LOL... well SONY is much better...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Manning_(fictitious_writer)

xD

What ever, publications that are financially tied with MS, Sony or Nintendo just shouldn't be included. Any other business that trades on their reputation would have this as part their mission statement. As for people finding it unlikely, both Sony and MS have a history of throwing money at things to come out their way.

Hahaha...hillarious. You people don't know anything about online content and advertising partnerships. Luckily I work in the industry so I know that all this is microsoft getting some branding and content from Variety while Variety getting traffic from MS sites. Everyone wins... This doesn't affect the content or make Variety MS's bitch.


Anyone calling this a MS conspiracy gets intelligence -1.

 LOL!!! Now that is indeed sad.

Thanks for the laugh, haha! That is awesome.

disolitude
I also work in the industry and i also know that many little perks are thrown in for partners. I'm not saying its happening in this case nether am i saying its not. I'm just saying to claim impartiality meta should not include working partners of all three console makers

These partnerships are so small and they happen every day between sites and networks that everyone thats in to media industry is tied to other publications. Microsofts online publications and sites are completely different beast from their console division. Its not their fault they have online business as well as a console.

Like most sites use google as their search engine and they pay google (IGN, gamespot...pretty much anything actually). If google was to release a console, would those sites be biased towards google?

I've said this once and I'll say it again. Who cares about Variety's game reviews? If you think they are biased or strongly disagree with their opinions, then ignore them.

Do I think R2 deserves a 7/10? of course not. Do I take variety's game reviews seriously? no.

See how easy that was?

disolitude
I agree with your point, but you work in the industry. perks are asked for and given all the time as well you must know. This is not my point though. Should OPSM be included in scores on meta? for me no. They can claim to be independent all they wish but if meta, or anyone else want to claim to be truly impartial with the collection review scores they need to collect reviews from reviewers who potentially have nothing to gain or lose from their review. The world doesn't work like this and never will, so some scores will be scued. Impartiality doesn't exist where money is concerned, please don't try and tell me otherwise. Anyway working in publishing has probably made me to cynical when it cames to sales stratagy. Its a moot point as these things can only effect a score by 5 points at the very max.

You are right that there are lots of perks. Hell, Yahoo is taking me to lunch next week...since we advertise with them a lot. :)

But these perks are never work related...work is a seperate entity and no one I know in the industry is willing to compromise their career or publications reputation over an advertising partnership. Both sides are making money off each other and thats where it ends.

Yahoo is never going to ask us not to advertise with MSN...they are just happy getting our advertising money.

If anything, I could see Variety giving Resistance 2 a lower score to get more people to click on that review and generate more advertising revenue. I do not see in any shape or form, Microsoft asking for this because they have a partnership worth few $100,000 .

Again, I don't so much see conspiracy as inconsistency and uneven reviewing standards.

I always raise an eyebrow when I see reviews that deviate from the general consensus and will determine for myself whether its a case of the others are all too fawning while a few reviews are more accurate, or whether the lone review doesn't stack up.

This is just another case of the same thing IMHO.

From reading multiple reviews Resistance looks alike a well above average game - let's say 90% if you must have a score. Gears 2 is also well above average but is just that bit more polished. In my view its a 92% game (I'm going off other reviews/video clips, etc here I'll make up my own mind when I play them).

LBP is a hard game to review because it is genuinely different. How do you review the content creation? There are few games to compare it to in many areas (on the basis that while PC games have shipped with editors before, or other games have had some creation elements) as its approach to content is so part and parcel of the game.

I was expecting a broad range of reviews and am actually amazed its scored so well on sites like gamerankings & metacritic. I'm looking forward to it more than any other game and its pretty probable I'll think its far superior to R2 or Gears 2 - but then I always heap more praise on a slightly flawed highly innovative game than a highly polished but derivative game.

Really, too much attention is paid to these reviews currently. The average gamer clearly doesn't pay attention to them any more than the average movie goer looks through reviews for the latest blockbuster and while they do have influence its really only on the online gamers.

At the end of the day you can find gushing reviews for R2, Gears 2 and LBP (and a fair few of them, particularly for LBP and Gears 2). What more could you want (apart from LBP to buck the trend of innovative games selling okay but less than stellar 'be there done that' games like R2 and Gears 2 and actually outsell them. It won't happen, but I'd love to see something like LBP trounce all the shooters and actioners, and I say that as an FPS fan!).