Support NeoGAF

[Drinky Crow]

I am breaking my "**** GAF" silence to specifically state the following: Jeremy Parish ****ed up his review of UGnG, and badly. Any criticisms of UGnG are purely nitpicks that revolve around the extreme ends of personal taste, or constitute an agenda against certain "hardcore" games. Given that his blog is a giant lexicon of apologism for awkwardly-designed NES platformers, I can't fathom the weird cognitive dissonance that must've addled his brain when he penned his reviews of UGnG. Unless he can articulate something other the uninformative snarky rejoinders, I'm just gonna take the 4.5 -- a clear statement that UGnG is sub-average regardless of the curve of the scale -- as a deliberate attack on some group of gamers he's built a vendetta against; or that he just hates DIFFICULTY.

Seriously; I've played the game and I love the series, but I woulda sold it down the river had it sucked. It doesn't. It's a brilliant piece of classic 2D platform design with loads of modern polish and some of the most stunning attention to detail and level design ever. I can imagine a few fair nitpicks, such as the mid-stage loading and the obstreperous PSP D-pad (to some) that might knock it down a few points -- even as low as a 7.0 for the REALLY cranky -- but a 4.5 is just beyond the ****ing pale.

Really, though, I'm *doubly* angry because that dipshit put me on Dave Halverson's side of the argument, and that's just a horrible place to be. When you make Halverson seem credible, we ALL suffer.

 

[snatches]

Why is that a policy? What is the benefit to the readers of EGM or readers or 1up?

The only benefit I can see is that it hits two birds with one stone; only two people have to spend time with the game rather than three. That only helps ZD (cheaper, easier) and does nothing for any of its audiences (print or online).

This is all true. And until any of its competition decides to do three reviews for every game, I recommend you drop this pointless issue. 1up and it's publications give gamers more variety of reviews than anyone else.

 

[skip]

To be honest, I've never liked the GnG series. It is too hardcore for me. I don't care about UGnG much, given that it fits in the series.

I also like Parrish. He has the only blog on 1up that I read, he does some of their best continuing series, and he has a distinctive, recognizable voice that doesn't irritate me. I even like his drawings.

However, the "three publications, three reviews, one reviewer" situation doesn't seem kosher. I'd very much appreciate it if ZD ensured that this sort of thing didn't happen in the future. It would be lazy and irresponsible not to.

P.S., since there are 1up employees reading this!!!
Add a frickin' "Editor Blogs" page -- don't make me search for "toastyfrog" via the "Find Gamers" search. It won't take but five minutes!

we have a staff page link at the very bottom of the site.

 

[snatches]

Really, though, I'm *doubly* angry because that dipshit put me on Dave Halverson's side of the argument, and that's just a horrible place to be. When you make Halverson seem credible, we ALL suffer.

Drinky + Halverson = <3

This and peace in the middle east is all we need, after all.

 

[Dilbert]

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?

That was a cheap shot.

 

[Odysseus]

Frankly, to me it makes sense for them to leverage their resources and have the 1up and OPM reviews written by the same people that did the EGM review, because otherwise, you'd have five people being paid by the same company to review the exact same game! The fact that they have three people doing it is commendable. Three people at IGN didn't review UGnG. Three people at GameSpot didn't review UGnG. I don't even think three people at mouthbreathinggamers.com reviewed UGnG. I don't see the problem.

 

[vitaflo]

His Sun Times review is the same as his online review. The TV review is for tards with short attention spans.

In this situation, we are talking about 3 different bodies of text used in 3 different publications.

Now you're just being silly. Was there a by line on these reviews? If so, what's the big deal?

 

[-Rogue5-]

This is all true. And until any of its competition decides to do three reviews for every game, I recommend you drop this pointless issue. 1up and it's publications give gamers more variety of reviews than anyone else.

Well, if all of ZD's competition had three publications that featured a lot of the same content I would agree with you. But they don't, and probably for this exact reason (and/or if they do have similar content, they are written by entirely different people)... Not to mention the fact that ZD is arguably the biggest game-related publisher in the industry.

You're getting the responsibilities of the publisher and those of the magazines themselves mixed up. You're argument is illogical (eg. as ghetto as "Until Burger King sales and amount of locations are as high as McDonald's, you can't compare the two??!!")

 

[White Man]

Now you're just being silly. Was there a by line on these reviews? If so, what's the big deal?

I don't see how I'm being silly. As stated above, by the very nature of his fame, Ebert is kind of immune in the first place. Second, 2 of the 3 reviews cited are exactly the same, and the third one is a 2 minute TV distillation of that review, often using lines taken directly from the text.

 

[Shard]

Frankly, to me it makes sense for them to leverage their resources and have the 1up and OPM reviews written by the same people that did the EGM review, because otherwise, you'd have five people being paid by the same company to review the exact same game! The fact that they have three people doing it is commendable. Three people at IGN didn't review UGnG. Three people at GameSpot didn't review UGnG. I don't even think three people at mouthbreathinggamers.com reviewed UGnG. I don't see the problem.

Some people hate corprate synergy.

 

[Kintaro]

text

And that about wraps it up. Thank you.

 

[Greenpanda]

When me, Drinky, and Dave Halverson are all allied against you, you know your time is up

 

[Soul4ger]

You guys have staff meetings daily but something like this never comes up. :lol OH, RIGHTEOUS. I'll respond additionally when I bring my puppy back inside.

 

[Shard]

When me, Drinky, and Dave Halverson are all allied against you, you know your time is up

The Alliance to End Toastymaina.

 

[Greenpanda]

The alliance to end toastymaina.

I'll draw us up a Soviet-style propaganda poster.

 

[Robert Ashley]

Man, those ziff assholes are always trying to shove it down our throats while they sit on their games "journalist" mountain.

They just mock us with their "user created" content, blogs that let "us" say whatever we want about games and a comments section attached to stories for "feedback" from readers. They even hire editors from their forums and blogs to cover up the fact that they hate their own audience.

Have you read 1up reviews? They have the nerve to put the review at the top of the page (by one of their snarky, hipster "critics") while they leave us plebs commenting at the bottom of the page! Then they come around here trying to talk to us directly, like we're a bunch of charity cases? Boycott!

 

[Drinky Crow]

Why have multiple magazines if they all provide the same content and opinions? Why not just combine them into one magazine and call it "The Ziff-Davis Videogaming Circlejerk"? Hell, why even have multiple reviewers per game? Why not fire all the writers save one, and have him review every game?

The point of multiple reviewers is to AVOID situations like this, where one esoteric and distinctly minority voice has a little too much say. How happy would some of you monocle-wearing porkchops be if Parish's NSMB score had appeared in EGM as well some mythical Official Nintendo Magazine? How happy would you schweinhunds be if I was the only person reviewing Unlimited SaGa as a 9/10 for all of the magazines under a publisher's banner?

 

[-Rogue5-]

Frankly, to me it makes sense for them to leverage their resources and have the 1up and OPM reviews written by the same people that did the EGM review, because otherwise, you'd have five people being paid by the same company to review the exact same game! The fact that they have three people doing it is commendable. Three people at IGN didn't review UGnG. Three people at GameSpot didn't review UGnG. I don't even think three people at mouthbreathinggamers.com reviewed UGnG. I don't see the problem.

It makes sense for ZD because it's cheaper for them... But if you bought/paid for subscriptions to all three mags and got the same opinion (although in a different perspective/style if skip is to be believed), you - as a consumer - would be pretty disappointed. If you didn't notice it was by the same person, your buying decision would probably be influenced after having read three similarly opinionated views in three different outlets (for better or for worse).

I'm guessing you don't (pay to) read EGM and/or OPM... If you only visit 1up for the review, your viewpoint is biased because you're not paying for anything anyway...

As for IGN or GS; they are only one outlet and only have one revenue stream from that one outlet. ZD has THREE outlets each with their own revenue stream but they're only paying for one/two... So yeah, it makes sense that the corporation would want to save money by selling the same product to the same people more than once, but the consumer won't (or shouldn't) be happy having similar content/perspective/opinion by the same person...

In this specific case it's really bad because JP did ALL THREE publications (and not just two, as is the ZD "policy").

Some people hate corprate synergy.

As for synergy; I actually LOVE the idea of ZD having access to all these different types of gamers... I dislike it when the reviews are so inbred though. I mean, taking a PC Gamer from CGW and getting them to review a console-only FPS adds TONS of value to that review as it gives an entirely different perspective (PC reviewer would presumably have played quite a fair amount of FPSs)... That's not the problem here though. The problem is getting one guy (who in this case happens to hate the game) to write the "same" negative review for three different places.... That sucks ass for the paying subscribers.

 

[kenta]

Why have multiple magazines if they all provide the same content and opinions? Why not just combine them into one magazine and call it "The Ziff-Davis Videogaming Circlejerk"? Hell, why even have multiple reviewers per game? Why not fire all the writers save one, and have him review every game?

The point of multiple reviewers is to AVOID situations like this, where one esoteric and distinctly minority voice has a little too much say. How happy would some of you monocle-wearing porkchops be if Parish's NSMB score had appeared in EGM as well some mythical Official Nintendo Magazine? How happy would you schweinhunds be if I was the only person reviewing Unlimited SaGa as a 9/10 for all of the magazines under a publisher's banner?

Drinky Crow is making an abnormal amount of sense... This scares me actually

 

[Amir0x]

Why have multiple magazines if they all provide the same content and opinions? Why not just combine them into one magazine and call it "The Ziff-Davis Videogaming Circlejerk"? Hell, why even have multiple reviewers per game? Why not fire all the writers save one, and have him review every game?

The point of multiple reviewers is to AVOID situations like this, where one esoteric and distinctly minority voice has a little too much say. How happy would some of you monocle-wearing porkchops be if Parish's NSMB score had appeared in EGM as well some mythical Official Nintendo Magazine? How happy would you schweinhunds be if I was the only person reviewing Unlimited SaGa as a 9/10 for all of the magazines under a publisher's banner?

It sure is good that Drinky has stopped by for just this thread, GAF feels more normal just for a fleeting moment

 

[Akia]

snip

/thread

 

[Shard]

Drinky Crow is making an abnormal amount of sense... This scares me actually

Yea, it is unnerving that he might actually be right about this.

 

[Drinky Crow]

(By the by, if ZD would like me to review the next Akitoshi Kawazu game for all their publications, I'm sure I can make time for a couple 300-700 word reviews and a rubberstamp of [9.5/10].)

 

[Robert Ashley]

Reviews don't matter anymore/a bad review will kill sales.

 

[skip]

(By the by, if ZD would like me to review the next Akitoshi Kawazu game for all their publications, I'm sure I can make time for a couple 300-700 word reviews and a rubberstamp of [9.5/10].)

dang, I just assigned it to jeremy.

 

[kaching]

Some people hate corprate synergy.

Some of us wouldn't be complaining if we actually saw corporate synergy here. But having the same person write three different reviews for the same game isn't any kind of corporate synergy or efficiency.

Simple steps to corporate synergy that seem to have been ignored here:

1 Have JP write a SINGLE review of UGnG
2 EGM review editor create an abridged version of that to fit EGM's short format review style
3 Make sure the appearance of the review in each publication is clearly labeled as a "reprint from the 1up network" or something similar.

 

[Robert Ashley]

What's the point of multiple reviews if they all score the same?!/Why are the scores for this game all over the place?!

 

[kenta]

Reviews don't matter anymore/a bad review will kill sales.

Can you find evidence of the same person posting both of those comments please?

 

[Odysseus]

I'm guessing you don't (pay to) read EGM and/or OPM... If you only visit 1up for the review, your viewpoint is biased because you're not paying for anything anyway...

Actually, I have a subscription to EGM, although I recently let my OPM subscription lapse. I'm not really too thrilled with any of the printed content, but that's just a reflection of my tastes and not really an indictment of those publications. I just don't see any of this as a credibility issue. The whole concept is actually laughable to me as an outsider, because they are just video games. Journalism? Credibility? Until it's my name or my livelihood on the line, I just can't take it that serious. Games are just entertainment, after all.

 

[chespace]

I think Robert is talking about GAF as a collective contradictive entity.

And yes, credibility is not the big hoobastank here.

I think folks are outraged because their favorite game got a bad score and if Ziff didn't use the same reviewer for multiple pubs, then that game might have gotten a better score from someone else (or maybe not!) -- ultimately, bad scores for a game like this will lead to bad sales which is bad for gamers because that means Capcom won't make a sequel and it will all be Jeremy's fault.

And if GAF speaks up about this -- essentially exposing the evil for what it is -- then something will be done about it. A very FCK/Boxguy-esque initiative. This is an all-hands GAF mobilization and it's very moving to watch.

 

[john tv]

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.

Right, right. Because there's so many people out there who are more qualified than Parish to be reviewing games for 1UP. :lol

You people are delusional sometimes.

 

[Greenpanda]

Man, those ziff assholes are always trying to shove it down our throats while they sit on their games "journalist" mountain.

They just mock us with their "user created" content, blogs that let "us" say whatever we want about games and a comments section attached to stories for "feedback" from readers. They even hire editors from their forums and blogs to cover up the fact that they hate their own audience.

Have you read 1up reviews? They have the nerve to put the review at the top of the page (by one of their snarky, hipster "critics") while they leave us plebs commenting at the bottom of the page! Then they come around here trying to talk to us directly, like we're a bunch of charity cases? Boycott!

So, what, are we supposed to be grateful that our wise, all-knowing corporate overlords at Ziff have deigned to let us post on their page? User-created content is an asset to 1Up and drives visitors to the site; of course ZD should include feedback and blogs. That's hardly some kind of "gift" from ZD; it's pretty much a necessity for any site in this day. They'd be up shit creek if they didn't have this stuff .

If anything, ZD should be glad they have so many readers doing their work for free. They could have put some of them to use reviewing UG'n'G.

 

[kenta]

I think Robert is talking about GAF as a collective contradictive entity.

Right, which is what I'm pointing out. It's nothing personal but there are quite a few people posting here and it's easy to just quit tracking names and make generalizations like that.

But I'd also like to see that evidence, since such a person deserves to be flogged or given a new tag at the very least :)

 

[Greenpanda]

Right, right. Because there's so many people out there who are more qualified than Parish to be reviewing games for 1UP.

Good of you to admit that, sir.

 

[Robert Ashley]

So, what, are we supposed to be grateful that our wise, all-knowing corporate overlords at Ziff have deigned to let us post on their page? User-created content is an asset to 1Up and drives visitors to the site; of course ZD should include feedback and blogs. That's hardly some kind of "gift" from ZD; it's pretty much a necessity for any site in this day. They'd be up shit creek if they didn't have this stuff .

If anything, ZD should be glad they have so many readers doing their work for free. They could have put some of them to use reviewing UG'n'G.

You know, there was a time when other site didn't have blogs, when letting people comment on your stories was a radical thing. I'm not saying you should be grateful, I'm just pointing out the fact that 1up is one of the few places that really recognizes the need to allow it's readers to participate.

 

[zabuni]

Can you find evidence of the same person posting both of those comments please?

A bad review will lower the rankings at sites like Gamerankings. Three reviews, three times as much. Gameranking's scores are used for large stores, like EB and Bestbuy, to determine how many games will be purchased for the initial run. This will determine how many copies will be in stores.

For a small game like this, a review can determine how many copies are stocked:

A snip of a post by Brad Wardell, creator of Galactic Civilizations 2:

How many copies will major retailer X purchase? Depends heavily on how many previews a game gets along with MDF.

How many copies will the retailer re-order? It's based on a formula (which differs from retailer to retailer of course) that roughly translates to 1st week sales = subsequent month's sales = subsequent 3 months sales = subsequent 6 months sales = subsequent year sales. Typically, when those sales drop below N turns per store per month, the game is no longer carried.

I'm not saying every retailer does this nor that those that do something like this do it just like this. But most do something like the above.

That's why it's frustrating for smaller publishers/developers to make big numbers because it's hard to get that initial high sell-in. We've learned this (the hard way) in the past and really went out to get a lot of previews and such. Master of Orion 3 sold something around 300,000 copies to GalCiv I's 75,000 units in NA. Stocking obviously matters.

But publishers get a second chance to up their store presence -- the reviews, particularly from the paper magazines.

The bloody gamerankings score comes up again and again.
The reviews from 3 of the major PC publications and a handful of the major gaming sites (depends on the buyer, some just use game rankings, some go by 3 of the gaming sites, others use all and still others don't care except for existing sales and MDF) are heavily factored in. MDF (market development funds) and that combined rating matter a lot.

That second chance can help a title that got sporadic distribution at the start to get restocked in higher quantity 60 days or so into distribution. That's when you start to see the boxes with the often misleading "Game of the year" (which drives everyone nuts I suspect) mentions on them -- see Jeff Green's comments in the latest CGW.

 

[Drinky Crow]

1UP ain't a high bar, dode. Not sayin' you'll find good folks in here in the sticks of GAF, nor am I saying Parish sucks, but I can walk down the hall and find better writers than Parish without a whole lot of effort. I can certainly find a better writer than the uncreative and grammatically-challenged Milkman.

Now whether they'd want to work for 1UP and write about games is another story entirely.

 

[Roland Stiles]

Wow guys... I have a giant secret here, and Skip might be able to back me up.

The reason it benefits the audience for 1up and EGM to share ONE review is... because not everyone who reads EGM will check 1up! And not everyone who reads 1up gets EGM! It doesn't necessarily open up the heavens, but it doesn't HURT anyone either. EGM has two other review slots! Assuming everyone reads everything you have, and thus requiring a subscription to EGM and OPM to get Ziff Davis's "REAL super secret" opinion of UGnG would be bad business.

As for this nonsense, "Mega Man more than had its day in the sun, for one, and for another, there are SO MANY MEGA MAN games."

So you're literally saying that reviews will ONLY affect UGnG, which would be bad because you ALREADY KNOW you want to play it?

Guess what 'gents, I've always enjoyed Secret of Evermore, and despite the thread here singing its praises, that was not always the case. I have had (idiots) stop talking to me because I liked Secret of Evermore. This does not affect me because *I* like it. They don't decide my opinions for me.

Who cares if Jeremy Parish or Dave Halverson or THE ENTIRE WORLD hated Ultimate Ghosts n Goblins? If you've played it and you enjoy it, then you enjoy it. That's all that matters.

(lastly, if companies are denying bonuses/rewards because of game reviews? Why should the reviewers give a damn? That is the game developer's problem--not ZD's)

 

[nfreakct]

When me, Drinky, and Dave Halverson are all allied against you, you know your time is up

It's like the perfect storm of bad taste.

Edit: Are we seriously arguing a ultra-niche game like Ultimate GnG is going to have sales affected significantly by a few negative reviews? News flash people, anyone who was interested and going to buy Ghost n' Goblins was going to do it regardless of the review. 50 less people in America buying GnG isn't going to play into any business decision Capcom makes about the future of the franchise.

 

[Greenpanda]

A bad review will lower the rankings at sites like Gamerankings. Three reviews, three times as much. Gameranking's scores are used for large stores, like EB and Bestbuy, to determine how many games will be purchased for the initial run. This will determine how many copies will be in stores.

For a small game like this, a review can determine how many copies are stocked:

A snip of a post by Brad Wardell, creator of Galactic Civilizations 2:

Really interesting; thanks for the info.

 

[kenta]

A bad review will lower the rankings at sites like Gamerankings. Three reviews, three times as much. Gameranking's scores are used for large stores, like EB and Bestbuy, to determine how many games will be purchased for the initial run. This will determine how many copies will be in stores.

For a small game like this, a review can determine how many copies are stocked:

A snip of a post by Brad Wardell, creator of Galactic Civilizations 2:

I, uh... That has nothing to do with what I asked of Mr. Ashley but it certainly adds some sorely-needed fuel to the Sales-Age fire!

 

[Robert Ashley]

1UP ain't a high bar, dode. Not sayin' you'll find good folks in here in the sticks of GAF, nor am I saying Parish sucks, but I can walk down the hall and find better writers than Parish without a whole lot of effort. I can certainly find a better writer than the uncreative and grammatically-challenged Milkman.

Now whether they'd want to work for 1UP and write about games is another story entirely.

It always comes down to the job. I've been reading EGM's letters for a year, and every rant and rave against the magazine always comes with a resume attached...

 

[Shard]

A bad review will lower the rankings at sites like Gamerankings. Three reviews, three times as much. Gameranking's scores are used for large stores, like EB and Bestbuy, to determine how many games will be purchased for the initial run. This will determine how many copies will be in stores.

For a small game like this, a review can determine how many copies are stocked:

A snip of a post by Brad Wardell, creator of Galactic Civilizations 2:

Ah yes, the dreaded Power Creep.

 

[Drinky Crow]

Who cares if Jeremy Parish or Dave Halverson or THE ENTIRE WORLD hated Ultimate Ghosts n Goblins? If you've played it and you enjoy it, then you enjoy it. That's all that matters.

So magazine reviews aren't writing for an audience, but are instead a vehicle for the grandstanding of the reviewer's personal opinions and the elevation of his deeply personal complaints?

Like I said, I am 100% certain that Parish's claims about UGnG are inflated nitpicks or completely unfounded.

I can say that I hate Super Smash Brothers Melee, but if you asked me to review it, I'd probably give it at 7/10 at least. Why? Because nobody who pays $4.99 for a magazine cares that Drinky f'ing Crow demands that every fighting game play like VF4 and that he utterly despises the Nintendo mascot roster.

 

[snatches]

Man, those ziff assholes are always trying to shove it down our throats while they sit on their games "journalist" mountain.

They just mock us with their "user created" content, blogs that let "us" say whatever we want about games and a comments section attached to stories for "feedback" from readers. They even hire editors from their forums and blogs to cover up the fact that they hate their own audience.

Have you read 1up reviews? They have the nerve to put the review at the top of the page (by one of their snarky, hipster "critics") while they leave us plebs commenting at the bottom of the page! Then they come around here trying to talk to us directly, like we're a bunch of charity cases? Boycott!

I SEE WHAT YOU DID THERE

 

[fallout]

The point of multiple reviewers is to AVOID situations like this, where one esoteric and distinctly minority voice has a little too much say. How happy would some of you monocle-wearing porkchops be if Parish's NSMB score had appeared in EGM as well some mythical Official Nintendo Magazine? How happy would you schweinhunds be if I was the only person reviewing Unlimited SaGa as a 9/10 for all of the magazines under a publisher's banner?

You know, Drinky, I agree with you, but do you expect anyone to take you seriously saying shit like that?

 

[zabuni]

I, uh... That has nothing to do with what I asked of Mr. Ashley but it certainly adds some sorely-needed fuel to the Sales-Age fire!

In order to sell games for the long haul, the game has to be in the store. A good review can keep a game in a store longer, which can lead to more sales.

Bad reviews won't do a damn thing to the latest 50 cent game, but they can keep a small niche game in stores for a longer period of time, which will lead to more sales. Maybe a bit less than "kill", but it could lead to less.

 

[Robert Ashley]

So magazine reviews aren't writing for an audience, but are instead a vehicle for the grandstanding of the reviewer's personal opinions and the elevation of his complaints?

Here's another misconception. EGM isn't written for the GAFer audience... You guys already know EVERYTHING anyway, right?

 

[Drinky Crow]

fallout, the day I care what a couple of thin-skinned messageboard jockeys think about my posting style is the day I buy a ****ing Wii and jerk off into a plush Kirby.

 

[kenta]

In order to sell games for the long haul, the game has to be in the store. A good review can keep a game in a store longer, which can lead to more sales.

Bad reviews won't do a damn thing to the latest 50 cent game, but they can keep a small niche game in stores for a longer period of time, which will lead to more sales. Maybe a bit less than "kill", but it could lead to less.

I am dumbfounded as to why you keep responding to me like this but okay!

He made a broad generalization about message board posters that I thought was inaccurate and called him on it, I don't quite follow where you're coming from... But yes I see what you're saying and I don't disagree with you so... yay!