Money talks - advertisement money, that is

[Monolith]

That huge Kane and Lynch ad seems to be gone now, though.

Here are more rumours:
http://kotaku.com/gaming/rumor/alleged- ... 328797.php

And here's CNET's official comment:
http://www.joystiq.com/2007/11/30/games ... nn-firing/

 

[Herbert West]

If it's a coincidence, where's the PR talk then? The explanation should be very simple and easy to communicate to the press at a moment's notice.

Right now there's a creeping disaster at the internet. There have been some vague chatter about company and review rules, but nothing specific. Direct questions are not being answered.

Lack of solid answers makes me think that he was indeed fired due to pressure from Eidos. Either that, or PR people of GS and E are completely, utterly retarded for not reacting swiftly...

 

[roshan]

The pulling of the advertisements, the pulling of the video review, the firing of the reviewer... Quite easy to connect the dots.

 

[FrancoTAU]

Everyone saying "No Comment" speaks volumes too. If someone accused me of wrong doing and I didn't, my response wouldn't be no comment.

 

[Jaesun]

For over a decade, Gamespot and the many members of its editorial team have produced thousands of unbiased reviews that have been a valuable resource for the gaming community.

HAHAHAHAH! Oh fuck. Can't... stop... laughing!

 

[xedoc gpr]

What exactly is the joke?

 

[RK47]

Yep. Oblivion is truly RPG of the year. Just one of those many thousands of unbiased reviews they made.

 

[xedoc gpr]

Yep. Oblivion is truly RPG of the year.

They enjoy different types of RPG's than we do, similar to what the majority of other gamers prefer. What's your point?

 

[Deleted member 7219]

Yep. Oblivion is truly RPG of the year.

They enjoy different types of RPG's than we do, similar to what the majority of other gamers prefer. What's your point?

Yeah, I'd agree. We may not consider them RPGs, but I think they actually honestly do. Proclaiming Oblivion as the best RPG evar isn't exactly dishonest or unprofessional in their terms, they probably really do love it.

 

[xedoc gpr]

We may not consider them RPGs, but I think they actually honestly do.

Of course they honestly do. Just like most of the gaming population. On a site called RPGFan I read an article where the author describes an RPG as needing to have stats, leveling and menu-based combat, to be a true RPG. The word RPG means something else to most of the gaming public, and I don't see what's wrong with that. Words and definitions change.

It's pretty strange how people get the idea that these game sites are all being paid by Bethesda to promote this horrible game. Do you guys really think that all those dozens and dozens of sites, a lot of which are no-name websites run by teenagers in their spare time, are just being paid off to be positive? They just like the game. Deal with it. Different people have different tastes. Turn based RPG's aren't for everyone. The lowest score given to Oblivion in the gamerankings listings is 8 out of 10. Are all those sites being biased and paid off?

Don't confuse yourselves thinking I'm an Oblivion fanboy. I've probably ripped it as much as anyone else. But this stupid idea that everyone else is stupid or being bribed if they like it has got to be toned down.

 

[Cassidy]

We may not consider them RPGs, but I think they actually honestly do.

Of course they honestly do. Just like most of the gaming population. On a site called RPGFan I read an article where the author describes an RPG as needing to have stats, leveling and menu-based combat, to be a true RPG. The word RPG means something else to most of the gaming public, and I don't see what's wrong with that. Words and definitions change.

They are influenced by game "journalists" and the weak of mind are engulfed by hype, so...

Do you guys really think that all those dozens and dozens of sites, a lot of which are no-name websites run by teenagers in their spare time, are just being paid off to be positive? They just like the game. Deal with it. Different people have different tastes.

I heard some histories about coprophilia. And the media has a considerable power to influence the "taste" of the mainstream to the point the hype blinds many to the flaws of a medicore game and many have the mindset of "This game is great because X said so!" and unless it's totally shit, they won't see the truth

Turn based RPG's aren't for everyone.

I played checkers when I was 8, it's a turn-based game, this has nothing to do with turn-based, as I said before, all of this has to do with the manipulation of mainstream values by the media. Something like "REAL TIME IS NEXT-GEN!" being shouted thousands of times, just like Goebbels taught.

The lowest score given to Oblivion in the gamerankings listings is 8 out of 10. Are all those sites being biased and paid off?

Where do you think you live? Journalistic Integrity Utopia Land? The most profitable option is the one which makes the shareholders of companies like IGN and GameSpot happy, and being honest about a shitty game a certain company offered you some quite sum to praise isn't profitable at all.

Don't confuse yourselves thinking I'm an Oblivion fanboy. I've probably ripped it as much as anyone else. But this stupid idea that everyone else is stupid or being bribed if they like it has got to be toned down.

It's not a stupid idea and neither it was claimed that all reviews are result of paychecks rather than mere lack of wit and fanboyism, just that all major gaming review sites are bought by publishers and advertisers.

In brief, there are 3 possibilities:

Option A: All/most major game journalism sites are primarily ran by blind fanboys.

Option B: All/most major game journalism sites are primarily ran by publishers interests.

Option C: Both.

I think the true one is the possibility C.

And yes, all those glaring flaws being ignored in all reviews or being pointed without taking a single 0.1 from the final 10/10 ratings are mere coincidences, rite?

 

[Naked Ninja]

@ Xedoc : Well put. Futile, but well put.

 

[WalterKinde]

I mean seriously is anyone REALLY surprised that its only profit that motivate the corporate owned gaming mags/sites today?
After all the threads and news posts about corporate shills who infiltrate forums to post positive reviews about products etc, or games that keep getting 9 out of 10 or perfect scores and they are complete crap or have a lot of faults that were not mentioned in the review but suddenly get acknowledge from the same source a long time after the game has made a profit because of the stellar review score given.
There was a report that the gaming industry is now almost on par with Hollywood and the music industry in terms of profits.

Whether or not the guy was fired because of that ,hurting the revenue stream of gamepro and needed to be made an example of, remains to be seen as someone earlier noted his review could have been in response to foreknowledge that he would be fired a few days or hours from when he made the review.

 

[WhiskeyWolf]

You got to see this , hacker attack on GameFAQ ... comedy pure.

http://www.megatonik.com/2007/12/01/gam ... situation/

 

[aries202]

Even if Kane & Lynch is made by a Danish compamy (IO Interactive), I still feel that Jeff Gerstmann did get it almost right in his review of the game. Fair needs to be fair, and a game developer from my own country needs to be scolded quite a lot when they don't deliver an enjoyable gaming experience.

Jeff, and other rviewers have as well, mentioned the whole f**** word thingie and swearing in the game. Well, I just watched two highly interesting gametrailers from Eidos webpage about Kane & Lynch. And I only noticed the swearing once or twice - must be a Danish thing I think. We're so used to people swearing all the time that we don't take much notice of it - even in videogames - at least not as much as some US reviewers do. (and probably some reviewers from other countries to).

I think that's one of the reasons why the Danish developers made the conscious choice to have Kane & Lynch etc. swear so much in the game. Another one, is of course the one they told Danish Radio in an interview: Kany&Lynch is made for a Mature audience, and what does a Mature audience wants in a game: Lots of swearing, of course. They also told Danish Radio that they have made the game more like a casual game so you didn't need to read (sic!) any manauls at all, but you just could get started playing the game.

When I heard this, I almost banged my head into an imaginary goalpost, since I do believe that changing the game to fit the more casual players style were a really really big nono for this game. IO Interactive's succes stems from the Hitman series, acclaimed by critics and public alike for their rewarding and challenging gameplay. (and possibly also for the many ways you can finish the missions in the game : ).

I don't know if people expected another Hitman game, but I do that the leader of the company once said that they wanted to concentrate more on the character building and on the relationsship between the two characters e.g. give the characters a backgorund story as to why they're doing what they do. But if this have failed, then of course, they deserve to get slammed or slated for this.

I don't mind Jeff Gerstmann or other critizing the game or giving out bad ratings to the game. Maybe, just maybe, the grapics look they do, because the developers wanted to portray a somewhat realistic looking world without much bloom and photorealism. While the graphics in Kane&Lynch certainly aren't up to par with Mass Effect or Oblivion's, they are just & OK for me.

Several reviews also mentions the weak enemy AI in Kane&Lynch. Yet, somehow, when i read this, and then compared it to what people are saying about the AI in Mass Effect or Bioshock, it doesn't seem that different. It is of course a problem for all games, if their enemy AI isn't good enough. And if the AI is really really bad, IO Interactive of course should get slammed for that, too.

If I were to rate this game, based on the previews and trailers, I have seen, I would rate it about a 7.5/10 since this is what the game is worth, imo...

 

[Cassidy]

Another one, is of course the one they told Danish Radio in an interview: Kany&Lynch is made for a Mature audience, and what does a Mature audience wants in a game: Lots of swearing, of course. They also told Danish Radio that they have made the game more like a casual game so you didnøt need to read (sic!) any manauls at all, but you just could get started playing the game.

This looks so familiar, where did I read something like this before? So this game was Bethesdasized since its inception, even more reason for it to deserve a 5/10(mediocre) because 6/10 was a bit too generous.

 

[Claw]

On a site called RPGFan I read an article where the author describes an RPG as needing to have stats, leveling and menu-based combat, to be a true RPG. The word RPG means something else to most of the gaming public, and I don't see what's wrong with that. Words and definitions change.

Except stats and leveling are exactly what RPG means to the gaming public, so the meaning of the term is really stagnant and innovations have been largel ignored.
By the way - menu-based combat? That guy had to be a JRPG cretin. I know RPGs from twenty years ago that didn't have menu-based combat.

 

[xedoc gpr]

Claw:

Except stats and leveling are exactly what RPG means to the gaming public

That's what I just said in the post you quoted

 

[Claw]

Then you shouldn't have followed that definition up with the words "the word RPG means something else to the gaming public" and even more importantly, shouldn't have written the drivel about changing words. Way to contradict yourself.

 

[xedoc gpr]

And the media has a considerable power to influence the "taste" of the mainstream to the point the hype blinds many to the flaws of a medicore game and many have the mindset of "This game is great because X said so!" and unless it's totally shit, they won't see the truth

Cut the drama, it's just a video game. We're not talking about wars and political propaganda. No idiot plays a game that they don't enjoy just because game magazines tell them it's a good game. You either enjoy the game or you don't. It isn't a difficult concept. What truth? There's no truth to enjoying video games. You either like it or you don't. I like point and click adventure games, and some people don't. I like turn-based RPG's, some people don't. WE MUST SHOW THEM THE TRUTH.

 

[xedoc gpr]

Then you shouldn't have followed that definition up with the words "the word RPG means something else to the gaming public."

I posted an example then posted a conclusion based on that example. Is it too hard to follow? Did you read the entire paragraph? I started and finished by saying "most of the gaming population" just so it wouldn't be confusing for you.

 

[Serious_Business]

It's not a stupid idea and neither it was claimed that all reviews are result of paychecks rather than mere lack of wit and fanboyism, just that all major gaming review sites are bought by publishers and advertisers.

In brief, there are 3 possibilities:

Option A: All/most major game journalism sites are primarily ran by blind fanboys.

Option B: All/most major game journalism sites are primarily ran by publishers interests.

Option C: Both.

I think the true one is the possibility C.

And yes, all those glaring flaws being ignored in all reviews or being pointed without taking a single 0.1 from the final 10/10 ratings are mere coincidences, rite?

Get a grip. You're not "strong of mind" because you can see through hype. There's no conspiracy, shithead. Games don't mean shit to most people. They expect quick, easy entertainment. "Journalists" just review games for people who don't care as much as you do. So yes, they make bad reviews in that sense, but for someone who just spends an very small proportion of his time on video games, it won't matter shit if the games are not "deep" or not, they'll be perfectly happy to enjoy a "shallow", "flawed" experience. It'll even be better for them because they won't have to invest so much time and efforts to get the results and rewards.

You can spout off all the usual bullshit about "the consumer mind" and "the masses", but bottom of the line, games are games. Not fucking life changing experiences, or even art. What could it matter for some guy minding his own business playing some sports video games now and then, not knowing what a RPG is? Is that guy a dumbass? No, you are. He doesn't give a shit, you do, that's why you're so pathetic. In brief, there are 3 possibilities :

Option A - You're 15 years old

Option B - You're a faggot

Option C - Both

I think the true one is the possibility C.

Think you're so cool and clever, fuck you, fuck you all the way to hell.

 

[Cassidy]

Get a grip. You're not "smart" because you defend the mainstream. There's no journalistic integrity, shithead. Truth don't mean shit to most people. They expect what they were told to. "Journalists" just review games for publishers. So yes, they make bad reviews in that sense, but for someone who just spends an very small proportion of his time on video games and is used to Fox News, it won't matter shit if the games are not deep or not, they'll be perfectly happy to enjoy a shallow, flawed experience like they did in most of their lives. It'll even be better for them because they are completely used to such things made by the industry.

You can spout off all the usual bullshit about "this is normal" and "casual gamers like it", but bottom of the line, computer games were born with the hardcore crowd. Not fucking life changing experiences, but unique. What could it matter for some guy posting criticisms now and then to simply encourage discussion, not caring on being nice to "next-gen crowd"? Is that guy a dumbass? No, you are. I don't give a shit for idiots who take or pretend to take everything seriously and personal, like you, and that's why you're so pathetic. In brief, there are 3 possibilities :

Option A - You're another example of Internets idiocy

Option B - You're a troll alt and failed in your flaming attempt

Option C - Both

I think the true one is the possibility C.

Think you're a so cool and clever troll, fuck you, fuck you all the way to hell.

 

[xedoc gpr]

God, you're an idiot.

 

[Ismaul]

Nice one.
You tell 'em how it is, Cassidy.

Actually, you're both right, from a different point of view. It's pretty much a freedom of choice vs the environment choses you issue. Serious_Business likes to think that the masses and journalists chose to like shallow games. Cassidy thinks that mainstream opinions are highly influenced by thoses that have a reason to try and control it.

There's truth in both opinions. The masses willingly chose to believe the mainstream hype and what they're told. They want to follow. I don't know what that makes them. But we all follow the mainstream in some aspect of our beliefs, things we don't care much about. It's only about the things we know more that we have discerning opinions.

What it really tells us is that the mainstream doesn't care. They don't want to care. So it's normal that they like games which don't require them to care, shallow games like Oblivion. Deep games are made and played only by those that care, the hardcore. It's the hardcore that pushes a market to better itself in quality, while the mainstream only helps improve accesssibility. Therefore the hardcore is much more important for the development of a given market.