-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Does Jeremy Parish undermine Ziff Davis' credibility?
- Thread starter duckroll
- Start date
- Status
skip said:
but why is that a good thing? What's the point in buying any of the mags if it's just going to say the same thing as the 1UP site? The same writers and sources means seeing the same opinions and content. And having the same writers means we will see the same writing styles+formats throughout all the publications. That may not sound important but it gets old fast. Viva la difference...
Zenith said:
aside from rare cases like this (GnG), it's not the same content -- it's the same subjects approached from different angles. shane on 1UPyours isn't always talking about the same stuff on EGM Live*. video content from a CGW cover story can't appear in the magazine, so we put it up on gamevideos. we can't fit a five-day cover story into EGM, so it goes on 1UP. the 1UP reviewer in EGM only gets 120 words, so there's a chance to expand upon that online. CGW comes out later than everyone else, so there's a chance to dive deeper into games that are already released. and even though we share writers, each magazine is retaining their unique styles and formats.
print and online have very different strengths and tools, this is how we're using them.
Greenpanda
Banned
skip said:
Of course I'm lecturing you. I'm your potential customer, I get to lecture you however much I want
. And if you want to be successful in business, you'd damn well better listen to me.skip said:
I'm not sure if you realize it, but this attitude is exactly what everyone is so pissed off about: Web site/magazine editors acting like they're above their audience. Again, the so-called "idiots on messageboards" are precisely the people to whom you're trying to sell magazines. Your post is trying to create some distinction between the "idiots" (who don't like ZD's reviews) and the non-idiots (who presumably do) and writing off the "idiot" group. But walling yourself off from large portions of your (potential) audience is hardly the way to sell magazines. OK, maybe doing so will appeal to the "non-idiot" group by flattering their intelligence and dubious taste in games, but you can only coast so long on smug superiority. Maybe you can take into considerations the "idiot" group as well.
And what makes them idiots, anyway, aside from the fact that you happen to have a printing press, whereas we decided to pursue careers that don't involve lathering ourselves in Doritos crumbs and rushing for the Nintendo booth every May? I've seen a lot of game impressions on GAF that are a lot more informative than most published game reviews.
skip said:
I'll grant you that numbers 2, 3, and 4 are disputable, but 1 isn't. The fact that a ton of people in this thread are saying, "Toastyfrog isn't credibile!" indicates that he already has undermined ZD's credibility. Your credibility isn't something you can arbitrarily define; if people are saying that their trust of ZD has been undermined by Toastyfrog's reviews, then that's prima facie evidence his hack-jobs are affecting your public perception.
Or, ignore my suggestions. I'm sure you'll be very successful if you keep on condescending to your audience and telling them what to think, buy, and say.
It's working for Dan Rather and the New York Times, isn't it?
My question is simply, if you have all these writers and you're all working on each others' magazines, why not just have them all work on one big, great magazine? I'd hate to be the voice of pessimism, but your magazines hardly have a feeling and voice all their own. They sound like regurgitated crap a lot of the time, honestly. And I'm not saying that to be inflammatory - honest to goodness. But more often than not, with every issue of OPM or EGM I get, I think, "Wow, this is lighter on content than last month's," or, "Are they really running this feature again?" And some of the writing is just awful..
Greenpanda said:Of course I'm lecturing you. I'm your potential customer, I get to lecture you however much I want
Again, the so-called "idiots on messageboards" are precisely the people to whom you're trying to sell magazines.
Perhaps they're going after the "anti-idiots-on-messageboards" dollar. That'd be very smart of them.
Greenpanda said:
take that immature attitude to any business owner, and see what warm reception awaits you.
skip said:
but you said you want to integrate all the mags+sites as much as possible. That means more sharing of writers+content so surely "rare cases" like GnG will become more frequent.
and you didn't really answer my question, you just said it was up to the editors how they will tackle it. how do you force someone to write in a way that is totally different from their usual style?
Reilly said:
Then, let's not try to make the shit smell like roses. The fact is, the quality of the publications isn't as good as it could be, or in my opinion it's suffering, because they're out to make more money. And that's fine. That's business. That's the purpose of having the magazines on the stand to begin with. But don't insist that they're fine, idiots on message boards are overreacting, when, in fact, well, they're not. Your product isn't that great.
Greenpanda said:Of course I'm lecturing you. I'm your potential customer, I get to lecture you however much I want
I'm not sure if you realize it, but this attitude is exactly what everyone is so pissed off about: Web site/magazine editors acting like they're above their audience. Again, the so-called "idiots on messageboards" are precisely the people to whom you're trying to sell magazines. Your post is trying to create some distinction between the "idiots" (who don't like ZD's reviews) and the non-idiots (who presumably do) and writing off the "idiot" group. But walling yourself off from large portions of your (potential) audience is hardly the way to sell magazines. OK, maybe doing so will appeal to the "non-idiot" group by flattering their intelligence and dubious taste in games, but you can only coast so long on smug superiority. Maybe you can take into considerations the "idiot" group as well.
And what makes them idiots, anyway, aside from the fact that you happen to have a printing press, whereas we decided to pursue careers that don't involve lathering ourselves in Doritos crumbs and rushing for the Nintendo booth every May? I've seen a lot of game impressions on GAF that are a lot more informative than most published game reviews.
I'll grant you that numbers 2, 3, and 4 are disputable, but 1 isn't. The fact that a ton of people in this thread are saying, "Toastyfrog isn't credibile!" indicates that he already has undermined ZD's credibility. Your credibility isn't something you can arbitrarily define; if people are saying that their trust of ZD has been undermined by Toastyfrog's reviews, then that's prima facie evidence his hack-jobs are affecting your public perception.
Or, ignore my suggestions. I'm sure you'll be very successful if you keep on condescending to your audience and telling them what to think, buy, and say.
It's working for Dan Rather and the New York Times, isn't it?
I didn't say all messageboard users are idiots. the ones who aren't are the ones who write-up awesome impressions and reviews here on GAF, and there are plenty of them. like, oh say, Wellington, who we got writing sports content for 1UP because of that very thing. Luke just hired Beige from the 1UP boards as a news intern becuase we were impressed with his writing. if we really thought that we were "above you," that never would have happened.
the rest of your business advice is noted and filed appropriately.
Zenith said:
The "how" doesn't really matter in this case...
The fact of the matter (and what should be the main concern) is that one reviewer had three opportunities to talk about a game to three separate audiences... sure there is some overlap between the readerships, but that is not the point. It doesn't matter if he loved or hated the game, the fact that the same review talked about it three times (even with different styles) isn't fair to the developer or consumer/reader.
If the reviewer (subjectively) hated the game, it's bad for the dev three times over as it reduces potential sales of three different audiences. If s/he subjectively liked it, it's bad for the potential (on the fence) consumer because they read the "same" positive review (albeit from different "perspectives/styles") three times over.... especially true for the casual/younger gamers who don't notice all three reviews were written by the same person.
It shouldn't need to be re-evaluated; it should never have happened. peroid. It's common sense; I like the idea of utilizing the different groups of ZD to cross review, but who would be dumb enough to get the same person to review the same game for three different outlets with three different audiences? That's bad... and stupid.
I don't completely blame JP because he was assigned all three tasks. That said I wouldn't be surprised if he was happy to write all three because it meant he could vent about the game in three different ways (which wouldn't be right either).
Of All Trades
Member
This actually undermines ZD's credibility about as much as everything else posted so far, simply because it shows that ZD never bothered to implement basic standards for journalism. The "communication breakdown" shouldn't have mattered because there should have been safeguards in place, "voice and style" be damned.skip said:
cartman414
Member
Kintaro said:
Megaman 2 for the NES says you're wrong.
Greenpanda said:
But always going by majority is indicative of a mob mentality. What about the possibility that the opinions and views of the majority are unfounded?
Sapiens
Member
I just wanted to say that this is a seriously great thread and I'm enjoying every post. And that I agree with the perception that certain game writers do, in fact, treat their audiences with disdain.
This Jeremy Parish GnG incident needs to be resolved. It can not be let to pass.
And yes, its only a videogame, but this is a videogame message board and we loves us some videogames, so take care of this situation, please.
This Jeremy Parish GnG incident needs to be resolved. It can not be let to pass.
And yes, its only a videogame, but this is a videogame message board and we loves us some videogames, so take care of this situation, please.
Of All Trades said:
This is the only part of this problem that I blame directly on Jeremy Parish -- it's understandable if the back-end people (managing editors or whomever assigns jobs) screws up every once and a while as it's a big company... However, JP knew he would be (or had to) write for all three pubs and either didn't say anything at all or said something, but rolled with it anyway.
Where is JP? Shouldn't he be here trying to help clear this shit up?
(not that I don't appreciate skip's input)
This is the most embarrassing GAF thread ever.
Here's what I see:
- Parish is one of the best game journalists around.
- He writes a review, and gives a game a low score. He says he has a reason for why HE doesn't think the game is very good. I haven't read the review.
- I haven't seen anything to suggest Parish had a "vendetta" against the game before he reviewed it.
- Parish wasn't alone in disliking the game. Another reviewer gave it a 6.0
- This Ziff hate is ridiculous.
Here's what I see:
- Parish is one of the best game journalists around.
- He writes a review, and gives a game a low score. He says he has a reason for why HE doesn't think the game is very good. I haven't read the review.
- I haven't seen anything to suggest Parish had a "vendetta" against the game before he reviewed it.
- Parish wasn't alone in disliking the game. Another reviewer gave it a 6.0
- This Ziff hate is ridiculous.
Kobun Heat
Member
I'm lowering my score for UG&G by three points, just because of this thread. Are you guys happy, now?
White Man said:
Agreed. If each ZD channel is going to publish a review on a title. either publish different reviews (by different reviewers) for each channel, or let each channel have their "exclusive". This review-sharing garbage is cheap, and gives the reviewer an unfair tilt in their score vs. the rest of the publication industry...
Zaxxon said:
I agree, but there is Parish's comments that anyone who loves the game is blinded by nostalgia, pretty lame thing to say. But as far as I know it was only on his blog and not in the review itself so you really can't hold that against him.
In the August issue of EGM, there were 12 reviews. There are three viewpoints per review, for a grand total of a possible 36 individually written reviews. There are 13 EGM staffers listed as review crew members.
Of the 36 reviews, 12 are handled by people not listed as part of the EGM staff. So that's 24 reviews, written by 13 people. Less than two per staff member, per month. BUT.. Of the games reviewed, EIGHT of the staff members only reviewed one game (Bryan, Patrick, Dan, Mark, Greg Ford, Crispin, Demian, and Greg Sewart). Jay reviewed four, Robert reviewed two, Jen reviewed two, Shane reviewed three, and Michael reviewed three. 13 reviewers total. Of the 13, five are listed as reviews being their domain - Greg Ford, Demian, Robert, Patrick, and Greg Sewart. Another is an intern. Another is an "Editor-at-Large." The five reviewers (one of whom is the Reviews Editor) accounted for a total of SIX OF THE POSSIBLE 36 INDIVIDUALLY WRITTEN REVIEWS. Meanwhile, the Managing Editor, the Executive Editor, the News Editor, the Intern, accounted for TWELVE. What?
I'm sorry, but in a Summer issue, when you yourselves are complaining about there not being anything to review... You didn't cover a third of the games with magazine staff, and not even a third of the remaining reviews were done by people assigned to reviews by your own naming. That's a little odd, in my opinion.
Of the 36 reviews, 12 are handled by people not listed as part of the EGM staff. So that's 24 reviews, written by 13 people. Less than two per staff member, per month. BUT.. Of the games reviewed, EIGHT of the staff members only reviewed one game (Bryan, Patrick, Dan, Mark, Greg Ford, Crispin, Demian, and Greg Sewart). Jay reviewed four, Robert reviewed two, Jen reviewed two, Shane reviewed three, and Michael reviewed three. 13 reviewers total. Of the 13, five are listed as reviews being their domain - Greg Ford, Demian, Robert, Patrick, and Greg Sewart. Another is an intern. Another is an "Editor-at-Large." The five reviewers (one of whom is the Reviews Editor) accounted for a total of SIX OF THE POSSIBLE 36 INDIVIDUALLY WRITTEN REVIEWS. Meanwhile, the Managing Editor, the Executive Editor, the News Editor, the Intern, accounted for TWELVE. What?
I'm sorry, but in a Summer issue, when you yourselves are complaining about there not being anything to review... You didn't cover a third of the games with magazine staff, and not even a third of the remaining reviews were done by people assigned to reviews by your own naming. That's a little odd, in my opinion.
But in this case you described it as a communication breakdown, which Jeremy himself could have easily resolved.skip said:
How does the fact you are trying to build a group identity make it any less of a conflict of interest for a single reviewer to submit multiple, different reviews for the same game? If anything, that just exacerbates the conflict of interest. A single group identity isn't reinforced by something like this.
Kobun Heat
Member
dark10x said:Nah, you would have done that anyways because it's on the PSP rather than Nintendo DS.
Wow, I am shocked nobody posted a popcorn picture in this thread. I gotta say what I find most interesting about this is that most, certainly not all, but still most of the gamers here haven't even played UGnG yet. It is understandable as to why since the game isn't out in the US or Europe yet, though I got to wonder if Toastyfrog's comments actually changed the mind of anyone at least around here. Also, Chris Remo, as I recall it is Luke Smith and his cronies who is in charge of the news over at 1UP.com.
All it really means is that it serves ZD right for hiring him as a contributor in the first place. But I guess that's why nobody takes video game journalism seriously, since most of the people hired into it got in through connections and not through their professional experience.
Pellham said:
I said this in the reviews thread started by Justin, but OF COURSE no one responds to that. This is the crux of the problem. It's nice to see they hired a couple random people off message boards, because they thought they were qualified. But nine times out of 10, someone is a "contributor" because they knew the right person.
Kabuki Quantum Lover
Member
The fact that this thread exists hurts the inner mushy stuff in my skull. If JP didn't back himself up in the reviews, then Z-D's credibility could be tarnished. But God forbid a magazine offer a different opinion of a game--even if it was negative. Frankly, I'm tired of straight 9s...
Sapiens
Member
Reilly said:
I've been boycotting the magazines for the last few months now. They just don't offer the same reading experience as they used to, with FAR too many references to check out more content online.
There's nothing I hate more than to be referred to the internet when I'm on the crapper.
- Status