I'm going to briefly state the obvious two points regarding the union being removed. First, to my fellow members who think that it was done out of fear or instutional paranoia about us "hurting" them, I see where you're coming from, but you underestimate how easy it is to just be petty when you run websites/networks. I know, I've been on both sides of that fence. I don't know who was spamming admins, but I know that personal conduct should be handled personally, and not through group punishment. As a VERY young union with only 55 members, I find it surprising that a sufficient number of those members acted in a way that would lead to admins shutting down the union. As far as the discourse within the union, I'd say that when an admin posts on a union board, and doesn't like the reception (especially when the post amounts to a very polite **** you, this is how it is) they should act the part of the mature administrator and... not post anymore... or contact union leaders.

That aside, it doesn't really matter, as it's abundantly clear that the decision regarding the review system will stay until the next reorg, sufficient people leave that it hits the purse, or permanantly (in which case, who cares, those of us who find that intolerable will no longer be paying, and it's hard to complain about a free service). It is unfortunate that members of the union acted in a manner which led to it's removal, and it's unfortunate that most of the moderation and administration of this (as with so many user-content-driven) site(s) is amateurish at best.

One idea I've heard over and over again in private discussions, in the union, and elsewhere is "Why not make the whole thing optional". Much like the different gamespot skins it would be a cinch to make toggle between the old and new system.It's not a perfect solution, because most people on both sides of the debate(myself included) seem to either like, or at least not dislike, the new emblams. Given that, having reviewers generate the score in the classic fashion, would be quite easy. Then, for the purposes of the "new"choice,either have them generate a second score, or justround up or down to the nearest .5 increment and omit the criteria. IfGamespot did that,I'd say that all same, material opposition tothe new system would evaporate.

This wouldalso allow gamespot to see what people chose most often: the classic look, or the new review look (although I'd reccomend leaving the emblams in both versions). That would give far better data than apoll, the forumsor anything else. Frankly, if the editorial staff cared about thewhat it's users actually want asopposed totheir own "concept", they'd make an option like this available.Its sensible from a very basic point ofview as well: you get to ADD to the site, rather than replace... and it's not as though you're addingmuch work to achieve that end. I'd be very interested to hearwhy that was never attempted before the new system was shoved down everyone's throats and the old removed.

Finally, with the data as to which option people are using to view reviews,Gamespot couldgo back to the old system, keep theoptional two-choice system, or go entirely to the new system ifthe vast majorityare using it. Other than arrogance, a lack ofregard for the customer, or purebloody-mindedness I can't imagine why this shouldn't be attempted given the gravity of the change being attempted, and the amount ofnegative feedback.

I'm sorry but why the hell are we still bringing up this subject? Female video game players have been around since forever, and just because there's a male dominance it doesn't mean that anyone should treat female ones any different, because they aren't. I find it ridiculous that some people seem to see it as something special whenever they come across a female playing games. Some people like playing them, others don't, that's a personal preference and has nothing to do with ones gender.

Just my opinion, please don't take it the wrong way. May the games treat you well, everyone.

guisepppe

I'd say that's right on the money theere guiseppe. I'd say that this "female gamer" thing is really a "women online" thing. Having been on mIrc (in non chat environs) the smart women didn't tell the avg person that they WERE female for fear of sweaty, pimple-faced youths cyber-hitting on them. Perhaps sensible female gamers do the same thing, or perhaps the subject of gender rarely comes up in a context where it's TOTALLY MEANINGLESS!!!

When someone claims (remember the first law of the internet: male until proven female) that they are female online, a scene usually begins to unfold reminiscent of the opening of 2001: A space Odyssey with the woman as the monolith, and the male gamers/internet users as the chimps exploring it like a totally unknown entity. I've been gaming for a hell of a long time, and in that time I've always played alongside females (in real life, and later, online) without gender being even a REMOTE isssue, except when gawking teenyboppers start to e-flirt. Frankly, I don't see why the female gaming contingent needs to constantly stress that they are competative, and not just playing every iteration of harvest moon. Unless you're a chauvanist or a child, the concept that women are as competative as men isn't news, and doesn't need to be endlessly justified by our female gaming counterparts.

Much as Jynx_XIII said... it's pretty simple. I just got my subscription renewal notice in my email, and if things stay the way they are, I'll switch from the "5 years paying for gamespot" column to the cancelled subscription end. I suspect that will be the pattern for a lot of people. Virtually every time I've tried to constructively critique the system, I get modded, the threads are juggled around, and then the feedback from the staff is zilch. For people who say this is a handful of complaints, they may be forgetting the 1800+ people who posted on the original news article, MOST of whom were pretty ticked off. After a while, people get quiet, then slip away. For me, I'll still see what gamespot has to say, but with the current reviews I can't say it will be the be all end all it has been for me. I'll touch base with metacritic and their links to every review in existanceand use a "check the general temperature" approach from now on.

Personally I think it's silly that we've all lost such a precise system, but hey, that's the way the chips are falling. I don't know if the staff is just trying to "work smarter, not harder" (hahaha), if they really believe there is a silent majority rooting for less precision and info in the reviews, or if it's justa matter of Jeff Gerstmann wanting to mark his territory and that's that.

I wish I could say more about the new reviews that SamP would call "constructive commentary", but like so many I've stated my position SO many times, only to be asked to say it one more time in X forum or thread that it's tiring. From here on in I'll speak with my dollars, Sephiroth's union, and a phone to CNET and Gamespot staff. My time may not be gilded, but it's still valuble enough not to waste getting moderated by overzealous admins who feel that any rebuke against this new review system that isn't just a repitition of the original "You lose precision with .5 instead of .1, the emblams are nice, but as an addon not a substitute FOR... the catagorical reviews which let you know HOW the reviewer arrived at a score". There, I said it, and I MEAN it. However, after a while, you move on to less concrete and more tangential discussions about how the gamespot users are being treated and ignored rather that endless repetition of the obvious point that's been made by a TONof people.

On a slightly different note, won't some of the emblems be highly subjective to the particular review? Badges such as the sucks you in badge are highly dependent on the particular reviewer. Take for instance Killer 7, a game that provides a rather unique atmosphere that ether completely enshrouds one within its world, or is off putting, depending on the individual playing the game. I personally fall into the former group, yet I do realize that there are quite a few individuals that would disagree. The same can be said for games such as Oblivion or Fable. There are some badges that are based to greatly on a person's perspective and not something easily distinguishable on the whole.Gary_Jinfield

That's a point not to be taken lightly. Now, if the old system were still in place, tilt would be a guide. However in a departure from my negative tone let me suggest this as a REAL improvement: Pop that medal in the tital area, and LINK it to the portion of the written review which justifies their point of view. THAT IS AN IMPROVEMENT. Something so simple, without gutting the system beforehand would result in universal pleasure from new and veteran users. Those kind of small but significant changes are the way to go, not this sudden change from a detailed and in detpth stats to just "medals and .5 demarcations kids!"

*sigh*

P.S. AJMarra... good point about the defias thing. Maybe I've been programmed! @.o Ta Ta TUM!! Or... maybe it's a preset title and I'm just a pr**k ;) .

P.P.S Shrek is right on. This is not reactionary bunk, it's the voice of loyal and veteran gamespot subscribers voicing their shock and dismay at what is truly a GIANT mistake by a well meaning staff. Amen indeed AJMarra.