Support NeoGAF

[Reilly]

EGM's third reviewer is now the 1UP reviewer.

sounds good!


NOT

 

[skip]

the motivations behind toastyfrog's score remain an abyss, and i doubt whether the review text(s) will tell us half as much as his blogs have. that's the root issue here: toastyfrog went and gave goku makaimura a four. i doubt even skip really cares about ziff davis's policies vis-a-vis multiple whatevers of the same hoohah

yeah, you're right. I don't care about my job.

 

[Greenpanda]

the word from 1up/ZD on this matter:

1) too many misconceptions and false assumptions about the sequence of events.

* EGM's third reviewer is now the 1UP reviewer. I assigned Jeremy the G'nG 1UP review first, which meant that he had to write for EGM as well.

* Before making any public comments, he played the game and wrote his review. It wasn't until the EGM scores hit subscribers that he started talking about the game on his blog.

* 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.

2) I posted this in Justin's reviews thread, but it's worth mentioning here: ZD's publications are not entirely "separate." 1UP, EGM, CGW, OPM and GameVideos all work on the same floor, we write for each other, we share a lot of the same writers, we share a lot of ideas, we all appear on the 1UP Show and on each others' podcasts.

it's a concerted effort on the part of ZD to integrate print with online, hence "The 1UP Network."

/done

I'm speaking as somewhat of a third party in this matter. I haven't played UG'n'G and hence really have no actual opinion on the quality of the game, save that it looks like a game I'd enjoy and I'm excited about its release (so I'm not ENTIRELY neutral ).

I think it's ridiculous for a magazine editor to appear on a message board and lecture his readers about their "misconceptions and false assumptions." The life and blood of any magazine is its ability to maintain credibility as a good source of information. As a magazine editor, it's YOUR responsibility to build that credibility. You are NOT owed it just because you have a printing press; it's something you have to build up by providing readers with content they can trust. If people on a message board don't regard your magazines as having integrity or if they have misconceptions about your publications, it's because YOU have not done your job of establishing credibility.

The fact that many people are upset about ZD's handling of the UG'n'G reviews and regard it as unprofessional indicates that something went wrong with this process. The people to whom you're trying to sell magazines no longer view your editorial content as trustworthy, and, as a magazine editor, this should concern you.

So don't talk to us. Listen. Find out why we're unhappy.

Some posters' assumptions may be false (or may not be), but as the editor, it's YOUR job to understand what your readers are thinking and respond to their concerns.

 

[Soul4ger]

Most EGM editors are too busy doing.... Something. Probably having a sweet Madden tournament! - to play games like Ultimate Ghouls 'n Ghosts or NIS SRPGs. Seriously, it amazes me that in the same issue where only like 10 games are getting reviewed by EGM staffers AND 1UP staffers AND OPM staffers AND freelancers that they're talking about how there's nothing to play, because nothing comes out in the Summers months. I've bashed them for not being able to cover all the games that need reviewed in other issues, by posting little entries at the end of each section... But when there's nothing out, they still call in the reinforcements, and they still don't cover everything!

So don't talk to us. Listen. Find out why we're unhappy.

:lol Yeah, that'll happen.

 

[Kintaro]

I'm speaking as somewhat of a third party in this matter. I haven't played UG'n'G and hence really have no actual opinion on the quality of the game, save that it looks like a game I'd enjoy and I'm excited about its release (so I'm not ENTIRELY neutral ).

I think it's ridiculous for a magazine editor to appear on a message board and lecture his readers about their "misconceptions and false assumptions." The life and blood of any magazine is its ability to maintain credibility as a good source of information. As a magazine editor, it's YOUR responsibility to build that credibility. You are NOT owed it just because you have a printing press; it's something you have to build up by providing readers with content they can trust. If people on a message board don't regard your magazines as having integrity or if they have misconceptions about your publications, it's because YOU have not done your job of establishing credibility.

The fact that many people are upset about ZD's handling of the UG'n'G reviews and regard it as unprofessional indicates that something went wrong with this process. The people to whom you're trying to sell magazines no longer view your editorial content as trustworthy, and, as a magazine editor, this should concern you.

So don't talk to us. Listen. Find out why we're unhappy.

Some posters' assumptions may be false (or may not be), but as the editor, it's YOUR job to understand what your readers are thinking and respond to their concerns.

Dude, he DID. He cleared up the bullshit flowing throughout the thread, in a nice and tactful way. I'm sure he understands just fine. WTF you want him to do? He came on a forum to clear up some crap that asked to be cleared up, all over a game that's completely niche.

WTF you want him to do? Some backflips? He cleared it up, and he stated they're discussing the matter farther. Done.

 

[skip]

I'm speaking as somewhat of a third party in this matter. I haven't played UG'n'G and hence really have no actual opinion on the quality of the game...

unfortunate, because you caught me on the wrong day.

I think it's ridiculous for a magazine editor to appear on a message board and lecture his readers about their "misconceptions and false assumptions."

it wasn't a lecture. it was clearing up the air because people were getting a lot of things incorrect about what happened. I'm here to defend my publication and my writer. what's so ridiculous about that?

The life and blood of any magazine is its ability to maintain credibility as a good source of information. As a magazine editor, it's YOUR responsibility to build that credibility. You are NOT owed it just because you have a printing press; it's something you have to build up by providing readers with content they can trust.

now who's doing the lecturing? I know damn well what my responsibility is, which is why the first thing I did this morning was initiate the conversation with my bosses and the relevant editors and writers about what to do here.

If people on a message board don't regard your magazines as having integrity or if they have misconceptions about your publications, it's because YOU have not done your job of establishing credibility.

agreed. and it can also be because there are lot of idiots on messageboards.

The fact that many people are upset about ZD's handling of the UG'n'G reviews and regard it as unprofessional indicates that something went wrong with this process.

no shit? "there was a communication breakdown", "we are looking into how to handle this."

The people to whom you're trying to sell magazines no longer view your editorial content as trustworthy, and, as a magazine editor, this should concern you.

no shit? "there was a communication breakdown", "we are looking into how to handle this."

So don't talk to us. Listen. Find out why we're unhappy.

actually, I was listening from the first post onward. I heard the following:

* jeremy undermines ZD's credibility.
* jeremy was assigned the game knowing that he'd trash it.
* jeremy wanted to hate the game before he even played it.
* jeremy requested to be on all three reviews so that he could hate it even more.
* jeremy reviewing a game across three publications should be re-evaluated.

only one of these is actually true.

Some posters' assumptions may be false (or may not be), but as the editor, it's YOUR job to understand what your readers are thinking and respond to their concerns.

again...no shit? I should probably post in this thread, then, and respond to them directly.

oh wait.

 

[Greenpanda]

Dude, he DID. He cleared up the bullshit flowing throughout the thread, in a nice and tactful way. I'm sure he understands just fine. WTF you want him to do? He came on a forum to clear up some crap that asked to be cleared up, all over a game that's completely niche.

WTF you want him to do? Some backflips? He cleared it up, and he stated they're discussing the matter farther. Done.

I'm pretty sure that at no point during this thread did skip acknowledge that any of ZD's critics might have some merit to their complaints.

 

[Soul4ger]

actually, I was listening from the first post onward. I heard the following:

* jeremy undermines ZD's credibility.
* jeremy was assigned the game knowing that he'd trash it.
* jeremy wanted to hate the game before he even played it.
* jeremy requested to be on all three reviews so that he could hate it even more.
* jeremy reviewing a game across three publications should be re-evaluated.

only one of these is actually true.

Then you, sir, are a liar. Because if his reviewing three times didn't undermine your credibility, why re-evaluate?

 

[Zenith]

2) I posted this in Justin's reviews thread, but it's worth mentioning here: ZD's publications are not entirely "separate." 1UP, EGM, CGW, OPM and GameVideos all work on the same floor, we write for each other, we share a lot of the same writers, we share a lot of ideas, we all appear on the 1UP Show and on each others' podcasts.

it's a concerted effort on the part of ZD to integrate print with online, hence "The 1UP Network."

but why is that a good thing? What's the point in buying any of the mags if it's just going to say the same thing as the 1UP site? The same writers and sources means seeing the same opinions and content. And having the same writers means we will see the same writing styles+formats throughout all the publications. That may not sound important but it gets old fast. Viva la difference...

 

[Soul4ger]

but why is that a good thing? What's the point in buying any of the mags if it's just going to say the same thing as the 1UP site? The same writers and sources means seeing the same opinions and content. And having the same writers means we will see the same writing styles+formats throughout all the publications. That may not sound important but it gets old fast. Viva la difference...

SYNERGY! Haven't you ever seen "In Good Company?!" It's all about having Crispity-Crunch promotions in sports magazines!

 

[snatches]

I'm pretty sure that at no point during this thread did skip acknowledge that any of ZD's critics might have some merit to their complaints.

OMG STFU

 

[skip]

but why is that a good thing? What's the point in buying any of the mags if it's just going to say the same thing as the 1UP site? The same writers and sources means seeing the same opinions and content. And having the same writers means we will see the same writing styles+formats throughout all the publications. That may not sound important but it gets old fast. Viva la difference...

aside from rare cases like this (GnG), it's not the same content -- it's the same subjects approached from different angles. shane on 1UPyours isn't always talking about the same stuff on EGM Live*. video content from a CGW cover story can't appear in the magazine, so we put it up on gamevideos. we can't fit a five-day cover story into EGM, so it goes on 1UP. the 1UP reviewer in EGM only gets 120 words, so there's a chance to expand upon that online. CGW comes out later than everyone else, so there's a chance to dive deeper into games that are already released. and even though we share writers, each magazine is retaining their unique styles and formats.

print and online have very different strengths and tools, this is how we're using them.

 

[Zenith]

and even though we share writers, each magazine is retaining their unique styles and formats.

how? (serious question)

 

[Greenpanda]

now who's doing the lecturing? I know damn well what my responsibility is, which is why the first thing I did this morning was initiate the conversation with my bosses and the relevant editors and writers about what to do here.

Of course I'm lecturing you. I'm your potential customer, I get to lecture you however much I want . And if you want to be successful in business, you'd damn well better listen to me.

agreed. and it can also be because there are lot of idiots on messageboards.

I'm not sure if you realize it, but this attitude is exactly what everyone is so pissed off about: Web site/magazine editors acting like they're above their audience. Again, the so-called "idiots on messageboards" are precisely the people to whom you're trying to sell magazines. Your post is trying to create some distinction between the "idiots" (who don't like ZD's reviews) and the non-idiots (who presumably do) and writing off the "idiot" group. But walling yourself off from large portions of your (potential) audience is hardly the way to sell magazines. OK, maybe doing so will appeal to the "non-idiot" group by flattering their intelligence and dubious taste in games, but you can only coast so long on smug superiority. Maybe you can take into considerations the "idiot" group as well.

And what makes them idiots, anyway, aside from the fact that you happen to have a printing press, whereas we decided to pursue careers that don't involve lathering ourselves in Doritos crumbs and rushing for the Nintendo booth every May? I've seen a lot of game impressions on GAF that are a lot more informative than most published game reviews.

* jeremy undermines ZD's credibility.
* jeremy was assigned the game knowing that he'd trash it.
* jeremy wanted to hate the game before he even played it.
* jeremy requested to be on all three reviews so that he could hate it even more.
* jeremy reviewing a game across three publications should be re-evaluated.

only one of these is actually true.

I'll grant you that numbers 2, 3, and 4 are disputable, but 1 isn't. The fact that a ton of people in this thread are saying, "Toastyfrog isn't credibile!" indicates that he already has undermined ZD's credibility. Your credibility isn't something you can arbitrarily define; if people are saying that their trust of ZD has been undermined by Toastyfrog's reviews, then that's prima facie evidence his hack-jobs are affecting your public perception.

Or, ignore my suggestions. I'm sure you'll be very successful if you keep on condescending to your audience and telling them what to think, buy, and say.

It's working for Dan Rather and the New York Times, isn't it?

 

[Soul4ger]

My question is simply, if you have all these writers and you're all working on each others' magazines, why not just have them all work on one big, great magazine? I'd hate to be the voice of pessimism, but your magazines hardly have a feeling and voice all their own. They sound like regurgitated crap a lot of the time, honestly. And I'm not saying that to be inflammatory - honest to goodness. But more often than not, with every issue of OPM or EGM I get, I think, "Wow, this is lighter on content than last month's," or, "Are they really running this feature again?" And some of the writing is just awful..

 

[skip]

how? (serious question)

we've consolidated our scoring scale across 1UP, EGM, and OPM (0-10 with 0.5s). but the general voice and style is still under the control of the respective editors.

 

[levious]

Of course I'm lecturing you. I'm your potential customer, I get to lecture you however much I want . And if you want to be successful in business, you'd damn well better listen to me.

Again, the so-called "idiots on messageboards" are precisely the people to whom you're trying to sell magazines.

Perhaps they're going after the "anti-idiots-on-messageboards" dollar. That'd be very smart of them.

And what makes them idiots, anyway, aside from the fact that you happen to have a printing press, whereas we decided to pursue careers that don't involve lathering ourselves in Doritos crumbs and rushing for the Nintendo booth every May?

take that immature attitude to any business owner, and see what warm reception awaits you.

 

[Reilly]

My question is simply, if you have all these writers and you're all working on each others' magazines, why not just have them all work on one big, great magazine?

cause they can make more money

 

[Zenith]

we've consolidated our scoring scale across 1UP, EGM, and OPM (0-10 with 0.5s). but the general voice and style is still under the control of the respective editors.

but you said you want to integrate all the mags+sites as much as possible. That means more sharing of writers+content so surely "rare cases" like GnG will become more frequent.

and you didn't really answer my question, you just said it was up to the editors how they will tackle it. how do you force someone to write in a way that is totally different from their usual style?

 

[Soul4ger]

cause they can make more money

Then, let's not try to make the shit smell like roses. The fact is, the quality of the publications isn't as good as it could be, or in my opinion it's suffering, because they're out to make more money. And that's fine. That's business. That's the purpose of having the magazines on the stand to begin with. But don't insist that they're fine, idiots on message boards are overreacting, when, in fact, well, they're not. Your product isn't that great.

 

[skip]

Of course I'm lecturing you. I'm your potential customer, I get to lecture you however much I want . And if you want to be successful in business, you'd damn well better listen to me.



I'm not sure if you realize it, but this attitude is exactly what everyone is so pissed off about: Web site/magazine editors acting like they're above their audience. Again, the so-called "idiots on messageboards" are precisely the people to whom you're trying to sell magazines. Your post is trying to create some distinction between the "idiots" (who don't like ZD's reviews) and the non-idiots (who presumably do) and writing off the "idiot" group. But walling yourself off from large portions of your (potential) audience is hardly the way to sell magazines. OK, maybe doing so will appeal to the "non-idiot" group by flattering their intelligence and dubious taste in games, but you can only coast so long on smug superiority. Maybe you can take into considerations the "idiot" group as well.

And what makes them idiots, anyway, aside from the fact that you happen to have a printing press, whereas we decided to pursue careers that don't involve lathering ourselves in Doritos crumbs and rushing for the Nintendo booth every May? I've seen a lot of game impressions on GAF that are a lot more informative than most published game reviews.



I'll grant you that numbers 2, 3, and 4 are disputable, but 1 isn't. The fact that a ton of people in this thread are saying, "Toastyfrog isn't credibile!" indicates that he already has undermined ZD's credibility. Your credibility isn't something you can arbitrarily define; if people are saying that their trust of ZD has been undermined by Toastyfrog's reviews, then that's prima facie evidence his hack-jobs are affecting your public perception.

Or, ignore my suggestions. I'm sure you'll be very successful if you keep on condescending to your audience and telling them what to think, buy, and say.

It's working for Dan Rather and the New York Times, isn't it?

I didn't say all messageboard users are idiots. the ones who aren't are the ones who write-up awesome impressions and reviews here on GAF, and there are plenty of them. like, oh say, Wellington, who we got writing sports content for 1UP because of that very thing. Luke just hired Beige from the 1UP boards as a news intern becuase we were impressed with his writing. if we really thought that we were "above you," that never would have happened.

the rest of your business advice is noted and filed appropriately.

 

[skip]

but you said you want to integrate all the mags+sites as much as possible. That means more sharing of writers+content so surely "rare cases" like GnG will become more frequent.

and you didn't really answer my question, you just said it was up to the editors how they will tackle it. how do you force someone to write in a way that is totally different from their usual style?

I probably should have said "as much as possible, while still retaining their own unique identities and strengths." because then we'd have one monolithic publication voice that would be completely inflexible and slow to change. that's bad business.

 

[-Rogue5-]

how? (serious question)

The "how" doesn't really matter in this case...

The fact of the matter (and what should be the main concern) is that one reviewer had three opportunities to talk about a game to three separate audiences... sure there is some overlap between the readerships, but that is not the point. It doesn't matter if he loved or hated the game, the fact that the same review talked about it three times (even with different styles) isn't fair to the developer or consumer/reader.

If the reviewer (subjectively) hated the game, it's bad for the dev three times over as it reduces potential sales of three different audiences. If s/he subjectively liked it, it's bad for the potential (on the fence) consumer because they read the "same" positive review (albeit from different "perspectives/styles") three times over.... especially true for the casual/younger gamers who don't notice all three reviews were written by the same person.

It shouldn't need to be re-evaluated; it should never have happened. peroid. It's common sense; I like the idea of utilizing the different groups of ZD to cross review, but who would be dumb enough to get the same person to review the same game for three different outlets with three different audiences? That's bad... and stupid.

I don't completely blame JP because he was assigned all three tasks. That said I wouldn't be surprised if he was happy to write all three because it meant he could vent about the game in three different ways (which wouldn't be right either).

 

[White Man]

* EGM's third reviewer is now the 1UP reviewer. I assigned Jeremy the G'nG 1UP review first, which meant that he had to write for EGM as well. EDIT - The assignment was made with no prior knowledge to Jeremy's thoughts on G'nG. he's one of my best writers and I trust him completely to back up his opinions.

Why is this policy in place? ZD has a ton of writers. Why should the same person be reviewing it twice as policy? Whatever happened to hearing different opinions on a game?

 

[Of All Trades]

no shit? "there was a communication breakdown", "we are looking into how to handle this."

This actually undermines ZD's credibility about as much as everything else posted so far, simply because it shows that ZD never bothered to implement basic standards for journalism. The "communication breakdown" shouldn't have mattered because there should have been safeguards in place, "voice and style" be damned.

 

[skip]

Why is this policy in place? ZD has a ton of writers. Why should the same person be reviewing it twice as policy? Whatever happened to hearing different opinions on a game?

there are different opinions. three of them.

and as many writers as we do have, there are a ton of games (and other responsibilites the writers/editors have to attend to).

 

[cartman414]

Point #1. 3 people in EGM thought they should have made a better game. Others in other mags loved it. Called opinion. Wheee!

Point #2: If Capcom didn't know those games would sell for shit in the first place, they truly need to get their heads out of their asses. PSP in japan, for the most part = shit for software sales. In the US, Megaman never sold for shit either. Come the hell on.

Megaman 2 for the NES says you're wrong.

The fact that a ton of people in this thread are saying, "Toastyfrog isn't credibile!" indicates that he already has undermined ZD's credibility. Your credibility isn't something you can arbitrarily define; if people are saying that their trust of ZD has been undermined by Toastyfrog's reviews, then that's prima facie evidence his hack-jobs are affecting your public perception.

But always going by majority is indicative of a mob mentality. What about the possibility that the opinions and views of the majority are unfounded?

 

[Ponn]

The "how" doesn't really matter in this case...

The fact of the matter (and what should be the main concern) is that one reviewer had three opportunities to talk about a game to three separate audiences... sure there is some overlap between the readerships, but that is not the point. It doesn't matter if he loved or hated the game, the fact that the same review talked about it three times (even with different styles) isn't fair to the developer or consumer/reader.

If the reviewer (subjectively) hated the game, it's bad for the dev three times over as it reduces potential sales of three different audiences. If s/he subjectively liked it, it's bad for the potential (on the fence) consumer because they read the "same" positive review (albeit from different "perspectives/styles") three times over.... especially true for the casual/younger gamers who don't notice all three reviews were written by the same person.

It shouldn't need to be re-evaluated; it should never have happened. peroid. It's common sense; I like the idea of utilizing the different groups of ZD to cross review, but who would be dumb enough to get the same person to review the same game for three different outlets with three different audiences? That's bad... and stupid.

I don't completely blame JP because he was assigned all three tasks. That said I wouldn't be surprised if he was happy to write all three because it meant he could vent about the game in three different ways (which wouldn't be right either).

This should be the whole entire crux of this thread. Great post, agree completely.

 

[Sapiens]

I just wanted to say that this is a seriously great thread and I'm enjoying every post. And that I agree with the perception that certain game writers do, in fact, treat their audiences with disdain.


This Jeremy Parish GnG incident needs to be resolved. It can not be let to pass.

And yes, its only a videogame, but this is a videogame message board and we loves us some videogames, so take care of this situation, please.

 

[-Rogue5-]

This actually undermines ZD's credibility about as much as everything else posted so far, simply because it shows that ZD never bothered to implement basic standards for journalism. The "communication breakdown" shouldn't have mattered because there should have been safeguards in place, "voice and style" be damned.

This is the only part of this problem that I blame directly on Jeremy Parish -- it's understandable if the back-end people (managing editors or whomever assigns jobs) screws up every once and a while as it's a big company... However, JP knew he would be (or had to) write for all three pubs and either didn't say anything at all or said something, but rolled with it anyway.

Where is JP? Shouldn't he be here trying to help clear this shit up?

(not that I don't appreciate skip's input)

 

[Tiktaalik]

This is the most embarrassing GAF thread ever.

Here's what I see:

- Parish is one of the best game journalists around.
- He writes a review, and gives a game a low score. He says he has a reason for why HE doesn't think the game is very good. I haven't read the review.
- I haven't seen anything to suggest Parish had a "vendetta" against the game before he reviewed it.
- Parish wasn't alone in disliking the game. Another reviewer gave it a 6.0
- This Ziff hate is ridiculous.

 

[Kobun Heat]

I'm lowering my score for UG&G by three points, just because of this thread. Are you guys happy, now?

 

[White Man]

This is the most embarrassing GAF thread ever.

Here's what I see:

- Parish is one of the best game journalists around.
- He writes a review, and gives a game a low score. He says he has a reason for why HE doesn't think the game is very good. I haven't read the review.
- I haven't seen anything to suggest Parish had a "vendetta" against the game before he reviewed it.
- Parish wasn't alone in disliking the game. Another reviewer gave it a 6.0
- This Ziff hate is ridiculous.

My sole point of contention is that the same person is reviewing games on more than one publication owned by the same company. There's no reason that should be happening.

 

[Sapiens]

I'm lowering my score for UG&G by three points, just because of this thread. Are you guys happy, now?

"No."

 

[Ponn]

This is the most embarrassing GAF thread ever.

Here's what I see:

- Parish is one of the best game journalists around.
- He writes a review, and gives a game a low score. He says he has a reason for why HE doesn't think the game is very good. I haven't read the review.
- I haven't seen anything to suggest Parish had a "vendetta" against the game before he reviewed it.
- Parish wasn't alone in disliking the game. Another reviewer gave it a 6.0
- This Ziff hate is ridiculous.

Wow. Get some glasses then.

 

[ghostmind]

My sole point of contention is that the same person is reviewing games on more than one publication owned by the same company. There's no reason that should be happening.

Agreed. If each ZD channel is going to publish a review on a title. either publish different reviews (by different reviewers) for each channel, or let each channel have their "exclusive". This review-sharing garbage is cheap, and gives the reviewer an unfair tilt in their score vs. the rest of the publication industry...

 

[levious]

This is the most embarrassing GAF thread ever.

Here's what I see:

- Parish is one of the best game journalists around.
- He writes a review, and gives a game a low score. He says he has a reason for why HE doesn't think the game is very good. I haven't read the review.
- I haven't seen anything to suggest Parish had a "vendetta" against the game before he reviewed it.
- Parish wasn't alone in disliking the game. Another reviewer gave it a 6.0
- This Ziff hate is ridiculous.

I agree, but there is Parish's comments that anyone who loves the game is blinded by nostalgia, pretty lame thing to say. But as far as I know it was only on his blog and not in the review itself so you really can't hold that against him.

 

[Soul4ger]

In the August issue of EGM, there were 12 reviews. There are three viewpoints per review, for a grand total of a possible 36 individually written reviews. There are 13 EGM staffers listed as review crew members.

Of the 36 reviews, 12 are handled by people not listed as part of the EGM staff. So that's 24 reviews, written by 13 people. Less than two per staff member, per month. BUT.. Of the games reviewed, EIGHT of the staff members only reviewed one game (Bryan, Patrick, Dan, Mark, Greg Ford, Crispin, Demian, and Greg Sewart). Jay reviewed four, Robert reviewed two, Jen reviewed two, Shane reviewed three, and Michael reviewed three. 13 reviewers total. Of the 13, five are listed as reviews being their domain - Greg Ford, Demian, Robert, Patrick, and Greg Sewart. Another is an intern. Another is an "Editor-at-Large." The five reviewers (one of whom is the Reviews Editor) accounted for a total of SIX OF THE POSSIBLE 36 INDIVIDUALLY WRITTEN REVIEWS. Meanwhile, the Managing Editor, the Executive Editor, the News Editor, the Intern, accounted for TWELVE. What?

I'm sorry, but in a Summer issue, when you yourselves are complaining about there not being anything to review... You didn't cover a third of the games with magazine staff, and not even a third of the remaining reviews were done by people assigned to reviews by your own naming. That's a little odd, in my opinion.

 

[dark10x]

I'm lowering my score for UG&G by three points, just because of this thread. Are you guys happy, now?

Nah, you would have done that anyways because it's on the PSP rather than Nintendo DS.

 

[kaching]

it was never a formal ZD policy. when it happened in the past, it was mostly due to last minute freelancer dropouts or highly-specialized games (like Nich mentioned) that we needed to fill.

But in this case you described it as a communication breakdown, which Jeremy himself could have easily resolved.

...and to call it a "conflict of interest" is misleading, because of the group identity that we're trying to build here.

like I said, we're all talking now to figure out what's best for us to do.

How does the fact you are trying to build a group identity make it any less of a conflict of interest for a single reviewer to submit multiple, different reviews for the same game? If anything, that just exacerbates the conflict of interest. A single group identity isn't reinforced by something like this.

 

[LukeSmith]

This review-sharing garbage is cheap, and gives the reviewer an unfair tilt in their score vs. the rest of the publication industry...

Uh-oh, it's about to get all Gamerankings up in here.

 

[Kobun Heat]

Nah, you would have done that anyways because it's on the PSP rather than Nintendo DS.

 

[dark10x]

Yay!

 

[Shard]

Wow, I am shocked nobody posted a popcorn picture in this thread. I gotta say what I find most interesting about this is that most, certainly not all, but still most of the gamers here haven't even played UGnG yet. It is understandable as to why since the game isn't out in the US or Europe yet, though I got to wonder if Toastyfrog's comments actually changed the mind of anyone at least around here. Also, Chris Remo, as I recall it is Luke Smith and his cronies who is in charge of the news over at 1UP.com.

 

[Ristamar]

Perhaps they're going after the "anti-idiots-on-messageboards" dollar. That'd be very smart of them.

:lol

 

[ghostmind]

Uh-oh, it's about to get all Gamerankings up in here.

Like it or not, scores do have an influence on sales... As do opinions, especially if it is repeated enough times by enough sources...

 

[Pellham]

All it really means is that it serves ZD right for hiring him as a contributor in the first place. But I guess that's why nobody takes video game journalism seriously, since most of the people hired into it got in through connections and not through their professional experience.

 

[dark10x]

but still most of the gamers here haven't even played UGnG yet

I think most of us claiming it IS a good game have played it, though. I really like it a lot and hope it doesn't completely bomb, but unfortunately...

 

[Sapiens]

All it really means is that it serves ZD right for hiring him as a contributor in the first place. But I guess that's why nobody takes video game journalism seriously, since most of the people hired into it got in through connections and not through their professional experience.

Is Crispin the only 'real' journalist with experience in the bunch? I like him.

 

[Shard]

I think most of us claiming it IS a good game have played it, though. I really like it a lot and hope it doesn't completely bomb, but unfortunately...

Well, if that is the case that is fair enough.