Okay, it was bad enough when it was just Jeremy, but Andy's comments cannot possibly coexist without there being lies, distortions and/or spin everywhere.
Hemmdog aka Andy said:
Ok look...I need to clear something up. First off, I'll fess up a little. I'm Andy McNamara, EIC of GI (I'm screwing up my anonymous status here, so bear with me, and yes, I know you don't give a shit who I am). Jeremy, who wrote the post that you so openly quote, is extremely misunderstood in this whole matter.
There's no problem with our reading comprehension. If there's something wrong with what we've derived from his statements, it's because he wrote it improperly, not because we don't understand the English language.
We do not, and I will repeat, we do not review games based on what people will think of the title. I called him on it this morning, and he was upset that the whole thing is not being understood the way he had intended it to be. The internet, as we all know, is full of trappings and misunderstandings.
And so are, apparently, magazine reviews, which leads back to this implication that none of us know how to properly read what GI's writers write.
Maybe it's being misunderstood from his end, but it seems like most people with some sense of journalistic integrity will agree that the motives provided for reviewing the game as it was reviewed are seriously flawed and counterproductive.
I have not played the game in its entirety. I personally believe the game to be better than the 6.75 that they scored it. But when I challenged them on it over and over they stuck to their guns (and I gave them a crapload of grief on their reviews). I admire them for that. They went against the grain, and they believe and stand by the scores they gave.
Jeremy really hasn't stuck to his review considering he's had to add comments on a message board that weren't found within the original text in order to explain why the score is what it is.
What are we to do? Force people to change their scores? Change the scores because we know that people will be pissed? I think you already know the answer to that question, as we let the review fly. We are not changing reviews to please the public. If that was the case, we would have given this an eight and been done with it.
By your very own reasoning the score was changed to fit the tastes of a certain undefined group of gamers, thereby pleasing them with the aim of your editorial content. No, you're not changing the score to please the public, but you are apparently changing the score to please the stereotypical GI reader.
I know Jeremy stated in his post that he felt he was considering the game buying public when he was writing his review, but what he was trying to convey was that he felt that our reviewer's point-of-view is not unlike others in the gaming public, and that by making their views known, he was serving gamers (which IS something we are trying to do). Not everyone loves this type of game - I think our review is proof of that.
For starters, I think it's pretty clear that Jeremy
did not get his point of view across, if only because he thought it necessary to write a damning post on a message board explaining his blatantly questionable intentions. "Not everyone loves this type of game" From what I gather the review does not state this. It doesn't state that there
is in fact an audience that will love it. Apparently, going by comments from Jeremy and yourself, there is an undefined and unconfirmed set of gaming values that your reviews aim to grade upon. I'd be real curious as to how that benefits anyone but the small number that actually do fit into this mysterious set of gamers.
Rip on Game Informer all you like, but I won't force someone to change a review. Yes, I will question and challenge them on what they write, but in the end an opinion is just that - an opinion. Who am I, or anyone else, to question anyone's view? The world needs more media that will pick a stance and stand by it in my personal opinion.
Perhaps you should be questioning
why they're writing what they are writing in addition to
what they're writing.
Both of them (Jeremy and Lisa) are harcore gamers, and both loved Superstar Saga. They both didn't like The Thousand Year Door. So be it.
According to Jeremy, the score for Paper Mario 2 was lowered because, and I quote, "it's a very kiddie game - it's target audience is clearly young gamers - I would say 10 and under. For that reason, we had to score it low." Please feel free to explain how Superstar Saga and The Thousand Year Door somehow have different target audiences and why the former didn't have to be scored low as well.
At the very least GI is being inconsistent. At most it has no integrity. Take your pick.
I respect the Gaming Age forums crowd as the hardest of the hardcore, and love to read these boards, but at times I think things get a little out of hand.
I don't think it's uncalled for to call out journalists on their highly questionable motivation and intent in
admittedly lowering a game's score in order to fit in with an undefined and unconfirmed set of gaming values.
I see all kinds of tastes that find their way here, and I think people are a little quick to call others wrong or stupid for a differing opinion. It's a video game. God knows I love them. And I love the ones I like even more, which is one of the reasons I visit these boards - to read what people who are passionate about games like myself have to say about games.
Video games are truly the greatest entertainment medium in the world. And I, like you, love to argue over right and wrong, but at some point you just have to let things go as a point you simply can't agree on.
This has nothing to do with the quality of the game. We've been over this before. This debate is about the purpose of a review and what should and should not be done. Don't try and diminish the criticism of GI's journalistic integrity by attaching it to a supposed anger over a low score. The issue is not the score, and that's been made clear by most everyone that's here and engaging in serious discussion.
I anxiously await more discussion on this.
