Gamespot Fires Reviewer Due to Negative Review?

I kidna notice the embed gamespot video doesn't work, so here the link to it:

http://www.gamespot.com/video/928117/6183310/unreal-tournament-3-video-review

ps. sorry about the multiple post.

 

Yeah, I think there are probably some good reviewers on fan sites, definitely - but the very problem you mentioned; that it is hard (and supposed to be harder) to know for sure what kind of issues you are dealing with (i.e. bias, viral marketers, etc.) - is why you can't just take fan reviews as your primary source.

Which is why this situation is such a shame; it's a clear sign of the impact/pressures on the 'professional' sites, which is exactly the same concern of just listening to 'fan' sites.

And I think you are way exaggerating how professional reviewers don't have a 'clue', though. That's just silly. It's what the guys do for a living; nothing but. To act like they don't invest time into what they do isn't fair.

Now, an issue of not having enough time - and too much stockpiling - is definitely an issue and one of the concerns. It could lead to problems with reviews; but then again this is probably an issue with a lot of these types of professions.

In any case, again, it's why I think if you are looking for reviews, a good mix of them instead of just one or two is the best bet.

 

Unfortunately, I am not. Anyone can be a game reviewer if they can write a decent paper of any sort. They do invest time into gaming, but no where near as much as an hardcore gamer.

Here take a look at that ut3 writen review on gamespot (the guy that got fired):
[q]

The Good


* Low-gravity instagib matches are still thrilling and crazy
* Warfare mode offers some deeper, somewhat more strategic play
* Good, solid map design
* Great graphics that scale well to fit mid-range machines. [/q]

-It doesn't say much about low gravity, just his opinion
-Warfare is now simplistic and yet boring as the pwntv video review stat3ed
-solid map? does that moron know whats even a good map is? its not about the "look", but the visibility , flow and balance of the map that matter, UT3 map have lots of gray and there is about only 1-2 "decent" map for every gametype.
-Yes, Great graphic.

[q]The Bad

* Front-end interface has too many menus and selections to move through, which makes it feel sort of like a console game. [/q]

Now, this is just BS . Fan forum, and even the game developer's stated, the UI is lacking in "option/setting".

And this is the only negative things he can get out of it? Beside the "in your face" crappy GUI for setting and multiplayer server browser? Or the game lacking such basic option such as "spectator" (will be in future patches, but its inexcusable to not have it in the retail) . Or maybe the fact that you need to "login" with an account just to play the game offline?

I could go on and on, but the fact about these game reviewer don't have a clue isn't that far off. Maybe they do and they just simply don't want to risk their job just to put out a honest review.

 

That's called differing opinion, demon77. You find that you agree with a review that shares your opinion...that kinda happens. That's a big difference from 'not having a clue'.

Now, perhaps, if a reviewer said, for example: 'There isn't even a sniper rifle in X game!' when there actually is - now THAT is an example of 'not having a clue'.

These guys play games all day long. To say that they are not like 'hardcore gamers' doesn't make much sense....though I don't know what your personal definition of 'hardcore' is.

Look, all reviews are flawed. If a person is going to go by one person's review they are probably going to get burned, pure and simple. That's why you go with quantity.

You are right about the concern of being 'afraid' to post negatively being a huge problem - which is exactly what this Gamespot issue calls into question.

But this is just one of many issues that surround game reviews..whether it be 'fan' or professional.

 

They don't play game all day long, they do game related stuff that including playing game all day long. Tho, the amount of time they spend playing game is minimal as they review multiple game. They aren't "dedicated" to a specific game long enough to give a great review.

It may be differ in opinion, but i can back my opinion up anytime, while they cannot (nor do i expect them to). IMO, your just giving them too much credit. Or its maybe b/c I have a higher expectation.

 

Definitely the amount of games they have to cover is a concern. I agree with you there. One of the things that I do probably find faulty with the system.

Giving them too much credit, though? Higher expectation? What exactly do you think most of these reviewers are? They were once - guess what - fan reviewers too. And what do fan reviewers do since they aren't making money at it? Do they not have jobs or friends or family that force them to do 'other stuff' along with play games? Game reviewers aren't grown in the lab.

In fact, you feel much the way most reviewers do. Believe heavily in their opinions, think they can back them up against anyone... gosh, demon, you sound just like a professional game reviewer.

Just about everyone with an opinion believes they can back it up, man. All that's happening here is that you find those differing opinions and are turning it into something else. A reviewer - fan, professional, whatever - is just a single person. There are all sorts of factors that can be involved.

The problem here, with this Gamespot issue is simple; one of those factors most definitely should not be involved. Sadly, it seems to be.

 

Gamespot lost its credibility with me a long time ago but here are some recent things they should be ashamed of.

1) Halo 3 was 9.5 and Unreal 3 got an 8.5

2) Rachet and Clank got 7.5 when every other publication on the planet gave it 8.5 to 9.

PS3 games continue to get shanked by Gamespot and I'm saying that as a 360 owner myself.