VGC Wikipedia Page Up For Deletion

[SigSauerLover]

Vexer, your name fits you well!

[Sut]

So what they do is give everything a good review no matter what. I've noticed this in music too. Gone are the days where a Gamepro reviewer could give a game from a big company a bad review. Maybe it's because there's so few big players anymore. There's only a few developers that run the show, and if someone gives a new game a straight up bad review it just seems like their in trouble.

I would say I don't think you really see anything terrible these days. Since last generation everything I've played has at least been average.

Either that or I've been very lucky.

[Vexer6]

Not true, I see sites like Polygon and Destructoid trash big games all the time.

[LoganRuckman]

Maybe it's because sites like Polygon actually have ethics and journalistic integrity, unlike sites like IGN and Gamespot, who will give good scores to anyone that pays them enough. I mean, Giant Bomb was formed because Jeff Gerstmann was fired from Gamespot due to giving Kane And Lynch: Dead Men a less than glowing review after all the heavy advertising Eidos put into the site.

[Rev]

I would like to say that it is just stupid that your site was removed from Wikipedia due to your reviews but I guess it is possible. I have never really paid too much attention to the politics of gaming sites but the critic has given negative reviews to several high profile titles. I like the fact that I can trust the reviews on this site and there are no worries that he's being paid off for good review scores.

[Vexer6]

I would disagree on that, Polygon docks points of games for ridiculous stuff all the time(I.E. most of Arthur Gies reviews). IGN and Gamespot are not paid off(IGN have given a surprising amount of negative reviews to AAA games).

The Gamespot thing largely happened because the new marketing team that joined Gamespot around that time were overly sensitive to pressure from publishers.

[LoganRuckman]

I would disagree on that, Polygon docks points of games for ridiculous stuff all the time(I.E. most of Arthur Gies reviews). IGN and Gamespot are not paid off(IGN have given a surprising amount of negative reviews to AAA games).

The Gamespot thing largely happened because the new marketing team that joined Gamespot around that time were overly sensitive to pressure from publishers.

Gamestop is not paid off... Yet, they fired one of their longtime writers, a man who gave 11 years of his life to this website, because they were sensitive to pressure from publishers. So, essentially, you just contradicted yourself, and you're trying to justify their horrid treatment of one of their best and most loyal writers. Gerstmann and everyone who left Gamespot to form Giant Bomb confirmed that the firing was due to the review and negative reaction from Eidos. And before you say that they're obviously biased, tell me why a bunch of editors who WEREN'T punished for the review decided to leave and join Gerstmann on Giant Bomb? If he was lying about it, then what reason would they have to leave? Do you think they would really leave a probably well paid job at an established website to join a new site that could have easily flopped, just because? No, they were all pissed off at Gamespot for what they did to Jeff, and decided to show their support for their friend. I really do not see how anyone could justify their horrendous actions to a longtime employee.

Oh, and IGN isn't paid off? Explain this:

[Vexer6]

Doesn't mean EVERY Gamestop writer is paid off though, so no I did not just "contradict" myself at all, I never suggested Gertsman was lying about anything, in his own words Jeff said the main reason he was fired was because the new marketing team could not handle pressures from publishers over reviews like the previous marketing team did, he definitely never should've been fired and I never tried to "justify" it at all, don't know where on earth you got that idea.

[Vexer6]

I really don't see how giving those games high scores automatically means IGN was paid off, lots of people gave those games high scores, so what? I see no real corruption there. Battlefield is understandable cause of the glitches, but I really can't see what the big deal is over AC and COD getting high scores, they're popular series so of course they're likely going to get high scores, what on earth is so shocking about that?

[LoganRuckman]

"Frostbite 3 engine and Battlefield 4 put Call Of Duty: Ghosts to shame."- IGN

Call Of Duty: Ghosts- 8.8
Battlefield 4- 8