Gamespot caught being a dirty reviewer.

  • 85 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Posted by Bucketdeth (8048 posts) -

A little video game review website named Gamespot gave the game a pretty bad score (5.5/10) so the community did some digging into the matter....
 
LINK

#2 Posted by Andorski (5393 posts) -

People still check out Gamespot?

#3 Posted by The_Laughing_Man (13629 posts) -
@Andorski said:
" People still check out Gamespot? "
Game...spot...are those the little smuges that are on the back of my disks?
#4 Posted by phrosnite (3518 posts) -

What I got from the QuickLook on GiantBomb is that the game is bad so...

#5 Posted by luce (4045 posts) -

Oh shit..Justin Calverts getting fired

#6 Posted by Icemael (6367 posts) -

It'd be pretty funny if the newly assigned reviewer gave it en even lower score.

#7 Posted by jmrwacko (2443 posts) -

Reviewing an MMO in 6 hours is better than not reviewing it at all :-/

#8 Posted by OllyOxenFree (5001 posts) -

Gamespot?  You mean Gamestop?  Haven't been there in a while.

#9 Posted by ebritt (149 posts) -

oh no,  gamespot has always had such a clean reputation, how could they?

#10 Posted by Binman88 (3693 posts) -
@luce: Justin Calvert didn't write the review though.
 
I wonder who did.
#11 Posted by Pazy (2602 posts) -

While im not sure who reviewed it for Gamespot, although I do check Gamespot not that often or closely, they do seem to have done the right thing and removed the review with a short message as to why it was reviewed. While people attack Gamespot all the time there are a few people there who I think are great reviewers, for example Justin Calvert and Kevin Van'ord, and from what I have seen of there actions (for example this situation) show that they actually care about what they are doing and want to provide honest and legitimate reviews and criticisms of games.

#12 Posted by Linkyshinks (9880 posts) -

Ugh. If this all turns out to be true. it's pretty indefensible.  
 
I like Justin, a lot more than I do Guy "the blathering cock" Cocker. 

#13 Posted by emkeighcameron (1876 posts) -

While I think Global Agenda is pretty shitty, he should have spent 10+ hours on it. I wouldn't say 30 hours or more, since GA really isn't an MMO in the traditional sense. Or maybe it is, I don't know. Who the fuck cares? It's shitty. 
 
No, YOU shut up

#14 Posted by Swaboo (451 posts) -

From what I saw in the giantbomb quicklook, that game looked like garbage. It's not the kind of mmo you need to play 50 hours to figure out all there is to it. If you can play a game for 6 hours and not enjoy it, it fails! mmo or not.

#15 Posted by roofy (1005 posts) -

does anyone know who the reviewer was?
 
just putting it out there, Tom McShea (spelling?) writes similar to the line on metacritic.
nothing besides that makes me believe its McShea (sp?)

#16 Posted by pause422 (6258 posts) -

Not very surprising coming from them in all honesty. However, I did expect better from Justin, one of the people I always kinda liked at Gamespot.

#17 Edited by VicRattlehead (1400 posts) -
i think it was brett todd who did the review... 
 
@pause422:
 
justin pulled the review and reassigned it....you know...he did the right thing
#18 Posted by Pinkshley1 (453 posts) -

Gamespot has turned into corrupt shit. It's truly embarrassing.

#19 Posted by ToxicFruit (1723 posts) -

I actually like Global agenda and I am glad that they did this.

#20 Posted by AgentofChaos (1565 posts) -

I still think that game is mostly shit.

#21 Posted by Vitor (2834 posts) -
@Pinkshley1 said:
" Gamespot has turned into corrupt shit. It's truly embarrassing. "
Corruption equals pay offs equals high scores for bad games - this isn't corruption, it's just a poor review that fails to meet the standards they set forth (and could result in its writer loosing their job)
#22 Posted by FesteringNeon (2168 posts) -

This is how I felt about the reviews of "Supersonic Acrobatic Rocket-Powered Battle Cars" , a Playstation downloadable game.  Granted it's only $9.99, I don't know if that makes a difference.. but look at the user scores, versus the review scores. Then watch the gameplay videos. If they had given it some time, they would have really enjoyed the game.. it's a GEM, and a blast, considering the price. By the videos they shot, you can obviously see they spent maybe an hour or two playing. Horrible. They make the game look like crap, and no wonder why the review reflected their frustration.
#23 Posted by SimbaDoozle (45 posts) -

Good thing I never was interested in GameSpot, their content is really boring. Never read any of their reviews.

#24 Posted by Fallen189 (5060 posts) -

THEY FIRED JEFF!???1

#25 Posted by JoelTGM (5599 posts) -

I don't see it as being a huge deal.  If the reviewer thought it was bad after 6 hours of gameplay, do you really think the game will suddenly become awesome to him after another whole 24 hours of the same old thing?

#26 Posted by VWGTI (1919 posts) -

That reviewer must feel so small right now. His credibility has taken a massive hit and I wonder if he'll ever be able to recover from it.

#27 Posted by TheSilentTruth (1166 posts) -
@Andorski said:
" People still check out Gamespot? "
For cheats.
#28 Edited by HatKing (6195 posts) -

They should just replace the review with a link to the GiantBomb Quicklook.  Or replace the review with a single line that says, "we couldn't be bothered to suffer through 30 hours of this game so there will be no review." 
 
I just feel sorry for the sad fuck who has to spend 30 hours with the game.... and I really fucking hope he gives it an even lower score.
#29 Posted by Zaapp1 (664 posts) -

While the review may be accurate after this amount of time, the part that makes this a bigger deal is the 
"GameSpot's internal policy is to spend 30 hours on an MMO before publishing a review."
Only playing 20% of the required amount is a big deal, though who knows if he had alts or what-not.

#30 Posted by HatKing (6195 posts) -
@Zaapp1 said:
"While the review may be accurate after this amount of time, the part that makes this a bigger deal is the  "GameSpot's internal policy is to spend 30 hours on an MMO before publishing a review." Only playing 20% of the required amount is a big deal, though who knows if he had alts or what-not. "

Also I think considering that game an MMO is real fucking stretch.  The monthly fee is the only MMO thing about it, aside from that it looked like it was all small amounts of dudes in deathmatch or story missions.
#31 Posted by Steve_C (1757 posts) -

It was by Brett Todd who I think is a freelancer anyway, so it's not really their fault. A case of misplaced trust perhaps and I suppose they should have checked, but it didn't seem that much of an MMO anyway. Hold your horses before you get the pitchforks out.

#32 Posted by gike987 (1783 posts) -

Have any of the people bashing this game for being bad actually played it? If not you're even worse than the reviewer.
And no a quick look were the guys didn't even know the controls and played with medium to low graphics doesn't count.

#33 Posted by swamplord666 (1763 posts) -

if their policy says 30+ hours, then it's inexcusable. 
Just being devils advocate here, but it's possible that he didn't have 30 hours to put into it because of the deadline.

#34 Posted by TheHBK (5586 posts) -

They give a shitty game a shitty review.  They only pulled the review because they didnt spend the alotted time on it.  BUt seriously, 30 hours on an MMO to give it a score.  The site says the reviewer played it for 6 hours.  Damn, if you fucking hate a game after playing for 6 hours, i dont think the problem is with the reviewer.  You just made a shitty game.  Your lucky if someone gives you 30 minutes.  Dont expect someone to stick it out after spending 6 hours on it and it hasnt made the experience better.
Remember guys, people go fucking nuts over games they love and would stick their dick through the CD hole if they could. (most can).  Also, these types are the same ones who threatened to kill the Jeff because he gave Twilight Princess an 8.8.

#35 Posted by MikkaQ (10346 posts) -

Well the game DOES suck, so who cares?

#36 Posted by Megalon (1392 posts) -

I'm of the opinion "who gives a shit".

#37 Posted by Brendan (8271 posts) -

...there's a dedicated Global Agenda community?   
 
Right, and in my next dream a dedicated group of Dynasty Warriors fans will visit me riding flying pigs.
#38 Edited by spazmaster666 (2007 posts) -
@gike987 said:

And no a quick look were the guys didn't even know the controls and played with medium to low graphics doesn't count. "

I'm guessing you don't really understand the concept of a "quick look?" ;)
 
Anyway, this is such non-news. This isn't dirty journalism, just lazy journalism. The game has a 68 average on Metacritic and considering Gamespot's reviews are almost always lower than average, I wouldn't be surprised if they gave it a 5.5 or a 6 after it gets reviewed again.
#39 Posted by Webby (720 posts) -

Don't forget the Shenmue score!!

#40 Posted by Pazy (2602 posts) -
@swamplord666 said:
" if their policy says 30+ hours, then it's inexcusable.  Just being devils advocate here, but it's possible that he didn't have 30 hours to put into it because of the deadline. "
Gamespot have said many times that when it comes to MMO's, and to a certain extent online multiplayer games, the deadline isnt before the game is released or day one. Its as long as it takes to get an accurate picture of it afterwords, at least in the case of MMO's, which is why usually on day one they put up an impressions peice and maybe one or two more before an actual review perhaps a month later. For example, the Gamespot review for Star Trek Online (by Kevin VanOrd) was put up on the 18th of Febuary (it says at the bottom of the review) when the game was release on the second of febuary so they waited an extra 16 days and im pretty sure I remember at the time Kevin was on the podcast saying he was playing it.
#41 Posted by MattyFTM (14440 posts) -
@VicRattlehead said:
"i think it was brett todd who did the review..."
Yes it was. It can be seen on the google cache page of the review here.
Moderator
#42 Posted by Fr0Br0 (3103 posts) -

Even if the game sucks, he should still spend a significant amount of time with it. I know being a game reviewer seems like a dream job, but in order to get to play that one good game, you're gonna have to review 5 crappy games. Global Agenda being one of them. If the reviewer couldn't take the time to review a game, then he shouldn't be a game reviewer.

#43 Posted by JohnTheGamer (344 posts) -

Well considering it's the site's policy to play at least 30 hours when reviewing an MMO and the reviewer only played 5, I think that's fair, whether the game is good or not.

#44 Posted by gike987 (1783 posts) -
@spazmaster666 said:
" @gike987 said:

And no a quick look were the guys didn't even know the controls and played with medium to low graphics doesn't count. "

I'm guessing you don't really understand the concept of a "quick look?" ;)  Anyway, this is such non-news. This isn't dirty journalism, just lazy journalism. The game has a 68 average on Metacritic and considering Gamespot's reviews are almost always lower than average, I wouldn't be surprised if they gave it a 5.5 or a 6 after it gets reviewed again. "
Of course i understand the concept, but you can't say if the game is bad after watching people play a MMO for 30 minutes.
#45 Posted by septim (774 posts) -

Spending 30 hours in Global Agenda seems pretty torturous but if he was aware of the policy and accepted the review he should have stuck it out.
 
Must be kinda nice to work at a place like GB where they don't force anyone to review drech like this.

#46 Posted by Jerusahat (139 posts) -
@TheHBK said:
"Dont expect someone to stick it out after spending 6 hours on it and it hasnt made the experience better."
Yeah. If a normal game fails to entertain after 6 hours, it's usually considered a failure. I don't see why games pitched as MMOs should get a free pass here.
#47 Posted by spazmaster666 (2007 posts) -
@gike987 said:
Of course i understand the concept, but you can't say if the game is bad after watching people play a MMO for 30 minutes. "
My point was that quick looks aren't meant to be taken that seriously. Which is why you rarely see the guys playing the game seriously as they would for review purposes.
#48 Posted by gike987 (1783 posts) -
@spazmaster666 said:
" @gike987 said:
Of course i understand the concept, but you can't say if the game is bad after watching people play a MMO for 30 minutes. "
My point was that quick looks aren't meant to be taken that seriously. Which is why you rarely see the guys playing the game seriously as they would for review purposes. "
Yes thats exactly what I was trying to say. Because people in this thread said  the game sucked and only based it on what they saw in the quick look.
#49 Posted by MKHavoc (1307 posts) -

Hopefully the person that ends up doing the second review doesn't feel obligated to give it a higher score.  What's up with the 30 hour requirement anyway?  If a game takes 30 hours to get good then I don't wan to play it. 

#50 Posted by Gearhead (2251 posts) -
@Pinkshley1 said:
" Gamespot has turned into corrupt shit. It's truly embarrassing. "
One reviewer fucking up does not mean that the site is corrupt. Corrupt itself means that they're accepting money for higher scores which itself is not true. It has many great and trustable people there; and throwing it and the people who work there under the bus because you still hold a grudge for the 'Gertsmann Gate' episode, is sad. 

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.