Zapraszam na pierwszy odcinek cotygodniowego magazynu Kronika Gier. W premierowym wydaniu nasze wrażenia z bety Battlefield Bad Company 2, przegląd polskich podcastów o grach wideo, krótko o kampaniach reklamowych Kane & Lynch: Dog Days i Dante’s Inferno (tu w kontekście Mass: We Pray), a także krótko o komiksach. Zapraszam do oglądania i komentowania.

Deze blog heb ik geschreven nadat ik mijn Xbox 360 heb uitgezet. Ja, ik speel graag games. Al sinds ik van de Goedheiligman een Nintendo Entertainment System kreeg, ben ik gefascineerd door dit medium. Verschillende disciplines komen samen in een videospel om een ‘totaalervaring’ te bieden. Soms vertelt een game een interessant interactief verhaal, of word je mentaal uitgedaagd door een puzzel. Games vervullen een behoefte in mij om media op een actieve manier te consumeren.

Daarin ben ik niet de enige: PricewaterhouseCoopers berekende dat in 2008 de wereldwijde markt van videospellen met ruim twintig procent groeide naar €585 miljoen. In 2013 zal dit zelfs €859 miljoen zijn.

De gamingindustrie is blijkbaar ontzettend hard aan het groeien. De interesse in deze vorm van media is overweldigend. En wat gebeurt er met een nieuw medium dat steeds meer zijn weg naar de huiskamer vindt? Inderdaad, het wordt door andere media besproken.

Ikzelf ben sinds oktober hoofdredacteur van een gamingsite, waar ik daarvoor nog redacteur bij de andere afdelingen van de site was. Wat mij de laatste tijd opvalt, is dat er door concullega’s vaak over ‘gamejournalistiek’ wordt gesproken als zij hun eigen site beschrijven. Op die momenten krijg ik de neiging om mijn idee voor een echte journalistieke gamingwebsite in de groep te gooien. Dan zullen ze het verschil wel zien, hoop ik dan. Maar ik kan me vaak inhouden. Tot dit moment.

Journalistiek is in mijn opzicht niet enkel het verspreiden van nieuws. Een site waar persberichten op staan, kan nauwelijks als journalistiek worden bestempeld. In feite schrijven de meeste sites – die zogezegd aan ‘gamejournalistiek’ doen-  het nieuws van andere sites in eigen woorden op. Er wordt niets gecontroleerd, niemand wordt nagebeld, geen onderzoek naar de werkelijke redenen wordt ondernomen. Er is geen sprake van gamejournalistiek, maar van ‘enthusiast press’ – een degelijke vertaling schiet me niet te binnen.

Even duidelijk: er zijn weldegelijk sites waar games journalistiek worden behandeld. Op Gamasutra wordt voornamelijk nieuws van de ontwikkelaarskant belicht. Één van de weinige voorbeelden van hongerige journalisten in de wereld van games. Redacteuren die verhalen uitpluizen, dubbelchecken en nogmaals verder onderzoeken.

Echter, het lezerspubliek van Gamasutra verschilt enorm van de vader in de huiskamer met een Playstation 3, de zoon die Halo 3 op zijn Xbox 360 speelt en oma die haar hersenen traint op een Nintendo DS. Die site is voornamelijk gericht op mensen IN de industrie. Momenteel zijn er geen sites voor de ‘mainstream’ die journalistiek te werk gaan. Is daar wel behoefte aan?

Het lastige van een medium over de entertainmentindustrie is dat je goede contacten met uitgevers en ontwikkelaars moet onderhouden. Stel dat je op maandag een kritisch stuk schrijft over ontwikkelaar X, dan kan uitgever Y dinsdag besluiten je geen recensie-exemplaren te sturen.

Lijkt dat overdreven? Recensent Jeff Gerstmann werd in 2007 bij Gamespot ontslagen na zijn recensie over het spel Kane and Lynch. Onder druk van uitgever Eidos werd de medewerker van de gamesite op straat gezet, omdat de toon van zijn recensie te negatief was. Na zijn ontslag begon hij de succesvolle website GiantBomb.

Echte journalistiek blijkt lastig voor de gamende pers, dus hoe kun je dat zo goed mogelijk aanpakken? Allereerst door te erkennen dat je geen echte journalistiek bedrijft. Vergelijk je eigen praktijken eens met die van een professionele redactie, dan zie je al snel de verschillen. Betekent dat dat je aan de genade van uitgevers bent overgeleverd? Nee, gelukkig niet. Voor het meeste nieuws ben je afhankelijk van uitgevers, maar andere redacties hebben net zoveel moeite om uniek nieuws te creëeren. Als je weet dat jouw nieuws hetzelfde is als op tigduizend andere sites, probeer er dan een andere draai aan te geven. Laat lezers commentariëren op de feiten. Uiteindelijk zijn zij de consumenten die diezelfde uitgevers in leven houden.

In een latere blog probeer ik meer van mijn ideeën over de perfecte gamingwebsite uiteen te zetten.

Modern Warfare 2 was released at midnight, and below is the video review from the great gaming website GiantBomb.com. The review is done by Jeff Gerstmann. Check it out, and let us know what YOU think of the game in the comments.

It of course looks fantastic, and the multiplayer once again appears to be in top form. I won’t be getting the game until early next year though, when I’ll be picking it up for the PS3. Between this, MAG and Bad Company 2, the first couple of months of my having a PS3 will be nothing but FPS online (maybe some single player MW2). Awesome. If you have the game, preferably thePS3 version, what do you think of the online aspect?

I was on giantbomb.com and saw a story by Jeff Gerstmann about how he really liked Marc Ecko’s Getting Up: Contents Under Pressure and thinks a sequel should be created.

Trane

Now i’m one of those people too, i got that game and played it all the way through and really liked it. The things that stood out for me was the atmosphere and diverse world which Atari had created, other reasons where the great soundtrack and voice cast…people like Cope 2, Sean Combs(P-Diddy) and Brittany Murphy. The story is quite compelling also, where Trane takes back the city with paint.

And apparently Marc Ecko who is responsible for the game going into production wants a sequel to made also, with or without the developer, Atari.

“Getting Up was a lot of blood, sweat, and tears,” he said. “Atari shit the bed, you know? And I’m gonna f*cking make that game again if it kills me. I’m gonna do it. I want to see the brand out there again.”

Anyways i hope there is a sequel made.

cyaaaa

Most of the people who read this site will already be aware of the Kane and Lynch debacle and the fate of one Jeff Gerstmann (though to be honest if Jeff’s resultant work away from Gamespot is this good, I think it all turned out rather well). Though I have yet to be embroiled in a drama of this magnitude, I can’t help but relate (or at least empathise) with such stories after a recent run-in with that dreaded cabal, the PR Department.

The current state of games journalism is quite frankly a petrifying one, especially from my vantage point of ‘just breaking in’. First of all, we are an industry dependent solely on another industry’s performance and existence. Games Journalism is subject to the financial shortfalls of not one but two markets: the magazines actually written and the industry they cover (without a games industry, what use is a games magazine?). Being subject to any kind of financial risk isn’t ideal, especially during a recession. So what have I done? Set my entire future happiness upon the shaky shoulders of an industry subject to twice as much financial turmoil as most others.

Yeah. Good move there Mikey…

Also, one of the harder-to-swallow truths of games journalism is that it is almost entirely dependent on advertising revenue to survive. During my initial research into games journalism I read countless horror stories about PR agents scolding games journos with comments like “I pay your salary, you’ll write what I tell you to” and other similar quips and character assassinations. Aside from being quite blatant workplace bullying, this attitude shows a complete disregard for games journalism as a legitimate profession and seems to illustrate that PR Departments merely see review sites and magazines as another way to get titles off the shelves.

Examples such as the above illustrate that as far as revenue streams are concerned, advertisers have Games Journos by the balls! Mix in the fact that the Internet is pretty much destroying print journalism and you’re left with a situation that couldn’t exactly be called ‘healthy’.

Also, before anyone starts, I am aware of the ironic douchebaggery of a blog blaming the Internet for killing print journalism. I am, however, no hypocrite. O:BP is justifiable as everything we write, research and publish is merely a portfolio for, in my case anyway, an eventual application and employment in print journalism. That’s the plan anyway. In my case, working for Edge is the dream that keeps me going… It will be mine, oh yes, it will be mine.

I digress…

When I read a review, I am allowing someone else’s opinion to meld with my own. To shape my perceptions and compliment my own (rather learned) experience when it comes to which games I tend to enjoy playing. It’s as though you are entering an unwritten contract with the reviewer. As a reader you expect an honest, unbiased, and intelligent review. As a reviewer, you expect your opinion to be viewed as an informed one, and for it to be respected if not agreed with. If either side of this relationship does not hold up their end of the bargain then the whole system falls apart.

It is a betrayal.

Recently, Callum at Pixelated Gamer gave me the review code of a game called Archer Maclean’s Mercury, a sub-par puzzler for the PSP. Anyone familiar with previous O:BP posts or my other work for PG will know that I love puzzle games, so I was pretty confident in my ability to review Mercury. After a series of e-mails from Cal asking for the review due to pressure from Ignition Entertainment, the publishers of Mercury and the people responsible for supplying us with the review code, I finally completed the not-so-favourable Mercury review and sent it through to Callum so that he could forward it on. Suffice to say, they weren’t too happy. Which is entirely understandable, and completely acceptable. There is, however, just one small gripe from me…

DO NOT SEND SOMEONE A COPY OF A GAME TO REVIEW AND THEN COMPLAIN ABOUT THE SUBSEQUENT REVIEW!!!

Do you really think that as the creators of a game you have a valid, unbiased opinion? No! No you do not! You don’t see a camera mechanic, you see the three nights spent away from your wife. You don’t see a title screen, you see staying up until all hours, reaching deadline and eating last night’s takeaway. A bad review is not a critique to you, it is a barrier between you and more money. Your opinion, at this stage, does not count!

I didn’t read anything about the game beforehand, or check Metacritic’s score first (which, to be fair to Ignition and Awesome Studios, is a pretty good one). I sat down, I played the game, and gave my informed, unbiased opinion on it.

It is this state of affairs that bothers me so much! I don’t work for a big site yet and Ignition Entertainment probably won’t be releasing the next Tetris any time soon (all the power in the world to them though), so losing a few free games from them isn’t going to ruin my career. But what if a similar situation arose with Blizzard, Bethesda, Bioware or Valve? Or to reference Gamespot’s supposed nemesis, the mighty EA? Losing exclusivity for the next WoW expansion or the next GTA is the kind of situation that could make or break a games publication…

And PR Departments/advertisers know it!

I have no doubt that I won’t be receiving any more free games from Ignition Entertainment, but to be honest, that’s something I’m sure I can live with. I’d rather hold my head up high and declare my journalistic integrity, than grab a load of freebies and fall into invalidity.

That is, of course, unless anybody would like to throw a new PC and access to the new Diablo 3 beta my way?

No?

Damn!

- Mikey Base

Let’s just be straight up with each other. A lot of video game related journalism that you see out there is bad. Not because the writing itself is poor, but it feels like there is a lot of sites out there with zero personality to go off of. So what you end up having is a lot of sites and blogs copy and pasting what so and so said from such and such company. Because of this I don’t even bother to read the article at all. Most of the time I’ll just skim the article and look for the quotation block and just read what’s in their and skip the editors point of view. While It’s ok to to quote, and you really should, I want a little more. I want the writer to really dig deep into the issue and perform the research necessary to get the facts from all angles. I mean after all, isn’t that what journalism is all about?

But alas something different. Where seeing new upcoming video game related sites that are not just about copy/paste. They dig a whole lot deeper. One of these sites is Giant Bomb. I think the key to Giant Bombs success is how they’ve not only made the site about games, but have made the site about the writers as well. They’ve personalized the site in a way where a new user can connect with the editors. A prime example of this is Jeff Gerstmann and Ryan Davis shooting their first mini series that launched during the sites induction (the blog days) “How to build a Bomb.” In the short series they took you behind the scenes on just how they were building their site, and what approach they decided to take. But it doesn’t just stop their for Giant Bomb, they take it further than that. During this past memorial day holiday Ryan Davis shot a Cribs style video giving Giant Bomb users a look at his house. His personal Space. In the video we could see plenty of his video game memorabilia, as well as his own office space were he writes for the site.

I’m not sure if this was ever Giant Bombs intention to connect with their audience in the way they have. But doing so has brought a great community of gamers. People who plays games for the enjoyment of playing them. Maybe it’s because their there own bosses and there is nobody really there to tell them what to do or how to run it. But when I see a site like Giant Bomb, it feels like a fresh start taking Video Game journalism in the way it was always meant to be. The guys at Giant Bomb write about the things they feel you should know. Don’t expect to see them ever write about sales related news. Because really, who exactly is that serving? As far as I know nearly anybody who follows video games on the Internet doesn’t hold any major stock from any of the big publishers. Sales is irrelevant when it comes to this hobby and I hope to see the day were fans of games don’t have to worry and argue about such a thing.

www.GiantBomb.com

I really wish a lot more video game news outlets out there would stop beating around the bush and give me their God honest opinion. It seems as if all the big sources out their are just afraid of pissing people off. Because in doing so their is the fear that pissing off the Internet will probably result in horrible publicity. Gamespot was subjected to such a thing when letting go Jeff Gerstmann. While we may never know what really happened the common theory is that he was let go after Giving Kane and Lynch a well deserved 6.0. The publisher of the game pulled their extensive advertising campaign from the site in result. So what happened? Gerstmann was let go. He was let go for calling it right down the middle. For having some integrity. Gamespot of course sugar coated it as much as they could to try and fix their now torn image. Sense that moment Reviews itself has been a really controversial subject. I think this is why game journalist really need to express their own opinion whether it be good or bad. Just tell me, does the game suck or not? Who cares about the massive flame war involving you that’s going on in the forums. You saw a game for what it was, and were not afraid to voice that opinion. We might as well just say that mindless zombies are writing about games. Because as of now their is no style, flavor, or personality. Which is why Giant Bomb means as much to me as it does.

Let’s just be straight up with each other. A lot of video game related journalism that you see out there is bad. Not because the writing itself is poor, but it feels like there is a lot of sites out there with zero personality to go off of. So what you end up having is a lot of sites and blogs copy and pasting what so and so said from such and such company. Because of this I don’t even bother to read the article at all. Most of the time I’ll just skim the article and look for the quotation block and just read what’s in their and skip the editors point of view. While It’s ok to to quote, and you really should, I want a little more. I want the writer to really dig deep into the issue and perform the research necessary to get the facts from all angles. I mean after all, isn’t that what journalism is all about?

But alas something different. Where seeing new upcoming video game related sites that are not just about copy/paste. They dig a whole lot deeper. One of these sites is Giant Bomb. I think the key to Giant Bombs success is how they’ve not only made the site about games, but have made the site about the writers as well. They’ve personalized the site in a way where a new user can connect with the editors. A prime example of this is Jeff Gerstmann and Ryan Davis shooting their first mini series that launched during the sites induction (the blog days) “How to build a Bomb.” In the short series they took you behind the scenes on just how they were building their site, and what approach they decided to take. But it doesn’t just stop their for Giant Bomb, they take it further than that. During this past memorial day holiday Ryan Davis shot a Cribs style video giving Giant Bomb users a look at his house. His personal Space. In the video we could see plenty of his video game memorabilia, as well as his own office space were he writes for the site.

I’m not sure if this was ever Giant Bombs intention to connect with their audience in the way they have. But doing so has brought a great community of gamers. People who plays games for the enjoyment of playing them. Maybe it’s because their there own bosses and there is nobody really there to tell them what to do or how to run it. But when I see a site like Giant Bomb, it feels like a fresh start taking Video Game journalism in the way it was always meant to be. The guys at Giant Bomb write about the things they feel you should know. Don’t expect to see them ever write about sales related news. Because really, who exactly is that serving? As far as I know nearly anybody who follows video games on the Internet doesn’t hold any major stock from any of the big publishers. Sales is irrelevant when it comes to this hobby and I hope to see the day were fans of games don’t have to worry and argue about such a thing.

www.GiantBomb.com

I really wish a lot more video game news outlets out there would stop beating around the bush and give me their God honest opinion. It seems as if all the big sources out their are just afraid of pissing people off. Because in doing so their is the fear that pissing off the Internet will probably result in horrible publicity. Gamespot was subjected to such a thing when letting go Jeff Gerstmann. While we may never know what really happened the common theory is that he was let go after Giving Kane and Lynch a well deserved 6.0. The publisher of the game pulled their extensive advertising campaign from the site in result. So what happened? Gerstmann was let go. He was let go for calling it right down the middle. For having some integrity. Gamespot of course sugar coated it as much as they could to try and fix their now torn image. Sense that moment Reviews itself has been a really controversial subject. I think this is why game journalist really need to express their own opinion whether it be good or bad. Just tell me, does the game suck or not? Who cares about the massive flame war involving you that’s going on in the forums. You saw a game for what it was, and were not afraid to voice that opinion. We might as well just say that mindless zombies are writing about games. Because as of now their is no style, flavor, or personality. Which is why Giant Bomb means as much to me as it does.

In what I imagine is a congregation of prominent game journalists draped in flowing togas and discussing politics in some ancient stone forum somewhere in the Mediterranean, N’Gai Croal of Newsweek has presented the first part of Shawn Elliot’s Symposium on Game Reviews.  While it’s actually being conducted via email, and all the participants are fully clothed, it’s interesting nonetheless.  Everyone has put their bullshit filters aside and slipped on their thick leather debating mitts.  Below is a quick summary of the first exchange (on review scores), but I encourage you all to go and read it in full — especially for John Davison’s recounting of CGW’s attempt at removing review scores, and the fan reaction.

Shawn Elliott, 2K Boston: How much is on our minds before we begin playing any given game for review purposes? Will we imagine a range of probable scores that a heavily marketed, highly budgeted, and hugely anticipated game will get? What when the game is branded “budget” or is the work of a lesser-known, less-storied studio? If so, how closely have actual scores correlated with our assumptions?

Kieron Gillen, Rock, Paper, Shotgun: I remember the attitude being crystallized by a comment I saw ages ago on Kotaku which stuck with me, when they linked to a B-game someone had 9/10ed: “It can’t be any good, as I haven’t heard of it”. It’s an ugly, but common, tautology.

Leigh Alexander, Gamasutra/Sexy Videogameland/Variety: There’s a line, I think, between making a prejudgment, and bringing with you a context within which to make an evaluation. Games are an industry and a culture, not a fragmented, compartmentalized list of disparate products, and rather than pretend we have no early opinions, I wonder if it’s not beneficial to be prepared to bring that context—which also applies, perhaps to being aware of budgets, of team sizes, of other challenges?

Shawn Elliott, 2K Boston: I’d argue that our preconceptions are active when we decide which games we want to review. That’s not to suggest that, when given the choice, all critics go straight for the gravy (I’ve often volunteered to review games that I imagined would be interesting but not the best available). But what, if not a preconception of some sort, drives these decisions?

N’Gai Croal, Level Up/Newsweek: A reviewer helps consumers decide whether or not they should buy a game; a critic helps players think about a game that they’ve played–in its entirety or in part–and that is the end of the spectrum where I believe my writing lies.

Kieron Gillen, Rock, Paper, Shotgun: You can mention the hyped intention and mention whether it measures up—but that’s not what you’re rating. Marketing doesn’t necessarily understand their games and what’s interesting about it. And occasionally a game is fascinating despite what their creators were trying—Jim Rossignol loving the deeply buggy unpatched release of Boiling Point for its sheer constant surreality comes to mind as an extreme example of that.

Stephen Totilo, MTV News: The question we’re answering is whether those who review games pick a number before writing a word. Kieron says the ideal reviewer would not; he and Leigh agree it’s hard not to pick a figure already. Shawn’s acknowledging the humanity of having preconceived notions but dodging his own question about whether that made him start with a number. But I guess it’s hard in some ways to pick a figure at all when it’s so unclear what the point of it is.

Robert Ashley, freelancer: I have no methodology for choosing a review score. I certainly don’t think about it much. Your gut feeling (after either beating the game or the game beating you) is more accurate than whatever you might come up with after careful consideration. This is how the rest of the gaming community arrives at an opinion–and probably why so many people feel that critics are out of touch. When you sit at your computer, running down all the plusses and the minuses–technical issues, story concerns, lovable roughness, annoying roughness–you can end up talking yourself into a score that doesn’t really represent your true reaction. You can’t explain the magical pixie dust that made the empirically bad game good. You can’t explain the soullessness and sterility that made the empirically good game bad. You let your stupid logical brain take the wheel and explain yourself into a lie.

Jeff Gerstmann, Giant Bomb: I don’t really think too much about scores when I’m playing a game. I attempt to go in feeling cautiously optimistic about the game in question, and as I’m playing, I think about text, and things in the game that need to be specifically called out. I start to think about the best way to mention those moments, and the best way to call out its flaws. At some point, all that text swirling around in my head starts to sound like a range of scores, so maybe around halfway through playing a game I start thinking a little more about the score. But it isn’t until after the review is written that the score is actually assigned. The score is meant to sum up the text. If I’ve just written a review full of harsh criticisms, well, then that sounds like a pretty low score. Assigning a score and then attempting to justify it with text puts the cart before the horse.

Shawn Elliott, 2K Boston: Even worse is when the paragraphs that constitute a template are themselves composed of yet more methods of avoiding actual analysis. I mock the overuse of words such as compelling not because there is anything wrong with the words themselves but rather with the way that they’re used to replace real explanation. We know that any guy in the game store can say he likes or doesn’t like a game’s graphics or story. We recognize that it’s our responsibility as paid writers to say something more than “I like it” or “it’s good.” Replacing “like” and “good” with “compelling” isn’t even trying.

John Davison, What They Play: If nothing else, review scores serve as the starting point of a discussion for readers. As Jeff says, they serve as a shorthand for those that have no interest in digging deeper than a fundamental thumbs up or thumbs down gauge of quality. I think we can all safely assume this, but back in my time at Ziff we experimented sufficiently that we got absolute, empirical proof.

If you’re badly wanting to join Jeff Gerstmann and Ryan Davis’ website early, Giant Bomb is performing a beta soon in which you can get your account name registered and try out some of the features the website has to offer.

Send an e-mail to beta@giantbomb.com and ask to enter the beta, or go to the link at the bottom for more details.

Hopefully I’ll see some of you there!

Link:
Let’s Have a Beta! [Giant Bomb]

So, I wasn’t at the Nintendo 2008 summit, but I did get some coverage. It did provide quite some future stuff that is coming out, including the popular debut of Rock Band, the return of the Kart racing series, and the new Pokemon myster dungeon game.

Rock Band for Wii was up to play at Nintendo 2008. The game isn’t much different from the PS3 and XBOX 360 versions. You still have Lead Guitar, Bass, the drum set, and the microphone peripherals. You still have not only the 4-player action, but you also still have solo. The guitars are set up the same besides being wireless and the drums are white. The pads on the drums are softer, and everything else is the same. Unfortunatly, Harmonix has had a major obtacle in downloadable content saying the Wii lacks a hard drive and they are still exploring it’s online capabilities. They are working with Nintendo on all of these growing pains, and the release date is still set for June 22nd, 2008.

Mario Kart Wii was also prevented along with the Wii Wheel. Mario Kart Wii does have a lot more than the last installment of the franchise, Mario Kart Double Dash!! There are definetly more stages and new characters including Mii support. The game has online play this time around that supports up to 12 players. Mario Kart Wii also supports 12 players on solo and of course only 4 locally.

As for the Wii Wheel, it is mostly a nice, plastic controller for the Wii remote. It does a fantastic job for making the race feel and is a must have accessory for all gamers. Nintendo always seems to surprise us with plastic controllers this generation.

The official release date for the US is April 27, 2008.

The new Pokemon Mystery Dungeon game seems to pack more in a DS game considering more options for exploration in dungeons and an apparent bigger world. Nintendo also intended to make it so even after beating the game, you could still experiene continous play without repeating every single thing.

Pokemon Mystery Dungeon will also be released in two versions, Explorers of Time and Explorers of Darkness. Both will feature online play. The story mode is still based around a human, you, who has turned into a Pokemon and are still trying to figure out the mysteries behind it. The release date is at April 20th, 2008.

More things than this were found at the Nintendo 2008 summit, but these were the major ones we thought were the most important. And by major, we mean they are most expected until around July. Many things could be found, still including Wii Fit, but these were the best of the best.

——————————————————————————–

I am sorry my podcast wasn’t out last night. I tried to record it, but nothing would work properly and I unfortunatly had to delay it. It will be out within 12 hours of this blog post, which is by 8 AM EST. I will have lots of information, so definetly look for that.

——————————————————————————–

I was recently looking on CNET and saw a Prizefight, GHIII vs. Rock Band, and Rock Band won by 4 points. I almost perfectly agreed, but I really agreed on the ending when Rock Band won. Here’s proof.

There. Now I tend to always go to Gamespot and CNET, but I indeed need to point out that the Jeff Gerstmann firing did not help them out at all. Nothing against you CNET Networks or Gamespot, but why did you fire one of your best editors? Just asking.

——————————————————————————–

Lastly, reviews. I indeed do review games, and I will be doing that on this blog. I will be reviewing Pokemon Battle Revolution tomarow, so that should help the Pokemaniacs. Also, if there is a game you’d like me to review, drop me a line at mgast75@yahoo.com. I’ll see you all later, like in a few hours.

So here it is, the first proper post. Is it regarding something special and fantastic? You’re bloody well right it is!

Some years ago when I really began getting back into gaming, I discovered Gamespot. It was like God himself had taken his index finger off the pause button, waggled it about effortlessly and created a video games site that had pretty much everything. Every other day I’d check the news, reviews, videos, interviews and the abundance of other features Gamespot served up on a regular basis.

What really got me into the site, however, was not the nice layout, or wealth of content, but the people who wrote and presented the articles, video reviews and shows. It was great to see regular guys on there who were clearly passionate about gaming, and like many Gamespot fans, staff such as Jeff Gerstmann, Ryan Davis and Alex Navarro were the reason I’d come back day after day. When these three guys left I was gutted – the decent, funny blokes who I’d enjoyed watching for years were gone and Gamespot suddenly became a bit stale.

Well, after a few months of scheming and plotting (and “No, we’re not starting a gaming site together” rubbish), they’re back! Giant Bomb is Jeff & Ryan’s new site, and more importantly it’s a gripping scientific study of what happens when videogames and glucose-charged energy drinks get together and get it on! Maybe I’m getting carried away, but seriously, if you loved Gamespot mainly because of these guys (which 90% of people did) get yourself over there and check it out – it’s going off this summer. Boom!

Recuerdan que habia posteado que GameSpot estaba pasando por un mal rato, ya que varias de sus mejores personalidades se habian ido o las habian ido, y tambien que les dije que estaba seguro que esa raza se juntaria para hacer una nueva pagina de video juegos, pues aqui esta, Giant Bomb, ahorita esta en forma de blog tipo kotaku, pero se espera que sea una pagina hecha y derecha, asi que denle la vuelta haber si les gusta, tambien tienen un podcast por si quieren saber mas de la gente detras de la pagina, ya se que les hecho porras de mas a estos vatos, pero la neta si me laten lo que hacen.

I just read a few minutes ago, my hero of all time Jeff Gerstmann, told the world of Giant Bomb. This is great to hear because Jeff Gerstmann is a talented game critic, musician and funny man.

Giant Bomb is going to be THE place to go for me from now on. They’re gonna have videos and reviews and hands on and news and all sorts of crazy stuff. I wonder if they’ll be hiring in 10 years, because frankly, getting to write about video games for Mr. Gerstmann would be the best job in the whole wide world. Mr. Gerstmann, I hope you’re reading this.

PS: It’s one of my many dreams to be on Jeff’s Blogroll.

games^TM is a popular games magazine from the UK. Along with Edge, I find it to be of generally higher quality than its counterparts here in the United States. Reading through issue 66 this morning, I was surprised to see this comment on the top of page 18:

Following the publication of the review of Assassin’s Creed in issue 64, games^TM would like to offer our sincere apologies to the game’s producer, Jade Raymond, for any offence caused by any references to her in the article. The review was written without malice and was not intended to in any way belittle Miss Raymond’s efforts in the production of the game.

Curious. I went back to check the review in issue 64. Here is an excerpt:

Arriving on the back of two years worth of hype, Assassin’s Creed has a lot to live up to. Promises of complete freedom, entirely emergent gameplay, and a huge, endlessly explorable world have been touted for months, with producer/mascot Jade Raymond wheeled out at every possible photo opportunity.

Looking back on the article now, I’m surprised I didn’t notice the comment before. It’s highly insulting to refer to Jade Raymond as a mascot and to insinuate that she was “wheeled out” for photo ops. Doing so discredits her professionalism and abilities as a producer of a highly successful new franchise.

Jade is certainly an attractive woman. And she has served as the spokesperson for Assassin’s Creed on numerous occasions. Whether you want to attribute that to a public relations scheme is up to you and your tin foil hat. I suppose it’s possible. But isn’t it more likely that Raymond is simply good at her job?

Furthermore, Jade Raymond should not even be mentioned in an objective review of Assassin’s Creed unless it is simply to identify her as the game’s producer. The quality of the finished product has absolutely nothing to do with how many times its producer has appeared in public. I’ll admit that my experience with Assassin’s Creed is limited to the introductory tutorial, so the rest of the games^TM review may be entirely correct. It is ironic, however, that their apology appears in the same issue as their discussion of Jeff Gerstmann’s firing from GameSpot. Perhaps CNet is not the only company dealing with integrity issues.

I have subconsciously been veering away from Gamespot for some reason, and now I know why. Jeff Gerstmann was “apparently” fired or “let go” for giving Kane and Lynch: Shitpile a 6.0. This is old news, but I’m bringing it back. According to numerous little nosey sources, there was a lot of commotion because of the ad campaign Eidos had with Gamespot. Well look here, Gamespot; first of all your reviews suck now. If a toddler can understand it, it’s an 8.0. We can’t go by what you say anymore, because you’ll say

• The Good: Fast Paced hack and slash action
• The Bad: Action is too fast paced hack and slash

What the hell is going on? As if that weren’t enough, I have more blistering news for you. In later posts though. For now if you want to check out Jeff’s blog, go to http://blog.jeffgerstmann.net/ because the mother fucker is still alive. Sure I’ve wanted to kill him for some reviews (one being twilight princess)… but you have to think about it…sometimes he actually just plain old makes Sense.

I have subconsciously been veering away from Gamespot for some reason, and now I know why. Jeff Gerstmann was “apparently” fired or “let go” for giving Kane and Lynch: Shitpile a 6.0. This is old news, but I’m bringing it back. According to numerous little nosey sources, there was a lot of commotion because of the ad campaign Eidos had with Gamespot. Well look here, Gamespot; first of all your reviews suck now. If a toddler can understand it, it’s an 8.0. We can’t go by what you say anymore, because you’ll say

• The Good: Fast Paced hack and slash action
• The Bad: Action is too fast paced hack and slash

What the hell is going on? As if that weren’t enough, I have more blistering news for you. In later posts though. For now if you want to check out Jeff’s blog, go to http://blog.jeffgerstmann.net/ because the mother fucker is still alive. Sure I’ve wanted to kill him for some reviews (one being twilight princess)… but you have to think about it…sometimes he actually just plain old makes Sense.

I wished my 360 bon voyage today. It died before Christmas.

I’m not the only person I know to suffer this affliction. One of my friends sent his 360 away to Microsoft for repairs. When it came back it still didn’t work. Then, after about a week it miraculously started working again.

Another friend’s younger brother was given one for Christmas and turned it on Boxing Day to be confronted by the “Red Ring of Death”.

An avid modder I know has disassembled his 360 to re-position the cooling fans. The bare bones of his console are now sitting on the table under his tv with a mass of fans trained on them.

All over the net there are posts cursing Microsoft for this problem. I just hope that mine comes back in working order. I have Mass Effect sitting here waiting for me to play it.

I spoke to the UPS guy who picked up my ailing console who said he collects about a dozen 360s a day. He said that all he ever seems to see is Xboxes and iPods.

It brings a question to mind that has been floating around there since I started following the whole Gamespot/Jeff Gerstmann debacle. How big a concern is quality in the games industry?

Duff games appear all the time but now we also have faulty consoles to contend with. I suppose it started when Sony placed a cooling fan so that it blew dust onto the dvd lens in the PS2 and had to update. The 360 has taken it to a whole new level though and it is especially disappointing given that it is a great console.

In last month’s Edge Mr Biffo made the very valid point that consoles should last a lifetime. I have had my SNES for 12 years and it still works perfectly, as does my six-year-old Dreamcast. Hopefully when my 360 comes back from Microsoft it will last too.

Recently Gamespot writer Jeff Gerstmann was fired by CNet Networks Entertainment. Rumors said that the reason for this was that his unenthusiastic review of Kane & Lynch: Dead Men upset advertisers of the game on Gamespot’s site. Soon afterward a Gamespot article was released assuring everyone that the rumors were, in fact, wrong. The reasons for Gerstmann’s termination were strictly internal, according to them. Things started to calm down, but it wasn’t over. The incident has come up again in the form of the departure of another Gamespot reviewer. However, this one was not fired: he quit.

Frank Povo had worked with Gamespot for over seven years, and wrote around 750 reviews. Today, he gave his reasons for leaving. “I believe CNet management let Jeff go for all the wrong reasons,” Povo wrote in his blog. “I believe CNet intends to soften the site’s tone and push for higher scores to make advertisers happy.” Quite an accusation, but he wasn’t finished. “The GameSpot staff did not fire Jeff. The GameSpot staff are NOT corrupt. GameSpot itself is NOT the problem. CNet is. CNet’s management is.”

Concerning his departure, Frank Povo stated, “I feel sad about the whole thing, but I can’t write for a site that could one day punish me for honesty.”

Gamespot has for years been well-known for their honest opinions in up-to-date news and reviews. Let’s hope Povo’s predictions don’t come to pass.

In case you haven’t heard about it, the internet publication Gamespot recently fired one of their lead video game reviewers shortly after giving Kane and Lynch, a game that was then being heavily advertised on the site, a relatively bad score. The forums then exploded with accusations of Gamespot firing Gerstmann solely based on the game review and the ensuing fallout from Eidos Interactive, the publisher of “Kane and Lynch”.

The bad press has finally got Gamespot speaking on their own behalf, by way of this special report that “answers” many of the questions being asked by livid gamers. The real question being asked is whether or not publishers have an influence over game reviews. Big publishers like EA, Eidos, and the new behemoth Activision/Blizzard spend a ton of money on sites like Gamespot and IGN, making me a bit skeptical over whether or not that money does not in some way influence the outcome of these game reviews.  

The guys at Penny Arcade have a wonderful way of expressing their opinions on these issues by way of their hilarious comic and blog, and usually have a good point hidden in-between the lines. This debacle raises some of the inherent problems with review scores, not just for video games,  in general, something I hope to discuss on this blog in much greater detail soon.