Kane & Lynch Review Spin

Here's a little more controversy about Kane & Lynch reviews, already the subject of a firestorm over the GameSpot situation that surfaced last week (story). GameBump points out the Flash introduction on the Kane & Lynch: Dead Men features some finessed review quotes and scores that do not reflect the actual reception for IO Interactive's new action game. The intro lists the following blurbs, each preceded by five prominent stars: "'…it's the best emulation of being in the midst of a Michael Mann movie we've ever seen.' GameSpy," and 'A mercenary, a psychopath & a bundle of cash… what could go wrong? Game Informer'." The trouble is GameSpy gave the game three stars and Game Informer scored the game seven out of ten, and neither related quote is from the reviews, the GameSpy quote is from a E3 preview of the game, and it's not clear where the GameInformer quote/marketing blurb is from (presumably the print magazine). Finally, there's an article format Q&A with Jeff "Gertsmann" Gerstmann on Joystiq (thanks FiringSquad) where the ex-GameSpot editor cannot go into the reasons behind his parting with the website, but does defend his Kane & Lynch review, and says this recent experience does not leave him sharing the concern that "game writing is ethically bankrupt."
View : : :
57.
 
Re: LOL
Dec 3, 2007, 23:32
57.
Re: LOL Dec 3, 2007, 23:32
Dec 3, 2007, 23:32
 
Ok, when you find a site that meets that standard let me know, until then I'll happily read reviews by folks that played the game a few hours and wrote a review.

There are no sites that meet that standard because multiplayer games are fundamentally difficult to review. As I said before, there are far too many variables involved that can drastically change the experience for the reviewer. Any professional "review" of a multiplayer game is based on the limited perspective of a newb who played the game before any real community had been formed and before the game's depth and subtleties had been brought to light. This is why multiplayer reviews are completely worthless and should be labeled as "initial impressions" instead.

If there was a movie 40 hours long and you watched the first 10 of it to write a review I'd say that is enough time to write a review.

That's only a quarter of the film and is equivalent to half an hour in a regular two hour feature. So no, watching 10 hours of a 40 hour movie is not sufficient to write a good review.

And I never said that my expectations were made with business in mind. I couldn't care less about the business aspect. The business aspect is what lead to this whole ordeal in the first place. No, I'm talking about what should be done for the sake of journalistic integrity. If I'm going to buy something based on someone's review, I expect that review to be complete, thorough and considerate of the game as a whole, not an incomplete impression of it.

Bottom line: If you are going to review something, you damn well better review all of it. I don't care how long it takes. Bad for business? Sure. Good for readers? Definitely.

Avatar 20715
Date
Subject
Author
1.
Dec 3, 2007Dec 3 2007
2.
Dec 3, 2007Dec 3 2007
3.
Dec 3, 2007Dec 3 2007
15.
Dec 3, 2007Dec 3 2007
16.
Dec 3, 2007Dec 3 2007
18.
Dec 3, 2007Dec 3 2007
4.
Dec 3, 2007Dec 3 2007
8.
Dec 3, 2007Dec 3 2007
5.
Dec 3, 2007Dec 3 2007
9.
Dec 3, 2007Dec 3 2007
11.
Dec 3, 2007Dec 3 2007
13.
Dec 3, 2007Dec 3 2007
37.
Dec 3, 2007Dec 3 2007
46.
Dec 3, 2007Dec 3 2007
6.
Dec 3, 2007Dec 3 2007
7.
Dec 3, 2007Dec 3 2007
10.
Dec 3, 2007Dec 3 2007
12.
Dec 3, 2007Dec 3 2007
14.
Dec 3, 2007Dec 3 2007
17.
Dec 3, 2007Dec 3 2007
24.
Dec 3, 2007Dec 3 2007
25.
Dec 3, 2007Dec 3 2007
26.
Dec 3, 2007Dec 3 2007
41.
Dec 3, 2007Dec 3 2007
44.
Dec 3, 2007Dec 3 2007
45.
Dec 3, 2007Dec 3 2007
49.
Dec 3, 2007Dec 3 2007
52.
Dec 3, 2007Dec 3 2007
53.
Dec 3, 2007Dec 3 2007
55.
Dec 3, 2007Dec 3 2007
19.
Dec 3, 2007Dec 3 2007
20.
Dec 3, 2007Dec 3 2007
28.
Dec 3, 2007Dec 3 2007
30.
Dec 3, 2007Dec 3 2007
31.
Dec 3, 2007Dec 3 2007
47.
Dec 3, 2007Dec 3 2007
50.
Dec 3, 2007Dec 3 2007
56.
Dec 3, 2007Dec 3 2007
58.
Dec 3, 2007Dec 3 2007
59.
Dec 7, 2007Dec 7 2007
        No subject
21.
Dec 3, 2007Dec 3 2007
23.
Dec 3, 2007Dec 3 2007
22.
Dec 3, 2007Dec 3 2007
27.
Dec 3, 2007Dec 3 2007
29.
Dec 3, 2007Dec 3 2007
32.
Dec 3, 2007Dec 3 2007
33.
Dec 3, 2007Dec 3 2007
35.
Dec 3, 2007Dec 3 2007
38.
Dec 3, 2007Dec 3 2007
39.
Dec 3, 2007Dec 3 2007
40.
Dec 3, 2007Dec 3 2007
42.
Dec 3, 2007Dec 3 2007
     Re: No subject
48.
Dec 3, 2007Dec 3 2007
      Re: No subject
51.
Dec 3, 2007Dec 3 2007
       Re: No subject
43.
Dec 3, 2007Dec 3 2007
34.
Dec 3, 2007Dec 3 2007
36.
Dec 3, 2007Dec 3 2007
54.
Dec 3, 2007Dec 3 2007
 57.
Dec 3, 2007Dec 3 2007
 Re: LOL