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

[QUOTE="Zero5000X"][QUOTE="subrosian"][QUOTE="greenleaflink"]

[QUOTE="LINKloco"]It's time to use GR scores. BreakingPoint8

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.

i agree. reviews shouldn't be used at all. i think there are many other things that need to change in system wars. the definition of a flop for one. a flop should be a game that was anticipated to be good but was in fact bad; not a game that scored slightly lower than expected.

I feel sorry for the people who defended them.

"But bu tu bu bu teh conspiraciess!!! :cry:"

Number 4 :lol:greenwallly

Agreed. :lol:

[QUOTE="subrosian"]

4. This is Partially Our Fault

System Wars (not just on this site) is why Eidos would want to buy reviews in the first place (if they did such a thing). Publishers tie salaries for some game developers to review scores. Why? Because review scores have been shown to directly impact sales. We need to address how our *own focus* on "official review scores" may be corrupting the industry, and journalism. This is something system wars will have to address in the future.

We need to address how we are buying into PR, Marketing, and Sales Data - how (by tying our a part of our identity to a companies success) we have allowed ourselves to be targeted. Our eagerness for "ownage" creates a market ripe for deceit - how can we prevent companies from believing the media can be used in this way? How do we punish unethical businesses practices - not just with Kane & Lynch, but also with games we might personally enjoy?

TeamR

People seem to disagree with this point.

I don't. I totally agree.

It's not only a "system wars" issue, it's an issue with the gaming community as a whole. MAny people make purchasing decisions based on scores from sites such as this. Companies realize that, which is why they send free copies to reviewers in the first place. It's free publicity, and with a good score can boost sales. On system wars we treat GS scores as religion. Indisputable fact, for some people. So yeah, we're all partially to blame for these and other similar events that don't get as much publicity. Companies only want good scores to appeal to us, and as long as we hold critical reviews with such high regard, they will continue to do so.

This whole event over the last 24 hours has made me reconsider my own views on critic scores. We've all heard conspiracy theories before on how companies buy good scores, but this is so blatant. So out in the open. It's shocking. I don't think i'll ever take another journalistic review seriously again. It almost makes system wars pointless. What does it matter if we switch from GS to some other site? Who's to say that they arent corrupt as well? Why do we argue over game scores in the first place?

Its a sad state, right now. Very sad.

I 110% agree with you TeamR.

As for myself I've been a gamer for about 12 years and I know what I like in video games and most companies who do make video games prolly have never played a video game in their life which it is very sad since I've been gaming theres only been about 3-4 years out of 12 that there where decent titles that devs/publishers put time into their product

The only video game reviewers I can tolerate is Gameinformer reviewers since most of the time they actually know what they are doing/writing unlike all of these other sites where reviewers compare games (something IGN does and its annoying)when they are suppose to give the pros and cons about the game.As for Neogaf they are a plain forum,basically a plain sheet of paper and a pencil,also you cant even join the site if you have a hotmail email account.

If there would be someone to blame for this incident at Gamespot/Cnet its Eidos,why? paying/bribing people off to lie about a game is horrible and shows how corrupt society is now and days just so they can earn a bigger pay check.

i agree with tc when he says we should wait this out a little bit.....oo and by the way there is news that jeff being fired had nothing to do with edios.....

my point is that we should wait before we judge this story with out all the facts!

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

Agreed completely. Why trade one unreliable source for a whole slew of them averaged out? Even with simple unproven rumors like this going around, it is hard to know who to trust anymore because you will always have that lingering question within the back of your mind of whether or not the review is honest or if it was based in part or in full to bribes and paying 'extra' for ad space.

I am sure many will disagree with me, but I am just of the firm opinion right now that gaming journalism in general, and especially the reviews are going down the toilet in this day and age. I am not saying that there were any bribes or anything of that sort going on here because, well....we just do not know as of yet. What I am saying is that on popular news/review outlets such as Gamespot, there will always be the chance for that big bad money monster to find a way to dictate how the lines of integrety should be drawn and defined according to the higher ups best interest.....not the gamers.

Anyway, that is just where I stand on the issue, regardless of what the circumstances are in the Jeff situation. Even if there were no bribes involved here, I would personally feel more comfortable with brutally honest, untainted reviews from a small source or a group of independent gamers dedicated to quality gaming, rather than taking a chance on supporting the alleged "honesty" of ad splattered, ultra high traffic sites that are owned by a company/companies where money is undeniably the top priority, not honesty for the core gaming community.

[QUOTE="kozzy1234"]

[QUOTE="farsendor"]gamespot has been going downhill even before thise mass affect zelda tp r a c bioshock should have been higher. nicenator

I dont understand whats so bad about the review.. i agree with everything jeff said in the video review. I actually thougt Jeff gave the game to high of a score, as the game really isnt very good at all.

No no, you misunderstand. most people agree with Jeffs score, the problem is that it seems Cnet and eidos wanted it scored higher (an 8 or 9 maybe?) and thats why he was fired. Given what we know, it also brings into question a lot of the other scores that appear to be off the average (Ratchet, Mass Effect, Zelda, MP) as to whether or not they were influenced by a Cnet sponsor too.

Its all speculation right now though.

I wonder how we would be getting to know something like Jeff being fired because some powerful dudes wanting this game to succeed... it all sounds like rumour to me... what's the source?

My disgust at the firing of Jeff aside, I don't see why we need an official review source. People blindly posting review scores doesn't lead to any meaningful discussion, and this forum would be a better place without it. Complaints and praise for games should come from personal experience, not the opinions of total strangers who might even be biased. These fanboys need to put their appetite for "owning" the other factions with "AAA" games to rest. This forum should have been about gaming from the start, not taking an unfounded sense of pride in supporting a game and system that gets the highest scores from possibly crooked review sources. Who's to say that other sites like IGN, 1UP, and GameTrailers aren't guilty of the same things that the CNET sites are?SmashBrosLegend

Something has to change, there is no ownage in tainted review scores. We all know how this works and what should be done.

[QUOTE="SmashBrosLegend"]My disgust at the firing of Jeff aside, I don't see why we need an official review source. People blindly posting review scores doesn't lead to any meaningful discussion, and this forum would be a better place without it. Complaints and praise for games should come from personal experience, not the opinions of total strangers who might even be biased. These fanboys need to put their appetite for "owning" the other factions with "AAA" games to rest. This forum should have been about gaming from the start, not taking an unfounded sense of pride in supporting a game and system that gets the highest scores from possibly crooked review sources. Who's to say that other sites like IGN, 1UP, and GameTrailers aren't guilty of the same things that the CNET sites are?BreakingPoint8

Something has to change, there is no ownage in tainted review scores. We all know how this works and what should be done.

That perhaps it's time to use System Wars to discuss games, rather than as a pointless game in which we pretend to identify with faceless corporate giants for the purpose of "owning" those who identify with other faceless corporate giants?

[QUOTE="BreakingPoint8"]

[QUOTE="SmashBrosLegend"]My disgust at the firing of Jeff aside, I don't see why we need an official review source. People blindly posting review scores doesn't lead to any meaningful discussion, and this forum would be a better place without it. Complaints and praise for games should come from personal experience, not the opinions of total strangers who might even be biased. These fanboys need to put their appetite for "owning" the other factions with "AAA" games to rest. This forum should have been about gaming from the start, not taking an unfounded sense of pride in supporting a game and system that gets the highest scores from possibly crooked review sources. Who's to say that other sites like IGN, 1UP, and GameTrailers aren't guilty of the same things that the CNET sites are?subrosian

Something has to change, there is no ownage in tainted review scores. We all know how this works and what should be done.

That perhaps it's time to use System Wars to discuss games, rather than as a pointless game in which we pretend to identify with faceless corporate giants for the purpose of "owning" those who identify with other faceless corporate giants?

Then i'd be like the View, but with a bunch of uppity fanboys. Do you want System Wars to turn into The View Subrosian, do you? PS: You can be Rosie.Vandalvideo

Thanks a million.

[QUOTE="BreakingPoint8"]

[QUOTE="SmashBrosLegend"]My disgust at the firing of Jeff aside, I don't see why we need an official review source. People blindly posting review scores doesn't lead to any meaningful discussion, and this forum would be a better place without it. Complaints and praise for games should come from personal experience, not the opinions of total strangers who might even be biased. These fanboys need to put their appetite for "owning" the other factions with "AAA" games to rest. This forum should have been about gaming from the start, not taking an unfounded sense of pride in supporting a game and system that gets the highest scores from possibly crooked review sources. Who's to say that other sites like IGN, 1UP, and GameTrailers aren't guilty of the same things that the CNET sites are?subrosian

Something has to change, there is no ownage in tainted review scores. We all know how this works and what should be done.

That perhaps it's time to use System Wars to discuss games, rather than as a pointless game in which we pretend to identify with faceless corporate giants for the purpose of "owning" those who identify with other faceless corporate giants?

I don't really mind people arguing and showing their brand name loyalties, I just think they should find a way other than claiming ownage over review scores to do so. Post based on your own opinions supported by facts and actual events, whether those facts and events be technical aspects of games, developer support, sales numbers, or PR blunders.SmashBrosLegend

I've never personally understood how sales numbers are an indication of quality, it's a detriment to smaller game studios, or less popular titles when we consider sales to indicate quality. They're only mildly related at times, especially for staple series, which enjoy an aspect of sales-boosting familiarity, and greater marketing, than lower budget titles.

[QUOTE="SmashBrosLegend"] I don't really mind people arguing and showing their brand name loyalties, I just think they should find a way other than claiming ownage over review scores to do so. Post based on your own opinions supported by facts and actual events, whether those facts and events be technical aspects of games, developer support, sales numbers, or PR blunders.subrosian

I've never personally understood how sales numbers are an indication of quality, it's a detriment to smaller game studios, or less popular titles when we consider sales to indicate quality. They're only mildly related at times, especially for staple series, which enjoy an aspect of sales-boosting familiarity, and greater marketing, than lower budget titles.

what happened exactly??Apocalypse33

Jeff(one of the reviewers for this site) got fired for giving Kane and Lynch a score of 6.0 and the creators threatened to take out all there advertisements which would cause CNet to lose alot of money. so in order to keep there money they fired Jeff, this lead to suspicion of other reviews and asks the question of "foul play"

don't agree with 4 either.

many mods have made it clear that SW doesn't really matter in the larger scheme of GS - far more casuals visit the site and don't post in the forums, this is why our revolt re: the new rating system fell on deaf ears, they consider us a drop in a bucket.

i definitely vote that we don't include Gamerankings.com in our new review system as anything we do there just gives C|Net money too.

the best solution would be creating a new board somewhere else, somewhere neutral. staying here just seems a bit silly to me.

HOWEVER, I didn't have a problem with the review, that is until I came to the very end of the video review, where he makes the comment, and I'm paraphrasing here "It's not worth the $60 right now." Now, I don't know if it's necessarily a common thing that reviewers do. Maybe because I don't really remember comments like that considering I haven't watched a video review of a game with a low score in a while. Or maybe they do, and I just haven't really paid attention to it. But to me, saying something indirectly like that, to the extent of "Don't buy this game until it gets cheap", is a little over the top. Even if you do feel like that, it's still something that can get you in hot water if you're in the type of profession Jeff is in. If a random fanboy comes onto the boards and says it, that's one thing. But for a reviewer of a big time gaming site, it's another.

Even a day after all this, I'm still in shock over what's gone down. Just flat out unbelieveable. I guess GR would be something decent, because honestly, I don't know anything else better. Or maybe combine IGN, GR, GT, etc. and average out the scores?

I just finished watching the video review of Kane and Lynch, and going into it, I was expecting to hear a complete trashing of the game after many people said it was the tone of the review that caused a stir. After watching the review, I honestly didn't find it to be any different than any other review Jeff's done criticizing a game, believed to be mediocre. He had good things to say, had some criticisms, and that pretty much, in this case, the bad outweighed the good.

HOWEVER, I didn't have a problem with the review, that is until I came to the very end of the video review, where he makes the comment, and I'm paraphrasing here "It's not worth the $60 right now." Now, I don't know if it's necessarily a common thing that reviewers do. Maybe because I don't really remember comments like that considering I haven't watched a video review of a game with a low score in a while. Or maybe they do, and I just haven't really paid attention to it. But to me, saying something indirectly like that, to the extent of "Don't buy this game until it gets cheap", is a little over the top. Even if you do feel like that, it's still something that can get you in hot water if you're in the type of profession Jeff is in. If a random fanboy comes onto the boards and says it, that's one thing. But for a reviewer of a big time gaming site, it's another.

Even a day after all this, I'm still in shock over what's gone down. Just flat out unbelieveable. I guess GR would be something decent, because honestly, I don't know anything else better. Or maybe combine IGN, GR, GT, etc. and average out the scores?

Blue-Sphere

Hmm...ya that is interesting.

Hmm.

http://valleywag.com/tech/jeff-gerstmann/gamespot-editor-on-fired-writer-328775.php

http://valleywag.com/tech/jeff-gerstmann/fired-cnet-editor-speaks-328660.php

If true....well damn.

cant wait for the hotspot on wednesday

guys send it your thoughts to them to get your questions answered!

hotspot@gamespot.com

Hmm.

http://valleywag.com/tech/jeff-gerstmann/gamespot-editor-on-fired-writer-328775.php

http://valleywag.com/tech/jeff-gerstmann/fired-cnet-editor-speaks-328660.php

If true....well damn.

BreakingPoint8

Um, wow, this sounds like a credible story to me regarding this, and it shows Gamespot (CNET) to be nothing but a bunch of corporate sell outs on gimp chains. I found this part particularly interesting:

"This management team has shown what they're willing to do. Jeff had ten years in and was **** locked out of his office and told to leave the building.

What you might not be aware of is that GS is well known for appealing mostly to hardcore gamers. The mucky-mucks have been doing a lot of "brand research" over the last year or so and indicating that they want to reach out to more casual gamers. Our last executive editor, Greg Kasavin, left to go to EA, and he was replaced by a suit, Josh Larson, who had no editorial experience and was only involved on the business side of things. Over the last year there has been an increasing amount of pressure to allow the advertising teams to have more of a say in the editorial process; we've started having to give our sales team heads-ups when a game is getting a low score, for instance, so that they can let the advertisers know that before a review goes up. Other publishers have started giving us notes involving when our reviews can go up; if a game's getting a 9 or above, it can go up early; if not, it'll have to wait until after the game is on the shelves.

I was in the meeting where Josh Larson was trying to explain this firing and the guy had absolutely no response to any of the criticisms we were sending his way. He kept dodging the question, saying that there were "multiple instances of tone" in the reviews that he hadn't been happy about, but that wasn't Jeff's problem since we all vet every review. He also implied that "AAA" titles deserved more attention when they were being reviewed, which sounded to all of us that he was implying that they should get higher scores, especially since those titles are usually more highly advertised on our site.

I know that it's all about the money, and hey, I like money. I like advertising because it pays my salary. Unfortunately after Kasavin left the church-and-state separation between the sales teams and the editorial team has cracked, and with Jeff's firing I think it's clear that the management now has no interest at all in integrity and are instead looking for an editorial team that will be nicer to the advertisors.

When companies make games as downright contemptible as Kane and Lynch, they deserve to be called on it. I guess you'll have to go to Onion or a smaller site for objective reviews now, because everyone at GS now thinks that if they give a low score to a high-profile game, they'll be **** Everyone's **** scared and we're all hoping to get Josh Larson removed from his position because no one trusts him anymore. If that doesn't happen then look for every game to be Game of the Year material at GameSpot."

[QUOTE="BreakingPoint8"]

Hmm.

http://valleywag.com/tech/jeff-gerstmann/gamespot-editor-on-fired-writer-328775.php

http://valleywag.com/tech/jeff-gerstmann/fired-cnet-editor-speaks-328660.php

If true....well damn.

ironcreed

Um, wow, this sounds like a credible story to me regarding this, and it shows Gamespot (CNET) to be nothing but a bunch of corporate sell outs on gimp chains. I found this part particularly interesting:

"This management team has shown what they're willing to do. Jeff had ten years in and was **** locked out of his office and told to leave the building.

What you might not be aware of is that GS is well known for appealing mostly to hardcore gamers. The mucky-mucks have been doing a lot of "brand research" over the last year or so and indicating that they want to reach out to more casual gamers. Our last executive editor, Greg Kasavin, left to go to EA, and he was replaced by a suit, Josh Larson, who had no editorial experience and was only involved on the business side of things. Over the last year there has been an increasing amount of pressure to allow the advertising teams to have more of a say in the editorial process; we've started having to give our sales team heads-ups when a game is getting a low score, for instance, so that they can let the advertisers know that before a review goes up. Other publishers have started giving us notes involving when our reviews can go up; if a game's getting a 9 or above, it can go up early; if not, it'll have to wait until after the game is on the shelves.

I was in the meeting where Josh Larson was trying to explain this firing and the guy had absolutely no response to any of the criticisms we were sending his way. He kept dodging the question, saying that there were "multiple instances of tone" in the reviews that he hadn't been happy about, but that wasn't Jeff's problem since we all vet every review. He also implied that "AAA" titles deserved more attention when they were being reviewed, which sounded to all of us that he was implying that they should get higher scores, especially since those titles are usually more highly advertised on our site.

I know that it's all about the money, and hey, I like money. I like advertising because it pays my salary. Unfortunately after Kasavin left the church-and-state separation between the sales teams and the editorial team has cracked, and with Jeff's firing I think it's clear that the management now has no interest at all in integrity and are instead looking for an editorial team that will be nicer to the advertisors.

When companies make games as downright contemptible as Kane and Lynch, they deserve to be called on it. I guess you'll have to go to Onion or a smaller site for objective reviews now, because everyone at GS now thinks that if they give a low score to a high-profile game, they'll be **** Everyone's **** scared and we're all hoping to get Josh Larson removed from his position because no one trusts him anymore. If that doesn't happen then look for every game to be Game of the Year material at GameSpot."

Wow... I don' know what you can say to that.

The industry shake-out from this is going to be huge if CNET chooses to keep quiet. We're only hearing one side of the story right now, granted, but if even 1/100th of that side of the story is true, it's really going to be bad.

The way i see it we have three options merge 1ups igns gametrailers reviews altogether

or use the critic score option on gs

if you dont know you go to a games reviews and on the right it should tell you user and critic score

or use the user

or average all 5 :D

GS credibility is going down the drain but we still have the best forums in the world:twisted:

I find myself questioning the authenticity of every single high-profile game review ever done on this website.

If the reason's behind Jeff's firings are true... system wars cannot exist in it's current structure. GS reviews/reporting gave this site a backbone that made our community possible. This firing is a MAJOR slap in the fact to objectivism as we know it. Still thinking on how, if at all, to move foward.

I find myself questioning the authenticity of every single high-profile game review ever done on this website.

If the reason's behind Jeff's firings are true... system wars cannot exist in it's current structure. GS reviews/reporting gave this site a backbone that made our community possible. This firing is a MAJOR slap in the fact to objectivism as we know it. Still thinking on how, if at all, to move foward.

_Impmacaque_

For the Greater Good - Not the Greater Stupidity

I'll volunteer some wisdom on this, and it's worth noting. First - let's keep the "Jeff Talk" over in the appropriate thread. The reason for this is two-fold. First, it collects together the concerns, complaints, information and good-byes into one large lump sum that has a far greater impact than any splattered grouping of dozens of other postings could. And secondly, it reduced the moderation load (locking) that has to occur, leaving the mods free to discuss the incident.

Now on to the issues:

1. The Credibility of GS Scores

GS Scores, regardless of the validity of the Kane & Lynch claims, are being called into question. Rather than go through a laundry list of scores, or whining, I think we simply need to have some patience, and (going forward) find out as much as we can. We need to figure out what ulterior motives might have played into things like the review score overhaul. But, more importantly, we need *facts* not speculation, not cross-site comparison, not "well I feel". Remember, a review score is just a reviewer's opinion. Until we know if opinions were bought, we need to move forward calmly.

We've got a lot of titles and games for all systems to address - and of course there is the grander question of CNET. This will be something we need as much information as possible one. Above all us, we must promote quality information - as individuals outside of the company we are at an information deficit - one we must correct.

2. Handling AAAs

Whether or not the incident is true, the faith in GS scores, and AAAs by GS rule has been shaken. I propose we wait one week and then hold an official vote on what (if any) we will use for this determinant. It may be best, for the time being, to simply let scores go.

3. Moving Forward

Finally, we need a moratorium on fakeboys, idiocy, and general infighting in System Wars. This is a time for us to unite and move forward, to say "there's a bigger issue going on with GS and our systems". If this is a wake-up call in gaming journalism, so be it, but I propose we take a few days from thinking about the war, and start taking a serious look at where PR, Journalism, and hype has gotten us, and how it is *infecting System Wars*.

4. This is Partially Our Fault

System Wars (not just on this site) is why Eidos would want to buy reviews in the first place (if they did such a thing). Publishers tie salaries for some game developers to review scores. Why? Because review scores have been shown to directly impact sales. We need to address how our *own focus* on "official review scores" may be corrupting the industry, and journalism. This is something system wars will have to address in the future.

We need to address how we are buying into PR, Marketing, and Sales Data - how (by tying our a part of our identity to a companies success) we have allowed ourselves to be targeted. Our eagerness for "ownage" creates a market ripe for deceit - how can we prevent companies from believing the media can be used in this way? How do we punish unethical businesses practices - not just with Kane & Lynch, but also with games we might personally enjoy?

5. Maturity

This is our time to decide how we approach things, and it may be time to do the mature thing, act like adults, and start thinking. Many of you are younger, this might be the first time you've been *bluntly asked* to do the right thing. So do it. GameSpot and its credibility may never recover from the events of the past twenth-four hours... but as a community, as posters, we are greater than any one site, any one event. We are ultimately the driving force of this industry - and we need to show it where to go.

-

I have a great faith in each of you, let's plan how we move forward, what we address, and where we go from here as a community.

subrosian

Honestly, who do you think you are?

On another note if any of you believe this is the first case of a publisher paying for a better review then you are naive. "Trusting in reviews" as some of you have mentioned has never been a smart thing unless you enjoy being fed garbage in the spoonfuls.

[QUOTE="subrosian"]

For the Greater Good - Not the Greater Stupidity

I'll volunteer some wisdom on this, and it's worth noting. First - let's keep the "Jeff Talk" over in the appropriate thread. The reason for this is two-fold. First, it collects together the concerns, complaints, information and good-byes into one large lump sum that has a far greater impact than any splattered grouping of dozens of other postings could. And secondly, it reduced the moderation load (locking) that has to occur, leaving the mods free to discuss the incident.

Now on to the issues:

1. The Credibility of GS Scores

GS Scores, regardless of the validity of the Kane & Lynch claims, are being called into question. Rather than go through a laundry list of scores, or whining, I think we simply need to have some patience, and (going forward) find out as much as we can. We need to figure out what ulterior motives might have played into things like the review score overhaul. But, more importantly, we need *facts* not speculation, not cross-site comparison, not "well I feel". Remember, a review score is just a reviewer's opinion. Until we know if opinions were bought, we need to move forward calmly.

We've got a lot of titles and games for all systems to address - and of course there is the grander question of CNET. This will be something we need as much information as possible one. Above all us, we must promote quality information - as individuals outside of the company we are at an information deficit - one we must correct.

2. Handling AAAs

Whether or not the incident is true, the faith in GS scores, and AAAs by GS rule has been shaken. I propose we wait one week and then hold an official vote on what (if any) we will use for this determinant. It may be best, for the time being, to simply let scores go.

3. Moving Forward

Finally, we need a moratorium on fakeboys, idiocy, and general infighting in System Wars. This is a time for us to unite and move forward, to say "there's a bigger issue going on with GS and our systems". If this is a wake-up call in gaming journalism, so be it, but I propose we take a few days from thinking about the war, and start taking a serious look at where PR, Journalism, and hype has gotten us, and how it is *infecting System Wars*.

4. This is Partially Our Fault

System Wars (not just on this site) is why Eidos would want to buy reviews in the first place (if they did such a thing). Publishers tie salaries for some game developers to review scores. Why? Because review scores have been shown to directly impact sales. We need to address how our *own focus* on "official review scores" may be corrupting the industry, and journalism. This is something system wars will have to address in the future.

We need to address how we are buying into PR, Marketing, and Sales Data - how (by tying our a part of our identity to a companies success) we have allowed ourselves to be targeted. Our eagerness for "ownage" creates a market ripe for deceit - how can we prevent companies from believing the media can be used in this way? How do we punish unethical businesses practices - not just with Kane & Lynch, but also with games we might personally enjoy?

5. Maturity

This is our time to decide how we approach things, and it may be time to do the mature thing, act like adults, and start thinking. Many of you are younger, this might be the first time you've been *bluntly asked* to do the right thing. So do it. GameSpot and its credibility may never recover from the events of the past twenth-four hours... but as a community, as posters, we are greater than any one site, any one event. We are ultimately the driving force of this industry - and we need to show it where to go.

-

I have a great faith in each of you, let's plan how we move forward, what we address, and where we go from here as a community.

APOLLOCJD

Honestly, who do you think you are?

The only good thing about this is that when American Girl: Julie Finds a Way comes out next week it is going to get an awesome review.

AAA material anyone?

Anywho, I know this is serious stuff, I'm kind of just trying to wait until more details post before I throw my hat in. Even though my perspective is basically that of the TCs. My posting in SW has dropped off in SW dramatically over the past couple months because it has just been so aggressive.

P.S. Julie can work a pole.

[QUOTE="subrosian"]

Doesn't Microsoft own CNET?

cakeorrdeath

I believe they have a non controlling stake.

But no direct influence.

Non controlling means they can own up to 20% of CNET's stock.

I am just going to stick to going with my instincts when buying games that appeal to me regardless of scores, as I always have. As far as reviews go, I will mainly stick to reading strictly player reviews in order to get a general idea about games that I have not played, but am interested in. Also, I will always be on the lookout for small, unsponsored review sources by knowledgeable indivuduals who actually care about the community rather than putting how much money they stand to make off of advertising as their top priority.

Actually, it would be a great idea if a group of well informed, long-time, passionate gamers got together to create such an underground, independent gaming reviews and news source. It could simply be called, "Independent Gaming Monthly" or something. It would have to be at least a smalll hit within the community for gamers who are looking for unbiased, honest reviews by passionate gamers such as themselves.

Hell, even if it just made small noise within the community, at least it would be honest, something that gaming journalism as a whole seems to be lacking in these days for the most part. It would simply be "by gamers, for the gamers". I know I sure would appreciate something like that. It would be raw, new, refreshingly honest, and most importantly....completely free of the influence of corporate taint.

I find myself questioning the authenticity of every single high-profile game review ever done on this website.

If the reason's behind Jeff's firings are true... system wars cannot exist in it's current structure. GS reviews/reporting gave this site a backbone that made our community possible. This firing is a MAJOR slap in the fact to objectivism as we know it. Still thinking on how, if at all, to move foward.

_Impmacaque_

i agree

[QUOTE="_Impmacaque_"]

I find myself questioning the authenticity of every single high-profile game review ever done on this website.

If the reason's behind Jeff's firings are true... system wars cannot exist in it's current structure. GS reviews/reporting gave this site a backbone that made our community possible. This firing is a MAJOR slap in the fact to objectivism as we know it. Still thinking on how, if at all, to move foward.

smokeydabear076

me too. Now that review scores are out the window they'll be nothing left to debate but sales.

That'll get old really, really fast.

Ohw well, fun while it lasted I guess.

I am just going to stick to going with my instincts when buying games that appeal to me regardless of scores, as I always have. As far as reviews go, I will mainly stick to reading strictly player reviews in order to get a general idea about games that I have not played, but am interested in. Also, I will always be on the lookout for small, unsponsored review sources by knowledgeable indivuduals who actually care about the community rather than putting how much money they stand to make off of advertising as their top priority.

Actually, it would be a great idea if a group of well informed, long-time, passionate gamers got together to create such an underground, independent gaming reviews and news source. It could simply be called, "Independent Gaming Monthly" or something. It would have to be at least a smalll hit within the community for gamers who are looking for unbiased, honest reviews by passionate gamers such as themselves.

Hell, even if it just made small noise within the community, at least it would be honest, something that gaming journalism as a whole seems to be lacking in these days for the most part. It would simply be "by gamers, for the gamers". I know I sure would appreciate something like that. It would be raw, new, refreshingly honest, and most importantly....completely free of the influence of corporate taint.

ironcreed

We have to do something quick.

System Wars survival is at stake.

We have lasted for 7 years and we are not about to let it crumble.

We have to do something quick.

System Wars survival is at stake.

We have lasted for 7 years and we are not about to let it crumble.

Willy105

We have to do something quick.

System Wars survival is at stake.

We have lasted for 7 years and we are not about to let it crumble.

Willy105

i understand what your saying but i really dont know what we can do

[QUOTE="Willy105"]

We have to do something quick.

System Wars survival is at stake.

We have lasted for 7 years and we are not about to let it crumble.

BreakingPoint8

same here, and im not sure if there is something we can do

We have to do something quick.

System Wars survival is at stake.

We have lasted for 7 years and we are not about to let it crumble.

Willy105

No offense Willy but you haven't been here seven years, and the vision of System Wars has a place of controversy, hype, and animal-groups battling it out has needed to die for a long time. I welcome the change that is going to come. This is about moving forward with the recognition flawed credibility was fueling a flawed concept... it's time to move on from the immaturity that System Wars has embraced.