AAA titles don't impress Gamespot. . . as much

Now that most of biggest anticipated games have been released this season, I compiled a list of Gamespot's ratings versus the overall meta-average. As usual as they always historically have been, Gamespot ratings are lower than the overall average. It is rare for them to be on the other side of the average.

Gamespot Score/Metacritic Score

Skyrim 90/96

MW3 85/89

BF3 85/89

Uncharted 3 90/92

Arkham City 90/94

Deus Ex HR 85/89

But here are a couple interesting exceptions:

Gears of War 3 95/91

Dark Souls 95/89

What does this all mean? Is Gamespot really more respected because they are more critical? Is Gamespot wiser than the average critic? Are these numbers deceptive because of Gamespot's limited 5-based rating system? Are Gamespot's reviews usually relatively late because they intentionally wait to see what everyone else rates it and then they intentionally rate lower? Does Gamespot have unrealistic expectations? Does Gamespot intentionally contract extra picky reviewers? Games really are becoming less impressive overall? Gamespot loves CliffyB? Discuss your theories.

Kevin-V is a huge fanboy for those Souls games. He looks right past tons of problems he usually creams other games for when he reviewed them.TransFishers

The differences are really too small to be of any consequence.

I don't care if their scores don't jive with metacritics. What does bother me, however, is their seemingly double-standards. One game is criticized for one thing and completely ignored for another. And I don't buy the whole, "well, it's an subjective opinion" line either. Regardless of personal preference, it's poor reviewing when they don't hold up each game to the same standard.

I believe that GS has a stock score of 8.5 which it gives to very good games which is the equivalent of a 9 from IGN or other sites.

I wasn't aware Gamespot was forced to agree/conform to an arbitrary average with their reviews.

I like Gamespots reviews very much.

Are you trying to imply that review scores are some kind of objective data and not just a bunch of different opinions? foxhound_fox

Reviews ARE based on objective data. What else are they based upon? The art of a review should be to try to remain as objective as possible and keep one's personal feelings out of it. I don't buy that everyone's opinion is valid just because it's their opinion, which a lot of people around here seem to adhere to. People don't get paid for their "expert opinion" for **** and giggles, it's because they know their stuff and are basing their opinion off of facts, i.e. objective data. All opinions are not created equal because not all opinions are as well-informed and supported as others. Of course with games, enjoyment comes into the picture (and fun is different for all), so in that respect I can grant there's a fair share of subjectivity.

I'm not meaning to single you out Fox, it's just when I hear someoneimply there's no objective element in a review it kind of irks me.

I always get a sense that gamespot maintains a relative view on what the game was trying to achieve and how well it lived up to its particular ambitions. For instance, Dark Souls got a 9.5. Skyrim is a 9.0. I don't think this means that gamespot thinks Dark Souls is better than Skyrim overall. It means that gamespot thinks that Dark Souls clearly achieved what it set out to achieve better than how Skyrim achieved its ambitions.

Neglible differences. Review scores are opinions anyway, and are you trying to say Gamespot isn't entitled to their own opinions?

Don't mind GS review scores that much, my only problem with them is the scores they hand out to some of the best games of this generation if not all time ( Batman AC , Mass Effect 2); sure you can say 9 is a great score, but when you see them hand out 9.5 to games that are similar to their predecessors with slight improvements that will be forgetable in a few months is a head scratcher. Don't get me started on their GOTY award, they sure like to be " different " on purpose it seems.

Gamers should use metacritics/gamerankings as guidelines, most importantly read reliable reviews such as Eurogamer or others you rely on. Gametrailers review are nice but they spoil too much :P

are you trying to say Gamespot isn't entitled to their own opinions?

LovePotionNo9

No. If I was trying to say that, I would have simpy said that. My post was informational, I thought some people here would be interested in seeing how the some of the year's most anticipated titles faired against the industry average. Don't be overly dramatic by trying to put false words in my mouth.

You asked for theories, and I gave you one.

I feel by them being tough, it makes their reviews more trustworthy and valued. PunkAntiHero

I thought some people here would be interested in seeing how the some of the year's most anticipated titles faired against the industry average. Qixote

Talk about this here instead, please. Don't need multiple threads on this subject going all at once.