews from a single source, and try to avoid it if possible.

uh, actually he said that it's policy for the 1up reviewer to provide the final third of an egm review.

...man, you went from "calling ziff out" to unpaid damage control in record time! JEREMY PARISH SUBORNED DUCKROLL

 

[EmCeeGramr]

ouendan...now there's a game that deserves savaging simply because its fans are annoying. whenever i encounter the word "ouendan" my brain automatically appends "is the best game on the nintendo ds," and i wouldn't even venture that proposition out of spite for the nintendo ds

Sounds to me like you're a racist. Yup thats it.

 

[Wario64]

Sounds to me like you're a racist. Yup thats it.

Nfans have their own race? I said wow

 

[EmCeeGramr]

Nfans have their own race? I said wow

I was actually referring to previous "wacky jappy" comments.

edit: and I was half kidding. Jesus christ.

 

[kaching]

I can't really say much about Parish doing one online and one print review, as (for example) 1UP and EGM feels interchangeable in many ways. Assigning him to two print magazine UGnG reviews feels weird though. Imagine if all reviews for the PS platforms in EGM were written by the corresponding OPM authors. That would be incredibly pointless and a huge disservice to gamers. ZD should make an effort in trying to mix things up a little. If doing so had still resulted in poor scores for UGnG, say a 4 in EGM but a 6/7 in OPM, then so be it. At least the game had gotten a fair chance.

I also think it's impossible to not bring Parish into this. If I was in his position, I'd have declined to write three reviews of the same game. Feels like the only reason to accept that job would either be due to some severe lack of funds or a burning desire to trash UGnG.

:thumbsup I don't really see why it should be considered unreasonable by anyone here that the best way to handle this, if ZD couldn't have at least assigned a different reviewer in each case, would have been to ensure that one review is written by JP and clearly marked as a reprint in each publication.

* Because of a communication breakdown among the reviews editors in the building, I didn't know until today that Jeremy was also assigned by OPM to write their review. we try to avoid this in most situations, and are currently talking internally about what to do moving forward.

So Jeremy himself couldn't have stepped in and pointed out the conflict of interest?

 

[duckroll]

uh, actually he said that it's policy for the 1up reviewer to provide the final third of an egm review.

...man, you went from "calling ziff out" to unpaid damage control in record time! JEREMY PARISH SUBORNED DUCKROLL

I called Ziff Davis out for a response. It looks like we got one. As for clearing up how the EGM reviews are handled, I think it's an acceptable explaination, if rather unsatisfactory. I didn't start a thread to troll on and on about stuff we have no control over. I just see something I feel is really fishy, and I wanted to know wtf was up. Now we do!

 

[skip]

So Jeremy himself couldn't have stepped in and pointed out the conflict of interest?

it was never a formal ZD policy. when it happened in the past, it was mostly due to last minute freelancer dropouts or highly-specialized games (like Nich mentioned) that we needed to fill. and to call it a "conflict of interest" is misleading, because of the group identity that we're trying to build here.

like I said, we're all talking now to figure out what's best for us to do.

 

[drohne]

the motivations behind toastyfrog's score remain an abyss, and i doubt whether the review text(s) will tell us half as much as his blogs have. that's the root issue here: toastyfrog went and gave goku makaimura a four. i doubt even skip really cares about ziff davis's policies vis-a-vis multiple whatevers of the same hoohah

 

[Reilly]

EGM's third reviewer is now the 1UP reviewer.

sounds good!


NOT

 

[skip]

the motivations behind toastyfrog's score remain an abyss, and i doubt whether the review text(s) will tell us half as much as his blogs have. that's the root issue here: toastyfrog went and gave goku makaimura a four. i doubt even skip really cares about ziff davis's policies vis-a-vis multiple whatevers of the same hoohah

yeah, you're right. I don't care about my job.

 

[Greenpanda]

the word from 1up/ZD on this matter:

1) too many misconceptions and false assumptions about the sequence of events.

* EGM's third reviewer is now the 1UP reviewer. I assigned Jeremy the G'nG 1UP review first, which meant that he had to write for EGM as well.

* Before making any public comments, he played the game and wrote his review. It wasn't until the EGM scores hit subscribers that he started talking about the game on his blog.

* Because of a communication breakdown among the reviews editors in the building, I didn't know until today that Jeremy was also assigned by OPM to write their review. we try to avoid this in most situations, and are currently talking internally about what to do moving forward.

2) I posted this in Justin's reviews thread, but it's worth mentioning here: ZD's publications are not entirely "separate." 1UP, EGM, CGW, OPM and GameVideos all work on the same floor, we write for each other, we share a lot of the same writers, we share a lot of ideas, we all appear on the 1UP Show and on each others' podcasts.

it's a concerted effort on the part of ZD to integrate print with online, hence "The 1UP Network."

/done

I'm speaking as somewhat of a third party in this matter. I haven't played UG'n'G and hence really have no actual opinion on the quality of the game, save that it looks like a game I'd enjoy and I'm excited about its release (so I'm not ENTIRELY neutral ).

I think it's ridiculous for a magazine editor to appear on a message board and lecture his readers about their "misconceptions and false assumptions." The life and blood of any magazine is its ability to maintain credibility as a good source of information. As a magazine editor, it's YOUR responsibility to build that credibility. You are NOT owed it just because you have a printing press; it's something you have to build up by providing readers with content they can trust. If people on a message board don't regard your magazines as having integrity or if they have misconceptions about your publications, it's because YOU have not done your job of establishing credibility.

The fact that many people are upset about ZD's handling of the UG'n'G reviews and regard it as unprofessional indicates that something went wrong with this process. The people to whom you're trying to sell magazines no longer view your editorial content as trustworthy, and, as a magazine editor, this should concern you.

So don't talk to us. Listen. Find out why we're unhappy.

Some posters' assumptions may be false (or may not be), but as the editor, it's YOUR job to understand what your readers are thinking and respond to their concerns.

 

[Soul4ger]

Most EGM editors are too busy doing.... Something. Probably having a sweet Madden tournament! - to play games like Ultimate Ghouls 'n Ghosts or NIS SRPGs. Seriously, it amazes me that in the same issue where only like 10 games are getting reviewed by EGM staffers AND 1UP staffers AND OPM staffers AND freelancers that they're talking about how there's nothing to play, because nothing comes out in the Summers months. I've bashed them for not being able to cover all the games that need reviewed in other issues, by posting little entries at the end of each section... But when there's nothing out, they still call in the reinforcements, and they still don't cover everything!

So don't talk to us. Listen. Find out why we're unhappy.

:lol Yeah, that'll happen.

 

[Kintaro]

I'm speaking as somewhat of a third party in this matter. I haven't played UG'n'G and hence really have no actual opinion on the quality of the game, save that it looks like a game I'd enjoy and I'm excited about its release (so I'm not ENTIRELY neutral ).

I think it's ridiculous for a magazine editor to appear on a message board and lecture his readers about their "misconceptions and false assumptions." The life and blood of any magazine is its ability to maintain credibility as a good source of information. As a magazine editor, it's YOUR responsibility to build that credibility. You are NOT owed it just because you have a printing press; it's something you have to build up by providing readers with content they can trust. If people on a message board don't regard your magazines as having integrity or if they have misconceptions about your publications, it's because YOU have not done your job of establishing credibility.

The fact that many people are upset about ZD's handling of the UG'n'G reviews and regard it as unprofessional indicates that something went wrong with this process. The people to whom you're trying to sell magazines no longer view your editorial content as trustworthy, and, as a magazine editor, this should concern you.

So don't talk to us. Listen. Find out why we're unhappy.

Some posters' assumptions may be false (or may not be), but as the editor, it's YOUR job to understand what your readers are thinking and respond to their concerns.

Dude, he DID. He cleared up the bullshit flowing throughout the thread, in a nice and tactful way. I'm sure he understands just fine. WTF you want him to do? He came on a forum to clear up some crap that asked to be cleared up, all over a game that's completely niche.

WTF you want him to do? Some backflips? He cleared it up, and he stated they're discussing the matter farther. Done.

 

[skip]

I'm speaking as somewhat of a third party in this matter. I haven't played UG'n'G and hence really have no actual opinion on the quality of the game...

unfortunate, because you caught me on the wrong day.

I think it's ridiculous for a magazine editor to appear on a message board and lecture his readers about their "misconceptions and false assumptions."

it wasn't a lecture. it was clearing up the air because people were getting a lot of things incorrect about what happened. I'm here to defend my publication and my writer. what's so ridiculous about that?

The life and blood of any magazine is its ability to maintain credibility as a good source of information. As a magazine editor, it's YOUR responsibility to build that credibility. You are NOT owed it just because you have a printing press; it's something you have to build up by providing readers with content they can trust.

now who's doing the lecturing? I know damn well what my responsibility is, which is why the first thing I did this morning was initiate the conversation with my bosses and the relevant editors and writers about what to do here.

If people on a message board don't regard your magazines as having integrity or if they have misconceptions about your publications, it's because YOU have not done your job of establishing credibility.

agreed. and it can also be because there are lot of idiots on messageboards.

The fact that many people are upset about ZD's handling of the UG'n'G reviews and regard it as unprofessional indicates that something went wrong with this process.

no shit? "there was a communication breakdown", "we are looking into how to handle this."

The people to whom you're trying to sell magazines no longer view your editorial content as trustworthy, and, as a magazine editor, this should concern you.

no shit? "there was a communication breakdown", "we are looking into how to handle this."

So don't talk to us. Listen. Find out why we're unhappy.

actually, I was listening from the first post onward. I heard the following:

* jeremy undermines ZD's credibility.
* jeremy was assigned the game knowing that he'd trash it.
* jeremy wanted to hate the game before he even played it.
* jeremy requested to be on all three reviews so that he could hate it even more.
* jeremy reviewing a game across three publications should be re-evaluated.

only one of these is actually true.

Some posters' assumptions may be false (or may not be), but as the editor, it's YOUR job to understand what your readers are thinking and respond to their concerns.

again...no shit? I should probably post in this thread, then, and respond to them directly.

oh wait.

 

[Greenpanda]

Dude, he DID. He cleared up the bullshit flowing throughout the thread, in a nice and tactful way. I'm sure he understands just fine. WTF you want him to do? He came on a forum to clear up some crap that asked to be cleared up, all over a game that's completely niche.

WTF you want him to do? Some backflips? He cleared it up, and he stated they're discussing the matter farther. Done.

I'm pretty sure that at no point during this thread did skip acknowledge that any of ZD's critics might have some merit to their complaints.