shoplifter
Member
fuck tha hataz. Ribbit King ownz. Frolf > j00.
GI:journalism::Limbaugh:nonpartisan
GI:journalism::Limbaugh:nonpartisan
-
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.
Game Informer's Excuse for Paper Mario's Score
- Thread starter Code_Link
- Start date
Yusaku said:
And I would disagree with that, though realistically, it's a matter of semantics regarding "above average interest" and "casual gamer." Suffice to say, I don't think purchasing or glancing through a magazine is an automatic indication of a deep seeded interest. For example, you could argue some average joe has an interest in movies because he checked the movie reviews in his local paper and plunked down a ten to watch the latest action flick, but I doubt you'd immediately consider him to be a movie buff or aspiring critic of any sort based on those actions alone.
Cute. Regardless, you know what I meant. There's a distinct difference between someone who plays games now and then for 2 or 3 hours a week, and someone who doesn't blink at putting in 12+ hours a week in gaming and discusses games and game related news on a messageboard, among other things. Label them however you like, but there's a notable gap between the two groups.
chespace said:i think i understand what Jeremy from GI meant to say and it's not all that shocking. unfortunately, he didn't say it very well, which definitely compromised his point... if his first response was indeed how GI reviews games.
and the point of which is what some of you have already stated in here. basically, it's noble to be "inclusive" with your review by first having a general understanding of your magazine's audience. by getting a sense of their likes and dislikes, you can then write your review to reflect how you think they'd react to a game like paper mario 2. no doubt, the editors at GI probably know who reads their magazines better than most of you here.
i think it's very obvious now that they didn't have GAF in mind when lisa and jeremy penned their reviews.
I'm betting that Pauline Kael never really gave a damn what her readers liked or didn't.
And with that one forum post the enire review credibility of a multi-million selling magazine comes crumbling down.
The VERY BEST a reviewer can do is state his of her own opinion. Play a game, state your opinion, attach your name to that opinion and send it off.
Trying to review a product with some arbritrary wet finger in the wind of public opinion is patently ridiculous. The reasons are too obvious to detail.
If I was Andy, I'd probably fire whichever of his writers posted that and try to claw back some credibility for the magazine's review system.
The VERY BEST a reviewer can do is state his of her own opinion. Play a game, state your opinion, attach your name to that opinion and send it off.
Trying to review a product with some arbritrary wet finger in the wind of public opinion is patently ridiculous. The reasons are too obvious to detail.
If I was Andy, I'd probably fire whichever of his writers posted that and try to claw back some credibility for the magazine's review system.
chespace said:i think i understand what Jeremy from GI meant to say and it's not all that shocking. unfortunately, he didn't say it very well, which definitely compromised his point... if his first response was indeed how GI reviews games.
and the point of which is what some of you have already stated in here. basically, it's noble to be "inclusive" with your review by first having a general understanding of your magazine's audience. by getting a sense of their likes and dislikes, you can then write your review to reflect how you think they'd react to a game like paper mario 2. no doubt, the editors at GI probably know who reads their magazines better than most of you here.
i think it's very obvious now that they didn't have GAF in mind when lisa and jeremy penned their reviews.
So Roger Ebert works for the Chicago Tribune and he gives The Little Mermaid a good review.
Wait, what the fuck? 10 year old girls don't read the Chicago Tribune! That was a really good movie but it deserves one out of four stars because I'm a fucking moron and a disgrace to my proffession. (Not you Che, GI guy)
The real irony is that if Paper Mario 2 had scored a 9.25 in Game Informer, and the reviewer later said on a messageboard that he'd bumped the score up a couple of points to reflect his belief that the game would appeal to the mainstream more than it did to him personally, this thread wouldn't even exist. People here only cry foul and start whining about the supposed lack of journalistic integrity in the gaming press when one of their pet games doesn't score as highly as they'd like.
Tellaerin said:
Way to respond to my post before, dickburglar, when I shove your question right up your ass. That's not true at all. People were complaining when James at GMR gave Ninja Gaiden a 9/10, because they said the game wasn't finished. Selective arguing ISN'T GOOD ARGUING.
Soul4ger said:
I actually felt your earlier response was a good one, and while I don't agree with it--I don't feel in all good conscience that I should recommend something to someone I know won't enjoy it, and I don't see how you can and still sleep easy--I was willing to let it pass as a difference in philosophies rather than arguing the point. THIS WAS NOT A RESPONSE TO YOUR EARLIER POST, which I didn't feel required an answer. Hopefully the part in all caps isn't lost on you. SELECTIVE READING ISN'T GOOD READING.
And as far as the people who were complaining about Milky's GMR review of the 'incomplete' Ninja Gaiden, it was primarily Dave Long doing the complaining, and I was one of the (many) people defending him here, so fuck off, bitch. Address the point I just raised, if you can--how many people here do you think would cry foul and start moaning about how journalistically bankrupt magazine x is if said magazine was giving their favorite/most anticipated games glowing review scores? Aside from the NG thread, can you think of any? No, I didn't think so. Now stop riding my ass--I don't give a shit what problems you have IRL or what kind of stress you're under, it's no excuse for jumping my shit like that, so back the fuck up.
Mr_Furious
Member
How is it possible GI knows their audience? They have such limited exposure to their readers that they can't honestly gauge anything credible from them. Subscriptions were handed out like candy to whom ever walked into GS and purchased something. I've been a subscriber to countless video game magazines for over 10 years and have purchased tons more in the stores so how does GI know me or the 100s of thousands more like me? I've never filled out any surveys or been interviewed during at any time. They know dick about dick about the people that read their mags and are generalizing the "gaming public" and sway their reviews to appease the stereotype. They're not gonna change the review score to appease people yet they knowingly lowered the final review score from the start to appease people? WTF?chespace said:
Gaming mags should stop doing us these favors because, in the end, they're doing nothing but proving how unprofessional and flatout amateur they are.
Moo.
I love this hobby too much to not take it seriously. And it isn't about Mario, its about making a mockery of videogames by basing reviews on "the public opinion." Who is the public? Joe Stupid? I don't care what he thinks of games, and no game should be liked by him in order to get the respect all the people who spent years creating the game deserve.
Tellaerin said:
I didn't mean to come off as being up in your stuff, sir. Forgive me if it seemed that way. I meant it wryly moreso than anything else.
Anyway, I don't disagree with you. I think there would be people who would either keep their mouth shut, or say the review was warranted anyway. I'd like to think I'd be one of the people crying foul if it happened, but I don't know how many would. I can think of the Driv3r reviews, however, that got high scores, and though people who wrote the reviews didn't confirm it, there were many stories of people "close" to the source who said they gave it higher reviews than it deserved. And posters here complained. There have been a couple like that. But a game like Driv3r isn't comparable to something like Paper Mario 2, so, like you said, it's a tough call. But I think that could go for any anticipated game, on any system. It's not a similar situation, but people tried to defend Fable after it got an EIGHT, an EIGHT, in GMR. So it's not just Nintendo fans.
I've argued all along that this score was just wrong, not based on my opinion of the game, but on the simple fact that its design and polish warrants much higher than a 6.5 or whatever they gave it. And this confession, if you could call it that, only makes me feel more justified. I don't actually write for a magazine, but I can tell you that if I did, I would do everything in my power to make sure I reviewed everything fairly. People who actually do contribute might scoff at such a notion, because they know better, but... I dunno.
You're always going to find people who will complain, and those will will defend. But I think this is a special case, where it's more cut and dry. That is, however, just my opinion. And I'm not trying to chicken my way out of the consequences of my posts by saying it's my opinion, I'll willingly defend it.
I would, if it were brought to my attention since I don't read mags. I do bitch about the journalistic integrity of sites though, all the time. I care a hell of a lot more about journalistic theory and standards than I do about some silly reviews justifying my personal gaming tastes.Tellaerin said:
Now back to the topic at hand.
Mr_Furious
Member
This thread wouldn't exist but a similar thread about how he's swaying a score to appease the masses as opposed to being truthful would probably still exist in some form. Positive or negative swaying is still swaying and it's not fair to the game, publisher and the readership. If honesty took presidence in reviews, there wouldn't need to be the continual flow of apologies and backpedaling that results from them. It's been proven time and time again that some reviews are formed with an agenda which I find troublesome.Tellaerin said:
DCharlie
And even i am moderately surprised
i'm sure someone has said this already, but just GET RID of review scores.
It would mean that people would have to READ ABOUT THE GAME and you could even state "you know, this game might not be for people BECAUSE (reason)" and let people work it out from that.
Numbers are just for cock waving and arguements anyways.
6.8
It would mean that people would have to READ ABOUT THE GAME and you could even state "you know, this game might not be for people BECAUSE (reason)" and let people work it out from that.
Numbers are just for cock waving and arguements anyways.
6.8
Edge tried getting rid of them (or at least putting the scores in a table towards the end of the magazine), and people complained until they put them back.
Instead of asking for scores to be removed, why not just focus on the text of the review itself? Unless a score is very, very high or realy, really low, it usually has little effect on me.
Instead of asking for scores to be removed, why not just focus on the text of the review itself? Unless a score is very, very high or realy, really low, it usually has little effect on me.
So let me get this straight, Ribbit King is a better game than Paper Mario 2. If a reviewer actually thinks this is true they should not be reviewing any games in any magazine. The lower score proves to me that these reviewers do not like good games because Rabbit King is utter crap and I am sure that 90% of the videogame reviewers would agree with my thoughts.
I think I just figured out how to solve the review problems. As a previous editor of a video-game magazine, I think it would be a good idea to show other magazine's reviews of the same game so that the average consumer can get a good idea/feel for what the game is actually like. This will eliminate the "GI" bias-type reviews that are out there. I got this thought from the auto insurance sites that give you their quote plus five other quotes from the different companies out there. In addition, this would be great for the lazy people out there; they would only have to go one place instead of a couple
EDIT
I think I just figured out how to solve the review problems. As a previous editor of a video-game magazine, I think it would be a good idea to show other magazine's reviews of the same game so that the average consumer can get a good idea/feel for what the game is actually like. This will eliminate the "GI" bias-type reviews that are out there. I got this thought from the auto insurance sites that give you their quote plus five other quotes from the different companies out there. In addition, this would be great for the lazy people out there; they would only have to go one place instead of a couple
EDIT
I'm sure I've told this story before, but...
...back when I sold GameBoy HeadQuarters to gamespot.com part of the deal was that there would be no scores attached to any of my reviews. My argument was that if the readers wanted to know what I thought of the game, they should (shock!) read the review. Well that lasted a few months but the pile of hate mail just got bigger and bigger, and my last month on the site was spent exclusively retro-activly adding scores to all the reviews.
The kids love scores, what can I say.
...back when I sold GameBoy HeadQuarters to gamespot.com part of the deal was that there would be no scores attached to any of my reviews. My argument was that if the readers wanted to know what I thought of the game, they should (shock!) read the review. Well that lasted a few months but the pile of hate mail just got bigger and bigger, and my last month on the site was spent exclusively retro-activly adding scores to all the reviews.
The kids love scores, what can I say.
evilromero
Member
I would agree with this, but I'm holding out for Mario 64DS, Mario Tennis and Metroid Prime 2 for final judgement. But, yes, Paper Mario 2, just the time spent with it already, is easily a contender for GOTY.Dragona Akehi said:
Personally, I'd have liked to give the game a try, but I found the dialogue and character art so resolutely and deliberately child-oriented (is that a less offensive term than "kiddie"?) that it would substantially reduce my enjoyment of the game.
So I guess I don't find the reviewer's reasoning particularly problematic.
So I guess I don't find the reviewer's reasoning particularly problematic.