Support NeoGAF

[duckroll]

So here are some facts we know so far:

- Jeremy Parish has stated vocally on his blog his distaste for Ultimate Ghosts 'n Goblins
- It is then discovered that for whatever reason, out of all the editors and reviewers in Ziff Davis' pool, he is reviewing the game in EGM, OPM and 1up
- Before he even writes the review for 1up, he promises to save the "most venom" for it
- His reviews are also so far, the only completely negative ones out of pretty much every review publication in print or online, in any region in the world

What does this tell us about the credibility of Ziff Davis' reviews in general? While Parish's blog is supposed independant and personal, it is hosted on a ZD site where he is an official contributer to the company. He knows his audience on the blog are the same people reading the content and reviews on ZD publications, and yet he openly declares his intent to bash the game in as many outlets as he is allowed to.

Is it not unprofessional to talk about an opinion you're being paid to give before even giving it? In the case of the 1up review, what would be the point of ZD paying him for a review when he has already made it clear that it would be nothing more than a vomit of his venom against the game in text form. People have already seen his opinion in EGM as well as OPM, isn't it a waste of everyone's time and ZD's money (and possibly their credibility) by encouraging him to go forward with this?

I wonder what the rest of the community feels about this slant. In the long run it will likely neither affect ZD, Capcom or UGnG, but I think it reflects very poorly on Parish as a professional, especially how he chooses to present himself on official communication outlets after being given the opputunity to present his opinion on 3 seperate publications by ZD. It's not enough that he doesn't like the game, but he turns it into a personal crusade and makes it clear he is using this opputunity he is given to damage the game as much as he can.

Disclaimer: I am in no way implying, suggesting or even condoning the false assumption that Parish was biased against the said game even BEFORE playing it. If you choose to argue any claims in this thread that he did, know that you are spreading a lie.

 

[Amir0x]

He is entitled to his opinion. All it just reinforces that nobody should care about scores or allow reviews to be a final barometer for quality.

Jeremy Parish being batshit insane is just an after effect of too much Animal Crossing, I suppose.

 

[Rahul]

what the hell, duck. it's jeremy ****in' parish. enough said.

 

[thetrin]

I don't hate Parish for hating on uGnG (he's welcome to hate anything he wants), but his premeditated intent to demonize the game seems rather unprofessional and silly.

 

[Y2Kev]

It isn't right that somebody can review the game for three separate media outlets. There needs to be more variety of opinion.

And lol at bitching about the controls.

 

[gofreak]

While it might be efficient to have one person do each pub's review, in love-or-hate-it cases (which UG&G might be), I think they should diversify their reviewers. On a general note, I understand why they do it, but having the same person write 3 different reviews seems odd..do they just re-word them? Are the scores the same?

 

[duckroll]

He is entitled to his opinion.

He is entitled his opinion. But when you show that you have turned your opinion into a personal vendetta publically, and you're the same person covering the game for 3 seperate publications, that reflects badly both on the opinion itself, and the credibility of the company in general.

 

[Ken K in the Fresh!!!]

dont let games consume you...

 

[duckroll]

what the hell, duck. it's jeremy ****in' parish. enough said.

Right, but this is less about Parish's opinion, but rather about how he makes Ziff Davis look bad!

 

[Amir0x]

He is entitled his opinion. But when you show that you have turned your opinion into a personal vendetta publically, and you're the same person covering the game for 3 seperate publications, that reflects badly both on the opinion itself, and the credibility of the company in general.

Yes, that was just a terrible decision on Ziff Davis' part. But, Jeremy Parish is entitled to his viewpoint and writing about it in his blog is all I was saying. I mean, at the end of the day, who really cares? We already know the game is great, we don't need validation or something.

 

[Lazy vs Crazy]

So wait, someone shouldn't review a game if they don't like it? Is this what you're saying?

 

[DarknessTear]

I agree with duckroll here. It's really unprofessional, especially when you put personal feelings in your reviews. A lot of people base their purchases off of reviews so it's kind of unfair to the people who made the game.

 

[Rahul]

Yes, that was just a terrible decision on Ziff Davis' part. But, Jeremy Parish is entitled to his viewpoint and writing about it in his blog is all I was saying. I mean, at the end of the day, who really cares? We already know the game is great, we don't need validation or something.

Unless Parish is onto something, in which case ...

 

[EmCeeGramr]

So because someone doesnt like "your precious" and says so, then provides legitimate reasons for it, you get all accusational and overreact?

Not mature.

 

[Amir0x]

So wait, someone shouldn't review a game if they don't like it? Is this what you're saying?

i think the primary cause for concern is that, despite there being a few people who reviewed the game in EGM, Jeremy Parish was given an avenue to post his opinion no less than three times (OPM, 1up, EGM). When it comes to this, it can actually begin to impact sales and that's not fair to such a phenomenal title like UGnG. It is an opinion that is not shared by the majority of people judging by gamers reaction and other publications, so not only does it not make sense but since they had two others review it in EGM it seems like a shitty decision in general.

 

[Y2Kev]

If he wants to have his (wrong) opinion about how GnG should control, fine. I found it interesting he posted his little diatribe on his blog before the review even came out as if to acknowledge that he would be hammered for his review.

Then the whole..."saving my venom" bullshit. Get somebody else on the game if all you can do is brood about it.

 

[Chairman Yang]

I agree with duckroll here. It's really unprofessional, especially when you put personal feelings in your reviews. A lot of people base their purchases off of reviews so it's kind of unfair to the people who made the game.

What? A reviewer's opinion is based off of personal feelings!

 

[duckroll]

So wait, someone shouldn't review a game if they don't like it? Is this what you're saying?

Totally not. The case would be entirely the same if there was a reviewer who publically gushes about how AWESOME and AMAZING a game is on his blog (hosted on a ZD site), and then goes on to review it in 3 different magazines or sites for ZD. Especially if his reviews for the particular game score MUCH higher than general compared to any other reviews of the same game. It would just seem odd. Monopolistic reviews are dumb and less credible, that is what I'm saying.

 

[Kroole]

Totally not. The case would be entirely the same if there was a reviewer who publically gushes about how AWESOME and AMAZING a game is on his blog (hosted on a ZD site), and then goes on to review it in 3 different magazines or sites for ZD. Especially if his reviews for the particular game score MUCH higher than general compared to any other reviews of the same game. It would just seem odd. Monopolistic reviews are dumb and less credible, that is what I'm saying.

And all that comes down to ZD asking him to review the game. You can't blame Parish for that.

 

[jgkspsx]

you're the same person covering the game for 3 seperate publications, that reflects badly both on the opinion itself, and the credibility of the company in general.

This is the crux of the problem, not that he didn't like it.

Edit:

The case would be entirely the same if there was a reviewer who publically gushes about how AWESOME and AMAZING a game is on his blog (hosted on a ZD site), and then goes on to review it in 3 different magazines or sites for ZD. Especially if his reviews for the particular game score MUCH higher than general compared to any other reviews of the same game.

Yeah, what he said.

 

[ElyrionX]

So here are some facts we know so far:

- Jeremy Parish has stated vocally on his blog his distaste for Ultimate Ghosts 'n Goblins
- It is then discovered that for whatever reason, out of all the editors and reviewers in Ziff Davis' pool, he is reviewing the game in EGM, OPM and 1up
- Before he even writes the review for 1up, he promises to save the "most venom" for it
- His reviews are also so far, the only completely negative ones out of pretty much every review publication in print or online, in any region in the world

What does this tell us about the credibility of Ziff Davis' reviews in general? While Parish's blog is supposed independant and personal, it is hosted on a ZD site where he is an official contributer to the company. He knows his audience on the blog are the same people reading the content and reviews on ZD publications, and yet he openly declares his intent to bash the game in as many outlets as he is allowed to.

Is it not unprofessional to talk about an opinion you're being paid to give before even giving it? In the case of the 1up review, what would be the point of ZD paying him for a review when he has already made it clear that it would be nothing more than a vomit of his venom against the game in text form. People have already seen his opinion in EGM as well as OPM, isn't it a waste of everyone's time and ZD's money (and possibly their credibility) by encouraging him to go forward with this?

I wonder what the rest of the community feels about this slant. In the long run it will likely neither affect ZD, Capcom or UGnG, but I think it reflects very poorly on Parish as a professional, especially how he chooses to present himself on official communication outlets after being given the opputunity to present his opinion on 3 seperate publications by ZD. It's not enough that he doesn't like the game, but he turns it into a personal crusade and makes it clear he is using this opputunity he is given to damage the game as much as he can.

You make it sound as if he did not play the game before bashing it.

Everyone's entitled to their own opinions of games. I don't see how turning it into a "personal crusade" against the game is "unprofessional". In fact, it is his profession to 'advise' people about the quality of videogames and in this case, he is merely warning people that the game is bad (in his opinion, of course) and to stay away from it. In fact, it is very professional of him to do so as long as he has genuine reasons as to why he dislikes the game and said reasons are unbiased and perfectly justified.

Besides, EGM's review format ensures that all games are rated by a bunch of different reviewers.

 

[Swordian]

He didn't write about UGnG on his 1up blog, he wrote about it on his personal website. As for his venom comment, I think you're misinterpreting it. The 1up review had most likely already been written at that point and he was just making a snarky comment about leaving most of the details out of his brief comments because the review hadn't gone up yet.

 

[Kittonwy]

He is entitled to his opinion. All it just reinforces that nobody should care about scores or allow reviews to be a final barometer for quality.

Jeremy Parish being batshit insane is just an after effect of too much Animal Crossing, I suppose.

Is the whole jaded moodiness a fake persona or is it real?

I don't get the whole "being more emotional and vitriolic = honest = more professional" thing they're trying to do at Ziff, being moody or having an explosive personality/constantly swearing tends to get people fired in most other industries.

 

[Amir0x]

Besides, EGM's review format ensures that all games are rated by a bunch of different reviewers.

the problem is, Jeremy then went on to spout his same minority opinion in two other major publications as well. This is when it becomes a problem - but, that's Ziff Davis' fault.

 

[duckroll]

And all that comes down to ZD asking him to review the game. You can't blame Parish for that.

Please note that I'm simply presenting a talking point about this UGnG issue and the air surrounding it. I'm not slamming Parish for not liking the game, or for ZD for asking him to do 3 reviews. But the combination of the two along with his vocal content on his blog seems to have affected ZD's credibility to me in general, as well as his own. Which is what I'm curious about, how do others feel?

 

[kaching]

My feelings on it from the other thread:

"Well, if he does manage to get his venom published in 3 major game media outlets, that's a bit disconcerting. The guy is entitled to his opinion and I wouldn't have him review the game any other way than what his personal opinion dictates, but getting the chance to voice that same opinion as essentially three different reviews potentially gives him more sway over the reception of this game than he should really be entitled to."

 

[ziran]

Parish is entitled to his opinion, professional and personal.
He's paid to write reviews and voice his opinion about videogames.
He doesn't, in anyway, undermine the credibility of Ziff Davis.

 

[Acosta]

Any reviewer is entitled to his opinion. If Ziff Davis gives him the chance to write a review in different magazines that will be because he is valued as professional.

If he thinks the game is poor personally, his opinion is not going to change in a review. Each one has his own style to do things, if the like being very vocal on his negative opinion about the game and has a way to express it, I don´t see the problem at all.

And, by the way, there is no such thing as "credibility" for people that give his opinion about anything. I´m sure Parish is being fair and credible according to his own viewpoint, so is not like he is fooling anyone. This work in a opoosite way, is the reader who judge who want to listen and pay attention (be a magazine as a whole, or a editor)

 

[Sapiens]

I hope Ziff isn't letting JP review the game for three pubs because they think he represents the hard-core 2D set because I'm in that set and I can't stand Parish sometimes.

He's the absolute wrong person for the "quirky, oldschool gamer" job

 

[The Faceless Master]

i think it's great the made it known in advance, so people knew "what was up" with his vendetta... err... 'review'

 

[ElyrionX]

the problem is, Jeremy then went on to spout his same minority opinion in two other major publications as well. This is when it becomes a problem - but, that's Ziff Davis' fault.

Ok, I see your point but that means the thread title is misleading since ZD is undermining their own credibility and this has nothing to do with Parish at all.

 

[DarknessTear]

Parish is entitled to his opinion.
He's paid to write reviews.
He doesn't, in anyway, undermine the credibility of Ziff Davis.

3 ****ing reviews, man. 3!

 

[Lord Error]

Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but one man's opinion should be in one review. In these days when game developers salary depends on their games average score on gamerankings, one reviewer giving three same poor scores that count towards the average will probably unfairly kill that average.

 

[XiaNaphryz]

Totally not. The case would be entirely the same if there was a reviewer who publically gushes about how AWESOME and AMAZING a game is on his blog (hosted on a ZD site), and then goes on to review it in 3 different magazines or sites for ZD. Especially if his reviews for the particular game score MUCH higher than general compared to any other reviews of the same game. It would just seem odd. Monopolistic reviews are dumb and less credible, that is what I'm saying.

So reviews that are either above or below the average are bad?

 

[White Man]

Yeah, it's complete bullshit that he gets to state his same opinion 3 times. That's the problem. I'm cool with him not liking the game, but why give him 3 chances, in 3 different publications, to state this? It would be different if ZD only had like 3 writers, but they have like, dozens.

 

[meltpotato]

What? A reviewer's opinion is based off of personal feelings!

yes but when he talks about "saving [his] venom" it starts touching on an agenda... then you have him doing it across multiple publications

 

[Kittonwy]

Parish is entitled to his opinion, professional and personal.
He's paid to write reviews and voice his opinion about videogames.
He doesn't, in anyway, undermine the credibility of Ziff Davis.

Wrong.
Wrong.
And... wrong?

 

[EmCeeGramr]

Please note that I'm simply presenting a talking point about this UGnG issue and the air surrounding it. I'm not slamming Parish for not liking the game, or for ZD for asking him to do 3 reviews. But the combination of the two along with his vocal content on his blog seems to have affected ZD's credibility to me in general, as well as his own. Which is what I'm curious about, how do others feel?

OVER ONE ****ING GAME?
Come On!

 

[Kroole]

Please note that I'm simply presenting a talking point about this UGnG issue and the air surrounding it. I'm not slamming Parish for not liking the game, or for ZD for asking him to do 3 reviews. But the combination of the two along with his vocal content on his blog seems to have affected ZD's credibility to me in general, as well as his own. Which is what I'm curious about, how do others feel?

Why not? That's exactly where the problems lie. Whatever the review was, positive or negative, to let someone write reviews for the same game in several different magizines/websites is IMO a really poor setup.

 

[Kittonwy]

Yeah, it's complete bullshit that he gets to state his same opinion 3 times. That's the problem. I'm cool with him not liking the game, but why give him 3 chances, in 3 different publications, to state this? It would be different if ZD only had like 3 writers, but they have like, dozens.

Who are too busy doing podcasts asking probing questions about the industry and answering them themselves?

 

[Wario64]

Have they done this in the past? (3 reviews from one reviewer)

Besides, the game also scored a 7.5 and a 6.0 in EGM as well. This game did NOT score well in the magazine as a whole!

I'm not even sure if anyone there likes it. Everyone has something to complain about the game and I don't agree with any of them

 

[levious]

he's totally eating up all this attention though, I'm sure he'll make some snide remark in a blog like

"Oh, I was over at GAF recently and happened to notice a whole topic dedicated to discussing my credibility... are those virgin man-boy losers so insecure about themselves that they have to blah blah."

 

[Kintaro]

This dude must be absolutely loving all the free publicity you're giving him over simple reviews. This probably isn't the first time someone has reviewed the same game for different mags, and I doubt it'll be the last. This wouldn't even be an issue if the game scored higher, or was a game that nobody gave a shit about. If the game scored a 9.0 and was reviewed in all 3 mags, you guys would be either a) sucking his cock, or b) and perhaps the most hypocritical of all, saying nothing. Especially if he scored it a 9.0 compared to the 7.5 and 6.0 in EGM.

Fact is, this guy knew his reviews wouldn't be taken lightly by the internet geeks, so he did a pre-emptive strike in his blog. Not to mention, saving his venom for the 1up review could simple mean, he has more space/text in which to convey his beefs with the game in an indepth manner. Or, simply, shit on it more because he hates it that much. Who knows, but he knows you're ALL going to click on that review, getting him and 1up, more hits.

Now people are all butt hurt, which brings forth the flipside of GAF. The Super Overreacton Backlash. A game doesn't score the game well in line with the thoughts of other magazines (which people consistantly shit on every damn week/month... Edge, Famitsu, Play), and it's on like Donkey Kong (ugh...)

Besides, the game also scored a 7.5 and a 6.0 in EGM as well. This game did NOT score well in the magazine as a whole!

 

[duckroll]

OVER ONE ****ING GAME?
Come On!

And a freelance photographer has been recently cut off by Reuters because of -two- photos out of almost a thousand. It takes a lot to build up a good reputation, but very little to shatter all that. That's the reality of journalism, but hey, I guess that's why no one takes gaming journalism seriously. It's just a ****ing game! :lol

 

[ElyrionX]

he's totally eating up all this attention though, I'm sure he'll make some snide remark in a blog like

"Oh, I was over at GAF recently and happened to notice a whole topic dedicated to discussing my credibility... are those virgin man-boy losers so insecure about themselves that they have to blah blah."

:lol

He doesn't LOOK like that sort of person.

 

[Oda]

Parrish undermined ZD's credibility before the UGnG review. I've been looking through all his stuff for the past few days, and he is a prime example of the type of video game journalist/writer/reviewer/whatever-the-hell-Milky-wants-it-to-be-called that's holding perception of this medium back.

 

[Acosta]

Yeah, it's complete bullshit that he gets to state his same opinion 3 times. That's the problem. I'm cool with him not liking the game, but why give him 3 chances, in 3 different publications, to state this? It would be different if ZD only had like 3 writers, but they have like, dozens.

That has an easy answer

1) Is not the same group of readers for each magazine.

2) Editors in chief of each publication trust the capacity of Parish to write about that game.

I think the true problem here is "why Jeremy Parish has the chance to write three times how much dislike the game I love".

If his opinion were positive we wouldn´t have this discussion now.

 

[duk]

This thread is a trap.

it's a trap!!!

 

[dark10x]

He is entitled to his opinion. All it just reinforces that nobody should care about scores or allow reviews to be a final barometer for quality.

Jeremy Parish being batshit insane is just an after effect of too much Animal Crossing, I suppose.

He is entitled to an opinion...but not THREE of them.

 

[EmCeeGramr]

And a freelance photographer has been recently cut off by Reuters because of -two- photos out of almost a thousand...

Thats nice and all, but do you honestly think its going to be indicative of a future trend on parish's part?