-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Gabe from Penny-Arcade pwns IGN
- Thread starter Gekkonidae
- Start date
Joe Molotov
Member
I don't even bother reading game reviews anymore. Sometimes I'll check the aggregate on Gamerankings, but generally I just go with my gut.
disappeared
Banned
Please, don't spell 'own' with a 'p.' I thought the internet was kind of past that by now.
DeathbyVolcano
Banned
They should grow some hair out.
Christoff Yurievich
Member
you lost me right there, sorry.-COOLIO- said:
Propagandhim
Banned
-COOLIO- said:
They're also both super witty. I saw them speak at MIT and they can pull out jokes from audience comments like nobody's business. Plus, they're really nice guys-- Very personable.
Graphics Horse
Member
If you don't want 7-10 review scales, don't write huge posts enforcing the idea that low to mid 7s are shitty scores.
RaySpencer
Member
Graphics Horse said:
they arent saying 7 is a shitty score in general, just a shitty score for such an awesome game...
OK GUYS LET'S CUT THE BULLSHIT. This is what really happened.
ok guys, see the bolded statements? FOUR OR FIVE REVIEWS in the low to mid 7.0s which would include IGN (others are 1up, Gamespy; Eurogamer and Edge gave it a 7 but they run on different scales). Nowhere does he mention 1up. Also, it doesn't have to be Hillary who responds to Gabe, he's simply responding like any other person, it just happens to be on a podcast. IGN gave it a 7.7, IGN PS3 gave it a 7.5 7.7 is borderline mid-high 7.
Jeff played the game for 40 hours, he knows the ending. He's talking about the PS3 version, but he doesn't praise the non-technical aspects.
It's all about different opinions, Jeff who played the game for 40 hours, I think has a valid opinion. Why do you praise Gabe like he's the one and only source for an opinion? His opinion is as valid as anyone else's. You may identify more with Gabe and that's fine, but don't encourage his petty attacks. I think Jeff also went overboard, but he was angry with Gabe's comments about reviewers, still no excuse. This whole thing is quite sad. Gabe makes a comment supposedly at 1up but never mentions them, then he goes ahead and insults IGN when one of their staff feels the need to defend himself.
I don't think you guys even listened to the podcast, oh well, so much for listening to both sides. I think it's pathetic that everyone is automatically taking Gabe's side. He's not exactly unbiased. He's already been affected by the game before it came out, I'm assuming that he's on friendly terms with some of the producers since it was his own game show where AC had a big presence. Gabe is the one that sounds like he thinks he's better than everyone else. If he's fucking talking to 1up then have the balls to say 1up in your post, don't act like an asshole when someone from the site that gave it a 7.5/7.7 responds to your ambiguous message.
http://media.putfile.com/IGN---Jeffs-rant
Gabe said:
ok guys, see the bolded statements? FOUR OR FIVE REVIEWS in the low to mid 7.0s which would include IGN (others are 1up, Gamespy; Eurogamer and Edge gave it a 7 but they run on different scales). Nowhere does he mention 1up. Also, it doesn't have to be Hillary who responds to Gabe, he's simply responding like any other person, it just happens to be on a podcast. IGN gave it a 7.7, IGN PS3 gave it a 7.5 7.7 is borderline mid-high 7.
Jeff played the game for 40 hours, he knows the ending. He's talking about the PS3 version, but he doesn't praise the non-technical aspects.
It's all about different opinions, Jeff who played the game for 40 hours, I think has a valid opinion. Why do you praise Gabe like he's the one and only source for an opinion? His opinion is as valid as anyone else's. You may identify more with Gabe and that's fine, but don't encourage his petty attacks. I think Jeff also went overboard, but he was angry with Gabe's comments about reviewers, still no excuse. This whole thing is quite sad. Gabe makes a comment supposedly at 1up but never mentions them, then he goes ahead and insults IGN when one of their staff feels the need to defend himself.
I don't think you guys even listened to the podcast, oh well, so much for listening to both sides. I think it's pathetic that everyone is automatically taking Gabe's side. He's not exactly unbiased. He's already been affected by the game before it came out, I'm assuming that he's on friendly terms with some of the producers since it was his own game show where AC had a big presence. Gabe is the one that sounds like he thinks he's better than everyone else. If he's fucking talking to 1up then have the balls to say 1up in your post, don't act like an asshole when someone from the site that gave it a 7.5/7.7 responds to your ambiguous message.
http://media.putfile.com/IGN---Jeffs-rant
Graphics Horse
Member
You forgot to bold the bit near the top where he mentions IGN, Gamespot and Gamespy by name, and nobody else.
Graphics Horse
Member
Rahk said:
I saw that as iimplying that advertising revenue can pay for review scores.,,
Graphics Horse said:
That's EXACTLY what he's saying. He's saying "Other sites will take money hats and prop up review scores, but, and here's proof, because Ubi has lots of AC ads on our site we're clearly unbiased because they could've gone to IGN or GameSpot and get a score boost, but instead they stuck with us because we're oh so unbiased!" :lol
Gatekeeper
Member
joshcryer said:
Good for Jeff. Maybe he should have been the one to give the review then? Still doesn't justify his attack on Gabe's opinion.
joshcryer said:
Except what he's saying is not that. . .at all. He is simply saying that other sites run ads regardless of the quality of the game. That is not money hattery. Money hattery is not implied.
"Every other game site out there takes ads for whatever game they can get. It doesn't matter if it's a pile of crap, if the publisher pays for the spot IGN or Gamespot or whoever will run the ad."
Here's the problem: The gaming media suffers from a dearth of maturity. And I'm not talking about long-winded discussions about the nature of Mario's heroism, but rather a simple sense of decorum and decency toward competitors.
And, more to the point, the game guys are cheered on by children and emotionally shriveled adults who delight when game Web site A proclaims game Web site B is stealing its great ideas for top 10 lists and such.
As for Penny Arcade, I remember when those merry pranksters took to assaulting Daily Radar for its review of Draconus, the crappy Dreamcast game. It's good to see they've learned and grown over the course of, what? nine-plus years.
And, more to the point, the game guys are cheered on by children and emotionally shriveled adults who delight when game Web site A proclaims game Web site B is stealing its great ideas for top 10 lists and such.
As for Penny Arcade, I remember when those merry pranksters took to assaulting Daily Radar for its review of Draconus, the crappy Dreamcast game. It's good to see they've learned and grown over the course of, what? nine-plus years.
joshcryer said:
Wow, I didn't interpret it like that at all. I thought Gabe was saying, "IGN's editorial and marketing departments are separate, ours are not. Therefore, we only advertise games we actually recommend."
MC Safety said:
Fixed. This kind of attack is not exclusive to the gaming industry.
Graphics Horse
Member
White Man said:
And write glowing previews, at the very least.
Graphics Horse
Member
White Man said:
No I was saying that, not him. I'm not trying to defend anyone.
White Man said:
You don't call that $$$ hats?
Here's the telling part. Right after he calls out IGN and GameSpot he says this, "I also want you to know that when I tell you it's fucking incredible I'm not bullshitting you because we're running ads for the game."
Read what is implied here.
I listened to this whole terrible thing because I was writing a paper, so I just waited for it to get to the part. It never came. I checked the PA article, and it was in episode 22, but you linked 23. Total waste of time.SPEA said:
edit: I didn't mean to say you wasted my time, just that you linked the wrong mp3 by mistake. I meant to say that listening to an IGN podcast was a huge waste of time. I should have just skipped to the part in question.
joshcryer said:
He doesn't IMPLY anything. He says other sites take ads from everyone because they need the money. He never says anything that indicates they take ads from companies in exchange for good scores. That implication (that doesn't exist in the text) actually goes CONTRARY to what Gabe is saying. If he were implying that, AC WOULDN'T have gotten 7s.
The portion you just quoted, he is talking about his own site's behavior. It is even in a different paragraph to keep the concepts separate.
SaggyMonkey
Member
White Man said:
Yeah, listening to that section of the podcast I felt pretty embarrassed for their staff. Here's a "professional critic" going into message board nerd rage because someone has another viewpoint.
To top it off, slinging at them because they "make comics?" (and a convention, a charity, a series of books, a CCG, a videogame, a line of merch and you know.. sometimes their comics are funny and people like them.)
well, i'm not defending the IGN guy; i read/skimmed the review and i didn't listen to the podcast. and ultimately i don't actually care about the opinions expressed here or who spouted them; the only people who do hate PA/love IGN or vice versa. i don't particularly like either one, to be blunt, but at this point not enough to let it affect my abstract discussion of the issues raised on goddamn GAF.Gigglepoo said:
so anyway, i don't know how it is for everyone, but i never significantly changed the way i played games as a reviewer. sometimes i felt the pressure of a deadline, and would force myself to keep playing a game, but i always personally took the time i felt i needed to evaluate aspects of the game that i inferred were significant. sure, i might have made "mistakes" in that regard, but i think i would have missed the same stuff as a general player of the game as well.
kohler's assessment of the game, in which he says there's fuck all to do in the world anyway, makes me wonder what "taking the time" would really amount to in this game anyway. but i suppose that's a separate issue. i know i personally don't have much interest in this game anymore, due to both critical assesments and basic factual information about it, though i would like to watch someone fuck around with it for about an hour so i had a better grasp of what's going on. since the first hour of this game (as with most) is bound to be unrepresentative, that person is not going to be me.
His beef was with reviewers giving low scores. He wanted people to know that he's not giving out a good opinion just because ads for the game are running on PA and hence PA would feel obliged to go easy on the advertiser.joshcryer said:
I don't understand how you're reading implied money hats out of his comments. it just makes no sense.
I dunno. Personally, without getting into a big wordy argument that I don't particularly care that much about, I think a lot of the issues with Game Criticism come from fogginess over what its role is.
Is game criticism supposed to be a form of consumer advocacy? Or is it art criticism? Or is it an outlet for nerds that are no good at anything else to earn money while doing the same thing that they would be doing on message boards anyway?
I don't know. You could have a big argument about it. I'd bet that at least some of the attitude that games aren't art comes from the juvenility of game criticism. Nobody can really defend games as a legit an art form as cinema when the main game critics are who they are.
Is game criticism supposed to be a form of consumer advocacy? Or is it art criticism? Or is it an outlet for nerds that are no good at anything else to earn money while doing the same thing that they would be doing on message boards anyway?
I don't know. You could have a big argument about it. I'd bet that at least some of the attitude that games aren't art comes from the juvenility of game criticism. Nobody can really defend games as a legit an art form as cinema when the main game critics are who they are.
Jonnyboy117
Member
MassiveAttack said:
Some of us just enjoy reviewing games. I have no aspirations beyond that in the gaming industry, and I have been doing it for almost eight years without pay.
SaggyMonkey
Member
White Man said:
And, can you imagine that nerd rant coming out Ebert or Roeper?