Men of War Review Pulled

  • By JusticeCovert, GameSpot
  • Posted Mar 25, 2009 10:13 am PT

According to a recent thread in our Men of War forum, the review that we posted for the game yesterday contained a number of factual inaccuracies. We're looking into it and, while we figure out our next course of action, the review has been pulled from the site. I'll update this entry when I have...

According to a recent thread in our Men of War forum, the review that we posted for the game yesterday contained a number of factual inaccuracies. We're looking into it and, while we figure out our next course of action, the review has been pulled from the site. I'll update this entry when I have more information to share.

EDIT:Replacement Men of War review is now live.

33 Comments

  • Mudvayne84

    Posted May 22, 2009 4:02 pm PT

    ALL: Its a human error, let it GO. All kinds of respected publications make mistakes from time to time. What is wrong with some of you guys....geez

    Kind of funny to see some people who probably have a free account here "demand" an apology....wtf? They don't owe you anything... you come to this site of your own free will

  • W1ckedS0ul

    Posted May 5, 2009 8:54 pm PT

    Thousand of people would dream to do his job and he can't do it accuratly! xD

  • W1ckedS0ul

    Posted May 5, 2009 8:53 pm PT

    Haha funny!

  • vietboi89

    Posted May 5, 2009 6:02 pm PT

    regardless this is the worst economy to do a crappy job

  • genaciv

    Posted Mar 30, 2009 2:31 am PT

    They should hire that guy to write a bunch of reviews to be posted on April 1st

  • Mistressweb

    Posted Mar 29, 2009 7:31 pm PT

    GS really earned my respect by pulling this review and accepting their mistake. Thank you GS!!!!
    Oh and every RTS fan should get MoW, best ever

  • wiifun

    Posted Mar 27, 2009 5:52 am PT

    This is strange. GS has reliable reviews..

  • Xaovagon

    Posted Mar 27, 2009 3:52 am PT

    uh-oh who is going to get fired now???

  • SeanyBoy21 posted Mar 26, 2009 6:32 pm PT (does not meet display criteria. sign in to show)

    SeanyBoy21

    Posted Mar 26, 2009 6:32 pm PT (hide)

    i never trust GS for reviews. Love the boards and news though.

  • Genocide6sic6

    Posted Mar 26, 2009 2:02 pm PT

    GS reviews are usually "spot on". get it? huh? huh? HA! no.

    Seriously, I've trusted their opinion for over 10 years. Few other places have the krum to call shenanigans with certain low-quality, high profile games.
    By not letting this particular instance just blow over, well that's just a testament to their dedication.

    To those of you who are still convinced the Gerts/K&L thing was a edios/gspot conspiracy....you watch too much television. Let it go, you've beaten the horse into 5430 different pieces.

  • Karimcheese

    Posted Mar 26, 2009 1:34 pm PT

    @JusticeCovert: Sorry for having an opinion, but I wasn't necessarily talking about Gamespot in particular. How do you know I wasn't talking about IGN or Gameinformer? I was just making a general statement!

  • JusticeCovert GameSpot staff member

    Posted Mar 26, 2009 12:40 pm PT

    @krazyorange: You're at the wrong site if you want to complain about reviews being posted without first being checked by other editors. Every single review is QA'd by myself and the rest of the core reviews team (that's Tom, Kevin, and Chris) as well as other editors before it's published. In fact, the review in question was already rewritten quite extensively and posted a day later than planned as a result of our first round of QA. Unfortunately, it's not always possible for other members of the team to spend much time with games that they're not reviewing themselves because, frankly, there are far more games coming out than we have hours to spare. So yeah, on this occasion "we were wrong" - our review was inaccurate, and we hope to have a new review posted before the end of the week.

    Also, I should add that the freelance reviewer (who as someone pointed out is new), was added to the team specifically because he's a PC gamer first and foremost. @Karimcheese: You also are at the wrong site if you want to complain about that sort of thing.

  • pwnzord

    Posted Mar 26, 2009 11:49 am PT

    @ dark_surge

    No it's not that they said they were wrong, it is that they pulled this review so they wouldn't look stupid. The result is still the same that the review was removed, but that's a far cry from being concerned about admitting errors because they were concerned about providing you with "quality content".

  • AzureWind213

    Posted Mar 26, 2009 9:24 am PT

    wow... I smell disciplinary action ^_^

  • dark_surge

    Posted Mar 26, 2009 8:29 am PT

    Personally, I think it takes a good deal of guts to go and say "We were wrong" so I commend them for their decision to pull the review in order to provide us with quality content. Everybody makes mistakes, it's just human nature. So thank you Gamespot.

  • Karimcheese

    Posted Mar 26, 2009 8:09 am PT

    I truly believe certain game ratings are given to please the companies that made them. At least some of them are!

  • Gollygee33

    Posted Mar 26, 2009 6:04 am PT

    Bummer! Justice I would hate to be in your shoes right now.

  • SavoyPrime

    Posted Mar 26, 2009 5:50 am PT

    Wow! After checking that thread out, it's like whoever reviewed that game didn't even take time to seriously play the game.

  • dyaballikl posted Mar 26, 2009 12:24 am PT (does not meet display criteria. sign in to show)

    dyaballikl

    Posted Mar 26, 2009 12:24 am PT (hide)

    @JusticeCovert no, i was being sarcastic. i think the kane and lynch review was perfectly accurate and acceptable, which is why everyone was upset about gerstmanngate

  • Pelm

    Posted Mar 25, 2009 11:29 pm PT

    umm krazyorange do yourself a favor don't complain to us about your problems complain to the game spot employee who wrote the review, we and I personally don't care to hear you go off in a rampant tangent just because you're upset or hurt by this.

  • LordAndrew

    Posted Mar 25, 2009 8:51 pm PT

    The Men of War review was written by Daniel Shannon. No, I don't know who that is either. This is the only review he's written for GameSpot.

  • krazyorange

    Posted Mar 25, 2009 7:13 pm PT

    Option B: Hire a reviewer who gives a damn about PC gaming. Hire a reviewer who wasn't weaned on console schlock and who honestly has a rich history of PC games in his or her past. Hire a reviewer who loves and cherishes the PC as a gaming platform yet has the skills necessary to critically examine a game based on factual merit.

    Don't hire a reviewer who cannot figure out how to open a manual, learn basic controls, or who has the patience of a hummingbird. Before such a high-profile site posts a review on a much-anticipated game, why not screen it by a second reviewer who has also played the game? Would that honestly be too challenging a task? Hell, I could think of a dozen Gamespot users who would be proud and pleased to undertake such an endeavor. It's nonsense to post a review with so many errors (even if it was removed); it's a clear indication how little attention is given to the PC and gaming on this site that not one other Gamespot employee reviewed the document before it was unleashed. I demand a formal apology.

  • Stevo_the_gamer

    Posted Mar 25, 2009 6:49 pm PT

    Interesting to see you jump to conclusion assuming all that I see is the numerical value placed upon the game itself -- I don't limit myself to such nonsense, don't assume that's the direction I took.

    So, Absolutely not. One of the reviewer's main complaints was the MAKO. The reviewer clearly stated that MAKO vehicle's turret could not rotate either up or down, and accused it of being inaccurate. This is a flat-out lie. Would a reviewer accuse a shooter of being "inaccurate" when the gun is fired from the hip? Such a mention is quite moot. The reviewer never mentioned the turret itself can "zoom in" and in which case, when fired... the accuracy is damn near perfect. Other mentions including mentioning the thrasher, even though such encounters are extraordinarily rare, but the review never mentions such and leads the reader to believe that nearly on every planet they're encounter such. Again, moot complaint... even though an entire paragraph is dedicated to complaining about it.

  • maverick_76

    Posted Mar 25, 2009 6:20 pm PT

    Hopefully this review will be better after the revisions.

  • spazzx625Site moderator posted Mar 25, 2009 3:36 pm PT (does not meet display criteria. sign in to show)

    spazzx625 Site moderator

    Posted Mar 25, 2009 3:36 pm PT (hide)

    @Stevo_the_gamer - what factual inaccuracies were in the Mass Effect review. I just read it again and I don't see any. I suspect the 'factual inaccuracy' you speak of is that you think the game deserved a higher score...

  • Stevo_the_gamer

    Posted Mar 25, 2009 1:29 pm PT

    Mass Effect's review contained poorly written material and factual inaccuracies yet was never revised. Pity.

  • JusticeCovert GameSpot staff member

    Posted Mar 25, 2009 11:38 am PT

    @dyaballikl Our reviewers aren't under pressure from anyone where scores are concerned, and if you believe the Kane & Lynch score was "factually inaccurate" I'm not sure why you're *still* bringing up the reviewer whose score that was. Move on.

  • nurse_tsunami

    Posted Mar 25, 2009 11:26 am PT

    It seemed odd that Gamespot was the lowest review score of the game on metacritic when most sites gave it a much higher score.

  • finalcross

    Posted Mar 25, 2009 11:21 am PT

    Can you tell us who wrote the original review? Does anyone know who wrote that review?

  • dyaballikl

    Posted Mar 25, 2009 11:05 am PT

    Why not just pull the kane and lynch review because the score was "factually inaccurate?"
    Or you could just hire back a great reviewer who did their job damn well no matter what sort of adverse pressure was placed on them. Your call.

advertisement

Hot Stories

Newsmakers

Featured Stories

Submit News

Got tips? Send them in!

Related Game

Men of War Boxshot
Men of War

Game Stats

  • Rank:
    803 of 79,397
    (up by 32)
    PC Rank:
    295 of 12,650
    Highest Rank:
    6 in 2009
    Tracking:
    623 Track It»
    Wishlists:
    336 Wish It»
  • Users Now Playing:
    80
  • Number of Players:

    1 Player, 16 Online | Offline Modes: Competitive, Cooperative, Team Oriented | Online Modes: Competitive, Cooperative, Team Oriented

  • Top 5 User Tags:
    1. men of war
    2. 1c
    3. 505 games
    4. best way
    5. rts
  • Mature Rating Description

    Titles rated M (Mature) have content that may be suitable for persons ages 17 and older. Titles in this category may contain intense violence, blood and gore, sexual content and/or strong language. Learn more

Full Game Details »Close

Related Games

Recent News

See All News »

Site Blogs