-
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
Greenpanda
Banned
Shard said:
I'll draw us up a Soviet-style propaganda poster.
Robert Ashley
Member
Man, those ziff assholes are always trying to shove it down our throats while they sit on their games "journalist" mountain.
They just mock us with their "user created" content, blogs that let "us" say whatever we want about games and a comments section attached to stories for "feedback" from readers. They even hire editors from their forums and blogs to cover up the fact that they hate their own audience.
Have you read 1up reviews? They have the nerve to put the review at the top of the page (by one of their snarky, hipster "critics") while they leave us plebs commenting at the bottom of the page! Then they come around here trying to talk to us directly, like we're a bunch of charity cases? Boycott!
They just mock us with their "user created" content, blogs that let "us" say whatever we want about games and a comments section attached to stories for "feedback" from readers. They even hire editors from their forums and blogs to cover up the fact that they hate their own audience.
Have you read 1up reviews? They have the nerve to put the review at the top of the page (by one of their snarky, hipster "critics") while they leave us plebs commenting at the bottom of the page! Then they come around here trying to talk to us directly, like we're a bunch of charity cases? Boycott!
Drinky Crow
Banned
Why have multiple magazines if they all provide the same content and opinions? Why not just combine them into one magazine and call it "The Ziff-Davis Videogaming Circlejerk"? Hell, why even have multiple reviewers per game? Why not fire all the writers save one, and have him review every game?
The point of multiple reviewers is to AVOID situations like this, where one esoteric and distinctly minority voice has a little too much say. How happy would some of you monocle-wearing porkchops be if Parish's NSMB score had appeared in EGM as well some mythical Official Nintendo Magazine? How happy would you schweinhunds be if I was the only person reviewing Unlimited SaGa as a 9/10 for all of the magazines under a publisher's banner?
The point of multiple reviewers is to AVOID situations like this, where one esoteric and distinctly minority voice has a little too much say. How happy would some of you monocle-wearing porkchops be if Parish's NSMB score had appeared in EGM as well some mythical Official Nintendo Magazine? How happy would you schweinhunds be if I was the only person reviewing Unlimited SaGa as a 9/10 for all of the magazines under a publisher's banner?
Odysseus said:
It makes sense for ZD because it's cheaper for them... But if you bought/paid for subscriptions to all three mags and got the same opinion (although in a different perspective/style if skip is to be believed), you - as a consumer - would be pretty disappointed. If you didn't notice it was by the same person, your buying decision would probably be influenced after having read three similarly opinionated views in three different outlets (for better or for worse).
I'm guessing you don't (pay to) read EGM and/or OPM... If you only visit 1up for the review, your viewpoint is biased because you're not paying for anything anyway...
As for IGN or GS; they are only one outlet and only have one revenue stream from that one outlet. ZD has THREE outlets each with their own revenue stream but they're only paying for one/two... So yeah, it makes sense that the corporation would want to save money by selling the same product to the same people more than once, but the consumer won't (or shouldn't) be happy having similar content/perspective/opinion by the same person...
In this specific case it's really bad because JP did ALL THREE publications (and not just two, as is the ZD "policy").
Shard said:
As for synergy; I actually LOVE the idea of ZD having access to all these different types of gamers... I dislike it when the reviews are so inbred though. I mean, taking a PC Gamer from CGW and getting them to review a console-only FPS adds TONS of value to that review as it gives an entirely different perspective (PC reviewer would presumably have played quite a fair amount of FPSs)... That's not the problem here though. The problem is getting one guy (who in this case happens to hate the game) to write the "same" negative review for three different places.... That sucks ass for the paying subscribers.
Drinky Crow
Banned
(By the by, if ZD would like me to review the next Akitoshi Kawazu game for all their publications, I'm sure I can make time for a couple 300-700 word reviews and a rubberstamp of [9.5/10].)
Robert Ashley
Member
Reviews don't matter anymore/a bad review will kill sales.
Some of us wouldn't be complaining if we actually saw corporate synergy here. But having the same person write three different reviews for the same game isn't any kind of corporate synergy or efficiency.Shard said:
Simple steps to corporate synergy that seem to have been ignored here:
1 Have JP write a SINGLE review of UGnG
2 EGM review editor create an abridged version of that to fit EGM's short format review style
3 Make sure the appearance of the review in each publication is clearly labeled as a "reprint from the 1up network" or something similar.
Robert Ashley
Member
What's the point of multiple reviews if they all score the same?!/Why are the scores for this game all over the place?!
-Rogue5- said:
Actually, I have a subscription to EGM, although I recently let my OPM subscription lapse. I'm not really too thrilled with any of the printed content, but that's just a reflection of my tastes and not really an indictment of those publications. I just don't see any of this as a credibility issue. The whole concept is actually laughable to me as an outsider, because they are just video games. Journalism? Credibility? Until it's my name or my livelihood on the line, I just can't take it that serious. Games are just entertainment, after all.
I think Robert is talking about GAF as a collective contradictive entity.
And yes, credibility is not the big hoobastank here.
I think folks are outraged because their favorite game got a bad score and if Ziff didn't use the same reviewer for multiple pubs, then that game might have gotten a better score from someone else (or maybe not!) -- ultimately, bad scores for a game like this will lead to bad sales which is bad for gamers because that means Capcom won't make a sequel and it will all be Jeremy's fault.
And if GAF speaks up about this -- essentially exposing the evil for what it is -- then something will be done about it. A very FCK/Boxguy-esque initiative. This is an all-hands GAF mobilization and it's very moving to watch.
And yes, credibility is not the big hoobastank here.
I think folks are outraged because their favorite game got a bad score and if Ziff didn't use the same reviewer for multiple pubs, then that game might have gotten a better score from someone else (or maybe not!) -- ultimately, bad scores for a game like this will lead to bad sales which is bad for gamers because that means Capcom won't make a sequel and it will all be Jeremy's fault.
And if GAF speaks up about this -- essentially exposing the evil for what it is -- then something will be done about it. A very FCK/Boxguy-esque initiative. This is an all-hands GAF mobilization and it's very moving to watch.
Greenpanda
Banned
Robert Ashley said:
So, what, are we supposed to be grateful that our wise, all-knowing corporate overlords at Ziff have deigned to let us post on their page? User-created content is an asset to 1Up and drives visitors to the site; of course ZD should include feedback and blogs. That's hardly some kind of "gift" from ZD; it's pretty much a necessity for any site in this day. They'd be up shit creek if they didn't have this stuff
.If anything, ZD should be glad they have so many readers doing their work for free. They could have put some of them to use reviewing UG'n'G.
Right, which is what I'm pointing out. It's nothing personal but there are quite a few people posting here and it's easy to just quit tracking names and make generalizations like that.chespace said:
But I'd also like to see that evidence, since such a person deserves to be flogged or given a new tag at the very least :)
Greenpanda
Banned
john tv said:
Good of you to admit that, sir.
Robert Ashley
Member
So, what, are we supposed to be grateful that our wise, all-knowing corporate overlords at Ziff have deigned to let us post on their page? User-created content is an asset to 1Up and drives visitors to the site; of course ZD should include feedback and blogs. That's hardly some kind of "gift" from ZD; it's pretty much a necessity for any site in this day. They'd be up shit creek if they didn't have this stuff
If anything, ZD should be glad they have so many readers doing their work for free. They could have put some of them to use reviewing UG'n'G.
You know, there was a time when other site didn't have blogs, when letting people comment on your stories was a radical thing. I'm not saying you should be grateful, I'm just pointing out the fact that 1up is one of the few places that really recognizes the need to allow it's readers to participate.
A bad review will lower the rankings at sites like Gamerankings. Three reviews, three times as much. Gameranking's scores are used for large stores, like EB and Bestbuy, to determine how many games will be purchased for the initial run. This will determine how many copies will be in stores.
For a small game like this, a review can determine how many copies are stocked:
A snip of a post by Brad Wardell, creator of Galactic Civilizations 2:
Drinky Crow
Banned
1UP ain't a high bar, dode. Not sayin' you'll find good folks in here in the sticks of GAF, nor am I saying Parish sucks, but I can walk down the hall and find better writers than Parish without a whole lot of effort. I can certainly find a better writer than the uncreative and grammatically-challenged Milkman.
Now whether they'd want to work for 1UP and write about games is another story entirely.
Now whether they'd want to work for 1UP and write about games is another story entirely.
Roland Stiles
Member
Wow guys... I have a giant secret here, and Skip might be able to back me up.
The reason it benefits the audience for 1up and EGM to share ONE review is... because not everyone who reads EGM will check 1up! And not everyone who reads 1up gets EGM! It doesn't necessarily open up the heavens, but it doesn't HURT anyone either. EGM has two other review slots! Assuming everyone reads everything you have, and thus requiring a subscription to EGM and OPM to get Ziff Davis's "REAL super secret" opinion of UGnG would be bad business.
As for this nonsense, "Mega Man more than had its day in the sun, for one, and for another, there are SO MANY MEGA MAN games."
So you're literally saying that reviews will ONLY affect UGnG, which would be bad because you ALREADY KNOW you want to play it?
Guess what 'gents, I've always enjoyed Secret of Evermore, and despite the thread here singing its praises, that was not always the case. I have had (idiots) stop talking to me because I liked Secret of Evermore. This does not affect me because *I* like it. They don't decide my opinions for me.
Who cares if Jeremy Parish or Dave Halverson or THE ENTIRE WORLD hated Ultimate Ghosts n Goblins? If you've played it and you enjoy it, then you enjoy it. That's all that matters.
(lastly, if companies are denying bonuses/rewards because of game reviews? Why should the reviewers give a damn? That is the game developer's problem--not ZD's)
The reason it benefits the audience for 1up and EGM to share ONE review is... because not everyone who reads EGM will check 1up! And not everyone who reads 1up gets EGM! It doesn't necessarily open up the heavens, but it doesn't HURT anyone either. EGM has two other review slots! Assuming everyone reads everything you have, and thus requiring a subscription to EGM and OPM to get Ziff Davis's "REAL super secret" opinion of UGnG would be bad business.
As for this nonsense, "Mega Man more than had its day in the sun, for one, and for another, there are SO MANY MEGA MAN games."
So you're literally saying that reviews will ONLY affect UGnG, which would be bad because you ALREADY KNOW you want to play it?
Guess what 'gents, I've always enjoyed Secret of Evermore, and despite the thread here singing its praises, that was not always the case. I have had (idiots) stop talking to me because I liked Secret of Evermore. This does not affect me because *I* like it. They don't decide my opinions for me.
Who cares if Jeremy Parish or Dave Halverson or THE ENTIRE WORLD hated Ultimate Ghosts n Goblins? If you've played it and you enjoy it, then you enjoy it. That's all that matters.
(lastly, if companies are denying bonuses/rewards because of game reviews? Why should the reviewers give a damn? That is the game developer's problem--not ZD's)
Greenpanda said:When me, Drinky, and Dave Halverson are all allied against you, you know your time is up
It's like the perfect storm of bad taste.
Edit: Are we seriously arguing a ultra-niche game like Ultimate GnG is going to have sales affected significantly by a few negative reviews? News flash people, anyone who was interested and going to buy Ghost n' Goblins was going to do it regardless of the review. 50 less people in America buying GnG isn't going to play into any business decision Capcom makes about the future of the franchise.
Greenpanda
Banned
zabuni said:
Really interesting; thanks for the info.
Robert Ashley
Member
It always comes down to the job. I've been reading EGM's letters for a year, and every rant and rave against the magazine always comes with a resume attached...
Drinky Crow
Banned
Roland Stiles said:
So magazine reviews aren't writing for an audience, but are instead a vehicle for the grandstanding of the reviewer's personal opinions and the elevation of his deeply personal complaints?
Like I said, I am 100% certain that Parish's claims about UGnG are inflated nitpicks or completely unfounded.
I can say that I hate Super Smash Brothers Melee, but if you asked me to review it, I'd probably give it at 7/10 at least. Why? Because nobody who pays $4.99 for a magazine cares that Drinky f'ing Crow demands that every fighting game play like VF4 and that he utterly despises the Nintendo mascot roster.
kenta said:
In order to sell games for the long haul, the game has to be in the store. A good review can keep a game in a store longer, which can lead to more sales.
Bad reviews won't do a damn thing to the latest 50 cent game, but they can keep a small niche game in stores for a longer period of time, which will lead to more sales. Maybe a bit less than "kill", but it could lead to less.
Robert Ashley
Member
Here's another misconception. EGM isn't written for the GAFer audience... You guys already know EVERYTHING anyway, right?
Drinky Crow
Banned
fallout, the day I care what a couple of thin-skinned messageboard jockeys think about my posting style is the day I buy a ****ing Wii and jerk off into a plush Kirby.
I am dumbfounded as to why you keep responding to me like this but okay!zabuni said:
He made a broad generalization about message board posters that I thought was inaccurate and called him on it, I don't quite follow where you're coming from... But yes I see what you're saying and I don't disagree with you so... yay!
Drinky Crow
Banned
Where'd I say "Gaffer audience," Mister Misconception?
****, I don't even regularly post here any more, and I certainly don't consider myself part of the GAF community.
****, I don't even regularly post here any more, and I certainly don't consider myself part of the GAF community.
Robert Ashley
Member
zabuni said:
So, do you think a reviewer should take into account the effect they will have on the sales of a game when they score it?
Robert Ashley said:
If anything that makes it worse, as the casual gamer or younger audience won't take notice that all three outlets' reviews were done by the same person (who, in this case, didn't like the game). They read OPM see a bad review, read EGM see a negative perspective, glance at 1up see a third harsh review and think, "three reviews say it's bad... this game probably blows." Meanwhile they were all written by the same person. Naw Meen?
Drinky Crow
Banned
I freelanced for ZD back in the Playstation 1 era. They were good chaps in those days -- and many still are -- but I wouldn't do it again. I do a little freelancing for CGM these days, but as with ZD, I did it more out of respect for the person that asked me rather than any desire to do "games jounalism." It's a low ****ing art, and I'm only mediocre at it to boot.
Second of all, NONE of you would want me on ANY masthead. I actually asked CGM for the chance to scuttle Nintendogs as the throwaway Wal-Mart bargain rack crap it was, and they wisely laughed in my face.
Second of all, NONE of you would want me on ANY masthead. I actually asked CGM for the chance to scuttle Nintendogs as the throwaway Wal-Mart bargain rack crap it was, and they wisely laughed in my face.
Greenpanda
Banned
Robert Ashley said:
See, that's the point, though. People on GAF may know that the same hack "journalist" wrote a review in all three issues because it's been discussed so much here, but many other people won't. ZD's limp-wristed masturbatory "policy" means that a non-GAF audience is going to see the same crappy review three times and, having not read the GAF threads, think that three different people wrote it.
edit: -Rogue5- OTM.
- Status