Support NeoGAF

[Goreomedy]

I've stayed out of this thread until now, but I have to agree with Gofreak.

Here's the problem, Andy. There's not some grand misunderstanding; there never was. How can such an outrageous, to-the-point statement be misrepresented? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you have at least "decent" hiring standards when it comes to your staff. So... either Jeremy lied in his post on your forums, or you're lying to us now. You can't hope something like that will go away by throwing out a patronizing post about the trappings of internet communication and fanboy overreaction.

Your insults have resolved nothing.

 

[Speevy]

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

Do you realize that this thread stems from the fact that GI's reviews are consistently off the mark compared with other publications?

The problem is not that you have wrong criteria for reviewing games, but that you have no consistent criteria.

For example, it would appear that you guys reviewed Enter the Matrix under the "popular game" criterion.

But wait, Ikaruga got a 9 and Katamari Damacy got an 8. So I guess you guys really do care about setting genre and system standards and reviewing games based on that.

Then again, look at your Mario Party 5 score. Who gave it a 2? That was just....ugh.

 

[gofreak]

Do you realize that this thread stems from the fact that GI's reviews are consistently off the mark compared with other publications?

The problem is not that you have wrong criteria for reviewing games, but that you have no consistent criteria.

For example, it would appear that you guys reviewed Enter the Matrix under the "popular game" criterion.

But wait, Ikaruga got a 9 and Katamari Damacy got an 8. So I guess you guys really do care about setting genre and system standards and reviewing games based on that.

Then again, look at your Mario Party 5 score. Who gave it a 2? That was just....ugh.

Though I agree that consistency is an issue, particularly in light of the examples you cite, this thread didn't stem from it. Obviously people do have issue with the criteria themselves, be they consistent or not. Reviewing games based on your prediction of its popular perception is just...hmm, having trouble finding the word, to be honest.

 

[Buffy4ever]

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!

I think you are putting to much importance on the "Hardcore" then thier really is. People tend to ignore the "Hardcore" these days. If we were so important then games like enter the Matrix woulnd't sell and more games like Viewtful Joe would. I don't think GI has anything to fear just becuase the "Hardcore" fans are upset.

 

[Sho Nuff]

SHUT UP, NERDS!

Jesus H, I can't believe how long this thread has gone on. It's just Game Informer for Chrissakes! It's not like any of you even read magazines, let alone actual books!

 

[gofreak]

I think you are putting to much importance on the "Hardcore" then thier really is. People tend to ignore the "Hardcore" these days. If we were so important then games like enter the Matrix woulnd't sell and more games like Viewtful Joe would. I don't think GI has anything to fear just becuase the "Hardcore" fans are upset.

Perhaps. I guess I can only speak for myself when I say: I think GI is a joke. I think a fair number of people have also reached that conclusion, but I'm sure they'll still have their audience. I guess we can just :lol and as they mislead them.

 

[Mrbob]

It's funny how this thread has over 400 posts yet the "Official Paper mario 2 Impressions thread" has barely cracked 100.

Go play the game, people.

 

[WordofGod]

It's funny how this thread has over 400 posts yet the "Official Paper mario 2 Impressions thread" has barely cracked 100.

Go play the game, people.

Waiting for Fry's to get them in tomorrow.

 

[Mrbob]

They have to have the game by now.

My small backwoods town has the game in stock in all the stores.

 

[ElyrionX]

Actually, Andy's sincerity is rather convincing but like what everyone else has said, I believe there needs to be more explanation with regards to Jeremy's statements on the GI forums before we can even get anywhere further with this discussion......

 

[WordofGod]

to Hemmdog:

Andy, while I do enjoy your magazine (I receive it every month in the mail) you need to stop lying and admit what happened really did happen. Jeremy should not review Nintendo games anymore nor should that other person. They are not qualified to score a game 6.75 when the game deserves so much higher. Your job now is to save face and not let them review Nintendo games anymore. I do not know if Jeremy or this girl has something against Nintendo, or just kiddy Nintendo games. They are too bias to review good Nintendo games in my view and I am speaking from 24 years of videogame experience + 5 years as Editor of Gamefan Magazine. If this were to happen @ Gamefan that person would have not been allowed to review Nintendo games anymore and would have been demoted. I read their original response about why they gave it the score they did and I believe that is their honest view, but its still a crap one. Never in the history of Gamefan did we review a game based off what the public would think of it, we always reviewed based off what we liked. People would get angry at all the high marks we would give most games but we really played them and loved them that much. It was our passion and it showed in how we talked about games. Andy, get some strength and do something about this. If you do not, it will come to bite you in the end. This is how it works in life.

 

[AbeFroman]

to Hemmdog:

If this were to happen @ Gamefan that person would have not been allowed to review Nintendo games anymore and would have been demoted. .

If this were at Gamefan it would have been SABOTAGE!!!11!!

 

[FortNinety]

Andy, I believe this is the an excellent opportunity for you to make a stance and to create a positive out of a very negative situation. What has just happened should not be brushed under the rug and business should not go on "as usual". You really need to reevaluate and readjust your review policies and even make some personnel changes if you ever want to be taken seriously ever again.

 

[xsarien]

PS: I believe this is the point where you call me stupid and say that my magazine sucks.

I'm not slugging through this entire thread, but I want to chime in pretty quickly:

we're also scoring them based on how much we think THE GAMING PUBLIC will like them.

I'm not seeing your interpretation in the original explanation at all. I see someone who was trying to divine what others gamers might think of the game, and have the score reflect that.

Which is dumb.

The only opinion that matters in a review is the reviewer's, pre-emptive damage control does nothing but hurt credibility.

 

[AniHawk]

They have to have the game by now.

My small backwoods town has the game in stock in all the stores.

Fry's deal doesn't start until Thursday.

I can't get it today as I have to go down to Gamestop immediately after school (and the school is really damn close to where Fry's is, but Gamestop isn't).

 

[Yusaku]

SHUT UP, NERDS!

Jesus H, I can't believe how long this thread has gone on. It's just Game Informer for Chrissakes! It's not like any of you even read magazines, let alone actual books!

The stack of magazines I get every month would like to have a word with you.

 

[gofreak]

We need a "we will never forget" type picture for this..

..cos I just know GI wants us all to. I doubt they'll say another word on this.

 

[chespace]

let's just say that this thread has had a huge impact on all aspects of the gaming press.

for what it's worth, much has been discussed on the matter outside of this forum.

 

[Chittagong]

let's just say that this thread has had a huge impact on all aspects of the gaming press.

for what it's worth, much has been discussed on the matter outside of this forum.

Damn you, I didn't want to participate to this thread, but now I have to, since GAF is making history.

Makes you wonder how much easier it would have been if they would have just insisted that they didn't enjoy the game because of their personal tastes that do not react favorably at fruity games. That would have been end of story. Taste, not arguable. But no, they made on quadrupling the damage by coming up with a total disaster of an explanation.

Shit, I can't possibly imagine any other way of explaining that would have led to an even worse outcome. This is the king of destructive PR indeed. Then the editor guy dropping his alias in order to pop in once in a while to fuel the flames. "Oh it's almost quieting down... gotta go and say something dork." Wow!

 

[WarPig]

for what it's worth, much has been discussed on the matter outside of this forum.

Much of it related to the matter of "keeping your goddamn foot out your mouth in public forums."

Now I'm off to say FUCK GODDAMN SHITHEAD CARTOON PORNOGRAPHY a lot in some other thread.

DFS.

 

[radcliff]

I'm guessing the editor is stirring the pot so his mag can get continued free pubicity (any publicity is good publicity).

But back to the subject, the revelation that games are reviewed based on a gamer's perception, and not the actual game, is quite shocking. But if you are going to review games based on this arbitrary criteria, you may actually want to see what people's reactions to the game actually are! Your reviewers were WAY off the mark since every review score from EGM, IGN, Gamespot, etc. have all been favorable.

 

[IAmtheFMan]

Man, anyone pick up the latest GI? What's up with the Paper Mario 2 score?

 

[CrimsonSkies]

Holy hell. I mean nobody can ever say the Fable threads were overkill on GMR now.

"gaming press"

I mean seriously here. How of you guys that get paid to review games have any formal training to consider yourself "press". I seriously doubt there's many of you with jouralistic degrees. I could be surprised though, so enlighten me.

 

[WarPig]

How of you guys that get paid to review games have any formal training to consider yourself "press".

If it's printed, it's the press (I guess the internet is a gray area by that definition, but whatever). Calling something the press ain't any kind of value judgment. UK tabloids are the fuckin' press.

Calling me a journalist is questionable, yeah. My mom's a journalist, but maybe not me. I like to call myself a nominally independent marketing representative, when I'm in a cynical mood ^_^ When I'm in a less cynical mood, I'm a shabby sort of critic.

DFS.

 

[Sho Nuff]

I mean seriously here. How of you guys that get paid to review games have any formal training to consider yourself "press". I seriously doubt there's many of you with jouralistic degrees. I could be surprised though, so enlighten me.

Yeah, I'm jealous too.

 

[WarPig]

Yeah, I'm jealous too.

I wasn't gonna say it if nobody else did...

This job is nothing to be jealous of, though. Write Dave Z and ask him about covering the Tokyo Game Show, he'll explain in painful detail.

DFS.

 

[Jonnyboy117]

I mean seriously here. How of you guys that get paid to review games have any formal training to consider yourself "press". I seriously doubt there's many of you with jouralistic degrees. I could be surprised though, so enlighten me.

Screw formal training, how about nearly six years of practical experience? I wouldn't trade it for a journalism degree, that's for sure. (I have a college degree in a separate field.) Not to say that a journalism degree is a waste of time or money, but to do what we do, it's not really necessary as long as you have personal motivation and can learn from others. I don't think most of what is taught in journalism courses is designed for or even applicable to how this industry needs to be covered.

 

[Dan]

let's just say that this thread has had a huge impact on all aspects of the gaming press.

for what it's worth, much has been discussed on the matter outside of this forum.

Much of it related to the matter of "keeping your goddamn foot out your mouth in public forums."

Cool, but hopefully there's at least an equal amount of discussion on the actual substance of the issue. Anywho...

I would also chime in that I don't think a journalism degree is necessary at all. At most it might give a leg up to the guys doing daily coverage online on some other medium, with respect to basic news story craft and whatnot. There are other important aspects to the industry though that a journalism degree just isn't going to cover.

Oh, and this thread needs to be archived when it dies down and is over with. This thing definitely needs to be saved.

 

[ferricide]

i've definitely been in situations where a journalism degree would have helped me. i did study writing in college, and that helped a lot -- but it was creative writing, not journalism. there are some practical things i didn't know at first. i've learned them.

but really, i think having experienced peers, superiors and role models in the field has been as valuable as any course would be, if not more so. on the other hand, sometimes i ended up having to learn from my mistakes. the important thing here is the learning, right?

writing for games (and the web in general, especially) is a trial by fire. hell, gamespy's managing editor (john "warrior" keefer) came from a newspaper background and he still had to learn a ton to become a true web game journalist. so it goes both ways. there's just a lot to learn for everyone who gets involved with it, no matter their background or training. the important thing is what you learn and how you use it... and this issue has taught us all a little bit more about the world of game journalism from a variety of angles.

 

[chespace]

i've definitely been in situations where a journalism degree would have helped me. i did study writing in college, and that helped a lot -- but it was creative writing, not journalism. there are some practical things i didn't know at first. i've learned them.

but really, i think having experienced peers, superiors and role models in the field has been as valuable as any course would be, if not more so. on the other hand, sometimes i ended up having to learn from my mistakes. the important thing here is the learning, right?

writing for games (and the web in general, especially) is a trial by fire. hell, gamespy's managing editor (john "warrior" keefer) came from a newspaper background and he still had to learn a ton to become a true web game journalist. so it goes both ways. there's just a lot to learn for everyone who gets involved with it, no matter their background or training. the important thing is what you learn and how you use it... and this issue has taught us all a little bit more about the world of game journalism from a variety of angles.

christian, my how you've grown from the gamers.com days of pissing in my eye when i said evangelion was overrated. i really am proud of you.

and i need to give back your planetes.

 

[demi]

writing for games (and the web in general, especially) is a trial by fire. hell, gamespy's managing editor (john "warrior" keefer) came from a newspaper background and he still had to learn a ton to become a true web game journalist. so it goes both ways. there's just a lot to learn for everyone who gets involved with it, no matter their background or training. the important thing is what you learn and how you use it... and this issue has taught us all a little bit more about the world of game journalism from a variety of angles.

HEATHEN BEGONE! THE DEVIL HAS YOUR SOUL.

THE FACT REMAINS 6.73 PAPER MARIO 4 WHAT THE FUCK HAS THE WORLD COME TO

LOOK AT THE GOD DAMN BOX FOR CRYING OUT LOUD ITS RIGHT THERE

http://paintedover.com/uploads/show.php?loc=11&f=6.75.jpg

 

[Neato_Jinkins]

Way to come to a well-known board and make the biggest ass possible of yourself, champ.

"Well you see, I wholeheartedly disagree with their review -- but God DAMN they had some moxy, and you just can't contain that."

Then people call you on your half-hearted spin control and you play the victim card. I can't read your last reply without hearing Droopy Dog's voice in my head.

Use ambiguous reasoning for a review and this is what will happen. I don't like survival horror games, guess they aren't for everyone -- you better rate them lower from now on.

 

[Tellaerin]

Use ambiguous reasoning for a review and this is what will happen. I don't like survival horror games, guess they aren't for everyone -- you better rate them lower from now on.

Nah, they should go the opposite route--encourage their reviewers to hand out scores based solely on the reviewer's personal preferences, even when they know their preferences don't reflect the majority of the magazine's readership. Who cares if you steer readers to buy a title that you honestly don't believe most of them will like? Hell, you liked it, Mr. Reviewer, and you're the one who matters! We're not buying magazines to help us decide which games we should buy, we're buying them to learn more about you and what you like!

No, sorry, wrong.

There's definitely two sides to this issue, and most of you are only seeing one of them. If a magazine focuses on a particular audience, I think being able to pick up that magazine and find reviews that take the tastes and biases of that audience into account is a positive, not a negative. It doesn't matter to me whether the reviewer is recommending the game highly because he honestly liked it, or just because he thinks people like me (that is, people who would buy the type of magazine in question) would like it, as long as I feel like I've been led to make a good purchase. The reviewer's opinion is significant, but it shouldn't exist in a vacuum--tempering it with an awareness of the target audience isn't a crime. As I said earlier in the thread, I feel the GI reviewers may have misjudged the tastes of their readership with the Paper Mario 2 review, which is always a danger, but to ignore the readers altogether and review games as if they're only writing for themselves strikes me as a far greater disservice.

 

[Mr_Furious]

Then why even review a game like PM if it does not fit GI's target demographic? Wouldn't it be in everyone's best interest to simply not cover the game? The supposed Madden, Halo, GTA crowd would likely skip right on past a game like PM anyways so why shed any light on it at all? How much preview coverage did this game get in GI anyways?

 

[borghe]

Then why even review a game like PM if it does not fit GI's target demographic?

Quite possibly the most intelligent thing said in this thread.

Exactly.. If a game doesn't fit in with a magazine's target demographic, why review it at all? Do you see Fangoria reviewing Bridges of Madison County? Or Vibe review First Daughter? No, probably not...

good job on that one. how about rating games that your target audience actually WOULD like instead of rating good games they wouldn't like with low scores to justify to themselves how cool they are even if they play video games.

 

[Justin Bailey]

Actually, GI should have a "cool" rating. Like how cool you looked while playing the game. That way the GAMING PUBLIC will know how cool they are because GI told them so.

 

[Senretsu]

They specifically say "This is a well-made game" but then score it low? Thats garbage.

 

[borghe]

They specifically say "This is a well-made game" but then score it low? Thats garbage.

that isn't unusual... IGN I know has done that numerous times.. they gush and gush about a game in the review and you get to the end and it's like 7.2.

Bottom line is hemmdog would have never spoken up, some people would be trashing GI for their low score and others would be defending them for their right to an opinion. But with hemmdog letting us in on GI's review criteria and catering scores based on target demographic and not really at all objective, they pretty much dug there own grave on this board.

 

[Tellaerin]

Quite possibly the most intelligent thing said in this thread.

Mr_Furious made a good point, as do you. However, RPG's and Gamecube games fall within the scope of GI readers' interests. In the real world, not every Cube owner is a Nintendrone who will automatically buy all Nintendo first party releases (and defend them to the death on messageboards). People like that aren't going to be influenced by magazines to begin with, so there's little point in trying to offer them buying advice anyway. For those readers potentially interested in the game and not slavishly devoted to Nintendo, the GI review in effect said, 'We think we've got a pretty good idea of what you guys like, and this game is probably not it.' Hardly the stuff of horror stories.

good job on that one. how about rating games that your target audience actually WOULD like instead of rating good games they wouldn't like with low scores to justify to themselves how cool they are even if they play video games.

*laugh* Yeah, it's all about the editors trying to prove how cool they are and reaffirm their readers' self-image. No one could possibly believe that there are people out there who wouldn't enjoy this game--it's inconceivable!

They specifically say "This is a well-made game" but then score it low? Thats garbage.

There are lots of well-made games that I don't enjoy for one reason or another. If I were to write reviews the way many of you are suggesting, based solely on my personal opinion and not factoring in the tastes of readers, I'd pan every Gran Turismo ever made as a tedious borefest, and VF 4 wouldn't be far behind. Apparently, this is what you guys want to hear, though, or at least that's what you claim. No matter how irrelevant it may be to your purchasing habits.

But with hemmdog letting us in on GI's review criteria and catering scores based on target demographic and not really at all objective, they pretty much dug there own grave on this board.

They may have 'dug their own grave' here, but I hardly think that said people are representative of their readership, or of magazine readers in general. As disappointing as many of you will find this, I seriously doubt this 'scandal' will lead the magazine to self-destruct.

As far as not being 'objective', you people are clamoring for reviewers to be anything but objective! You keep insisting that you want to hear the reviewer's opinion, unvarnished by any notions he may have of his target audience's tastes. You don't get much more subjective than that. I think some of you need to sit down and think about what you really want from a review, as opposed to what you're asking for.

 

[Speevy]

Paper Mario 2 is one of the best games so far this year.

There is not one criteriion which would bring one to the 6.75 conclusion, not one.

 

[borghe]

*laugh* Yeah, it's all about the editors trying to prove how cool they are and reaffirm their readers' self-image. No one could possibly believe that there are people out there who wouldn't enjoy this game--it's inconceivable!

the problem here is that a) they did say they enjoyed the game and b) responded to criticism of their score by implying that the game was scored lower than it possibly should have been do to how they felt "the public" would respond to it.

So by their own words the score is not at all entirely representative of their thoughts on the game and was in fact adjusted beyond just their opinion of it.

As I said, had the just said "It isn't my cup of tea" they would have likely received a different response from a number of people, in other words a response like ""Hey, that's their perogative." But by saying "we really did like it but feel that many won't so we adjusted the score" they are effectively saying they adjusted the score from what they actually felt about the game.

 

[Neato_Jinkins]

Nah, they should go the opposite route--encourage their reviewers to hand out scores based solely on the reviewer's personal preferences, even when they know their preferences don't reflect the majority of the magazine's readership. Who cares if you steer readers to buy a title that you honestly don't believe most of them will like? Hell, you liked it, Mr. Reviewer, and you're the one who matters! We're not buying magazines to help us decide which games we should buy, we're buying them to learn more about you and what you like!

No, sorry, wrong.

There's definitely two sides to this issue, and most of you are only seeing one of them. If a magazine focuses on a particular audience, I think being able to pick up that magazine and find reviews that take the tastes and biases of that audience into account is a positive, not a negative. It doesn't matter to me whether the reviewer is recommending the game highly because he honestly liked it, or just because he thinks people like me (that is, people who would buy the type of magazine in question) would like it, as long as I feel like I've been led to make a good purchase. The reviewer's opinion is significant, but it shouldn't exist in a vacuum--tempering it with an awareness of the target audience isn't a crime. As I said earlier in the thread, I feel the GI reviewers may have misjudged the tastes of their readership with the Paper Mario 2 review, which is always a danger, but to ignore the readers altogether and review games as if they're only writing for themselves strikes me as a far greater disservice.

Wait a minute, you're saying they didn't review the game based on personal opinion? That's exactly what they did, and that's the problem. They applied their opinion to their entire readership using some lametactular leaps in logic.

"I think this is kiddy, you'll think this is kiddy."

Seriously. You're telling me they didn't review using only their egos and opinions? They did.

What they should have done , what so many other magazines/sites have managed to do, is base their review on the merits of the game in comparison to other games of the same or similar genre.

 

[gofreak]

Reviewing a game "objectively" based on measures of the game's merit in various defined aspects = fine.

Reviewing a game solely based on personal opinion = fine.

Reviewing a game based on perceived or predicted opinions of other people, your audience included = not fine.

Marking a game down because of perceived age appeal, despite admitted game quality = not fine (imo)

 

[WarPig]

Hey, is this thread deserving of swass pics yet?

DFS.

 

[MeowthMan]

I didn't want to start another thread about this topic, but I thought I'd pass along some interesting information about the whole whacked out situation.

Nintendo had publications sign an NDA stating that, barring an exclusivity agreement with GMR, reviews of Paper Mario 2 should not be published until after October 18 – today. Not only that, but publications only recently received reviewable copy of the game. In addition to comments from Jeremy bringing Game Informer's review policies to the forefront, this means Game Informer also committed two more errors: breaking a contractual embargo and reviewing an incomplete preview build of the game. You can bet that Nintendo is investigating the situation as we speak.

 

[olimario]

I didn't want to start another thread about this topic, but I thought I'd pass along some interesting information about the whole whacked out situation.

Nintendo had publications sign an NDA stating that, barring an exclusivity agreement with GMR, reviews of Paper Mario 2 should not be published until after October 18 – today. Not only that, but publications only recently received reviewable copy of the game. In addition to comments from Jeremy bringing Game Informer's review policies to the forefront, this means Game Informer also committed two more errors: breaking a contractual embargo and reviewing an incomplete preview build of the game. You can bet that Nintendo is investigating the situation as we speak.

Then explain all of the PM2 reviews

 

[MeowthMan]

Print, not online.

 

[chespace]

i also heard that the early build of PM2 had incomplete or bad translations for the text/script? is this true?

 

[DDayton]

Maybe a secret army of children, raised in Yamauchi's fabled love hotels, were sent to infiltrate GI's offices with special "KIDD-EE" versions of Paper Mario...

 

[Socreges]

Print, not online.

I'm pretty sure that EGM's November issue, available several days ago, had a PM2 review.