Support NeoGAF

[mashoutposse]

It depends on your personal definition of "review:"

Author's opinion?

Completely objective and clinical evaluation?

If it's the latter, then GI's statement makes perfect sense.

 

[AbeFroman]

This Jeremy says the game has good graphics and control and play but he complains about the dialogue not being "ADULT" and smart. He says is hould be like Aladin, smart enough for Kids and adults.

You just quoted Lisa :/

 

[TheGreenGiant]

debate debate debate debate debate debate debate debate debate debate debate debate debate debate debate debate debate debate debate debate debate debate debate debate debate debate debate debate debate debate debate debate debate debate debate debate debate debate debate debate debate debate debate debate debate debate debate debate debate debate debate debate debate debate debate debate debate debate debate debate debate debate debate debate debate debate debate debate debate debate debate debate

so.. how can we fix this? Boycott GI / don't buy them. Hit them where it hurts. Write to Nintendo and tell them to NOT advertise in GI. I never even pick it up at the newstand myself (even to read/flip through) - I guess just being in the confined (as is) space of GAF makes this hugely contentious. Reading this is causing me a major headache. Go with the sites you believe in; there's plenty of places that like the game; IGN,EGM,GAMESPOT - go with their reviews and BUY THIS GAME. Play it.

Solutions
a) boycott
b) GI recants or balances review in a short review next issue
c) see a) but if you don't buy it anyway, don't.
d) ignore this and buy game and play
e) all of the above

I won't go into how shockingly bad I think the PM2 review reflects on the 2 reviewers and the mags review policy

 

[Buffy4ever]

You just quoted Lisa :/

You are correct. My mistake..it was Lisa that said that.

 

[borghe]

The way I see it, he is talking about the "general public" in terms of GI's target audience. He mentions target audience first and foremost and says "For that reason, we had to score it low." What's GI's main readership demographic? If they skew older and aggressive target an "edgier" teenage demographic and viewpoint, I guess I can see what he's getting at.

It doesn't make it a 100% objective, neutral review, but there are magazines that do that all the time in name of the readership's viewpoint. A new hip-hop album get a very different review in The Source or Vibe from what it gets in People Magazine or Rolling Stone, for example.

First, that's kind of apples to oranges. A hip hop album will get a higher score from Source than People because the reviewers are different, and arugably the typical employee at each magazine is different.

Second, as has been already pointed out in this thread, what is the point of accomodating particular gamers even though you may feel otherwise? Say I like a game but don't "think" my target audience will like it, am I really doing them a service by steering them away from a game that I like? He says the game play, graphics, sound, and story are all decent, but that the dialogue is kiddie. Well, to me that seems like all of the major stuff is good, so what is the point of steering people away from it? Again, I don't mean to speak about the review directly but just the thought behind flavoring reviews differently from how you actually feel about the subject matter.

To me it just seems this type of mentality is to not at all objectively rate the game but to show "how cool" the magazine is. "Hey, we gave Mario a 6.75 but Liesure Suit Larry a 7.5. We're cool!"

And no, that's not made up. They really did score LSL higher than Paper Mario 2. I guess despite how repetitive and frustrating LSL can be at times it is still cooler to play for their target demographic than Paper Mario 2.

At least we know that GI's reviews serve no other purpose than to advertise how cool and hip their mag is.

 

[TheGreenGiant]

First, that's kind of apples to oranges. A hip hop album will get a higher score from Source than People because the reviewers are different, and arugably the typical employee at each magazine is different.

Second, as has been already pointed out in this thread, what is the point of accomodating particular gamers even though you may feel otherwise? Say I like a game but don't "think" my target audience will like it, am I really doing them a service by steering them away from a game that I like? He says the game play, graphics, sound, and story are all decent, but that the dialogue is kiddie. Well, to me that seems like all of the major stuff is good, so what is the point of steering people away from it? Again, I don't mean to speak about the review directly but just the thought behind flavoring reviews differently from how you actually feel about the subject matter.

To me it just seems this type of mentality is to not at all objectively rate the game but to show "how cool" the magazine is. "Hey, we gave Mario a 6.75 but Liesure Suit Larry a 7.5. We're cool!"

And no, that's not made up. They really did score LSL higher than Paper Mario 2. I guess despite how repetitive and frustrating LSL can be at times it is still cooler to play for their target demographic than Paper Mario 2.

At least we know that GI's reviews serve no other purpose than to advertise how cool and hip their mag is.

that LSL score is probably because they were able to get off on digital tits and suggestions of sex. CUM de laude? fap fap. 7.5 hardcore gamers... FHUTA

 

[op_ivy]

ok, i dont give a shit about paper mario, but goddamnit, i want an explanation for this
http://www.gamerankings.com/itemrankings/launchreview.asp?reviewid=375204

rallisport challenge 2 = 7.25 and 7. WTF!? isnt rally racing cool!?

 

[Teddman]

First, that's kind of apples to oranges. A hip hop album will get a higher score from Source than People because the reviewers are different, and arugably the typical employee at each magazine is different.

Well, the same goes for game magazines and reviewers. The typical employee at GI is probably far different from one at Nintendo Power or say, Edge Magazine in the UK. They have different readerships, and probably different tastes in games. If you subscribe to the idea that all magazines review games with a 100% neutral, objective tone, I can see why you might get upset by this review.

But they obviously don't, and that goes far beyond Game Informer. Taking into account your target readership is not necessarily unethical journalism, as many at GA seem to think. That's really the point I'm trying to make, along with the fact that 99% of the people in the thread are complaining about a review that they haven't even read. And it is about the review as well as the explanation, because take that statement and combine it with a score a few points higher for Paper Mario 2, and there'd be no such topic here or resulting uproar.

 

[gofreak]

I just happened to read what turned out to be a scarily relevant column in the latest Edge issue - Mr Biffo's "I only trust myself". I wish you could all read it, in fact I almost feel like reproducing it here word for word and damning the consequences. It's so relevant to this.

Nintendo should be royally pissed at this revelation (well, all publishers/developers should) - they'd obviously be disproportionately affected by such a "we have to score kiddie stuff low" stance.

By the way, is Game Informer the mag that was associated with Gamestop? Like, the one that Gamestop basically shoves down everyone's throat? If it is, this new information is even more unsettling, in light of my own experiences in retail. Also, the easiest way to protest against this now would be to cancel your subcriptions..if they are that Gamestop rag, they basically exist off of those free subscriptions. Just cancel yours and refuse them in the future. You'll get any of their good stuff on the web anyway (thinking media here, ala the RE4 exclusive, rather than their actual word content) ::shrug::

 

[TheGreenGiant]

ok, i dont give a shit about paper mario, but goddamnit, i want an explanation for this
http://www.gamerankings.com/itemrankings/launchreview.asp?reviewid=375204

rallisport challenge 2 = 7.25 and 7. WTF!? isnt rally racing cool!?

lisa's opinions : Xbox’s rally title isn’t a car sim, and it isn’t an arcade racer, so it falls into this weird gray area that isn’t my cup of tea.

But I thought they scored it to what the target gamer will get out of it? Spin spin.

* The graphics aside; RSC2 wasn't that great. IMO. Maybe a 8.

 

[gofreak]

Well, the same goes for game magazines and reviewers. The typical employee at GI is probably far different from one at Nintendo Power or say, Edge Magazine in the UK. They have different readerships, and probably different tastes in games. If you subscribe to the idea that all magazines review games with a 100% neutral, objective tone, I can see why you might get upset by this review.

Edge does not take their audience into account at all when reviewing games. This should be perfectly clear by now They follow their own set of seemingly well defined guidelines on how to judge a game. It's based on things like technical competency of the gameplay mechanic, a heavy weighting toward originality, innovation, that elusive idea of "gameplay". It has nothing to do with the composition of their readership. Or the theme of the game, for that matter, which any gamer should realise is just a means to an end.

I don't subscribe to the notion of magazines reviewing games with a 100% neutral, objective tone, and I am very angry at this review. I expect reviewers to either a) form their own opinion and express it, or b) follow very clearly defined structures in judging a game's merits based on its quality as a game and nothing else. GI are not doing this. They are skewing scores based on their perception of their audience's taste, and marking games down because of their theme, which really that should be completely superficial when you're considering the game underneath it all. It just really drags down videogames journalism as a whole, and is a setback on the road to where many of us would like the industry to go.

IMO, the magazine should fall for this. They simply cannot retain any credibility, so what's the point in going forward?

 

[borghe]

Well, the same goes for game magazines and reviewers. The typical employee at GI is probably far different from one at Nintendo Power or say, Edge Magazine in the UK.

again that is an inappropriate comparison. Saying that reviewers from one general gaming mag compared to another general gaming mag are as different as reviewers from one general interest mag compared to a dedicated black culture mag is kind of silly. Gamers are gamers, and while some might not like RPGs and others might not like sports games, they are still not as socially segmented as say the music industry. The game industry is more akin to the movie industry. The movie industry and the reviewers are MUCH less segmented and divided than the music industry.

Taking that into account you still don't explain the purpose of steering readers away from a game that you actually like.

You also don't explain how Paper Mario 2, which even according to the review essentially fires on all categories except target audience, scores lower than a seriously flawed game like LSL.

I can certainly appreciate a spirited debate as much as the next guy, and there are certainly merits to defend GI on, but at the end of the day their review and review policy are HIGHLY questionable, especially taken into the context of previous reviews from the magazine.

Samurai Warriors is better than Paper Mario 2 according to the same reviewer, and it should be noted that they are in the upper half of the average review for the game on gamerankings.

Like I said, throw objective reviewing out the window for GI. It is all about making their magazine more appealing to their target demographic. So if their content is really nothing more than an advertisement to buy their magazine, what exactly is the purpose of buying it again?

 

[Dan]

And it is about the review as well as the explanation, because take that statement and combine it with a score a few points higher for Paper Mario 2, and there'd be no such topic here or resulting uproar.

If Jeremy made those comments and they weren't in response to a specific game review, there'd still be people upset.

Remember, we aren't scoring games strictly on our personal opinions, we're also scoring them based on how much we think THE GAMING PUBLIC will like them. We've all played games that we personally disliked and scored them well because we've known that most people will like them, and we've also scored games low that we love, because most people won't enjoy them.

That quote is disturbing no matter how it's presented. End of story.

 

[cybamerc]

Teddman:

> Taking into account your target readership is not necessarily unethical journalism, as
> many at GA seem to think.

There's a difference between keeping a target audience in mind and holding a game up to a completely arbitrary standard.

> That's really the point I'm trying to make, along with the fact that 99% of the people in
> the thread are complaining about a review that they haven't even read.

That comment just shows your ignorance on the matter. Most people aren't complaining about the actual review but rather the review policy. The specifics of the review are irrelevant.

 

[Cerebral Palsy]

I was just at Gamestop. I wanted to kick the magazine rack over, but wussed out. I ended up sticking a GamePro infront of the GI copies as I grabbed my copy of PM2. I will not stand for these horrible review policies. HUZZAH, TAKE THAT GI!!!!

 

[Justin Bailey]

Remember, we aren't scoring games strictly on our personal opinions, we're also scoring them based on how much we think THE GAMING PUBLIC will like them. We've all played games that we personally disliked and scored them well because we've known that most people will like them, and we've also scored games low that we love, because most people won't enjoy them.

WELL THAT ABOUT WRAPS IT UP FOR GAME INFORMER

 

[Dragona Akehi]

Teddman: I've played the game. The review is whack, and the comments are even whacker. Happy now?

The JPN version has some really cute/funny dialogue. Did NOA fuck up the translation or something?

 

[gofreak]

It is all about making their magazine more appealing to their target demographic.

Exactly. If you want reviews that are basically going to tell you what you want to hear (AS LONG AS YOU CONFORM TO GI-COOKIE-CUTTER-GAME-FANtm STANDARDS!), buy GI. The Yes-Men of game reviews.

Weak weak weak weak weak. If ever I wanted to start a...::gasp:....internet petition, it's now.

 

[Combine]

Teddman: I've played the game. The review is whack, and the comments are even whacker. Happy now?

The JPN version has some really cute/funny dialogue. Did NOA fuck up the translation or something?

Gamespot and others have indicated that NOA did a very first-rate translation and that the game is very humorous. It seemed that way from the short time I played it at E3.

 

[Dragona Akehi]

Well that's good to hear. After Fire Emblem I have the utmost faith in NOA's translation team. (They left the Yaoi hinting in! Hilarity!) I was expecting a good one, and from the preliminary reports, it seemed great.

Also, Paper Mario 2 is way better than Superstar Saga, in terms of battlesystem and general gameplay to say the very least, and I would put story and characters on PM2's side as well.

 

[Combine]

I guess the only downside is that there isn't a character in this one as humorous as Fawful

"I HAVE FURY!!!"

 

[Mr_Furious]

Teddman, you trying to get a job at GI? And you're right, this shit happens at more than just GI which is why no one should put any credibility into any review (your included)

Has anyone thought that maybe GI shouldn't have even reviewed PM2 if it didn't fit their so-called target demographic (which I still believe to be bullshit because there's no possible fucking way GI could know who's reading their mag)?

If you can't be fair about reviewing a game, maybe it would be best not to review it. Or better yet, place the game into someone's hands that can be objective? I don't know the tastes of this Jeremy or Lisa but maybe they don't really care for these kinds of games. Should a person who hates RPGs be put in the position to review an RPG (for example)? Odds are, there's going to be some bias reflecting in said review.

 

[Buffy4ever]

Well, PM2 wasn't the Only review I was shocked by. I don't think Game Imofrmer is ani-Nintendo, it just seems this month they are more pro western games. This issue actually made me think of the thread, " the fall of the Japanese Vidoe game King", that was on the front page earlier this week.

western console games in game informer
Tiny Hawk's Undergound 2....9.75, 9.75
NBA live 2005....8.25, 8.25
Espn NBA 2k5....9, 8.75
X-men Legends...9, 9
Tak 2: staff of Dreams...7.25, 7
Crah twinsanity...6, 6.25
BloodRayne 2...8,8
Leisure suit Larry: manga cum Laude..7.5, 7.25
Ty the Tasmainian Tiger 2...6.75
King Aurthur...7.25
Spyro hero's tail..6.35
Fifa 2005..7.75, 8.25
Ratcher and Clank 3...10,10
Jak 3..9.25,9
Toca race driver 7.5
Men of Valor..7.75, 8.25
Syberia 2..6.25
Wings of war..6.5
Kingdome Under fire..7.75, 8.25


Eastern console games

Teenage Ninja turtles 2: nattle Nexus..6,6
Neo contra..7.75, 7.25
Shin Meami Tensei: nocturne..7.5,7.5
Blood will tell...5,5
Monster hunter..5, 3.75 ( I was shocked by this score)
The Nightmare of Druaga: Fushigino Dungeon..4,4
Gungraveverdose.... 4.75, 5
Time crise : crisis zone...6.75
Tecnic Beat..7.5
King of fighter: maxium impact ..6.5
Koun.....6
KaraokeRevolution vol 3...8.25
Paper Mario 2..6.75, 6
Donkey Konga..7, 7.5
Snk chaos..snk vs capcom..6.5

Now I am not saying the games that got good scores are bad, or that the games that got bad scores didn't deserve it. It just the western games this month seem to have been given a more postive reviews. I Know Game Informer is not anti japanese, becuase they have given apanese games good scores in the past. This month is just strange. I will let you decide.

 

[CrimsonSkies]

The Eastern Developed games are fairly craptacular above with the exception of a few.

 

[Teddman]

Teddman: I've played the game. The review is whack, and the comments are even whacker. Happy now?

Yes, with your post. You know what you're talking about.

IMO, the magazine should fall for this.

Let's grab the torches and round up a lynch mob, they ran a bad review of Paper Mario 2!

 

[Kifimbo]

Leisure suit Larry: manga cum Laude..7.5, 7.25
Paper Mario 2..6.75, 6

Nuff said...

 

[op_ivy]

Yes, with your post. You know what you're talking about. Let's grab the torches and round up a lynch mob, they ran a bad review of Paper Mario 2!

AND rsc2!


can i join in?

 

[Dragona Akehi]

Yes, with your post. You know what you're talking about.

At least you are being somewhat reasonable.

 

[ferricide]

The Eastern Developed games are fairly craptacular above with the exception of a few.

actually, yeah. lot of these are not-so-special, in GI's defense.

scores either "right" or on the right track, anyway:

Teenage Ninja turtles 2: nattle Nexus..6,6
Neo contra..7.75, 7.25
The Nightmare of Druaga: Fushigino Dungeon..4,4
King of fighter: maxium impact ..6.5
Tecnic Beat..7.5
Koun.....6
Donkey Konga..7, 7.5
Snk chaos..snk vs capcom..6.5
Gungraveverdose.... 4.75, 5

(potentially) underrated:

Shin Meami Tensei: nocturne..7.5,7.5
Blood will tell...5,5
Monster hunter..5, 3.75 ( I was shocked by this score)
Time crise : crisis zone...6.75
Paper Mario 2..6.75, 6

not actually japanese:

KaraokeRevolution vol 3...8.25

KUF is actually korean, btw.

 

[chespace]

The Eastern Developed games are fairly craptacular above with the exception of a few.

Actually, Kingdoms Under Fire is a Eastern developed game.

edit: ahhh christian. you beat me to it. i love planetes by the way.

 

[WarPig]

I turned the Nutt on to the Planetes, so thank me.

Or actually, thank Neil Nadelman, because he told me to read it. If you wanna watch the TV show, holler, I have a shitload on DVD-R around here somewhere.

DFS.

 

[Socreges]

The part about public opinions is mentioned in connection with that, but he never says public opinion ran contrary to his in the case of Paper Mario 2.

Even though what you're twisting what's being said to excuse them, twist this:

We've all played games that we personally disliked and scored them well because we've known that most people will like them, and we've also scored games low that we love, because most people won't enjoy them.

You don't have a leg to stand on, Teddman. It almost seems like you know that, but continue to defend them for whatever interest.

 

[Teddman]

Socreges, he's obviously making a butchery of the English language and the rationale of his defense in that line. But there is a grain of truth in it.

Case in point, I personally find Metal Arms to be a 10.0 game. But when reviewing it for a magazine, I would not give it that score. One reason is that it doesn't have Xbox LIVE multiplayer, which to me was of no consequence back then, since I didn't have LIVE. Also had no co-op mode, which didn't bother me much either in light of how awesome the single-player mode was. And it had some polygonal tearing/shearing issues, also made no difference to me because the frame rate stayed high.

But for the more multiplayer-oriented gamer, or those who really value image integrity in games, those might be big factors, even the difference between a buy and a rental. Based on that, I can state that Metal Arms was the perfect game for me, but clearly not a perfect game for everybody, or even the majority of folks who would be reading the review. I would have to take that into account and lower the score to something in the 8.0-9.5 range.

And there's nothing wrong with that. I'm not writing the review for myself.

 

[Socreges]

Socreges, he's obviously making a butchery of the English language and the rationale of his defense in that line. But there is a grain of truth in it.

His English is fine. And he didn't simply express himself poorly. In fact, he came across very clearly.

Instances where:

"Love" game --> "low" score
"Dislike" game --> score "well"

That's not a matter of misinterpretation. Or general interests in particular features determining the score.

I don't need to read specific reviews to know that they apparently have a ass-backwards method of scoring games. Jeremy was very specific and clearly meant to address the issue one way. He says the same thing in several different approaches, leading everyone to one conclusion. Now, if he supposedly meant otherwise, then I am suspicious as to why he would issue a statement that can only be distinctly understood the one way.

At any rate, if you can't agree, then maybe you're beginning to understand where people are coming from, versus what you said earlier.

[edit] Funny that I was actually concerned that I might feel the same about PM2. I never thought to debate the score, especially since I haven't played the game. But this is a relief. Coupled with the very high scores from IGN, Gamespot, etc. Still planning on just borrowing it, though.

 

[Teddman]

Well, that's what I meant by "grain of truth." My Metal Arms review scenario was to illustrate that the core notion of taking into consideration your readers' opinions as well as your own is not always a bad or unethical thing to do when reviewing a game.

GI's judgment and the extent to which they applied that practice to Paper Mario 2 is a separate matter, not one I necessarily feel was on the money either (though I haven't read the review or played beyond a demo of the game).

 

[Hemmdog]

First of all...I've been on the road all day, so sorry for the slow response. Secondly, I'm heading out for the evening with a developer so I don't have time to go into details on this.

But basically, it doesn't sound like there is much point to continuing this conversation as anything I say will be considered "spin" or "damage control." It is obvious that everyone has made up their mind on the matter already.

Heck, even people that were willing to listen to my previous explaination (that Jeremy's post was a misrepresentation of what he was trying to get across, and a mistake) were damned for even thinking that what I am saying has any value.

It seems you have all made up your minds already - cool. I can dig that. Sorry I intruded.

I came here and told you the truth, believe it or not. In each and every issue of our magazine we do the same; we tell you our honest opinions on games like it or not. I'm not changing reviews for fear of what some people may think, or because of some outside influence (be it a publisher, developer, or reader).

Cheers,

Andy

 

[Cerebral Palsy]

But basically, it doesn't sound like there is much point to continuing this conversation as anything I say will be considered "spin" or "damage control." It is obvious that everyone has made up their mind on the matter already.

Just curious... Are you a Republican? Seems you would fit right in with the OT conservative crew.

 

[Dan]

Where's the Iraqi defense minister when you need him?

So basically it's one giant denial of any possibility of anything wrong here. I can only hope that that's just a public front and that in private someone's acknowledging that there are issues here worth contemplating and addressing.

*sigh*

 

[Socreges]

But basically, it doesn't sound like there is much point to continuing this conversation as anything I say will be considered "spin" or "damage control." It is obvious that everyone has made up their mind on the matter already.

Heck, even people that were willing to listen to my previous explaination (that Jeremy's post was a misrepresentation of what he was trying to get across, and a mistake) were damned for even thinking that what I am saying has any value.

It seems you have all made up your minds already - cool. I can dig that. Sorry I intruded.

I came here and told you the truth, believe it or not. In each and every issue of our magazine we do the same; we tell you our honest opinions on games like it or not. I'm not changing reviews for fear of what some people may think, or because of some outside influence (be it a publisher, developer, or reader).

Cheers,

Andy

Or, perhaps, people listened to what you had to say and didn't buy into your justification. At least, that's where I stand. Very little of what you said made any sense. You can try and project it as us simply not giving you a reasonable chance, but what's done is done.

 

[GaimeGuy]

You could also tell us HOW it's a misunderstanding, rather than simply saying it's a misunderstanding.

 

[Socreges]

Where's the Iraqi defense minister when you need him?

"Don't listen to these members of the GAF. What was
said by the glorious GI constituents is true and forever
will be. We are not contradicting ourselves. GAF just
does not want to hear the truth."

 

[demi]

 

[Drensch]

In each and every issue of our magazine we do the same; we tell you our honest opinions on games like it or not.

I don't think there'd be this thread if that were true.

 

[darkiguana]

If they thought the game was crap then they should have given it a low score.

If they thought the game was good, then they should have given it a high score.

However,

they thought the game was good but gave it a low score because some people would think it was "OMG TEH KIDDIE!!!" and not like it.

How anyone can defend this practice is beyond me.

darkiguana

 

[cvxfreak]

 

[Bizarro Sun Yat-sen]

It's based on things like technical competency of the gameplay mechanic, a heavy weighting toward originality, innovation, that elusive idea of "gameplay".

Good gameplay isn't really any more elusive a quality than originality or good graphics or sound or...

 

[etiolate]

I just don't understand how this:

However, it also WILL NOT appeal to many people - I would safely say that more people will dislike it than like it. Why? Like we said in the review, 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. Remember, we aren't scoring games strictly on our personal opinions, we're also scoring them based on how much we think THE GAMING PUBLIC will like them.

Can be misunderstood. It's pretty plain to me that they are justifying their score by saying the 'kiddie'-ness of the game is a negative factor. If they have another legitimate complaint ragarding actual game quality then let it be known. That is like rating a FPS game lower because it is set in vietnam and that may cause some people flashbacks.

Frankly, I think saying the game is suited for "10 and under" makes the reviewers look like the childish ones.

 

[Alcibiades]

lmao

 

[gofreak]

But basically, it doesn't sound like there is much point to continuing this conversation as anything I say will be considered "spin" or "damage control."

I think you just want to end the conversation in order to pretend this never happened and to hope this blows over. The deletion of Jeremy's original comments is another sign you're trying to brush this under the carpet. The more you try to dodge this, the more motivated people will be to keep it to the fore.

Your defense has made no sense. Jeremy, or GI collectively, has screwed up. No one is misunderstanding anything. Someone needs to take responsibility, acknowledge the problem, and present a solution to fix it, in order to at least attempt to reconstruct the magazine's credibility. A lot of your readership may not have noticed this now. But it's obvious that "the hardcore" has. The harcore's acceptance and trust of your reviews, is IMO, fairly significant in defining your credibility with the masses. Word will get around about this, and eventually filter through to more general readers. People will look to their "hardcore" friends, see what they're saying about GI, and become less confident in the magazine. "If he thinks their reviews are useless.." etc. This is not some fanboy crusade against bad scores for their favourite game. This concerns the fundamental influences of your scores and reviews.

Grow a pair of balls and stop denying the fact that a problem exists!

 

[MaddenNFL64]

Man, no wonder ETM scored so well with GI.

Now we know .