Gamespot caught lying about their review time of a shitty game.

[Stoney Mason]

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.

http://www.massively.com/2010/02/18/community-backlash-leads-to-global-agenda-review-score-being-pul/

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.

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/globalagenda/news.html?sid=6251033&mode=features

[duckman2000]

"we generally expect editors who are reviewing massively multiplayer online games to spend a minimum of 30 hours playing them"

Worst job ever.

[EmCeeGrammar]

I'm certain everyone does this.

[Trent Dole]

HAHA

[Stoney Mason]

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.

[cool breeze]

"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?

[duckman2000]

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.

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.

[duckman2000]

"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.

[Stoney Mason]

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.

Day 1 or preview launch reviews for certain games practically guarantee their impressions of the MP sections of games are useless. Most of the time there aren't even enough pre-launch people with copies to simulate a real playing experience.

And that's not even taking into account that most reviewers are simply terrible in evaluating the nuances of a good multiplayer experience. They aren't great at evaulating single player games often but when it comes to MP they are much worse.  

[Great Rumbler]

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.

[cool breeze]

"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.

yeah, thinking about it, it is kinda dumb to say you need to play between 6 and 30 hours to find the game enjoyable, like you're expected to throw away 6+ of your life to get to the supposed good part.  How do you sell that to someone? for mmorpg, it's pay $50, monthly fee, and spend 10+ hours to get to the good part? the fuck?

ultimately the problem is the score at the end.  If it was just a text based review, it could be mentioned that they didn't put in as much time because it was boring as shit.  But how that factors into the final score is complicated.

personally, I feel like mmorpg should start at 0/10 and gain a point every time they become enjoyable.  So far the neocron beta has managed a 3/10, and only because I stole someone's gun and he chased me around yelling to give it back.  I'm also going to give Old Republic a 1/10 by default because of how good dragon age and me2 were.

[Stoney Mason]

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.

"Professional" gaming websites can't do that. Which is why they are lame. I'm certain the game is shitty. I certainly don't believe it takes 30 hours to figure that out.

But since the "review" is supposed to be some objective standard they have to pretend they are following certain guidelines.

[Bebpo]

If you're only getting paid $100-200 for a review.  30 hours doesn't make ANY SENSE.

cold, harsh reality of videogame reviews.

[magus]

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

[Stoney Mason]

If you're only getting paid $100-200 for a review.  30 hours doesn't make ANY SENSE.

cold, harsh reality of videogame reviews.

REAL TALK

[Don Flamenco]

If you're only getting paid $100-200 for a review.  30 hours doesn't make ANY SENSE.

cold, harsh reality of videogame reviews.

they get paid by the review? 

[The Fake Shemp]

Yeah, I was always paid by review. Usually we get a standard flat rate, and get to keep the game. And we're paid peanuts. Freelance, that is. Staff usually makes salary, but they work in offices.

Not that the salary is anything great.

Freelance almost always gets the shovelware to review or the weak multi-platform stuff (like the Wii version of any third-party game). It can be a grind.

[Bebpo]

Depends on the situation.  When I was freelance I did.
I'm guessing even if you're in-house, you are probably required to put out "X" amount of reviews within the work week and that probably boils down to about the same amount of time per game:  aka 3-8 hours (sometimes less ^^;).  For major non-rpgs like Gears of War or Uncharted I'm sure they make sure to finish it first.  But for rpgs, strategy games, mmos....you are lucky if someone puts over 10 hours in before reviewing.

[Howard Alan Treesong]

Yes, freelancers get paid about $150 per review. So 30 hours of gameplay is $5 per hour - before you even factor in the time spent writing and revising the review.

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.

I'm a gamer, not a masochist - though I admit the line is thin sometimes.

spoiler (click to show/hide)

I am still going to buy Final Fantasy XIII.

[close]

[Howard Alan Treesong]

I would just drive down to Home Depot and grab some dude to play the game for 30 hours.

ESO GAME ES MUY MUY BUENO! 5.5/10

[The Fake Shemp]

 

I remember reviewing a game that shall remain nameless for Daily Radar, and one of the dev team e-mailed my Editor to complain that I didn't unlock everything, because if I did it would explain some of the stuff I complained about.

[Beezy]

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.

spoiler (click to show/hide)

Still pissed about IGN's God Hand review.

[close]

[Howard Alan Treesong]

I know, KNOW that it sucks to spend 2 years of your life on a 15 hour game that the reviewer only plays for 6 hours. I know this firsthand.

But at the same time, I've never seen a game that was a 6.0 based on the first half and a 9.0 based on the second half. Your first impressions are nearly always right.

[The Fake Shemp]

I think there is a difference between not playing a game and lying about it, and playing a game extensively, but not to the point that the reviewer can layout in specific detail how much the game sucks. Patel's right, if the game sucks - it sucks. Do you really need someone to play it for 30 hours to know that it sucks?

Ask yourself: Would I play a game for 30 hours at minimum to determine whether or not it sucks?

[Howard Alan Treesong]

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.

I don't think it's disingenous to review a game you haven't finish. If you say "I finished this game all the way to the end!" and you didn't, sure, that's a lie. But if you don't say anything in your review one way or the other - whatever.

You can certainly "play enough to get a good understanding of the game" without finishing it. For some games, that's just a few hours.

Reviewing games professionally, salaried or freelance, barely pays the bills, and that's with two roommates.

[Dickie Dee]

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

Thought that's what they were talking about in the OP, was a bit confused

[HyperZoneWasAwesome]

gee, now I'm getting all nostalgic for Daily Radar of all things.  Hey Wilco, I always thought you were more on their humor-content and other shit side versus gaming, what exactly were you up to round there?  Iffin you don't mind answering?

[The Fake Shemp]

N64/Dreamcast stuff.

Reviews, previews, interviews, etc. The only thing I didn't like was stuff of mine could be copy-and-pasted into NextGen without any credit. Which occurred a couple of times.

[Raban]

Wow. People who get paid to play games and write about them complain that they aren't getting paid enough?

That's...amazing.

[The Fake Shemp]

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!

I always get paid, with the exception for when I wrote for Nintendorks as a kid. But I was on Imagine's payroll, GamerWeb/SegaWeb, AOL, etc.

Wow. People who get paid to play games and write about them complain that they aren't getting paid enough?

This attitude is why a lot of people can't cut it. It's not that fun. It's a job. There are moments when you're like, "Wow, I can't believe I'm playing this before anyone else!" or "I can't believe I'm talking to this guy!", but mostly it's a grind to meet deadlines and balance some kind of integrity with trying to appease publishers.

[GoofyGoober]

All I can ask for in a review is an honest opinion and a good detailed write up of what you did and did not like. I don't want to read a writeup of a 30 minute game play, as long as you think you explored the game long enough to form a fair opinion, it works with me.

[Howard Alan Treesong]

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.

[The Fake Shemp]

I kind of miss the old days, when all these sites were run by twenty-somethings and kids and Peer Schneider (I swore, he ran half of all websites on the entire Internet). Then the bubble burst, and a lot of people went completely under. Those that survived got gobbled up by conglomerates. When I was writing, it was a struggle to maintain some kind of integrity and not completely piss off publishers - I hear it's only gotten worse since then.

Um, your average IGN editor makes like $24k a year.

But they play games!

... It took a good two to three years for me to get back into "gaming" after I quit writing. I was so burnt out by then.

[The Fake Shemp]

Yeah, very few people stick around. You get fatigued and the low pay is the back breaker. Writing about the industry seems like, more or less, a stepping stone to actually working inside the industry nowadays.

[HyperZoneWasAwesome]

the day The News Corporation bought IGN I knew things were going to change, and not for the better.

[The Fake Shemp]

I still remember when IGN64 (first as N64.com!) launched.

[cool breeze]

I still remember gamesages lol

[The Fake Shemp]

I used to post there all the time until they shuttered.

[The Fake Shemp]

Not as cool as my Geocities and/or Angelfire homepage.

[Arbys Roast Beef Sandwich]

Um, your average IGN editor makes like $24k a year.

mind blown. no wonder these guys almost always transition into better industry jobs

spoiler (click to show/hide)

where they get paid even LESS!

[close]

[Stoney Mason]

Um, your average IGN editor makes like $24k a year.

mind blown. no wonder these guys almost always transition into better industry jobs

spoiler (click to show/hide)

where they get paid even LESS!

[close]

As long they transition into production jobs they are making a bit more than that at minimum. Even some testers who work a shitload of overtime hours in a year will make close to that.

[ManaByte]

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

[ManaByte]

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.

Wow their salary was cut in half because it used to start at $40k a year.

[Howard Alan Treesong]

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

"Caught" doing what? Their jobs? Fuck off.

[Eel O'Brian]

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

[bork]

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

 

[TripleA]

Why would you want to play 30 hours of a game if the first 6 hours of the game completely suck?

[Human Snorenado]

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.

[ManaByte]

Why would you want to play 30 hours of a game if the first 6 hours of the game completely suck?

Bioshock 2? The beginning of the game sucks compared to the original, but the last part is better.

[Great Rumbler]

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 this the same thing that FFXIII fans have been throwing around?

"Bu-bu-bu it opens up a lot after the first 25 hours!!"

[magus]

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?

[Human Snorenado]

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?

You can pretty much ignore bebpo's opinion anything weeaboo related.  Not an objective witness, as they say.

[duckman2000]

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!!"

Not just FFXIII. I got crapped on for giving Lost Odyssey shit after giving it only a few hours. And that was here on EB. The irony, it's something.

[demi]

Except you've never once shown a semblance of interest in a JRPG, but ok. Nice troll though. Enjoy your shit medal of honor

[brawndolicious]

maybe you won't care about the story after a few hours but you shouldn't need to put in more than an hour before you "get" the game's controls or see the good levels and whatever.

[duckman2000]

Except you've never once shown a semblance of interest in a JRPG

And? The counterargument was still "hur dur you didn't even play for 10 hours" or some similar shit. It's lulz.

[Olivia Wilde Homo]

Five hours is good enough.

The first hour or two, you can expect to learn the concepts but if the gameplay is good enough, then it will pick up from there.  If the game requires you to spend a couple dozen hours before you get to the good part, it isn't a good game.  There are too many games out there for people to play, games that are good within the first couple of hours.  Except Final Fantasy fans, which are gluttons for punishment.

[Eel O'Brian]

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

[Olivia Wilde Homo]

How much do you get paid to be in a vidcast?  Cuz those ironic t-shirts and vintage wear aren't free you know.

[Eel O'Brian]

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)