Talk:GameSpot/Archive 1

message: Protected due to rapid vandalism for the last hour. --Golbez 04:40, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
Citation should not be needed on the point about Gamespot being originally a PC gaming site.  Being a Gamespot user myself since 1996!
The picture featuring the Gamespot Portal should probably be updated.
unlock it and list me as a key part of the mod staff o_O —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.163.100.203 (talk • contribs) 05:26, 13 June 2005
I think the sock puppet invasion is over. It's probably safe to reopen it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gateman1997 (talk • contribs) 17:02, 13 June 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, how exactly are you goiong to list yourself? Do you mean saying your real-life name or your user ID that you use here? If you can provide a link or something showing you're really on the staff, then... maybe. Master Thief GarrettTalk 10:41, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: "GameSpot is credited with being one of the most reliable and sometimes brutally honest resources for gaming information in the Internet, leading in reviews, previews, and news coverage"
:Any sources for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bastion (talk • contribs) 09:40, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Read some reviews, the people at Gamespot are pretty tough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.168.217.120 (talk • contribs) 03:40, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone I know regards them as the opposite, according the gamerankings they are purely average. Bastion 23:40, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's purely anecdotal evidence, which is useless. Go pick up a game box sometime. The developers love quoting positive reviews from Gamespot and IGN --Cronosquall 00:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: While it may be POV, me and everybody I know certainly believes it to be true. bob rulz 13:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  One small thing 

message: I don't think the full details of their rating system belong in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a description of every website out there. Unless someone disagrees and explains why, I will delete the section with the detailed explanation of the rating system (I won't delete the entire section on reviews) and replace it with a link to http://www.gamespot.com/misc/reviewguidelines.html in the "external links" section in a day or two. --Michaël 21:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think what's there at the moment is perfect. It's not too much, and it's not too little (though I just got rid of the last two sentences - one was an incorrect statement, and the next was a statement saying that the preceding one was incorrect. Weird.)--Gwilym 09:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: rating system

message: This reads to me as quite possibly the most encyclopedia-unworthy subject on the face of the planet. It's also terribly written; ridden with typos, grammatical errors and generally poor copy. I'm not going to fix these mistakes (because I think the paragraph should go away entirely), but I'm also not going to remove it myself without debate (partly because it was only just added, and partly because there's a very slight chance that enough people might think that it actually is worth including).
But seriously, what the hell? If all internet message board feuds were mentioned on Wikipedia, the server would explode. --Gwilym 03:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously you have never used 'the internet.' It happens everywhere. It's meaningless internet drama. So... this constant reverting war; is that some kind of compromise? Rather than have the paragraph stay or go, it's completely random whether it's going to be there or not? Seriously, it's a terrible paragraph; completely non-NPOV, badly-written, useless to anybody who reads the article, and in contravention to about half of the 'What Wikipedia is Not' guidelines. With so many people that insist on pasting it in there, this article is beyond repair. --Gwilym 01:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

text: It happens "everywhere"? Then what exactly makes it so special because it happens on GameSpot? I'd think that would make this information even more meaningless to an outsider.--Robbie 05:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening paragraph of 'Message Board Community.' 

message: 68.205.204.223 is a user whom has been permanently banned from the GameSpot Community. He/she has a vendetta against GameSpot, and is continually making edits that support his/her problem with the GameSpot moderators. He/she needs to be blocked from making edits on this page, since he/she will continue to be a problem otherwise. -anon
:How do you know this? --Thorpe | talk 18:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if you know how to get somebody blocked from editing, please do so, because this is silly.--Gwilym 18:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 68.205.etc - Go and pick up an encyclopedia. A real one. They don't talk about internet grudges. This is talk about an internet grudge. And it's nothing to do with damage control or 'not handling honesty' - I myself have no affiliation with the website, I don't visit the forums and I don't have an agenda, yet my opinion on this issue is identical to Anon's. My only strong opinion about the site is a negative one; I hate that news bug which shows up all the time, which I've actually mentioned in this article. That doesn't give me carte blanche to turn it into a huge rant, under the reasoning that 'a lot of people may feel this way.' --Gwilym 19:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 68.205.204.223

message: I notice that all mentions of the bugs in the new system have been removed. Now we're left with a sentence that just explains the intent, but not the result. Intentions don't matter in an encyclopedia article (or anything else, for that matter).
I can't remember exactly what it used to be, but this is what I think would work the best:
:On October 3, 2005, GameSpot adopted a new look similar to that of TV.com, now considered a sister site to GameSpot. The redesign was intended to make the overall interface more unified and efficient, but opinions on the new look were divided. As well as this, a handful of bugs began to appear around the site, affecting both administrators and readers. While most of these have been solved in the months since the new look was launched, one particularly notable bug remains to this day, which causes all recent news articles to be replaced with a seemingly random selection from late 2005.
I'd like to get some consensus on this before I add it in, because I tire of reverting wars. Since this bug is very likely to affect the average user of the site, it deserves mention.--Gwilym 19:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bugs in new version 

message: Okay, this is getting on my nerves. Saying that some GS users are angry, and that some of them made a new website is still on topic.
Originally, I went on about systemwars.com's reputation in the forums. That was arguable, and I really don't care about that getting edited out. However, mentioning the site in ONE SENTENCE, and linking it in the same sentence is hardly worth getting rid of. Sounds to me like people want the forums to be seen as some utopia. I've had it. I'm putting it back in. I'm going to mention systemwars.com in one sentence. I will link to a new article about the website. It will be a stub, but I really don't care.
Systemwars.com is not signiificant, nor is it relevant to this article. Furthermore, your poorly-written complaints about your run-ins with the moderation staff has no place in an encyclopedia article about GameSpot. Have you ever even seen an encyclopedia? That's not being neutral in your point of view. -anon
These are not "run-ins". I have never had any problems with the mods at GS. I actually side with them, and abide by the rules. This is something that does, in fact, exist. People don't appreciate the mods. I don't have a problem with them, but some do. And this is hardly a bias thing. Look at any article on a controversial subject. "Criticisms" is there. Are you saying we should just sugar-coat everything?
Outsidethewall 05:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a poorly-written rant. At least, that's how it reads. And I really don't think it's encyclopedic in the least, but I'm tired of watching the arguments. I'm taking this page off my watchlist.--Gwilym 09:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's hardly POV, and it's hardly a rant. I'll contact an Admin if you want me to. Because right now we're going nowhere --Outsidethewall 04:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing out complaints 

message: Should a tournament section be added?  Gamespot has had several tournaments recently, with one for F.E.A.R. goint to broadcast in a few days.  Just a thought.
I think there should be a list of tournaments, like a table of something. Theres only been 5, so it wouldn't be hard to retrieve the info
       Sounds reasonable enough. I'll give it the ole' College Try. 
                    --outsidethewall 07:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tournament Section

message: The GameSpot Portal picture is too big, and bordering on spam. If a reader is that interested in the site they can go and browse it. --kingboyk 08:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would look worse if there was an ugly cut-off, or if there were no picture at all. --Outsidethewall 21:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. --Thorpe | talk 14:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The GameSpot Portal  

message: This articles cites no sources or references and the entire article frankly borders on being a giant advertisement. 164.107.197.49 04:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if it were an advertisement, you'd see things like "GameSpot is the #1 source for all thing video and computer games! Alright!!!!". However, your concerns regarding a lack of sources are warranted, at least for topics not related to the Message Boards. --outsidethewall 20:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cite sources 

message: The name is AnonymousBroccoli. The person who keeps on changing it has not been a moderator since at least 2001, and it is doubtful that they ever were. I am a former mod of the community who was brought into the position at the same time as Broccoli and I can verify this, as could any member of the GS staff or any true moderator.
Well someone changed it to the user hbk91 for some reason even though hes not a mod and his account was created in 2004..so...Coasttocoast 05:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Longest-Running Moderator 

message: hey guys, shouldn't there be a paragraph or so mentioning button mashing, the somewhat short-lived show gamespot hosted for a while? maybe it should also be mentioned at Button_mashing? 
well, i guess it doesn't really have to be a paragraph it could be just added to "features". Although its more like an ex-feature, even though they never really terminated it officially afaik. 
So, what do you guys think? 
ps: my first ever discussion post \o/ Chaotic Mind 10:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Button Mashing 

message: Is this really nessisary. We all know Gamespot makes mistakes for their reveiws but is pointing this out really nessisary. IMO, I don't think so and I think it should be deleted.
:I wouldn't say that having a section to itself is necessary, but details on the controversy should be included somewhere in the article. It was a big mistake on their part, and it angered a lot of people. JimmyBlackwing 19:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have a point. I don't know much about those controversies so it's out of my hands. But anyway, I say we rename the section to something like "Review controversies" and cover all of 'em. JimmyBlackwing 08:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Not to mention their Majora's Mask review and their reviews of Nintendo's brain training "games". The Legend of Miyamoto 18:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metroid Prime: Hunters 

message: Crab won on the poll. If you check the system wars info thread its officialy changed.... Crabs are in Cows are out... (Koolsen 01:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crab 

message: I've done a fair bit of work on the page. I've cited most of the parts needing citation. I deleted one citation request - the one regarding GS changing their banners on April Fool's 2005. I figured that it was both impossible to cite, due to it being just an image, and also, that it's pretty common knowledge, too. If it needs a citation, saying the sky is blue needs a citation. Also, I made o0n change regarding the paragraph on Shenmue's review. Gamespot, to the best of my knowledge, never went on record saying that they will never change a review score again. Therefore, I removed that sentence. I still cited the whole situation, however. There are now only two citation requests: one about Videogamespot.com, and the other, about the merger, forming GameSpot.com. I feel that with only two incidents of no sources cited, we can remove the banner at the top of the article pointing that out.--outsidethewall 00:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dude, someone had to have caught it.  Even a screenshot of the page would do well to cite that it actually happened.  "common knowledge" you say - to who?  I never go on the GS boards.  I wouldn't know what was going on, and it's not as common as the "sky is blue".  It should either be deleted or be cited, and I'm leaning towards the former. Hbdragon88 19:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary of Changes 

message: It is a common criticism among many people. I see no reason why it shouldn't be added in the criticisms section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Byge (talk • contribs) 
:It shouldn't be included. Just because a bunch of people feel that the score (which says the game is "great") is low doesn't mean it should be part of a Wikipedia entry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.121.40.139 (talk) 06:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it is not an important criticism. It is just something from annoyed Zelda fanboys who thought it deserved a 10 before they even played it. 8.8 according to GameSpot's system is "great", and I assume they got annoyed when it wasn't given a higher score. Now, if it was similar to the Shenmue debacle and given a poor score, then that warrants a mention. -TonicBH 19:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I kinda think it should be on there. If you look at the score then yeah 8.8 isn't bad at all, and sure all the fans caused a commotion over a game they haven't even played, but the thing is that it still caused quite a commotion. It might not be as big as the Shenmue incident, but the Metroid Prime Hunters incident is on there and I think Zelda is more infamous than that. Plus there was also the other Gamespot editor Matt that tried to defend the review and criticized the game causing even more outcry from the fans. That article was up for like an hour maybe. I think if MPH is on there then Twilight Princess should be on there. Wow this was long. I'm new to this, but just my two cents. Goodface87 18:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Everyone here needs to read WP:ATT. It won't be added until a reliable source discusses the controversy; at the moment it's just a knee-jerk fan reaction. -- Steel 18:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why shouldn't Zelda twilight princess review be added in the criticisms section?

message: Why was the Rich Gallup page deleted?! 
http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:WYy3_TVzzV8J:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_Gallup+%22rich+gallup%22&hl=fi&gl=fi&ct=clnk&cd=1
The GameSpot page doesn't contain the same info anyway. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hiilidioksidi (talk • contribs) 15:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rich Gallup is not notable enough for his own article. Read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rich Gallup. --- RockMFR 21:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RG Person Bio 

message: I was wondering why Wikipedia doesn't have a list of the nominees and/or winners of the Best and Worst awards from every year?  Has this been put up but Gamespot asked it to be removed?  There are other lists of winners such as here for movies and here for games.  I am perfectly willing to go through Gamespot's pages and add them, just not to do so if they will be removed. - Keithustus 04:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The nominees/winners of every award? No that's not something Wikipedia needs. However, it would make sense to possibly add a small section to this article for the GameSpot game of the year winners (or whatever they call it). --- RockMFR 04:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't know, but it can be there having its own article. You don't have to agree with me, but Spike TV Video Game Awards do have articles having nominees and winners as well. 86.101.211.226 08:15, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, you're right.  They are found here for 2006, for 05, and for 04.  I guess I'll jump on this immediately.  New page in a few moments, after I get an initial draft done in wikicode. - Keithustus 08:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

text: PUBLISHED Go check out my severely error-filled start at Gamespot's Best and Worst of the Year Winners. I can't believe how long it took to get that done. So much so that I don't want to look at it for a few days, at least. - Keithustus 04:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Best and Worst nominees & winners? 

message: Gamespot's staff hasn't reviewed all of the games, if you type in "the bombing islands" or "eternal eyes"  there will only be player reviews(including me, im "firespot") i'm sure these two are not the only gamese without a gamespot staff review, should we add that they didn't review all of the games? -hotspot
:First, does this fact have any significance to the article or is it more of a trivia? It has significance if Gamespot claims that they have reviewed ALL the games. Second, if we do add this in, does that mean all other Wikipedia articles for medias that review games should also have a note that they did not review all the games? Third, but insignificant to the article itself, are game medias supposed to review every game that is released since their launch/publication?--BirdKr 17:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: GameSpot does not and has never claimed to review all games. I see no reason to add something like this to the entry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.121.40.139 (talk) 06:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: should we add somewhere?

message: Why is there no metion of gamespot tv? 64.30.14.50 03:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[X-Play |Gamespot TV]] 

message: Who is the Editor-in-Chief now when Kasavin left? --Mika1h 00:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editor-in-Chief 

message: Now that Gamespot has added a user soapbox for editorial blogs, do you think it should be included on the page?
Tylea002 12:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  User Soapbox