Many of you may have already heard of the departure of GameSpot editor Jeff Gerstmann at the end of November, but the latest accusations really seem to raise a few eyebrows.

For a little background you can catch up Here.

Quite frankly I'm not in the least surprised that the possibilty exists that the reviews on GameSpot and other large commercial sites are tainted, what do you think? I know we have discussed the fact that FPS players review Adventure games and give an unfair viewpoint, but how far do you think the reviews are swayed by advertising dollars?

Ana

Gamespy and ign and maybe gamespot do not do reviews for gamers they do it for money if they have a good rep with some company i.e publisher they probably make deals giving them favourable reviews for spots on their sites or some such.

Usually tho the majority of ppl i know and myself included figure its all crooked, they get payed to right good reviews even if games arnt very good.


Also reviews in general are never accurate for me, sometimes i play a game with bad reviews but i love it, or has high reviews and i hate it. Just the way ppl are i guess. So i dont read reviews mainly. Tho i do look at some boomer reviews as it has a personal touch to them which i like. Also i read a few reviers at gamershell a year back and thought it was from a gamers perspective as well. Duno what there like now tho.

The gaming industry has evolved into BIG money.The computer mags that I receive,all seem to promote the big money and weird popular games that sell.I know there is A thing called capitalism
which in my veiw,there is nothing wrong with it but, there is some responsibilty that goes along with it.What I see coming has me worried because Money talks and we get the same boring stuff with books & films and maybe games in the future ? I don,t know.

Just my thoughts


Dunn Tawkin

I'm glad there still are sites like Gameboomers!


Bernard

There's a reason I read the posts here at GameBoomers rather than GameWhatever. My tastes are reflected here, not there.

I realise things change with time. Each generation wants to make its mark on the world. Its a natural part of The Search for the Better Way, I don't think we would be where we are without it.

Think about it, what did your parents think about your music, or hair styles? I lived through that with my parents. I suspect many of you have too with your kids.

But the True Classics remain through the Ages. Ever hear of some guy named Shakespeare? Well, I'm not a real fan of his, but I think that says something. He's still around and considered one of the greatest English writers of all time.

I think Tex Murphy and Gabriel Knight will be in Skakespears realm in maybe another few hundred years.

Its the test of time that counts.

Albert

I think it's pretty obvious that Eidos pressured Gamespot to fire him and they caved in. I think it's despicable that they did and the fans of their site should write in and let them know that. In fact, I think I will write them too and I think as gamers it would be a good idea for us all to do so. They should know that they won't have a customer base to attract advertisers with if their customers can't trust them to report honestly. Gamespot's forum is full of angry people saying just that, btw.

Hi

Wherever money comes into the equation, corruption can certainly quickly follow so I'm certainly not surprised.

Disappointed but not surprised

Cheers.

Mad

I've been following this controversy a bit from afar. The links in one official response led me to the Gamespot review standards and FAQs about their reviews. A couple of items of interest.




If Gamespot is encouraging their reviewers to pay attention to their average review score, then that means that reviewers must inevitably give some games low scores. A high score (for instance,a 9.0 given to the latest action game) must be balanced by that reviewer by giving another game a low score (for instance, a 3.0).

I wonder what kind of game will receive that low score to achieve Gamespot's "balanced" average? A game that's somehow slipped through all the publisher's vetting and is a truly bad game? Or maybe a game in a genre that the reviewer doesn't particularly like anyway?


Another FAQ on Gamespot:




I know I'm a slow gamer , but there are very, very few adventures that I can finish in 10 hours. If Gamespot's reviewers are frequently "quitting" after an average of 10 hours of gameplay, that explains a lot. For one thing, It explains how they manage to review those huge RPGs within six months of their publication.

It also, IMHO, threatens the professionalism of their reviews. When you read gamer/reader reviews posted by gamers (on Amazon.com, for instance), you can tell that the writers sometimes haven't finished a game they are commenting on. I have been assuming that the "professionals" at least could be relied on to play the whole game in order to give an opinion on, well, the whole game.

That's interesting, Becky. Since you and the other GameBoomers reviewers play the game to finish 2-3 times and then when all the nuances are studied - write the review.

Yes,MaG - I find that interesting also , and it perhaps is the best illustrator of the difference between this wonderful site's reviews , and those type. I know when I read a review here , that even though personal preference is going to come into it to a small degree,as well as we of course try not to be offensive but simply state a glitch or poor feature, the review is thorough and honest .
It is not colored by pressure of deadline , advertising, etc. I've read some of those ,and wondered how the reviewers could walk those fine lines and still enjoy what they do.

Thank you ,and all our reviewers, for the job you all do !

Unfortunately we live in a commercial world where inferior goods/products are marketed & sold constantly through exaggerated description/claims - in the media world I know this includes at least music & films as well as games.

There are many gaming sites & it does not surprise me that a lot of those may be in the pocket of larger game companies who feel that it would be prudent to use these sites as they present themselves as an independant 'service' to gameplayers. It is quite sad when the site is tempted to 'play along' & employees with any integrity become superfluous & you end up with glowing/malicious reviews from people who have no feel for the game and/or the genre based solely on a snippet of gameplay.

But there are a few good gaming sites around - GB for me is one of the best - indepth & honest reviews, interesting & civil debate & a good telling off when you deserve it!

Maybe I am just too dense again to understand why any adventure gamer would even expect to find a good review of an adventure game in magazines written for the shooter, mayhem crowd. If they gave a great review for an adventure game their target buyers would be totally upset when they tried to play the game and discovered their favorite type of playing was totally absent and "what was this junk all about anyway" (only they would probably use stronger language!) would be their reaction. And I certainly would not blame them one teensy-weensy bit. It is the way I feel about the games that they like, so it is only fair if they feel that way about the games I like. Therefore, I am not the least bit upset with the way their reviewers look at and grade adventure games. In fact, there have been a few times when I thought they gave a game a better score than I would, not that I read these magazines but sometimes I have come across a link to them in adventure game forums.

I find that interesting, Becky. I never read about their reviews before. I imagine most if not all the professional sites review games the same way. It certainly says something about the quality of the reviews.

Melanie

Well, I call that fair-minded!

Hi Folks Been a while since I posted on the adventure boards. This really threw me when I read about it. I guess I'm naive, but I never associated gaming with "payola", but it does make sense. Unfortunately where ever there is big money there is corruption.

Becky,
That was really an eye opening excerpt that you posted about how long they play a game before reviewing. I mean 10 hours, c'mon? It sometimes takes me that long just to open the box!

Trail, me too!

I really don't see how 10 hours is enough for a full review. A 'first look' should be around 10 hours play!

So many games take some time for you to get used to the controls (not every one finds Prince of Persia as natural as I do ), and many games have a great beginning and solid gameplay, only to come seriously unstuck towards the end with an illogical story, or poorly thought out end-game. (Two Worlds, I'm looking at you here!)

I was really disappointed to read about Jeff Gerstmann's situation. However, I am not surprised. There has long been an unfortunate degree of linkage between game coverage and advertising revenue in most game publications.

Virtually all publishers try to up the score of reviews (it's in their interests, of course), and most publications suffer the attentions of said publishers. It's just down to who has the better ability to say 'No'.

I'm just glad I have people like MaG and Becky to stand between me and the publishers!!

Gremlin

I really think that a "review" should be written by someone who played the entire game. 10 hours? Really? How would someone finish FF12 in 10 hours??

For my adventure game reviews, I check here, justadventure, adventuregamers, quandry - the more the better. I never even bother checking IGN / Gamespot for anything other than RPG/FPS games.

I love the peer reviews here. It's sad to see that in a place where you actually make it to a professional /mainstream level, you have to "up" the score or die (in this case, fired)

The funny thing is that review scores doesn't really matter to the general public. Think of how well Psychonauts sold and how well Jaws sold. My stepson will see a well-advertised game and ask for it at Christmas, without reading ANY reviews. He'll also gladly play EVERY EA sport game

They call it "pressure" but it's hard to see it as anything but censorship. At one point I was offered money to "contribute" to a major game editorial site, but I never called them back - I'm so honest when it comes to mediocre games that I'd be fired after the first article and get completely trolled.

Poor review scores on places like Gamespot have really hurt sales of some games. The review scores also matter on the sites which aggregate scores over review sites. I have reservations about attempting to rate games but that's another topic.

Oh, it's difficult! Believe me!

Gremlin

This Gamespot quote posted by Becky is quite telling. Look at Gamespot's own interpretation of their scores. 6.0 to 6.9 is considered as "fair". 7.0 to 7.9 is "good". They are saying games on store shelves are fair to barely good. That is not a very high opinion of what is on the store shelves. It was GS who said low 7's. If 7.9 is only good then a low 7 is "barely good."

According to GS, "most games really aren't bad." If so why do they need to define their reviews with six categories of "Not Good"? 6.0 is fair 5.0 is mediocre 4.0 is poor 3.0 is bad 2.0 is terrible and 1.0 is Abysmal.

For someone who says "most games really aren't bad" they seemed to have gone out of their way to create multiple classifications of bad. It is a good thing 5 is not their average rating because they would alienate many more advertisers.

As for adventure games more than half of their total reviewed games are in one of those bad categories. There are few adventure game publishing companies to spend advertising dollars at GS to complain about the low review scores. That speaks volumes about their "editorial integrity."

I played enough Adventure games to understand "most games really aren't bad." Therefore of GS's 250 reviews of Adventure games why is 65-70 percent are rated as bad? The short answer is they don't like adventure games and to sell the FPS games they fudge their reviews to placate the paying advertisers.

I don't always like short answers. Are we saying here only trust reviews from sites without advertising on them?

There are reasons why Gamespot will rate Adventure games lower than specialist Adventure game sites. Firstly they are comparing Adventure games with games in general, using a different set of criteria to someone who is an Adventure gamer. Secondly the reviews won't be necessarily done by someone who specialises in the genre. These issues have nothing to do with the power of advertisers.

These issues exist even in the specialist Adventure game sites. Do you compare a free Adventure with commercial games or not? Should first person Adventures only be reviewed by someone who likes first person Adventures?

The puzzle for me isn't why Adventure games are generally rated low by Gamespot, but why Gamespot rates any Adventure game highly which they do from time to time.

According to the reports, which I cannot say are accurate, the answer is no you cannot trust reviews written on sites that sell advertising to game producers. It is that simple. The charge is GS fired a senior reviewer who had been with them for over ten years. Because the game company did not like the review written about their game. If true then GS's credibility is toast. If you work for GS are you going to write a review that pans the project of a paying customer? I think not, if you want to keep your job. Simply put it is a conflict of interest to review a product when your revenue comes from the producer. Again GS created this problem if they acted as accused. So GS, live with the consequences of your actions.



If so that is a failed premise. You can't compare Destination Treasure Island to a FPS game. To say DTI lacks what is found is Crysis is meaningless. You are speaking to a difference audience. Read the litany of complaints Adventure players have about games like BS3. Too much action too much stealth. Adventure players do not want FPS type game play. Do not want 3d change of direction cameras. It is confusing to the genre.




This issue has nothing to do with the power of advertisers. But it has everything to do with fairness. What the reviewer "specializes" in is a nice way of saying what kind of game he likes. One who enjoys FPS style games featuring cutting edge graphics, varied ways of killing everything that moves, no rich story line and just a series of grunts for conversation is likely to find Adventure games dull. Seriously can you expect someone with a predisposed view that Adventure games are uninteresting is going to review Culpa favorably against Crysis?




It is interesting what is not asked here. your examples are all Adventure to Adventure when asking about Adventure site reviews. No outcry about Adventure reviewers bashing fps. But then Adventure sites rarely review fps. It must be they don't have to elevate the genre by bashing another. From what I have seen Free Adventures would not compare favorably to big budget games. Their producers are at a big disadvantage. However, if a free adventure maker produces a Gabriel Knight wannabe it is not unfair to compare his/her effort to the original. It is adventure versus adventure, apples to apples so to speak.

Yes FPS should only be reviewed by someone who likes the genre. Why do I say that? Because the baggage is disposed of. You don't have the reviewer predisposed to disliking the game before he/she even sees it. Especially when the site bosses are limiting your time saying ten hours of game play is the limit, as quoted elsewhere in this thread. This notion ties directly to the comment below.



Do I understand this comment correctly? No adventure game should be rated highly? Is this your belief or how you see GS viewing adventure games? That proves my point exactly! Go to your terminal with the mindset that "No Adventure Game should be rated highly." Honestly what kind of review should I expect from that? Even the most biased reviewer has to acknowledge that Monkey Island, TLJ, Gabriel Knight, et all are great games. They must pay homage to the classics. How could "Big box Reviews Inc" bash those games and maintain any shred of credibility?

In the end it is not my mission to bash FPS games. I understand people like them. I don't understand why but that is my bias. Yes I firmly believe you serve no one by comparing Culpa Innata to Crysis. It is a different audience entirely. Yes when Mr Mass Producer pays your bills you don't trash his games if you wish to keep your job. That is a simple business fact. "Don't argue with the guy who signs the checks"