A Survey For the New Review System

Honestly, people started screaming about this new review method before it even came out... how can you generate so much hate so quickly? I'm not entirely sure about it, but I figure I'll give it some time to see how it does. I think this whole thing would go smoother if everybody calmed the heck down, gave the new system an honest chance, and then offered constructive criticism on it.

Shifty_Pete

That is the most sensible post I have seen by far regarding the new review system!

x2. Most of these posts here are just stupid "bahh i h8 chang3 lol!"

I guess a motto to fit this would be "Old Habits Die Hard"

In the end, I dont see this as anything horrible. The only noticable change from the old system really is the .5 increments (whcih i'm still on the fence on). Everything else is pretty much the same, with some added extra's.

I guess most people's gripes with this is that they did not see what was so bad with the old system. It did have its faults. In this case, the only thing we can be sure about is time. If this seems to not work out over time, then i'm sure somthign will get added or shafted.

[QUOTE="Shifty_Pete"]

Honestly, people started screaming about this new review method before it even came out... how can you generate so much hate so quickly? I'm not entirely sure about it, but I figure I'll give it some time to see how it does. I think this whole thing would go smoother if everybody calmed the heck down, gave the new system an honest chance, and then offered constructive criticism on it.

Dracula68

That is the most sensible post I have seen by far regarding the new review system!

We didn't need to give it a chance. Gamespot explained exactly how it would work, and we hated it. Then they started using it, and we still hate it. They'll keep using it, and we'll keep hating it.

Why? Because it was a bad idea then, it's a bad idea now, and it will still be a bad idea later.

[QUOTE="Dracula68"][QUOTE="Shifty_Pete"]

Honestly, people started screaming about this new review method before it even came out... how can you generate so much hate so quickly? I'm not entirely sure about it, but I figure I'll give it some time to see how it does. I think this whole thing would go smoother if everybody calmed the heck down, gave the new system an honest chance, and then offered constructive criticism on it.

Zeke129

That is the most sensible post I have seen by far regarding the new review system!

We didn't need to give it a chance. Gamespot explained exactly how it would work, and we hated it. Then they started using it, and we still hate it. They'll keep using it, and we'll keep hating it.

Why? Because it was a bad idea then, it's a bad idea now, and it will still be a bad idea later.

So... you don't like the new reviews?

[QUOTE="Zeke129"][QUOTE="Dracula68"][QUOTE="Shifty_Pete"]

Honestly, people started screaming about this new review method before it even came out... how can you generate so much hate so quickly? I'm not entirely sure about it, but I figure I'll give it some time to see how it does. I think this whole thing would go smoother if everybody calmed the heck down, gave the new system an honest chance, and then offered constructive criticism on it.

Shifty_Pete

That is the most sensible post I have seen by far regarding the new review system!

We didn't need to give it a chance. Gamespot explained exactly how it would work, and we hated it. Then they started using it, and we still hate it. They'll keep using it, and we'll keep hating it.

Why? Because it was a bad idea then, it's a bad idea now, and it will still be a bad idea later.

So... you don't like the new reviews?

You don't like them in a box?
You don't like them with a fox?
You don't like them in a house?
You don't like them with a mouse?
You don't like them here or there?
You don't like them anywhere?
You don't like the the new reviews?
You do not like them, Pete-I-am?

You do not like them--so you say. Try them, try them and you may!

Ok. We've tried them out. I still don't like the whole set-up and am hating it worse than before it came out.

What now?

[QUOTE="Shifty_Pete"]

Honestly, people started screaming about this new review method before it even came out... how can you generate so much hate so quickly? I'm not entirely sure about it, but I figure I'll give it some time to see how it does. I think this whole thing would go smoother if everybody calmed the heck down, gave the new system an honest chance, and then offered constructive criticism on it.

Dracula68

No offense there Sparky, but people like myself who have attempted to post sensible responses to the hell-mess that is the new review system have been moderated for silly reasons such as "trolling" because of one word or another deemed "inappropriate", or being deemed "off topic". The moderators, editors, and admins do not want to hear any constructive criticism that goes against the current system aside from the "I'll wait and see if I like it" or the "dood this systim roolz!". They send constructivecriticism to places where it cannot be heard, ignore them, change the title of their forums so that any mention of"reviews" can becalled off topic, or use silly outs to call the posts trolling, When all that fails, they threaten with "point lowering" and yet STILL people are rebelling against the new system. At this point one would have to be only "mildly observant" to realize a bulk majority of current GSers do not approve and want their component scores back. Gamespot just doesn't want to listen.

No offense there Sparky, but people like myself who have attempted to post sensible responses to the hell-mess that is the new review system have been moderated for silly reasons such as "trolling" because of one word or another deemed "inappropriate", or being deemed "off topic". The moderators, editors, and admins do not want to hear any constructive criticism that goes against the current system aside from the "I'll wait and see if I like it" or the "dood this systim roolz!". They send constructivecriticism to places where it cannot be heard, ignore them, change the title of their forums so that any mention of"reviews" can becalled off topic, or use silly outs to call the posts trolling, When all that fails, they threaten with "point lowering" and yet STILL people are rebelling against the new system. At this point one would have to be only "mildly observant" to realize a bulk majority of current GSers do not approve and want their component scores back. Gamespot just doesn't want to listen.remixrunixlp

There's a difference between constructive crticisms, and making attacks on the team in a needless fashion, especially when a lot of that behavior seemed to come about before the changes actually occured. Furthermore, accusing the team here of ignoring the issue is nothing more but more of this accusational behavior that makes people NOT want to listen to those complaining, because it's like there is nothing that can be done to appease them.

[This message was deleted at the request of a moderator or administrator]thethrow

How about you not suspension dodge?

Edit: Go figure. It was me that suspended your other account this morning.

As I read through the reviews more and more, I am finding how pointless this medal system is. All it really is doing is stating what is said in "The Good." I am now just seeing it as something looked good, but has turned out to be nothing of use.

So basically with that, this new review system has had no real improvement.

I have read Gamespot for years and was quite pleased with it. It was the one source I relied on since 1997. However, these changes and how people are treated about it make me uncomfortable. I read the new reviews and I simply don't like the unprecise scores and the medals made for those that do not take the time to read a review thoroughly. That people now are not even listened to, is really bad, maybe things have changed at Gamespot.

I have read the site for years but never registered, save for this special occasion. But don't worry, I won't bother you again. I'll just visit other sites.

i wasnt happy with the review system when it was announced. now, after actually seeing it, the new reviews, and how it worked out, i can say that i hate the system even more now, and it was even worse than i thought.

i cant trust gamespots reviews ne more. for some games,i only want the score, to see how it is at a quick glance, but now i dont know if it is good or bad. since they got rid of the gameplay, graphics, sound, value and tilt, the reviews are almost useless to me now, and the emblem idea was even worse than the rest. it is a copy of the Good, or Bad, and you dont even understand initially

if gamespot cared about its users and the site, they would have recalled the system by now. but GS think that what is right for them must be used for us, no matter how much we hate it.

I've sent e-mails and posted in several places now but I really am truly rather distraught about these changes to the review system.

Since I've said all this elsewhere I'll try and be brief. With the removal of the score breakdown and the move to the .5-point demarcations I think we've resolution of the reviewer's opinion as well as any convenient way of comparing games.

The score breakdown was a way to really compare two games. Written reviews tend to be compilations of high and low points. Thats great as this is what allows me to decide wether or not a game is right for me. What it doesnt do however is provide me a convenient way to compare two games once I have decided I am interested in both. One of the things I loved about gamespot reviews was being able to pull up two games I was interested in and comparing them at a glance.

Another benefit of the score breakdown was the fact that it served as a great summary of the review and often shed a great deal of light on exactly what a reviewer was trying to express in the written review. The text of a review is subject to interpritation. Its the same subjective nature which makes the text of a review good for deciding wether or not I'm interested in a game. When it comes to quantifying the amount of emphasis the author is trying to place on certain facts.

When it comes to the .5-point scale, I just don't get. If the .5-points between say an 8.5 and a 9.0 is important, why isn't the .5 difference between an 8.3 and an 8.7. Maybe its just me but the difference between an 8.3 and an 8.7 was certain apparent to me. I could rest assured that 95% of the time I would get more enjoyment out of the game that got an 8.7 than the game that got an 8.3 (of course having first read the reviews to determine I woudl like both). Now I basically would have to guess

I just feel that all of the resolution into game quality that has made me a paying member since gamespot changed formats and a reader before that is completely gone. THe qualitative is still there to help me figure out whether or not I'd like a game but all the quantitative I relied on to compare multiple games is gone

[QUOTE="Zeke129"][QUOTE="Dracula68"][QUOTE="Shifty_Pete"]

Honestly, people started screaming about this new review method before it even came out... how can you generate so much hate so quickly? I'm not entirely sure about it, but I figure I'll give it some time to see how it does. I think this whole thing would go smoother if everybody calmed the heck down, gave the new system an honest chance, and then offered constructive criticism on it.

Shifty_Pete

That is the most sensible post I have seen by far regarding the new review system!

We didn't need to give it a chance. Gamespot explained exactly how it would work, and we hated it. Then they started using it, and we still hate it. They'll keep using it, and we'll keep hating it.

Why? Because it was a bad idea then, it's a bad idea now, and it will still be a bad idea later.

So... you don't like the new reviews?

You don't like them in a box?
You don't like them with a fox?
You don't like them in a house?
You don't like them with a mouse?
You don't like them here or there?
You don't like them anywhere?
You don't like the the new reviews?
You do not like them, Pete-I-am?

You do not like them--so you say. Try them, try them and you may!

I tried the new reviews, I did!

I didn't like them, and ran and hid.

This Dr. Seuss stuff is bullcrap,

Doesn't add to the discussion much, young chap.

[QUOTE="remixrunixlp"]No offense there Sparky, but people like myself who have attempted to post sensible responses to the hell-mess that is the new review system have been moderated for silly reasons such as "trolling" because of one word or another deemed "inappropriate", or being deemed "off topic". The moderators, editors, and admins do not want to hear any constructive criticism that goes against the current system aside from the "I'll wait and see if I like it" or the "dood this systim roolz!". They send constructivecriticism to places where it cannot be heard, ignore them, change the title of their forums so that any mention of"reviews" can becalled off topic, or use silly outs to call the posts trolling, When all that fails, they threaten with "point lowering" and yet STILL people are rebelling against the new system. At this point one would have to be only "mildly observant" to realize a bulk majority of current GSers do not approve and want their component scores back. Gamespot just doesn't want to listen.Skylock00

There's a difference between constructive crticisms, and making attacks on the team in a needless fashion, especially when a lot of that behavior seemed to come about before the changes actually occured. Furthermore, accusing the team here of ignoring the issue is nothing more but more of this accusational behavior that makes people NOT want to listen to those complaining, because it's like there is nothing that can be done to appease them.

First and foremost, I freely admit that I was probably over the line on two of those posts. The first in hindsight was a direct attack and the third one was so drowning in sarcasm that I probably should've seen the reaction coming.

However, that one post which has since migrated to Jeff Gerstmann's wall as well as my own (which are the apparent safe zones) was both the constructive criticism that I felt was being sought as well as veering as far from an attack as I could muster. I was not alone in this viewpoint, as the responses to that post clearlyagree with me...heck people who disagreed with me could not believe that particular post was removed. I simply stated an opinion in a non-attacking manner and the only valid excuse that can be made for that moderation was it was apparently 'off topic'.

The problem here is that ya'll decided to up and change that thread's intended content and then deleted everything else focused on the reviews systeminstead of choosing to move those posts to a forum that would permit people to voice their concerns and complaints. Not for nothing, but when someone does that, it is bound to raise the current opinion many GSers have, which is that those in charge of this website do not want to hear these complaints. I realize many people will attack and many will act like rabid dogs seeking a target for their hatred of the new review system. And yes, many like myself have a hard time keeping that aggresive tone out of their arguments because how they feel about the whole situation. However, the simple fact remains that in the public eye the powers that be are not willing to address the situation.

And yes, I would agree that this whole thing is quickly degenerating into a flame war. I feel that both parties involved are to blame for this, and I will continue to stand by my opinion that its a severe lack of communication which is causing this. We state our sarcasm-seething posts, moderators delete them (sometime with an equal or more severe amount of sarcasm), and we repeat. This is utterly useless. The few who attempt to get a point across are deleted for sad and silly reasons such as being off topic, when the moderators could just as easily establish a forum for such posts and address these complaints. Why they haven't done this is beyond me. If they feel that Gerstmann's letter concerning the update is enough to address these complaints, they are clearly wrong considering the general response. This is not meant as an attack on the Editor, this is simply a statement of fact, as I'm sure the current amount of "trolling" on the forums can attest to.

[QUOTE="Skylock00"]

[QUOTE="remixrunixlp"]No offense there Sparky, but people like myself who have attempted to post sensible responses to the hell-mess that is the new review system have been moderated for silly reasons such as "trolling" because of one word or another deemed "inappropriate", or being deemed "off topic". The moderators, editors, and admins do not want to hear any constructive criticism that goes against the current system aside from the "I'll wait and see if I like it" or the "dood this systim roolz!". They send constructivecriticism to places where it cannot be heard, ignore them, change the title of their forums so that any mention of"reviews" can becalled off topic, or use silly outs to call the posts trolling, When all that fails, they threaten with "point lowering" and yet STILL people are rebelling against the new system. At this point one would have to be only "mildly observant" to realize a bulk majority of current GSers do not approve and want their component scores back. Gamespot just doesn't want to listen.remixrunixlp

There's a difference between constructive crticisms, and making attacks on the team in a needless fashion, especially when a lot of that behavior seemed to come about before the changes actually occured. Furthermore, accusing the team here of ignoring the issue is nothing more but more of this accusational behavior that makes people NOT want to listen to those complaining, because it's like there is nothing that can be done to appease them.

First and foremost, I freely admit that I was probably over the line on two of those posts. The first in hindsight was a direct attack and the third one was so drowning in sarcasm that I probably should've seen the reaction coming.

However, that one post which has since migrated to Jeff Gerstmann's wall as well as my own (which are the apparent safe zones) was both the constructive criticism that I felt was being sought as well as veering as far from an attack as I could muster. I was not alone in this viewpoint, as the responses to that post clearlyagree with me...heck people who disagreed with me could not believe that particular post was removed. I simply stated an opinion in a non-attacking manner and the only valid excuse that can be made for that moderation was it was apparently 'off topic'.

The problem here is that ya'll decided to up and change that thread's intended content and then deleted everything else focused on the reviews systeminstead of choosing to move those posts to a forum that would permit people to voice their concerns and complaints. Not for nothing, but when someone does that, it is bound to raise the current opinion many GSers have, which is that those in charge of this website do not want to hear these complaints. I realize many people will attack and many will act like rabid dogs seeking a target for their hatred of the new review system. And yes, many like myself have a hard time keeping that aggresive tone out of their arguments because how they feel about the whole situation. However, the simple fact remains that in the public eye the powers that be are not willing to address the situation.

And yes, I would agree that this whole thing is quickly degenerating into a flame war. I feel that both parties involved are to blame for this, and I will continue to stand by my opinion that its a severe lack of communication which is causing this. We state our sarcasm-seething posts, you delete them, we repeat. This is utterly useless. The few who attempt to get a point across are deleted for sad and silly reasons such as being off topic, when the moderators could just as easily establish a forum for such posts and address these complaints. Equally useless.

The problem I see is that people are getting way too emotionally worked up over an alteration of a scoring system for games. This isn't a change of how reviews are written, or how editors approach evaluating games, but a change of how that final, overall grade is assigned to a game.

What happened, from what I saw, is that as soon as the announcement was made, some people immediately started claiming that GS's underlaying written reviews were going to become a joke, and started making other sorts of accusational comments, in addition to downvoting any sort of positive talk about the new system in Jeff's blog. When I looked there, the posts that were voted into being covered up weren't mostly negative comments, but positive ones regarding the change.

Those who were against the change were simply not being very civil about the matter off the bat, and regardless of how emotionally impactful the change might've been, first impressions about how one responds makes a big difference. The impression given was that these people who were being so agressive came off as people who were unwilling to give the system a chance at all (and really, it was clear that they were never going to like it, no matter whether they gave it a chance or not), and would be unwilling to take any sort of compromise from what it seemed.

This is further compounded by the problem when people start accusing the editors of not being willing to listen to the community, which only makes matters worse, as it simply perpetuates this needless agressive behavior from the userbase towards the editors/administrators.

One case that just happened recently of this not being true in all cases is regarding the Overlord review. Apparantly, there were comments regarding innacuracies with the review, so the editors picked up a retail copy of the game, and found it to be notably different in performance than the copy they were given to review (which was a print review copy), and as a result, they pulled the review score down, made a note about it on the game specific board, and are currently working to redo the review for the game to give it a more appropriate score.

Now, I'm not sure what was different about how users brought up concerns, but the fact of the matter was that the editors listened to the concerns.

I'm also not saying that the new system is perfect at all, but I understand why the editors went the route they did on a fundamental level, and have gauged probably why they might be reluctant to directly talk to posters on the forum regarding the matter, as the reactions regarding the review system seem similar to, say, how Zelda fans reacted to Jeff's review of Twilight Princess, which many wrote off as invalid before having played the game, and resorting to flaming and other tactics against Jeff. If you were an editor, why would you bother posting in a thread like this, when it seems like most people are going to just harass you as soon as you step out in public regarding this issue?

That's just my two cents on this point. I don't think people are ignoring what's being said as much as they are reluctant to discuss things on this level given the environment formed.

If they feel that Gerstmann's letter concerning the update is enough to address these complaints, they are clearly wrong considering the general response. This is not meant as an attack on the Editor, this is simply a statement of fact, as I'm sure the current amount of "trolling" on the forums can attest to.remixrunixlp

The only place where your posts were deleted for being off topic was in the thread that was NOT intended for review change discussion. Granted, it seemed that the thread creator wasn't clear off the bat, but he corrected the matter since then, but that's beside the point.

The problem I see is that people are getting way too emotionally worked up over an alteration of a scoring system for games. This isn't a change of how reviews are written, or how editors approach evaluating games, but a change of how that final, overall grade is assigned to a game.

What happened, from what I saw, is that as soon as the announcement was made, some people immediately started claiming that GS's underlaying written reviews were going to become a joke, and started making other sorts of accusational comments, in addition to downvoting any sort of positive talk about the new system in Jeff's blog. When I looked there, the posts that were voted into being covered up weren't mostly negative comments, but positive ones regarding the change.

Those who were against the change were simply not being very civil about the matter off the bat, and regardless of how emotionally impactful the change might've been, first impressions about how one responds makes a big difference. The impression given was that these people who were being so agressive came off as people who were unwilling to give the system a chance at all (and really, it was clear that they were never going to like it, no matter whether they gave it a chance or not), and would be unwilling to take any sort of compromise from what it seemed.

This is further compounded by the problem when people start accusing the editors of not being willing to listen to the community, which only makes matters worse, as it simply perpetuates this needless agressive behavior from the userbase towards the editors/administrators.

One case that just happened recently of this not being true in all cases is regarding the Overlord review. Apparantly, there were comments regarding innacuracies with the review, so the editors picked up a retail copy of the game, and found it to be notably different in performance than the copy they were given to review (which was a print review copy), and as a result, they pulled the review score down, made a note about it on the game specific board, and are currently working to redo the review for the game to give it a more appropriate score.

Now, I'm not sure what was different about how users brought up concerns, but the fact of the matter was that the editors listened to the concerns.

I'm also not saying that the new system is perfect at all, but I understand why the editors went the route they did on a fundamental level, and have gauged probably why they might be reluctant to directly talk to posters on the forum regarding the matter, as the reactions regarding the review system seem similar to, say, how Zelda fans reacted to Jeff's review of Twilight Princess, which many wrote off as invalid before having played the game, and resorting to flaming and other tactics against Jeff. If you were an editor, why would you bother posting in a thread like this, when it seems like most people are going to just harass you as soon as you step out in public regarding this issue?

That's just my two cents on this point. I don't think people are ignoring what's being said as much as they are reluctant to discuss things on this level given the environment formed.

Skylock00

I would bestupid if I were to say that I actually wanted to full out speak directly to the editors about all this. That's silly to the point of insanity.

You're right, you can't please everybody and again that would be stupid to think that you can. Some people were going to hate the new system period, and there's nothing that can be done to please them besides turning back the clock. However, the biggest complaint here, fromthe constructive to the forum trolls,is the lack of a value given to certain components of a game thatprovides afar speedier check on a review than looking for badges that possibly will not be present if the game doesn't rule/suck enough.

Yes, some new games of this generation do not receive a just treatment under the old system. However, the bulk majority of gamers know this, as Jeff clearly states. Changing an entire system that works for 90% of games on the market to fit the 10% minority is what has caused this uproar. Heck, I bet they could get away with even this .5 increment thing if they continued to rate each component on a 1-10 scale and didn't bother to provide a calculated average.

Also, welcome to being a public figure. Criticisms are in Aisles 5 through 10. One or two insulting comments can easily be ignored and should be. This is far beyond that (not George W. level but hey). Another letter from the editor would seem prudent, even if its telling all us complainers that we're whiney children missingour security blankets.

The new review system is utterly, shallowly, childishly, stupid. Jeff is so stupid. We need Greg back. The good, the bad with medals? How childishly shallow can that be? Take Transformers for example. 'Environments break apart and blow up real good'? Its a freaking mecha game. Its Tranformers. There's a Transformer movie coming out along with the game. Its a freaking robot game. How good can it freaking BE? Mentioning things like 'blow up as good' is just PATHETIC. We need in-depth review. No some kiddy s*&^. Jeff mentions 'You don't have time to stare at one game that got a 5.2 and another that got a 5.3 and puzzle what the big fifference is'. Nobody does! A 5.2 is thefreaking sameas a5.3. Buta 9.6 is freakingly different than 9.5. Jeff mentions 'And you don't always have time to look over every single word we write in a review. We'll, we're not going to change the way we write our full reviews, but that's OK. We forgive you'. Thats how Gregfreaking Kasavingotsopopularon Gamespot! We do read your in-depth text review, but after seeing how that everybody is so lazy by Jeff's example to write a review, atleast still this site is better than the rest. IGN is just a mess. Everyhting else just dont have credibility. Abrutal medal? Thats just freakingly childish. Do Gamespotrun by 5 year olds? We're looking for gameplay! No brutal. Anygamecan be brutal butnoteverybrutal game can begood.Howcan these people see things so shallowly? Youwanna show us the game's qualitiesup front, Jeffyou sayin yourblog?How can buildings blow up and brutal and freakingly stupid medals show us this quality? The quality only shines if the game is good. Thats thefreaking point! If a game is good, its good, quality or not. All good game may be brutal, but doesnt blow things up, so get the brutal medal only. WTF? That doesnt tell us how good a game is! The good bad medals are so shallowly stupid. The last paragraph of this stupid Jeff blog talks about this our personal taste or wateverI dont know what the heck he's talking about but we dont need a new review system talking about a funny 5.5 game is for us. Thats not for you to tell us with a funny medal. We can figure out what game we want ourselves. Now who the hell would buy a freaking 5.5 game. If I want funny, I'll go see FRIENDS or Freddy Got Fing$%&%. We didnt get more out of this new review system, Jeff. We got less. Buildings blow up real good medal in a mecha game?Yeaaaa.....thats worth highlighting with the good bad medal section or worth mentioning. If you already put that in the goood bad crap, whats the text review gonna put, huh? Atleast give the score for the gameplay, graphics, sounds and tilt, god.......I cant believe some peaple are so stupidly shallowly blind.Captain_Swosh69

[QUOTE="Shifty_Pete"][QUOTE="Zeke129"]

We didn't need to give it a chance. Gamespot explained exactly how it would work, and we hated it. Then they started using it, and we still hate it. They'll keep using it, and we'll keep hating it.

Why? Because it was a bad idea then, it's a bad idea now, and it will still be a bad idea later.Zeke129

So... you don't like the new reviews?

You don't like them in a box?
You don't like them with a fox?
You don't like them in a house?
You don't like them with a mouse?
You don't like them here or there?
You don't like them anywhere?
You don't like the the new reviews?
You do not like them, Pete-I-am?

You do not like them--so you say. Try them, try them and you may!

I tried the new reviews, I did!

I didn't like them, and ran and hid.

This Dr. Seuss stuff is bullcrap,

Doesn't add to the discussion much, young chap.

Look people, if you come in here and just state "the review system sucks" and don't give an explanation I am moderating those posts as trolling. Try giving some feedback on "why" like many other GS users seem to be able to do just fine.

Look people, if you come in here and just state "the review system sucks" and don't give an explanation I am moderating those posts as trolling. Try giving some feedback on "why" like many other GS users seem to be able to do just fine.

Dracula68

most of us already have fully explained ourselves - i know i have in more than one thread on this forum specifically. if you'd jump back a couple of pages I'm sure you would have noticed this.

sorry if we sound ******* off, but this is ridiculous, ina matter of a couple of weeks GS has changed their review system and look and feel to something that many many people are not comfortable with. my last outlash happened after I had a 'floater' advert chase me as I scrolled up the forum page --- and it didn't even have an X to close it. lovely forcing people to look at something. the only other place i've seen people stoop that low was on a freaking porn site. And it doesn't help that you're maybe the 2nd mod that has officially commented or posted about this - it seems like we've all been ignored even though the Site Feedback forum is 100 times more active than usual.

i'm sure you can understand that some people are quite upset about this, GS used to be much less offensive visually and the review system was far better. if you want to see my reasons for hating it please look at my post history - no need to repeat it here for the 10th time.

Oh - I'd like to add one more gripeafter looking through older reviews it appears the new system has just broken some of them. reviews that previously had scores now don't, some games that were reviewed before are now not reviewed. some reviews show the critic and user scores, some don't (even though the same data is present in all reviews).

anyways - this whole format change has had one positive side-effect. I've realized there are much better game sites out there.

most of us already have fully explained ourselves - i know i have in more than one thread on this forum specifically. if you'd jump back a couple of pages I'm sure you would have noticed this.

3picuri3

Did I specifically mention your name? I was referring to the people that do NOT give any other info. Please read my full post next time. Thanks!

[QUOTE="3picuri3"]

most of us already have fully explained ourselves - i know i have in more than one thread on this forum specifically. if you'd jump back a couple of pages I'm sure you would have noticed this.

Dracula68

Did I specifically mention your name? I was referring to the people that do NOT give any other info. Please read my full post next time. Thanks!

no actually, i was referring to people that have explained themselves in this thread (which is why i said US and not ME), but have also posted short replies about it sucking in this thread or others. sorry for not elaborating. and thanks for your condescending reply.

to explain further - i recognize many of these names as i've been paying a lot of attention to the revolt over the new format and reviews, most of them have fully explained their position but revisit the threads to add their short outlashes once in a while when they encounter new things that irk them.

p.s. i see you work for gamerankings.com, just a quick note of constructive criticism - the way you round reviews is pretty shameful.. and I believe it's different than it used to be. you should scale reviews in your database for GR instead of rounding them IMO. it would be far more accurate :) i.e. an 8.6 shouldn't be a 9. but hey, i guess that's what GS is trying to do now too. are the 2 related? is this a step towards making GS more compliant with the way GR handles reviews?

The only place where your posts were deleted for being off topic was in the thread that was NOT intended for review change discussion. Granted, it seemed that the thread creator wasn't clear off the bat, but he corrected the matter since then, but that's beside the point.

The problem I see is that people are getting way too emotionally worked up over an alteration of a scoring system for games. This isn't a change of how reviews are written, or how editors approach evaluating games, but a change of how that final, overall grade is assigned to a game.

What happened, from what I saw, is that as soon as the announcement was made, some people immediately started claiming that GS's underlaying written reviews were going to become a joke, and started making other sorts of accusational comments, in addition to downvoting any sort of positive talk about the new system in Jeff's blog. When I looked there, the posts that were voted into being covered up weren't mostly negative comments, but positive ones regarding the change.

Those who were against the change were simply not being very civil about the matter off the bat, and regardless of how emotionally impactful the change might've been, first impressions about how one responds makes a big difference. The impression given was that these people who were being so agressive came off as people who were unwilling to give the system a chance at all (and really, it was clear that they were never going to like it, no matter whether they gave it a chance or not), and would be unwilling to take any sort of compromise from what it seemed.

This is further compounded by the problem when people start accusing the editors of not being willing to listen to the community, which only makes matters worse, as it simply perpetuates this needless agressive behavior from the userbase towards the editors/administrators.

One case that just happened recently of this not being true in all cases is regarding the Overlord review. Apparantly, there were comments regarding innacuracies with the review, so the editors picked up a retail copy of the game, and found it to be notably different in performance than the copy they were given to review (which was a print review copy), and as a result, they pulled the review score down, made a note about it on the game specific board, and are currently working to redo the review for the game to give it a more appropriate score.

Now, I'm not sure what was different about how users brought up concerns, but the fact of the matter was that the editors listened to the concerns.

I'm also not saying that the new system is perfect at all, but I understand why the editors went the route they did on a fundamental level, and have gauged probably why they might be reluctant to directly talk to posters on the forum regarding the matter, as the reactions regarding the review system seem similar to, say, how Zelda fans reacted to Jeff's review of Twilight Princess, which many wrote off as invalid before having played the game, and resorting to flaming and other tactics against Jeff. If you were an editor, why would you bother posting in a thread like this, when it seems like most people are going to just harass you as soon as you step out in public regarding this issue?

That's just my two cents on this point. I don't think people are ignoring what's being said as much as they are reluctant to discuss things on this level given the environment formed.

Skylock00

I just want to point out that operating any sort of organization with a policy of 'don't negotiate with overly negative consumers' is in dire need of considering revision of said policy. You can't all get together and say 'Well guys, this looks like the backlash we had with Zelda, lets ignore it and it'll go away'. You lost a lot of customers over that flap - and addressing the concerns of your readers and most ardent fans could have done much to prevent this.

The exact same thing is going on right now according to your presentation of the situation. GS staff are aware that a very vocal group are upset with the new review system -- and some were very immature and unprofessional about voicing their displeasure. This SHOULD NEVER BE grounds for not addressing the consumers that are upset. If GS continues this month after month you're going to end up losing more and more readers.

Keep in mind that that majority (i'd hazard to guess) of your readers are teens and children with a few die-hard gamers pepperd in to the mix. With that in mind you have to try to deal with your readership the best you can - and being reluctant to discuss issues with your readership just because of their maturity level is somewhat disturbing, and definitely a poor business decision. I'm sure many people at GS are of the mindset that if we lose a few more will come, a gamer is born every second, etc, etc. Just remember that readers come and go - reputation sticks around a lot longer. And let me tell you, GS does not currently have a good reputation in the world of game journalism.

One last thing. While there are a strong vocal majority of immature readers dealing with this situation poorly - there are also many many readers that are articulating their displeasure quite aptly to no avail. the best response we've had was from moderators - and none of them are encouraging.

Anyways -- my main point is that you have to deal with your readers, you have to be up front and honest with them. Most of us won't take this for much longer :) the environment that has been set up for the debate may not be kind of the GS staff, but reaching out in a meaningful way would do much to repair the damage that has been done over the past year. I mean worse comes to worst you have moderators to deal with negative comments.

I just want to point out that operating any sort of organization with a policy of 'don't negotiate with overly negative consumers' is in dire need of considering revision of said policy.3picuri3

Throwing around accusations like this one simply doesn't help the matter, because you are further instilling a mentality of negativity about the editors and such, making it less likely that people are even willing to ty talking with you all about it. Would you want to talk to a vocal minority of your reader base, when it seems like they don't have any respect for you, and won't really be willing to listen to what you say?

Again, look at the Zelda incident. People were being overtly vocal and negative towards Jeff about his review (To the point of several doing things like flaming and other threats)...before they even had a chance to play the game in the first place. That isn't rational, constructive criticism, that's a community that doesn't approach someone with any level of respect in the first place, making it impossible for some sort of reasonable discussion to form.

Getting so emotionally worked up over this sort of stuff, and letting that emotion translate to the kind of behaivor I've seen doesn't help anything at all, because it doesn't create an environment where editors and such /want/ to be involved with the community.

Also, regarding your comment about GS's 'reputation,' from what I see, there isn't a single website/periodical with a flawless reputation out there from what I keep on seeing and hearing left and right, so realistically, I don't (and the editors probably don't) pay much heed about baseline comments about reputation and such.

Again, I'm not saying the new system is perfect, but the issue I see here, regarding the 'divide' between the administrators/editors and posters here stems moreso from seeing how the community in some parts initially reacted to the matter.

The only place where your posts were deleted for being off topic was in the thread that was NOT intended for review change discussion. Granted, it seemed that the thread creator wasn't clear off the bat, but he corrected the matter since then, but that's beside the point.

Skylock00

I'm back after yet another forum suspension for trolling, by simply posting about my dissatisfaction with the new review system. Guess what, banning me hasn't made me change my mind one bit and has just angered me that GameSpot are being so unreasonable about this whole situation. In fact, my ban came about because of posting in that very thread, my gripe with that is it's not my fault I posted my complaints in there. That is where we were quite explicitly told to post our comments, in several places I might add, including the forums front page. To then ban me because GameSpot had told me to use that thread is beyond my comprehension.

The problem I see is that people are getting way too emotionally worked up over an alteration of a scoring system for games. This isn't a change of how reviews are written, or how editors approach evaluating games, but a change of how that final, overall grade is assigned to a game.

Skylock00

People are getting emotionally worked up because believe it or not, they actually care! I agree the written reviews remain exactly the same, I haven't seen anyone complain about that aspect. However the rating system is completely different, there is now no way to see how a game acheived its final rating without reading the full text. It is also a proven fact that people really like to see the breakdown of points for graphics and sound etc. It is precisely because of the change to how the final overall grade is assigned that has a lot of people annoyed.

What happened, from what I saw, is that as soon as the announcement was made, some people immediately started claiming that GS's underlaying written reviews were going to become a joke, and started making other sorts of accusational comments, in addition to downvoting any sort of positive talk about the new system in Jeff's blog. When I looked there, the posts that were voted into being covered up weren't mostly negative comments, but positive ones regarding the change.

Skylock00

From what I can see, initially on Jeffs blog comments there was quite a lot of positive reaction to the changes. It was only after people actually saw the new reviews they realised exactly what sort of impact the changes have made. It was then that dozens of negative comments were posted.

With regards to down-voting positive comments, surly that's the whole point of the system? If I don't agree with something I give it a thumbs down, and vice-versa. That's how democracy works, if more people liked the changes then all the negative comments would have been down-voted. As that hasn't happened it is just further proof that the general consensus is against the new system.

Those who were against the change were simply not being very civil about the matter off the bat, and regardless of how emotionally impactful the change might've been, first impressions about how one responds makes a big difference. The impression given was that these people who were being so agressive came off as people who were unwilling to give the system a chance at all (and really, it was clear that they were never going to like it, no matter whether they gave it a chance or not), and would be unwilling to take any sort of compromise from what it seemed.

Skylock00

Why should there need to be a compromise? Why did the system that has worked perfectly for the whole of GameSpots history need to be changed? Why did it need to have major aspects stripped out?

People who were against the idea from the outset could understand exactly what was being done and didn't need to give it a chance. We have all experienced similar systems on other web sites and it's the reason we came here! Why would it be any different this time when we didn't like it at other sites? As it turns out it isn't any better than had been predicted, and in some respects it's worse.

This is further compounded by the problem when people start accusing the editors of not being willing to listen to the community, which only makes matters worse, as it simply perpetuates this needless agressive behavior from the userbase towards the editors/administrators.

Skylock00

They are only doing this because there has been no official communication from GameSpot, no attempts to engage is a discussion. Just moderation and an attempt to sweep under the carpet the more vocal posters. The accusations only exist because of this, if the editors actually took the to time to talk about our concerns there wouldn't be this reaction.

One case that just happened recently of this not being true in all cases is regarding the Overlord review. Apparently, there were comments regarding innacuracies with the review, so the editors picked up a retail copy of the game, and found it to be notably different in performance than the copy they were given to review (which was a print review copy), and as a result, they pulled the review score down, made a note about it on the game specific board, and are currently working to redo the review for the game to give it a more appropriate score.

Now, I'm not sure what was different about how users brought up concerns, but the fact of the matter was that the editors listened to the concerns.

Skylock00

This is a completely unrelated and irrelevant point. We are talking about a massive change to the way GameSpot operates at its core here.

I'm also not saying that the new system is perfect at all, but I understand why the editors went the route they did on a fundamental level, and have gauged probably why they might be reluctant to directly talk to posters on the forum regarding the matter, as the reactions regarding the review system seem similar to, say, how Zelda fans reacted to Jeff's review of Twilight Princess, which many wrote off as invalid before having played the game, and resorting to flaming and other tactics against Jeff. If you were an editor, why would you bother posting in a thread like this, when it seems like most people are going to just harass you as soon as you step out in public regarding this issue?

Skylock00

Because GameSpot is a community web site, it relies on its users support to operate. If the users don't have faith in the editors, and if the editors won't communicate with them then a greater divide opens. Once you lose trust like this it's a very slippery slope as you start to lose customers. GameSpot have to listen to its users, the site may be operated by CNET but never forget that it belongs to the users, after all what's the point of a website if nobody reads it!

That's just my two cents on this point. I don't think people are ignoring what's being said as much as they are reluctant to discuss things on this level given the environment formed.

Skylock00

Then it is up to them to change the general feelings by getting involved with the GameSpot community. I don't think these problems are going to go away overnight. Perhaps if they had involved us in the changes, those who are so against them wouldn't be so annoyed if they thought it had been a change the GameSpot community wanted. As it is, it's quite clearly the exact opposite of this at the moment.

[QUOTE="3picuri3"]I just want to point out that operating any sort of organization with a policy of 'don't negotiate with overly negative consumers' is in dire need of considering revision of said policy.Skylock00

Throwing around accusations like this one simply doesn't help the matter, because you are further instilling a mentality of negativity about the editors and such, making it less likely that people are even willing to ty talking with you all about it. Would you want to talk to a vocal minority of your reader base, when it seems like they don't have any respect for you, and won't really be willing to listen to what you say?

Again, look at the Zelda incident. People were being overtly vocal and negative towards Jeff about his review (To the point of several doing things like flaming and other threats)...before they even had a chance to play the game in the first place. That isn't rational, constructive criticism, that's a community that doesn't approach someone with any level of respect in the first place, making it impossible for some sort of reasonable discussion to form.

Getting so emotionally worked up over this sort of stuff, and letting that emotion translate to the kind of behaivor I've seen doesn't help anything at all, because it doesn't create an environment where editors and such /want/ to be involved with the community.

Also, regarding your comment about GS's 'reputation,' from what I see, there isn't a single website/periodical with a flawless reputation out there from what I keep on seeing and hearing left and right, so realistically, I don't (and the editors probably don't) pay much heed about baseline comments about reputation and such.

Again, I'm not saying the new system is perfect, but the issue I see here, regarding the 'divide' between the administrators/editors and posters here stems moreso from seeing how the community in some parts initially reacted to the matter.

well i really don't know how to react to what you're saying - other than to say you and the team at GS have a tough situation to deal with. i'm not throwing around any accusations, everything i typed was based on what you said, and you've basically just re-iterated it back to me.

it seems as if any time anyone tries to be reasonable on either side the other side takes it personally (as is evident inyour reply). i was just trying to give some constructive feedback encouraging a dialogue with your readers in an attempt to dissuade some of this bitterness but you just replied defensively accusing me of throwing around accusations and being emotional. it's almost as if you didn't read everything i typed. i acknowledged that the vast majority of backlash you get is unprofessional, immature, etc - yet you feel the need to say the same thing back to me as if I 'don't get it'.

GS needs to deal with it's communication divide between staff and consumer / non-paying readers (who pay in advert click throughs). That is the end of the story. You can tell me 100 different ways why GS doesn't feel like approaching the issues due to the negative environment but to be fair, you make your own bed. It doesn't have to be this way -- and that was my point.

As I read through the reviews more and more, I am finding how pointless this medal system is. All it really is doing is stating what is said in "The Good." I am now just seeing it as something looked good, but has turned out to be nothing of use.

So basically with that, this new review system has had no real improvement.

LTomlinson21

GS needs to deal with it's communication divide between staff and consumer / non-paying readers (who pay in advert click throughs). That is the end of the story. You can tell me 100 different ways why GS doesn't feel like approaching the issues due to the negative environment but to be fair, you make your own bed. It doesn't have to be this way -- and that was my point.

3picuri3

This is a video game website, people--not something life-altering. It's not like congress just reinstituted slavery or decided we all have to drive on the left side of the road. The way GS comes up with the score a game receives and the look of the page they present it on has changed a bit--is that really the worst thing in your life right now? Even if it is, I'd say that it's not worth getting this worked up about. Try it out for a while (and I don't mean reading one review looking for things to yell about) and see if it turns out well. If the system just doesn't work out for you, point out specific problems you see in a nonaggressive way, and see if that gets you better results than just immediately saying "this totally sucks! GS is stupid!"

The GS staff are most likely still working their asses off trying to get this new system implemented, so maybe now's not the best time to be screaming "change it back, change it back!" at them. Let them deal with the issues that have arisen because of the new review system, let them get it running smoothly and begin looking at ways to improve and refine it.

If, when that's done, I'm not happy with the review system, look for me to be here in Site Enhancements pointing out politely and constructively what I think needs to be addressed. But don't look for that too soon, because I'm actually going to give the changes a chance first.

[QUOTE="3picuri3"]

GS needs to deal with it's communication divide between staff and consumer / non-paying readers (who pay in advert click throughs). That is the end of the story. You can tell me 100 different ways why GS doesn't feel like approaching the issues due to the negative environment but to be fair, you make your own bed. It doesn't have to be this way -- and that was my point.

Shifty_Pete

This is a video game website, people--not something life-altering. It's not like congress just reinstituted slavery or decided we all have to drive on the left side of the road. The way GS comes up with the score a game receives and the look of the page they present it on has changed a bit--is that really the worst thing in your life right now? Even if it is, I'd say that it's not worth getting this worked up about. Try it out for a while (and I don't mean reading one review looking for things to yell about) and see if it turns out well. If the system just doesn't work out for you, point out specific problems you see in a nonaggressive way, and see if that gets you better results than just immediately saying "this totally sucks! GS is stupid!"

The GS staff are most likely still working their asses off trying to get this new system implemented, so maybe now's not the best time to be screaming "change it back, change it back!" at them. Let them deal with the issues that have arisen because of the new review system, let them get it running smoothly and begin looking at ways to improve and refine it.

If, when that's done, I'm not happy with the review system, look for me to be here in Site Enhancements pointing out politely and constructively what I think needs to be addressed. But don't look for that too soon, because I'm actually going to give the changes a chance first.

GS runs a business. When running a business you have to keep a keen eye on customer relations - if they get bad enough then you lose customers and ad revenue. i actually work in customer satisfaction research, i've done work for MS, Sony Canada, Nintendo, EA Canada, etc, etc. We've even done some work for some game review sites that will go unnamed. I was just trying to give some advice based on what i'm familiar with - and this is it: No matter what the tone, no matter how miffed the customer is, you HAVE to deal with it. shying away due to a hostile environment just reinforces any negative opinions / experiences that the consumer has.

I personally now use other sites as my main spot for reviews, and yes it's due to issues (resolved and unresolved) that i've had with GS over the years. I was an active reader for a good 5-6 years before I move on earlier this year. I just drop by from time to time to check out the forums and felt I should put in my 2 cents as someone who's been around for ages. it just pains me to see what used to be a strong foundation in the game review world come to such a state - but all things change I suppose. i just wish the changes were for the better :)

my main issues with GS lie in the actual review text itself, and with the reviewers. GS has had more factual errors and plain misunderstandings re: gameplay and game concepts than other site I've read - and I read a lot of em :) And it's very rare that these things are fixed, so rare that I can only think of 3 off the top of my head that were corrected - even when some are crying for completely new accurate reviews. it is nice that GS has a user review system to balance this though, it's just nice to sometimes read a really decent well thought out review for a game that is longer than 500-1000 words sometimes :)

anyways, like I said before - Good luck GS. and please don't ignore my advice :)

it seems as if any time anyone tries to be reasonable on either side the other side takes it personally (as is evident inyour reply). i was just trying to give some constructive feedback encouraging a dialogue with your readers in an attempt to dissuade some of this bitterness but you just replied defensively accusing me of throwing around accusations and being emotional. it's almost as if you didn't read everything i typed. i acknowledged that the vast majority of backlash you get is unprofessional, immature, etc - yet you feel the need to say the same thing back to me as if I 'don't get it'3picuri3

Your argument implies that the problem stems from the staff in this situation. My argument is that it stems from the users themselves. That's really the core difference in our arguments here.

Guess what, banning me hasn't made me change my mind one bit and has just angered me that GameSpot are being so unreasonable about this whole situation. In fact, my ban came about because of posting in that very thread, my gripe with that is it's not my fault I posted my complaints in there. To then ban me because GameSpot had told me to use that thread is beyond my comprehension.

Magic_Shrek

You were NOT banned or you wouldn't be back here posting:?

You were NOT banned or you wouldn't be back here posting:?

Dracula68

That's odd because last time I checked the dictionary definition of ban it matched what happened to me exactly. Not only that but when I watched "On The Spot" last night it told me in no uncertain terms that I couldn't join live chat because I was banned. It may not have been a permanent ban, but it was a ban none the less. So, I beg to differ using GameSpots own use of the word to back me up. It may just be arging semantics here, but they are important.

Care to comment on the rest of my post regarding the real issues that are being discussed here?

I'm back after yet another forum suspension for trolling, by simply posting about my dissatisfaction with the new review system. Guess what, banning me hasn't made me change my mind one bit and has just angered me that GameSpot are being so unreasonable about this whole situation. Magic_Shrek

Parading around the concept that you and others are being 'swept under the rug' for not liking the new system isn't helping either, as most of the moderations I see are not based on that standpoint, but on people who are posting in manners that are simply direct violations of the ToU, period. If people want the upper administration and such to come to talk with them, they need to foster an evironment that doesn't look like that anyone from that realm stepping in is going to try to wade through a heavy amount of overly negative/agressive posters to reach the ones that are actually trying to be reasonable with the situation.

It's absolutely alright for you guys not be fully happy with the changes, or even to be completely against them...but there is a right way and a wrong way of expressing those viewpoints, as well as ways to help make a meaningful realm of dicussion for all parties.

That's odd because last time I checked the dictionary definition of ban it matched what happened to me exactly. Not only that but when I watched "On The Spot" last night it told me in no uncertain terms that I couldn't join live chat because I was banned. It may not have been a permanent ban, but it was a ban none the less. So, I beg to differ using GameSpots own use of the word to back me up. It may just be arging semantics here, but they are important.

Magic_Shrek

If you get bored and really wanna know the difference check out one of my older blogs. In short there is no such thing as a temp Ban.

[QUOTE="Magic_Shrek"]

That's odd because last time I checked the dictionary definition of ban it matched what happened to me exactly. Not only that but when I watched "On The Spot" last night it told me in no uncertain terms that I couldn't join live chat because I was banned. It may not have been a permanent ban, but it was a ban none the less. So, I beg to differ using GameSpots own use of the word to back me up. It may just be arging semantics here, but they are important.

Dracula68

If you get bored and really wanna know the difference check out one of my older blogs. In short there is no such thing as a temp Ban.

I don't need to read your definition when I have a dictionary that gives me the correct one. I take it from this response that you really aren't interested in the issues raised?

Every body is freaking off topic!!! A brutal metal??? Why dont you give a freaking brutal metal on the good side of the good bad crap for a 0.5 game. Why dont you do that!!! You expext us to learn more from the good bad medals to help us decide between a 5.5 not so funny game between a 8.0 football game??? For people who dont know what Im talking about, go read this Jeff Getmangggfgfkfh watever his name is's blog. The old system already has a good bad thingy that just plain and simple. Now you put medals and reasons like brutal and things blow up real good??? That is utterly, shallowly, childishly, PSTHETIC. The old system's good bad thingy atleast gives some real good points. Hell, what with this brutal medal for a 0.5 game. We need the score on a 0.1 scale and real in-depth review. Not some brutal medal then whole bunch of medalsthen 0.5 rating tadaaa. Oh and the funny part about this.... Jeeeffffffff's blog, some people might like funny games, I give you funny badge for a 5.5 game. Who the hell would buy a freaking 5.5 game!!!. The text review should be the main part. People should not focused on stupid good bad medals. Its just childish. You know how the say, fat people loves medals.Captain_Swosh69

I don't need to read your definition when I have a dictionary that gives me the correct one. I take it from this response that you really aren't interested in the issues raised?

Magic_Shrek

I am going by GS definitions, not a dictionary. Also, I am not Editorial Staff so I won't comment on something I have no control over.

And we are "technically" going off topic so I will end this here and let it get back to what this thread is for---new review system feedback.

[QUOTE="Captain_Swosh69"]Every body is freaking off topic!!! A brutal metal??? Why dont you give a freaking brutal metal on the good side of the good bad crap for a 0.5 game. Why dont you do that!!! You expext us to learn more from the good bad medals to help us decide between a 5.5 not so funny game between a 8.0 football game??? For people who dont know what Im talking about, go read this Jeff Getmangggfgfkfh watever his name is's blog. The old system already has a good bad thingy that just plain and simple. Now you put medals and reasons like brutal and things blow up real good??? That is utterly, shallowly, childishly, PSTHETIC. The old system's good bad thingy atleast gives some real good points. Hell, what with this brutal medal for a 0.5 game. We need the score on a 0.1 scale and real in-depth review. Not some brutal medal then whole bunch of medalsthen 0.5 rating tadaaa. Oh and the funny part about this.... Jeeeffffffff's blog, some people might like funny games, I give you funny badge for a 5.5 game. Who the hell would buy a freaking 5.5 game!!!. The text review should be the main part. People should not focused on stupid good bad medals. Its just childish. You know how the say, fat people loves medals.Shifty_Pete

Not everyone, or even a large group, of people are speaking like that.

This system is ridiculous and giving it time makes no sense as to how you could grow to like it. All it will do is show us that GameSpot won't change their view and a lot will lose hope to this being changed.

I have read Gamespot for years and was quite pleased with it. It was the one source I relied on since 1997. However, these changes and how people are treated about it make me uncomfortable. I read the new reviews and I simply don't like the unprecise scores and the medals made for those that do not take the time to read a review thoroughly. That people now are not even listened to, is really bad, maybe things have changed at Gamespot.

I have read the site for years but never registered, save for this special occasion. But don't worry, I won't bother you again. I'll just visit other sites.

Infidel143

Not to get too off topic from the other things being said, but this is exactly what I was talking about in my other post. I've also been coming here for over 8 years, and the only reason is because the reviews are so precise and trustworthy. Now, the reviews seem unproffesional and I have very little idea as to why exactly the game earned the 8.5. I can see the good and bad of the game, but really, I'd like to see the decimal ups and downs of the games to see what overall brought it to the rating it recieved, and without that the review seems shallow, unproffesional, and lazy.

And to the earlier poster who says he can't believe the uproar with readers before the new system was put into action, and said we should all wait until it's been out for a while to judge it, which got a positive response from a mod. I'm sorry, but this was not the most sensible thing I've read here about this, but actually one of the most idiotic. Just to use as an example, there is a Bill currently up in our goverment that would abolish the boarders into our country, give illegal immigrants full citizenship within 24 hours of coming into the USA, and also they wouldn't have to pay taxes, would be able to cut in lines, and other atroshish things that make their stay in our country easier than the rest of us. Sounds absurd doesnt it? Well, according to your logic this bill should be passed because after all, we shouldn't judge it until we've taken it out for a test ride. No, you see, the problem is there if that happened the damage would be done, and taking the bill back would NOT be a simple thing to do because of how much overall damage it would cause. Now, I bet just reading the idea for the bill you could fully realize that it is NOT a good idea, and you may have a strong opinion on it and actually you might be quite upset that the bill even made it as far as it has. It's the same for the review system. The idea was not good in the first place, which was apparent to most viewers, and especially now that it is in action.

People are leaving gamespot, and the damage has been done. It was an obvious bad idea, but for some reason has become the new standard for reviews. Like I said, I've been extremely happy with Gamespots review system, and I'm happy with the new medal system, but the .5 decimal system was not a step forward, but instead 5 steps back. Please gamespot if you care about your readers change it back.

Then again, to the moderaters, this post probably sounded like childish screaming and made no sense at all since I'm speaking against the new system. I apalogize, please don't ban me.

Yeah... this is pretty much what I meant when I talked about incoherant screaming.
Shifty_Pete

Perhaps he has a problem expressing himself coherently, I was still able to understand the main point of his post. Are you suggesting that he isn't entitled to an opinion, or that it is any less valid than anyone elses?

One of the mods (Skylock00) suggested we try to create an environment that is condusive to discussion rather than emotional outbursts. I don't really see how that is possible until a response is posted because most of the outbursts are as a result of the silence from GameSpot. It's a vicious circle and it needs to be broken, but I can see only one way for that to happen.

I just wish someone from GameSpots editorial team would post a response. I know there are some childish posts, but there are also a lot of well though out arguments that warrant a reply. Some of them, like myself, are from loyal users who have paid money to GameSpot and I think deserve better treatment than this. Sure there may be some users who just want to shout and have a hissy fit, there always will be, but why should they be allowed to deny us a formal response?

I just wish someone from GameSpots editorial team would post a response.Magic_Shrek

I've also been coming here for over 8 years, and the only reason is because the reviews are so precise and trustworthy. Now, the reviews seem unproffesional and I have very little idea as to why exactly the game earned the 8.5. I can see the good and bad of the game, but really, I'd like to see the decimal ups and downs of the games to see what overall brought it to the rating it recieved, and without that the review seems shallow, unproffesional, and lazy.

And to the earlier poster who says he can't believe the uproar with readers before the new system was put into action, and said we should all wait until it's been out for a while to judge it, which got a positive response from a mod. I'm sorry, but this was not the most sensible thing I've read here about this, but actually one of the most idiotic. Just to use as an example, there is a Bill currently up in our goverment that would abolish the boarders into our country, give illegal immigrants full citizenship within 24 hours of coming into the USA, and also they wouldn't have to pay taxes, would be able to cut in lines, and other atroshish things that make their stay in our country easier than the rest of us. Sounds absurd doesnt it? Well, according to your logic this bill should be passed because after all, we shouldn't judge it until we've taken it out for a test ride. No, you see, the problem is there if that happened the damage would be done, and taking the bill back would NOT be a simple thing to do because of how much overall damage it would cause. Now, I bet just reading the idea for the bill you could fully realize that it is NOT a good idea, and you may have a strong opinion on it and actually you might be quite upset that the bill even made it as far as it has. It's the same for the review system. The idea was not good in the first place, which was apparent to most viewers, and especially now that it is in action.

People are leaving gamespot, and the damage has been done. It was an obvious bad idea, but for some reason has become the new standard for reviews. Like I said, I've been extremely happy with Gamespots review system, and I'm happy with the new medal system, but the .5 decimal system was not a step forward, but instead 5 steps back. Please gamespot if you care about your readers change it back.

Then again, to the moderaters, this post probably sounded like childish screaming and made no sense at all since I'm speaking against the new system. I apalogize, please don't ban me.

AnimeArtist

There are no serious ramifications to the GameSpot review system changing. It won't, as you suggest, flood our country with rabid invaders. It won't cause a supervolcano eruption under Yellowstone. The Earth won't spin out of control into the sun. If the system doesn't work out, they'll change it. If they think it works and we don't, we'll deal with it or go elsewhere. This isn't an issue of journalistic integrity or anything else of any importance--its a design and presentation issue, and I just can't see those as something to get all worked up about. I don't watch HGTV and scream at the TV when they pick drapes I don't like, because it just isn't important.

Think of GameSpot as an interactive magazine. If your favorite magazine changed its layout, would you deal with it, would you cancel your subscription, or would you proclaim that it was a threat to our national security and must be repealed before it is too late?