Ziff Skips Payment (EGM/1UP in trouble ?)

[patsu]

http://www.nypost.com/seven/08162007/business/ziff_skips_payment_business_keith_j__kelly.htm

I have criticized 1UP quite a bit. How are the rest doing in general ?

 

[Rangers]

I generally like 1up. They injected a lot of personality and for better or worse, fanboyism into the mix. I mean their editors are allowed to more openly be fanboys of one system or another, and that goes for both PS3 and 360. Dont think their are any Wii fanboys on staff, as most all their editors agree the Wii library is currently extremely weak.

And their podcast got a lot better imo with the subtraction of the overly vulgar Luke Smith.

I tell you what, trying to listen to an incredibly bland IGN podcast is like torture after becoming accustomed to 1upyours.

1up definitely inserted themselves into the "big 3" (along with Gamespot and IGN" in the last couple years, no doubt about that.

Each site has things they do well. 1up just has the personalities. They put personality into the the videogame reporting mix with the 1up show and 1up yours, and put the focus on the editors.


I am not sure why PS3 fans apparantly hate 1up, going by todays GAF thread, and patsu

 

[patsu]

I don't follow any of the podcasts and so I can't identify with any of their characters/personalities. It's all just game reviews to me. If it's biased, it's a bad review in the traditional sense (to me !). But then again, I don't trust any reviews anymore other than peer reviews.

Some of 1UP articles/news are also error prone. I can't remember which ones now though. I sense the need for some changes in the gaming industry media, but have not really gave it any serious thoughts.

 

[Rangers]

I don't follow any of the podcasts and so I can't identify with any of their characters/personalities. It's all just game reviews to me. If it's biased, it's a bad review in the traditional sense (to me !). But then again, I don't trust any reviews anymore other than peer reviews.

Some of 1UP articles/news are also error prone. I can't remember which ones now though. I sense the need for some changes in the gaming industry media, but have not really gave it any serious thoughts.

Oh yeah, 1up is not the place for the most detailed or thorough game reviews. As I say, each site has things they do well. 1up seems to go by a less scientific, and more broad and personal review method. As well as often short reviews without a ton of text by other site standards.

Personally I'd say IGN is tops in reviews, as they're very lengthy, thorough and scientific in the breakdown. Gamespot is tougher, but seems more arbitrary and also GS reviews are generally shorter than IGN's. Whereas a 1up editor might give a game a "10" just because he loved it, even if it had a lot of flaws. That's just how 1up is. Heck, 1up even has a much coarser scale as they only do .5 as the max review granularity.

But still, 1up reviews have gained creedence as well, for example their recent ten for Bioshock was nothing to sneeze at.

 

[.Melchiah.]

Personally I'd say IGN is tops in reviews, as they're very lengthy, thorough and scientific in the breakdown.Gamespot is tougher, but seems more arbitrary and also GS reviews are generally shorter than IGN's. Whereas a 1up editor might give a game a "10" just because he loved it, even if it had a lot of flaws. That's just how 1up is. Heck, 1up even has a much coarser scale as they only do .5 as the max review granularity.

But still, 1up reviews have gained creedence as well, for example their recent ten for Bioshock was nothing to sneeze at.

IGN, Gamespot and Eurogamer are the ones whose reviews I value the most.

You may want to read Eurogamer's 3-page review of Bioshock.

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

I generally like 1up. They injected a lot of personality and for better or worse, fanboyism into the mix. I mean their editors are allowed to more openly be fanboys of one system or another, and that goes for both PS3 and 360. Dont think their are any Wii fanboys on staff, as most all their editors agree the Wii library is currently extremely weak.

And thats why I dont like them. As soon as you are allowing more personall feelings im not reading a ''neutral'' review anymore about what is good and bad about a game but a bunch of PR to make one platform look better than the other. You already see that with Wii, its bad because they think its bad, not because it really is. For example the game libary on Wii has more, and more good games than ps3 for example that got like 2 games released in the west since laucnh...

 

[Arwin]

For example the game libary on Wii has more, and more good games than ps3 for example that got like 2 games released in the west since laucnh...

Yeah, that's a good way to have yourself be taken seriously.

 

[Rainbow Man]

If 1Up bites the dust does that mean it's the end for our supply of hard Kha'ak?

Peace.

 

[patsu]

But still, 1up reviews have gained creedence as well, for example their recent ten for Bioshock was nothing to sneeze at.

They will gain some and lose some given their bias. A neutral approach may give them more audience ?

These days, I treat them more like a fan site rather than a mainstream review site. Even if they give a 10 to Bioshock and all their favorite games, it would mean little to me if they can't review Wii and PS3 games properly. But that's just my expectation of a review site.

 

[mrcorbo]

They will gain some and lose some given their bias. A neutral approach may give them more audience ?

These days, I treat them more like a fan site rather than a mainstream review site. Even if they give a 10 to Bioshock and all their favorite games, it would mean little to me if they can't review Wii and PS3 games properly. But that's just my expectation of a review site.

Why the 1UP hate? Seriously.

In my experience these editors are gamers first and foremost and when they have an enjoyable experience irrespective of platform they say so. For every incident someone can cite that shows a bias in one direction it is probably possible to come up with another incident that shows a bias in the other direction. I have made observations about this before where some see a differing opinion as clearly biased where as opinions that they share (and that agree with their own biases) they don't consider biased. So instead of seeing a balanced viewpoint, they see a viewpoint that sometimes gets it right but often is wrong. What they don't see, though, is how their own views and biases influence their perception of bias in others.

And the GFW affiliation affecting editorial content stuff is a red herring, IMO. I listen to the GFW podcasts fairly regularly and they have had some very unflattering things to say about Games For Windows Live! in particular and even Games For Windows itself. They were appropriately (and correctly) negative about the Vista-only Halo 2, for example. And on this weeks podcast they spent quite a bit of time talking up some of the new features coming to Steam remarking multiple times that, "These are the kinds of things that GFW Live! is promising that it is going deliver except that Steam is delivering it now and it's free." This is not how I would expect a marketing mouthpiece to act. Jeff Green, the EIC of the magazine himself was the one who was making the preceding comments and he has been pretty free with his contempt for the name change for the magazine, as well, probably because he knew that it would lead to people questioning their ability to be objective in their reviews and opinions. So far, though, I haven't seen any indications that they are being forced to be pro-MS.

If you find that you don't agree with the bulk of the reviews on the site then feel free to dismiss their reviews' relevance to you. But just dismissing their opinions as clearly biased is pretty fanboyish IMO. This is not directed at you specifically, Patsu, BTW. Though you might consider the possibility that these reviewers are just giving their honest opinion without an agenda behind it. An opinion you can disagree with without questioning their journalistic integrity.

 

[patsu]

Why the 1UP hate? Seriously.

Hate ? Hardly. I am more intrigued by their approach (e.g., Is it more effective for them ? What is the implication when they show their bias in their writings and shows ?).

In my experience these editors are gamers first and foremost and when they have an enjoyable experience irrespective of platform they say so. For every incident someone can cite that shows a bias in one direction it is probably possible to come up with another incident that shows a bias in the other direction. I have made observations about this before where some see a differing opinion as clearly biased where as opinions that they share (and that agree with their own biases) they don't consider biased. So instead of seeing a balanced viewpoint, they see a viewpoint that sometimes gets it right but often is wrong. What they don't see, though, is how their own views and biases influence their perception of bias in others.

Sure but there are more than 1 factors in play, including whether they (as a review site) can convincingly describe their motivation and reasoning. e.g., When WoundingChaney from psinext highlighted that Lair has framerate issues and why he didn't like it. I can immediately relate to his experiences and lower my expectation of the game. When TTP from GAF described his Lair hands-on, I can believe him right away despite some negative points he brought up.

When the 1UP folks write their review, I can't seem to follow their logic. But it's not a big enough problem for me to look deeper, so usually I'd just ignore their review because they publicly showed the bias _and_ I don't track who's who in 1UP.

And the GFW affiliation affecting editorial content stuff is a red herring, IMO. I listen to the GFW podcasts fairly regularly and they have had some very unflattering things to say about Games For Windows Live! in particular and even Games For Windows itself. They were appropriately (and correctly) negative about the Vista-only Halo 2, for example. And on this weeks podcast they spent quite a bit of time talking up some of the new features coming to Steam remarking multiple times that, "These are the kinds of things that GFW Live! is promising that it is going deliver except that Steam is delivering it now and it's free." This is not how I would expect a marketing mouthpiece to act. Jeff Green, the EIC of the magazine himself was the one who was making the preceding comments and he has been pretty free with his contempt for the name change for the magazine, as well, probably because he knew that it would lead to people questioning their ability to be objective in their reviews and opinions. So far, though, I haven't seen any indications that they are being forced to be pro-MS.

I didn't bring up GFW.

If you find that you don't agree with the bulk of the reviews on the site then feel free to dismiss their reviews' relevance to you. But just dismissing their opinions as clearly biased is pretty fanboyish IMO. This is not directed at you specifically, Patsu, BTW. Though you might consider the possibility that these reviewers are just giving their honest opinion without an agenda behind it. An opinion you can disagree with without questioning their journalistic integrity.

I am not saying they have any agenda. I am wondering if they can do better with another approach. I can find better reviews among peers as a result.

 

[mrcorbo]

So let's put the bias allegation to the test.

Referenced data from Gamerankings.com

EGM----------------------------------------

PS3:

Number of PS3 Reviews: 31
Site's Avg Score for PS3: 6.9
Site's Avg Ratio For PS3: 68.9%
GR Avg Ratio for PS3 titles this site has reviewed: 74.1%
Number of PS3 Reviews Higher than the Average: 4
Number of PS3 Reviews Lower than the Average: 27
Percentage of PS3 Reviews Higher: 12.9%

X360:

Number of X360 Reviews: 112
Site's Avg Score for X360: 6.9
Site's Avg Ratio For X360: 69.4%
GR Avg Ratio for X360 titles this site has reviewed: 74.8%
Number of X360 Reviews Higher than the Average: 17
Number of X360 Reviews Lower than the Average: 95
Percentage of X360 Reviews Higher: 15.2%

1UP---------------------------------------------------------

PS3:

Number of PS3 Reviews: 36
Site's Avg Score for PS3: 6.9
Site's Avg Ratio For PS3: 68.6%
GR Avg Ratio for PS3 titles this site has reviewed: 72.9%
Number of PS3 Reviews Higher than the Average: 15
Number of PS3 Reviews Lower than the Average: 21
Percentage of PS3 Reviews Higher: 41.7%

X360:

Number of X360 Reviews: 128
Site's Avg Score for X360: 7.0
Site's Avg Ratio For X360: 69.6%
GR Avg Ratio for X360 titles this site has reviewed: 73.2%
Number of X360 Reviews Higher than the Average: 48
Number of X360 Reviews Lower than the Average: 80
Percentage of X360 Reviews Higher: 37.5%

IGN------------------------------------------------------------

PS3:

Number of PS3 Reviews: 47
Site's Avg Score for PS3: 7.4
Site's Avg Ratio For PS3: 73.7%
GR Avg Ratio for PS3 titles this site has reviewed: 73.0%
Number of PS3 Reviews Higher than the Average: 29
Number of PS3 Reviews Lower than the Average: 18
Percentage of PS3 Reviews Higher: 61.7%

X360:

Number of X360 Reviews: 217
Site's Avg Score for X360: 7.1
Site's Avg Ratio For X360: 70.9%
GR Avg Ratio for X360 titles this site has reviewed: 70.6%
Number of X360 Reviews Higher than the Average: 115
Number of X360 Reviews Lower than the Average: 102
Percentage of X360 Reviews Higher: 53.0%

Play Magazine----------------------------------------------

PS3:

Number of PS3 Reviews: 21
Site's Avg Score for PS3: 7.9
Site's Avg Ratio For PS3: 78.8%
GR Avg Ratio for PS3 titles this site has reviewed: 73.1%
Number of PS3 Reviews Higher than the Average: 16
Number of PS3 Reviews Lower than the Average: 5
Percentage of PS3 Reviews Higher: 76.2%

X360:

Number of X360 Reviews: 80
Site's Avg Score for X360: 8.1
Site's Avg Ratio For X360: 81.2%
GR Avg Ratio for X360 titles this site has reviewed: 74.3%
Number of X360 Reviews Higher than the Average: 60
Number of X360 Reviews Lower than the Average: 20
Percentage of X360 Reviews Higher: 75.0%

None of these magazines/web sites appear to show bias towards one platform or the other in their review scores. EGM and 1UP consistently score lower than the industry average across both PS3 and 360. IGN is right at the average scores for both. Play magazine is consistently higher across both platforms.

 

[patsu]

mrcorbo, thanks for correcting me. If I were to break it down, my doubt would roughly be:

* Do the editors' publicly biased personality the scores they give to the games ? I think in EGM, they have 3 editors and then average them out, which is good. The downside is it can get confusing (inconsistent ?) and people generally look for the reasons behind the scores. And here, I am not sure if their "openly biased personalities" helped:

crispin says the combat system is confusing, and the sixaxis controls don't always work the way they should. lock-on system is also jacked.
greg ford says the camera is frustrating in ground combat. the wide open levels hold a lot of potential but ultimately don't deliver
garnett says it's a "frustrating disappointment" with a few bright spots

It's Rogue Squadron all over. Camera problem in flight is not fixed. Game has no map to help navigate. Chocolate looking. Blend art style. But on great points: Ground combat way better. SIXAXIS control is cool. etc. etc.

There are conflicting info given to the readers and people complained even if the editors may be right on certain points (Guys, please collect your points). To me it's much more simpler to check out other simpler sites or even people I trust on the forum.

Your stats above showed the average scores of the magazines/sites which is great. It doesn't tell me the stats of individual reviewers, but like I said, it's not important for me to drill down. I don't really care. I post the OP because I want to know what's the general state of the gaming media (I was told in another venue that corporations are selling their publishing arms).



* Numbers don't tell everything. Even when a score is given, if an openly biased personality (but high profile) only talked negatively about a game/platform, or even misreport, it will affect the credibility of their reviews. I think we had a few incidents earlier this year or last year.

If there had been a mistake, it's easy to get framed because of the biased pretext.

Again I don't specifically hate 1UP or EGM. I might groan when people (anyone) misreport, or didn't do their job well. But again that's just me.

Got to go. I'll see you around.

 

[Skrying]

The numbers on the reviews often times do not line up with what is said. I love reading a review that completely contradicts its final score given. Happens often because in a lot of cases as long as the number is in line no one seems to care...

 

[mrcorbo]

mrcorbo, thanks for correcting me. If I were to break it down, my doubt would roughly be:

* Do the editors' publicly biased personality the scores they give to the games ? I think in EGM, they have 3 editors and then average them out, which is good. The downside is it can get confusing (inconsistent ?) and people generally look for the reasons behind the scores. And here, I am not sure if their "openly biased personalities" helped:

I would say no. The only one of the personalities (now that Luke has gone to work for Bungie) that I am aware has a clear and obvious preference of system is Shane. He has a strong affinity for Japanese games and developers and is the resident 1UP Sony fanboy (to the degree that on the last "1Up Show" video podcast they ran a facetious plotline where they were trying to get someone to quit 1UP to recreate the drama of Luke's departure for Bungie so they suggested that Shane should quit and go work for Sony). I would still trust his review of a game like Blue Dragon or Lost Odyssey, though.

here are conflicting info given to the readers and people complained even if the editors may be right on certain points (Guys, please collect your points). To me it's much more simpler to check out other simpler sites or even people I trust on the forum.

If the 1UP Yours "quotes" weren't both paraphrased & taken out of context they wouldn't be conflicting. It really helps when you get your information first-hand.....

* Numbers don't tell everything. Even when a score is given, if an openly biased personality (but high profile) only talked negatively about a game/platform, or even misreport, it will affect the credibility of their reviews. I think we had a few incidents earlier this year or last year.

I agree. I'm a firm believer in the maxim, "There's lies, damn lies and statistics." but if there was a systematic bias in their review scores it should show up here and it clearly and emphatically doesn't. Their PS3 reviews are on average 5.2% lpwer than the industry average and their 360 reviews are 5.4% lower. That's so consistent it's uncanny.

If there had been a mistake, it's easy to get framed because of the biased pretext.

Any perceived biased pretext in this case is purely a creation of the accuser's own biases, IMO. If someone can prove me wrong, feel free. I would want to know if I couldn't use their reviews as references when making game buying decisions. At this point I would put the burden of proof on proving a bias, though, not on disproving it.

Again I don't specifically hate 1UP or EGM. I might groan when people (anyone) misreport, or didn't do their job well. But again that's just me.

Nope, I'm totally with you on that last point.

 

[patsu]

If the 1UP Yours "quotes" weren't both paraphrased & taken out of context they wouldn't be conflicting. It really helps when you get your information first-hand.....

Because of your post, I pulled down the podcast and listened to it. It is what it is (I just jotted down quick notes). They are indeed not related to the prior points mentioned in the paper review. Given the multiple personality approach, I wouldn't be surprised. It opens up to multiple interpretations and is harder to absorb.

I agree. I'm a firm believer in the maxim, "There's lies, damn lies and statistics." but if there was a systematic bias in their review scores it should show up here and it clearly and emphatically doesn't. Their PS3 reviews are on average 5.2% lpwer than the industry average and their 360 reviews are 5.4% lower. That's so consistent it's uncanny.

The average scores measures the blanket treatment pf PS3 and Xbox 360 games, but it does not necessarily imply there is no bias on the note of specific games. Nevertheless, I'm not interested in a witchhunt and will just leave it as that.

Any perceived biased pretext in this case is purely a creation of the accuser's own biases, IMO. If someone can prove me wrong, feel free. I would want to know if I couldn't use their reviews as references when making game buying decisions. At this point I would put the burden of proof on proving a bias, though, not on disproving it.

I think it would be case by case. Given 1UP's frequent misreport in the earlier days about PS3, I do not think they can blame people for accusing that they are biased (sloppy treatment of topic is also unfair).

We don't see the same allegation on other media houses. It may be a two-way thing.

 

[Cheezdoodles]

I love how every PS3 owner now hates 1up.com and calling them biased because they gave Liar, a game nobody here has played yet a bad review

 

[mrcorbo]

I love how every PS3 owner now hates 1up.com and calling them biased because they gave Liar, a game nobody here has played yet a bad review

Apparently, Gamepro didn't really take to the controls either. Some comments from their review (3.75 out of 5 which would be 7.5 out of 10).

"Gorgeous graphics, amazing orchestral soundtrack, dragon based action is fun."

“To be fair, the motion sensing is pretty accurate but requiring you to constantly move your hands around while fiddling with buttons over the course of a fairly long game is asking too much. It’s unfortunate that the game relies so heavily on a gimmicky feature that no one has been able to get a true grasp of (pun intended).â€￾

“The Sixaxis-only control scheme that plagues the game is noticeably absent when you land your dragon on the ground as the analog sticks take over, making it easier to wreak havoc.â€￾

I'd call a control scheme that "plagues the game" a fairly significant issue.

I need to let this go, I think. I really have no desire to spread FUD about Lair. And given my reasons for posting in the first place that would be hypocritical. Once the game is out and/or more reviews are in the wild we can revisit whether the EGM (notably not 1UP who haven't posted a review yet) review was accurate or not.

 

[valioso]

I love how every PS3 owner now hates 1up.com and calling them biased because they gave Liar, a game nobody here has played yet a bad review

yeah no kidding. And there is no such thing as an impartial review... is always going to be that guy's opinion.

 

[sevanig]

I only listen to their podcasts and i don't even do that anymore.
A few of them are alright but the rest are a pack of idiots...
When I listen to their show now I just end up with high blood pressure