The NEW REDESIGNED GameInformer

[the7k]

I'm actually not sure if it was Game Informer that said it, now that I think about it... but I do know that someone said it. It was in an article I read about the sorry state of VG Journalism a while back.

[the7k]

Scratch that - I found it! It was GameInformer!
http://www.jivemagazine.com/column.php?pid=2589

[Mod_Man_Extreme]

Scratch that - I found it! It was GameInformer!
http://www.jivemagazine.com/column.php?pid=2589

And now we're done.......

Honestly though, I miss 1-Up magazine, Edge Magazine, EGM, Nintendo Power (Before the Future takeover that made the dynasty into an unstructured rag not fit to wipe my ass with), Official PlayStation Magazine (Until 2004-ish) and several other magazines that have disappeared over the last few years. Especially the real high quality ones such as Retro Gamer and others that are still in print, but have somehow vanished off of newsstand and store shelves.

[aaron]

i actually remember GI being pretty funny on a pretty consistent basis. i haven't picked it up in a while so i dunno.

[BoringSupreez]

Anybody who calls the Dreamcast a bad system is an enemy to me.

Then you'll hate the website OldWizard.com like I do. They said that the Dreamcast was the worst system ever, if I remember correctly. Lamers.

[Ack]

Anybody who calls the Dreamcast a bad system is an enemy to me.

Then you'll hate the website OldWizard.com like I do. They said that the Dreamcast was the worst system ever, if I remember correctly. Lamers.

Don't worry about them, that's how they get hits. Don't bother visiting their website.

[lordofduct]

disclaimer - I am NOT a fan of GI or any gaming magazine at that... I, like several others, take the comments of critics with a grain of salt.


An opinion is an opinion... and the score of something is completely subjective.

If words came out about a journalist being paid or something like to give an undeserving high score or to ruin the credit of a deserving game I'd be angered (and yes I've heard rumours of GI doing this, but a lot of conjecture surrounds said rumours).

But in the case of what was previousily linked about GI's mode of scoring a game, it sounds pretty freakin' normal to me, just as any critic and their bias would weigh in as. It's a measure of how much that person enjoyed it, mixed with how they think the public 'en masse' would enjoy it. That's what makes them a critic, the ability to both look at it with their own favour and the favour of their readers. GI's reader base spans all likes of gamers, not just the hardcore gamers, or the N fans, or etc etc.

If the fact that your opinion does not match that of others ruins the "credibility" of something... well you yourself is far from credible and rather selfious in your opinions.


For instance, the snack of thin mints with slices of muenster cheese dipped in ruby red grapefruit juice is one of my ALL time favourite snacks. I loooooovvvvve it. Put on a good funny romantic comedy, give me a pillow and my bankey, and this scrumptious snack and my day has just turned into a 10.

Would I suggest this to anyone? No, if I was going to rate this publicly as to what I believe my audience will think, this snack is going to receive a 1... possibly maybe a 2. Does the fact I considered your opinion make me less credible?

This can flip to fanboy realms as well (where issues begin to rise). Say I just watched "Clockwork Orange", it's a cult classic, a cult classic I don't really like and would score a 3 or 4 in my own book. There are other people that would score it 9 or 10 because they think it's Kubrick's best of the best (ahem, Dr. Strangelove???). But still the average movie goer isn't going to think either. So I say give it a 7 or so, the general viewer will probably find it to violent and outrageous at times, but in the end will realize the quality of the film... I guess...

But then I say this score allowed and the fanboy base, the people screaming and hollering (and the others that just liked it, or hate it, don't say anything because they really don't give a shit) bitch and moan. "That movies awesome, what is wrong with you? WTF man, I can't trust you."

Ok, now I have to shut these people the fuck up. We can't debate the rationale of it though, as that previous link points out, because pointing out a rationalization of the scoring process just gets them even MORE upset. "Yeah, some people won't like it, but still, doesn't mean it's not awesome."

Some people like murder and rape and commit it for real. Doesn't make it awesome!

A 10 is for something that everyone can enjoy. In my eyes, nothing deserves a 10.


To sum this up, I am not debating the actual credibility of GI. There can be several other points of conjecture and evidence that can trash their credibility. But the relation of scoring based on your own opinion and considering the opinions of your average audience... well that's not discredibly... that's probably the best form of credibility you can get. There isn't much better you can get. Because what's worse? You read a score of 6 on a game you LOVE, but you love it, and you play it and enjoy it. No loss really.

Or someone reads a score of 10 on some weird RPG that's kind of childish, buys it, and feels ripped off. They just blew 60 dollars they really didn't want to blow.


So yeah, don't like GI... no beef from me... I don't like them either. But to smear their credibility with such triviality... that's just as bad as what you're accusing them of doing.

[the7k]

The job of a reviewer is to give their opinion of a game. Back it up with observations, obviously, but it should go without saying that they are your opinions.

I'd have respected them a lot more if they gave the game a low score and then validated it within the review itself with the reasons why it got that score. If, when people attacked him, he responded with "I honestly just didn't feel the game deserved a 9.0, because I found some glaring flaws here and here, etc.", I would have respected him a lot more. Just as I have respected other reviewers who gave low scores to games I felt deserved better. (Destructoid's review of Brutal Legend being a recent example, and almost all of Edge Magazine is made up of significantly-lower-that-standard review scores.)

If they want to "Look out for their readers", then they can simply say "This game is not for everyone. HOWEVER, I do feel that this is a stellar game." It just seems idiotic to write a review and then, at the very end of the process, say "Well, I think this game deserved a 9, but our readership just wouldn't understand this game, so I'll knock 3 points off."

I've never seen a respected movie reviewer give a crap-tacular movie like G.I.Joe or Transformers 2 a glowing review just because they know the average Joe Blow will love it. And as soon as they do, they won't be a respected movie reviewer any longer.

[lordofduct]

awww, and there it is again... your respect for VS the credibility of.

You don't respect him, doesn't mean he isn't a journalist. You may not respect the manner in which he judges games, but that doesn't mean he isn't judging games in a manner that is not credible. Most critics base a judgement based on what they AND their audience would enjoy.

The guy specifically stated he thought the game too childish for most gamers to enjoy it and thus the lower score. Is he saying people won't get it? No, I know when I'm watching something childish, I've seen Spongebob Squarepants, I know it's childish. Do I get spongebob? Yes. Do I like Spongebob? No. Does Spongebob deserver a 9 because most children loving it if someone was writing a review about it for a group of readers that aren't all children...? No it should not. Why are you scoring some kids game a 9 when the average gamer plays shit like Halo and the sort and probably doesn't give two flying craps about children games because they think they are gay.

I wouldn't expect Rupert and Ebert to give something like Spongebob a big thumbs up... though I bet Ebert can admit Spongebob is awesome and well loved by kids. But he KNOWING his audience (mostly educated adults) wouldn't lower himself to accommodating children .


for reference: http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbc ... 17001/1023

3 stars, he references the childishness, and references the legion of fans. He doesn't ever say for them it may deserve 5 stars though, he doesn't pander that low. He just makes reference to the viewing audience. Is he better at doing this then the other journalist/critic? Damn straight he is... he's fucking Ebert!

[the7k]

Sorry, I guess I should have made it more clear - I respect journalists with credibility. I have no respect for journalists with no credibility. When I say I have no respect for a journalist, I mean that they have shown little to no credibility.

Saying a game is fun, and then topping it off by giving it a score that in this industry means "Below Average"? Which statement am I supposed to believe?