Author Topic: EDITORIALS: A Note about Our Reviews (Read 15278 times)

Jonnyboy117 · « **on:** November 30, 2007, 11:05:59 AM »

Here's why you can be confident that there are no money hats or outside influence at Nintendo World Report.
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

UncleBob · « **Reply #1 on:** November 30, 2007, 11:20:06 AM »

that Baby guy · « **Reply #2 on:** November 30, 2007, 11:23:18 AM »

I thought you received praise for it from forum members, too. I could swear I've praised NWR's reviews around here, somewhere...

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.

Ian Sane · « **Reply #3 on:** November 30, 2007, 11:41:44 AM »

This is appreciated but, like your mother telling you she loves you, incredibly unnecessary. And that's a good thing.

optimisticlimbo · « **Reply #4 on:** November 30, 2007, 11:53:34 AM »

<Claps>
There's a feeling of pride in reading this site because of the integrity it has upheld all these years.

Crimm · « **Reply #5 on:** November 30, 2007, 11:59:59 AM »

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.

Jonnyboy117 · « **Reply #6 on:** November 30, 2007, 12:02:52 PM »

Thanks thatguy, I forgot that editorials don't show the author for some stupid reason. I'll add that at the end.

NinGurl69 *huggles · « **Reply #7 on:** November 30, 2007, 12:40:10 PM »

Is this like bragging about having never gone to jail before?

DID NINTENDO NOT PAY ANYONE FOR A BWii REVIEW?

Jonnyboy117 · « **Reply #8 on:** November 30, 2007, 12:43:07 PM »

"I TAKE CARE OF MY KIDS!" -- Chris Rock

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.

that Baby guy · « **Reply #9 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.

oohhboy · « **Reply #10 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.

Nick DiMola · « **Reply #11 on:** November 30, 2007, 01:07:58 PM »

NWR is and has always been a very reliable source for reviews. I have immense respect for all of you guys and I think you do a fantastic job.

NWR_insanolord · « **Reply #12 on:** November 30, 2007, 01:31:04 PM »

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.

GoldenPhoenix · « **Reply #13 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.

NWR_insanolord · « **Reply #14 on:** November 30, 2007, 01:40:33 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenix
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 6.5/10.

Fixed

Kairon · « **Reply #15 on:** November 30, 2007, 02:09:15 PM »

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....

Jonnyboy117 · « **Reply #16 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.

GoldenPhoenix · « **Reply #17 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?

MysticGohan · « **Reply #18 on:** November 30, 2007, 02:25:13 PM »

So I take this comes in light of the recent GS staff firing? That's Gamespot for ya, I knew there was a malicious dictator somewhere in that warehouse xD

NWR_insanolord · « **Reply #19 on:** November 30, 2007, 02:33:15 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: Jonnyboy117
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.

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.

Kairon · « **Reply #20 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!!!

GoldenPhoenix · « **Reply #21 on:** November 30, 2007, 02:36:47 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: insanolord
Quote
Originally posted by: Jonnyboy117
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.

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.

nitsu niflheim · « **Reply #22 on:** November 30, 2007, 02:53:14 PM »

the things with reviews are, I rarely base my purchase on them. I like when a game I like gets good reviews and don't like when they get bad ones, but I just chalk it up to the fact that reviews are opinions and not everyone will like everything, how boring life would be is that were true. There are people with their biases, some more veiled than others, but a site like Gamespot, as it is constanly being accused of being biased, as a multi-platform site, where their staff mingle all over the place more or less, should have zero bias and no ulterior motives among any of the staff, especially since it's a for profit site and thrives based on the happiness of it's subscribers. I bet there are right now some unhappy subscribers over at Gamespot.

Flames_of_chaos · « **Reply #23 on:** November 30, 2007, 03:00:41 PM »

As much as I didn't like Jeff Gerstman I feel bad for him because its a retarded thing he got fired for which was his own opinion on kane and lynch, but I suppose thats Capitalist greed for you. While I was vocal on how I disagreed with some reviews on here I do respect what we get on this site since this is not a for profit site, and that I assume that the review writers have more freedom in writing their reviews(with little rules to keep the sites integrity up) and that this is a closely knit community that has evolved nicely.

Djunknown · « **Reply #24 on:** November 30, 2007, 03:02:05 PM »

Its nice to have a pleasant reminder. This alleged incident vexes me because professionals are set to a higher standard simply because they are PAID for that do. I expect grammatical accuracy, somewhat keen analysis, and reasoning for said analysis.

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?

News:

Author Topic: EDITORIALS: A Note about Our Reviews (Read 15278 times)