Community backlash leads to Global Agenda review score being pulled
by Seraphina Brennan Feb 18th 2010 at 11:00AM
GameSpot was not so nice to Global Agenda -- a 5.5 out of 10 was fired against the game earlier by the gaming website. However, that didn't stop the Global Agenda community from doing some digging and turning up the reviewer's in-game character. A character that only had six hours of play time attached to it, no alliance, and no agency for conquest matches.
The resulting evidence was provided by Global Agenda's player statistics system -- a pretty robust system that allows anyone to pull up a character's statistics simply by typing in their character name. Once this evidence came to light, the community began to send e-mails to both the reviewer and GameSpot's Justin Calvert, who has since removed the review. Calvert has apologized (post confirmed by Hi-Rez Studio's Michal Adam) to the Global Agenda community and Hi-Rez Studios, and has reassigned the review to a new writer.
GameSpot's internal policy is to spend 30 hours on an MMO before publishing a review.
Global Agenda Review Pulled
By Justin Calvert, GameSpotPosted Feb 17, 2010 3:53 pm PT
Review of Hi-Rez Studios' shooter/MMO hybrid pulled.
Earlier today, after being contacted by a member of the official Global Agenda forums, I made the difficult decision to remove the Global Agenda review that was posted yesterday. The review undoubtedly made some valid points, but after learning that it was written after only six hours of play (not including time spent in the game's hub area), having it criticize the "first dozen hours or so" and comment that it takes "10 to 15 hours" to unlock more varied and enjoyable content was clearly unacceptable. A replacement review from a different reviewer will be in the works shortly, and because it seems that the game's subscribers-only "Conquest" gameplay isn't quickly accessible, I suspect it will be at least a couple of weeks before it appears on the site.
For those of you who are unfamiliar with our reviews policy, we generally expect editors who are reviewing massively multiplayer online games to spend a minimum of 30 hours playing them, and no deadlines for these reviews are ever set. (Kevin spent over 50 hours with Star Trek Online before writing the review that we'll be posting later today, for example). Since it's an MMO/third-person shooter hybrid, it's conceivable that Global Agenda won't take quite as long to review as a more traditional MMOG, but ultimately that's for the reviewer to decide.
We're sorry for any inconvenience caused and look forward to bringing you a replacement review of Global Agenda in the not too distant future.
I'm certain everyone does this.Actually I agree. The review for any multiplayer portion of a game is generally terrible. I just wish there was a way to "out" those people also so everybody could admit it.
"we generally expect editors who are reviewing massively multiplayer online games to spend a minimum of 30 hours playing them"
Worst job ever.
I'm certain everyone does this.Actually I agree. The review for any multiplayer portion of a game is generally terrible. I just wish there was a way to "out" those people also so everybody could admit it.
"we generally expect editors who are reviewing massively multiplayer online games to spend a minimum of 30 hours playing them"
Worst job ever.
seriously
I'd probably die from boredom if I had to play any mmorpg for 30 minutes. 30 hours is a guy defiling your rotting corpse. What is Gamespot doing reviewing a chat program anyway?
Sometimes they do it to themselves. Eurogamer once referenced the practical usage of a certain weapon in the multiplayer portion of a shooter. Too bad for Eurogamer that the weapon was exclusive to the single player portion. That's sort of shit.
"we generally expect editors who are reviewing massively multiplayer online games to spend a minimum of 30 hours playing them"
Worst job ever.
seriously
I'd probably die from boredom if I had to play any mmorpg for 30 minutes. 30 hours is a guy defiling your rotting corpse. What is Gamespot doing reviewing a chat program anyway?
Besides, it could very well backfire. If you have to spend 30 hours with a game that you gave a 5/10 after 6 hours, the review would probably be a lot more sour, to the tune of a punishment score or something.
If he played five hours of it and couldn't stand to play it anymore, he SHOULD HAVE SAID SO IN THE REVIEW. Rather than lie and say that he played it for at least twice as long as he actually did.
If you're only getting paid $100-200 for a review. 30 hours doesn't make ANY SENSE.
cold, harsh reality of videogame reviews.
If you're only getting paid $100-200 for a review. 30 hours doesn't make ANY SENSE.
cold, harsh reality of videogame reviews.
I would just drive down to Home Depot and grab some dude to play the game for 30 hours.
Fuck all you entitled fanboys, if a game sucks the reviewer doesn't need to "finish it" or play X hours before he writes his review. If game designers have any good ideas, maybe they should try putting them at the start of their game next time.They better not fucking pretend that they did finish it though or played enough to get a good understanding of the game.
Fuck all you entitled fanboys, if a game sucks the reviewer doesn't need to "finish it" or play X hours before he writes his review. If game designers have any good ideas, maybe they should try putting them at the start of their game next time.They better not fucking pretend that they did finish it though or played enough to get a good understanding of the game.
oh not this shit again,this reminds me of the darkfall drama that happened with eurogamer here's how it went
reviewer 1 said the game was shit
darkfall developer said reviewer 1 didn't play enough
drama happened
eurogamer gave the game to another reviewer
reviewer 2 said the game was shit
here's the first review
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/darkfall-online-review
and here's the second
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/darkfall-online-second-review
Glad to hear some of you got paid for your reviews/work. I never did but those conference passes are worth their weight in gold so I can't complain!
Wow. People who get paid to play games and write about them complain that they aren't getting paid enough?
Wow. People who get paid to play games and write about them complain that they aren't getting paid enough?
That's...amazing.
Um, your average IGN editor makes like $24k a year.
Um, your average IGN editor makes like $24k a year.
Um, your average IGN editor makes like $24k a year.
mind blown. no wonder these guys almost always transition into better industry jobsspoiler (click to show/hide)where they get paid even LESS![close]
Wow. People who get paid to play games and write about them complain that they aren't getting paid enough?
That's...amazing.
Um, your average IGN editor makes like $24k a year.
This is the second time Gamespot was caught doing this, the first time was by a developer:
http://www.costik.com/weblog/2003/09/savage-reviews.html
He should play the game for 24 more hours, rewrite the review, and close with "I have now played this game for 30 hours, and given the hours invested found it to be nearly six times worse than my original review score of 5.5. I have adjusted the score accordingly."
- .5/10
Why would you want to play 30 hours of a game if the first 6 hours of the game completely suck?
Why would you want to play 30 hours of a game if the first 6 hours of the game completely suck?
Why would you want to play 30 hours of a game if the first 6 hours of the game completely suck?
It's called "Olimario's Law", named for his statement that KIRBY AIR RIDE only got really good after you put 40 hours into it.
isn't that a pretty distinguished mentally-challenged argument considering the only two people who played FF13 here are bebpo and dcharlie and one doesn't cares about the game being linear in first place and the other hates the game?
Isn't this the same thing that FFXIII fans have been throwing around?
"Bu-bu-bu it opens up a lot after the first 25 hours!!"
Except you've never once shown a semblance of interest in a JRPG
What's the pre-order bonus? This is important.
i'm writing this epic trilogy of novels, a combined 1500 pages, where the story really opens up and blows your mind around page 1400
you sonsofbitches better not judge me until you read it all the way to the end
What's the pre-order bonus? This is important.
you can call me at my home and i will read it to you over the phone
(long distance charges may apply)
I have a terrible confession to make. It's been ten years, so I think the statute of limitations is up.
I reviewed one PSX RPG for Gamespot.com without playing it for a single minute.
CAN YOU GUESS WHICH ONE???
I have a terrible confession to make. It's been ten years, so I think the statute of limitations is up.
I reviewed one PSX RPG for Gamespot.com without playing it for a single minute.
CAN YOU GUESS WHICH ONE???
Final Fantasy VIII
i am mystified as to why someone would want to ruin their hobby in such a way
I keep eyeing Daikatana 64 at my local game store. For what's its worth Willco, you are the man for reviewing all those horrible games.
i am mystified as to why someone would want to ruin their hobby in such a way
In my case, I was 19 and utterly naive! I can't speak for the rest.
Ehh, you deal with the harsh backlash. I just wish more negative reviews were funnier so everyone can have a good laugh.
Not that Daily Radar was much better, Penny-Arcade went after my editor (Michael Wolf) directly, and I think I choked on my lunch when I got an advanced copy of the film side's review for Blair Witch Project 2, which they proclaimed was the best sequel ever - and better than The Empire Strikes Back. :lol
Now that I've got your attention :-*
What's the shittiest game you've played for a review?
Not that Daily Radar was much better, Penny-Arcade went after my editor (Michael Wolf) directly, and I think I choked on my lunch when I got an advanced copy of the film side's review for Blair Witch Project 2, which they proclaimed was the best sequel ever - and better than The Empire Strikes Back. :lol
AND The Godfather: Part II!
That was such an amazing review.
Now that I've got your attention :-*
What's the shittiest game you've played for a review?
best moments were getting flamed by surreal software for giving drakan a low score, and cgm getting a bunch of hate mail because i mocked star wars tards in my kotor review. oh, and having the first mean review of lionheart put to print.
The saddest story I have to share is when I positively reviewed Asteroids Hyper 64, one of the guys from Syrox practically sent me a love letter. Turned out that he pretty much developed most of the game by himself, and was very upset that it was getting mixed reviews at the time. The visual image of some poor guy slaving over a console port of an old arcade game that nobody cares about, only to watch the online press say it sucks, was kind of depressing.
By the way, the game I reviewed and never played was Knight & Baby, a.k.a. Guardian's Crusade (http://www.gamespot.com/ps/rpg/guardianscrusade/review.html).
Re-reading it is hilarious - watch as the thin line between "writing a professional RPG review" and "regurgitating press releases and strategy guide factoids" is blurred beyond all recognition!
Now that I've got your attention :-*there was some game called tsunami 2265 that didn't even have working collision detection, and quite possibly the worst western take on animu ever. i was so pathetically earnest that i blew well over 15 hours trying to beat the game, even though it was so fundamentally buggy that i couldn't.
What's the shittiest game you've played for a review?
i think steve bauman had previews right: his advice was to treat it more like an interview and get the devs to discuss the why and wherefore behind creating the game, rather than relate experiences with alpha product with forced positivity. they became a lot easier to write when i focused on the personalities behind the game and got them to tell amusing anecdotes about the game's design and development. that's not to say i didn't expand lists of bullet points and describe perfectly obvious screenshots from time to time as well :teehee
By the way, the game I reviewed and never played was Knight & Baby, a.k.a. Guardian's Crusade (http://www.gamespot.com/ps/rpg/guardianscrusade/review.html).
Re-reading it is hilarious - watch as the thin line between "writing a professional RPG review" and "regurgitating press releases and strategy guide factoids" is blurred beyond all recognition!
I liked Grandia. :'(
I liked Grandia. :'(Is there a way to say 'I wish somebody would make/hack a playable translated version of it for the Saturn' without sounding like a twat? Because I'd really like to play it with the roving guy being named Gin instead of Java and so forth.
By the way, the game I reviewed and never played was Knight & Baby, a.k.a. Guardian's Crusade (http://www.gamespot.com/ps/rpg/guardianscrusade/review.html).
Re-reading it is hilarious - watch as the thin line between "writing a professional RPG review" and "regurgitating press releases and strategy guide factoids" is blurred beyond all recognition!
I liked Grandia. :'(Is there a way to say 'I wish somebody would make/hack a playable translated version of it for the Saturn' without sounding like a twat? Because I'd really like to play it with the roving guy being named Gin instead of Java and so forth.
By the way, the game I reviewed and never played was Knight & Baby, a.k.a. Guardian's Crusade (http://www.gamespot.com/ps/rpg/guardianscrusade/review.html).
Re-reading it is hilarious - watch as the thin line between "writing a professional RPG review" and "regurgitating press releases and strategy guide factoids" is blurred beyond all recognition!
:rofl
I like this sly parenthetical statement, hinting at mastery of the game:
'The game's magic arrives in the form of "Living Toys," a collection of 70 (or is that 71?) companions, each with its own effect. '
I must know if this was also from the press release, or whether you just made it up!
By the way, the game I reviewed and never played was Knight & Baby, a.k.a. Guardian's Crusade (http://www.gamespot.com/ps/rpg/guardianscrusade/review.html).
Re-reading it is hilarious - watch as the thin line between "writing a professional RPG review" and "regurgitating press releases and strategy guide factoids" is blurred beyond all recognition!
:rofl
I like this sly parenthetical statement, hinting at mastery of the game:
'The game's magic arrives in the form of "Living Toys," a collection of 70 (or is that 71?) companions, each with its own effect. '
I must know if this was also from the press release, or whether you just made it up!
that is a top-notch piece of fakery indeed. :bow respect knuckles :bow2
A link from Patel's Guardian's Crusade thingie (can't very well call it a review, lol) took me to a Granstream Saga review. How did that piece of shit ever rate a 6.7 from Gamespot? What the fuck? Easily one of the worst RPGs I've ever played. Almost as bad as Beyond the Beyond.
I have a terrible confession to make. It's been ten years, so I think the statute of limitations is up.
I reviewed one PSX RPG for Gamespot.com without playing it for a single minute.
CAN YOU GUESS WHICH ONE???
The worst game I ever actually played for a review was definitely Countdown: Vampires.
I've played through Final Fantasy VIII five times.WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU :wtf :wtf :wtf
- Meet people so horrible you fantasise about fighting them and actually killing them
Quote- Meet people so horrible you fantasise about fighting them and actually killing them
hey, also a feature in my job game
If he played five hours of it and couldn't stand to play it anymore, he SHOULD HAVE SAID SO IN THE REVIEW. Rather than lie and say that he played it for at least twice as long as he actually did.Exactly so.