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 : : :
59 Replies. 3 pages. Viewing page 1.
Older [  1  2  3  ] Newer
1.
 
No subject
Dec 3, 2007, 10:36
1.
No subject Dec 3, 2007, 10:36
Dec 3, 2007, 10:36
 
Creative, Eidos. I'm surprised that Eidos isn't taking as much flack as GameSpot has been on this issue; they deserve a black eye for their meddling as well.

Avatar 6580
2.
 
Re: No subject
Dec 3, 2007, 10:59
2.
Re: No subject Dec 3, 2007, 10:59
Dec 3, 2007, 10:59
 
Wonder if IO had any part of this, myself. I've always had a good amount of respect for them due to the Hitman games.

3.
 
Re: No subject
Dec 3, 2007, 11:04
3.
Re: No subject Dec 3, 2007, 11:04
Dec 3, 2007, 11:04
 
I wouldn't expect the developer to have anything to do with marketing whatsoever.

Avatar 6580
4.
 
Re: No subject
Dec 3, 2007, 11:04
4.
Re: No subject Dec 3, 2007, 11:04
Dec 3, 2007, 11:04
 
Oh they got Creative all right.

I own the game, I got it for PC. I thought, "hey looks like a good single player campaign. " Mediocre at at best. Absolutely underdeveloped plot, un-answered questions and an ending that left you wondering what went wrong.

But the coup de gras is the multiplayer. I heard so much about multiplayer, I was dying to give it a try.
Ok ill grab a friend who has it and try CO-OP... WRONG... the game plays COOP as split-screen (on a PC mind you), and requires A xbox360 controller.

Online multiplayer is no better simply because you need a GOLD WINDOWS LIVE ACOCUNT to play online.

Note the box says, you may need to sign up with windows live to get some features and the game is 360 controller compatible.

My point is this: this game is obviously trash, and a waste of money, but from the vague writing of requirements on the box, they KNEW it was trash. I can only imagine how hard they tried to shape the reviewers opinions to get a decent score.

Creative? yeah you could call it that, I call it a complete waste of time and money.

ugh... I feel like such a jackass for falling for this crap.

This comment was edited on Dec 3, 11:10.
5.
 
No subject
Dec 3, 2007, 11:08
5.
No subject Dec 3, 2007, 11:08
Dec 3, 2007, 11:08
 
Just a reminder, today is considered an official Boycott day for Gamespot so if you usually stop by there everyday you may want to hold off until tommorrow or whenever.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am a Blues Nazi.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Both the “left” and the “right” pretend they have the answer, but they are mere flippers on the same thalidomide baby, and the truth is that neither side has a clue."

- Jim Goad
Avatar 10137
6.
 
No subject
Dec 3, 2007, 11:15
6.
No subject Dec 3, 2007, 11:15
Dec 3, 2007, 11:15
 
nd says this recent experience does not leave him sharing the concern that "game writing is ethically bankrupt."

ie: I still want to work in the industry so I can't bad mouth it.

Supporter of the Cell Phone Jamming movement.
7.
 
Re: No subject
Dec 3, 2007, 11:19
nin
7.
Re: No subject Dec 3, 2007, 11:19
Dec 3, 2007, 11:19
nin
 

So Blue, did you research those reviews yourself? I ask, as usually, you just provide links to others, and I was curious if you took the initiative here and decided to do a little detective work on your own.

If so, kudos to you! (And if not, I'll still be back tomorrow. )

<Ray>
Thinking this story gets uglier and uglier,
nin
</Ray>


------------------------------------------------
http://niggytardust.com/saulwilliams/menu
8.
 
Re: No subject
Dec 3, 2007, 11:20
8.
Re: No subject Dec 3, 2007, 11:20
Dec 3, 2007, 11:20
 
Ok ill grab a friend who has it and try CO-OP... WRONG... the game plays COOP as split-screen (on a PC mind you), and requires A xbox360 controller.

This was discussed 10x over already - so if you didn't' know about this - you are a bad consumer.

Supporter of the Cell Phone Jamming movement.
9.
 
Re: No subject
Dec 3, 2007, 11:24
9.
Re: No subject Dec 3, 2007, 11:24
Dec 3, 2007, 11:24
 
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,

Publishers do this all the time, so I better not hear a single complaint from GameSpy or GameInformer or anyone else. Then add to the fact that these "journalists" constantly write up previews using phrases like that hoping they will be quoted.

And Jeff Gertsmann doesn't think "game writing is ethically bankrupt"? He's either incredibly naive or just as greedy as the rest of them.

Gaming journalism has become a complete and utter joke, which is why more and more gamers look to sites like The Escapist's Zero Punctuation...

10.
 
Re: No subject
Dec 3, 2007, 11:25
10.
Re: No subject Dec 3, 2007, 11:25
Dec 3, 2007, 11:25
 
indeed I spotted that too. Nice roundup anyway.
11.
 
Re: No subject
Dec 3, 2007, 11:27
nin
11.
Re: No subject Dec 3, 2007, 11:27
Dec 3, 2007, 11:27
nin
 
And Jeff Gertsmann doesn't think "game writing is ethically bankrupt"? He's either incredibly naive or just as greedy as the rest of them.

Or we don't know the full story as to why he was let go...



------------------------------------------------
http://niggytardust.com/saulwilliams/menu
12.
 
uh... what?
Dec 3, 2007, 11:35
12.
uh... what? Dec 3, 2007, 11:35
Dec 3, 2007, 11:35
 
so the original review was not inaccurate?

13.
 
Re: No subject
Dec 3, 2007, 11:38
13.
Re: No subject Dec 3, 2007, 11:38
Dec 3, 2007, 11:38
 
Publishers do this all the time, so I better not hear a single complaint from GameSpy or GameInformer or anyone else. Then add to the fact that these "journalists" constantly write up previews using phrases like that hoping they will be quoted.
That's very true. This kind of advertising spin (where the publisher selectively chooses which parts of reviews and previews to use) is the norm.

As far as the review is concerned, it's indeed disturbing if true. However, there is no proof of anything yet. People are assuming a lot and jumping to conclusions (the commonplace "the sky is falling" mentality makes this easier). I don't care much for Gamespot anymore, but I still check their reviews on occasion. I'm not going to join a boycott, because I don't follow mobs. However, I probably won't visit the site anyway, due to its ever-decreasing value as it gets more and more commercialized and less relevant.

14.
 
No subject
Dec 3, 2007, 11:44
14.
No subject Dec 3, 2007, 11:44
Dec 3, 2007, 11:44
 
it actually seems that all of us here are not really that surprised.

15.
 
Re: No subject
Dec 3, 2007, 11:47
15.
Re: No subject Dec 3, 2007, 11:47
Dec 3, 2007, 11:47
 
"I wouldn't expect the developer to have anything to do with marketing whatsoever."

You'd be surprised. At EA, marketing was *over* development. Hell, Marketing even trumped QA. If QA said "no go" and marketing said "go," then you damn well better believe that it went. That's sadly true of many developers. Today's marketing isn't just promoting and advertising, I assure you.

16.
 
Re: No subject
Dec 3, 2007, 12:00
16.
Re: No subject Dec 3, 2007, 12:00
Dec 3, 2007, 12:00
 
Hell, Marketing even trumped QA. If QA said "no go" and marketing said "go," then you damn well better believe that it went. That's sadly true of many developers. Today's marketing isn't just promoting and advertising, I assure you.

That is common in all software development.
Equals the problem with sales telling a client "yes" when development and QA said, "hell no". Didn't matter.

Supporter of the Cell Phone Jamming movement.
17.
 
The Escapist - Bad Example
Dec 3, 2007, 12:01
17.
The Escapist - Bad Example Dec 3, 2007, 12:01
Dec 3, 2007, 12:01
 
The Escapist is a bad example of good journalism. They recently had a moron... oh, sorry, journalist write a review of The Witcher. In his opening statement he admits to not playing the game more than ten hours. As the shit storm descends onto their forums and the editor chimed in. He backed the so called journalist and claims the 10% method (or Cliff Notes method) is a standard and there is nothing wrong with it.

I've never read Zero Punctuation but I have no intention of using GameSpot or The Escapist for anything more than comic relief.

Edit: Actually anyone who wants to go merely by numbers should not only read a half dozen reviews (bought and paid for) but then also hit http://www.metacritic.com/ so that they can get an over-all idea of a games reception. This still doesn't guaranty you'll like the game. But at least at Meta Critic the consumers can somewhat correct the positive spin of the hype machine.
This comment was edited on Dec 3, 12:09.
18.
 
Re: No subject
Dec 3, 2007, 12:02
sir
18.
Re: No subject Dec 3, 2007, 12:02
Dec 3, 2007, 12:02
sir
 
says this recent experience does not leave him sharing the concern that "game writing is ethically bankrupt.

I used to write for IGN and would often find that articles I submitted for editing had adjectives changed to ones that were more flattering to the game. Trumping the lot, however, was a Battlefield 1942 preview I wrote which EA didn't like, so one of their lackeys complained and it was pulled from the site. The scumbags.

Avatar 17694
19.
 
No subject
Dec 3, 2007, 12:04
19.
No subject Dec 3, 2007, 12:04
Dec 3, 2007, 12:04
 
EIDOS have past form with this whole 'misquoting' of journalists...

Daikatana was plastered with stickers from respectable rags such as PCZone and PCGamer stating they thought it was amazing - the full review didn't scrape 50% and the words were taken from the previews 2 years before the game was released - I think PCZone threatened to sue unless the comments were removed, but don't know what became of it.

Avatar 23755
20.
 
what is the big deal?
Dec 3, 2007, 12:04
20.
what is the big deal? Dec 3, 2007, 12:04
Dec 3, 2007, 12:04
 
I don't see why this story gets so much attention?

We're talking about Gamespot. Have you seen that site? It's an advertisers wet dream. I stopped visiting that site because it was all ads. Game reviews from a site like that should be taken with a grain of salt.

Another game site would be VERY smart to hire him right now and spin that event into a huge deal about making sure their site remains objective and what not. I'M LOOKING AT YOU IGN!

Ending Song on Portal:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjGfgV7rJHI
59 Replies. 3 pages. Viewing page 1.
Older [  1  2  3  ] Newer