-jinx- said:Yes, people probably have preconceptions about everything
kenta said:Ah hah, now you're turning this into a sales argument when I wasn't even talking about sales in the remotest sense, and not only that but you're putting words into my mouth. This entire thing has nothing to do with sales, they are a couple dominos down the line
Look, I don't know who the **** this guy is, or why people care. I made a statement in general since it was implied by others in this thread that a) he prejudged it and b) he has a known bias against a certain style of game.skip said:apparently including that he decided to slam the game before playing it, and that he was assigned the game with a known bias against it.
Razoric said:The problem is, not only was he assigned to write a review eventhough he had a known bias against it before even playing the damn thing, he was assigned to write 3 differnet reviews for 3 different publications / websites. Seriously, how can anyone defend this?
levious said:whoa, I don't think Parish decided his opinion before playing the game, just that he stated his hate for the game before the review got published.
Razoric said:The problem is, not only was he assigned to write a review eventhough he had a known bias against it before even playing the damn thing, he was assigned to write 3 differnet reviews for 3 different publications / websites. Seriously, how can anyone defend this?
-jinx- said:Look, I don't know who the **** this guy is, or why people care. I made a statement in general since it was implied by others in this thread that a) he prejudged it and b) he has a known bias against a certain style of game.
If it applies to Parrish, great. If it doesn't apply, great. I am extraordinarily unhappy with a lot of reviews that I read -- whether they have to do with movies, music, games, books, restaurants, or whatever -- because the reviewer's obvious agenda destroys whatever information content might have been there. Yes, I still do think that a reviewer ought to strive to be tabula rasa, even though it is probably impossible to achieve completely.
-jinx- said:If a professional reviewer of whatever kind decides his/her opinion in advance of actually seeing/playing/listening to the subject of the review, then yes, that's unprofessional as hell. Yes, people probably have preconceptions about everything, but bragging about how you're going to slam something in advance is ridiculous.
NichM said:This wasn't "I can't wait to slam the games in reviews"; it was "I slammed the game in reviews and now I can finally talk about why."
I was just trying to point out that you said "they should make a better game" when (a) it's a remake, and (b) ultimately there are very few people who make decisions about the way a game ends up, everyone else just obeys orders. So in that regard it's not quite fair for them to lose out on potential bonuses/etc simply because of one person's distaste that happens to get smeared around several different placesKintaro said:Then what, exactly, were you trying to say?
drohne said:you have to look outside the game to explain a fours -- sorry, three separate fours -- for goku makaimura. you don't look at that score and wonder what's wrong with the game. you look at that score and wonder what's wrong with the reviewer.
...or if he hasn't quite told us why, he has at least told us who he wishes to offend.
I already said I believe he's entitled to give whatever score he wants (whether he has an axe to grind or not). What makes the whole thing unfair is that he can give multiple scores, and if he really hated the game and thus requested he reviews it multiple times, he easily gets away with it.Kintaro said:Those guys who gave the 7.5 and 6.0 have an axe to grind too? But hell, it'll certainly help to make better games for the glowing praise you would get from EVERYWHERE ELSE (in theory) against someone who has an "axe to grind." Considering that two other people gave the game fair to shit scores, in one magazine, this axe to grind shit, is just that. Shit.
kenta said:(a) it's a remake
kenta said:I was just trying to point out that you said "they should make a better game" when (a) it's a remake, and (b) ultimately there are very few people who make decisions about the way a game ends up, everyone else just obeys orders. So in that regard it's not quite fair for them to lose out on potential bonuses/etc simply because of one person's distaste that happens to get smeared around several different places
Razoric said:The problem is, not only was he assigned to write a review eventhough he had a known bias against it before even playing the damn thing, he was assigned to write 3 differnet reviews for 3 different publications / websites. Seriously, how can anyone defend this?
dark10x said:I'd say they had SOME impact.
Still, the main point is that ZD assigned a reviewer with a negative agenda formed prior to playing a game to review said game in three different publications. That's just not right (especially when the product in question IS actually quite good).
elostyle said:I appreciate different takes and viewpoints on games like Jeremy, eurogamer and a bunch of other sites frequently have to offer. Might as well read press releases otherwise and go purely by gamerankings. Which usually doesn't tell me if I like a game or not. I get a much better idea by taking multiple different takes on a game into account. You know, the written text.
and if he really hated the game and thus requested he reviews it multiple times
I was unaware that the game isn't a remake, but the point of the statement was that it sticks to the GnG formula. Also nobody ever said a company will base layoffs on review scores but rather they'd base bonuses and other rewards on them. Regardless, this entire thing just boils down to a personal level of sympathy for people in that position so it's pointless to even carry the discussion furtherKintaro said:a) This game is not a remake.
b) It may not be fair to them, but them's the breaks for taking on the job. If the company focuses on ONE person's review of the game, and determines lay offs based on that ONE PERSON, then **** that company in the ear. However, as I can already said, while one person is reviewing it for 3 places, there are 2 others who scored the game low (EGM), and 3 other places who scored it high (Play, Famitsu, and Edge). Now, if the game starts scoring low all over the board, then yeah, make a better game. Making a better game, remake or not, should always be priority one.
Hooray for GAF!duckroll said:Can we just stick to the facts and discuss that, please?
I heard Parish actually feasts on children. True story.duckroll said:Hey guys, stop making up shit about Parish, it's getting annoying. Can we just stick to the facts and discuss that, please?
Based on his own statements outside of the reviews, it seems he is fueled by a burning desire to trash the game.I also think it's impossible to not bring Parish into this. If I was in his position, I'd have declined to write three reviews of the same game. Feels like the only reason to accept that job would either be due to some severe lack of funds or a burning desire to trash UGnG.
kenta said:I was unaware that the game isn't a remake, but the point of the statement was that it sticks to the GnG formula. Also nobody ever said a company will base layoffs on review scores but rather they'd base bonuses and other rewards on them. Regardless, this entire thing just boils down to a personal level of sympathy for people in that position so it's pointless to even carry the discussion further
drohne said:ouendan...now there's a game that deserves savaging simply because its fans are annoying. whenever i encounter the word "ouendan" my brain automatically appends "is the best game on the nintendo ds," and i wouldn't even venture that proposition out of spite for the nintendo ds
Amir0x said:the problem is, Jeremy then went on to spout his same minority opinion in two other major publications as well. This is when it becomes a problem - but, that's Ziff Davis' fault.
skip said:* Because of a communication breakdown among the reviews editors in the building, I didn't know until today that Jeremy was also assigned by OPM to write their review. we try to avoid this in most situations, and are currently talking internally about what to do moving forward.
/done
duckroll said:I'm glad ZD feels the same way about multiple reviews from a single source, and try to avoid it if possible.
drohne said:ouendan...now there's a game that deserves savaging simply because its fans are annoying. whenever i encounter the word "ouendan" my brain automatically appends "is the best game on the nintendo ds," and i wouldn't even venture that proposition out of spite for the nintendo ds
Probationsmack said:Sounds to me like you're a racist. Yup thats it.
Wario64 said:Nfans have their own race? I said wow
:thumbsup I don't really see why it should be considered unreasonable by anyone here that the best way to handle this, if ZD couldn't have at least assigned a different reviewer in each case, would have been to ensure that one review is written by JP and clearly marked as a reprint in each publication.Ceb said:I can't really say much about Parish doing one online and one print review, as (for example) 1UP and EGM feels interchangeable in many ways. Assigning him to two print magazine UGnG reviews feels weird though. Imagine if all reviews for the PS platforms in EGM were written by the corresponding OPM authors. That would be incredibly pointless and a huge disservice to gamers. ZD should make an effort in trying to mix things up a little. If doing so had still resulted in poor scores for UGnG, say a 4 in EGM but a 6/7 in OPM, then so be it. At least the game had gotten a fair chance.
I also think it's impossible to not bring Parish into this. If I was in his position, I'd have declined to write three reviews of the same game. Feels like the only reason to accept that job would either be due to some severe lack of funds or a burning desire to trash UGnG.
So Jeremy himself couldn't have stepped in and pointed out the conflict of interest?skip said:* Because of a communication breakdown among the reviews editors in the building, I didn't know until today that Jeremy was also assigned by OPM to write their review. we try to avoid this in most situations, and are currently talking internally about what to do moving forward.
drohne said:uh, actually he said that it's policy for the 1up reviewer to provide the final third of an egm review.
...man, you went from "calling ziff out" to unpaid damage control in record time! JEREMY PARISH SUBORNED DUCKROLL
kaching said:So Jeremy himself couldn't have stepped in and pointed out the conflict of interest?