-
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
snatches said:
For larger games, there's a large enough built in audience that people will buy it based off of license. That's why licenses are so sought after. But for smaller games, it can make a huge difference - look at Katamari Damacy. Very well received, and a modest hit, a huge hit in fact considering. And since we're on this here forum, and a lot of people here are rather passionate about this, and as a result play the smaller games that are sometimes of high-quality but get ignored... You'll see stuff like this. I see no problem with Jeremy's opinion. In fact, I never have. And I have yet to play the game in question. But Ziff-Davis appears to be poorly run, by my estimation.
Shard said:
Bad, cheap level design, shoddy controls, and ugly graphics, from what I've been told. I agree on the latter point, quite frankly, though I know I'll probably be eaten for it.
That's not what this thread is about at all and just about everyone in this thread has expressed that JP is entitled to his opinion, regardless of whether we happen to agree with it or not. It's a question of whether or not he should be entitled to express that opinion as different reviews in three different publications and whether that really does anyone a service.typo said:
The content of JP's UGnG reviews submitted up to this point have been discussed in other threads.
Greenpanda
Banned
Shard said:
Well, I don't own a PSP and didn't have any intention of buying one soon, but after ZD and Toastyfrog's conduct, I'm now seriously considering buying a PSP and UG'n'G...
ZOMG SUBLIMINAL CAPCOM MARKETING PLOY
cartman414 said:
The pro-UG'n'G, anti-ZD majority opinion on GAF may indeed be unfounded--I don't know; I haven't played the game. But regardless of whether this group is correct or not, I think it's fair to say that Toastyfrog's multitude of reviews HAS impacted ZD's credibility in their eyes. They might or might not be correct in thinking less of ZD for it, but either way, it's a fair description of the situation to say that Toastyfrog has lowered ZD's credibility. It's silly to claim that this fiasco has had no effect on ZD's credibility when a quick glance through this thread clearly proves otherwise.
dirtmonkey37
flinging feces ---->
Yeah, he's entitled to his own opinion.
He's not trying to "bash" the game on purpose because he just feels like it.
He's pissed at the game makers for some of the design decisions and he hated the game, so he's going to bash it because it wasn't fun for it.
Not because he just feels like or because he doesn't like the color green.
He's not trying to "bash" the game on purpose because he just feels like it.
He's pissed at the game makers for some of the design decisions and he hated the game, so he's going to bash it because it wasn't fun for it.
Not because he just feels like or because he doesn't like the color green.
'Reviewers should never take the tastes of their audience into account when writing their reviews! We just want their unvarnished opinion! Nothing else will do!'
'But... what if the reviewer's opinion doesn't match ours? What if he's wrong?'
'Then they need to stop giving him a platform for his views and replace with someone who has the right opinion ASAP! How can a publisher be considered credible if they let someone with the wrong opinion review the same game in not one, but three different outlets? People might get the wrong impression about a game we like!'
'But... but... what's the difference? If somebody writes a review that takes our tastes into account and scores accordingly, or we insist that only someone who shares our tastes and will score the game the way we think it should be scored write the reviews, isn't it the same thing? Aren't we just demanding reviews that match our perceptions and preconceptions about games?'
'Of course not! What we want here is honesty. At least as long as it involves someone honestly agreeing with us. Because who could possibly be more right than us?'
'Since you put it like that, now it makes perfect sense! Thanks for clearing that up! I feel much better now.'
'Anytime, chum. Anytime.'
'But... what if the reviewer's opinion doesn't match ours? What if he's wrong?'
'Then they need to stop giving him a platform for his views and replace with someone who has the right opinion ASAP! How can a publisher be considered credible if they let someone with the wrong opinion review the same game in not one, but three different outlets? People might get the wrong impression about a game we like!'
'But... but... what's the difference? If somebody writes a review that takes our tastes into account and scores accordingly, or we insist that only someone who shares our tastes and will score the game the way we think it should be scored write the reviews, isn't it the same thing? Aren't we just demanding reviews that match our perceptions and preconceptions about games?'
'Of course not! What we want here is honesty. At least as long as it involves someone honestly agreeing with us. Because who could possibly be more right than us?'
'Since you put it like that, now it makes perfect sense! Thanks for clearing that up! I feel much better now.'
'Anytime, chum. Anytime.'
Soul4ger said:
Oh, no, I see the point of the thread. I think it's the majority of the posters here who are unable (or unwilling) to look at the real source of their indignation, which is that somebody's spreading an opinion that they don't like and don't agree with. They're trying to rationalize it however they can. If Parish had agreed with the people here who like this game (or just want it to be good, without even having played it) I doubt this thread would exist, regardless of a couple of posts to the contrary. There just wouldn't be that wellspring of ire over how 'Parish shit on our game' to tap into.
Greenpanda
Banned
Tellaerin said:
OK, that's probably true, but it doesn't justify ZD's policy
Kabuki Quantum Lover
Member
White Man said:
I still don't see how this is a vital issue. It is only an issue if you sincerely want to read different people's opinions on the same game in the different Z-D publications. Shit would hit the fan if the reviews were carbon copied. I don't see how Z-D's credibility is tarnished if he (JP) has substantial reason to score a game the way he did (regardless if I agree with him or not). Other writers can focus on more things (like the supposed NDA expirations happening next week). It's cost-effective to have a reviewer do this (because Z-D is just a business; it's not like they are exposing government wrong-doings) rather than wasting 3 + 1 + 1 = 5 reviewers for 1 game.
I still think if JP scored the game 7/10 or more on each publication, I predict this wouldn't be an issue.
cartman414
Member
Pellham said:
No offense, but it's posts like these that define the GAFer stigma.
vitaflo said:
Those are all simply counted under the same subcategory of Ebert reviews though. Reviews from 1up, OPM, and EGM are all considered separate entities, regardless of reviewer.
the reviews editor is, literally, the *reviews editor*. not the reviews writer. the reviews editor spends most of his time editing all the reviews that come through his desk. if you've ever had a job like that, you know it's a lot of work, because you're essentally managing freelancers and other writers as well as reviewing their work.
reviewing a game is not like reviewing a movie - you don't just sit in a dark theatre taking notes for two hours. you have to play the game until the end. for some games (JRPGs for instance, or RPGs in general) this can mean upwards of 30 hours.
what else do we do in the office? we now have, during the "slow" season, an average of two to three business trips a week, and people have to get assigned to go to those. we have events like Comic-con, Evo-2K, QuakeCon, PAX as well as official PR events like Atari, Konami, Activision...all coming up this month. I'm looking at the giant schedule of stuff we have to cover and it's seriously insane. it takes people to go to these and time to write them up. And then someone has to plan the coverage, figure out how it's all going to fit on the website.
we also spend a lot of time every day cultivating relationships with PR - responding to requests, emailing to work our coverage plans, negotitating exclusives, etc.
on top of that we still have games coming in, and we're planning for a hugely busy holiday season with two console releases. and we have all the regular office stuff, staff meetings, administrative stuff, etc.
mostly, we find time to play games at home, after work or on the weekends. it is very rare that people here sit around playing games between 9 and 5.
that's the reality of what it's like to work here. so yeah, it makes a huge difference if someone can do double duty to write the review for 1up AND be one of the review crew for EGM, which is now the official policy here. it saves us a precious 20-30 hours a month so we can assign someone do cover a QuakeCon or write previews from Leipzig or whatever.
and we still have time to listen to complaints on message boards and address issues we feel are important, because they are important. you must know by now that we all read GAF and listen to what you guys say... at least, those of you who actually make sense. you know who you are.
Also Ebert's fame transcends whichever media outlet he appears on/in. To a casual person, it's not a review by the Sun-Times, it's a review by Roger Ebert. This is exactly the opposite for 1UP's intended audiences: These aren't reviews by Jeremy Parish, they're reviews by OPM, EGM and 1UPWhite Man said:
Edit: Also I agree with Tellaerin since that's pretty true but, as I posted way back on page 2, my personal beef is that the underlying tone seems to be a fight against the internet hype train ("nobody would like this if it weren't GnG!"), which might have led him to attach undue hate onto the reviews
skip said:
Why is that a policy? What is the benefit to the readers of EGM or readers or 1up?
The only benefit I can see is that it hits two birds with one stone; only two people have to spend time with the game rather than three. That only helps ZD (cheaper, easier) and does nothing for any of its audiences (print or online).
If there is another benefit I'm not seeing please mention it... However, if there isn't, I suggest you change it (and trust me, I know what I'm talking about; I've seen the movie "Newsies" with Christian Bale! So you could say I have an extensive background in the publication business
To be honest, I've never liked the GnG series. It is too hardcore for me. I don't care about UGnG much, given that it fits in the series.
I also like Parrish. He has the only blog on 1up that I read, he does some of their best continuing series, and he has a distinctive, recognizable voice that doesn't irritate me. I even like his drawings.
However, the "three publications, three reviews, one reviewer" situation doesn't seem kosher. I'd very much appreciate it if ZD ensured that this sort of thing didn't happen in the future. It would be lazy and irresponsible not to.
P.S., since there are 1up employees reading this!!!
Add a frickin' "Editor Blogs" page -- don't make me search for "toastyfrog" via the "Find Gamers" search. It won't take but five minutes!
I also like Parrish. He has the only blog on 1up that I read, he does some of their best continuing series, and he has a distinctive, recognizable voice that doesn't irritate me. I even like his drawings.
However, the "three publications, three reviews, one reviewer" situation doesn't seem kosher. I'd very much appreciate it if ZD ensured that this sort of thing didn't happen in the future. It would be lazy and irresponsible not to.
P.S., since there are 1up employees reading this!!!
Add a frickin' "Editor Blogs" page -- don't make me search for "toastyfrog" via the "Find Gamers" search. It won't take but five minutes!
Drinky Crow
Banned
I am breaking my "**** GAF" silence to specifically state the following: Jeremy Parish ****ed up his review of UGnG, and badly. Any criticisms of UGnG are purely nitpicks that revolve around the extreme ends of personal taste, or constitute an agenda against certain "hardcore" games. Given that his blog is a giant lexicon of apologism for awkwardly-designed NES platformers, I can't fathom the weird cognitive dissonance that must've addled his brain when he penned his reviews of UGnG. Unless he can articulate something other the uninformative snarky rejoinders, I'm just gonna take the 4.5 -- a clear statement that UGnG is sub-average regardless of the curve of the scale -- as a deliberate attack on some group of gamers he's built a vendetta against; or that he just hates DIFFICULTY.
Seriously; I've played the game and I love the series, but I woulda sold it down the river had it sucked. It doesn't. It's a brilliant piece of classic 2D platform design with loads of modern polish and some of the most stunning attention to detail and level design ever. I can imagine a few fair nitpicks, such as the mid-stage loading and the obstreperous PSP D-pad (to some) that might knock it down a few points -- even as low as a 7.0 for the REALLY cranky -- but a 4.5 is just beyond the ****ing pale.
Really, though, I'm *doubly* angry because that dipshit put me on Dave Halverson's side of the argument, and that's just a horrible place to be. When you make Halverson seem credible, we ALL suffer.
Seriously; I've played the game and I love the series, but I woulda sold it down the river had it sucked. It doesn't. It's a brilliant piece of classic 2D platform design with loads of modern polish and some of the most stunning attention to detail and level design ever. I can imagine a few fair nitpicks, such as the mid-stage loading and the obstreperous PSP D-pad (to some) that might knock it down a few points -- even as low as a 7.0 for the REALLY cranky -- but a 4.5 is just beyond the ****ing pale.
Really, though, I'm *doubly* angry because that dipshit put me on Dave Halverson's side of the argument, and that's just a horrible place to be. When you make Halverson seem credible, we ALL suffer.
Frankly, to me it makes sense for them to leverage their resources and have the 1up and OPM reviews written by the same people that did the EGM review, because otherwise, you'd have five people being paid by the same company to review the exact same game! The fact that they have three people doing it is commendable. Three people at IGN didn't review UGnG. Three people at GameSpot didn't review UGnG. I don't even think three people at mouthbreathinggamers.com reviewed UGnG. I don't see the problem.
snatches said:
Well, if all of ZD's competition had three publications that featured a lot of the same content I would agree with you. But they don't, and probably for this exact reason (and/or if they do have similar content, they are written by entirely different people)... Not to mention the fact that ZD is arguably the biggest game-related publisher in the industry.
You're getting the responsibilities of the publisher and those of the magazines themselves mixed up. You're argument is illogical (eg. as ghetto as "Until Burger King sales and amount of locations are as high as McDonald's, you can't compare the two??!!")
vitaflo said:
I don't see how I'm being silly. As stated above, by the very nature of his fame, Ebert is kind of immune in the first place. Second, 2 of the 3 reviews cited are exactly the same, and the third one is a 2 minute TV distillation of that review, often using lines taken directly from the text.
Greenpanda
Banned
When me, Drinky, and Dave Halverson are all allied against you, you know your time is up
- Status