Thanks -Official Guide to the Post-Jeff System Wars (Mod Approved)

[QUOTE="cakeorrdeath"]All the fuss seems to be about the "tone" of the review rather than scores. Dreams-Visions

He said to not buy the game at full price. And I'd kind of WANT to know a tiny detail like that, personally.

[QUOTE="Dreams-Visions"][QUOTE="cakeorrdeath"]All the fuss seems to be about the "tone" of the review rather than scores. Verge_6

He said to not buy the game at full price. And I'd kind of WANT to know a tiny detail like that, personally.

It's time to use GR scores. LINKloco

Agreed.

Great thread TC. I could not have said it better myself.

[QUOTE="Mordred19"]so what happened? Jeff got fired, because the publisher for K&L, which Jeff reviewed negatively, threatened to pull the advertisements of their game from the site. So GS fired Jeff? Is that what happened. I just recently heard about this, and I don't know what's true or not.subrosian

That is the rumor that started circulating around last night. A lot more has come out since then, and at this point it honestly looks like this is far more complex and deep than that. Right now we're simply being patient until we know all the facts, as while we know Jeff was fired, we have no confirmation that Eidos or CNET were involved in buying review scores at any point.

Oh, okay. It seemed pretty outlandish anyway, but when a rumour is going strong, it's hard to ignore. Even if that really was the truth, it seems unlikely that it would be known aboutat all. You know what I mean? Things like that are meant to be hush-hush.

[QUOTE="Dreams-Visions"][QUOTE="cakeorrdeath"]All the fuss seems to be about the "tone" of the review rather than scores. Verge_6

He said to not buy the game at full price. And I'd kind of WANT to know a tiny detail like that, personally.

that's what I thought I heard, but I only watched it once and couldn't remember.

[QUOTE="Dreams-Visions"]Well...when you categorically tell someone to NOT buy a game...it's kinda no longer...journalism. :?
the_h_bomb

He said dont buy it at full price. His job is to advise us as consumers and telling us whether a game is worth it falls under that remit

I found NOTHING wrong with that review. It was clear, concise and he had obviously played the game extensively.

True...but when analyzed...where can you buy a NEW game for less than FULL PRICE? It translates to not buying the game, really. That's what it means to you and me. That's undoubtedly how Edios saw it too.

(Like I said last night) The Hype System Needs to be completely abolished......Just argue based on opinions.

It was ridiculous in the first place to have the "official hypes" and then to only use Gamespot's scores to determine if a game met that hype.

But using GR and MC are not the answer. They allow in to many sites which are not really that credible (IMO) and the status of games change too often. One week a game is AAA and then it can drop to AA, and then move back up to AAA !?!?! It would be insane in here....... There really is no middle ground that can really be found in this situation.

Should we use Gamerankings? I give that idea a resounding no.

In situations like these, people tend to point almost immediately to Gamerankings, without thinking it through. Let me elaborate on the single, most glaringly obvious flaw. Scores change.

How could we possibly keep up with the endless amount of reviews coming in? The score will constantly change, it's a dynamic system and nothing will be set in stone, well that's if you're willing to wait over a month to get an official score.

GR counts everything, to the credible to the downright biased; GR also counts some sites scores for some games but ignores some sites scores for other releases. More reviews are also released for some games whilst less is released for others, making it (ultimately) an unfair system.

On to other point, notice how GR typically has more AAA games than GS ever did, if we use GR, the unpredictable nature of System Wars will be gone. The aura of anxiety before a review will be lost too.

Look at Mario Sunshine, a defining flop in SW history. That wouldn't have happened, also TP wouldn't have happened. Great events like that would never have happened under Gamerankings. Not only is the system flawed, but it takes away the appeal and charm of SW.

My suggestion is that we use Gametrailers and Eurogamer. Average the reviews out and there we have an official score. Eurogamer is unpredictable (much like GS) and Gametrailers have great and down to earth reviews.

Or we could use GS (a tried and true formula), whatever happens I just hope GR wont be the norm as ultimately it will be the demise of this community.

Should we use Gamerankings? I give that idea a resounding no.

In situations like these, people tend to point almost immediately to Gamerankings, without thinking it through. Let me elaborate on the single, most glaringly obvious flaw. Scores change.

How could we possibly keep up with the endless amount of reviews coming in? The score will constantly change, it's a dynamic system and nothing will be set in stone, well that's if you're willing to wait over a month to get an official score.

GR counts everything, to the credible to the downright biased; GR also counts some sites scores for some games but ignores some sites scores for other releases. More reviews are also released for some games whilst less is released for others, making it (ultimately) an unfair system.

On to other point, notice how GR typically has more AAA games than GS ever did, if we use GR, the unpredictable nature of System Wars will be gone. The aura of anxiety before a review will be lost too.

Look at Mario Sunshine, a defining flop in SW history. That wouldn't have happened, also TP wouldn't have happened. Great events like that would never have happened under Gamerankings. Not only is the system flawed, but it takes away the appeal and charm of SW.

My suggestion is that we use Gametrailers and Eurogamer. Average the reviews out and there we have an official score. Eurogamer is unpredictable (much like GS) and Gametrailers have great and down to earth reviews.

Or we could use GS (a tried and true formula), whatever happens I just hope GR wont be the norm as ultimately it will be the demise of this community.

gingerdivid

GS scores are one opinion whereas GR scores are many opinions. many opnions>>>>>> one opinion.

[QUOTE="subrosian"]

[QUOTE="Mordred19"]so what happened? Jeff got fired, because the publisher for K&L, which Jeff reviewed negatively, threatened to pull the advertisements of their game from the site. So GS fired Jeff? Is that what happened. I just recently heard about this, and I don't know what's true or not.Mordred19

That is the rumor that started circulating around last night. A lot more has come out since then, and at this point it honestly looks like this is far more complex and deep than that. Right now we're simply being patient until we know all the facts, as while we know Jeff was fired, we have no confirmation that Eidos or CNET were involved in buying review scores at any point.

Oh, okay. It seemed pretty outlandish anyway, but when a rumour is going strong, it's hard to ignore. Even if that really was the truth, it seems unlikely that it would be known aboutat all. You know what I mean? Things like that are meant to be hush-hush.

Of course, it's healty to have skepticism, but we should have that same skepticism towards anyone spreading a rumor as we do towards what's going on at CNET right now. We need to be equally critical of the statements on both sides, because it's all too easy for troublemakers to use this incident to spread false information.

We'll have to wait and see how this plays out... and yes, the hush-hush stuff makes it hard not to want to dig deeper and cling to every scrap of information.

GameRankings FTW!! People complain about it cause the scores are always changing but that just adds to the fun of it all. Besides a game won't usually change drastically. like if the first five reviewers give a game a 9.5 all the reviewers after that are probably not going to give it a 7.0.Zero5000X

Answer is they're not, and the whole system should be torn down.

GameRankings FTW!! People complain about it cause the scores are always changing but that just adds to the fun of it all. Besides a game won't usually change drastically. like if the first five reviewers give a game a 9.5 all the reviewers after that are probably not going to give it a 7.0.Zero5000X

wrong just look at how the score changed for R&C

[QUOTE="gingerdivid"]

Should we use Gamerankings? I give that idea a resounding no.

In situations like these, people tend to point almost immediately to Gamerankings, without thinking it through. Let me elaborate on the single, most glaringly obvious flaw. Scores change.

How could we possibly keep up with the endless amount of reviews coming in? The score will constantly change, it's a dynamic system and nothing will be set in stone, well that's if you're willing to wait over a month to get an official score.

GR counts everything, to the credible to the downright biased; GR also counts some sites scores for some games but ignores some sites scores for other releases. More reviews are also released for some games whilst less is released for others, making it (ultimately) an unfair system.

On to other point, notice how GR typically has more AAA games than GS ever did, if we use GR, the unpredictable nature of System Wars will be gone. The aura of anxiety before a review will be lost too.

Look at Mario Sunshine, a defining flop in SW history. That wouldn't have happened, also TP wouldn't have happened. Great events like that would never have happened under Gamerankings. Not only is the system flawed, but it takes away the appeal and charm of SW.

My suggestion is that we use Gametrailers and Eurogamer. Average the reviews out and there we have an official score. Eurogamer is unpredictable (much like GS) and Gametrailers have great and down to earth reviews.

Or we could use GS (a tried and true formula), whatever happens I just hope GR wont be the norm as ultimately it will be the demise of this community.

Zero5000X

GS scores are one opinion whereas GR scores are many opinions. many opnions>>>>>> one opinion.

But still, you clearly didn't read the post, as that rebuttal didn't address any of my points. The main one being, that a database site may not be beneficial to the foundations and charm of this board.

Collective review sites are meaningless if individual review scores cannot be trusted. The implication is that by averaging poor data we obtain good data, that doesn't work.subrosian

LOL that is a perfect summation. I wish we could stickey that

maybe you should post that in the vote thread sub

Collective review sites are meaningless if individual review scores cannot be trusted. The implication is that by averaging poor data we obtain good data, that doesn't work.subrosian

I'm sure we can all come together to figure out a way to argue about what console is better without using review scores. Like, comparing the pros and cons of each game. Or maybe stop arguing altogether?

[QUOTE="subrosian"]

Kane & Lynch is an absolutely awful game, and a complete waste of $60. Compare it to any other $60 shooter - Halo 3, Orange Box, Call of Duty 4. Now tell me it even deserves to exist, let alone get reviewed. It's a 6.0, and it barely deserves that. It's a cliched, crappy, poorly controlling shooter on a system with a *TON* of shooters, then they have the nerve to put it on PC, against games like Crysis.

It's a giant turd and if you like it you're no longer a gamer and might as well cut off your thumbs and donate them to someone who's going to make some decent use of them.

Jeff didn't deserve to be fired for saying that, and we need to figure out how System Wars is going to deal with all of its credibility going out the window.

d_agra

thats a matter of opinion..remember gamespot gave hitman a 5. It was buggy and had issues but it nowhere deserved a 5. I personally thought hitman 1 was brilliant and new game in the making!Does that mean i need to cut my thumbs off?

If you go what you are saying all oblivion hype blandwagon need their thumb cut off which think is the RPG of the century

I know you angry but not IO fault,its the publisher!!

I actually didn't think the game was too bad, I just finished it, and I would give it at least a 7. We've had much worse games out this year. I was really hoping Jericho was going to be freakin' awesome, but it was kind of meh, and the squad mechanics were just terrible, not too mention teammate AI, etc. etc. But I still enjoyed Kane & Lynch even if it wasn't "The Greatest Game Ever".

Jeff's review did seem a little off, although he was pretty close on a few things.

[QUOTE="subrosian"]Collective review sites are meaningless if individual review scores cannot be trusted. The implication is that by averaging poor data we obtain good data, that doesn't work.BreakingPoint8

I'm sure we can all come together to figure out a way to argue about what console is better without using review scores. Like, comparing the pros and cons of each game. Or maybe stop arguing altogether?

A great deal of the discussion in SW is coming from people who've never played the games in question. As far as System Wars "rules" - I succeeded in pushing for anarchy many months ago for determining the winner - QED review scores have been somewhat meaningless in determing "winners" for some time now.

The reality is review scores have held as a crutch and been used mainly by people with no intention of using them for their one intended purpose - deciding the pros and cons of a game for their system. In any case, if anything good comes of this, it's that all the worst aspects of System Wars (betting, review scores, hype, ownage, trolling, fakeboys) have come under scrutiny overnight.

Collective review sites are meaningless if individual review scores cannot be trusted. The implication is that by averaging poor data we obtain good data, that doesn't work.subrosian

Yep, completely agree....a bunch of "wrongs" don't make a "right"

[QUOTE="subrosian"]Collective review sites are meaningless if individual review scores cannot be trusted. The implication is that by averaging poor data we obtain good data, that doesn't work.BreakingPoint8

I'm sure we can all come together to figure out a way to argue about what console is better without using review scores. Like, comparing the pros and cons of each game. Or maybe stop arguing altogether?

so much of what is system wars is based around that system and the constant arguing if it were to stop I doubt there would be as muchpeople is system wars as there is now.

Collective review sites are meaningless if individual review scores cannot be trusted. The implication is that by averaging poor data we obtain good data, that doesn't work.subrosian

C

That is why Metacritic and Gamerankings fail.

[QUOTE="subrosian"]Collective review sites are meaningless if individual review scores cannot be trusted. The implication is that by averaging poor data we obtain good data, that doesn't work.BreakingPoint8

I'm sure we can all come together to figure out a way to argue about what console is better without using review scores. Like, comparing the pros and cons of each game. Or maybe stop arguing altogether?

If cows said the sky was blue lems would disagree and vice versa.

[QUOTE="subrosian"]Collective review sites are meaningless if individual review scores cannot be trusted. The implication is that by averaging poor data we obtain good data, that doesn't work.MikeE21286

Yep, completely agree....a bunch of "wrongs" don't make a "right"

Unless if we can string together a bunch of sources that seems consistent and credible "not to mention filter out the biased sources like nintendo power, the official playstation magazine, etc"and then calculate the reviews of those sources to get an average.

Collective review sites are meaningless if individual review scores cannot be trusted. The implication is that by averaging poor data we obtain good data, that doesn't work.subrosian

Then there's no point in using reviews to determine flops, who knows which reviews we can trust?

[QUOTE="subrosian"]Collective review sites are meaningless if individual review scores cannot be trusted. The implication is that by averaging poor data we obtain good data, that doesn't work.CJL13

Then there's no point in using reviews to determine flops, who knows which reviews we can trust?

well we have to use a review or else we gotta find some other way of determining how good a game is.

[QUOTE="MikeE21286"]

[QUOTE="subrosian"]Collective review sites are meaningless if individual review scores cannot be trusted. The implication is that by averaging poor data we obtain good data, that doesn't work.Shinobishyguy

Yep, completely agree....a bunch of "wrongs" don't make a "right"

Unless if we can string together a bunch of sources that seems consistent and credible "not to mention filter out the biased sources like nintendo power, the official playstation magazine, etc"and then calculate the reviews of those sources to get an average.

We can't use anything.....it's over.

Personal opinion prevails

[QUOTE="Zero5000X"]GameRankings FTW!! People complain about it cause the scores are always changing but that just adds to the fun of it all. Besides a game won't usually change drastically. like if the first five reviewers give a game a 9.5 all the reviewers after that are probably not going to give it a 7.0.BreakingPoint8

Answer is they're not, and the whole system should be torn down.

we use gamespot scores now. is that a reliable site?

[QUOTE="Zero5000X"]GameRankings FTW!! People complain about it cause the scores are always changing but that just adds to the fun of it all. Besides a game won't usually change drastically. like if the first five reviewers give a game a 9.5 all the reviewers after that are probably not going to give it a 7.0.blue_hazy_basic

wrong just look at how the score changed for R&C

it was at 90% for the longest time and now its at 89%. thats not a big change in my book.

[QUOTE="Shinobishyguy"][QUOTE="MikeE21286"]

[QUOTE="subrosian"]Collective review sites are meaningless if individual review scores cannot be trusted. The implication is that by averaging poor data we obtain good data, that doesn't work.MikeE21286

Yep, completely agree....a bunch of "wrongs" don't make a "right"

Unless if we can string together a bunch of sources that seems consistent and credible "not to mention filter out the biased sources like nintendo power, the official playstation magazine, etc"and then calculate the reviews of those sources to get an average.

We can't use anything.....it's over.

Personal opinion prevails

How is that any different than what we've been doing?

Essentially we've been using a small handful of people's personal opinions and forcing them down people's throats. If you've read Gamespot's review guide, we use the reviews in a way they were never intended - cross-platform, cross-generation, and as a means of "ownage" - rather than as simply what they are - a basic review of a game.

It's time to use GR scores. LINKloco

yes!

[QUOTE="LINKloco"]It's time to use GR scores. greenleaflink

yes!

I repeat:

Collective review sites are meaningless if individual review scores cannot be trusted. The implication is that by averaging poor data we obtain good data, that doesn't work.

[QUOTE="MikeE21286"][QUOTE="Shinobishyguy"][QUOTE="MikeE21286"]

[QUOTE="subrosian"]Collective review sites are meaningless if individual review scores cannot be trusted. The implication is that by averaging poor data we obtain good data, that doesn't work.subrosian

Yep, completely agree....a bunch of "wrongs" don't make a "right"

Unless if we can string together a bunch of sources that seems consistent and credible "not to mention filter out the biased sources like nintendo power, the official playstation magazine, etc"and then calculate the reviews of those sources to get an average.

We can't use anything.....it's over.

Personal opinion prevails

How is that any different than what we've been doing?

Essentially we've been using a small handful of people's personal opinions and forcing them down people's throats. If you've read Gamespot's review guide, we use the reviews in a way they were never intended - cross-platform, cross-generation, and as a means of "ownage" - rather than as simply what they are - a basic review of a game.

Yea, I see what you're saying. I completely agree. I didn't fully elaboratemy thought into my post....I should have said each we use "each invidual person's opinion" instead ofjust saying "personal opion". ...which was what I meant.

[QUOTE="greenleaflink"]

[QUOTE="LINKloco"]It's time to use GR scores. subrosian

yes!

I repeat:

Collective review sites are meaningless if individual review scores cannot be trusted. The implication is that by averaging poor data we obtain good data, that doesn't work.

Actually you are averaging scores of 10-50 opinions on one said game. As opposed to one singluar probable bias review.

[QUOTE="greenleaflink"]

[QUOTE="LINKloco"]It's time to use GR scores. subrosian

yes!

I repeat:

Collective review sites are meaningless if individual review scores cannot be trusted. The implication is that by averaging poor data we obtain good data, that doesn't work.

everyone has biases so i guess by your logic no review should ever be trusted. atleast with a collective review site you're mixing all kinds of biases together.

It's so weird becaue this is EXACTLY like the whole steroids thing in baseball.

Questions.

(Baseball)

Do we trust the records after it is known people are taking steroids?

Do we trust the previous records that may have been tainted by steroids?

(Gamespot)

Do we trust Gamespot now that we know it is tainted

Do we trust previous reviews that may have been tainted

[QUOTE="subrosian"][QUOTE="greenleaflink"]

[QUOTE="LINKloco"]It's time to use GR scores. Kratos_OMEGA

yes!

I repeat:

Collective review sites are meaningless if individual review scores cannot be trusted. The implication is that by averaging poor data we obtain good data, that doesn't work.

Actually you are averaging scores of 10-50 opinions on one said game. As opposed to one singluar probable bias review.

[QUOTE="subrosian"][QUOTE="greenleaflink"]

[QUOTE="LINKloco"]It's time to use GR scores. Zero5000X

yes!

I repeat:

Collective review sites are meaningless if individual review scores cannot be trusted. The implication is that by averaging poor data we obtain good data, that doesn't work.

everyone has biases so i guess by your logic no review should ever be trusted. atleast with a collective review site you're mixing all kinds of biases together.

Well yes, everything has bias somewhat....so it really doesn't matter....the bias is a constant and you don't really account for it.

It basically winds up being that which sites have bias (they all do just like you say to somewhat) and which sites have biased biases :P (Gamespot is now known to be one of those, and the other websites....not so sure about those anymore either)

[QUOTE="subrosian"][QUOTE="greenleaflink"]

[QUOTE="LINKloco"]It's time to use GR scores. Zero5000X

yes!

I repeat:

Collective review sites are meaningless if individual review scores cannot be trusted. The implication is that by averaging poor data we obtain good data, that doesn't work.

everyone has biases so i guess by your logic no review should ever be trusted. atleast with a collective review site you're mixing all kinds of biases together.

Its not the gamers fault.

I have a feeling that CNET got a ton of complaints for his removal after the Zelda TP review and people cancelling subscriptions and going nuts because their precious little game only got an 8.8 ........ an 8.8 ! I think that is when they started looking into removing him. Now when advertisers start complaining aboutthings and threaten to pull more money away from CNETbecause of Jeff ......... it was the last straw.

Just mytheory on the situation, but I put the blame on CNET for not protecting their employees ....... and I blame sheep for complaining in the first place to the higher ups:P

It is a real shame that he was fired over this , so stop and think the next time you even think about telling Gamespot/CNET to fire an editor (Aaron Thomas) , because they just might think about doing it.

[QUOTE="subrosian"][QUOTE="greenleaflink"]

[QUOTE="LINKloco"]It's time to use GR scores. Zero5000X

yes!

I repeat:

Collective review sites are meaningless if individual review scores cannot be trusted. The implication is that by averaging poor data we obtain good data, that doesn't work.

everyone has biases so i guess by your logic no review should ever be trusted. atleast with a collective review site you're mixing all kinds of biases together.

No.

I'm simply pointing out that averaging together poor data doesn't address the issue of poor data being there in the first place. We need to be able to trust our data *before* we start working with it. Averaging together a bunch of review sites doesn't address the issue of how credible the reviews we're averaging together are - or if that is even the best method in the first place of determining if a game is "good" or "bad".

Nothing will change in System Wars because:

1: There's no sensible solution. There is absolutely no reasonable alternative. As has been said, this is GS - the ONLY way for it to function properly is to use GS reviews as structure.

2: The concept of System Wars is absurd and pathetic to begin with, the man behind GS's curtain finally being exposed will change nothing.

This is System Wars, so long as there are fanboys here spouting nonsense and repeating the same oldtalking pointsover and over and over again Gamespot's scores will ALWAYS be the primary crutch propping up their arguments. Gerstmann's unfortunate termination will have no affect on it, other than allow other, opposing fanboys to reply with "BUT GS SCORES AREN"T CREDIBLE ANYMORE LOL!"

System Wars features some of the most horriblymisspelled, scatter-brained NON credible arguments on the whole of the net. Having a non-credible review score to wrap the ridiculous argument around is hardly earth shattering.

The sad part of Gerstmann's firing is not how it affects System Wars (seriously, who cares) but rather how everyone can plainly see GS's credibility dissolving in its wake.

How does this incident call into question the validity of their reviews? Jeff would rather get fired than give a bad game a good score, isn't that a good thing?Conanfan1

The rumor is that Jeff was fired partially because of his tone during his video review of Kane & Lynch, which calls into question CNET's journalistic credibility. We still need all the facts, but were this true, it would be easy to see how some people would not be comfortable considering the site's reviews to be valid.

Honest to god man, its just the internet.

" We need to figure out what ulterior motives might have played into things like the review score overhaul." WTF man?

serious, THE INTERNET IS NOT SERIOUS BUSINESS. who cares if gamespot is biased? who cares if jeff is fired? who cares if the damned cooeration is really a secret agency killing the worlds population of bunnies? its just a damned website.

you people seriously take this stuff too seriously.

JPOBS

It is not honest!

And is it illegal in US?