I think a question that every experienced gamer asks his/herself every so often is "Why are terrible games made?" In reality this is a common question, but rarely is it asked with the kind of soul searching sincerity that is normally associated with serious drug rehab or religious conversion. I recently asked myself this question, and as usual the answers I found do not fill the void.

Interestingly enough, this question came to me as I marveled at the quality of several new games that have hit the market. Halo 3 has made me a very happy lad, and Team Fortress 2 has made me a giggling little girl. There are others which have recently shown a width and breadth of creativity and effort that make a gamer proud to lay down their hard earned cash in return for sweetly compiled code.

Then I played Kengo: Legends of the 9.

To say that such an experience brought me to a screeching halt would be a gross understatement. The gameplay in Kengo really chilled my blood and then a series of factors hit home as the breath caught in my lungs:

First: A group of people bright enough to create an Xbox360 game made Kengo:Lot9

Second: A group of people bright enough to own a development house and a publisher FUNDED Kengo's development and release.

Third: This was a full priced game for the second year run of games during PRIME gaming season on a new console.

The contradictions inherent in an industry that supports the creation and release of gaming masterpieces at the same time that it allows train wrecks to occur are stunning. It's obvious that a lot of people appreciate a good game when they see it, even if it can be fairly said that many good games (Psychonauts screams in my head at these times) are underappreciated. I sat back and really thought about why otherwise intelligent people would make a ghastly beast of a game AND release it to shame their company's good name and came up with few answers.

I do understand that some games start off well and somewhere along the line things go terribly wrong. I also understand that sometimes a concept ends up being less viable than initially thought. In those situations I HOPE the projects get hungandthat's that.Hell, I even get that sometimes you have a release a weak 6.0 metascore game and try to recoup what losses you can. What I do NOT understand is how a company creates a game that CLEARLY sucked eggs at all points in its development cycle and never had a prayer of being anything BUT a train wreck. Where is the sense or profit in making tripe like Kengo:Lot9?!

I don't want to turn this entry into a rant against a list of specific games, as much as it is simply a cry to the heavens. WHY?! HOW?! Really, how do you mess up sword fighting samuraion the 360, when you've spent the last DECADE making sword fighting games?! Kengo just made it's impression on the 360 owning public, and that impression is "YEEEECCCCCHHH". A week later, a lyrical and creative work of art called Eternal Sonata came out on the SAME CONSOLE. How does such a conjunction occur? The same week that saw the release of Kengo welcomed Sonic 2 to the 360, and Sonic was FLAWLESS. In every way, a port of an old Sega genesis game beat the PANTS off of a spanking new samurai game by an experienced developer. This should not be happening.

In a world of games which come CLOSE (Stranglehold springs to mind) and make you want to send the dev back for 6 more months... and games which take an extra 2 years but come out smelling like ROSES (Everything Valve makes)... games that are pumped out every year by groups like EA to consistent 7-8 ratings... we have gems and turds. This whole teeming mass of gaming life is so odd and unpredictable that it makes a gamer ponder the imponderable.

When Uwe Boll announces that he's making Blood Rayne, even amoebic intellects know it will suck. Kia owners know that they are not behind the wheels of a Mercedes. If you eat spam, from the moment you saw the can on the shelf it was clear it wouldn't be a slice of freshly baked ham. Why is it then, that a game exists as an unknowable crapshoot until the moment of it's release? What checks and balances fail that a game like Kengo is made AT ALL, or a game like Stranglehold is allowed to come out with no more than an afternoon's gameplay for 60 bucks?

I have no answers, but something is very broken somewhere. I love the gems we're getting, but I'm tired of wading through turds and "coulda beens" to pick them up. I don't know why we see a hundred football games a year, but only one or two decent sandbox games in the same time. I especially don't know why an industry that gives us gold, feels comfortable putting that shining ore next to hunks of **** like Kengo, on the same shelf... same console. Colour me baffled.

Well, it's nice to be able to post again, now that my 7 day suspension is lifted. As some of you may have noticed SamP and other admins/editors/mods are going out of their way to mess around with threads condemning the new review system. In a "kind" move SamP locked an existing (and very lively) thread criticizing the new review system more than a week after he started modding people who posted in the FIRST thread they made to talk about these issues (then subsequently restricted to gamespace issues only). This was done because he created an official thread to talk about those issues... something people were asking for when this first happened, but has only occured now when the complaints were getting a head of steam in one thread.

I would have loved to comment on these events, or partipate in the We Want The Old Review System union, but alas I was suspended for 7 days... well actually 3 days, then 5, then 7... for 3 infractions. "Trolling". Oh yes. Here's the trolling, word for word. I made this topic in the feedback section (a place you'd assume it would be appropriate to discuss issues relating to feedback).

This got me the first 3 days:

"Jun 28, 2007 5:15 am ET

This thread is pretty simple:1800+ people commented on the original news post about Gamespot's changing review system, and a vast majority were outraged. The response to the new reviewssince they've come out has also been staggeringly negative. The response from Gamespot has been to censor established threads, and turn a blind eye to the issue. Sephiroth228 is starting a union: the:We Want the Old Review Systemunion, and it got me thinking about just what is to be done to get the gamespot that veterans such as myself and new users alike have loved about this site BACK.

Quite a few very vocal and well spoken critics have been on the boards expressing their discontent, but many more do not for the simple reason that they believe (and perhaps rightly so) that posting their complaints will be fruitless. Gerstmann, SamP, Alex et al have shown that ignoring the outcry of their subscriber base is something that doesn't faze them in the slightest. I suppose we can all ruminate about why that is, or we can organize to take more effective action.

In addition to shamelessly shilling for Sephiroth228's new union: We Want the Old Review System, the point of this postis to point outthat for all the complaints that reasonable people have raised here, and in dozens of other threads... we are being ignored, censored, and generally shut down. The only thread the editorial staff linked to in the Announcments section is to "gamespace issues", and if you comment on the reviews, you're nailed for disruptive posting. Given the fact that disparate voices in the forums and news articles will be ignored, here's what I propose (in addition to joining the union):

Take the time to pick up your phone and do some research, and talk to customer service reps at CNET. Take the time to get through to Gerstmann's boss at CNET, and so forth and record their contact info. Outline the fastest ways to get through to those people and post the information here, or on the Union etc... Email, call, hell write a letter.... ok just call. Only a few of us need to do this, and let others who want to speak out, but are disinclined to go through the trouble of wading through help pages, get information that will let them more directly voice their concerns to people who will actually give a d**n. Namely: people at CNET who employ the staff here at Gamespot. People who DO care if their subscription base falls off because a new editor feels the need to mark his new territory like a puppy, by dumbing the place down intolerably. Remember, find phone numbers and email addresses, be polite, and share the info. It's either that, or hope that Gerstmann et al might figure out on their own that they made a mistake AND have the b***s to admit it and correct it on their own. Ha."

So. That went over like a lead brick. Ironic that I was asking for an official thread dedicated to the new review sytem days before SamP got around to doing it... a valid issue apparantly... but one that still got me nailed. So, that new thread was "purged", and I got the 3 days. This was modded at 8:38 am... I was pissed, but then...

At 10:06 am I got pushed up to 5 days for trolling... again. This was the post that was worth a suspension:

"Jun 28, 2007 4:57 am ET

The new gamespace is no improvement at all. It's a little bigger (literally, the icons are bigger), and a bit shiny... but otherwise it's just musical chairs, with us as the loser. At launch, issues with tagging and resetting scores needed fixing (how hard is it to sandbox the site guys, it's a CNET property, not a high school project) are the only really notable issues. Beyond that is the forbidden review system, which of course will get your suspended for disruptive posting, if placed on this thread. On that note, feel free to check my profile."

Now, I've seen people toss around racial epithets and censor bypass and either be left alone entirely, or simply have the most removed with a warning... but THAT... that deserved 2 more days. Fair and Balenced... like Fox News

The GOOD news is that the We Want The Old Review System union is doing very well, and could become a great place for people who are dissatisfied with the new system to register their protests, organize, and get people who would otherwise simply sit back unhappily and take the change because they think there is nothing they can do, to get heard.

Oh yes, I nearly forgot, in the time that I had to sit back and NOT post, I did a little checking, and found those afformentioned phone numbers. Now, I'm not going to post Samuel Parker or Jeff Gerstmann's personal info (although it's a whitepage search away if you chose, that is your own lookout), and it would be innapropriate to call them outside of work in my view, except perhaps as a last resort.HOWEVER, while Gamespot doesn't have a phone service... there are options. Gamespot, being a CNET site, can be contacted through the main CNET operator (with varying success).

Their contact info is as follows:

CNET Networks, Inc.
235 Second Street
San Francisco, CA 94105-3124
(415) 344-2000

That phone number will connect you to a single button option to talk to a human. Ask to speak to Gerstmann, or Parker, or whomever else. Ask whom it is appropriate to talk to, to register your complaints about the current status quo here at GS. Make it clear that you have exhausted nonresponsive email options (if you have, I know that I have) and work to get to speak to a relevant person. Even if you can't get through, a large number of those calls will result in someone hearing about it. I am NOT saying you should be rude, or harrasing, but I think it's acceptable to try to contact people who you pay for a service. Help remind them that there are paying customers behind these usernames. Customers who can show some initiative. A little of that will go a LOT further than a dozen forum pages of complaints which are censored, shut down, and ignored.

Finally, on a purely humorous note, I got my subscription renewal reminder from Gamespot yesterday. I have until the 8th of August to decide, but if the system stays as watered down as it is now, I won't renew. I can live with ads I don't click through, and with the reviews falling short, metacritic as a guise to other reliable reviews is a better option. I hate to do this, especially after 5 years as a subscriber to gamespot, but given how pathetic these new reviews are, and the apparant willingness of the staff to ignore their customers, unfairly moderate them, and generally be inaccessible... I don't feel a need to pay for service like that.

As quite a few have noticed by now, the thread to which we were all initially directed by the forum announcement to discuss review and gamespace changes was, after about 3 pages of negative responses 90+ % of which were about the review system, changed to "just gamespace comments". What a joke. As I and some others (remixrunixlpfor one... his blog is excellent) learned, any dissenting opinion was not only unwelcome, but grounds for instant and rather harsh moderation. Apparantly the only feedback that Gerstmann and SamP and Alex want is either glowing and positive... or pre-existing static in their heads.

You'd think that by now, with the massive negative response from all corners regarding the new review system, that gamespot would be more concerned. Alas, this seems to be far from the case. Anyhow, I'll leave further ranting to another post. What follows is the terrible transgression that got me suspended for a day for "Disruptive Posting". Thanks SamP, your ability to handle cricism speaks volumes about you personally, and about your value to this site.

Without Further ado, the post that was "disruptive".

nappan
Level 25
Defias Brotherhood
Posts: 790

Jun 27, 2007 12:06 am ET

Mossad wrote:

I'd like to respectfully and politely point out the the message at the top of the main forums page links to this thread as a place to discuss the changes to both the gamespace and the review system. If you would like this thread to be about only the gamespace changes thats fine but please update that message.

SamP replied.

The forum announcement has been edited to clear up any confusion.

Nappan Replied:

Way to handle the complaints SamP. I'm sure that when Cnet asks why longtime subscribers are leaving gamespot your input will be invaluble. Perhaps you should look at it this way: The review changes are so overwhelmingly negative that it has eclipsed any other issue and bled into this thread as well. Frank;y, the point that's been made: mainly that whatever you intended the vagueness of the original title led to the thread being a forum for people to voice their overwhelming displeasure with the new system should maybe lead you to change the thread to INCLUDE, and not EXCLUDE those comments.

I looked through the feedback section and it seems that this the most organized thread when it comes to expressing mass displeasure at the review system. How about paying attention to the massive negative feedback and near absence of intelligent positive feedback (god, look at the original newsthread, or the comments on Gerstmann's "letterl" since the new reviews came out) and either making a CLEARLY LABLED STICKY thread to address these complaints, or stop playing semantic games and address the damned issue at hand.

NO ONE CARES ABOUT THE GAMESPACE CHANGES WHEN HELD UP AGAINST THE MASSIVE F****P OF THE NEW REVIEW SYSTEM. That's the bottom line here. Do you guys wantto lose subscribers? It sure seems like it. On the other hand if you think that playing turtle while the c**p keeps coming at you is the way to go: look at what that kind of mindset did for Bush? It will catch up with you, and it's far better to address the fact that however well meaning, you guys have really sc**wed up here and need to fix things FAST, than it is to wait until you get hit in the wallet.

P.S. In case you're the type who simply "skims" posts and cuts to the end: here's a bottom line: How about you make a thread like this one, for the issues we all have with the review system. Then link to it in the announcement the way you did to this thread. Until you do, this is still the best place to share review issues, because frankly, if you look at the WHOLE THREAD, it's mostly what's going on here anyway. That's what is "practical" and "logical".