Tom Mcshea and Carolyn no longer work for gamespot.

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#151 Posted by Master_Live (14400 posts) -

@LostProphetFLCL said:

I really fear for what the world could be like one day. If these sensitive pussies controlled things no one would ever lose their jobs because it is so sad for the person who loses their job. Who cares if they are completely incompetent at their job, constantly messing up, and depending on the job they could be hurting or killing people. It is just too sad to have someone lose their job so we can't let them go!

Seriously people, grow some balls and get with the real world. Preferably sooner than later.

@Master_Live said:

^^^^^If they consider what people are doing in this thread "hate" I wouldn't wanna know what they do when they encounter real hate.

@Randolph said:

If their is this one person (or two, in this case) working somewhere who is a really nice person, but is poor at their job, and they bring a lot of baggage in with them that is divisive and causes some customers to leave and take their business elsewhere… yes, you should be glad they lost their job. McShea and Caro were exceedingly bad reviewers.

Great people by all indications, but poor at their actual jobs. You have to separate professional and personal opinions. We lost someone at the store recently who I really liked on a personal level, but he was just awful at this job. I still talk to him when he comes in to shop and consider him a friend, but I'm really glad we let him go because he caused so many issues for us as an employee.

All three of these. You have to be careful over in the SW thread, with the mods lurking in the background in the stickied thread. You either have to say how much you are going to miss them or fear mod retribution.

Is that so? Lets have some fun.

#152 Posted by beutlich99 (1106 posts) -

I'm not sad to see them go. Their reviews always seemed to have some kind of agenda. I could never really put my finger on it, but if I read a review by either of them, I would always check 2-3 other reviews from other sites. Carolyn and Tom consistently nit picked stuff other reviewers glazed over, didn't mention, or flat out said it wasn't worth fretting over.

#153 Posted by jsolidus (153 posts) -

Not going to gloat about a person losing their job, but Carolyn needed to go. I want a video game review not a politically biased review with nitpicking over crap that has nothing to do with video games.

#154 Posted by Master_Live (14400 posts) -

Nah, things have cooled off in SW.

#155 Posted by chernoalpha527 (157 posts) -

Didn't like either of them especially Tom so don't care that they left.

#156 Posted by lightleggy (15921 posts) -

@Aljosa23 said:

@lightleggy: Okay first of all; do you know what a video game review is? It's the writer's OPINION and experience on the game. I'll type the main word in caps again if I have to: OPINION. You have a neat opinion about Gone Home too, okay, that's no more valid than Petit's review. You are taking this way too seriously and getting hilariously butthurt over someone's god damn opinion on a fucking video game. Do you know how absurd this is? You generalizing the entire gaming media isn't scoring you any points, either.

Also: user review? Who the fuck cares? How many user reviews are written anywhere near as well as Petit's on Gone Home? I'd wager not even 5% are as detailed as hers. And yeah, reviews are all biased... because that's the entire nature of opinions. You are also placing way too much importance on the numerical value of a review. God, this is so retarded. How old are you?

You seem like you value "objective" (LOL) games criticism, in which case here you go.

Also yes, this is REALLY silly.

Yes, an opinion about the game's aspects. Which should not be affected by the reviewer's personal views on say, political subjects. Greg knew that, and that's why I loved his reviews. Kevin is as good as gamespot gets now, he sometimes makes small mistakes in that regard but he doesn't makes a huge deal out of them which is fine by me. Carolyn went on to give a game that clearly deserves less than 6.0 (Really it has every single aspect games with that score get, terrible value, short lenght, poor story, poor graphical presentation, poor gameplay) a 9.5 because the game was pro-lgbt. I'm not even making this up, Carolyn HERSELF said on her "year in review" that her GH review was extremely biased by her own personal views and agendas, this is public info, you can look it up at this site, on her 2013 year in review.

And I'm not talking about the "quality" of the user reviews, I'm talking about the scores. When every journalist gives the game a 9 and the large majority of players give it a 5, you know something is dead wrong.

And yes, I hate gone home, it's an embodiment of nearly everything that is wrong with the industry...people thinking that games with good story cant have good gameplay, and Carolyn's review was the last thing she needed to do to lose my respect for her as a journalist.

#157 Posted by Jd1680a (5932 posts) -

Its sad to see people lose their jobs, but at the end its part of life and the process of moving on.

A major theory on why the layoffs happened was because of the ever increasing competition of video content from twitch and youtube. The Lobby should have give us a hint on what was to come for some of the editorial staff at Gamespot.

At least Kevin Van Ord and Shaun Mcinnis is still around. I would really hate to see Kevin leave Gamespot.

#158 Posted by Korvus (3522 posts) -

I understand people not liking Tom or Caro's personalities...I can respect people's opinion when they say things like "They always focused on stuff that didn't matter and didn't even mention important stuff."/"the reviews were bland and boring" but it feels so petty when people say they're glad they got fired because the number you gave a game is different to the number they gave. How little and unimportant is that? It's one thing to think their reviews are crap but acting like their reviews consisted "Didn't like, giving it a 1" because there was a 9 instead of a 10 at the end of the review probably means you have other big problems in your life and you're obsessing about other small stuff to avoid said problems.

I know I sound like a broken record, but if anything it's not their fault they think a game is an 8 or a 9...it's your fault for thinking any game you enjoy is a 10...

#159 Edited by toast_burner (21498 posts) -

@beutlich99 said:

I'm not sad to see them go. Their reviews always seemed to have some kind of agenda. I could never really put my finger on it, but if I read a review by either of them, I would always check 2-3 other reviews from other sites. Carolyn and Tom consistently nit picked stuff other reviewers glazed over, didn't mention, or flat out said it wasn't worth fretting over.

Which is a good thing. If all reviews focused on the same stuff it would give you a terrible idea on what the game is like.

You say it's not worth fretting over, others will think it's game breaking.

#160 Posted by dave123321 (33979 posts) -

Light leggy you haven't convinced me that most pro reviewers aren't sincere in their reviews of gone home. So far it just seems like you want others to feel what you felt about the game and are maybe a bit too dismissive about the issues with the user scores and reviews.

#161 Posted by Iszdope (9862 posts) -

That's a shame.

#162 Edited by worlock77 (22547 posts) -

I suspect Lightleggy's reaction over 'Gone Home' is less about the mechanics of the game and more about the LGBT theme of it. Just a hunch.

#163 Posted by Dogswithguns (10737 posts) -

I know who Carolyn looks like.. but the rest I don't. so whatever.

#164 Posted by LostProphetFLCL (17258 posts) -

@korvus said:

I understand people not liking Tom or Caro's personalities...I can respect people's opinion when they say things like "They always focused on stuff that didn't matter and didn't even mention important stuff."/"the reviews were bland and boring" but it feels so petty when people say they're glad they got fired because the number you gave a game is different to the number they gave. How little and unimportant is that? It's one thing to think their reviews are crap but acting like their reviews consisted "Didn't like, giving it a 1" because there was a 9 instead of a 10 at the end of the review probably means you have other big problems in your life and you're obsessing about other small stuff to avoid said problems.

I know I sound like a broken record, but if anything it's not their fault they think a game is an 8 or a 9...it's your fault for thinking any game you enjoy is a 10...

As other people stated it's not really about the number, but their reasoning for said number.

Carolyn gave GTA5 a 9 (which is a pretty great scoring of the game) but her review sucked thanks to her going off on the tangent that the female characters weren't likeable, in a game where every major character is a pretty shitty person...

Tom's issue was more of the scoring just because of how psychotically random he was and the way he seemed to be constantly trolling with his reviews. He became a meme of sorts here for how crazy he scored games. It was also bad when in the Skyward Sword review (which I had no interest in the game) apparently demonstrated a clear lack of understanding of fundamental game mechanics according to people who have both read his review and have actually played the game. That is a SERIOUS issue if you are reviewing a game with little understanding of the core mechanics...

#165 Posted by lightleggy (15921 posts) -

Light leggy you haven't convinced me that most pro reviewers aren't sincere in their reviews of gone home. So far it just seems like you want others to feel what you felt about the game and are maybe a bit too dismissive about the issues with the user scores and reviews.

Dave, have you played Gone Home?

Because if you have, then it's pretty obvious what the case was, actually totalbiscuit once made a comment about these types of games and why they get such praise. I know TB isn't the best youtuber but he had a good point, check it out if you want.

And really, if you haven't played gone home, you have no way to understand it, you should look more info on the game and on what users have to say about it.

I suspect Lightleggy's reaction over 'Gone Home' is less about the mechanics of the game and more about the LGBT theme of it. Just a hunch.

I have nothing against the LGBT community. My problem with Gone home is that not only did reviewers gave it a free pass because of it being a pro-lgbt game, but they also hailed it as the best thing since sliced bread because they were either afraid to be branded as non-progressive homophobics OR they wanted to be that special reviewer who discovered a hidden gem in gaming and to give the impression that they are really smart and appreciative of art because the game was "3deep5me".

Really, there is no way to understand this hatred if you have not played gone home.

#166 Posted by toast_burner (21498 posts) -

@dave123321 said:

Light leggy you haven't convinced me that most pro reviewers aren't sincere in their reviews of gone home. So far it just seems like you want others to feel what you felt about the game and are maybe a bit too dismissive about the issues with the user scores and reviews.

Dave, have you played Gone Home?

Because if you have, then it's pretty obvious what the case was, actually totalbiscuit once made a comment about these types of games and why they get such praise. I know TB isn't the best youtuber but he had a good point, check it out if you want.

And really, if you haven't played gone home, you have no way to understand it, you should look more info on the game and on what users have to say about it.

@worlock77 said:

I suspect Lightleggy's reaction over 'Gone Home' is less about the mechanics of the game and more about the LGBT theme of it. Just a hunch.

I have nothing against the LGBT community. My problem with Gone home is that not only did reviewers gave it a free pass because of it being a pro-lgbt game, but they also hailed it as the best thing since sliced bread because they were either afraid to be branded as non-progressive homophobics OR they wanted to be that special reviewer who discovered a hidden gem in gaming and to give the impression that they are really smart and appreciative of art because the game was "3deep5me".

Really, there is no way to understand this hatred if you have not played gone home.

And where is your evidence that they only gave it high reviews because they were scared of backlash? Has it ever occurred to you that maybe they actually liked the game? Just because you didn't like it that doesn't mean it's objectively bad.

And yes I have played the game so don't pull your "you haven't played it so you can't understand" nonsense.

#167 Posted by jayd02 (783 posts) -

@jazilla said:

Being happy about people losing their job is vile. I came here expecting people to be supportive and concerned for hard working, fantastic writers and producers etc. that no longer are gainfully employed. Those of you "happy" about them losing their employment should be ashamed of yourselves.

That's a pretty one sided way to look at it as well. While it does suck losing your job, most of us here were sick of the terrible reviews. Why would you want someone who isn't very good at their job to keep it? Sure, it feels a bit lame celebrating someone getting fired or Laid off, but it doesn't make much sense to be supportive of them either when you didn't like what they were doing.

There reviews were good. They are critics and they would critic everything about a game and if that bothers you then go to another website. Oh and here is something else to think about, IT IS THERE OPINION ABOUT A GAME THAT DOESN'T EFFECT HOW YOU ENJOY A GAME. If you need someone else to justify why you should like a game then you need re-evaluate why you play games. The Last of Us review was a fair review. I love that game to death but I still find problems in the game, it wasn't perfect.

I will miss those guys and I wish the best for them in the future.

#168 Posted by jayd02 (783 posts) -

I'm not sad to see them go. Their reviews always seemed to have some kind of agenda. I could never really put my finger on it, but if I read a review by either of them, I would always check 2-3 other reviews from other sites. Carolyn and Tom consistently nit picked stuff other reviewers glazed over, didn't mention, or flat out said it wasn't worth fretting over.

Thats the problem with others sites. When you're a critic you need to critic things almost no matter how small they seem to be. If they don't then games don't move on. Developers and game companies think they can get away with it and so they don't change them.

#169 Posted by LJS9502_basic (150674 posts) -

@jayd02 said:

@beutlich99 said:

I'm not sad to see them go. Their reviews always seemed to have some kind of agenda. I could never really put my finger on it, but if I read a review by either of them, I would always check 2-3 other reviews from other sites. Carolyn and Tom consistently nit picked stuff other reviewers glazed over, didn't mention, or flat out said it wasn't worth fretting over.

Thats the problem with others sites. When you're a critic you need to critic things almost no matter how small they seem to be. If they don't then games don't move on. Developers and game companies think they can get away with it and so they don't change them.

Eh I don't think critiquing requires one to make social statements. I mean does anyone ever think the GTA series is about being politically correct? That didn't really belong in the review. If one wanted to make a social commentary then a blog or special feature might be the better platform. Besides, if you turn off readers to the reviews on your site....and it seems these two did...then site traffic suffers....which affects ad revenue...which affects the bottom line. And it IS a business.

#170 Edited by Korvus (3522 posts) -

@LostProphetFLCL: Like I said I respect the opinion of the people you were referring to, but was referring specifically to people who don't point anything out other than "it deserved a 10!". Maybe even those people have deeper reasons but they should state those instead of just whining because of a 9.

#171 Posted by jayd02 (783 posts) -

@jayd02 said:

@beutlich99 said:

I'm not sad to see them go. Their reviews always seemed to have some kind of agenda. I could never really put my finger on it, but if I read a review by either of them, I would always check 2-3 other reviews from other sites. Carolyn and Tom consistently nit picked stuff other reviewers glazed over, didn't mention, or flat out said it wasn't worth fretting over.

Thats the problem with others sites. When you're a critic you need to critic things almost no matter how small they seem to be. If they don't then games don't move on. Developers and game companies think they can get away with it and so they don't change them.

Eh I don't think critiquing requires one to make social statements. I mean does anyone ever think the GTA series is about being politically correct? That didn't really belong in the review. If one wanted to make a social commentary then a blog or special feature might be the better platform. Besides, if you turn off readers to the reviews on your site....and it seems these two did...then site traffic suffers....which affects ad revenue...which affects the bottom line. And it IS a business.

I will agree that the GTAV review was flawed when she brought about social problems. Those "problems" have been apart of the series for years and they weren't just subjugated to the females; it was also towards the males. Now GTAV was not perfect and didn't deserve a perfect 10 score.

This was the only review I believe Caro really brought her own personal views into a review. I don't count Gone Home because I believe that game was trying to arouse personal feelings into the gamer so its success hindered on whether or not it could achieve that goal. Most of the flack that Caro got was because of her personal life choices which she never brought into her reviews.

Tom was just a very hard critic plan and simple and people just couldn't get with that. I personally like that because we need hard critics. We need someone to nit pick so that the creators know what is wrong and know what is annoying us gamers. I will say Skyward Sword review was a bit flawed and they should have picked someone else to do the review.

#172 Posted by LostProphetFLCL (17258 posts) -

@korvus said:

@LostProphetFLCL: Like I said I respect the opinion of the people you were referring to, but was referring specifically to people who don't point anything out other than "it deserved a 10!". Maybe even those people have deeper reasons but they should state those instead of just whining because of a 9.

Well anyone who is just going to whine about the score instead of the review content itself is just immature...

#173 Posted by Korvus (3522 posts) -

@LostProphetFLCL: Which was my point XD I'm not going to say I'm happy they got fired since they didn't sway my decision of buying games one way or another, but I can understand people being happy that maybe "better" journalists will take their place. What I think is low is people saying "I'm glad they're out of a job, because they gave something a score lower than the one I wanted".

#174 Posted by lightleggy (15921 posts) -

@lightleggy said:

@dave123321 said:

Light leggy you haven't convinced me that most pro reviewers aren't sincere in their reviews of gone home. So far it just seems like you want others to feel what you felt about the game and are maybe a bit too dismissive about the issues with the user scores and reviews.

Dave, have you played Gone Home?

Because if you have, then it's pretty obvious what the case was, actually totalbiscuit once made a comment about these types of games and why they get such praise. I know TB isn't the best youtuber but he had a good point, check it out if you want.

And really, if you haven't played gone home, you have no way to understand it, you should look more info on the game and on what users have to say about it.

@worlock77 said:

I suspect Lightleggy's reaction over 'Gone Home' is less about the mechanics of the game and more about the LGBT theme of it. Just a hunch.

I have nothing against the LGBT community. My problem with Gone home is that not only did reviewers gave it a free pass because of it being a pro-lgbt game, but they also hailed it as the best thing since sliced bread because they were either afraid to be branded as non-progressive homophobics OR they wanted to be that special reviewer who discovered a hidden gem in gaming and to give the impression that they are really smart and appreciative of art because the game was "3deep5me".

Really, there is no way to understand this hatred if you have not played gone home.

And where is your evidence that they only gave it high reviews because they were scared of backlash? Has it ever occurred to you that maybe they actually liked the game? Just because you didn't like it that doesn't mean it's objectively bad.

And yes I have played the game so don't pull your "you haven't played it so you can't understand" nonsense.

It's not just me who didn't liked it, a large majority of users didnt as well, and this isnt a GTA or TLOU case where some people say "oh reviewers gave it a 9 but I think this game is just an 8" or vice versa. Reviewers gave gone home scores of 9.0-9.5 while the large majority of users gave it scores of 1.0-5.0

And you played it so you know what kind of scam it was. A lot of peole also go on forums trying to say the game is great because its "3deep" which is really sad because it gives you an idea of how low the story bar is set for on video games.

Again, go check metacritic to see just how much the difference between the critics score and user score is. The majority of steam reviews also rate it as "not recommended".

#175 Edited by LJS9502_basic (150674 posts) -

@jayd02 said:

@LJS9502_basic said:

Eh I don't think critiquing requires one to make social statements. I mean does anyone ever think the GTA series is about being politically correct? That didn't really belong in the review. If one wanted to make a social commentary then a blog or special feature might be the better platform. Besides, if you turn off readers to the reviews on your site....and it seems these two did...then site traffic suffers....which affects ad revenue...which affects the bottom line. And it IS a business.

I will agree that the GTAV review was flawed when she brought about social problems. Those "problems" have been apart of the series for years and they weren't just subjugated to the females; it was also towards the males. Now GTAV was not perfect and didn't deserve a perfect 10 score.

This was the only review I believe Caro really brought her own personal views into a review. I don't count Gone Home because I believe that game was trying to arouse personal feelings into the gamer so its success hindered on whether or not it could achieve that goal. Most of the flack that Caro got was because of her personal life choices which she never brought into her reviews.

Tom was just a very hard critic plan and simple and people just couldn't get with that. I personally like that because we need hard critics. We need someone to nit pick so that the creators know what is wrong and know what is annoying us gamers. I will say Skyward Sword review was a bit flawed and they should have picked someone else to do the review.

i don't know anything about Gone Home. But a pro reviewer is supposed to discuss the merits or lack thereof of games so people know if they are worth time and money. Personal feelings really should be minimized as much as possible. I mean apparently it's a LGBT game. If you rate it higher and give more credence than it deserves because you feel you are part of the community would be a disservice to the people wanting to know if the game is worth it.

Likewise if you are homophobic and rate it lower and trash it for the same reason you are not a pro reviewer. Yes the content should be mentioned like any game....but you really do need to distance yourself from personal bias if you are paid to give reliable reviews on games. It's just the way it is. Again a blog or special feature might be suited to discussing personal feelings.

#176 Posted by jayd02 (783 posts) -

@jayd02 said:

@LJS9502_basic said:

Eh I don't think critiquing requires one to make social statements. I mean does anyone ever think the GTA series is about being politically correct? That didn't really belong in the review. If one wanted to make a social commentary then a blog or special feature might be the better platform. Besides, if you turn off readers to the reviews on your site....and it seems these two did...then site traffic suffers....which affects ad revenue...which affects the bottom line. And it IS a business.

I will agree that the GTAV review was flawed when she brought about social problems. Those "problems" have been apart of the series for years and they weren't just subjugated to the females; it was also towards the males. Now GTAV was not perfect and didn't deserve a perfect 10 score.

This was the only review I believe Caro really brought her own personal views into a review. I don't count Gone Home because I believe that game was trying to arouse personal feelings into the gamer so its success hindered on whether or not it could achieve that goal. Most of the flack that Caro got was because of her personal life choices which she never brought into her reviews.

Tom was just a very hard critic plan and simple and people just couldn't get with that. I personally like that because we need hard critics. We need someone to nit pick so that the creators know what is wrong and know what is annoying us gamers. I will say Skyward Sword review was a bit flawed and they should have picked someone else to do the review.

i don't know anything about Gone Home. But a pro reviewer is supposed to discuss the merits or lack thereof of games so people know if they are worth time and money. Personal feelings really should be minimized as much as possible. I mean apparently it's a LGBT game. If you rate it higher and give more credence than it deserves because you feel you are part of the community would be a disservice to the people wanting to know if the game is worth it.

Likewise if you are homophobic and rate it lower and trash it for the same reason you are not a pro reviewer. Yes the content should be mentioned like any game....but you really do need to distance yourself from personal bias if you are paid to give reliable reviews on games. It's just the way it is. Again a blog or special feature might be suited to discussing personal feelings.

I can agree with that. I can't make any personal remarks because the game didn't interest me to begin with so I just ignored it

#177 Edited by AmazonTreeBoa (16745 posts) -

The forums are the only part of GS that I use. I don't read any articles, reviews or previews from GS, so I have no clue who these people are or who is left.

#178 Edited by Randolph (10500 posts) -

@AmazonTreeBoa said:

The forums are the only part of GS that I use. I don't read any articles, reviews or previews from GS, so I have no clue who these people are or who is left.

Yep, and they have no clue who we are because they don't use the forums. The stunning disconnect between staff and community is at the root of the problems this site has. Go look at Giant Bomb, the connection between staff and community is a big part of why they are successful and growing, at the exact same time GS is facing mass layoffs and "restructuring".

Giant Bomb still has a premium subscription service, and it's wildly successful. Much of that because people feel a direct connection and relationship with the people who work there. Hell, look at the effect the death of Ryan Davis still has on that community. That is a powerful type of loyalty and dare I say… love that this place could only dream of having at this point.

#179 Edited by ChristianGmr14 (155 posts) -

Sad. I wish both him and her (or him. Not sure how Carolyn likes to be referred to) and everyone else who has been laid off the best of luck. I'm sure that they'll find work elsewhere. Even though I disliked their reviews I still respected their opinions.

That being said, GameSpot is not doing very well, it's the elephant in the room that we all need to address. This site isn't very active, can't say I blame them really. The content is lacking, the reviews seem to be based off of trolling fanboys in System Wars rather than the reviewers genuine opinion, and the community has a lot of immature D-bags. There's some good people and some good things about this site don't get me wrong, but it definitely needs some improvement.

Also nobody was fired. They were laid off, there's a big difference. Perhaps Gamespot can't afford to staff them anymore? (Though now it appears it may have been a walk out).

#180 Posted by LJS9502_basic (150674 posts) -

Sad. I wish both him and her (or him. Not sure how Carolyn likes to be referred to) and everyone else who has been laid off the best of luck. I'm sure that they'll find work elsewhere. Even though I disliked their reviews I still respected their opinions.

That being said, GameSpot is not doing very well, it's the elephant in the room that we all need to address. This site isn't very active, can't say I blame them really. The content is lacking, the reviews seem to be based off of trolling fanboys in System Wars rather than the reviewers genuine opinion, and the community has a lot of immature D-bags. There's some good people and some good things about this site don't get me wrong, but it definitely needs some improvement.

Also nobody was fired. They were laid off, there's a big difference. Perhaps Gamespot can't afford to staff them anymore?

Technically laid off means the company could no longer afford them.....but in the end they are out a job just as if they had been fired. Though if they have any talent they should find work elsewhere. You are correct about the site though. I remember wasting many days here because it was entertaining. Sad to see it die.

#181 Posted by ChristianGmr14 (155 posts) -

@christiangmr14 said:

Sad. I wish both him and her (or him. Not sure how Carolyn likes to be referred to) and everyone else who has been laid off the best of luck. I'm sure that they'll find work elsewhere. Even though I disliked their reviews I still respected their opinions.

That being said, GameSpot is not doing very well, it's the elephant in the room that we all need to address. This site isn't very active, can't say I blame them really. The content is lacking, the reviews seem to be based off of trolling fanboys in System Wars rather than the reviewers genuine opinion, and the community has a lot of immature D-bags. There's some good people and some good things about this site don't get me wrong, but it definitely needs some improvement.

Also nobody was fired. They were laid off, there's a big difference. Perhaps Gamespot can't afford to staff them anymore?

Technically laid off means the company could no longer afford them.....but in the end they are out a job just as if they had been fired. Though if they have any talent they should find work elsewhere. You are correct about the site though. I remember wasting many days here because it was entertaining. Sad to see it die.

Yeah reading some of their tweets it seemed like it was an emotional crazy last few days there. I do wish them the best of luck. And while I disagreed with their reviews I think they're probably good people.

Though I will admit that Tom McSheah was not a very good reviewer, and I'm not saying that because he had different opinions than I did, I'm saying that because most of his reviews seemed like he was never really a gamer at all. It honestly felt like he doesn't know how to play games (like in the case of Skyward Sword). His reviews were full of factual errors to put it another way.

Hopefully GS will turn around. The site is basically dead.

#182 Posted by magicalclick (22544 posts) -

I get the feeling the owner of the site wants to retire the site anyway. I mean. The site layout is so much harder to navigate. The forum is stacked with ridiculous rules. The forum is working poorly with mobile browser when people are using mobile browser more and more. OT and SW are the only active forum, and OT activity is slow recently as well.

And yeah, I don't care much about their reviews anymore.

#183 Edited by toast_burner (21498 posts) -

@toast_burner said:

@lightleggy said:

@dave123321 said:

Light leggy you haven't convinced me that most pro reviewers aren't sincere in their reviews of gone home. So far it just seems like you want others to feel what you felt about the game and are maybe a bit too dismissive about the issues with the user scores and reviews.

Dave, have you played Gone Home?

Because if you have, then it's pretty obvious what the case was, actually totalbiscuit once made a comment about these types of games and why they get such praise. I know TB isn't the best youtuber but he had a good point, check it out if you want.

And really, if you haven't played gone home, you have no way to understand it, you should look more info on the game and on what users have to say about it.

@worlock77 said:

I suspect Lightleggy's reaction over 'Gone Home' is less about the mechanics of the game and more about the LGBT theme of it. Just a hunch.

I have nothing against the LGBT community. My problem with Gone home is that not only did reviewers gave it a free pass because of it being a pro-lgbt game, but they also hailed it as the best thing since sliced bread because they were either afraid to be branded as non-progressive homophobics OR they wanted to be that special reviewer who discovered a hidden gem in gaming and to give the impression that they are really smart and appreciative of art because the game was "3deep5me".

Really, there is no way to understand this hatred if you have not played gone home.

And where is your evidence that they only gave it high reviews because they were scared of backlash? Has it ever occurred to you that maybe they actually liked the game? Just because you didn't like it that doesn't mean it's objectively bad.

And yes I have played the game so don't pull your "you haven't played it so you can't understand" nonsense.

It's not just me who didn't liked it, a large majority of users didnt as well, and this isnt a GTA or TLOU case where some people say "oh reviewers gave it a 9 but I think this game is just an 8" or vice versa. Reviewers gave gone home scores of 9.0-9.5 while the large majority of users gave it scores of 1.0-5.0

And you played it so you know what kind of scam it was. A lot of peole also go on forums trying to say the game is great because its "3deep" which is really sad because it gives you an idea of how low the story bar is set for on video games.

Again, go check metacritic to see just how much the difference between the critics score and user score is. The majority of steam reviews also rate it as "not recommended".

Why does it matter how many people gave it a low score? Personally I thought it was one of the best games I played from 2013.

You don't seem to understand that reviews are individual peoples opinions. What the masses think is irrelevant.

#184 Posted by Randolph (10500 posts) -

Technically laid off means the company could no longer afford them.....but in the end they are out a job just as if they had been fired. Though if they have any talent they should find work elsewhere. You are correct about the site though. I remember wasting many days here because it was entertaining. Sad to see it die.

Laid off isn't the same thing now, but if some of your colleagues who the same work were not laid off, it's still ultimately because you weren't as good at what you do as someone else. I'm sure Carolyn can find work at a place like Kotaku. I'm not sure anyone would be willing to take on Tom… MAYBE Destructoid if they really feel the need to replace Sterling. (they've been lacking a shock jock since he left) But he isn't anywhere near as entertaining or charismatic as Jim, so maybe that wouldn't work out either.

I'd be willing to let him bag groceries at the store if he relocates to Georgia. :)

#185 Posted by bobaban (10558 posts) -

Fantastic! I'm sooooo glad to see Carolyn go, that guy was the worst. Stupid agenda where it did not belong - GTAV.

#186 Posted by bobaban (10558 posts) -

@Randolph said:

@RoboCopISJesus said:

THey refused to get payed off and not give movie-games and generic shit a 9.0 or 10.0, so they were fired.

I can't remember the last time a movie game got a 9 from any site that is actually relevant. (IGN, GS, Giant Bomb, Destructoid, etc.) I think they were laid off because the company took a hard look at who has a good personality that brings in and keeps customers, and who is a negative and divisive personality that can cause only occasional spikes in activity, but in the long term actively drives away customers.

Yup if you were there in the comments when the reviews were posted, alot of hate was going on for GTAV and TLoU reviewer comments. And it was justified hate!

#187 Posted by toast_burner (21498 posts) -

It seems most of the hate Carolyn comes from transphobia and sexism rather than any rational reason.

#188 Posted by LJS9502_basic (150674 posts) -

It seems most of the hate Carolyn comes from transphobia and sexism rather than any rational reason.

Most of the complaints I've seen have been about the reviews....

#189 Posted by toast_burner (21498 posts) -

@toast_burner said:

It seems most of the hate Carolyn comes from transphobia and sexism rather than any rational reason.

Most of the complaints I've seen have been about the reviews....

And their complaints are that she writes the reviews from the perspective of a female. Should women or LGBT not have a voice in game journalism?

Of course their are people who do have genuine reasons to not like her reviews. You also need to remember that there is a difference between hate and disagreement.

#190 Posted by LJS9502_basic (150674 posts) -

@LJS9502_basic said:

@toast_burner said:

It seems most of the hate Carolyn comes from transphobia and sexism rather than any rational reason.

Most of the complaints I've seen have been about the reviews....

And their complaints are that she writes the reviews from the perspective of a female. Should women or LGBT not have a voice in game journalism?

Of course their are people who do have genuine reasons to not like her reviews. You also need to remember that there is a difference between hate and disagreement.

Eh....that's a stretch. If someone is reading a review what they want is how the game functions, what limitations it has etc...the game mechanics.....no one wants to read someone's personal values about the game. I mean GTA is NOT a game that is ever intended to be PC. Going into GTA most gamers know what to expect from the story. I mean if the reviewer was railing against how cops are able to be targets and basing his written review on the social ramifications of that then I think people would be just as turned off.

And FYI girls do like GTA as written. It's kind of silly to expect them to all fit into one category just because one individual thinks that.

#191 Posted by toast_burner (21498 posts) -

@toast_burner said:

@LJS9502_basic said:

@toast_burner said:

It seems most of the hate Carolyn comes from transphobia and sexism rather than any rational reason.

Most of the complaints I've seen have been about the reviews....

And their complaints are that she writes the reviews from the perspective of a female. Should women or LGBT not have a voice in game journalism?

Of course their are people who do have genuine reasons to not like her reviews. You also need to remember that there is a difference between hate and disagreement.

Eh....that's a stretch. If someone is reading a review what they want is how the game functions, what limitations it has etc...the game mechanics.....no one wants to read someone's personal values about the game. I mean GTA is NOT a game that is ever intended to be PC. Going into GTA most gamers know what to expect from the story. I mean if the reviewer was railing against how cops are able to be targets and basing his written review on the social ramifications of that then I think people would be just as turned off.

And FYI girls do like GTA as written. It's kind of silly to expect them to all fit into one category just because one individual thinks that.

You don't seem to understand what a review is. All reviews are peoples personal opinions.

Reviews are not, never have been, and never will be just simple lists of what features a game has.

#192 Edited by LJS9502_basic (150674 posts) -

@toast_burner said:

You don't seem to understand what a review is. All reviews are peoples personal opinions.

Reviews are not, never have been, and never will be just simple lists of what features a game has.

Hint: There is a difference between one reviewing game mechanics etc and pushing social opinion in a review. FYI you seem very confused.

#193 Posted by toast_burner (21498 posts) -

@toast_burner said:

@LJS9502_basic said:

@toast_burner said:

@LJS9502_basic said:

@toast_burner said:

It seems most of the hate Carolyn comes from transphobia and sexism rather than any rational reason.

Most of the complaints I've seen have been about the reviews....

And their complaints are that she writes the reviews from the perspective of a female. Should women or LGBT not have a voice in game journalism?

Of course their are people who do have genuine reasons to not like her reviews. You also need to remember that there is a difference between hate and disagreement.

Eh....that's a stretch. If someone is reading a review what they want is how the game functions, what limitations it has etc...the game mechanics.....no one wants to read someone's personal values about the game. I mean GTA is NOT a game that is ever intended to be PC. Going into GTA most gamers know what to expect from the story. I mean if the reviewer was railing against how cops are able to be targets and basing his written review on the social ramifications of that then I think people would be just as turned off.

And FYI girls do like GTA as written. It's kind of silly to expect them to all fit into one category just because one individual thinks that.

You don't seem to understand what a review is. All reviews are peoples personal opinions.

Reviews are not, never have been, and never will be just simple lists of what features a game has.

Hint: There is a difference between one reviewing game mechanics etc and pushing social opinion in a review. FYI you seem very confused.

So if a game is about hanging Christians, but is actually a well made game. would you give it a positive review or a negative review?

Story is a big part of games. One of my favourite games of all time (Deadly Premonition) has terrible gameplay. So by your logic that game should have been panned by everybody including those who actually liked the game. You shouldn't give a game you hate a high score just because it's put together well, nor should you give a game you love a negative score just because it's rough around the edges. That would be much more misleading to the public.

#194 Posted by LJS9502_basic (150674 posts) -

@LJS9502_basic said:

Hint: There is a difference between one reviewing game mechanics etc and pushing social opinion in a review. FYI you seem very confused.

So if a game is about hanging Christians, but is actually a well made game. would you give it a positive review or a negative review?

Story is a big part of games. One of my favourite games of all time (Deadly Premonition) has terrible gameplay. So by your logic that game should have been panned by everybody including those who actually liked the game. You shouldn't give a game you hate a high score just because it's put together well, nor should you give a game you love a negative score just because it's rough around the edges. That would be much more misleading to the public.

I'd say terrible game play rates a low score and a harsh review. Those who like terrible game play can surely play the game. If one is pro reviewer one should use a little personal bias as possible. I'd like to think they remove the personal in a review but that is probably optimistic. However, if they are scoring and reviewing with a strong bias then they are in the wrong field. The review is more or less a guide for interested individuals to decide if it's worth time and money or not. I have no respect for anyone in the field that uses their personal soap box either for good or bad reviews. Why do think there is an outcry if it's suspected ad dollars influence reviews?

I don't like FPS'. Were I paid to review games and had to review that genre I'd take my personal feelings out and see how the game played, how it looked, was it fun, etc. That is what I would tell the readers. Not how I feel about the genre. That isn't what I am paid to do. If I want to know a personal opinion on a game...I'll ask. Hey toast...did you like the new X game? But in reading a gaming sites reviews....I want professionalism.

I would hope you would as well. I suspect if the cause wasn't something you championed you would feel differently about the matter. I mean if an LGBT game was reviewed by an ultra conservative and they let some personal opinions in the review to the negative.....yeah I can see you have a different opinion about that in reviews.

#195 Posted by toast_burner (21498 posts) -

@toast_burner said:

@LJS9502_basic said:

Hint: There is a difference between one reviewing game mechanics etc and pushing social opinion in a review. FYI you seem very confused.

So if a game is about hanging Christians, but is actually a well made game. would you give it a positive review or a negative review?

Story is a big part of games. One of my favourite games of all time (Deadly Premonition) has terrible gameplay. So by your logic that game should have been panned by everybody including those who actually liked the game. You shouldn't give a game you hate a high score just because it's put together well, nor should you give a game you love a negative score just because it's rough around the edges. That would be much more misleading to the public.

I'd say terrible game play rates a low score and a harsh review. Those who like terrible game play can surely play the game. If one is pro reviewer one should use a little personal bias as possible. I'd like to think they remove the personal in a review but that is probably optimistic. However, if they are scoring and reviewing with a strong bias then they are in the wrong field. The review is more or less a guide for interested individuals to decide if it's worth time and money or not. I have no respect for anyone in the field that uses their personal soap box either for good or bad reviews. Why do think there is an outcry if it's suspected ad dollars influence reviews?

I don't like FPS'. Were I paid to review games and had to review that genre I'd take my personal feelings out and see how the game played, how it looked, was it fun, etc. That is what I would tell the readers. Not how I feel about the genre. That isn't what I am paid to do. If I want to know a personal opinion on a game...I'll ask. Hey toast...did you like the new X game? But in reading a gaming sites reviews....I want professionalism.

I would hope you would as well. I suspect if the cause wasn't something you championed you would feel differently about the matter. I mean if an LGBT game was reviewed by an ultra conservative and they let some personal opinions in the review to the negative.....yeah I can see you have a different opinion about that in reviews.

Like I said all reviews have personal bias. They aren't in the wrong field, you just want the field to be something it isn't.

What matters is if you though the game was good. Sometimes that's from the gameplay, sometimes it's the story. Reviewers aren't magical fairies that are immune from bias. The reason people go to reviews isn't because they are good at removing bias but because they are good at explaining their bias. If you asked me if deadly Premonition is worth buying all I could say to you is "hell yes" I'm not talented enough to write a two page long review on why I think it's great. Reviewers on the other hand are writers who are able to write out their thoughts in a communicable way.

If a reviewer gives a game a negative score because the game is full of fetch quests, and I'm a mad man that loves fetch quests. Then based on that review I can tell I that I would like that game despite the reviewer giving it a low score at the end. This applies to positive reviews as well. Carolyn gave Gone Home a good review because she liked the story and it's emphasis on exploration. If you don't like teen romance stories or games that have little gameplay in the traditional sense, then you could tell even by that positive review that it's not going to be a game you will enjoy.

I have a feeling you don't even read game reviews. You just look at the score and get annoyed if it doesn't reflect your opinion.

#196 Edited by fgjnfgh (2630 posts) -
@KHAndAnime said:

@Jebus213 said:

Good, Tom Mcshea is a piece of shit.

I've been on Gamespot for well over a decade - Tom McShea and Carolyn are the only ones who put out remarkably poor reviews on a consistent basis. I'm excited to see some new faces.

I am really happy that they are out. McShea wants like an AAA game that comes once every decade so he can be pleased and Petit is way over sensitive, she relates her personal life with video game articles and news. Offensive this, offensive that, the same goes for Mcshea. I was laughing when McShea wrote an article during E3 2014 about the female hostage in Tom Clancy Rainbow Six and how it showed the stereotype female part as weak as always.

#197 Posted by LJS9502_basic (150674 posts) -

@LJS9502_basic said:

I'd say terrible game play rates a low score and a harsh review. Those who like terrible game play can surely play the game. If one is pro reviewer one should use a little personal bias as possible. I'd like to think they remove the personal in a review but that is probably optimistic. However, if they are scoring and reviewing with a strong bias then they are in the wrong field. The review is more or less a guide for interested individuals to decide if it's worth time and money or not. I have no respect for anyone in the field that uses their personal soap box either for good or bad reviews. Why do think there is an outcry if it's suspected ad dollars influence reviews?

I don't like FPS'. Were I paid to review games and had to review that genre I'd take my personal feelings out and see how the game played, how it looked, was it fun, etc. That is what I would tell the readers. Not how I feel about the genre. That isn't what I am paid to do. If I want to know a personal opinion on a game...I'll ask. Hey toast...did you like the new X game? But in reading a gaming sites reviews....I want professionalism.

I would hope you would as well. I suspect if the cause wasn't something you championed you would feel differently about the matter. I mean if an LGBT game was reviewed by an ultra conservative and they let some personal opinions in the review to the negative.....yeah I can see you have a different opinion about that in reviews.

Like I said all reviews have personal bias. They aren't in the wrong field, you just want the field to be something it isn't.

What matters is if you though the game was good. Sometimes that's from the gameplay, sometimes it's the story. Reviewers aren't magical fairies that are immune from bias. The reason people go to reviews isn't because they are good at removing bias but because they are good at explaining their bias. If you asked me if deadly Premonition is worth buying all I could say to you is "hell yes" I'm not talented enough to write a two page long review on why I think it's great. Reviewers on the other hand are writers who are able to write out their thoughts in a communicable way.

If a reviewer gives a game a negative score because the game is full of fetch quests, and I'm a mad man that loves fetch quests. Then based on that review I can tell I that I would like that game despite the reviewer giving it a low score at the end. This applies to positive reviews as well. Carolyn gave Gone Home a good review because she liked the story and it's emphasis on exploration. If you don't like teen romance stories or games that have little gameplay in the traditional sense, then you could tell even by that positive review that it's not going to be a game you will enjoy.

I have a feeling you don't even read game reviews. You just look at the score and get annoyed if it doesn't reflect your opinion.

You know you frequently make assumptions without any basis. I don't pay attention to scores per se only in that are they in top third or not. I read the review to see what works in the game or if there are problems.

Story? It pays to have a good story in a good game....but if the game is broken or annoying to play then I doubt anyone is going to torture themselves to find out the ending.

A good reviewer should not have obviously on display bias. I'm sorry but that is just not professional. Part of being professional is reviewing games fairly. And if you are allowing your bias to seep into the review then you are not professional. Yes...one can see if the reviewer enjoyed the game or not by the words they chose and and the slant of the article. That is not however "bias" but a conclusion of the game itself...and important to the review.

Let's talk about fetch quests then shall we. A good reviewer will notate the games is filled with fetch quests. He can even add that detracted to the game enjoyment for himself.

However, it should in no way take away from the score or the rest of the review if that is the only issue had. If it's superb game play, technically well made, an interesting story, and great graphics then he should be able to recommend the game. It's not wrong to mention something like fetch quests being a huge factor as some people do decide to skip those games. I think you are misunderstanding what I mean (and some others here as well) as personal bias.

The GTA review for instance shouldn't have been marred by social commentary. Yes it's okay to say that the game doesn't treat people very well......and really that goes for both male and female characters....it's a little disingenuous to just mention women by the way. But I really don't think anyone expects that in a GTA game. If it was the first game then maybe it's imperative to mention how characters are treated....but I don't necessarily agree with that. Some times things go without saying in genres. And that's fine. The rating on the box is descriptive. So if it offends you.....and I hope parents read them....then don't buy the game.

I really just don't think one should be on a soap box when reviewing. And judging by other comments here it seems I'm not alone in that. It may also have factored into who was laid off from the site as well. Who knows.

#198 Posted by toast_burner (21498 posts) -

@toast_burner said:

@LJS9502_basic said:

I'd say terrible game play rates a low score and a harsh review. Those who like terrible game play can surely play the game. If one is pro reviewer one should use a little personal bias as possible. I'd like to think they remove the personal in a review but that is probably optimistic. However, if they are scoring and reviewing with a strong bias then they are in the wrong field. The review is more or less a guide for interested individuals to decide if it's worth time and money or not. I have no respect for anyone in the field that uses their personal soap box either for good or bad reviews. Why do think there is an outcry if it's suspected ad dollars influence reviews?

I don't like FPS'. Were I paid to review games and had to review that genre I'd take my personal feelings out and see how the game played, how it looked, was it fun, etc. That is what I would tell the readers. Not how I feel about the genre. That isn't what I am paid to do. If I want to know a personal opinion on a game...I'll ask. Hey toast...did you like the new X game? But in reading a gaming sites reviews....I want professionalism.

I would hope you would as well. I suspect if the cause wasn't something you championed you would feel differently about the matter. I mean if an LGBT game was reviewed by an ultra conservative and they let some personal opinions in the review to the negative.....yeah I can see you have a different opinion about that in reviews.

Like I said all reviews have personal bias. They aren't in the wrong field, you just want the field to be something it isn't.

What matters is if you though the game was good. Sometimes that's from the gameplay, sometimes it's the story. Reviewers aren't magical fairies that are immune from bias. The reason people go to reviews isn't because they are good at removing bias but because they are good at explaining their bias. If you asked me if deadly Premonition is worth buying all I could say to you is "hell yes" I'm not talented enough to write a two page long review on why I think it's great. Reviewers on the other hand are writers who are able to write out their thoughts in a communicable way.

If a reviewer gives a game a negative score because the game is full of fetch quests, and I'm a mad man that loves fetch quests. Then based on that review I can tell I that I would like that game despite the reviewer giving it a low score at the end. This applies to positive reviews as well. Carolyn gave Gone Home a good review because she liked the story and it's emphasis on exploration. If you don't like teen romance stories or games that have little gameplay in the traditional sense, then you could tell even by that positive review that it's not going to be a game you will enjoy.

I have a feeling you don't even read game reviews. You just look at the score and get annoyed if it doesn't reflect your opinion.

You know you frequently make assumptions without any basis. I don't pay attention to scores per se only in that are they in top third or not. I read the review to see what works in the game or if there are problems.

Story? It pays to have a good story in a good game....but if the game is broken or annoying to play then I doubt anyone is going to torture themselves to find out the ending.

A good reviewer should not have obviously on display bias. I'm sorry but that is just not professional. Part of being professional is reviewing games fairly. And if you are allowing your bias to seep into the review then you are not professional. Yes...one can see if the reviewer enjoyed the game or not by the words they chose and and the slant of the article. That is not however "bias" but a conclusion of the game itself...and important to the review.

Let's talk about fetch quests then shall we. A good reviewer will notate the games is filled with fetch quests. He can even add that detracted to the game

enjoyment for himself.

However, it should in no way take away from the score or the rest of the review if that is the only issue had. If it's superb game play, technically well made, an interesting story, and great graphics then he should be able to recommend the game. It's not wrong to mention something like fetch quests being a huge factor as some people do decide to skip those games. I think you are misunderstanding what I mean (and some others here as well) as personal bias.

The GTA review for instance shouldn't have been marred by social commentary. Yes it's okay to say that the game doesn't treat people very well......and really that goes for both male and female characters....it's a little disingenuous to just mention women by the way. But I really don't think anyone expects that in a GTA game. If it was the first game then maybe it's imperative to mention how characters are treated....but I don't necessarily agree with that. Some times things go without saying in genres. And that's fine. The rating on the box is descriptive. So if it offends you.....and I hope parents read them....then don't buy the game.

I really just don't think one should be on a soap box when reviewing. And judging by other comments here it seems I'm not alone in that. It may also have factored into who was laid off from the site as well. Who knows.

You're problem is that you don't seem to understand that what you see as torture other people may see as fun and vice versa. How can you objectively say that a game has good gameplay when that is objectively subjective?

It's worth pointing out that the part of her GTA review about misogyny was an incredibly small paragraph, if anything the problem of her review was she didn't go on about it enough. If a game makes you feel uncomfortable while playing it shouldn't you point that out in your review? It would be dishonest not to.

What you think is irrelevant. The reviews are not what you think they are, never have been, never will be.

#199 Posted by LJS9502_basic (150674 posts) -

@LJS9502_basic said:

You know you frequently make assumptions without any basis. I don't pay attention to scores per se only in that are they in top third or not. I read the review to see what works in the game or if there are problems.

Story? It pays to have a good story in a good game....but if the game is broken or annoying to play then I doubt anyone is going to torture themselves to find out the ending.

A good reviewer should not have obviously on display bias. I'm sorry but that is just not professional. Part of being professional is reviewing games fairly. And if you are allowing your bias to seep into the review then you are not professional. Yes...one can see if the reviewer enjoyed the game or not by the words they chose and and the slant of the article. That is not however "bias" but a conclusion of the game itself...and important to the review.

Let's talk about fetch quests then shall we. A good reviewer will notate the games is filled with fetch quests. He can even add that detracted to the game

enjoyment for himself.

However, it should in no way take away from the score or the rest of the review if that is the only issue had. If it's superb game play, technically well made, an interesting story, and great graphics then he should be able to recommend the game. It's not wrong to mention something like fetch quests being a huge factor as some people do decide to skip those games. I think you are misunderstanding what I mean (and some others here as well) as personal bias.

The GTA review for instance shouldn't have been marred by social commentary. Yes it's okay to say that the game doesn't treat people very well......and really that goes for both male and female characters....it's a little disingenuous to just mention women by the way. But I really don't think anyone expects that in a GTA game. If it was the first game then maybe it's imperative to mention how characters are treated....but I don't necessarily agree with that. Some times things go without saying in genres. And that's fine. The rating on the box is descriptive. So if it offends you.....and I hope parents read them....then don't buy the game.

I really just don't think one should be on a soap box when reviewing. And judging by other comments here it seems I'm not alone in that. It may also have factored into who was laid off from the site as well. Who knows.

You're problem is that you don't seem to understand that what you see as torture other people may see as fun and vice versa. How can you objectively say that a game has good gameplay when that is objectively subjective?

It's worth pointing out that the part of her GTA review about misogyny was an incredibly small paragraph, if anything the problem of her review was she didn't go on about it enough. If a game makes you feel uncomfortable while playing it shouldn't you point that out in your review? It would be dishonest not to.

What you think is irrelevant. The reviews are not what you think they are, never have been, never will be.

Uh some people probably liked ET and Superman 64. That doesn't mean the reviewer shouldn't be honest. You are missing the point. Not everyone is going to agree with reviews. The reviewers job is to give the reader a professional review removing as much personal bias as possible and rating the game on it's own merit. The last few words are key. It doesn't matter that you liked a game with sub par game play. Any one is free to play any game they wish.....the review doesn't force you to play/not play a game. I'm not sure why you are even bringing this up.

The second point about feeling uncomfortable? That's a personal issue. And I would recommend instead of reviewing a game and using that as part of the review maybe telling who assigns the games you wouldn't be comfortable playing the game and think it might be reflected in your review which is particularly fair to the reader nor the game. GTA is not an unknown property. It wasn't a surprise what that game would entail.

I'm giving you the basis of professional reviews. And for a site that wants traffic how individuals feel about their reviews is in fact relevant., have always been, and will always be. They perform a service that depends on traffic. We are consumers. That is such a simple concept it shouldn't need to be explained to you.

#200 Posted by soulless4now (41372 posts) -

And GS keeps on falling, but I don't read reviews on here anymore so I'm not heartbroken.