VideoGameCritic cut from GameRankings.com

[m0zart1]

[QUOTE=Edward M]

Yeah, that's a pretty lame reason.  Don't they have anough Wii reviewers already?  The Wii section has 91 reviews already.   But look at the Jaguar section of the site.  Many of the games don't even have 1 review.    The critic has reviewed almost every Jaguar game, probably because he enjoys pain, so he could really complete the collection.   Is gamerankings just looking to be a resource for new games, but not old games?  I don't understand that, that is a stupid reason.  Yeah, I'll write him, and don't worry, I'll be nice.

[/QUOTE]

Well that wasn't the only reason.  One of them apparently was that the reviews are generally only a paragraph long.  Now, I personally think that's a benefit of this site.  I do like sites that offer long reviews, and I like to write long reviews myself, but a site shouldn't be excluded because it doesn't take that approach.  The criteria should be based on quality, and the quality is there.

[MappyMousePD]

That's a little snobby.  Why does that matter?

I'm not bashing this site, which I visit all the time.  I'm just saying that there should be some bases covered before you expect a site like GameRankings to link to the reviews.  If you focus on just one console, then the reviews should be professional, thorough and updated frequently.  And if you provide reviews for a large number of systems, including the most recent ones, then it should be all the current systems, not just two out of three.

[soporj1]

I also sent an email. You have the best review site on the 'net.

[Paul Campbell]

[QUOTE=MappyMousePD]That's a little snobby.  Why does that matter?

I'm not bashing this site, which I visit all the time.  I'm just saying that there should be some bases covered before you expect a site like GameRankings to link to the reviews.  If you focus on just one console, then the reviews should be professional, thorough and updated frequently.  And if you provide reviews for a large number of systems, including the most recent ones, then it should be all the current systems, not just two out of three.

[/QUOTE]

Yes, but you know that Dave will post reviews as soon as he is able to, so why should you be all demanding of him?  If he was refusing to purchase a Wii and post reviews, then maybe your statement would have a bit of merit.  But it still seems snobby to act like you are defending a principal or something by refusing to support him until he steals a Wii from a display case at a game store.  He's a normal guy trying to run a good site here.  Not some company that gets sent a system for each employee as well as every game they release a year in advance.  Cut him a little slack.  He reviews more systems than pretty much anyone else on that site... that doesn't win him a little flexibility from even a hard nose like you?

Sorry for the harsh words, but this just seems SO obvious, I can't believe you even said it.

[feilong801]

Hmm, that is unfortunate. It's very hard to write short form reviews. You end up feeling like you missed something essential. Dave is the MASTER of the short form. I never feel like there was critical information that was missing. He covers gameplay, graphics, sound, narrative, and any other essential ingredient.

As a writer myself, I can also say that Dave has a distinct, recognizeable writing style. That's very hard to do, since most people can write with *some* degree of quality.

-Rob

[VideoGameCritic]

[QUOTE=m0zart]
So far, I don't think he is convinced by many of the responses because at least some of them are rather rancid.  I would ask that anyone who writes to GameRankings be very friendly about this.  Don't write in an insulting manner like this is some kind of shooting match.  That kind of thing will only make it seem like a concerted organized effort to flame rather than a spontaneous showing of dissatisfaction.  The administrator of the site is a very reasonable guy, thus I fully expect he'll listen to reasonable complaints.  I think he'll dismiss everything else outright.[/QUOTE]

I appreciate the passion, but if anyone has written anything nasty to the gamerankings editor, I would ask them to apologize and re-iterate their request in a constructive manner.

Let's keep the pressure on, but let's not piss off the guy!  Thanks!!

[Crevalle]

I guess I don't understand why e-mailing will help.  Why do the people who run GameRankings.com  care if VideoGameCritic.net fans want the link there? 

[VideoGameCritic]

Being in Game Rankings improves this site's visibility, search engine rankings, and traffic in general.  If the editor over there thinks that enough people care, he might change his mind.

[feilong801]

And besides that, there are many lesser sites used to create "meta data" on game rankings. There are probably many poeple who roam this site without making a peep on the forums. I probably viewed this site faithfully for over a year before I said one word in the forums.

The whole point of a meta site is to provide an overview of important critical reception to a game. I think this site is important.

-Rob

[The Suit]

I, along with many of my friends emailed them and told them we were grateful that the VGC was removed. Me and my friends sited the following reasons:

No online reviews

No Wii reviews

Very little objectivity

Too much emphasis on "arcade" like games

Complete hatred for Sony which further diminishes his objectivity

They replied back and were grateful and in fact, felt the same exact way.
I also sited that he was ugly as sin and rooted for the Ravens but lucky for the VGC they don't factor that stuff in.

If you haven't figured it out yet I am just kidding. I emailed them a very positive email expressing my support for the VGC. I don't agree with most of his reviews and don't like his bias against Sony but I believe he belongs on Gamerankings.com.

The Suit