|
|
 |
|
|
Pages: 1
Gamespot is posting worthless stuff
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)
Posted by: SKYHN
Lately I have noticed that gamespot likes to post a lot of articles about Analysts talking about the future of PC and console gaming. And really, these articles are completely worthless and IMO, influence people on certain things in a direction they shouldnt. These analysts know nothing, it might as well be a forum post by some random internet user. It just really gets under my skin when I see gamespot posting crap like that, when they are a site about GAMES not what some jackass thinks is gonna happen. If they posted it like an editorial, that would be different. But they post it as if its fact and will happen. When I read a PSM, their predictions and opinions of things are seperated from everything else, so is Gamepro.
Does anyone else agree?
Posted by: RAcastClarke
I can see what you are saying here, but I'd need to read one of these articles first. Nah, actually I'm not gonna. I'll just agree.
I don't think I'd like reading what some analyst thinks though...sounds boring.
Bring on the games, leave the analytical crap at the door.
Posted by: Null Actor
 Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SKYHN
Lately I have noticed that gamespot likes to post a lot of articles about Analysts talking about the future of PC and console gaming. And really, these articles are completely worthless and IMO, influence people on certain things in a direction they shouldnt. These analysts know nothing, it might as well be a forum post by some random internet user. It just really gets under my skin when I see gamespot posting crap like that, when they are a site about GAMES not what some jackass thinks is gonna happen. If they posted it like an editorial, that would be different. But they post it as if its fact and will happen. When I read a PSM, their predictions and opinions of things are seperated from everything else, so is Gamepro.
Does anyone else agree?
|
Post some links to what you think is bullshit.
Posted by: SpecOpsHoov
One of the main reasons I despise Gamespot. I don't like their attitudes and in my opinion, their subtle biases towards the Xbox.
Posted by: Null Actor
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SpecOpsHoov
One of the main reasons I despise Gamespot. I don't like their attitudes and in my opinion, their subtle biases towards the Xbox.
|
I'd like to see you qualify that. I read gamespot all the time, and I see no bias. Unless you mean how they say that most games that are on all three platforms look best on the xbox. Which is just the simple truth, not bias.
Posted by: Ocean
i think xbox has the best graphics, and the system capability and infrastructure for the most impressive gameplay.
though i like the overall gameplay speed of ps2. games feel smoother, even though they look worse. ive seen so much eye candy on pc games, that looks dont impress me anymore unless they yield an advantage. so i prefer the ps2 frame speed as opposed to the xbox's higher quality textures.
nintendo just makes really good games. i dont have much interest for the other games on that platform.
Posted by: Tecil
I agree with most of Gamespot's reviews and articles. They are pretty fair on almost every title they review. I tend to look for the information on why they gave it the score they did rather than what the score it is itself.
I used to be all over IGN, but they are pretty hefty with their high scores on games that don't deserve them.
Posted by: SpecOpsHoov
Null, I think I phrased that wrong. I meant they don't seem to like the Xbox much. You may think that as absurd, but it's just an opinion of mine. I feel that they don't give many Xbox games the credit they deserve, and are ultimately rated lower than should be.
I'm not saying IGN is the word of God, but if you look at the website scores, and then the reader review scores, IGN has a much smaller gap between the two than that of Gamespot. No single website can will be correct with 100% of their readers, or even 90%, but reader reviews are just as important as the website score.
Posted by: Null Actor
Reader reviews mean nothing. People play Deer Hunter and like it.
Posted by: Tecil
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Null Actor
Reader reviews mean nothing. People play Deer Hunter and like it.
|
I agree 100%, I used to think I liked reader reviews better, but they are 10x more biased. Just look at all of the Final Fantasy Fanatics that do nothing but compare every other RPG to FF as it was the peak of excellence.
Posted by: SpecOpsHoov
But at the same time they should not be pushed aside, simply because of the fact that the reader reviews are comprised of those with differing tastes. Those people who actually know how to form a complete sentence often give valid opinions on a game, whereas with a website we're stuck reading the material from one mind.
I dunno, I guess that's partly why I go to Gamerankings to see the spectrum of scores, but reader reviews are important.
Posted by: SKYHN
Theres very few reader reviews out there now that arent "OMFG dont waste your money, this game sux0rs" or "OMFG ____ rules, every game is the best" where ____ is the name of a system. I read a player review on ebgames of a game that seemed like it was going to be serious, and it was pretty long. Then I got to about the 3rd sentence and it totally turned into a BSathon.
But anyways, im talking about stuff like this:
http://www.gamespot.com/news/2004/0...ws_6101664.html
http://www.gamespot.com/news/2004/0...ws_6101035.html
http://www.gamespot.com/news/2004/0...ws_6101806.html
Posted by: redwench
i think you linked the wrong one on that last one. a research study's findings are hardly along the lines of a speculation of industry analysts.
Posted by: SKYHN
But the way its worded is what makes it a stupid thing to post. "Strong Link", their strong link is non-physical activity. Well then everything that is a non-physical activity could be a "Strong Link" and not just videogames and TV. Driving, reading, writing, talking on the phone, eating food, going to the movies, flying on a plane, etc. It may not be an analysts opinion exactly, but it falls in the same catergory as stupid crap that gamespot is posting.
This months PSM had a 5 page exclusive about GTA: San Andreas. Thats what I want to know about, video games.
Posted by: Null Actor
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SpecOpsHoov
But at the same time they should not be pushed aside, simply because of the fact that the reader reviews are comprised of those with differing tastes. Those people who actually know how to form a complete sentence often give valid opinions on a game, whereas with a website we're stuck reading the material from one mind.
I dunno, I guess that's partly why I go to Gamerankings to see the spectrum of scores, but reader reviews are important.
|
No, what usually happens is that the only people who submit any kind of ranking are the rabid fanboys. People who don't like the game don't buy it, and thus don't rank it, so the ratings are automatically skewed towards a higher value. This makes them completely worthless, in a very direct objective sense.
Posted by: Null Actor
As for the other two articles, analysts tend to be right more often than not. That's why they are analysts. The first article especially has some value, the analyst comes to the wrong conclusion, but still has some worth. Sony won't delay the launch, but if developers don't have final hardware yet, then it is quite likely there won't be much for launch titles outside of first party sony titles.
Plus, Gamespot is debunking the claim within the article, if you'd read it. On that point, it's value is directly noted; someone who hears this rumor can go to Gamespot and read about it, and find out that not only is Sony not going to delay the launch, but developers have been fully capable of creating the games for months.
The second article is fine, everything they say I pretty much agree with and think is completely likely. Analysts don't just pull numbers out of their ass you know. They have reasons for thinking what they do, and in the case of the second article, not one thing they said seems wrong or offbase. Which makes it perfectly news worthy. Sure, they could be wrong on the console prices, but everything else is solid.
The last one is fine because again, it's letting you know what's going on. And if you read the article closely, it pretty directly states what you said in your post about it, so I don't see why you have any problems.
Honestly, did you fully read any of those three articles before writing them off?
Posted by: SKYHN
You would agree with anything that would be against sony though, lol.
Ive read them all through, neither of the articles should have been posted. They dont debunk anything said in either article, except for the delay of the PSP launch. Thats not reporting on gaming, thats reporting on speculation and heresay. They may as well put up bill oreily articles. They should be posting factual information from the actual company that is making the product. Posting stuff like these analyst articles turns it into one of those sites that posts all the rumors and other crap.
If they would just put it in a totally different section, I wouldnt have a problem with it.
Posted by: Canis Lupus
Of course, there is always such a thing as a "slow news day" ... just because there is not much "directly gaming related" news for that day doesn't mean these sites should post zilch for that day 
I think there's nothing wrong with the articles they posted. Then again, I couldn't really care more or less what they actually posted, so maybe that's why 
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SKYHN
You would agree with anything that would be against sony though, lol.
|
Isn't that a little bias on your part tho
Posted by: Null Actor
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SKYHN
You would agree with anything that would be against sony though, lol.
Ive read them all through, neither of the articles should have been posted. They dont debunk anything said in either article, except for the delay of the PSP launch. Thats not reporting on gaming, thats reporting on speculation and heresay. They may as well put up bill oreily articles. They should be posting factual information from the actual company that is making the product. Posting stuff like these analyst articles turns it into one of those sites that posts all the rumors and other crap.
If they would just put it in a totally different section, I wouldnt have a problem with it.
|
If an analyst says something, it's usually newsworthy. This is the case in any tech industry. Gaming is no different. Also, why would you think I have a problem with Sony? The article isn't 'against' anything. It's just stating reasonable extrapolations.
Posted by: SKYHN
It reminds me of CNNHN when they do those crappy segments with that 'tech dude' they hired with his metrosexual bleached hair and he talks to the editor of EGM 'via satelite' like hes donald trump or something. Its a totally worthless segment, cuz the guy just sits there and says a bunch of stuff, half of it doesnt even make any sense. I heard him say that gamecube wasnt any good because the discs they use cant hold enough data to make a good game. For a second, I thought it was april fools. And that is from the guy in charge of the content in the magazine.
$299 for the PSP is what EGM started and it spread from there. Everyone else has picked that up, but no matter how many places it roots through, EGM is the one that started it. Ive seen it posted here too. OFFICIAL news from the ACTUAL COMPANY is what your supposed to get, not 'we say so its true' speculation. Im not 100% sure, but didnt EGM say in 1999/2000 that PS2 would be $499?
As far as bias goes, sites like gamespot and IGN should have no bias at all. IGN has seperate people doing reviews for each system, but even then it seems they lean towards Xbox by featuring stories on the front page significantly more than PS2 or GC. I would expect it from fan sites, like TeamXbox. Those are the sites that post the 'omfg sony is in such trouble, psp is so gonna be a wallet buster' stuff. Theres only 1 specific system magazine that Ive read frequently that hardly ever bashes any of the other consoles, and that is PSM. OPM does it, Nintendo Power does it and OXM does it. The only multiconsole mag that Ive read that hardly does it is Gamepro.
I just dont like reading biased articles on a supposed to be non-biased site. And Ive yet to see a single thing an analyst has said that benefited anyone as far as gamers go.
Posted by: redwench
analysts arent generally of much use to the consumer, unless you invest in the stock market. theyre for people in the industry, that do, obviously, also read the site/mag. and no, they arent supposed to just get news from the manufacturer/developer. i and everyone else here is perfectly capable of heading to sony's site and reading their silly press releases, or reading them in the mainstream news. i expect a bit more of in depth reporting from industry news sites, which does include analysts.
Posted by: SKYHN
So a press release from the actual company with facts is silly and an analyst pulling specualtion out of their butt isnt?
Posted by: redwench
if they pulled it out of their butt, they wouldnt be analysts. and yes, press releases are quite silly. never accurate, and totally self-serving.
Posted by: Null Actor
Yep. Press releases are overrated and complete wastes of time.
Also, regarding bias: I think you misunderstand what you think is bias. The reason most sites don't feature the gamecube prominently is that there is way less of everything on the gamecube. Less games, less releases, less titles coming out in the future; so it makes sense. The front page is only for new items, to that extend, Gamespot is as good as it gets for a frontpage.
IGN, however, is completely biased and most of their editors and reviewers are morons who have no idea about anything. Including the english language.
|
|
|
|
|
