Post by: Jonnyboy117 on November 30, 2007, 11:05:59 AM
http://www.nintendoworldreport.com/editorialArt.cfm?artid=14911
We have used the same process for reviews since our very first reviews of import GBA games in early 2001. I oversaw the development of this process (although not the review format itself) and gained more and more influence as time went on, because my ideas seemed to work and make everyone happy. I know this is a good system, because I hear praise for it from our staff members who worked at other websites before coming to NWR, and I also hear praise from former staff members who have moved on to work at professional websites and magazines. Here's why NWR reviews are tamper-proof:
- We are 100% independent – not owned by a corporation, not affiliated with a game retailer or publisher, not beholden to investors, and not even part of a network with other gaming sites. Our only responsibility is to you, the reader.
- Editors never change articles against the author's will. All changes and suggestions made during the editing process are tracked and explained to the author and are up for discussion. This goes for everything, from comma placement to final score.
- The author has final say over every single word in his or her review, and in fact the author directly posts his or her review to the website.
- Our reviews do not represent, nor claim to represent, the views of the entire staff. As editor, I am not concerned with whether I agree or disagree with the review. All I care about is the writing quality, thoroughness, fairness, and self-consistency. If another staff member vehemently disagrees with a review or just wants to give a different perspective with a similar conclusion, he or she is encouraged to write a second review.
- Publishers' public relations agents are not involved whatsoever in the editorial process. If someone at the publisher has a problem with the review after it is online, we may offer to write a second review (in addition to the first, not replacing it) with the disclaimer that it could be the same or more critical than the first.
- Our entire staff works for free, including editors and the Director. We have nothing to gain or lose by inciting controversy for its own sake. We have no job security to jeopardize or protect. No person has ever been removed from the staff over a review.
For all the reasons above, you can rest assured that NWR takes its integrity, particularly with reviews, more seriously than anything else we do. You may not always agree with our reviews, but at least you'll know that they are our honest opinions.
Jonathan Metts, Reviews Editor
Post by: UncleBob on November 30, 2007, 11:20:06 AM
Post by: that Baby guy on November 30, 2007, 11:23:18 AM
Also, in this article, you refer to yourself as "I." From the forums, we have no idea who "I" is, Jonny. No idea at all.
Post by: Ian Sane on November 30, 2007, 11:41:44 AM
Post by: optimisticlimbo on November 30, 2007, 11:53:34 AM
There's a feeling of pride in reading this site because of the integrity it has upheld all these years.
Post by: Crimm on November 30, 2007, 11:59:59 AM
Post by: Jonnyboy117 on November 30, 2007, 12:02:52 PM
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on November 30, 2007, 12:40:10 PM
DID NINTENDO NOT PAY ANYONE FOR A BWii REVIEW?
Post by: Jonnyboy117 on November 30, 2007, 12:43:07 PM
No really, I just wanted to clarify a few things about our editorial process. Some people are now saying that they can't trust anyone's reviews, but due to the unusual nature of our site, we can cling to a greater degree of integrity than many others.
Post by: that Baby guy on November 30, 2007, 12:51:10 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Jonnyboy117
Thanks thatguy, I forgot that editorials don't show the author for some stupid reason. I'll add that at the end.
Nothing it talkback shows the author unless it's included in the article itself. That's what I've been trying to get changed around here.
Post by: oohhboy on November 30, 2007, 12:52:42 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Crimm
How much does it suck that we have to come to this? I'm sure the other sites across the industry will release similar statements, but the very fact it has to be done is sad.
True, but what site writes their articles in the BLOOD OF THE INNOCENT. Signed and sealed with a pact from the great N. Endorsed by both forces of good and evil.
Post by: Nick DiMola on November 30, 2007, 01:07:58 PM
Post by: NWR_insanolord on November 30, 2007, 01:31:04 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on November 30, 2007, 01:34:52 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: insanolord
I've always liked and respected the reviews and reviewers here. Except whoever gave Star Trek: Tactical Assault a 4.5 and Alien Syndrome a 3.5, I hate them with every fiber of my being.
Yeah Alien Syndrome should have gotten a .5/10.
Post by: NWR_insanolord on November 30, 2007, 01:40:33 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenixQuote
Originally posted by: insanolord
I've always liked and respected the reviews and reviewers here. Except whoever gave Star Trek: Tactical Assault a 4.5 and Alien Syndrome a 3.5, I hate them with every fiber of my being.
Yeah Alien Syndrome should have gotten a 6.5/10.
Fixed
Post by: Kairon on November 30, 2007, 02:09:15 PM
Yes yes, I've been at the vocal forefront before, ranting and raving and crucifying some staffer over a review before, but that's only because I care, and of course because I have conflicting opinions and sometimes feel that things haven't been taken into account.
...hmm... maybe I should finally give Phantom Hourglass the review it deserves now that I'm here....
Post by: Jonnyboy117 on November 30, 2007, 02:13:37 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: insanolord
I've always liked and respected the reviews and reviewers here. Except whoever gave Star Trek: Tactical Assault a 4.5... I hate them with every fiber of my being.
That would be me! Hi there. That game is garbage, and I can say so without bias because I'm not a Star Trek fan boy.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on November 30, 2007, 02:22:11 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
Yeah... it sucks that I'm staff now because now everyone will think I'm toeing the party line, but even as I'm somewhat frustrated with the site, it's truly a place where I can respect the staffers and forumers.
Yes yes, I've been at the vocal forefront before, ranting and raving and crucifying some staffer over a review before, but that's only because I care, and of course because I have conflicting opinions and sometimes feel that things haven't been taken into account.
...hmm... maybe I should finally give Phantom Hourglass the review it deserves now that I'm here....
So you are going to it that 6/10 it so sorely needs?
Post by: MysticGohan on November 30, 2007, 02:25:13 PM
Post by: NWR_insanolord on November 30, 2007, 02:33:15 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Jonnyboy117Quote
Originally posted by: insanolord
I've always liked and respected the reviews and reviewers here. Except whoever gave Star Trek: Tactical Assault a 4.5... I hate them with every fiber of my being.
That would be me! Hi there. That game is garbage, and I can say so without bias because I'm not a Star Trek fan boy.
Yeah I went back and checked after I posted that, so I knew it was you. That wasn't meant to be taken seriously so I hope you didn't take it that way. Those are just 2 NWR reviews I happened to disagree with. And the thing about TA is that you need to be at least somewhat of a Trek fan to appreciate the game, not in the sense of being a Trek fanboy and loving any Trek thing, but in understanding the reasons for it being the way it is and wanting it that way. I can understand that looking just the gameplay mechanics as someone who isn't a big Trek fan it wouldn't seem like a very good game.
Post by: Kairon on November 30, 2007, 02:33:56 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenix
So you are going to it that 6/10 it so sorely needs?
Grrr. I'll give you a 6/10!!!
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on November 30, 2007, 02:36:47 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: insanolordQuote
Originally posted by: Jonnyboy117Quote
Originally posted by: insanolord
I've always liked and respected the reviews and reviewers here. Except whoever gave Star Trek: Tactical Assault a 4.5... I hate them with every fiber of my being.
That would be me! Hi there. That game is garbage, and I can say so without bias because I'm not a Star Trek fan boy.
Yeah I went back and checked after I posted that, so I knew it was you. That wasn't meant to be taken seriously so I hope you didn't take it that way. Those are just 2 NWR reviews I happened to disagree with. And the thing about TA is that you need to be at least somewhat of a Trek fan to appreciate the game, not in the sense of being a Trek fanboy and loving any Trek thing, but in understanding the reasons for it being the way it is and wanting it that way. I can understand that looking just the gameplay mechanics as someone who isn't a big Trek fan it wouldn't seem like a very good game.
So in a way, it is like Killer7. If you aren't a fan of style, then the gameplay will be poop. But if you are a fan of style, you will shut off the part of your brain that registers fun. Hehe, j/k.
Post by: nitsu niflheim on November 30, 2007, 02:53:14 PM
Post by: Flames_of_chaos on November 30, 2007, 03:00:41 PM
Post by: Djunknown on November 30, 2007, 03:02:05 PM
This isn't a knock against NWR or the independent/fan sites. Since they are doing this as a hobby/ in their spare time, expectations are set lower. The possibility of corruption from corporate interests is easier since they ultimately have no one to answer to, unless they explicitly say they do like NWR for example. They can be as biased/unbiased coherent/incoherent as they want to be, and I wouldn't complain. Sometimes,
contreversy is sparked, and chaos ensues.
In the case of PGC/NWR, they've taken it upon themselves to police themselves. If the NWR one day collectively loses it, and just post walls of text that are grossly inaccurate, or review games while drunk, I won't complain. I'll be saddened, and go elsewhere, but if its what they want to do, who am I to stop them?
While we're at it, let me say that maybe Mr.Burchfield and Co are on to something with their complaints with current review system. PA (More specifically Tycho) has some new beef with IGN concerning Assassin's Creed. Will we continue to see these types strains in the gaming community?
Post by: therat on November 30, 2007, 03:17:07 PM
Post by: Caliban on November 30, 2007, 03:20:34 PM
Post by: IceCold on November 30, 2007, 03:39:43 PM
QuoteAhahahahaa.. great backhanded compliment.
."ah, I see. That will never happen at NWR. They're piss poor, and they rely on volunteer work. Everything's the way it should be"
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on November 30, 2007, 04:27:25 PM
Yes
Post by: Crimm on November 30, 2007, 05:08:57 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: KaironQuote
Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenix
So you are going to it that 6/10 it so sorely needs?
Grrr. I'll give you a 6/10!!!
OMG WHAT DID YOU DO TO GP!?
Post by: Spak-Spang on November 30, 2007, 05:20:11 PM
I have more respect for the amount of work and dedication every single member of the NWR staff puts into every aspect of the site after reading the above statement.
Bravo. And your reviews have always been some of the best reviews I have read on the web. Great scoring system, Great Summary System, and most importantly it is too the point and not filled with pointless fluff to bloat the review and waste the readers time.
Post by: oohhboy on November 30, 2007, 07:17:36 PM
PGC/NWR has served me well over the years with their continued unpaid, unparalleled professionalism that is rarely seen on the Web. It serves me so well in fact that unless a review is no here at all, this is the primary and effectively the only place I need to go for those needs. Don't change a thing.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on November 30, 2007, 07:49:54 PM
Post by: Jonnyboy117 on November 30, 2007, 09:09:21 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: insanolord
Yeah I went back and checked after I posted that, so I knew it was you. That wasn't meant to be taken seriously so I hope you didn't take it that way. Those are just 2 NWR reviews I happened to disagree with. And the thing about TA is that you need to be at least somewhat of a Trek fan to appreciate the game, not in the sense of being a Trek fanboy and loving any Trek thing, but in understanding the reasons for it being the way it is and wanting it that way. I can understand that looking just the gameplay mechanics as someone who isn't a big Trek fan it wouldn't seem like a very good game.
Don't worry, I wasn't at all offended, but I will back up my review. I am actually a "big" Star Trek fan, in that I have seen nearly every episode of the original series, absolutely every episode of Next Generation, most of Deep Space 9, half of Voyager, and almost every movie. But this game is fan service at best. I totally understand that Star Trek's star ship battles are slow and strategic. However, they also last thirty seconds on the show. Playing these out for ten minutes at a time is brain-melting due to the pace, and the strategies are not nearly complex or interesting enough to sustain such long battles. Also, the combination of bad camera + insta-death asteroids resulted in at least half a dozen incredibly frustrating mission failures for me.
Post by: Kairon on November 30, 2007, 09:21:44 PM
Post by: NWR_insanolord on November 30, 2007, 09:22:18 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Jonnyboy117
Thanks for the last few posts, they have really warmed my heart.Quote
Originally posted by: insanolord
Yeah I went back and checked after I posted that, so I knew it was you. That wasn't meant to be taken seriously so I hope you didn't take it that way. Those are just 2 NWR reviews I happened to disagree with. And the thing about TA is that you need to be at least somewhat of a Trek fan to appreciate the game, not in the sense of being a Trek fanboy and loving any Trek thing, but in understanding the reasons for it being the way it is and wanting it that way. I can understand that looking just the gameplay mechanics as someone who isn't a big Trek fan it wouldn't seem like a very good game.
Don't worry, I wasn't at all offended, but I will back up my review. I am actually a "big" Star Trek fan, in that I have seen nearly every episode of the original series, absolutely every episode of Next Generation, most of Deep Space 9, half of Voyager, and almost every movie. But this game is fan service at best. I totally understand that Star Trek's star ship battles are slow and strategic. However, they also last thirty seconds on the show. Playing these out for ten minutes at a time is brain-melting due to the pace, and the strategies are not nearly complex or interesting enough to sustain such long battles. Also, the combination of bad camera + insta-death asteroids resulted in at least half a dozen incredibly frustrating mission failures for me.
First off, you should check out Enterprise, at least the 4th season which was way better than the other 3, though they were good too. I guess I just enjoyed TA more than you did. The camera didn't bother me too much, but the fact that you could run into and take damage from asteroids but not other ships was an odd choice. Will NWR be reviewing Star Trek: Conquest, the recent Wii game?
Post by: ShyGuy on November 30, 2007, 09:30:52 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
Just because NWR forum members heavily criticize the occasional NWR review doesn't mean that we don't appreciate and respect your integrity!
What's this "we" stuff? You're no longer one of us, Mr. Switch-sides.
Post by: Kairon on November 30, 2007, 09:34:32 PM
Post by: NWR_insanolord on November 30, 2007, 09:39:38 PM
Post by: Jonnyboy117 on December 01, 2007, 04:53:10 AM
Post by: wandering on December 01, 2007, 08:50:48 AM
From Ty's blog:
Quote
not posting the scoop lol
I was recently reading some comments on the Sony/Kotaku thing and about game journalism in general, and this one really caught my eye:Quote
To me this is more of a factor of "game journalism" being totally broken than anything else. Mainstream game media is 99% dependent upon playing ball with these big companies and their PR rules. They get free hardware, free games, trips to press events and a lot of other stuff in exchange for being "responsible" and doing what the console companies and manufacturers say. I don't consider this sort of thing to be "journalism" in any way, it's just adding comments to canned media on a schedule set by the PR wings of these companies. This creates an environment where when someone does actually get some sort of scoop you end up at odds with these companies.
This is completely true, and is probably the reason I can't muster the effort to really write anything for PGC (er, NWR) other than a game review or a trolltacular forum thread.
It's some sort of rule that all non-review game coverage has to be largely positive. Even in a preview of this year's next in a series of really shitty games, it's going to be all positive, or at least optimistic. Guaranteed. And then the review comes out, and it's all "it totally sucks, what were you thinking? Ahahahahah."
So, a little over two years ago, I was doing initial impressions of a pre-release game I had gotten (hurr PR outlet hurr) and I felt the need to totally trash it. I mean, hey, I thought it totally sucked, and impressions are impressions. My editor then requested I soften it up, so I/we did (I forget who made what changes). They're still up, here. I re-read them the other day and the article reads terribly. The good news is, I found my original version, and the differences are hilarious. I'm gonna post 'em up!
Click here to read the rest of his post.
Post by: Kairon on December 01, 2007, 09:18:05 AM
Wait a second, that's the soft version? You were pretty critical of the game in my eyes...
Post by: vudu on December 01, 2007, 09:42:47 AM
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on December 01, 2007, 03:51:07 PM
Post by: Crimm on December 01, 2007, 04:38:10 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
When I'm on the forums, I am! Or am I supposed to stop derailing threads alongside Golden Phoenix and Mashiro all of a sudden?
As temporary forum goon I have to assert the following:
Do whatever the hell you want.
Post by: Jonnyboy117 on December 02, 2007, 05:10:02 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: wandering
I love your site, but, no offense, I don't think it is, or could be, completely above the influence of game companies. Maybe it is in the area of reviews, but not in all areas.
From Ty's blog:Quote
not posting the scoop lol
Click here to read the rest of his post.
I had not see this blog post from Ty before, but it bothered me, so I did a little research. Luckily, I keep copies of virtually every article that has ever been posted to the site... or at least the ones that I edited, but that's most of them. I do have a copy of Ty's Baten Kaitos impressions that have been edited and look like the ones now on our site. However, I don't have the original version, and Ty had a tendency to submit articles in plain text rather than in Word format, so the changes could not be tracked. Therefore, I can't say which parts were in the original version and which were changed heavily in editing -- and Ty did not post the entire original article on the blog.
What I can say is that, like our reviews, impressions and all other types of articles that go through our editing process are returned to the author so that he or she can review all changes and suggestions and post the article only when he or she is satisfied with it. There are exceptions to this rule but only with the author's prior consent, e.g. "I'm in a hurry, so just post this for me unless it has major problems." So if Ty had a problem with what was done to his article by the editor, he should have said something and started a discussion at that time.
Post by: Kairon on December 02, 2007, 05:39:07 PM
Post by: Plugabugz on December 02, 2007, 11:00:08 PM
Post by: Saturn2888 on December 15, 2007, 06:19:26 AM
Post by: Kairon on December 15, 2007, 07:50:17 AM
Post by: UERD on December 15, 2007, 08:08:45 AM
However, it also seems that NWR is too small and 'under the radar' for the big companies to care all that much about negative reviews. The site is staffed by highly dedicated volunteers and is not exactly a moneymaking enterprise in the same vein as Gamespot or any of the larger VG sites. And I think that's a really good thing. Nintendo or any other company really has no incentive to cow the site to artificially boost ratings or rankings, and we get high-quality, pretty well unbiased coverage.
This brings me to the third point. Baten Kaitos was a pretty craptacular game, looking back. I thought the sequel (Origins) was much, much better in most respects, which makes it 'on-the-par' for an average JRPG (although most people probably thought it was crappy as well). But Baten Kaitos was a low-profile game that wasn't heavily advertised and wasn't really expected to sell very well- which leads one to ask: were the impressions changed at the behest of a publisher, or were they changed to conform to an industry convention (positive impressions)? If it's the former, there really might be something to worry about.
Post by: Kairon on December 15, 2007, 08:17:04 AM
