Talk:GameSpot/Archive 1

Vandalism
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)

I don't see any disputes, it was just a sock puppet invasion. I think it's time to reopen this 01:35, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) Gateman1997

On a serious note, will it get deleted if I list myself as a key mod on the GS staff? I really am a mod, and one of the mods you listed isn't even a mod anymore. I would consider taking off the mod who's not even a mod anymore and adding myself to be a legit update. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.116.136 (talk • contribs) 04:19, 14 June 2005 (UTC)

I remember they locked the IGN topic once, and it was there for several days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by XX55XX (talk • contribs) 21:13, 14 June 2005 (UTC)

Once this page is fully open, would anyone mind a total rewrite that would cover everything about GameSpot ever? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThomasOwens (talk • contribs) 18:26, 17 June 2005 (UTC)


 * 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)

It's so stupid that anyone would vandalise a page becuase they are angry at the site.Themasterofwiki 20:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Come on - let it be edited!
I want to add some more details about GameSpot. When is it going to be unlocked by a SYSOP? • Thorpe • 1 July 2005 17:06 (UTC)

Well, my name at GameSpot is The_Capitalist, and if this topic ever opens, I'll rewrite the topic. Is anyone planning to contact a Wikipedia mod? —Preceding unsigned comment added by XX55XX (talk • contribs) 20:51, 4 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Um, go to the protected list and say it should be unlocked. Often the sysops just forget if no-one demands it! So do that and it'll no doubt become open very soon. Master Thief GarrettTalk 5 July 2005 04:19 (UTC)

I went to the list of protected pages, but GameSpot wasn't listed. I believe that they thought they had re-opened the page, but I guess they did not. I've alerted a wikimod to the situation. - XX55XX/The Capitalist 21:35, 5 July 2005 (UTC)


 * The protection logs said it was protected against vandalism. Since it has been protected for almost a full month, I have unprotected it. Next time, ask for unprotection on Requests for page protection. --cesarb 5 July 2005 21:54 (UTC)

Someone should mentiion that both gamespot and videogamespot started out as nuke.com.. it was an online presence of EGM.. they opted for gamespot name several issues later..

One small thing
"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)


 * 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)


 * Anyone I know regards them as the opposite, according the gamerankings they are purely average. Bastion 23:40, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * While it may be POV, me and everybody I know certainly believes it to be true. bob rulz 13:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I actually don't see as many gamers trumpeting Gamespot's reviews on thier boxes as you would have us believe. I believe your opinion is just that.

I agree, it should be reworded as 'Many people see gamespot as the most brutally honest... etc... etc.. etc..', this article is full of POV information, a definite rewrite should be in order. Besides, it doesn't matter if you've been a member of GameSpot since ever, or if you even work there; the writing standards of Wikipedia still apply. --67.70.3.216 17:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I would hardly describe Gamespot's 6.3 out of ten review of Catwoman as "most reliable and sometimes brutally honest". By the way, wasn't Gamespot forced to withdraw a review of a MMORPG after their reviewer got busted for only being logged into it for about 15 minutes? As for quoting Gamespot reviews: well I'm sure we all love to brag about things that we've spent money on.

Also gamespot has been silly enough to have awarded 'perfect' 10 out of 10 scores for Tony Hawks Pro Scater 4, Chrono Cross, Soul Calibur and The Legend Of Zelda:Ocarina of Time. Its blatantly obvious that nothing made, or will ever be made shall be perfect, by awarding these perfect scores earlier on in gamespots history damage was done to its reputation.(The reviews were from 1998-2001 when it was common place to give 9's to every other game) However gamespot has now recently taken to reviewing games under somewhat harsher conditions to prevent such silliness occuring in the future. 

First, i agree with you, but Ocarina Of Time is still considered to be the greatest game of all time, so it deserved the perfect 10. Second, in recent months, GameSpot has been attacked by angry fans of all consoles, claiming they biased their reviews around the PS3 release, giving more PS3 game brilliant reviews, and giving 360 and Wii games bad reviews (Red Steel and Twilight Princess are good examples, but they gave Gears a good review to save face before you say it). Tr1ckydr1v3r 01:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

rating system
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)

O RLY? The rating system is an integral part of GS. Without it, well, there would be no reviews. Which are one of the main features of GameSpot.


 * 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)

Opening paragraph of 'Message Board Community.'
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)

The message board paragraphs need to stay. I know a TON of people that have left because of the problems mentioned on this page. I don't know of another group of people personally that have been in a mass exodous from a website. It should stay just the way it is.


 * 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)

I have been using the internet for eleven years so don't lecture me. Even though it happens everywhere it's relevent to Gamespot as well so therefore it should be on this page.


 * 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)

Systemwars.com has nothing to do with GameSpot
It keeps getting edited in for some reason, even though it has nothing to do with GameSpot.com. I understand it started from members of GameSpot's community, but it really has no place on a wiki of GameSpot itself. Stop editing it in back in. -anon

It was started by members of Gamespot's community so that's plenty of reason for it to be included. It should stay.

It is not staying. If you continue to edit it in, I will move for page protection. -anon

It is staying. I'll keep editing it in and I'd like a little support here from the Wiki "higher-ups" instead of one person saying what I am putting in and taking out is wrong. You aren't God here.

There is no reason for it to stay. The fact that some members decided to start a separate site does not involve GameSpot at all. If you add that, then why not add every member of GameSpots personal website? - Fire For Effect

The site is a direct spin-off, made by GS users for themselves, modelled after the System Wars section of the web site. Thus it does have a place, as it demonstrates community fragmentation and user activity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.108.137.10 (talk • contribs).

68.205.204.223
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)

I know people who are on the moderation staff. -anon


 * 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)

I was under the impression you had to be registered to do so. Feel free to show me the way. And I agree -- this is silly. This kind of crap should not be necessary. -anon

I find it hard to believe you know mods at Gamespot. Sounds like you just run damamge control for them. The things that keep being edited back in are all true. The things that were taken out or just wrong were POV to make Gamespot look better when it's really a horrbily run outfit. It seems like the only reason -anon is upset is because he/she can't handle honesty.

^^ Thanks for proving my point. -anon


 * 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)

Okay Gwilym, you win. I respect your opinion because you aren't affiliated with them and you don't have to worry about me touching this page again. Oh, and anon, parting words for you...

Since you are obviously on Gamespot's payroll and thier bastion of good, remember that everything I said is the truth. Sleep with that at night pal.

Guess what, I'M HIM!-

Internet. Serious business. 139.78.10.130 17:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Bugs in new version
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)

Editing out complaints
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

It begs the questions as to whether or not every single issue about GameSpot needs to or is going to be brought up. Should every splintered-off community merit a mention? I don't think it's really worth mention unless you intend to chronicle the ebb and flow of the community, and I don't think most people are willing (or, quite frankly, able) to do so.--ChronoSquall14 10:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Tournament Section
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)

The GameSpot Portal
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)


 * 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)
 * Agreed. -- Thorpe | talk  14:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Cite sources
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)


 * 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)

Longest-Running Moderator
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)

Actually, DarkCatalyst is the longest tenured moderator. He has, however, had 2 different stints as moderator, with his 2nd stint starting after broccoli's 1 and only.

Jordan Elek has been a moderator on and off since 2001, and is currently one again, so he'd have been given the position at the earliest date of the current group. DarkCatalyst is no longer a mod at the current time. I, AnonymousBroccoli (currently DeviousBroccoli at GS) have been a mod, uninterrupted, since January 2002. I'm not sure what type of "original research" would be needed to verify this. The only thing I'd have with a date is a text file on my old computer with the contents of a post I made on the day I received the position. The actual post would no longer exist, as it was made on the long-removed ZDNet forums. Wiki user ChronoSquall14 (JonathanL at GS), as previously mentioned, used to be a mod, and received the position at the same time I did. --AnonymousBroccoli 08:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Button Mashing
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)

Actually, DarkCatalyst is the longest tenured moderator. He has, however, had 2 different stints as moderator, with his 2nd stint starting after broccoli's 1 and only.

I'm familiar with DC's tenure, but considered the article to be a reference to longest-running moderator.

Metroid Prime: Hunters
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)

Well, I guess it might be reasonable to point out that they do make mistakes like this, but having a whole section to the Metroid Prime: Hunters review controversy is a waste of space in my opinion.

This is an absolutely ludicrous entry in and of itself. If you're going to add Savage and Shenmue reviews as part of an all-encompassing look at GS Review controersy, that makes sense, but just picking out Hunters' review is obviously just the agenda of a fan.


 * 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)

Okay, I see the new entry on the review controversy, but IMO it doesn't feel really reported. I think more stuff should be added. -jerico6. May 13, 2006.

A good addition to the controversy page would be GameSpot's freelance (and subsequently in-house) review of Savage: Battle for Newerth. ChronoSquall14 06:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

A great addition would be mentioning Tony Hawks 3 perfect score..... Its probably one of the biggest controversies of all.


 * 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)

I've added the recent review for LoZ: Twilight Princess in the Criticism section, considering the outrage caused by the review.

Crab
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))

Has been changed because I have found out that he is correct. 4:34, 26 May 2006.

Who changed it back? Crabs are the official name. Just because you don't like it, doesn't change that fact.

Reviews
The statement 'Reviews are arguably the most important feature of the website, as people trust GameSpot editors to give an objective judgment.', is inherently biased. It should be removed or should at least provide a source for the statement.

Who trusts Gamespot? Me? You? How do we know this? And so forth. It's a baseless and unsupported claim. It should be removed immediately or provide a reference or source. I'm not sure if this qualifies as being labelled as weasel words (Avoid weasel words) or not, however I am confident that these statements are baseless.

Summary of Changes
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)


 * 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)

New template for links
To use this template you must place the following in the "External links" section of an article:

To find the ID of a game you then go to GameFAQs and search for the game there. Once you have found the result go to its page and copy the six digit number in the address bar. GameFAQs and GameSpot share the same database so the game ID there will work bring up the same game on GameSpot.

Here is a working example:

New Super Mario Bros. at GameSpot

Why shouldn't Zelda twilight princess review be added in the criticisms section?
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).


 * 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)


 * 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)

I don't know, man--Gamespot's score was considerably lower than pretty much every other major gaming website. There is an obvious difference.

I have to agree it deserved better and they need more than just the same(fat)man to do all the zelda reviews because he's going to review each new zelda lower because he wants it to be completely different. But who wants that anyway? Anyway zelda's awsome and it this should definetely be in the crit. section especially since(shown on Gamespot itself)on average zelda has a 94.7 which is just a little off from an 8.8.


 * 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)

I think that rating criticism of Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess must be there in the section, because it really caused a public outcry by the fans. Since the other rating sites and shows, like IGN and X-Play gave a high scores of 5/5 and higher than 9 out of 10, fans of Zelda critizied GameSpot for giving the game a "low score" (only compared to the other reviews' rating). That's why the article of GameSpot is/was semi-protected, and the article of Jeff Gerstmann, the editor of GameSpot, who reviewed the Zelda game has been vandalized many times. Also, the rating of Red Steel has been critizied as well, because the others have rated higher, till GameSpot rated 5.5/10 (mediocre) and nominated for "Worst Game Everyone Played" category at Best and Worst 2006 awards ("lost" to Jaws: Unleashed). Despite that, Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess has been nominated for many awards from that show, like the Best Wii and GameCube game of 2006, and it won those platform awards and it became a finalist of Game of the Year 2006. 86.101.211.226 15:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox. If you don't like the review, then you can do one of many things: However, please stop adding to the criticism section of this article based on the "public outcry" you have read on a bunch of lame forums. Nobody cares. --- RockMFR 23:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Publish a blog about it
 * Make yet another forum post about it
 * Send GameSpot feedback. Spam them with many messages - I don't care
 * Find reliable sources that think the same way as you (magazines, popular review websites, newspapers) and add that information to this article

I agree. Until some grownups comment on the issue who don't draw fairies through their junior high lunch breaks, it's a non-issue.203.131.167.26 11:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello, My name is Cayoo and I am very active in the Gamespot comunity. I would also like to point out that I am a PC gamer ONLY (so please keep the fanboy criticism to yourself). This is the first time I've read the Gamespot entry on Wiki and I think there definitely should be a change to this section of the article. The Zelda Twilight Princess controversy should definitely be included in this article simply because of the unbelieveable outcry it spawned (the gamespot servers actually crashed the night the review was posted due to the floods of negative posts on the message boards and hits to the website). It has been nearly 2 months since the review and this topic is still debated on the gamespot forums on a daily basis. Also, a new Wii game was recently reviewed by Gamespot amd was given a higher score then Zelda Twilight Princess. There was again a outcry, although admitedly not as bad as the original, from the Gamespot community about how a game such as the one reviewed could be considered better than Zelda. There have been MANY suggestions that Jeff Gertsman, who reviewed both games, simply gave the score to a Wii game to help silence the critics who accused him of being biased against the Wii.

In any event, I definitely believe this needs to be included in the Wiki entry simply because it is easily the most talked about/controversial "issue" at Gamespot nearly 2 months after the fact and I see no end in sight (not an exageration).

Twilight Princess should be added,thier review was stupid.Honestly most of the that guy reviews are either under or over rated.In this case underrated.He only found two problems with the game and one wasn't even true.When I read their reviews,it sounds like they are being paid by Sony.They're unreliable.

RG Person Bio
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).
 * Rich Gallup is not notable enough for his own article. Read Articles for deletion/Rich Gallup. --- RockMFR 21:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Best and Worst nominees & winners?
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Merge
I am proposing that On the Spot (webcast) be merged back into this article. There are no secondary sources that would allow us to write a separate article about it, so there is no reason to have it forked from this one. --- RockMFR 18:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Appears to be a good idea. It will be done.
 * --NitemareDragon 19:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

should we add somewhere?
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)


 * 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).

Gamespot TV
Why is there no metion of gamespot tv? 64.30.14.50 03:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard of it before -hotspot

Its the original version of the Video game review show,X-play.

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

It's shared job. Jeff Gerstmann is the Editorial Director. I don't know who is the other (I guess Technical Director)

User Soapbox
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)

Why no mention of HWSNBN?
It's what us WINNER rigists call the lord of all things LOSER, Alex navarro. He gave big rigs 1.0, and now will never be able to go to the WINNER grey void when he dies, instead buring in the LOSERness of gamespot for all eternity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)