Hi everybody,
I'd like to bring you up to speed about a few things that happened yesterday on the site and on the staff discussion channels.
Short version:
Tom Bombadildo, a member of our editorial team (aka. mag staff) has left the staff yesterday after a dispute concerning his 'Tears of the Kingdom' review.
He had his review almost ready for publication, but I, along with several members of the staff, had concerns with it, seeing as he rated it 6.9/10 (that is the score he gave to all his recent reviews).
I suggested that we bring in someone else and do a co-op review, in order to have some sort of balance, to make the review more representative of the GBAtemp staff's opinion. Tom didn't like this at all and decided it was time to leave.
Long version:
A few years ago, at the time Zelda BOTW was released, Tom designated himself to review the game. He posted this review: https://gbatemp.net/review/the-legend-of-zelda-breath-of-the-wild.564/ the score, as you all know it, was 7/10. At the time our review became a bit of a joke online because it was the lowest score any website had given to BOTW.
I personally didn't do anything in particular when this happened, thought it was fair that someone didn't like the game that much, and that was the end of it.
We had to own the criticism and I respected Tom's work and never really came and talked to him about the subject other than make the occasional joke about it.
When the time came for our TOTK review, Tom decided, again all by himself, that he should be the one to review it. By the time we had a say in anything, he had already come up with most of it. So Chary and I just let him go ahead with it. We laughed it off on the telegram group, I thought "what the hell, let's see what happens".
Later on, Tom revealed he was going to score the game 6.9 out of 10. He had already updated his review and said he was almost done.
Why 6.9 ? because, "nice", right? He gave the same score to all of his latest reviews:
Realizing this, I just couldn't allow GBAtemp's name to be dragged through the mud again. While I respect Tom's opinion as a reviewer, I do not believe his review of TOTK was written with the fairness it deserved. He clearly wasn't a big fan of the first game. That wasn't a requirement for reviewing TOTK, but you would need to have the honesty to acknowledge the hard work that was put into the game to improve upon the first one.
What Tom doesn't seem to understand is that he isn't just speaking for himself (if he were, he would be posting his review as a 'member' review, i.e. not an official GBAtemp review). His words represent our site on the public scene. People are going to share our review and we are going to be made a laughingstock again. I felt that I had to prevent that from happening.
I had a talk with Chary, our chief editor, who shared the same concerns. We tried to figure out a way that wouldn't upset Tom. I came up with the idea of bringing in someone else into the equation; someone who wouldn't be in the same negative state of mind as Tom and who could bring balance. I didn't suggest changing the score (just like I didn't ask Tom to change his score on the BOTW review) but simply to ensure the review is more representative of the staff's opinion, the staff as a whole, not just Tom with his constant 6.9 ratings.
After Chary presented him with the idea, Tom didn't take it well at all and decided to leave. He revealed to us that he was going to leave anyway, and that this would be his last review no matter what.
But before leaving, he forced the publication of his review (against our orders). As a result some of you may have seen Tom's 6.9 review for a very short time.
I'm here to tell you that Tom's review won't be published - or if he wants to publish it, he is free to do so under his own name (I personally think that he should).
However there will be someone else in our team that's going to review the game, and that will be our official review. I know who this other person is because Chary told me, and I'm not going to be influencing him/her, I'm just expecting them to publish something they really believe in, that they put a lot of effort in, and to come up with a fair score - fair in that it acknowledges and respects the work that the developers put into the game, without bias.
Last but not least: why did I post this message in public?
1) because some of you may have seen the review while it was online
2) because I think this is actually an interesting debate to have. Did we handle things correctly? Or did we make a bad decision that harmed our own integrity? Should we have published Tom's review as is? Tell me what you think.
3) because this gives Tom a chance to present his own perspective if he wants to. In spite of everything that happened, I respect him for his past work at GBAtemp and I will miss having him around.
I'd like to bring you up to speed about a few things that happened yesterday on the site and on the staff discussion channels.
Short version:
Tom Bombadildo, a member of our editorial team (aka. mag staff) has left the staff yesterday after a dispute concerning his 'Tears of the Kingdom' review.
He had his review almost ready for publication, but I, along with several members of the staff, had concerns with it, seeing as he rated it 6.9/10 (that is the score he gave to all his recent reviews).
I suggested that we bring in someone else and do a co-op review, in order to have some sort of balance, to make the review more representative of the GBAtemp staff's opinion. Tom didn't like this at all and decided it was time to leave.
Long version:
A few years ago, at the time Zelda BOTW was released, Tom designated himself to review the game. He posted this review: https://gbatemp.net/review/the-legend-of-zelda-breath-of-the-wild.564/ the score, as you all know it, was 7/10. At the time our review became a bit of a joke online because it was the lowest score any website had given to BOTW.
I personally didn't do anything in particular when this happened, thought it was fair that someone didn't like the game that much, and that was the end of it.
We had to own the criticism and I respected Tom's work and never really came and talked to him about the subject other than make the occasional joke about it.
When the time came for our TOTK review, Tom decided, again all by himself, that he should be the one to review it. By the time we had a say in anything, he had already come up with most of it. So Chary and I just let him go ahead with it. We laughed it off on the telegram group, I thought "what the hell, let's see what happens".
Later on, Tom revealed he was going to score the game 6.9 out of 10. He had already updated his review and said he was almost done.
Why 6.9 ? because, "nice", right? He gave the same score to all of his latest reviews:
Realizing this, I just couldn't allow GBAtemp's name to be dragged through the mud again. While I respect Tom's opinion as a reviewer, I do not believe his review of TOTK was written with the fairness it deserved. He clearly wasn't a big fan of the first game. That wasn't a requirement for reviewing TOTK, but you would need to have the honesty to acknowledge the hard work that was put into the game to improve upon the first one.
What Tom doesn't seem to understand is that he isn't just speaking for himself (if he were, he would be posting his review as a 'member' review, i.e. not an official GBAtemp review). His words represent our site on the public scene. People are going to share our review and we are going to be made a laughingstock again. I felt that I had to prevent that from happening.
I had a talk with Chary, our chief editor, who shared the same concerns. We tried to figure out a way that wouldn't upset Tom. I came up with the idea of bringing in someone else into the equation; someone who wouldn't be in the same negative state of mind as Tom and who could bring balance. I didn't suggest changing the score (just like I didn't ask Tom to change his score on the BOTW review) but simply to ensure the review is more representative of the staff's opinion, the staff as a whole, not just Tom with his constant 6.9 ratings.
After Chary presented him with the idea, Tom didn't take it well at all and decided to leave. He revealed to us that he was going to leave anyway, and that this would be his last review no matter what.
But before leaving, he forced the publication of his review (against our orders). As a result some of you may have seen Tom's 6.9 review for a very short time.
I'm here to tell you that Tom's review won't be published - or if he wants to publish it, he is free to do so under his own name (I personally think that he should).
However there will be someone else in our team that's going to review the game, and that will be our official review. I know who this other person is because Chary told me, and I'm not going to be influencing him/her, I'm just expecting them to publish something they really believe in, that they put a lot of effort in, and to come up with a fair score - fair in that it acknowledges and respects the work that the developers put into the game, without bias.
Last but not least: why did I post this message in public?
1) because some of you may have seen the review while it was online
2) because I think this is actually an interesting debate to have. Did we handle things correctly? Or did we make a bad decision that harmed our own integrity? Should we have published Tom's review as is? Tell me what you think.
3) because this gives Tom a chance to present his own perspective if he wants to. In spite of everything that happened, I respect him for his past work at GBAtemp and I will miss having him around.
