Global Agenda Review Pulled

Review of Hi-Rez Studios' shooter/MMO hybrid pulled.

Earlier today, after being contacted by a member of the official Global Agenda forums, I made the difficult decision to remove the Global Agenda review that was posted yesterday. The review undoubtedly made some valid points, but after learning that it was written after only six hours of play (not including time spent in the game's hub area), having it criticize the "first dozen hours or so" and comment that it takes "10 to 15 hours" to unlock more varied and enjoyable content was clearly unacceptable. A replacement review from a different reviewer will be in the works shortly, and because it seems that the game's subscribers-only "Conquest" gameplay isn't quickly accessible, I suspect it will be at least a couple of weeks before it appears on the site.

For those of you who are unfamiliar with our reviews policy, we generally expect editors who are reviewing massively multiplayer online games to spend a minimum of 30 hours playing them, and no deadlines for these reviews are ever set. (Kevin spent over 50 hours with Star Trek Online before writing the review that we'll be posting later today, for example). Since it's an MMO/third-person shooter hybrid, it's conceivable that Global Agenda won't take quite as long to review as a more traditional MMOG, but ultimately that's for the reviewer to decide.

We're sorry for any inconvenience caused and look forward to bringing you a replacement review of Global Agenda in the not too distant future.

28 Comments

  • AC_pilot

    Posted Feb 23, 2010 2:38 pm PT

    @ those of you comparing this to Kane and Lynch

    Jeff Gerstmann, Editorial Director of the site, was fired on November 28, 2007. Immediately after his termination, rumors circulated proclaiming his dismissal was a result of external pressure from Eidos Interactive, the publisher of Kane & Lynch: Dead Men, which had purchased a considerable amount of advertising space on GameSpot's web site. Gerstmann had previously given Kane & Lynch a fair or undesirable rating along with critique. Both Gamespot and parent company CNET stated that his dismissal was unrelated to the review, but due to corporate and legal constraints cannot reveal the reason. A month after Gerstmann's termination, freelance reviewer Frank Provo left GameSpot after eight years stating that "I believe CNET management let Jeff go for all the wrong reasons. I believe CNET intends to soften the site's tone and push for higher scores to make advertisers happy."

    GameSpot staffers Alex Navarro, Jason Ocampo, Ryan Davis, Brad Shoemaker, and Vinny Caravella also left as a result of Gerstmann's termination. Davis, Shoemaker and Caravella all subsequently joined Gerstmann on his subsequent project, Giant Bomb, while Navarro became the community manager at Harmonix. Ocampo joined the IGN PC Team.

    Now as far as I know Hi - Res Studio has purchased zero advertising space on Gamespot, so why would they pull it for that reason? Use common sense.

  • s321890_basic

    Posted Feb 22, 2010 5:01 pm PT

    There was that review of Savage way back when. Same kind of thing happened. Gamespot posted a review with a poor score, the devs checked the server logs and found that the reviewer had spent around two hours playing the game.

    Obviously, two hours is more than enough time to formulate an initial impression of a game, but initial impressions can be deceiving. It's up to the reviewers, after all, to press on through to find out whether the proverbial carrot is eventually lowered into the waiting gamer's grasp, to inform those same gamers of what reward awaits beyond the monotony of the "early game experience," if it does, in fact, exist.

  • machew100

    Posted Feb 21, 2010 8:20 pm PT

    @scuffpuppy

    Definition of scandal: disgraceful gossip about the private lives of other people; a disgraceful event. What other review scandal are you talking about? Kane and Lynch? That was a marketing/bribery scandal, not a "fair reviewing process" scandal. Two totally different things, not to mention they're like a year apart. Global agenda isn't even that important, nor was Kane and Lynch. It's not like there was anything farfetched about the review except for the fact that they hadn't played for longer than 6 hours, which is fairly long as far as core gameplay mechanics are concerned. All I'm saying is, definitely not a 'scandal', more like the publishers wanted the reviewer to give the game more of a chance than he/she did.

  • whoisduley

    Posted Feb 21, 2010 5:03 pm PT

    @Rasgueado: really bad choice of comparison. It just doesn't make sense to compare an MMO to one of the shortest games released this year.

  • Missnlink

    Posted Feb 21, 2010 1:23 pm PT

    I personally am having a lot of fun with the game. People need to realize this isn't a traditional shooter so do not play it as if it is. The game has a ton of potential and the developers are actually listening to the community and adding some really good content this month.

  • iloveyourface

    Posted Feb 20, 2010 5:24 pm PT

    i like you, gamespot. your honesty astounds me.

  • Rasgueado

    Posted Feb 20, 2010 2:22 pm PT

    6.5 hours is a long time. It's longer than I spent playing through the single player campaign of Modern Warfare 2. If your game isn't fun after 6 hours, you've made a crap game.

  • scuffpuppy

    Posted Feb 20, 2010 8:46 am PT

    What a surprise. Gamespot involved in "another" flawed review scandal. What little credibility you had left has just vanished. I've worked in the games industry for over 15 years and can honestly say your site doesn't even register on our horizon. And from a publishing house, that's not good.

  • THA-TODD-BEAST

    Posted Feb 19, 2010 7:52 pm PT

    The saddest part is that even with the pulled review, scoring Global Agenda 5.5 is lenient in my eyes. I made the mistake of pre-ordering the game and am now stuck with this garbage multiplayer shooter that underwhelms on all accounts.

  • subyman

    Posted Feb 19, 2010 4:45 pm PT

    Wow six hours into a MMO and they reviewed? I can spend a hour just in character creation haha.

  • akikisaragi

    Posted Feb 19, 2010 4:44 pm PT

    Need to stick to review standards plain and simple.

  • awyoung

    Posted Feb 19, 2010 3:43 am PT

    A) Do we know what kind of time was spent beyond what was seen on that page? Any evidence of beta play or other accounts or anything?
    B) Where do you draw the line with the "30 hours" policy? Crafting and a city hub makes any game an MMO?

    Everything said in the interview was spot on, regardless of truth. I suppose there's a degree of accountability and 'keeping up with appearances' that needs to go on, but I certainly wouldn't invalidate the review.

  • DethSkematik

    Posted Feb 19, 2010 2:23 am PT

    Ouch...someone's in trouble (seriously, be lenient on the dude, GS!). Well, you have to respect a site that's at least honest and open about these sorts of things. Besides, I was kind of looking to pick up this game, and a brand new review might make me get it/avoid it.

  • buft

    Posted Feb 19, 2010 12:27 am PT

    damn, someones in trouble

  • Casker

    Posted Feb 18, 2010 11:55 pm PT

    Is this a Kayne and Lynch incident again?

  • SnuffDaddyNZ

    Posted Feb 18, 2010 8:32 pm PT

    why not just say "the game was so bad that even though gamespot reviewers are supposed to spend 30hrs to review I could only tolerate 6hrs before I removed this abomination from my hard drive"?????

    problem solved imho!

  • ultima-flare

    Posted Feb 18, 2010 5:18 pm PT

    I still luv you Calvert. The game is poop I can understand.

  • enisguy

    Posted Feb 18, 2010 3:25 pm PT

    I seriously doubt it makes any kind of difference in the review score... But I guess we'll see.

  • Cobra5

    Posted Feb 18, 2010 11:47 am PT

    While I don't expect a great review for this game (personally I love it, but a lot of the games I play have low scores) I really don't think this review is an isolated case.

    We can see the metrics (Time in game, classes played, matches won/lost, etc) of the players in this game, its publicly viewable. I wonder how many other reviews would be pulled if we could see the metrics of the players...

    What I don't get is why this game got so shortchanged while others get multiple entries in the review blog, etc... like star trek, as mentioned, which I feel is a much much worse game.

  • zomglolcats

    Posted Feb 18, 2010 10:52 am PT

    This isn't anything new. I'm sure reviewers from every publication and website do this sort of thing. It just so happens that this time, they got caught with their pants down.

    That doesn't make it acceptable, but just saying you'd have to be pretty naive to believe this is an isolated incident.

  • lucifer3999

    Posted Feb 18, 2010 9:12 am PT

    Unprofessional as usual

  • IceJudge

    Posted Feb 18, 2010 6:00 am PT

    The old review was correct though. The game does pretty much shows all its got in 6 hours. Its a shallow blend of all these ideas that just comes out flavorless. The game is alright for $30. But there is very little depth.

  • ShockG707 posted Feb 17, 2010 10:55 pm PT (does not meet display criteria. sign in to show)

    ShockG707

    Posted Feb 17, 2010 10:55 pm PT (hide)

    Gerstmann gate much?

  • Brotherbraak

    Posted Feb 17, 2010 8:31 pm PT

    no Global Agenda sucked badly. He can change the review but that score should barely change

  • gijas

    Posted Feb 17, 2010 7:34 pm PT

    These reviewers dont play enough of the game their reviewing not just GS but 99% of them do this. Really, how can you review a game without finishing it or making through at least 80% which they do not. I know it takes time to play some games especially an MMO but hey, if their going to review games and be honest then they need to practice what they preach and eithe rspend more time doing so or hire more people to just review games, hey Im avaliable.

  • maverick_76

    Posted Feb 17, 2010 6:39 pm PT

    Glad that GS was honest and up front about the error. Unfortunately I think many users would have liked a re-review of AvP instead.

  • GDCalibur

    Posted Feb 17, 2010 6:22 pm PT

    Hmm he pretty much nailed the review on the spot. I would of been a bit more lenient myself, but oh well. Good to see their going to get a bit more out of the game before the review is really done.

  • Viktormon

    Posted Feb 17, 2010 3:58 pm PT

    That's good. No matter the game, it should be given a chance by the reviewer.

advertisement

Hot Stories

Newsmakers

Featured Stories

Submit News

Got tips? Send them in!

Related Game

Global Agenda Boxshot
Global Agenda

Game Stats

  • Rank:
    320 of 85,701
    (up by 18)
    PC Rank:
    127 of 12,869
    Highest Rank:
    42 in 2010
    Tracking:
    368 Track It»
    Wishlists:
    138 Wish It»
  • Users Now Playing:
    16
  • Top 5 User Tags:
    1. agenda
    2. global agenda
    3. global
    4. hi-rez studios
    5. hi-rez
  • Teen Rating Description

    Titles rated T (Teen) have content that may be suitable for ages 13 and older. Titles in this category may contain violence, suggestive themes, crude humor, minimal blood, simulated gambling, and/or infrequent use of strong language. Learn more

Full Game Details »Close

Related Games

Recent News

See All News »

Site Blogs