Talk:Eurogamer/Archive 1

Tagged for cleanup
Whats this mean? Has someone "reported" it or is it just an automated process? If so, how do we avoid a purge?


 * It means someone tagged / reported it. I've tried to clean the article up, so I've everyone else agrees that is is OK as it is, we can remove the tag. &#91;maven] 17:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

It was probably tagged because whilst the article's existence is ok, it contains non-notable (Notability) forumcruft.

Looks good to me maven, glad someone knows what they are doing! (Furbs)

If you're going to have a section on Eurogamer's running gags and you miss this one out then there really is no point.

Yeah, put it back in! Nice one though guys, this place is good. Oh, my name is blatantly missing from the regs list ;-)(kal)

I haven't seen you about, kal. But yeah, that deserves to be held in honour.

I think it is cleaned up! Yeah, I'll remove the tag. (Bunda)

You havn't see me about. It's kalel yeah? If you havn't seem me about then yuo have me on ignore! ;-)

Have you been posting like a bunny on smack? (Bunda)

What's up with this page?
Get rid of everything below the "Eurogamer Forum" section and tidy the EurogamerTV and "In the media" sections.

I honestly don't think that the Eurogamer page is any good at all. It's not serious nor objective, and it's basically full of information that no one besides Eurogamer's regular visitors will understand. Somebody should clean it up. That means replacing a lot of the existing text with something new. The first part is fine, but the rest of the article is definitely written by some of EG's board users, and, more importantly, for EG's board users. --Benjamin Soltani 18:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point. The info here is very much designed with non-regular visitors in mind. Regulars would not need to know the injokes and history surely? I dont really see how it could be written by anyone else other than the sites users? Otherwise where would the info come from? Essentially what you have here is a primer for those who wish to learn about the background to the site and its forum. Unlike many gaming sites, the Eurogamer forum is integral to the "experience" of the site and thus, imo, warrants discussion and explaination. If not, then I assume a wiki about a sports team would have any reference to its supportors traditions, songs and chants (and their history) removed?

I dont get the "not serious, nor objective" comment? Nothing contained in this article is (afaik) factually inaccurate, and the "humourous" sections that are there simply to inform, rather than amuse per se. (Furbs, 22/04/06)

As I've stated on the EG forum, the "forum info" heading and all info is not appropriate for Wikipedia according to its own guidelines here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Precedents "Communities, message boards and blogs are generally not notable". JammyB 17:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

cf. Gaming Age Forums. As a user the EG forum and not of NeoGAF, I can state that the info on the GAF page is next to useless for people who aren't members. (Teeth)

As also stated on the EG forum, you'll notice the word "generally". Ask any regular visitor to the Eurogamer site and they will tell you the main reason they visit is the forum. Given that EG itself falls under what I consider a "notable" website, I would argue that that its fair to include information about it. (Furbs)

IMO, encyclopedias have it all wrong. The way they should be written is similar to the style of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy's actual Guide, except with the information factually correct. Door-to-door encyclopedia salesmen would make a much larger profit if their books were worth reading. (Bunda), 24.4.06

Cruft removal
There, aced out the self-referential forum cruft that endangers the page on AfD. RGTraynor 17:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooo! Bunda the Great 17:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

An anon IP reverted this page to put back in all the forum nonsense despite it endangering the whole article and having gone through the process of removal. Reverted back but I guess this is going to keep happening. JammyB 13:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Sensible Soccer 2006 criticism
I edited in a section about criticism of Eurogamer over Sensible Soccer 2006. British games journalist Stuart Campbell points out the flaws inherent in the game, and noted that these were completely omitted from Eurogamer's 9/10 scoring of the game. He also points out that negative feedback on the game was deleted from Eurogamer's comments section, and questions Eurogamer's integrity in awarding the game such a high score. Also, he noted that EG claimed in a preview that the game is not based on previous football management games by Codemasters, despite similarities between the game engines.

Why was this section removed? I note that this entry deals with certain controversies over EG's reviews (Halo 2, FIFA Street). In this respect, the controversy over Sensible Soccer 2006 should also be included.

I'm going to revert back to this noted criticism of Sensible Soccer 2006, as they are legitimate points in keeping with the information in this entry. --The Researcher 20:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey everyone, I'm a volunteer mediator hoping to help resolve this issue. Could all objections to the material under review be noted here? At first blood, the material appears to be properly cited. But we should all discuss the material here on this page so we can figure out what to do. Tsetna 13:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Update: I'm going to restore the material and ask users to look in here to start. Tsetna 20:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Update 2: I'll give this a few more days, then close the mediation case. I'll add the article to my watchlist. Tsetna 21:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey Tsetna, thanks for taking a look at the Sensi Soccer section --The Researcher 12:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Update: I've restored the section on the controversy over Eurogamer's review of Sensible Soccer 2006. This has been removed a number of times before, and has been reverted by a volunteer mediator in each case. It is interesting to note that no reason has ever been given as to why this section should be removed. --The Researcher 15:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

screenshot
I'm not familiar with how that works, but the current image is dead. Someone feeling up to fix it? JackSparrow Ninja 01:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

International readership
There are quite a few Australian and American readers, for example, that use Eurogamer as their primary source for the gaming world JayKeaton 17:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

This is true. All you have to do is read one of Eurogamer's reviews to understand they offer a very different perspective from most gaming news and review outlets, and that tends to attract people who are looking for something in the vein of what they offer, even if they're not European. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.158.88.7 (talk) 09:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Last time somebody removed my comment, and I'm not sure why. The person above me is obviously more biased than what i said. I said that Eurogamer isn't very popular in America, because here (I assume neither of you are American) we already have a plethora of online review sites. Eurogamer actually isn;t regarded that well over here, because historically (look at the controversies) have given some games, rated high here, pretty poorly. Personally, I've never even heard of them outside of controversy, and being a video game blogger on multiple sites (and game wars), I'd only seen it pop up trying to prove certain popular games are bad. And on many wiki articles, it points out how they mark many games lower.

Final Opinion- the readership in America isn' very high, and unless you can prove the EUROGAMER is popular here, then I'd assume not. Australia, she's a case I have no idea on. 72.199.100.223 (talk) 07:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Eurogamer isn't popular in the States for a good reason (personally, their reviews are usually total laughfests for American gamers), but they do have quite a few readers there (due to their scoring; though I wouldn't say supporters). 98.198.83.12 (talk) 16:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

What about the forum?
This article doesn't mention the site's forums at all. --PWNGWN (talk) 11:13, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Forums in general are not notable beyond the fact that a site has one. - X201 (talk) 09:12, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

controversy section
"Gears Of War review" - Should this be added to criticism section? 8/10 is one of the lowest scores given (the other being Xbox 360 gamer UK). Where as all the other sites gave it 9-10 score. http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/action/gearsofwar/review.html?mode=web


 * The controversy being, that 8/10 is very generous for that game, it's more like a 6.5/10.  I sold it in a week, it was that much of a disappointment.  The controversy section should be how Eurogamer are clearly Xbox biased, due to Microsoft being their biggest advertiser.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.174.171.21 (talk) 09:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think so. Critics are known for having wildly differing opinions, and to merely have a score one or two points either side of another critic's score doesn't really warrant "controversy". In fact I'd also reckon that the "Halo 2 Score" criticism isn't really a criticism at all. It's just a (marginally) lower score than other sites. I suspect this is merely fanboy activism. The "Sensible Soccer" criticism is cited and can probably stay, although I don't think that it needs to feature so heavily on this rather small article. Bitkari 20:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The guy that made Gears of War actually commented on the Eurogamer review in the official Gears of War message board. It is more trivia than controversy, maybe add a note in a trivia section instead? JayKeaton 03:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I know wikipedia isn't the place for this, but I have also noticed that Eurogamer gives remarkably low reviews to a lot of really good games. Mount and Blade, for instance, recieved an asonishingly low 5/10 from them. To me that pretty much discredits them, but that's just my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.35.225.229 (talk) 21:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * They always do. It's sort of their forte. 98.198.83.12 (talk) 15:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

There are several pretty largely publicized public promotions that have been criticized on various other games journalism sites. Where are they? I really hope they're mentioning isn't being targeted by selective editing...you know, censorship...mere mentions of "controversy" are one thing, but with things like 'doritogate' making the rounds on various other sites, this section should definitely exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.88.228 (talk) 04:04, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Circular "owner" link
The owner section in the sidebar is a hyperlink to "Gamer Network", but that page redirects to Eurogamer. Should it be removed as redundant? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.104.218.242 (talk) 19:49, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I've altered it so that it targets the Subsidiaries section. - X201 (talk) 07:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC)