The New Games Journalism
December 2, 2007 6:20 PM   Subscribe

"Mr. Gerstmann, we saw your 6.0 review of Kane & Lynch." After a less than stellar review of Kane & Lynch, 10 year veteran game reviewer Jeff Gerstmann seems to have been fired from his position at Gamespot due to pressure from Eidos, publisher of Kane & Lynch. This also has been confirmed by a freelancer for Gamespot. Reaction has been massive. K&L is now rated 2.0 by users on Gamespot. Many subscribers are cancelling and there's a move to boycott Gamespot advertisers, which seems to be having some effect. posted by ursus_comiter (109 comments total) 12 users marked this as a favorite
 
Now if only the US automotive review magazines would experience a similar backlash due to low credibility.
posted by BrotherCaine at 6:24 PM on December 2, 2007 [1 favorite]


Penny Arcade, as usual, summed it up very well, both in the comic and in Tycho's writeup. The comic was linked above by Panamax. Here's the spot I thought was most relevant from the text:

For Gabriel, this tale proves out his darkest suspicions. People believe things like this anyway, but they don't know it, and the shift from intuitive to objective knowledge is startling. I think it rarely gets to this point. The apparatus is very tight: there are layers of editorial control that can massage the score, even when the text tells a different tale. A more junior reviewer might have seen their Kane & Lynch review streamlined by this process, divested of its worrisome angles and overall troubling shape. It was Jeff Gerstmann's role high in the site's infrastructure that allowed his raw editorial content to pierce the core of the business.

From what I can tell, Greg Kasavin, the original editor of Gamespot, left to go somewhere else, and the guy who took it over was a marketer from some other line of work altogether.... perfume or something. From his background, this move would have made perfect sense: marketing is, after all, lying to customers.

He probably doesn't understand that the big game-marketing sites like Gamespot need to at least pretend to be objective to be useful, and made a really dramatic mistake here.

You really can't trust review sites anymore, and haven't been able to for a long time; with the number of dollars involved, editorial integrity goes right out the window.

For those of you who wonder why games mostly suck these days, this is why. Games sell most of their copies within four to six weeks of shipment; only the very, very good ones have any kind of long tail. If the game publisher can obtain good scores, their total sales will be much higher.

Rather than make good games, which is very difficult, they can instead bribe the reviewers.
posted by Malor at 6:31 PM on December 2, 2007 [6 favorites]


This is one of those stories that's gotten so much coverage online that it seems like it's very old news. Even though it's only been 3 days or so.
posted by smackfu at 6:32 PM on December 2, 2007


Pretty shameful. Not surprising, though. It's gonna be blowback time for CNET and the-suit-whose-name-I-forget who actually did the sacking.
posted by Henry C. Mabuse at 6:35 PM on December 2, 2007


Malor writes "For those of you who wonder why games mostly suck these days, this is why. Games sell most of their copies within four to six weeks of shipment; only the very, very good ones have any kind of long tail. "

I only play games that have been around for at least 2 or 3 years, based on their long-tail reputations. I only see the cream of the crop and the hardware's cheaper, too.
posted by mr_roboto at 6:37 PM on December 2, 2007 [3 favorites]


d'oh - this sounds like a great underdog vs corporate greed story, but there has to be more to it. I can't imagine he was fired just for one bad review, perhaps it was the final straw.

In any case, the problem still remains, the magazine depends on revenue from the companies it reviews! Nothing unusual there. It's a lesson for the kids on evaluating sources for bias. Movie reviews have this same problem, many of the studios are owned by companies that own newspapers and magazines.

Isn't there a rotten tomatoes for game reviews, that aggregates pro and/or amateur reviews?
posted by stbalbach at 6:39 PM on December 2, 2007


Isn't there a rotten tomatoes for game reviews, that aggregates pro and/or amateur reviews?

GameRankings.com
posted by Hot Like Your 12V Wire at 6:43 PM on December 2, 2007


Metacritic does that.
posted by stavrogin at 6:43 PM on December 2, 2007


Gamespot's credibility was never something to brag about, but this incident has taken it to an all time low. By the way, does anyone know of the equivalent of Consumer Reports when it comes to gaming? Heck, I wouldn't mind paying a couple of bucks for a high quality site that wasn't dependent on ads.
posted by Foci for Analysis at 6:43 PM on December 2, 2007


Now if only the US automotive review magazines would experience a similar backlash due to low credibility.

Or political pundits.

I only play games that have been around for at least 2 or 3 years, based on their long-tail reputations. I only see the cream of the crop and the hardware's cheaper, too.

I recently decided I should try out this Myst thing everyone's been talking about.
posted by DU at 6:51 PM on December 2, 2007 [1 favorite]


Isn't there a rotten tomatoes for game reviews, that aggregates pro and/or amateur reviews?

Actually, Rotten Tomatoes does that, albeit not as well as GameRankings or Metacritic.
posted by dgbellak at 6:57 PM on December 2, 2007


I stopped believing game reviews after Amiga Power was cancelled.

These days, when 80% of the site's revenue comes from the very people whose products they're supposed to be reviewing, the whole thing feels like a big old circular jerking motion.
posted by subbes at 7:14 PM on December 2, 2007


So that 's why the last few big videogame releases have been all dubbed "greatest of all time". pssh . This kind of thing plagues all magazines and papers. I guarantee If you check the scores on metacritic or any other lumping site, the scores on all current AAA titles will drop about 15%, I guarantee.
posted by Student of Man at 7:20 PM on December 2, 2007


I mean if you check them in a few months...
posted by Student of Man at 7:21 PM on December 2, 2007


For the non-gamers who may be reading this: in the gaming press, a score of 6 translates roughly to a 2 in real terms. Games tend to be reviewed on a 7-10 scale, where a 9 is a good game, an 8 is an OK game, a 7 is a mediocre game and anything less is an abject failure. If you rate a game less than 7, you can pretty much guarantee that the publisher will buy less ad space from you.

The same critic was just excoriated in the fan press for giving one of the Zelda games -- a game which is often considered today to be one of the best games ever made -- a rating of 8.8. To the average person, that would seem to be an excellent score. But in the game review world, that'd be the equivalent of Roger Ebert giving Citizen Kane 3 stars out of 5. Movie buffs would be outraged.

So for him to give this game a 6 is an explicit recommendation against buying it or even renting it. It is no wonder that his bosses were unhappy, given how much ad revenue the game's publishers threw into GameSpot.

That they fired him is reprehensible and loudly points out the laughably corrupt nature of 'gaming journalism'.
posted by ten pounds of inedita at 7:26 PM on December 2, 2007 [11 favorites]


Edge is good! Subscribe to Edge, imho. It's good.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 7:30 PM on December 2, 2007


The video review that was supposedly instrumental in losing Gerstmann his job--it was pulled from Gamespot soon after this story started to blow up online.
posted by Prospero at 7:35 PM on December 2, 2007 [2 favorites]


Malor: For those of you who wonder why games mostly suck these days, this is why.

Do they? It's hard to believe this when I'm overwhelmed with good games. I mean, look how many good games came out recently just in the FPS genre - the Orange Box, Crysis, UT3, and Bioshock, among others. There's been plenty in other genres as well - if I wasn't restricted to the PC platform by my budget, it would be even worse.
posted by Mitrovarr at 7:41 PM on December 2, 2007 [1 favorite]


Destructoid's redesign struck me as an inspired bit of nerd rage.
posted by BitterOldPunk at 7:42 PM on December 2, 2007


But in the game review world, that'd be the equivalent of Roger Ebert giving Citizen Kane 3 stars out of 5. Movie buffs would be outraged.

Roger Ebert actually rates on a 4 star scale, and would be the first person to tell you that his star ranking is fairly meaningless.

But your point taken; thanks for explaining. I've been following this (even though I'm a non-gamer) and I couldn't figure out why 6/10 was so damn bad. It's really sad that the rating system is so inflated.
posted by sbutler at 7:43 PM on December 2, 2007


Greg Kasavin, the original editor of Gamespot, left to go somewhere else, and the guy who took it over was a marketer from some other line of work altogether.... perfume or something.

Not exactly. Stephen Colvin, former CEO of Dennis Publishing, home of Maxim took over as Editorial Director at CNet, which includes overseeing GameSpot.


Gamespot's credibility was never something to brag about, but this incident has taken it to an all time low.

Actually, GameSpot had a reputation for general journalistic integrity, something which, it is rumored, Jeff Gerstmann was trying to protect when he was ousted.

You really can't trust review sites anymore, and haven't been able to for a long time; with the number of dollars involved, editorial integrity goes right out the window.

I guess you can't trust movie reviews either, since all those darn ad dollars get pumped into the local newspaper, right? Or do you draw the line at game sites?
posted by cmgonzalez at 7:44 PM on December 2, 2007


Okay, that should have been Stephen colvin took over as Executive VP at CNet.

See, this is why we need comment editing.
posted by cmgonzalez at 7:47 PM on December 2, 2007


I only play games that have been around for at least 2 or 3 years, based on their long-tail reputations. I only see the cream of the crop and the hardware's cheaper, too.

I'd argue that that's not a universal principle. You just happened to pick the right cutoff date. I really believe the industry is on the verge of disappearing into its own navel, and the latest generation of consoles was the beginning of the end.

Games are becoming more and more like movies. As you noted, they have the same "opening weekend" model now. They have similar production budgets. Often they're made by the same companies who treat them as similar, even interdependent products.

That would suggest a lowest common denominator model in which all originality is ground out to appeal to the widest possible audience. And indeed we've seen that. But, at the same time, the hardware side is driving the business farther and farther up a particular evolutionary backwater, one that narrows the potential audience rather than expanding it. Consider me.

I'm a pretty serious gamer, Sony side of the family tree. I had a Playstation and bought a TON of games for it. When the PS2 came out, I went through all the preorder madness. I wanted one on Day One. I got it, and I've bought a TON of games for it. I don't have a PS3. I don't want one. I just don't give a damn. Why? The PS2 represented a significant step up from the PS1. It brought value to the table in a few ways. It had the processing power to go from 2D background and sprite games to real 3D. And it had a DVD drive instead of a CD drive. This was more a benefit to the industry than to me, and I never bothered to watch a movie in the thing, but it did let developers get a lot more game into a handy package. By the end of the PS1 era, almost everything came on multiple discs. Final Fantasy IX came on four. Final Fantasy X - one disc. You can count the number of PS2 games that needed more than one disc on one hand.

What does the PS3 bring to the table? Blu-Ray? Which may or may not survive the next couple years? Online play? God, spare me from having to game with a bunch of socially maladroit, scat-obsessed fourteen year old boys. What on earth is appealing about that? Basically the PS3 and Xbox 360 aren't for my benefit, they're for the benefit of Sony and Microsoft who've sold a last gen console already to just about everyone who's going to buy one. All they can really offer me is more polygons.

Now I've nothing against better graphics as such, but it's also driven development costs on games into the stratosphere. And that means less courage on the part of developers, more first person shooters that are the same damn game with different models for the bad guys. It means fantastic games like Ico, Beyond Good and Evil or the Suikoden RPGs are considered failures and disappear from the market. (I guess Japanese fans must be keeping the Suikoden series alive, god bless them.)

Add it up and you get an industry that's addicted to a drug that it's starting to build up a resistance to. I really don't care about Kane and Lynch, or another F.E.A.R. game. Some people do, sure, but they've sheared me off to the side now, and trust me, when that happens you're down to a pretty narrow subset of the hardcore gaming population. All while the demand for immediate massive revenues gets stronger as development costs soar and the corporate masters become ever larger and more demanding. Apparently Konami is saying they need to sell a million units of Metal Gear Solid 4 on opening day to get into the black. What the hell?

I think some of the industry sees the writing on the wall, which is why we're seeing this push for "casual gaming," and why so many people in the center of the hardcore worry that they're about to stop being the most important market for game developers. I think they're right, but I'd argue that there will always be room for a well done hardcore game. I'm just worried that the need to endlessly accelerate the tech curve and make games bigger and more expensive is going to price them out of the business entirely. I liked Peggle too, but it's not going to hold me forever.

As for me, I did sort of what you did. I started stocking up on back library of RPGs for the PS2. I've got enough good games I missed back in the day to keep me going for a couple years now. And they look good enough for me. I just don't know what I'll do when FF XIII finally shows up. Or the next Resident Evil...
posted by Naberius at 7:48 PM on December 2, 2007 [30 favorites]


mr_roboto: I only play games that have been around for at least 2 or 3 years, based on their long-tail reputations. I only see the cream of the crop and the hardware's cheaper, too.

That works great with single-players ones, but with multiplayer games, it will get you mauled because the only players left after a few years are the ones who are fairly serious about it, and they have years of practice.
posted by Mitrovarr at 7:50 PM on December 2, 2007 [1 favorite]


Jesus that's long. Sorry.
posted by Naberius at 7:51 PM on December 2, 2007


Naberius, I think you should go work for Nintendo, because I pretty much think that's the Wii Manifesto.
posted by ALongDecember at 7:52 PM on December 2, 2007 [5 favorites]


Or do you draw the line at game sites?

Absolutely. Local newspapers are different, and movie reviews are, for the most part, completely firewalled from ad sales concerns in the newspaper business.

A movie studio buys ads on a weekend release and will typically find out about a bad review on Friday, when it's published. You can't pull ads from a print release the same way you can with a website.
posted by dhammond at 7:53 PM on December 2, 2007


Valleywag has been covering this as well.
posted by delmoi at 7:54 PM on December 2, 2007


I'm pretty sure Eidos pressured Gamespot in other reviews, too, especially against their competition. I hear Gamespot originally gave Big Rigs a 10.0 rating before Eidos stepped in.
posted by starman at 7:57 PM on December 2, 2007


I only play games that have been around for at least 2 or 3 years, based on their long-tail reputations. I only see the cream of the crop and the hardware's cheaper, too.

Well, if you're going to try your hand at multiplayer, that's not a good strategy. By then, pretty much everyone playing the game will be really, really good, and you'll be destroyed. Coming back to Starcraft after a few years was a rather painful experience.
posted by delmoi at 7:57 PM on December 2, 2007


You know, one of the best things about the intertubes is the fact that bullshit seems to be sniffed out at a pretty impressive clip.
posted by Ironmouth at 7:58 PM on December 2, 2007 [5 favorites]


cmgonzalez, look at MetaCritic and compare the movie reviews with the game reviews, sorting by score. You'll note that there are a lot more games scoring over 80 than movies. Game critics are extremely lenient and easily excitable. I assumed some payola accounted for this, but mostly I think it's just a young medium and its fans are easily blinded by a few bright and shiny features and willing to completely overlook most flaws.

I've only just recently purchased a PS2 and one of the first games I bought was Metal Gear Solid: Sons of Liberty. I read a bunch of reviews praising it, only to find out that the game was actually a piece of shit and a bear to play. Granted, this is my own opinion, but the sheer amount of suckage made me wonder at why a lot of its obvious problems weren't called out. It was a new game on a new system and the crowd apparently went wild, just because of this.

There seems to be an utter lack of sophistication, professional detachment and close analysis in the medium of game journalism. In other words, the fanboys rule the roost. It's understandable, I suppose, but I pine for something with more teeth and reflection. I've yet to find anything that suits me.
posted by picea at 8:02 PM on December 2, 2007


Local newspapers are different, and movie reviews are, for the most part, completely firewalled from ad sales concerns in the newspaper business.

Which is why film studios have been known to sometimes go that extra mile and create a film critic altogether.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 8:02 PM on December 2, 2007


It's only been 3 days? I'm already so damned sick of hearing about this.
posted by spiderskull at 8:06 PM on December 2, 2007


There seems to be an utter lack of sophistication, professional detachment and close analysis in the medium of game journalism

EDGE, as linked above, fulfilled that for me, at least back in the 90s. (I haven't seen a copy in the last 10 years).
posted by panamax at 8:15 PM on December 2, 2007


Score aggregation sites mitigate this effect. Unless they con everyone you can get a fair idea of what is worth a look.

Then, rent, or umm, obtain otherwise a game and check it out yourself. Then if you like it, buy it.

That works for filtering out dross. On consoles it is pretty easy because rental is fairly easy to do, with PC's you can always get a demo.

But computer journalism with few exceptions has always been poor to awful. It's just too hard.
posted by sien at 8:18 PM on December 2, 2007


Putting two comments together, and making a non-Gerstmann-related reply--

Naberius: I think some of the industry sees the writing on the wall, which is why we're seeing this push for "casual gaming," [...] I think they're right, but I'd argue that there will always be room for a well done hardcore game. I'm just worried that the need to endlessly accelerate the tech curve and make games bigger and more expensive is going to price them out of the business entirely.

ALongDecember: Naberius, I think you should go work for Nintendo, because I pretty much think that's the Wii Manifesto.

The dirty secret about the Wii, which no one seems to talk about, is that a good number of its games are so hardcore that they'll make you bite your controller. Trauma Center: Second Opinion; Mercury Meltdown Revolution; Resident Evil: Umbrella Chronicles; Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn; etc. All of those are games that only the hardcore will be able to beat on the normal difficulty setting. Dance Dance Revolution: Hottest Party is easily the most difficult of the seven mixes of DDR I own. Even Wii Sports is pretty damn hard if you play at the pro level.

So yes, the Wii has a reputation as a casual gamer's console, but what's unadvertised about it is that hardcore gamers should be more than satisfied with what's on offer there.
posted by Prospero at 8:21 PM on December 2, 2007


When it comes to objectivity, i think X-Play is fairly good. Sure, i started watching it to stare at Morgan Webb, but it's always fun to watch them rip apart crappy games and brand them with the shameful 1 out of 5 stars...
posted by ELF Radio at 8:22 PM on December 2, 2007


cmgonzalez, look at MetaCritic and compare the movie reviews with the game reviews, sorting by score....

I'm a lifelong gamer, and I'm well aware that review scores edge high. I trust my own taste and the input of those close to me much more, but reviews are generally decent markers when one knows how to interpret them. Not all sources are created equal, of course, but that's true of newspapers as well.

There's history of many types of media being "bought" (newspapers, radio, TV among them).

You can't pull ads from a print release the same way you can with a website.

No, but you can pull future advertising, which is exactly what Eidos allegedly did. and you can have your ads pulled from the newspaper's website immediately.
posted by cmgonzalez at 8:25 PM on December 2, 2007


No, but you can pull future advertising, which is exactly what Eidos allegedly threatened to do.


(I swear that looked right on preview)
posted by cmgonzalez at 8:28 PM on December 2, 2007


I think the problem Picea is that the fanboys don't rule the roost. For example, follow Penny Arcade for a while. You could put their picture on the Wikipedia entry for fanboy and no one would blink. They've been spot on with much of their analysis. Particularly raising questions like, "I know my character is supposed to be doing this thing, but while I'm playing the game I can't help but wonder why the hell I'm doing it" or even "Why the fuck is the Halo 57 of the same room back to back? Why would anyone build something like that?"

That they deliver their analysis with a side order of citrus sodomizing kitchen accessory rather than trying to look like Time magazine from a world where Nolan Bushnell became the president after John Hinckley assassinated Ronald Reagan is just smart packaging.
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 8:33 PM on December 2, 2007 [1 favorite]


At least I can trust the integrity of Nintendo Power to give me honest reviews of exciting new Nintendo licensed Games of the Year.
posted by stavrogin at 8:47 PM on December 2, 2007 [4 favorites]


Eurogamer by far is the most consistently good game review site. They go out of their way to praise unusual, boundary pushing games, and are generally not push-overs for big budget, mainstream stuff.
posted by empath at 8:57 PM on December 2, 2007 [1 favorite]


Plus they have a whole section of retro game reviews for historical perspective.
posted by empath at 8:58 PM on December 2, 2007


The same critic was just excoriated in the fan press for giving one of the Zelda games -- a game which is often considered today to be one of the best games ever made -- a rating of 8.8

I loved Twilight Princess, but I thought of it more as a harbinger of things to come than one of the best games ever made. It was really just a gamecube game with a few wii add-ons. I think a 9ish rating is pretty fair. Some of the sequences were really frustrating and unfun to play through, too.
posted by empath at 9:06 PM on December 2, 2007


No, but you can pull future advertising, which is exactly what Eidos allegedly did.

This rarely happens in the newspaper game. A movie studio is simply not going to risk missing out on big newspaper ads for a future release that very well might garner a positive review.
posted by dhammond at 9:15 PM on December 2, 2007


Naberius, I think you should go work for Nintendo, because I pretty much think that's the Wii Manifesto.

Oh yeah, I should have prefaced that whole bloody thing with "except for the Wii." I don't own one, mainly because my name comes toward the end of the alphabet and they're apparently doling them out starting with the "A"s. But I might buy one, and that's more than I can say for the PS3.

And thanks Prospero, it's good to know there's some stuff in the Wii catalog that can satisfy the core gamers. Though I don't equate that strictly with difficulty.
posted by Naberius at 9:47 PM on December 2, 2007


It should probably be noted that Metacritic, like GameSpot, is owned by CNET Networks Inc.
posted by Rangeboy at 10:44 PM on December 2, 2007 [2 favorites]


Oh yeah, I should have prefaced that whole bloody thing with "except for the Wii."

Erm, don't bother. Just because Nintendo might want to believe it's true doesn't make it so. Think about it for a second: what's the biggest casual gaming phenomenon of the year? Guitar Hero III and Rock Band—and the Wii's impact on that phenomenon has been minimal to none. Then take a look at what people consider the best games of the year. Aside from Super Mario Galaxy and maaaaybe Metroid Prime 3, not a single Wii game on the list. Meanwhile people are lining up to give kudos to the likes of Bioshock, Halo 3, Mass Effect, and a bevy of other games that will never be released on the Wii. Which isn't to say that they all necessarily deserve the praise, but there aren't a whole lot of Wii games even being considered for top honours.

I'm not saying the Wii can't eventually become the breakthrough gaming device Nintendo promised last November, but for someone who was really looking forward to a bunch of innovative and addictive games along the lines of Katamari Damacy, I'm sorely disappointed.

About the Gamespot debacle: something like this has been brewing for a long time. There have been other cases where magazines, both online and print, have been accused of inflating scores due to advertiser pressure, and the big joke about game reviews has always been the ludicrously high scores given to anything remotely resembling an important game. The 8.8 Zelda score is a pitiful example of the tendency towards inflated scores; Zelda fanboys complaining the score was "too low" and that the game deserved at least, oh, a 9.2 or a 9.5 or a 9.8? Completely and utterly ridiculous to anyone who wasn't a Zelda fanboy.
posted by chrominance at 10:48 PM on December 2, 2007 [2 favorites]


Assorted early morning rambling -


Yeah, there's a huge contingent of bullshit product. Big, noisy, poorly done, overly ambitious, and outright fuckups. Why do they end up like this? Sometimes it's the devs, sometimes it's the hardware, sometimes it's some fucko in marketing, other times it's other bits.

There's also a lot of me-too shit out there. Mostly because companies are risk averse, failing to understand that by being 100% risk averse they're almost guaranteeing a failure...


Doom and gloom about the death of the industry is crap. I'd argue that this year is the best year ever for games. Sales, ingenuity, breadth, successes, consumer acceptance.. You name it.

Warts and All, we've seen unprecedented pushes in game quality this year.

Bioshock, Assasins Creed, Mass Effect, Crysis, Wii Fit, Metroid Prime 3, Zelda DS, Zack and Wicki, Drakes Fortune, Ratchet and Clank, Call of Duty 4, The Witcher, Rock Band.. the list can go on and on.

We've seen advances focusing on how you play instead of just visual improvements. We've seen a new approach to design, emotional tone and dream realization. And this is the first "next-generation" year.

Yeah, we're seeing the final death throes of exclusive pc-gaming, but we're also seeing the integration of PC game sensibilities into the streamlined accessibility of console games.

And that's fucking awesome. It means we get mario level playability with Baldurs Gate level depth.

Caveat - I am a 12 year game developer(Designer) so I am biased.
posted by Lord_Pall at 10:57 PM on December 2, 2007


I've been PC and console gaming for 25 years now and I just want to say that I'm sooooo fucking tired of shooters and real-time strategy. Please, for the love of all that is good in the world, release some decent traditional RPGs or turn-based strategy. Please.
posted by Justinian at 10:57 PM on December 2, 2007 [5 favorites]


It means we get mario level playability with Baldurs Gate level depth.

And here I'm hoping for Falcon 3.0 level playability with Planescape: Torment level depth. Guess I'm SOL.
posted by Justinian at 10:59 PM on December 2, 2007 [1 favorite]


Best videogame reviews online are still Zero Punctuation.
posted by fraying at 11:00 PM on December 2, 2007 [3 favorites]


And here I'm hoping for Falcon 3.0 level playability with Planescape: Torment level depth. Guess I'm SOL.

You can get that still. Independent developers, download only releases, foreign devs..

The Witcher is a good throwback RPG.

I'm hearing there are plans to make another realms of arkania RPG. That's falcon level depth.. Heh
posted by Lord_Pall at 11:10 PM on December 2, 2007


I've been PC and console gaming for 25 years now and I just want to say that I'm sooooo fucking tired of shooters and real-time strategy. Please, for the love of all that is good in the world, release some decent traditional RPGs or turn-based strategy. Please.

Or a nice point & click adventure game. Or a good old-fashioned platformer. I like a good FPS myself, and one thing I really enjoy about many games today is the sense of genre-melding going on, but sometimes you're in the mood for a nice standard.
posted by cmgonzalez at 11:12 PM on December 2, 2007


The newspaper-movies, mag-games argument is really mucked. I don't think release date makes a difference, movie Studios can pull an ad from the paper even if it won't hit as hard as a game studio pulling ads from a game periodical. I think the game industry is more concentrated and is still fighting the culture wars. A newspaper has a much more varied source of ad revenue than a game mag. you would know if you've ever browsed a game mag. So maybe the newspaper critics are shielded but there's no reason to be believe the studios are at the mercy of the critics. One of the more inventive ways a studio has circumvented a bad review: in a TV ad (DVD release) for the awful Smoking Aces, which was slaughtered by NYtimes, The studio quoted NYT and spun the it to glorify the movie. I read the damning review myself and their quotes were totally taken was out of context. Movies are part of the larger culture ( date nights, spur of the moment hanging out) and , word of mouth counts for a lot more than movie reviews, also the audience is more varied than gamers I think.
posted by Student of Man at 11:16 PM on December 2, 2007


but there aren't a whole lot of Wii games even being considered for top honours.

chrominance, you're missing the point entirely.

Wii is outside of the loop from what is perceived as "mainstream" gaming by gamers who are no longer themselves the "mainstream." You won't see Wii games getting accolades at places like Gamespot because the people who are buying all the Wii games don't even know what Gamespot is and could care less.
posted by wfrgms at 11:25 PM on December 2, 2007


A newspaper has a much more varied source of ad revenue than a game mag. you would know if you've ever browsed a game mag.

Game mags? Sure, their advertiser pool is somewhat limited. Game sites? I'd argue that the difference is becoming very minimal. For instance, you have ads on gaming websites from car makers, soft drink companies, movie studios, game publishers, food companies, fast food, and more.

Toyota just featured World of Warcraft in a truck ad, for goodness' sake.
posted by cmgonzalez at 11:31 PM on December 2, 2007


a score of 6 translates roughly to a 2 in real terms. Games tend to be reviewed on a 7-10 scale, where a 9 is a good game, an 8 is an OK game, a 7 is a mediocre game and anything less is an abject failure.

I think game reviewers should abandon the 1-10 scale entirely. The 1-5 scores are pretty useless, because nobody's going to want to buy anything at or below "average", and then it becomes pretty pointless to give a game 4 because it sucks, or a 2 because it sucks really bad.
posted by pravit at 11:41 PM on December 2, 2007


I don't know if it's been linked yet, but destructoid's take on it is amusing.
posted by juv3nal at 11:50 PM on December 2, 2007


For those of you who wonder why games mostly suck these days, this is why.

In the past month, Call of Duty 4, Mass Effect, and Assassin's Creed, have all come out for the Xbox 360 alone! Any of those 3 could easily be a "Game of the Year" in any other year.
posted by lattiboy at 11:54 PM on December 2, 2007 [1 favorite]


Wii is outside of the loop from what is perceived as "mainstream" gaming by gamers who are no longer themselves the "mainstream."

I'm already out of the mainstream because a) I'm a PC gamer and b) because I want the gaming industry to make me games like Homeworld and Freespace 2 and No One Lives Forever instead of Halo retreads, and no one's listening. Hell, one of my favourite games this year uses ASCII-based graphics. So you don't need to tell me I'm no longer mainstream; that's been true since 2001.

But you missed my earlier point that the biggest casual gaming phenomenon of the past year isn't a Wii phenomenon anyways. If you looked at the gaming blogs talking about what game people brought home for the family to try on Thanksgiving, the overwhelming majority were playing Rock Band. If those families were playing Wii games at all, it was still Wii Sports—nothing in the interim has captured the mainstream audience's imagination in the same way. And fine, maybe gaming blogs aren't the place to go for news on what the rest of the wants to play. So answer me this: what do the mainstream outlets have to say about Wii games?

What I'm saying is the Wii was supposed to bridge the gap between the hardcore market and the casual market with innovative, rewarding games, and I think so far it's largely failed to reach that potential. Remember that there's a significant portion of gamers who are burnt out on endless FPS sequels and 12-year-old kids on Xbox Live telling them to suk yr own dik fags; the Wii was supposed to spark this new renaissance of video gaming. If that renaissance turns out to be WiiFit, I'm going to throw my Wii out the damned window.
posted by chrominance at 12:07 AM on December 3, 2007 [1 favorite]


You won't see Wii games getting accolades at places like Gamespot because the people who are buying all the Wii games don't even know what Gamespot is and could care less.

Dirty secret - Nobody buys wii games.

First party nintendo and the oddball standout sells a reasonable number.. But most everything else sells a pittance.

Everyone buys a wii, plays wii sports, plays wii play and then it collects dust.

This doesn't diminish the impact the wii has, but this audience doesn't buy much software. They're happy with it as a wii sports platform..

EA's summer sales for the wii were 59 million. For the 360 it was 218 million. The Wii has a larger installed base but sold a fraction..
posted by Lord_Pall at 12:12 AM on December 3, 2007 [3 favorites]


marketing is, after all, lying to customers.

I, the advertising creative, object to this statement. lying, omitting, distorting is what hacks resort to.

I would not have objected had you written "p(ublic) r(elations) is, after all, lying to customers" - those guys have a special place in hell reserved for them.
posted by krautland at 12:12 AM on December 3, 2007 [1 favorite]


Dirty secret - Nobody buys wii games.

Maybe because no one can buy a fucking wii!
posted by stavrogin at 12:25 AM on December 3, 2007 [4 favorites]


Funny thing Kane & Lynch used to be a very promising game. Maybe not original, but at least it seemed like an old thing done in a new way, a game I waited with some expectations.
Aside from the poor AI, the game got an huge flaw. You are supposed to be on cover (the guns aren't very precise and you just need few bullets to go down), but most of the time when you reach a column or a wall your character just stay there, taking bullets without entering cover.
Problem is, a tactical shooter with a shitty cover-system is like a RPG where you always roll 1 on the dices. It simply can't be played and shouldn't be released in that state.

I don't know if it's the developer's or publisher's fault; what I know is that a polished K&L would have caused no such thing and taken it's well deserved 7.5.
posted by darkripper at 12:26 AM on December 3, 2007


Lord_Pall, EA's take on the Wii sucked because almost all of their Wii games were crappy ports from 360/PS3 games. As for that old chestnut that nobody buys Wii software, that's just not true. Everyone I know with a Wii has bought at least 4 games for it over the last year, I myself have bought 9, for an average of 1 per 1.3 months. A few of them are 1st party games (Super Paper Mario, Strikers Charged, Twilight Princess) but the others are 3rd party games. I found Super Swing Golf to be odd, quirky and fun enough to purchase after a rental, as well as Trauma Center: Second Opinion.

I will say however, that none of my games are made by EA. Maybe if they'd actually make something fun I'd buy it.
posted by barc0001 at 12:37 AM on December 3, 2007


Barc - Conjecture. Sales figures globally back this up. the first party stuff sells.. Not much else..

Yeah it could be quality, but it's still indicative of a larger problem.

Nintendo doesn't care because they print money regardless.. It doesn't really matter for them, or even the longterm potential for the Wii.
posted by Lord_Pall at 1:24 AM on December 3, 2007


Great title, ursus_comiter.
posted by grouse at 1:42 AM on December 3, 2007


No, but you can pull future advertising, which is exactly what Eidos allegedly did. and you can have your ads pulled from the newspaper's website immediately.

it's not much of a threat for a movie theater to pull advertising from a local paper - first of all, look at the sunday paper and all the flyers that come in it - those weigh up to at least a pound or two and the newspaper gets paid big bucks to put those in

a movie theater has a little ad in the lifestyle section - that's it - furthermore, the newspapers are doing them a favor by listing all the local movies and where they're playing

now look at a gaming website or a gaming magazine - most of their ads are from gaming companies

and that's why your comparison stinks - because gaming companies have a lot more pull with gaming reviewers than movie companies have with newspapers
posted by pyramid termite at 3:11 AM on December 3, 2007


Another thing I should have mentioned: just like with magazines, even though you can (optionally) pay for Gamespot, you are not their real customer. You are their product, eyeballs. Advertisers are their customers.
posted by Malor at 4:06 AM on December 3, 2007 [2 favorites]


marketing is, after all, lying to customers.

I, the advertising creative, object to this statement. lying, omitting, distorting is what hacks resort to.


Which, sadly, accounts for the great majority of marketing "professionals". Truly. I've worked in and around advertising/marketing long enough to know that honesty, objectivity and integrity are rare, endangered qualities in that realm.
posted by Thorzdad at 4:30 AM on December 3, 2007 [1 favorite]


Everyone I know with a Wii has bought at least 4 games for it over the last year, I myself have bought 9, for an average of 1 per 1.3 months.

That's just anecdotal evidence. I've bought probably 20 games for the 360 this year, but you and I are statistical outliers.

If you look at actual sales figures, you'll see the Wii has a pretty bad attach rate (number of games bought per console). The most recent attach rate I could find was 3.44 games sold per console, which is lower than the 360 at 6.59 and the PS3 at 3.58.
posted by MegoSteve at 5:05 AM on December 3, 2007


Foci for Analysis writes "Gamespot's credibility was never something to brag about, but this incident has taken it to an all time low."

I was always under the impression that it was considered one of the more reasonable sites. IGN is always held up as the paragon of lack-of-credibility.

ten pounds of inedita writes "That they fired him is reprehensible and loudly points out the laughably corrupt nature of 'gaming journalism'."

I don't know my exact definitions, but I always thought "gaming journalism" was a separate thing from game reviews. That is, when you say "reviews", people think "IGN, Gamespot, 1UP". When you say "gaming journalism", people think "The Escapist, Gamasutra".
posted by Bugbread at 5:33 AM on December 3, 2007 [1 favorite]


It should probably be noted that Metacritic, like GameSpot, is owned by CNET Networks Inc.

Yeah, you have to laugh when the blog entry advises you to avoid "GameSpot, GameFAQs, CNET, Download.com, TV.com, et cetera... do not go on ANY CNET site".

It's like... if CNN pulled some shit like this and we're all, "Don't go to CNN, HBO, Cinemax, TBS, &c, and don't read any Time-Life publications like TIME, Fortune, Sports Illustrated, People, or any D.C. Comics, &c, and don't use your Internet connection if you use Roadrunner, and don't watch any Warner Brothers movies, or cartoons, and don't buy any music from Atlantic records, or Rhino records, Elektra, or Asylum, &c, and don't watch the Atlanta Braves, or WCW Wresting, &c..."

Or, Marlboro cigarettes killed my family! So, I'm going to boycott all cigarettes, and all Kraft products, and all Nabisco products, and all Miller Brewing products, and Starbucks, &c.

Corporations are so widely divested that our puny boycotts have little effect. One way or another, they're getting paid.

It's fucking sad.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 5:33 AM on December 3, 2007


Regarding the sarcasticgamer link: my company firewall blocks Gamespot. Can anyone confirm if, as claimed, Gamespot really is 100% ad-free right now?
posted by Bugbread at 5:36 AM on December 3, 2007


I just saw an ad there for Cranium Kabooki for the Wii, so yes, they still have ads.
posted by Prospero at 5:56 AM on December 3, 2007


First party nintendo and the oddball standout sells a reasonable number.. But most everything else sells a pittance.

This is rather true, though part of me hopes it will change when there are more games, and fewer collections of minigames by percentage.

The latter is all anyone is making outside of Nintendo and a few exceptions.

The DS took about a year for people to really figure out WTF to do with its controls (I'd call Canvas Curse the start of the no-signs-of-stopping Avalanche of Awesome). I can't decide if we're still in that period for the Wii and it's going to climb out of it eventually, or if we're still in that period for the Wii and it's going to become another Gamecube.

Nintendo doesn't sell their hardware at a loss, so they'll do all right (especially since making DSes is essentially printing money), but...
posted by sparkletone at 7:40 AM on December 3, 2007


I've really been enjoying Destructoid's reviews. They're a bit off the wall, incomplete, and come late. But they're also more like game criticism than product review. They also avoid review score inflation. I've agreed with their opinion of most of the games I know. But even better, their reviews have given me new insights into the games I've already played. Good writing.
posted by Nelson at 7:54 AM on December 3, 2007 [2 favorites]


Any vertical market publication faces pressure from advertisers. That's just the nature of niche publishing. However, good publishers generally ignore the pressure. That Jeff was fired astounds me, given his history in the market.

It's my understanding, after talking to some people involved, that Jeff was fired because he wouldn't retract his video review, not his text review, but I've not corroborated that with Jeff himself, so it's just hearsay.

Either way, it's a shame. Gamespot was at least able to pretend that they cared more about gamers than advertisers....but this stunt pretty much pulled the curtain away and allowed everyone to see just how hard the publisher suckles on the teats of the almighty advertising dollar.
posted by dejah420 at 8:32 AM on December 3, 2007 [1 favorite]


Gamespot and EIDOS will suffer more from the fallout over the firing than they would have from the review, IMHO. Even a not-so-good-as-we-plugged-and-then-highly-anticipated game often does well on the used market and as a gift during the holiday season (I can't tell you the number of people I have seen in stores who know nothing about any of the consoles and are just trying to get a gift for a nephew or grandson, who will buy whatever the newest game is with the view of, "at least I know he doesn't have this already").

I read reviews, and compare them, when I'm going out to purchase games for me and my family to play, and so do a lot of gamers, but for many it's a case of consumer-whore-ism and being the first to get that new release, shades of the Iphone rush-to-buy phenomenon. It's likely those gamers would have purchased the game before the infamous 6.0 review, and probably a lot of them did. They would have been kicking themselves for that decision, whereas now they will be psyched-up to blame either Gamespot or EIDOS instead, and that kind of fallout will have more of an impact on future game sales (and on Gamespot's credibility) than one negative review did.
posted by misha at 9:04 AM on December 3, 2007


Here is what I would do if I were a gamespot reviewer, and I sincerely hope that one of them comes up with this idea and that they all do it as a unified entity in protest:

Until something satisfactory comes out of this debacle, I would write the most honest reviews I possibly could, holding back nothing when describing the legions of mediocre crap out there. But I'd give everything.... EVERYTHING... a 10. If I thought it would have more impact, I'd maybe only give all the advertisers' product a 10, but if that wouldn't get the point across any better then it'd be everything. I wouldn't even give the game an actual score in early drafts of the review. No one should be able to find a real score anywhere to substitute into the review space on the site. Just "no, it's a 10."

"But Bob, you said it's worst piece of shit you've ever played."
"It's a 10, Josh."
"Look, this is going to ruin our credibility. Just tell me a score to put up there."
"I did. It's a 10. Fuck our credibility, I need to pay rent."
posted by shmegegge at 9:12 AM on December 3, 2007 [3 favorites]


Or a nice point & click adventure game.

Or even a parser adventure game. The old Sierra adventures gave a kind of interaction that's rare these days. God forbid gaming should be literate. And games could be more free-form before all this reliance on engines. How often does someone build a game from the ground up anymore?
posted by poweredbybeard at 9:46 AM on December 3, 2007 [1 favorite]


Marlboro is a Philip Morris product, Civil_Disobedient. Your Velveeta is safe for now.
posted by breezeway at 9:48 AM on December 3, 2007


fraying : Best videogame reviews online are still Zero Punctuation.

Yes. (Done by British-born Australian-based Yahtzee)

BrotherCaine : Now if only the US automotive review magazines would experience a similar backlash due to low credibility.

Interestingly, the only automotive review program that I trust is Top Gear; a product of the BBC.

I wonder if there is some aspect to British/ Australian reviews that allows them to be more honest (brutally so, when necessary) in their assessments of products.

What is interesting, at least to me, is that with programs like Top Gear, providing a negative review isn't met with the industry ignoring or spurning them, it's just the opposite. The automotive industry, on several occasions, has made changes to their cars based on things the Top Gear reviewers felt needed improvement.

Perhaps this is the model that could be adopted outside of this very limited example.
posted by quin at 9:49 AM on December 3, 2007


Holy shit! I've been living under a brick since 1986! Forget I said that about your Velveeta, Civil_Disobedient.

Then again, PM spun off the Kraft business in 2007 to concentrate on the tobacco business, so I'm half-right for all the wrong reasons. It's purely concidence; in my heart of hearts I know I'm a fool.
posted by breezeway at 9:56 AM on December 3, 2007


[...]I'm sooooo fucking tired of shooters and real-time strategy. Please, for the love of all that is good in the world, release some decent traditional RPGs or turn-based strategy. Please.

I was just in Best Buy on my lunch break, thinking I'd buy a PC game for a friend for his birthday, and was more surprised than I should have been to find that shooters, RTSs, and MMORPGs were pretty much all that was on the shelves.

There's still plenty of top-notch turn-based strategy to be had on the PC, but big-box stores and mainstream review sites are little help here. You have to go farther afield: see games by Paradox, Battlefront, Matrix Games, and AGEOD.
posted by Prospero at 10:21 AM on December 3, 2007 [2 favorites]


I guess not all games can be Dwarf Fortress. Then again, if you got Dwarf Fortress, you don't need any other game.
posted by Catfry at 10:36 AM on December 3, 2007


All I know is 2007 has been a great year for PC Gamers. Games I've really enjoyed this year:

- S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Shadow of Chernobyl
- Defcon
- Peggle
- Bioshock
- Half-Life 2 Episode Two
- Portal
- Team Fortress 2
- Call of Duty 4
- Crysis

I played other games this year, but those are the ones I really loved. I finished all except Stalker and after each one I thought "that was one of the best games I've ever played!"
posted by autodidact at 10:37 AM on December 3, 2007


So, the video left me a bit confused... Is it an ugly game? Were there any likeable characters?
posted by Uther Bentrazor at 10:54 AM on December 3, 2007


The main problem with the games industry is the fans. CGW/GFW magazine took a year break from giving review scores, in an attempt to let the reviews stand without a score, and subscribers revolted.

Most gamers are kids, or can only afford one game system. As such, review scores for important games on their system of choice are LIFE OR DEATH for them. And if one reviewer gives a bad review, the fans bitch and moan incessantly.

Twilight Princess, with that 8.8, is a good example. OMGWTF 8.8!!! That's insane!!!

Give Mass Effect a low score, expect 360 fans to go crazy. Same with Ratchet and Clank, on the PS3.

Game fans need to grow up.
posted by graventy at 11:28 AM on December 3, 2007 [2 favorites]


The old Sierra adventures gave a kind of interaction that's rare these days.

The interaction of looking up where to go next in a hint book? Or replaying the game from scratch because you did something wrong and it was too late to fix it?
posted by smackfu at 11:49 AM on December 3, 2007 [4 favorites]


I figured he meant the interaction of trying to figure out why, when you knew the fucking bastard just wanted a banana to let you go through the door, you couldn't make it work by just clicking the banana and then giving it to him. The kind of interaction that a guidebook later tells you actually involves finding a completely different but functionally identical banana that he wants instead of the perfectly good one you intended to give him because the banana he wants involves an additional 20 hours of gameplay.
posted by shmegegge at 11:56 AM on December 3, 2007 [3 favorites]


The main problem with the games industry is the fans...[snip]

Or judgmental folks like you who insist on painting gamers with as broad a brush as you just have.
posted by cmgonzalez at 12:16 PM on December 3, 2007


Online play? God, spare me from having to game with a bunch of socially maladroit, scat-obsessed fourteen year old boys.

I really appreciate the rest of your manifesto there, but are you really willing to marginalize yourself like this? Yes, by painting console gamers with this brush, you are marginalizing YOURSELF as well. If you're a socially maladriot, scat-obsessed fourteen year old boy then by all means mention it in your profile, but part of the reason that this whole content issue with games developed in the first place was because people in the early stages of the industry categorized their target market like this. You hear this kind of bullshit all the time- gamers are stupid kids lulz!- and yet your average gamer is somewhere around 23. Presumably most of them have jobs, apartments/houses, maybe even marriages and the like (hey, they own a console and buy/rent games, right)?

Your assessment was sharp, but for the love of Mario please don't marginalize yourself (and me) like that. There are millions of online gamers who are just like the rest of us, and the fact that you're willing to so wildly denigrate the age, social attitudes, and peculiarities of your gaming brethren is really dishonest. Do you really buy into that kind of stereotype? Do you think your gaming habits are bound to turn you into a perverted mass-murderer too?
posted by baphomet at 1:02 PM on December 3, 2007


but for the love of Mario

I agree with what you said in your comment, but please don't ever say this phrase again.
posted by shmegegge at 1:06 PM on December 3, 2007 [1 favorite]


I want Old Man Murray back.
posted by Hicksu at 1:31 PM on December 3, 2007


by the way, this debacle has apparently inspired people to start giving perfect 10 reviews to the worst game gamespot has ever reviewed ever. Some of the reviews say things like "Much better than Kane and Lynch."
posted by shmegegge at 1:55 PM on December 3, 2007


A coworker has been giving a running commentary on Gamespot's advertising today:

"They still have Edios ads"

"Nope, those are gone. Mountain Dew is still up"

"Dew is gone, Alienware is a half page... nope, it's gone as well."

Quite a while passes, "There is a Best Buy ad."

We look, it's about an inch high and three inches long. It is the only external advertising on the whole page.

It seems clear that sponsors are pissed.
posted by quin at 2:18 PM on December 3, 2007


well, mountain dew is back. I believe their advertising is on a rotating schedule.
posted by shmegegge at 2:22 PM on December 3, 2007


MetaFilter: for the love of Mario
posted by grouse at 3:03 PM on December 3, 2007


I bought a Wii when it first came out, eager to recreate the magic feelings I got playing the SNES (Zelda / Metroid) as a young'un.

Turns out being an "adult" entails a schedule filled with boring stuff like work, dishes and non-Wii related activities. Twilight Princess was a *massive* disappointment for me though. It doesn't play like a Wii game, if you know what I mean. Still haven't finished it, 8 months later.

Metroid, on the other hand, is fun. Not as much fun as I remembered it it from the SNES, but some things are extremely satisfying and reminiscent of the good old days. Like, for instance, the music that plays once you pick up a new piece of kit (the *la-la-laa-laa-laaaaaaa* thing) brings me right back.

Raving Rabbits and Wario are great for a ever-so-slightly geeky get together, allowing a nice meld of childhood and adult pleasures - namely, the bringing together of physical fun, tv games and alcohol. For that alone, the Wii is a Wiinner.
posted by flippant at 3:06 PM on December 3, 2007


I'll admit I don't much miss Sierra-style adventure games. Adventure games can be fun but other people did it better.

I do greatly miss Origin-style adventure/RPG hybrids like the Ultima and "Worlds of Ultima" series. Curie, Rasputin, and Tesla on Mars? What's not to like? That shit wouldn't fly these days, and that's a shame.

Make yet another shooter that fails and you can blame somebody else. Make an innovative game that fails and it's your head on the chopping block.
posted by Justinian at 3:33 PM on December 3, 2007


Gamespot responds

Better yet CNET editor's comments
posted by jeblis at 6:14 PM on December 3, 2007


Make an innovative game that succeeds, on the other hand, and do it a couple of times (Clover Studios, for example, makers of Viewtiful Joe and Okami), and watch your company get folded by the really big company who owns your ass. I was really disappointed when this happened last year or so.
posted by Reth_Eldirood at 6:58 PM on December 3, 2007


That gamespot response is worse than not saying anything at all:
"Jeff's departure stemmed from internal reasons unrelated to any buyer of advertising on GameSpot."

So it's just total coincidence that the advertisements vanished at the same time as the video review?
posted by juv3nal at 10:56 PM on December 3, 2007


Agh. That CNET editor podcast response was horrible too. (paraphrasing): "You need to tone it down until you know for sure what actaully happened. And no one is going to tell you what actually happened. So shush."
posted by juv3nal at 11:06 PM on December 3, 2007


ha!
posted by juv3nal at 11:41 PM on December 3, 2007


I really appreciate the rest of your manifesto there, but are you really willing to marginalize yourself like this? Yes, by painting console gamers with this brush, you are marginalizing YOURSELF as well.

Baphomet, if anybody's still reading this far down, you're entirely right. I knew it was lazy when I wrote it and you're entirely right to call me on it.

By way of apology, I'd already written so damn much and, while that statement was lazy, it was sort of in the ballpark of a real feeling. I find online play incredibly distasteful for reasons that are more complicated than what I said but ultimately boil down to the fact that I find way too many of the other players deeply unpleasant and I wish they weren't there. But yeah, the shorthand I ended up using for it was lame and unhelpful.
posted by Naberius at 12:25 AM on December 4, 2007


« Older Making Machinima Movies   |   mermaid and prince, simultaneously Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments