Eurogamer writer criticizes critics, loses his job, the Kraken is released

[QUOTE="blue_hazy_basic"][QUOTE="Heil68"] That's true, but when you go to reviews to look for games that you might not of bought at launch, that kind of sucks. Heil68

User reviews are not honest, well they are to you, because they tell you what you want to hear. Critic reviews are better, they have no dog in the race, they didn't have to spend their own money on the game, they don't have to justify their purchase. It's their job to be objective and most of them are.

[QUOTE="charizard1605"]In any case, yes this is a mess. Especially when you read the original blog with the added context of all of this. It's shocking how no website covered this at all. I remember the outcry over the Gamespot incident back in 2007. This seems to be something similar, why is no one reporting on it?ShadowMoses900

You said before that no one cares....why would you be surprised now that no one else is reporting on this?

Anyway I think it's because similar things happen to other publications and they don't want to draw attention to themselves. Also it's Eurogamer, no one here in the US is really familiar with them.

[QUOTE="Heil68"][QUOTE="blue_hazy_basic"] Generally reviews are merely a very very rough guide though. I might not buy a game because of a really bad review but what was the last game you bought BECAUSE of a review?deangallop

User reviews are not honest, well they are to you, because they tell you what you want to hear. Critic reviews are better, they have no dog in the race, they didn't have to spend their own money on the game, they don't have to justify their purchase. It's their job to be objective and most of them are.

Game journalism is in an unhelathy state atm. The line between marketing and normal reporting is awfully blurry. It hurts the gamers because it makes it harder for new and small companies to break into the market. This is part of the reason we are experience the stagnation we are atm. There are several problems that are hard to solve in the current media climate:

1. Game journalists get paid from the game companies, not the readers. And people tend to be loyal to the hand who feeds them.
2. Metacritic is used to decide payouts for developers. Therefor review scores will have direct financial impact and that is obv a strong reason to try and influence them.
3. Publishers control who and when journalists get to review their game. Early reviews get a lot of attention since people are curious about what an upcoming game will score. This creates a situation where a game site can get a lot of trafic by promising the developers a certain score and thus be allowed to review the game early.
4. Publishers decides which site they will reveal exclusive info to prior to release. A site that do critical previews will obviously not get such exclusive content. Therefor almost every preview you read is designed to create hype, not to give a balanced picture.

What is needed is media that has so many readers and different sources of income, that the publishers must come begging to them, rather than the other way around.

In the end the only opinion you can trust is your own. Reviews are only good as a reference I find, I don't use them as the end all be all like so many people on SW do. There are so many flaws in reviews, many of them are questionable.

Take GS, lately I get the feeling they give out low reviews just to stir controversy and get more site traffic, and then I also get the feeling some sites will just give certain games high scores simply because of the name that's on it, or the fanbase that backs it. I found the review for ODST to be very questionable, there is no way that game deserved a 9. It was far too short and lacking for that.

Now if that was the guys honest opinion, then so be it. But really I seriously doubt that if ODST didn't have Halo on the box, say it was some other shooter name, it would have gotten that same score.

But in the end reviews are just subjective, no reason to get bent out of shape over it. But you would be naive not to believe that bias does exist in game journalism, it exists in news journalism and film journalism, it sure as hell exists in video games.

ShadowMoses900

I agree with you (apart from ODST which I can't comment on as I haven't played it) but unfortunately the majority of gamers are casual who only know about a game because of advert on TV or in a lads mag (Zoo, Loaded etc.) Those adverts have Call of Duty Black Ops 2 GS 9/10 Best version ever, IGN 9.5/10 Awsomness on a disk, CVG 8.5/10 Must Have!, Edge 9/10 Editors Choice blah blah all over them. The average game player sees high scores and recommendations with no thought on who the people behind the score are. Those adverts can't carry the scores and recommendations without the reviewers actually presenting them to the game.

They couldn't exactly expect good sales results from an advert for Call of Duty Black Ops 2, GS 4/10 Games does nothing new! IGN 9.5/10 (well it is IGN after all ;) ) CVG 3.5/10 Nothing has changed in 6 years! Edge 5/10 Shortest single player campaign to date.

Big publishers couldn't give a toss about 'hardcore' gamers (I hate that term) like the good folks who frequent game site forums, we don't give them the big bucks as we are a minority of the gaming public, those adverts are not generally aimed at us. We're the minority who have watched the videos, previews and most likely reviews from multiple sources.

So it really doesn't matter how subjective or opinionated a review is most people who buy big budget games will never read them, all they will see is a score on a glossy advert and think that game must be amazing.

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

[QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]

Kind of, they don't get a vacation but instead get to play a review game at some luxurious resort for a week or whatever. It's obviously a way to butter them up, and I think that games journalism really needs to be more objective. I love Geoff Keighley and think he is one of the best journalists in his field, but I have to admit he comes off as a puppet for game publishers who use him to get their game out their more, instead of to provide an objective analysis of their games.

MonsieurX

Well then, you can't really trust any reviews really. I mean in the end they are all subjective of course, but is the reviewer giving his honest opinion? Or are they just conforming to pressure from ad revenue or being "bribed" so to speak with nice hotel rooms and free stuff and whatnot?

In the OP one of the links takes you to a page that shows some of the common practices used by reviewers, one of them talked about how a reviewer might suck at a game but won't give the game a bad score to piss off the publisher, so they will give the game a score of "73", which in GS terms is 7.5 I guess.

I think this happened with Zelda and Infamous. Also one of the worst practices it lists is one where the reviewer doesn't even really play the game at all, he might play a level or 2 and just take a couple of images from the game or film some segments and then give the game a high score based off of the name alone.

This apparently happens with reviewers that review the game before anyone else.

I thought about making a thread on this yesterday but decided not to seeing how the average attention span of SW is that of a rat.

Still good thread, this really should be brought to attention and discussed as it is frankly "disgusting."

There was already a thread about this last night. No one cared.charizard1605

In any case, yes this is a mess. Especially when you read the original blog with the added context of all of this. It's shocking how no website covered this at all. I remember the outcry over the Gamespot incident back in 2007. This seems to be something similar, why is no one reporting on it?charizard1605

I don't know. You tell me.

I don't know. You tell me.

NeonNinja

dunno, dont care, but I brought doritos

The Game Industry is Trash.

This isn't new.

There's a reason why these Games,

are better than these games

My thread was a mess because I created it right before I went to sleep last night and I did not have enough time to go through all that confusing evidence.Everyone post in this thread instead of mine now.

My thread was a mess because I created it right before I went to sleep last night and I did not have enough time to go through all that confusing evidence.Everyone post in this thread instead of mine now.

super600

My thread was a mess because I created it right before I went to sleep last night and I did not have enough time to go through all that confusing evidence.Everyone post in this thread instead of mine now.

super600

Fantastic thread. I had no idea that this was an issue but I'll definitely be keeping an eye on it.

My view on the issue:

lol "gaming journalism"Zeviander

This is an accurate commentary on where we are right now. There is just so much wrong with the industry at the moment, such as the current topic at hand or what constitutes a good score? A common idea that only 8.0+ games are worth playing, meanwhile games that score 5-8 might as well be forgotten.

The sad thing is is that while Zeviander's post is accurate, it is sad that we have to worry about this. The industry is a business, but when so many gamers just laugh it off or ignore the issue, no progress to fix the problems are made. Even discussing issues can make a difference.

Sushiglutton, your post was a great read. A good summary of the problems faced currently.

Game journalism is in an unhelathy state atm. The line between marketing and normal reporting is awfully blurry. It hurts the gamers because it makes it harder for new and small companies to break into the market. This is part of the reason we are experience the stagnation we are atm. There are several problems that are hard to solve in the current media climate:

1. Game journalists get paid from the game companies, not the readers. And people tend to be loyal to the hand who feeds them.
2. Metacritic is used to decide payouts for developers. Therefor review scores will have direct financial impact and that is obv a strong reason to try and influence them.
3. Publishers control who and when journalists get to review their game. Early reviews get a lot of attention since people are curious about what an upcoming game will score. This creates a situation where a game site can get a lot of trafic by promising the developers a certain score and thus be allowed to review the game early.
4. Publishers decides which site they will reveal exclusive info to prior to release. A site that do critical previews will obviously not get such exclusive content. Therefor almost every preview you read is designed to create hype, not to give a balanced picture.

What is needed is media that has so many readers and different sources of income, that the publishers must come begging to them, rather than the other way around.

Sushiglutton

The Game Industry is Trash.

This isn't new.

There's a reason why these Games,

are better than these games

LegatoSkyheart

HOLY MOTHER OF GOD! Video games journalism is corrupt? Someone call captain obvious...

Love this pic. Anyone remember Bill Hicks' take on Jay Leno's Doritos commercial?

This thead needs graphs and charts to get more responses. :P

The Game Industry is Trash.

This isn't new.

There's a reason why these Games,

are better than these games

LegatoSkyheart

You putting Halo 4 in there... a game that isn't even out yet that you've never played automatically invalidates your useless opinion.

As if you had any repute to begin with.

The writer is a nut. Big deal, Geoff is sitting next to a table of Doritos. Who gives a ****??? He was basically screaming "conspiracy" without saying the word. I would have at least respected him for his opinion if he had the balls to say it but instead wrote an article beating around the bush. Yuck. "Just study the image, study the image, study the image". Sounds to me like a 9/11 conspiracy nut.

The writer is a nut. Big deal, Geoff is sitting next to a table of Doritos. Who gives a ****??? He was basically screaming "conspiracy" without saying the word. I would have at least respected him for his opinion if he had the balls to say it but instead wrote an article beating around the bush. Yuck. "Just study the image, study the image, study the image". Sounds to me like a 9/11 conspiracy nut.

SRTtoZ

[QUOTE="SRTtoZ"]

The writer is a nut. Big deal, Geoff is sitting next to a table of Doritos. Who gives a ****??? He was basically screaming "conspiracy" without saying the word. I would have at least respected him for his opinion if he had the balls to say it but instead wrote an article beating around the bush. Yuck. "Just study the image, study the image, study the image". Sounds to me like a 9/11 conspiracy nut.

NeonNinja

Off topic but :lol: at your sig.

[QUOTE="SRTtoZ"]

The writer is a nut. Big deal, Geoff is sitting next to a table of Doritos. Who gives a ****??? He was basically screaming "conspiracy" without saying the word. I would have at least respected him for his opinion if he had the balls to say it but instead wrote an article beating around the bush. Yuck. "Just study the image, study the image, study the image". Sounds to me like a 9/11 conspiracy nut.

NeonNinja

Do you even know the context of that picture?? Who cares if hes sitting by doritos?? What? do you want him to sit in an office secluded to the real world in the name of "journalism"??? I can care less if he was sitting next to 4 hookers and a giant can of pepsi. All I know is when I hear or see GK he pretty much says what he wants regardless of if its Sony/MS or Nintendo.

[QUOTE="NeonNinja"][QUOTE="SRTtoZ"]

The writer is a nut. Big deal, Geoff is sitting next to a table of Doritos. Who gives a ****??? He was basically screaming "conspiracy" without saying the word. I would have at least respected him for his opinion if he had the balls to say it but instead wrote an article beating around the bush. Yuck. "Just study the image, study the image, study the image". Sounds to me like a 9/11 conspiracy nut.

SRTtoZ

Do you even know the context of that picture?? Who cares if hes sitting by doritos?? What? do you want him to sit in an office secluded to the real world in the name of "journalism"??? I can care less if he was sitting next to 4 hookers and a giant can of pepsi. All I know is when I hear or see GK he pretty much says what he wants regardless of if its Sony/MS or Nintendo.

Please explain the context that would justify a well-known journalist sitting on a giant advertisement for three huge brands. I'd like to read it.

If he sat with four hookers and a giant can of Pepsi I wouldn't give a damn because it would have nothing to do with compromising his integrity as a damn journalist.

Wow this is definitely news to me, I had thought Eurogamer was the one everyone considered the last bastion of integrity and actual critique but I guess not.

Because games cost so much now reviewers have had to become car salesmen.

This Florence guy will do fine. He's the victim of the situation after all. Look at what happened with Gerstmann; dude gets fired and now has his own successful website and is one of the most respected critics in the business.

[QUOTE="KalDurenik"]So what is the short version?Thefatness16

• Keighley surrounded by doritos followed by gaming bloggers retweeting a hashtag for advertising to win a PS3 makes Florence of Eurogamer curious.
• Florence writes an article saying how things are shady and some sound like straight up PR e.g. Wainright orgasms for everything Squenix.
• Eurogamer/Wainwright send libel threats to Eurogamer, at which the article was edited to remove mentioning of Wainright.
• Wainwright responds in twitter "Apology accepted" and something in the vain of applying her law classes to use.
• Florence either steps down or is forced to resign to avoid any libel threat.
• Both sides deny any threat or are not talking about it directly, but twitter posts hint that such threat existed. Florence is not confirming or denying whether he was fired or he stepped down.
• "GAF and 4 c h a n combine forces to see this standalone complex issue" alongside digital protest from Penny Arcade and more, showing what happened.
• Wainwright's profile shows she is a freelancer for Square Enix. She admitted it and denied doing any reviews for Square Enix or shilling (she is wrong. She reviewed Deus Ex, Tomb Raider and did countless previews).
• All this fiasco is too much for her and she privatize her twitter account. Next thing you know, she starts deleting tweets, videos and articles, and edits her profile to remove any mention of Square Enix freelancing.
• People find some comments of her thanking someone called Korina that used to work at Ubisoft.
• Korina Abbotused to work at Ubisoft and is currently the marketing executive at...Square-Enix.
• David Jaffe offers Keighley Mountain Dew.
• Gaming journalism.

Summary

[QUOTE="Thefatness16"]

[QUOTE="KalDurenik"]So what is the short version?Rockman999

• Keighley surrounded by doritos followed by gaming bloggers retweeting a hashtag for advertising to win a PS3 makes Florence of Eurogamer curious.
• Florence writes an article saying how things are shady and some sound like straight up PR e.g. Wainright orgasms for everything Squenix.
• Eurogamer/Wainwright send libel threats to Eurogamer, at which the article was edited to remove mentioning of Wainright.
• Wainwright responds in twitter "Apology accepted" and something in the vain of applying her law classes to use.
• Florence either steps down or is forced to resign to avoid any libel threat.
• Both sides deny any threat or are not talking about it directly, but twitter posts hint that such threat existed. Florence is not confirming or denying whether he was fired or he stepped down.
• "GAF and 4 c h a n combine forces to see this standalone complex issue" alongside digital protest from Penny Arcade and more, showing what happened.
• Wainwright's profile shows she is a freelancer for Square Enix. She admitted it and denied doing any reviews for Square Enix or shilling (she is wrong. She reviewed Deus Ex, Tomb Raider and did countless previews).
• All this fiasco is too much for her and she privatize her twitter account. Next thing you know, she starts deleting tweets, videos and articles, and edits her profile to remove any mention of Square Enix freelancing.
• People find some comments of her thanking someone called Korina that used to work at Ubisoft.
• Korina Abbotused to work at Ubisoft and is currently the marketing executive at...Square-Enix.
• David Jaffe offers Keighley Mountain Dew.
• Gaming journalism.

Summary

It was one of his points. But he didn't get his piece taken down because of Keighly. It was t3h dame.

I'm lost, what does Keighly have to do with this?

Rockman999

Rab Florence wrote an article about this picture, which led to this sh*tstorm.

Like I said before, it's a bit weird to have gaming ads on a game review site if you're trying to appear somewhat integer. He thought basically the same thing. How can you claim to have integrity when paid by one side of the debate. That it naturally should be so doesn't mean jack in the business world. It makes financial sense to do it, so they do it. And it does put them in an awkward position.

What is worse here, are the attempts to cover up this story.

I used to be proud to call myself an aspiring gaming journalist.

Boy was I naive back then.

Gaming "journalism" is a joke.

I would have a bit more sympathy for this Florence guy if his original piece wasn't such melodramatic dreck, or more importantly, if he had actually brought any revelatory examples to light. What he's going on about there is somewhat gross, but it also isn't surprising in the least.

You have to remember that as much as some writers are happy being corralled by PR, just as many love the idea that they're Speaking Truth To Power and that they might someday be recognized as True Journalists if enough of their pieces get edited against their will. The fact that they're saying something corporations might not like does not immediately validate what they're saying.

Unless of course you're the average SW poster, in which case anything that eases your butthurt over years of disagreement with review scores must be true.

Several things:

This is why it's bad to employ freelance reviewers--they are too enigmatic to say the least.

Morons still think reviews are honest after the mountains of evidence to the contrary.

This makes you wonder about the RE6 review on GS. I'm not saying the game is good by any means, but it was fishy that it scored so low and below the average, and that makes you wonder if Capcom refused some sort of payout to Gamespot and they just stuck it to them because of it.

I thought about making a thread on this yesterday but decided not to seeing how the average attention span of SW is that of a rat.

Still good thread, this really should be brought to attention and discussed as it is frankly "disgusting."

ReadingRainbow4

lol gaming journalism. The only reason why I watch reviews is to see more gameplay

The writer is a nut. Big deal, Geoff is sitting next to a table of Doritos. Who gives a ****??? He was basically screaming "conspiracy" without saying the word. I would have at least respected him for his opinion if he had the balls to say it but instead wrote an article beating around the bush. Yuck. "Just study the image, study the image, study the image". Sounds to me like a 9/11 conspiracy nut.

SRTtoZ

how's RobFlo a nut?

he's a masive gaming enthusiast and i mean massive, he's actually talked a lot bout indie games on twitter and such, he's one of the few gaming journalists who basically called it all out and pointing out why should we be so friendly with the games companies is it not our jobs to review a product as fair as possible.

This ideology as we can see is very unsettling and we've already seen it with Gretsmann gate of the notion that you get on the wrong side kiss your career goodbye.

You should really watch consolevania his old show.

Several things:

This is why it's bad to employ freelance reviewers--they are too enigmatic to say the least.

Morons still think reviews are honest after the mountains of evidence to the contrary.

This makes you wonder about the RE6 review on GS. I'm not saying the game is good by any means, but it was fishy that it scored so low and below the average, and that makes you wonder if Capcom refused some sort of payout to Gamespot and they just stuck it to them because of it.

Zen_Light

Just seems more like fanboy butthurt, i've played all the RE's sure its a massive departure into action but im not going to say its a totally terrible game because its trying something new for the series i mean for fuk sake the same people moaning bout some of the aiming implementations in RE6 are the exact same people moaning that they should have been in Re4/5.

In the end the only opinion you can trust is your own. Reviews are only good as a reference I find, I don't use them as the end all be all like so many people on SW do. There are so many flaws in reviews, many of them are questionable.

Take GS, lately I get the feeling they give out low reviews just to stir controversy and get more site traffic, and then I also get the feeling some sites will just give certain games high scores simply because of the name that's on it, or the fanbase that backs it. I found the review for ODST to be very questionable, there is no way that game deserved a 9. It was far too short and lacking for that.

Now if that was the guys honest opinion, then so be it. But really I seriously doubt that if ODST didn't have Halo on the box, say it was some other shooter name, it would have gotten that same score.

But in the end reviews are just subjective, no reason to get bent out of shape over it. But you would be naive not to believe that bias does exist in game journalism, it exists in news journalism and film journalism, it sure as hell exists in video games.

ShadowMoses900

The guy was getting death threats.

Thanks this thread is far better than the other and offers more indepth info.WilliamRLBaker

what he said. i saw the other thread on this but was a little lost. this one is very well presented