Gamepotting -- your new job

[Anonymous]

Did I really just go to Gamespotting and find .... 13 columns?

Do they really think people have time for 13 game-related columns a week from one web site?

I don't think I'd read 13 columns from The Atlantic or The New Yorker. Jesus Christ.

[Jason Becker]

Filler

[Mike Cathcart]

Yeah, I used to read them all. Now I open that page, see the number of articles posted there, and realize that I could probably play an extra game of Warcraft in the time it will take me to read them. Besides, most of them just seem like they were written because they had a deadline, and not because they had anything to say. I'll read Kasavin's article, and maybe Amer if I feel like being annoyed, and then I'll just skim the others to see if anyone's talking about a game I'm interested in.

[Mark Asher]

The web demands content.

Do they really do all those columns weekly? Man, that is a lot. I thought it was just a couple new ones every week and the rest of the list was older stuff.

[Greg Kasavin]

Do they really think people have time for 13 game-related columns a week from one web site?

I don't think I'd read 13 columns from The Atlantic or The New Yorker. Jesus Christ.

Sorry, man, we'll stop writing so much. Sorry.

[Greg Kasavin]

If I actually took to heart the common criticisms that come up on this forum about GameSpot, then GameSpot...

...would do more coverage of PC games than console games.
...wouldn't give high scores to any high-profile games, regardless of their quality.
...wouldn't review games in a timely manner, because timely reviews are probably rushed.
...would produce shorter, more pejorative reviews.
...would never run previews.
...and GameSpotting would be a lot shorter.

Basically, if I took the common criticisms to heart, then we'd be out of business, like MetK wants. Thanks, but no.

It's somehow flattering that GameSpot so often comes up in these discussions, even though the discussion almost always revolves around some sort of complaint. I always take criticism, constructive or not, for all that it's worth. Sometimes it just isn't worth much, though.

[xahlt]

Hey, what happened to that last critical post. Don't retract the truth! Sure, when you distill it in this way:



Besides, most of them just seem like
they were written because they had a deadline, and not because they had anything to say. I'll read Kasavin's article, and
maybe Amer if I feel like being annoyed, and then I'll just skim the others to see if anyone's talking about a game I'm
interested in.


it hurts, but it is so very pure.

[JT]

Well then, I guess I should say that I think that in general GameSpot's reviews are very good, and the site is easy to navigate, and it's easy to find what you're looking for, and it's probably my favorite all-around gaming site. Can I say that and still believe that not everyone on staff should have a weekly column?

I mean, at least you're not allowing everyone on staff to write a column like Jeff Green ... I mean, the only person who hasn't written a column for CGW in the past year is Jeff's mom, and that's probably because she thinks CGW sucks. :)

And allow me to say: William O'Neal. OMFG.

[Anonymous]

My mom is writing next month's column.

And after that it's my cat.

And after that it's Justin from American Idol.

--Jeff

[JT]

Is your mom as hot as Leelee?

Does she know about how you'd do her?

[Anonymous]

If you're looking to hook up with my mom, just say it.

As long as you let me call you Daddy.

[JT]

If you're looking to hook up with my mom, just say it.

As long as you let me call you Daddy.

That's sick. I hardly know her.

[mtkafka]

Gamespotting is the best part of Gamespot! Because at least the writers can speak there mind... hopefully without payola. :lol:

Its better than nuthin!

etc

[Mike Cathcart]

Gamespotting is the best part of Gamespot! Because at least the writers can speak there mind... hopefully without payola. :lol:

Its better than nuthin!

etc

I think the best part of Gamespot is the video stuff, especially the reviews(although I think Erik has to stop hiding and letting Greg fill in for him :P ). Sometimes I let Gamespot Live play in the background while I'm at work. Hope there aren't any subliminal messages going on there...

[Sean Tudor]

I used to check GameSpot every day. Then they switched to pay and I only check it once every couple of weeks.

[Thierry Nguyen]

My mom is writing next month's column.

And after that it's my cat.

And after that it's Justin from American Idol.

--Jeff

I hate AMERIKA for voting Christina off.

Or I hate Hollywood for conspiring to boot her off.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/SHOWBIZ/TV/08/08/ew.tv.idol/index.html

[Anonymous]

I hate that Mark Mothersbaugh isn't going to win. He's my American idol.

[Anonymous]

I hate AMERIKA for voting Christina off.

Hey comrade, why don't you go complain about it over in Russia then or something?

Love it or leave it, "Nguyen".

[Thierry Nguyen]

Go run off to somewhere outside-the-contiguous-48-states, you flaming frog.

Just for that, I bet Justin will win. Or RJ.

[jeep]

It's somehow flattering that GameSpot so often comes up in these discussions...

Don't flatter yourself, Kasavin. No editorial decision, no business decision, no amount of investment capital, not even the mighty erik can help you: no force on Earth could make your site worth reading.

/jeep/

[Jason Cross]

Sorry, man, we'll stop writing so much. Sorry.

Actually, seriously, could you? Could gamespot, collectively, write half as much stuff and spend twice as much time on it?

Thanks, I appreciate it.

[Anonymous]

Jesus Christ. Considering the fact that Gamespot, until recently, provided their content for free and now provides much of their new content for free for a period of time with all their archives available for a nomial fee you all sure seem to feel that they owe you something.

How the fuck were you raised? You all sound like a bunch of whiny, spoiled shits. Too much Gamespotting?...Don't fucking read it...I don't believe anyone's going to shed any tears due to your lack of interest...nor is Greg going to hold a gun to your head.

Seriously...what the fuck is wrong with all you people? How about you all take a collective deep breath and start masturbating more fucking frequently becuase i don't need your pent-up bullshit. It gets in the way of some enlightening dicussions on these boards, and it pisses me off. Just because you can write doesn't mean you can reason.

you make me sick.

[Tom Ohle]

Simmer. heh

Anyway, I honestly have to say that I've never run into any articles at GameSpot that I was interested in that I couldn't get to because of GS Complete. Why look at old content?

[Dave Long]

Why look at old content?

Which makes you wonder, who the heck is paying for that site? At least with IGN, you get something "first" for your money. The Gamespot method seems totally backwards, especially in the instant gratification gaming world.

--Dave

[Tom Ohle]

Well, I'm fairly happy with my GameSpot Complete account, because I can download movies and such quicker than at most other sites... but beyond that, I don't know why anyone would go for it. IGN's system irritates me more, because before I had my Insider account, I couldn't even read the NWN articles they posted until a week or two later... kinda sucks when people are talking about articles you can't see.

[Bub, Andrew]

They don't give PR reps and Devs comp accounts at IGN?
(Or are you talking about pre-Bioware?)

[Tom Ohle]

Oh, I've got my Insider account now ;) But I had to bug Tal to no end, and promise him sexual favors.

[Dave Long]

IGN's system irritates me more, because before I had my Insider account, I couldn't even read the NWN articles they posted until a week or two later... kinda sucks when people are talking about articles you can't see.

But that's the point, Tom, you're actually getting something for the money you pay. With Gamespot, you don't have to pay and you'll probably never miss anything or care about it if you do. It makes no sense.

--Dave

[Mike Cathcart]

But that's the point, Tom, you're actually getting something for the money you pay. With Gamespot, you don't have to pay and you'll probably never miss anything or care about it if you do. It makes no sense.

--Dave

Well, it makes no sense if you spend an hour (or three) a day reading game sites, but the casual player probably doesn't buy a game the week it comes out, and he probably doesn't want to look all over the web for game stuff so maybe it's a good deal, I don't know. I pay for GS complete because they have a pretty comprehensive archive and there are a lot of old games I might want to check out when they come up in conversation on a forum or something.

I know that doesn't sound like much of an argument, but basically I see it as the allmusicguide equivalent for video games: the content isn't phenomenal, but it's pretty easy to find stuff and they've covered more games than most other sites. As a video game reference it's not so bad.

[Dave Long]

I think the real question is how much do the websites appeal beyond the hardcore gamers and semi-hardcore that look in at least once a week. I'm guessing not that many people that are reading game sites that aren't checking in at least once a week. That means you can get everything you need from Gamespot without paying while at IGN, at least you would get something for the money.

The casual gamers aren't going to pay anyway in most cases. It makes better sense to get the hardcore on the billing scheme. They'll be a guaranteed revenue stream.

--Dave

[Kross]

Gamespotting is the best part of Gamespot!
I agree. I like reading commentary on games, and Gamespotting at least tries to do this, even if the quality is sometimes uneven. If you don't like commentary, nobody's forcing you to read it. Gamespot's purposefully broad scope means that plenty of other things are available on the site for you to read (or watch) instead.

The Gamespotting columns (particularly Greg's excellent contributions) are the major reason why I return to Gamespot regularly.

[Mark Asher]

Gamespot Complete is doing well from what I've heard. It's just $20 a year, which isn't too pricey.

CNET is really struggling, though. They closed today at $0.74. Their market cap has dropped from multiple billions to a little over $100 million, and remember, this is CNET and ZDNet combined now.

Looks like investors have lost faith in their ability to make a profit. I'd expect them to cut costs again, which probably means another round of layoffs and who knows what that means for Gamespot?

[Jason Cross]

Jesus Christ. Considering the fact that Gamespot,

(rant clipped)

you make me sick.

Is it worse to be a person that complains about the quality of something they get for free, or to complain about those people? :wink:

If your argument is "don't like their content, then don't read it, it's free anyway" then you have to apply it to yourself: don't like people's bitching, don't read it. You're not paying for QT3.

Opinions are like assholes: everybody's got one.

[Murph]

And they all stink.

[Sparky]

Opinions are like assholes: everybody's got one.

Not my husband's stepmother's mother! They removed hers. But for years later, she swore she still had it -- in fact, you couldn't tell her otherwise. Apparently the vestige haunted her til the end of her days. And that, my friends, is the Legend of the Phantom Anus.

Not to be confused with Star Wars: Episode One.

[Bub, Andrew]

You know Sparky, I usually enjoy reading your posts. Not so much this one though....
(Did you get Them yet?!)

[Sparky]

You know Sparky, I usually enjoy reading your posts. Not so much this one though....
(Did you get Them yet?!)

I'm just trying to liven things up around here with some Shocking Yet True Medical Stories. Oh well. I suppose now I have to go back to Awful Poetry, Overweening Tivo Evangelism, or Imagining Jeff Green Wearing Women's Underpants.

No Them! yet, alas.