Normally not the one to say Gamespot gives horrible reviews....

But my god the review they gave for Natural Selection 2. I can easily say that this is the WORST review I had personally EVER read on this site. It was simply downright wrong.

First off the review starts off stating early that the game is $30, when it is in reality a $25 game (and the review insinuated that this was expensive). Besides this inaccuracy the actual review gives hardly ANY insight to the game and hardly has any facts involved at all. Just reading the good/bad section alone is pathetic. About the only legitimate flaw listed is that the game does indeed have a steep learning curve, and this is true, but I question how many points you can knock off a game for this factor alone.

The reviewer complains about graphics, which seems incredibly minute. The game looks completely fine considering it is an independent in-house developed engine that is utilized for a multiplayer game. The art goes a long way toward carrying the presentation which is the same method a game such as TF2 follows. He complains of 5+ minute loading times which...is insane. The game does have excess loading between maps, but I have never experienced anything over 30 seconds. I suppose this is not surprising considering Gamespot made a MoH Warfighter video graphics comparison video bragging about their GTX 285, and referencing it as a newer high/mid-range card.

Besides these his only other complaint is the community...which is ridiculous because there are servers on the list clearly defined in green specifically made for rookie players, and from playing about 30 hours have had a GREAT experience with the community found on these servers for new players. Regardless, I just felt compelled to show the flaws of this review. The inaccuracies in it is insurmountable, and giving this great game a 6/10 for such failure in proper review is inacceptable. Some of the comments for that review said that it was going to be pulled, but for now I will remember Eric Neigher as the worst reviewer for Gamespot and take any future articles from him with caution.

(p.s. as I type this I went back to the page and noticed the 6/10 was indeed taken down, thank goodness. Eric Neigher sucks at his job)

http://www.gamespot.com/natural-selection-2/reviews/natural-selection-2-review-6399575/

Yup, looks like they just pulled it .

Anywhere I can read the original? I'd like to see it.

Don't agree. I still hold the guys at GS as the only genuinely accurate reviewers on the web and the only ones not afraid to give a highly anticipated game a bad review if that's what it deserves.

Don't agree. I still hold the guys at GS as the only genuinely accurate reviewers on the web and the only ones not afraid to give a highly anticipated game a bad review if that's what it deserves.

Starshine_M2A2

Anywhere I can read the original? I'd like to see it.

Vari3ty

EDIT:
Seems there's no need for Google cache, it's still up.

Linking doesn't want to work, here's the URL:

http://au.gamespot.com/natural-selection-2/reviews/natural-selection-2-review-6399575/

Yup, looks like they just pulled it .

flipin_jackass

it deserved it

What was the original score the freelancer gave it?

What was the original score the freelancer gave it?

True_Sounds

6.0

Don't agree. I still hold the guys at GS as the only genuinely accurate reviewers on the web and the only ones not afraid to give a highly anticipated game a bad review if that's what it deserves.

Starshine_M2A2

GS recives the most money from "payed reviews"...thats how they keep the site alive...and their jobs.
90% of the reviews here are straight sh!t...
When did GS gave a bad review score to a highly anticipated game?Hahahhaa...

[QUOTE="Starshine_M2A2"]

Don't agree. I still hold the guys at GS as the only genuinely accurate reviewers on the web and the only ones not afraid to give a highly anticipated game a bad review if that's what it deserves.

rhazzy

GS recives the most money from "payed reviews"...thats how they keep the site alive...and their jobs.
90% of the reviews here are straight sh!t...
When did GS gave a bad review score to a highly anticipated game?Hahahhaa...

[QUOTE="Starshine_M2A2"]

Don't agree. I still hold the guys at GS as the only genuinely accurate reviewers on the web and the only ones not afraid to give a highly anticipated game a bad review if that's what it deserves.

rhazzy

GS recives the most money from "payed reviews"...thats how they keep the site alive...and their jobs.
90% of the reviews here are straight sh!t...
When did GS gave a bad review score to a highly anticipated game?Hahahhaa...

[QUOTE="Starshine_M2A2"]

Don't agree. I still hold the guys at GS as the only genuinely accurate reviewers on the web and the only ones not afraid to give a highly anticipated game a bad review if that's what it deserves.

rhazzy

GS recives the most money from "payed reviews"...thats how they keep the site alive...and their jobs.
90% of the reviews here are straight sh!t...
When did GS gave a bad review score to a highly anticipated game?Hahahhaa...

[QUOTE="rhazzy"]

[QUOTE="Starshine_M2A2"]

Don't agree. I still hold the guys at GS as the only genuinely accurate reviewers on the web and the only ones not afraid to give a highly anticipated game a bad review if that's what it deserves.

robokill

GS recives the most money from "payed reviews"...thats how they keep the site alive...and their jobs.
90% of the reviews here are straight sh!t...
When did GS gave a bad review score to a highly anticipated game?Hahahhaa...

Don't forget Kane & Lynch, Jeff Gerstman was fired over giving that an honest review. That's why I use his new site (Giantbomb) for reviews now.

I've been playing the game and I could definitely see the game scoring a 6.0 depending on the reviewer. But the article was cr*p, wasn't accurate and I'm happy the review got pulled.

If you're looking for something different, have a mic and are willing to teamwork the game can be a blast. Game gets frustrating if you wanna Rambo heh. It's fun to stalk a lost marine wondering corridors however a bit easy to kill.

It's just generally sad that how much hype and notoriety a game gets also determines the quality of the reviewer assigned to the job...

[QUOTE="robokill"][QUOTE="rhazzy"]

GS recives the most money from "payed reviews"...thats how they keep the site alive...and their jobs.
90% of the reviews here are straight sh!t...
When did GS gave a bad review score to a highly anticipated game?Hahahhaa...

Emraldo

Don't forget Kane & Lynch, Jeff Gerstman was fired over giving that an honest review. That's why I use his new site (Giantbomb) for reviews now.

He was NOT fired over the review.

This was published on Wiki and summaries his feelings from a podcast:

"He explained that the reason for his firing was the result of long-standing tension between the editorial staff and the new marketing staff that had recently been put in place. According to Gerstmann, the new marketing staff in place wasn't familiar with video game journalism or how to deal with annoyed publishers"

The review is still up here AND Giant Bomb is now in partnership with Gamespot.

I also find it incredibly insulting that some people say that the staff on this site are just here for the money. How do you know? Because you don't agree with the score? People like Kevin get really offended when they hear stuff like that given how much time they must put into playing these games, both good and bad.

[QUOTE="Emraldo"]

[QUOTE="robokill"] resident evil 6, zelda games, killzone games come to mind right off the batbiggest_loser

Don't forget Kane & Lynch, Jeff Gerstman was fired over giving that an honest review. That's why I use his new site (Giantbomb) for reviews now.

He was NOT fired over the review.

This was published on Wiki and summaries his feelings from a podcast:

"He explained that the reason for his firing was the result of long-standing tension between the editorial staff and the new marketing staff that had recently been put in place. According to Gerstmann, the new marketing staff in place wasn't familiar with video game journalism or how to deal with annoyed publishers"

The review is still up here AND Giant Bomb is now in partnership with Gamespot.

I also find it incredibly insulting that some people say that the staff on this site are just here for the money. How do you know? Because you don't agree with the score? People like Kevin get really offended when they hear stuff like that given how much time they must put into playing these games, both good and bad.

My problem with that review was that the reviewer criticized the game for the fact that you have to know the game and be good at it (Quake, Unreal Tournament style style) and have good teammates and cooperation to win and can't go gung-ho Call of Duty rambo style.

"Another problem is that because each side has only a single commander, it's critical that this person be attentive, competent, and unflappable. Unfortunately, a fact of life in online gaming is that some people are apathetic, unskilled, and prone to quitting matches in a rage.
All that said, Natural Selection 2 is filled with promise if you can put in the hours of grinding necessary to learn the units, maps, controls, and balance
Game is bad because to win you have to have competent players. Yeah I'll let that sink in."

And it's horribly well written, here's a direct quote in context.

"experienced players largely ignore anyone colored green and shout unintelligible Natural Selection cant at each other as the bullets fly. "

Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

"experienced players largely ignore anyone colored green and shout unintelligible Natural Selection cant at each other as the bullets fly. "

Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

Vesica_Prime

To be fair, that was still grammatically correct. A poor choice of words and usage. But still correct.

[QUOTE="Emraldo"]

[QUOTE="robokill"] resident evil 6, zelda games, killzone games come to mind right off the batbiggest_loser

Don't forget Kane & Lynch, Jeff Gerstman was fired over giving that an honest review. That's why I use his new site (Giantbomb) for reviews now.

He was NOT fired over the review.

This was published on Wiki and summaries his feelings from a podcast:

"He explained that the reason for his firing was the result of long-standing tension between the editorial staff and the new marketing staff that had recently been put in place. According to Gerstmann, the new marketing staff in place wasn't familiar with video game journalism or how to deal with annoyed publishers"

The review is still up here AND Giant Bomb is now in partnership with Gamespot.

I also find it incredibly insulting that some people say that the staff on this site are just here for the money. How do you know? Because you don't agree with the score? People like Kevin get really offended when they hear stuff like that given how much time they must put into playing these games, both good and bad.

As for the Natural Selection 2 review, it's completely unrelated to any of this. Any review that receives numerous complaints is likely to be pulled because Gamespot doesn't want to risk credibility over some free-lance review.

I like how Metacritic refuses to pull the negative review.

I like how Metacritic refuses to pull the negative review.

Baranga

"And if you're all butt-hurt about not having the same stuff as the kids across the Pacific, I hear you, but please believe me when I say that if you allow that butt-hurtedness to prevent you from buying and playing this game, you fail at life and will never have sex. Yeah, I said it. Because it's true. Don't say I didn't warn you,"

Eric Neigher

People pay this guy? Jeez I hope sites don't shy away from freelancers because of one bad apple, I've been trying to branch out into more writing and I'd hate to have a stigma attached to freelancers because of this.

I'm not sure what is more amusing... Natural Selection 2 or the people who actually care about Gamespot scores.

It's just generally sad that how much hype and notoriety a game gets also determines the quality of the reviewer assigned to the job...

MyopicCanadian

Sad but true

[QUOTE="Baranga"]

I like how Metacritic refuses to pull the negative review.

SPYDER0416

"And if you're all butt-hurt about not having the same stuff as the kids across the Pacific, I hear you, but please believe me when I say that if you allow that butt-hurtedness to prevent you from buying and playing this game, you fail at life and will never have sex. Yeah, I said it. Because it's true. Don't say I didn't warn you,"

Eric Neigher

People pay this guy? Jeez I hope sites don't shy away from freelancers because of one bad apple, I've been trying to branch out into more writing and I'd hate to have a stigma attached to freelancers because of this.

Paid reviewer ladies and gentlemen :?

Where is that quote from ?

[QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]

[QUOTE="Baranga"]

[QUOTE="Eric Neigher"]

"And if you're all butt-hurt about not having the same stuff as the kids across the Pacific, I hear you, but please believe me when I say that if you allow that butt-hurtedness to prevent you from buying and playing this game, you fail at life and will never have sex. Yeah, I said it. Because it's true. Don't say I didn't warn you,"

R4gn4r0k

People pay this guy? Jeez I hope sites don't shy away from freelancers because of one bad apple, I've been trying to branch out into more writing and I'd hate to have a stigma attached to freelancers because of this.

Paid reviewer ladies and gentlemen :?

Where is that quote from ?

His Yakuza 3 review, site unknown.

I mean wow, I wouldn't read a review with that in it for free on a user review section. I guess it's out of context but honestly, there's no context for a professional review to look like it was written by a 12 year old on a forum like that.

His Yakuza 3 review, site unknown.

I mean wow, I wouldn't read a review with that in it for free on a user review section. I guess it's out of context but honestly, there's no context for a professional review to look like it was written by a 12 year old on a forum like that.

SPYDER0416

No problem.

His Natural Selection 2 review didn't stand out as a spectacular piece of writing either

[QUOTE="Starshine_M2A2"]

Don't agree. I still hold the guys at GS as the only genuinely accurate reviewers on the web and the only ones not afraid to give a highly anticipated game a bad review if that's what it deserves.

rhazzy

GS recives the most money from "payed reviews"...thats how they keep the site alive...and their jobs.
90% of the reviews here are straight sh!t...
When did GS gave a bad review score to a highly anticipated game?Hahahhaa...

Although to be fair, the review of Resident Evil 6 does sound pretty plausible - I've played enough Capcom games (including RE5) to know the problems listed could easily find their way into one of Capcom's games.

[QUOTE="rhazzy"]

[QUOTE="Starshine_M2A2"]

Don't agree. I still hold the guys at GS as the only genuinely accurate reviewers on the web and the only ones not afraid to give a highly anticipated game a bad review if that's what it deserves.

Cobra_nVidia

GS recives the most money from "payed reviews"...thats how they keep the site alive...and their jobs.
90% of the reviews here are straight sh!t...
When did GS gave a bad review score to a highly anticipated game?Hahahhaa...

Although to be fair, the review of Resident Evil 6 does sound pretty plausible - I've played enough Capcom games (including RE5) to know the problems listed could easily find their way into one of Capcom's games.

From what I understand, it was more of a dispute between the new marketing team for Gamespot, who didn't know how to handle the publisher pressure for the review and that they didn't really call for him to be fired for it or anything. Of course they reacted to that in the worst way possible, and you don't want a marketing team involved if they have no knowledge of the games industry and working with publishers without bowing to their demands.