So, yesterday we talked about how Entertainment Weekly voted Kirby's Epic Yarn the single worst game of 2010. While a bizarre choice in a year that saw games full of real technical, design and visual flaws, EW is entitled to its opinion.
Its bizarre logic that the game was "too cute" was the really stupid thing, however, and it seems that things have gotten stupider. See, Entertainment Weekly actually reviewed Kirby's Epic Yarn when it came out, and it seems that the "overwhelming" adorability wasn't a problem back then. In fact, the game scored a B+.
Here's what the review says. Bear in mind this is the ENTIRE review, as well. They work hard at EW:
A pink globe gets plopped into a world constructed of colorful twine and craftsy cloth, and the result is likely the most adorable game ever. Yes, it's kinda easy, but you'll never stop smiling. B+
And that, friends, is grounds for being picked as the worst game of the year. Amazing, isn't it? They say that "real game journalists" are the worst writers around, but so long as editorially inconsistent publications like EW are around, I think I'll be sleeping easy at night.
Does it really matter what EW thinks about games? I know some of you have asked that, and that answer is no. However, is it entertaining to laugh at what EW thinks about games? Absolutely! And I think that a publication called Entertainment Weekly could certainly appreciate that!
[Thanks to those that let me know about this]
Contest:
6:00 PM on 12.18.2010 | 
Anyway:
I guess they should just stick to movies for another few years.
Deadly Premonition - 10/10
I guess you could argue that Jim has consistently shitty taste.
Dead Space: Ignition
Prison Break
Iron Man 2
Saw II
Army of Two: The 40th Day
Star Wars: The Force Unleashed II
Oh, and uh... Grease. The game. There was a game about the movie Grease. Let's not forget that.
Epic Yarn was crap so I'm not surprised someone out there would consider the worse game they've played all year.
It would seem so, as you've written about it twice in as many days.
I remember one of the editors on Destructoid posting about how much they were enjoying Final Fantasy XIII a few months ago, and then Sterling posted his extremely negative review of the same title. No one cared about that, nor should they care about this.
This is really a very sad attempt to crucify another publication for having a different opinion, which is odd given that Sterling's supporters are always quick to champion his right to an opinion, even when it varies drastically from the norm. Strange stuff.
Or was it just not worth the time to see if two different people contribute to the two different scores. Talk about lazy, hypocritical, or just stupid.
Or was it just not worth the time to see if two different people contribute to the two different scores. Talk about lazy, hypocritical, or just stupid.
Plus it allows you to repeatedly post about irrelevant news for cheap hits! :D
Nice try but no dice sir.
It's one thing to have an OPINION and that's fine. It's another to try and judge things objectively and tally up the points based on what the game does right for it's intentions.
Jim, there is nothing wrong with you pointing and amusing yourself. Others see it as a waste, but hey, perhaps it was just a bit slow, and what's the harm?
Just anooother day.
Just in case, I'll give it another shot.
Apple is the worst company because they're too innovative.
It's probably just a case of different writers though, but it still looks a bit silly.
Besides, even if there are different writers, there are still some problems.
There are two scenarios, way I see it:
1) The writer who posted this review was involved in the choosing of worst game of the year and had no problem with Kirby 'winning'
or 2) the writer who did the worst game of the year did not actually consult the writer of the review and did it all himself. I don't think they have many video game reviewers over there, so you'd figure they could consult all of them for a story like that.
(@Destructoid: I imagine that you consulted at least some of your writers when posting the game of the year a couple of days ago? Maybe not all, but you probably have more game writers than EW)
I think we can agree that neither of these are very good scenarios.
There are a lot of angry people in here... you guys know that destructoid is a blog...right? These people are bloggers... they can post whatever they want. That's what a blog is.
According to wikipedia Entertainment Weekly flagged the game as "racist, misogynistic, crude, cynical, humorless and stupid" and labelled it the worst game of 2008, despite previously giving the game a B and calling it "a larcenous good time".
If I had personally done Destructoid's official "worst games of 2010" and billed them as that, many of you would be up in arms and angry that I was speaking for an entire editorial team. Similarly, if Chad has personally done the "best games" on his own, with no input from staff, everybody would be pissed (not least the other editors).
Not only did Jeff Jensen undermine a colleague by officially (not personally, but officially) discrediting a review, but one man judging his outlet's worst games of the year just strikes me as silly. In fact, we don't know if Jeff Jensen was just the one who provided a quote on a game, while the game itself was judged by the whole staff to be the worst game of the year. Any serious outlet would do that.
The difference between this and reviews is that while reviews are personal to one guy, if you're doing a magazine's official worst/best game of the year, it should represent the entire staff. Otherwise it ought to be billed as a re-review or "Jeff Jensens's worst game of 2010." If you get one guy to do it, you just run the risk of undermining your reviewers and making your publication look confused.
This is why Super Mario Galaxy 2 is GOTY and also got a high review score from us. Because the entire staff was involved.
Bear in mind I don't condone people being angry or upset at EW over this. When I first heard about it I burst out laughing, and that's the reaction I'd encourage.