By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - Melodrama – Rich Stanton accuses Edge for altering scores, PC Gamer for lying, and CVG for misquotes

DSOGaming

Before starting this article, let me tell you that I’m not taking anyone sides on this story. Okay? We got this out of our way? So, let’s begin. Freelance writer Rich Stanton has accused a lot of Future Publishing portals, as well as a number of publishers for ‘paying’ in order to get better scores. We all remember the Gamespot Kane & Lynch fiasco, so this is not surprising to hear. But do publishers and big gaming portals alter their review scores, even to this date? According to Rich, they do.

First things first though – some of Rich’s tweets have been deleted (for obvious reasons). Thankfully though, NeoGAF has managed to snatch most of them. But who is Rich Stanton, right? Rich is a freelancer writer who admits that he has learned everything he knows at Future, surrounded by people smarter and funnier than him. According to Rich, the company sucks but the people are grade A. And – obviously – Rich does not expect to work with Future ever again.

Rich said that one of his worst stories with Future was the alteration of GTA IV’s score. GTA IV has originally scored a 9/10 from its reviewer, however EDGE and Rockstar decided to bypass the reviewer and make it a 10/10. When a fan asked whether publishers/platform holders ‘pay’ for covers, Rich answered that they do as “they control everything“, that Future will do anything to accommodate advertisers, and that review scores (in Future Publications) sometimes magically change before it hits the self.

Rich has also said that the dodgiest PRs for doing deals (review scores, etc) was Rockstar, and that the game that got most obviously dodgy reviews was Homefront.

What’s also interesting is what Rich said about PCGamer. According to Rich, PCGamer lied to Valve about asking Rich to take photos of a wall of concept art:

“PC Gamer asked me to take some photos of something very specific. A wall of concept art. I asked permission, and did so. Valve went nuts. This wasn’t approved! Do you know what PC Gamer’s editor, Tim Edwards, did? He denied I had ever been asked to do it. Said PCG were merely the innocent recipient. Lied, in other words.”

Rich has also said that CVG was/is the worst gaming portal as they deliberately misquote devs, and claim it’s a mistake after the hits. Rich might be referring to the Dead Space 3 incident, but as we stated and in our starting paragraph, we won’t be taking a side on this whole topic. That’s up to you to decide.

Rich added later on that COD has always earned the reviews. In other words, Activision did not ever pay for a high score. To his credit, Rich admitted that Eurogamer is one of the best gaming sites, Nintendo is the best from the three console manufacturers as they give early access and have no interest in the score of its games, and that Capcom was doing its best to offer reviewers the best possible impressions by sending reviewers the game early, with meganotes to ensure they ‘got it’.

As said and before, we’re not taking sides and Rich might be wrong about all of this. Still, this is something really interesting for everyone interested – and working – in the gaming industry.

Enjoy the melodrama!

http://www.dsogaming.com/news/melodrama-rich-stanton-accuses-edge-for-altering-scores-pc-gamer-for-lying-and-cvg-for-misquotes/



Around the Network

Sounds legit. The 98% Metacritic average for GTA IV was definitely paid for (although that wasn't the biggest reason for its inflated review scores, it was childish hype and hybris that caught even professional reviewers).



There isn't such a thing as a gaming journalist or professional reviewer; they're all a bunch of fan boys. I do not trust any gaming journalist. They're all very biased. Like Slimebeast said in the post above, they all got caught up in the GTA IV hype, and I'd say that they got caught in the hype for Skyrim as well.

The whole business needs an overhaul!!



I'm on Twitter @DanneSandin!

Furthermore, I think VGChartz should add a "Like"-button.

DanneSandin said:

There isn't such a thing as a gaming journalist or professional reviewer; they're all a bunch of fan boys. I do not trust any gaming journalist. They're all very biased. Like Slimebeast said in the post above, they all got caught up in the GTA IV hype, and I'd say that they got caught in the hype for Skyrim as well.

The whole business needs an overhaul!!

personally I do follow those reviewers that are biased and outright say that their reviews are biased and subjective

that doesn't mean I buy the games they recommend or pass up on those they didn't like, but I do consider their opinions



Lafiel said:
DanneSandin said:

There isn't such a thing as a gaming journalist or professional reviewer; they're all a bunch of fan boys. I do not trust any gaming journalist. They're all very biased. Like Slimebeast said in the post above, they all got caught up in the GTA IV hype, and I'd say that they got caught in the hype for Skyrim as well.

The whole business needs an overhaul!!

personally I do follow those reviewers that are biased and outright say that their reviews are biased and subjective

that doesn't mean I buy the games they recommend or pass up on those they didn't like, but I do consider their opinions

I usually look at the wikipedia entry for a game I'm interested in to see a few scores in one place... I usually also watch IGN's and GT's video reviews, but mostly for the fun of it. I have no trust in game journalism. Can be fun though



I'm on Twitter @DanneSandin!

Furthermore, I think VGChartz should add a "Like"-button.

Around the Network

Not buying it. Now, if you told me that Edge altered scores downward, I might believe you.



kowenicki said:
Some fans need to look in the mirror before they complain about some reviewers scoring strangely.

Well, you're actually spelling out the differences yourself. The key words is fans and reviewers. Fans can score a game just whatever they like it to be; they're fans. Amateurs. But reviewers can't afford to do that. They're supposed to be professionals - the very opposite of amateurs.



I'm on Twitter @DanneSandin!

Furthermore, I think VGChartz should add a "Like"-button.

Slimebeast said:

Sounds legit. The 98% Metacritic average for GTA IV was definitely paid for (although that wasn't the biggest reason for its inflated review scores, it was childish hype and hybris that caught even professional reviewers).


Yep I believe this.

Im playingg Saiints Row The third for the first time right now. And its so much more fun than GTA4.



kowenicki said:
DanneSandin said:
kowenicki said:
Some fans need to look in the mirror before they complain about some reviewers scoring strangely.

Well, you're actually spelling out the differences yourself. The key words is fans and reviewers. Fans can score a game just whatever they like it to be; they're fans. Amateurs. But reviewers can't afford to do that. They're supposed to be professionals - the very opposite of amateurs.

My point was that if a site dares to score a review of certain titles low then the barrage of abuse, boycotts and general shit throwing makes it a problem.  Gamers are immature and irrational... mainly. 

But yes, reveiwers are drawn from the gaming journalist pool, whch is inherently weak in skill and integrity.

I can agree with those points of yours!



I'm on Twitter @DanneSandin!

Furthermore, I think VGChartz should add a "Like"-button.

I have always asked myself, How GTA 4 could get so much praise from the press.

Especially when the game is by no means as fun as San Andreas.