Now that would be a shit storm. Can you imagine the outrage if they did that instead of contacting them for clarification?
didnt bethesda shitcan kotaku for a few years? I mean that was for leak reporting iirc
Now that would be a shit storm. Can you imagine the outrage if they did that instead of contacting them for clarification?
I literally just qutoed the article. Please tell me where it says he had an issue with it.Maybe you need to read the whole article before doing the same.
"omg i tripped and deleted you from our e-mailing list, what a shame"Sony to reviewer, "It be a shame if something would happen to your establishment".
this is very funny coming from someone being so openly condescending lmaoOf course relying on personal attacks when you can't use proper logic. Way to go bud. Another great contribution.
No I am not, you are. here is exactly what the reviewer said: "Zacny clarified that the exchange wasn't "confrontational," " and "I was happy to unpack a bit of my reasoning, however, and received a perfectly cordial message in response "
It is all there written in the OP. Maybe read it before replyinng.
Do you have anything of value to add. Why even reply if you have nothing to say?
Now that would be a shit storm. Can you imagine the outrage if they did that instead of contacting them for clarification?
Let's just get this straight then: You don't think that a company contacting an employee over a glassdoor review is crossing the line?Of course relying on personal attacks when you can't use proper logic. Way to go bud. Another great contribution.
That is literally what he is saying. There is no way to take that any other way unless you twist it into something it's not. People in this thread are doing a good job of that though.that's not him saying he didn't have an issue with them asking him
The only snowflakes are the commentators in this thread. Jesus.
If you spend six years making something that is widely praised and then read a review that appears - to you as the creator - to dismiss core tenets of your work, wouldn't you be interested in why the critic interpreted your work that way?
The review conclusion contains summary lines such as:
" Every facet of the original game has been expanded and enlarged in the sequel, but not actually improved. "
" There is practically nothing here we haven't seen and done repeatedly throughout previous Naughty Dog games. "
You don't have to love the story, I get it, but dismissing the game as unimproved is factually incorrect. I imagine this is what Sony wanted clarified.
To be fair here, it was not Sony or ND throwing shade at this critic in public in order to defend their name and game, they asked those questions in private. They didn't ask for them to change the review (as far as I know). What exactly is the problem here?
It's the principle of doing that. The article literally says how reviewing this game without fitting the general consensus has become very hard. They included excerpts of the twitter replies of Druckman and other such stuff to explain it better. Including fan outrage. Incase of a bigger publisher, questioning something in a review, it automatically creates a sense of doubt/pressure in a reviewer. That's the most basic stuff that everyone engaging with you is trying to explain.I literally just qutoed the article. Please tell me where it says he had an issue with it.
They didn't do that for just Kotaku; a lot of outlets didn't get Bethesda codes/copies prior to the game's launch so reviews came late and thus people wouldn't find out the Skyrim port for the PS4/Xbone was full of sound and animation glitches. It was a demonstrably anti-consumer move that they only recently reversed.didnt bethesda shitcan kotaku for a few years? I mean that was for leak reporting iirc
If someone finds something unaccepteable they ususally don't describe the situation as "cordially" and happily reply. I am sure if he had an issue with it he would have said so but he said the opposite.Quote for me where Rob Zacny said that Sony's contact was acceptable. Your point is "he said it was fine that they contacted him", and all you can point out is he's saying it wasn't confrontational and that he was happy to explain in further detail exactly why their game was bad. None of that means "and that's why it's just fine that Sony contacted me".
If you are unable to contribute anything worth reading please stop replying to me. Thank you.this is very funny coming from someone being so openly condescending lmao
it literally is not what he's saying. he said he was happy to unpack and defend what he wrote. that isn't saying the same thing as he was happy for sony to reach out to himThat is literally what he is saying. There is no way to take that any other way unless you twist it into something it's not. People in this thread are doing a good job of that though.
oh my god shut upIf you are unable to contribute anything worth reading please stop replying to me. Thank you.
rofl
People here were revolted by that woman's experience with Square Enix when she reviewed Final Fantasy XII but go off, champI'm not going to say that people only care about this because it's Naughty Dog but it definitely feels like people care more about this because it's Naughty Dog.
If you're going to have an actual conversation about the issue (intimidation tactics between publishers and games media) you have to call out the practice uniformly instead of focusing all your energy into blasting or defending (to the people defending this with such fervor: stop) this one specific case because Naughty Dog is the hot topic at the moment.
There have been other examples of this same tactic posted in this thread that show this is a games industry problem. I'm not trying to pull the heat off ND or Sony because they do deserve it but I get the feeling that a lot of other companies are skating by doing the same shit because everybody is focused on this as if what was done to Rob was a novel concept, it isn't.
So? They want to talk with the reviewer in the same way that you as a journalist call you. Not everything is a fight not everything is some kind of complot to manipulate the scores or whatever.
This is a common practice and it has nothing to do with trying to change your opinion and this relationship flow in both ways my friend.
But you guys need to fill 25 pages fighting about something that is not even in the article.
Even the writer is happy to share his opinion with Sony...as I said people working in media see a lot of value in this kind of relationship. but for some reason Era keep saying that Sony is trying to influence the Writer....
At least read the Op....because it looks like is Era the one accusing Sony/ND of trying to influence a reviewer.
Look up Jeff Gerstmann/Kane&Lynch.
It's the principle of doing that. The article literally says how reviewing this game without fitting the general consensus has become very hard. They included excerpts of the twitter replies of Druckman and other such stuff to explain it better. Including fan outrage. Incase of a bigger publisher questioning something in a review, it automatically creates a sense of doubt/pressure in a reviewer. That's the most basic stuff that everyone engaging with you is trying to explain.
It's like you giving a wrong answer in an interview and the interviewer trying to nudge you to the "right" answer by asking if you think that's really the right answer. You probably have been in such a situation before and already should be in the know of how you felt at that moment.
So seeing how other journalists have came out with their own stories about this practice I can safely conclude that:
1. This is a bad look for all these companies. It's questionable at best and outright implied blackmail at worst, and has to stop.
2. You know some people are just gonna use this as ammo from now on to further drag Naughty Dog and excuse any harassment going their way.
What didn't happen?? Have u seriously read the article or are you tunnel visioned ?None of this happened and you literally just made up a scenario. The review was already out, everyone involved knew the review wasn't going to change. They literally just asked for more clarification. All the other stuff you said is completely irrelevant. Not a single person said being critical of the game was hard. In fact I'd argue they had it a lot easier than the reviewers that rated it positively all being accused of being paid.
He actually explained his reasoning to them? I understand wanting to maintain a good relationship, but that just seems so fucked up.
for someone who accused other people of not reading the OP you should already know that the review isn't scored
it literally is not what he's saying. he said he was happy to unpack and defend what he wrote. that isn't saying the same thing as he was happy for sony to reach out to him
there is a huge difference between the two things but, as is a continued pattern with your posts in this thread, you are actively choosing to ignore it
oh my god shut up
Jeff specifically cited that Gamespot was filtering responses from pubs/devs through new legal or hr departments that did not have experience with this stuff. It wasn't new, those people get angry historically. Some devs he's (not specifically) described had blacklisted him as a "friend" because he didn't give their game a good score, and he's like "oh, that's what you think this relationship is." But with K&L, they had people who didn't seem to know that the appropriate measure in dealing with angry advertisers was to nod silently, and then just toss the complaints in the trash because advertising should not have control over editorial like this.
happily defending what he wrote is just that: a happy defence. that does not mean that the circumstances in which he needed to make that defence is acceptableIt is literally what he is saying. No one would describe something as "happily" doing it if they felt it was negative. Nothing about what Rob said made the situation seem negative in any way. and it's not like Rob is incapable of being negative as proven by other things he has said.
You should take your own advice. If you don't want to have a conversation than stop replying to me. Yes it is that easy.
If someone finds something unaccepteable they ususally don't describe the situation as "cordially" and happily reply. I am sure if he had an issue with it he would have said so but he said the opposite.
This didn't happen: "The article literally says how reviewing this game without fitting the general consensus has become very hard." Yes i have read the article but I am mainly focusing on the topic of this thread. Your "analogy" was awful but I still addressed it. How is asking for clrification "nudging someone to the right answer". Especially when the review is already out. None of your comment makes any sense.What didn't happen?? Have u seriously read the article or are you tunnel visioned ?
Edit: Interview scenario is an analogy. Use your own to understand it. I thought you would be logical enough to understand it. But based on your replies, no point in engaging with someone who can't see something for what it is in an objective manner.
You have much to learn Eggman. Not everything is what you see on the surface.And then upper management was cordial and in no way threatening then what?
This didn't happen: "The article literally says how reviewing this game without fitting the general consensus has become very hard." Yes i have read the article but I am mainly focusing on the topic of this thread. Your "analogy" was awful but I still addressed it.
I didn't expect this many people in this thread to draw that conclusion, but man on man here we are.happily defending what he wrote is just that: a happy defence. that does not mean that the circumstances in which he needed to make that defence is acceptable
it's like being wrongly questioned by the cops but you're happy to tell them what you've done. that's not a tacit approval of being questioned in the first place
it should not be this difficult for you to grasp this point