<!--quoteo(post=2015811:date=Nov 9 2012, 04:34 AM:name=VoodooHex)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (VoodooHex @ Nov 9 2012, 04:34 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2015811"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I have not read the review yet, but if he did commit factual inaccuracies than he needs to be called out on it. You think a corporation would stand by while another company spreads lies about them? lol.
Corporations go after each other's throats all the time. There's nothing amateurish about it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Apart from the price being (slightly) incorrect, most of it is just opinion rather than factual inaccuracies.
Some of you are being too literal about the price issue. I think the fact that he got the price wrong speaks volumes of the kind of person he is when he reviewed this. You can have an opinion, but you can also be a jerk at the same time.
This guy makes it seems like he was playing with the graphical setting set to low, had a couple of disagreements online while playing with strangers, and proceeded to type a review that seems to barely commend NS2 for being the sort of game it is, unique. Which is hard to do when you have a first person view to begin with (ie: saturated market).
*Basically what makes this wrong, is that he is working for a website that has a certain amount of pull as far as reviewing games go. His job is to be competent and encouraging of great concepts like this game. In theory...
Well I suppose it's not as bad as <a href="http://www.somethingawful.com/d/truth-media-reviews/truthmedia-review-natural.php" target="_blank">this review</a> but least that one was funny...
the bad review actually did list real issues the game does have. the funny part, the game has so many more it didn't list. So what's the fuss about? Someone actually saying the problems out-loud? i've read that review, its basically written by someone who clearly never played NS1, and is completely new to NS2, a perfect person to review NS2 since its not even based on what NS1 was about.
if the review actually went into more depth of more serious problems the game currently has, it would of been much lower score. be happy for what it is, and hope over time it gets improved.
As for Hugh i've never liked his videos, they're completely one sided, the guy clearly has no real opinion of his own but enjoys telling the viewer everything they want to hear. So he does make perfect PR guy.
<!--quoteo(post=2015824:date=Nov 8 2012, 02:50 PM:name=Fappuchino)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Fappuchino @ Nov 8 2012, 02:50 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2015824"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Some of you are being too literal about the price issue. I think the fact that he got the price wrong speaks volumes of the kind of person he is when he reviewed this. You can have an opinion, but you can also be a jerk at the same time.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
His price for NS2 was 20% off, that's pretty bad. How exactly does one go about being "too literal" with a number that represents an amount of currency which you will pay in exchange for a game? It's really bad. Feel free to agree with the opinions expressed in the review, but don't make excuses for his margin of error on the price.
<!--quoteo(post=2015886:date=Nov 8 2012, 02:45 PM:name=Neoken)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Neoken @ Nov 8 2012, 02:45 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2015886"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Well, at least NS2 is surpassing Euro Truck Simulator 2 in the User Score department. That fanbase is hard to beat! XD
just created an account at gamespot to clarify some of hits points. while ns2 is far from being perfect, some of his points are really subjective and/or prove a lack of knowledge
I would like to point out that the gamespot NS2 review currently says "No Rating". Not sure if they are thinking about retracting their obviously terrible uninformed review, or if it is just a glitch.
Wow. I really wasn't expecting that, but I would imagine UW got in contact with GameSpot. Good on them. Everyone is entitled to their own editorial opinion, but if you can't even be arsed to get the price right...
If the review was pulled, why is it still online?!
I searched 'natural selection review' in their search bar and it shows up <a href="http://uk.gamespot.com/natural-selection-2/reviews/natural-selection-2-review-6399575/" target="_blank">http://uk.gamespot.com/natural-selection-2...review-6399575/</a>
One of the big inaccuracies I thought was his comment which went with this screenshot
"Despite the relatively plain textures, maps are complex affairs, with many redundant pathways and switchbacks." <img src="http://i.imgur.com/jhLqY.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" />
The article is still up for documentation reasons, but the score and its status as a review have been revoked. A new review is currently being made by someone else.
<!--quoteo(post=2015953:date=Nov 8 2012, 03:26 PM:name=peregrinus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (peregrinus @ Nov 8 2012, 03:26 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2015953"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If the review was pulled, why is it still online?!
I searched 'natural selection review' in their search bar and it shows up <a href="http://uk.gamespot.com/natural-selection-2/reviews/natural-selection-2-review-6399575/" target="_blank">http://uk.gamespot.com/natural-selection-2...review-6399575/</a><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The score has been removed though. There will be a new/edited review up at some point. I guess they don't take the old text for whatever reason (technical or by choice).
Good deal, hopefully it'll get handed to someone with at least a vague amount of interest in the premise. It wasn't even the factual inaccuracies that I found bad about that review, he just describes it so dismissively and gripes about completely subjective things. It's fair to criticize the game for its difficult learning curve, but it's clear that he never took the effort to overcome that learning curve himself.
even through the reviewer kinda mailed it in. i'm extremely surprised, shocked really, that GS pulled it. Never seen that.
There are a ton of games being reviewed, but they should have a process where a review is done, blessed & they stick to their guns. Backing them out due to external pressure is bad, even if the review is less than stellar. Bad precedent.
The score is still on metacritic. Is that stuck now?
And it says 6.0 on gamespot's search engine <a href="http://uk.gamespot.com/search/?qs=natural+selection+review&sort=date" target="_blank">http://uk.gamespot.com/search/?qs=natural+...w&sort=date</a>
<!--quoteo(post=2015971:date=Nov 8 2012, 02:40 PM:name=extollo)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (extollo @ Nov 8 2012, 02:40 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2015971"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Oh god !!! What if the new guy's is lower ?!?!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
they would pull it again cause they cant stand our army
Honestly, the reviewer made it easy for GS to pull it. It was a sloppy, poor, hastily written article that smacked of a idontgivea###### attitude. That it had some factual errors just make it simple for GS to explain why they are doing it. But im sure the senior editors know its garbage. This is completely besides the score.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
<!--quoteo(post=2015947:date=Nov 8 2012, 02:21 PM:name=antacid)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (antacid @ Nov 8 2012, 02:21 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2015947"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Lol I would like to point out,
This is one of the "in game screenshots" that the Gamespot reviewer took to help describe NS2.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> That was the funniest part of the review for me. If it weren't published I'd say, "obvious troll is obvious."
<!--quoteo(post=2015924:date=Nov 8 2012, 10:13 PM:name=cmc5788)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cmc5788 @ Nov 8 2012, 10:13 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2015924"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Wow. I really wasn't expecting that, but I would imagine UW got in contact with GameSpot. Good on them. Everyone is entitled to their own editorial opinion, but if you can't even be arsed to get the price right...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually, no one at UWE contacted Gamespot, as far as I know. They must have pulled the review solely based on the public outcry from the community.
We are certainly glad to see that they are going to give the game another chance, with hopefully a little more time put into it.
<!--quoteo(post=2014568:date=Nov 7 2012, 02:47 PM:name=Strayan (NS2HD))--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Strayan (NS2HD) @ Nov 7 2012, 02:47 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2014568"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This is one of those situations in which I feel like a loyal dog whose master has been harmed. I've tied my rage hand behind my back and am now proceeding to do battle in the comments with my argument hand.
Anyone who wants to join me in there would be very welcome. We can start a fire, toast some marshmallows, and chant slogans.
EDIT: To clarify, he could have given us a 6.0 and whatever. Argue for it. But he didn't. He committed factual inaccuracies, could not even get the price of the game right, and just generally makes what is supposed to be objective analysis sound like the editorial section.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Then 2 posts later he's agreeing with someone who called the guy a dipsh!t... if Hugh is part of UWE then it appears you guys definitely were in contact with gamespot over this article. I'm not saying that I disagree with Hugh on the matter of this guy being a dip######... it was a very unprofessional review.
<!--quoteo(post=2016054:date=Nov 8 2012, 03:31 PM:name=moultano)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (moultano @ Nov 8 2012, 03:31 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2016054"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That was the funniest part of the review for me. If it weren't published I'd say, "obvious troll is obvious."<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He could've used a screenshot like this: <a href="http://img805.imageshack.us/img805/5538/ns2bug.png" target="_blank">http://img805.imageshack.us/img805/5538/ns2bug.png</a>
<!--quoteo(post=2016278:date=Nov 9 2012, 02:43 AM:name=hate)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (hate @ Nov 9 2012, 02:43 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2016278"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->From this very thread:
Then 2 posts later he's agreeing with someone who called the guy a dipsh!t... if Hugh is part of UWE then it appears you guys definitely were in contact with gamespot over this article. I'm not saying that I disagree with Hugh on the matter of this guy being a dip######... it was a very unprofessional review.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> You are really going out of your way, in multiple threads, to prove some kind of point, which I frankly don't understand. Hugh made some personal tweets and a single comment under his personal account in the comments section of the review. That hardly equates to contacting Gamespot and getting them to pull the review. I'm sure his comment was buried under the almost 400 other comments that were posted in that review, calling out the reviewer. And there have been many similar frustrated tweets by other developers who were screwed over by the same reviewer, and their reviews were never redone.
So, yeah, I don't think any actions on UWE's part, or Hugh on his own, had anything to do with Gamespot pulling what was clearly an inaccurate and poorly written review.
<!--quoteo(post=2016472:date=Nov 8 2012, 10:53 PM:name=Swiftspear)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Swiftspear @ Nov 8 2012, 10:53 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2016472"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You forget Cory, most game review sites quickly pull a review down as soon as the dev team of the game gets upset about it. Right? Right?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, that depends. If you're paying them off to begin with you'll never get a bad review so the point is moot. If you don't have the money to buy reviewers then I guess you just get your metacritic score by a diceroll of whether or not you get your game assigned to brain damaged reviewers who casually round your game's price up by 20% and think that learning to play a game is "grinding."
Comments
Corporations go after each other's throats all the time. There's nothing amateurish about it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Apart from the price being (slightly) incorrect, most of it is just opinion rather than factual inaccuracies.
You can have an opinion, but you can also be a jerk at the same time.
This guy makes it seems like he was playing with the graphical setting set to low, had a couple of disagreements online while playing with strangers, and proceeded to type a review that seems to barely commend NS2 for being the sort of game it is, unique. Which is hard to do when you have a first person view to begin with (ie: saturated market).
*Basically what makes this wrong, is that he is working for a website that has a certain amount of pull as far as reviewing games go. His job is to be competent and encouraging of great concepts like this game. In theory...
if the review actually went into more depth of more serious problems the game currently has, it would of been much lower score. be happy for what it is, and hope over time it gets improved.
As for Hugh i've never liked his videos, they're completely one sided, the guy clearly has no real opinion of his own but enjoys telling the viewer everything they want to hear. So he does make perfect PR guy.
You can have an opinion, but you can also be a jerk at the same time.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
His price for NS2 was 20% off, that's pretty bad. How exactly does one go about being "too literal" with a number that represents an amount of currency which you will pay in exchange for a game? It's really bad. Feel free to agree with the opinions expressed in the review, but don't make excuses for his margin of error on the price.
<a href="http://www.metacritic.com/browse/games/release-date/new-releases/pc/userscore?view=condensed&hardware=all" target="_blank">http://www.metacritic.com/browse/games/rel...mp;hardware=all</a>
<a href="http://www.metacritic.com/browse/games/release-date/new-releases/pc/userscore?view=condensed&hardware=all" target="_blank">http://www.metacritic.com/browse/games/rel...mp;hardware=all</a><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now we can only hope to be as good as Street Cleaning Simulator.
Wow. I really wasn't expecting that, but I would imagine UW got in contact with GameSpot. Good on them. Everyone is entitled to their own editorial opinion, but if you can't even be arsed to get the price right...
<img src="http://images.wikia.com/thefanfictionwikiofgtfandphazon/images/1/17/Because-having-only-one-pair-of-sunglasses-is-too-mainstream_858.gif" border="0" class="linked-image" />
<a href="http://www.gamespot.com/images/6399575/natural-selection-2-review/3?full_size=1" target="_blank">http://www.gamespot.com/images/6399575/nat...w/3?full_size=1</a>
This is one of the "in game screenshots" that the Gamespot reviewer took to help describe NS2.
I searched 'natural selection review' in their search bar and it shows up
<a href="http://uk.gamespot.com/natural-selection-2/reviews/natural-selection-2-review-6399575/" target="_blank">http://uk.gamespot.com/natural-selection-2...review-6399575/</a>
One of the big inaccuracies I thought was his comment which went with this screenshot
"Despite the relatively plain textures, maps are complex affairs, with many redundant pathways and switchbacks."
<img src="http://i.imgur.com/jhLqY.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" />
I searched 'natural selection review' in their search bar and it shows up
<a href="http://uk.gamespot.com/natural-selection-2/reviews/natural-selection-2-review-6399575/" target="_blank">http://uk.gamespot.com/natural-selection-2...review-6399575/</a><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The score has been removed though. There will be a new/edited review up at some point. I guess they don't take the old text for whatever reason (technical or by choice).
There are a ton of games being reviewed, but they should have a process where a review is done, blessed & they stick to their guns. Backing them out due to external pressure is bad, even if the review is less than stellar. Bad precedent.
Oh god !!! What if the new guy's is lower ?!?!
And it says 6.0 on gamespot's search engine <a href="http://uk.gamespot.com/search/?qs=natural+selection+review&sort=date" target="_blank">http://uk.gamespot.com/search/?qs=natural+...w&sort=date</a>
they would pull it again cause they cant stand our army
<a href="http://www.gamespot.com/images/6399575/natural-selection-2-review/3?full_size=1" target="_blank">http://www.gamespot.com/images/6399575/nat...w/3?full_size=1</a>
This is one of the "in game screenshots" that the Gamespot reviewer took to help describe NS2.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That was the funniest part of the review for me. If it weren't published I'd say, "obvious troll is obvious."
Actually, no one at UWE contacted Gamespot, as far as I know. They must have pulled the review solely based on the public outcry from the community.
We are certainly glad to see that they are going to give the game another chance, with hopefully a little more time put into it.
--Cory
<a href="https://twitter.com/hugh_jeremy/status/266305050698199041" target="_blank">https://twitter.com/hugh_jeremy/status/266305050698199041</a>
<a href="https://twitter.com/hugh_jeremy/status/266304329001078786" target="_blank">https://twitter.com/hugh_jeremy/status/266304329001078786</a>
<!--quoteo(post=2014568:date=Nov 7 2012, 02:47 PM:name=Strayan (NS2HD))--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Strayan (NS2HD) @ Nov 7 2012, 02:47 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2014568"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This is one of those situations in which I feel like a loyal dog whose master has been harmed. I've tied my rage hand behind my back and am now proceeding to do battle in the comments with my argument hand.
Anyone who wants to join me in there would be very welcome. We can start a fire, toast some marshmallows, and chant slogans.
EDIT: To clarify, he could have given us a 6.0 and whatever. Argue for it. But he didn't. He committed factual inaccuracies, could not even get the price of the game right, and just generally makes what is supposed to be objective analysis sound like the editorial section.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Then 2 posts later he's agreeing with someone who called the guy a dipsh!t... if Hugh is part of UWE then it appears you guys definitely were in contact with gamespot over this article. I'm not saying that I disagree with Hugh on the matter of this guy being a dip######... it was a very unprofessional review.
<!--quoteo(post=2016054:date=Nov 8 2012, 03:31 PM:name=moultano)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (moultano @ Nov 8 2012, 03:31 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2016054"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That was the funniest part of the review for me. If it weren't published I'd say, "obvious troll is obvious."<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He could've used a screenshot like this: <a href="http://img805.imageshack.us/img805/5538/ns2bug.png" target="_blank">http://img805.imageshack.us/img805/5538/ns2bug.png</a>
Then 2 posts later he's agreeing with someone who called the guy a dipsh!t... if Hugh is part of UWE then it appears you guys definitely were in contact with gamespot over this article. I'm not saying that I disagree with Hugh on the matter of this guy being a dip######... it was a very unprofessional review.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You are really going out of your way, in multiple threads, to prove some kind of point, which I frankly don't understand. Hugh made some personal tweets and a single comment under his personal account in the comments section of the review. That hardly equates to contacting Gamespot and getting them to pull the review. I'm sure his comment was buried under the almost 400 other comments that were posted in that review, calling out the reviewer. And there have been many similar frustrated tweets by other developers who were screwed over by the same reviewer, and their reviews were never redone.
So, yeah, I don't think any actions on UWE's part, or Hugh on his own, had anything to do with Gamespot pulling what was clearly an inaccurate and poorly written review.
--Cory
Well, that depends. If you're paying them off to begin with you'll never get a bad review so the point is moot. If you don't have the money to buy reviewers then I guess you just get your metacritic score by a diceroll of whether or not you get your game assigned to brain damaged reviewers who casually round your game's price up by 20% and think that learning to play a game is "grinding."