Gamespot losing relevance

agreed completely. i used to base my decisions on whther or not it was a good game or worth buying by basically gamespot's review and then checking out the numbers. now i check out everyone else's review and look to see where gamespot's is and its not there. soi buy the game anyway, before i check gamespot.

also, the new half-step rating just doesnt work. i like every other change, but not the new number system

[QUOTE="THE_DZA"]as for the last two posts. I dont understand this line of thinking, why in the world would other sites like 1up and IGN get review copies prior to gamespot. If they are then gamespot should look at how they are managing their relationships with publishers. I understand the logic behind your arguments, if they dont have it they cant reveiw it, but the question then becomes...why they heck dont they have it?Korubi

I don't think you read Alex's post. You see, other sites pay money so they can get a game in advance and have a review up quicker. Alex says GameSpot doesn't do that because it inherently creates bias even if it's not intended.

I'd also like to add that I don't care about any site or magazine's opinion except for GameSpot's. And I don't think I'm alone.

[QUOTE="THE_DZA"]Gamespot loses relevance in the gaming community by being last to put out big reviews. The quality of the rest of game journalism has gone up, and gamespots status as being the premier site for reviews is fading. They desperately need to get reviews of games like Bioshock out in a more timely manner, and they really need someone the calibur of Greg Kasavin to head up the feature reviews again.fuzzysquash

GS reviews games like critics do movies.

they don't put it up until the release date.

Gamespot always puts reviews out before the release date of the game in question, which in reality is all that matters. IMHO the team is still the most trusted and well known in the industry.grarap

agreed completely. i used to base my decisions on whther or not it was a good game or worth buying by basically gamespot's review and then checking out the numbers. now i check out everyone else's review and look to see where gamespot's is and its not there. soi buy the game anyway, before i check gamespot.

also, the new half-step rating just doesnt work. i like every other change, but not the new number system

soulsdeparting

[QUOTE="grarap"]Gamespot always puts reviews out before the release date of the game in question, which in reality is all that matters. IMHO the team is still the most trusted and well known in the industry.THE_DZA

I'd be quick to remind you that Gamespot isn't late. Other media are early. Once the GS review comes out I think you'll find that it'll be of a far higher quality in terms of detail than those of other sites. I agree that the Bioshock review is delayed, but I don't think that it's a sign that the entire organisation is going down the drain.

Exactly, you dont feel the need to wait because you are pretty certain you can rely on the rest of the press. Doesnt mean that gamespot didnt write a fine review in the end, its just not as important as it once was. People on these forums see everything in black and white, gamespot can have good reviews, get them out before the game, and still be slipping. Its not a knock on the site so much as a call to get with the now.THE_DZA

I don't think folks are even trying to grasp the point that you are making; even though its clear as day. Simply put, Gamespot review is not as important as it used to be due to the increase in real competition. Why bother with Gamespot review when you can get a review of similar quality from one or more sites.

[QUOTE="soulsdeparting"]

agreed completely. i used to base my decisions on whther or not it was a good game or worth buying by basically gamespot's review and then checking out the numbers. now i check out everyone else's review and look to see where gamespot's is and its not there. soi buy the game anyway, before i check gamespot.

also, the new half-step rating just doesnt work. i like every other change, but not the new number system

THE_DZA

You're really making too big of a deal in timing of reviews IMO. It doesn't hurt GS relevance in any imaginable. A group of circus chimps could hastily write a review and put it out there before anyone else, does that make them more relevant somehow if we're using publishing dates as the barometer for relevance?

If a developer doesn't release any copies of the game until the 11th hour, should professional game review sites be expected to write full reviews based off of images and playable demos?

I'd be quick to remind you that Gamespot isn't late. Other media are early. Once the GS review comes out I think you'll find that it'll be of a far higher quality in terms of detail than those of other sites. I agree that the Bioshock review is delayed, but I don't think that it's a sign that the entire organisation is going down the drain.

grarap

One can also say, other sites are on time while Gamespot's is late. Fact of the matter is that they are not on the ball as their competition. While Gamespot may have a well written review, I trully doubt that it would add any more insight about the game than other reviews sites.

You're really making too big of a deal in timing of reviews IMO. It doesn't hurt GS relevance in any imaginable. A group of circus chimps could hastily write a review and put it out there before anyone else, does that make them more relevant somehow if we're using publishing dates as the barometer for relevance?

If a developer doesn't release any copies of the game until the 11th hour, should professional game review sites be expected to write full reviews based off of images and playable demos?

MarcusAntonius

But the fact of the matter is that you and many others are elluding that the reviews from other sites are NOT written by circus chimps. Things have change and sometimes sites have got to change with the times. The revlevance argument is based on the fact that other sites are offering reviews that a comparabale to Gamespot's.

[QUOTE="MarcusAntonius"]

You're really making too big of a deal in timing of reviews IMO. It doesn't hurt GS relevance in any imaginable. A group of circus chimps could hastily write a review and put it out there before anyone else, does that make them more relevant somehow if we're using publishing dates as the barometer for relevance?

If a developer doesn't release any copies of the game until the 11th hour, should professional game review sites be expected to write full reviews based off of images and playable demos?

Pedro

But the fact of the matter is that you and many others are elluding that the reviews from other sites are NOT written by circus chimps. Things have change and sometimes sites have got to change with the times. The revlevance argument is based on the fact that other sites are offering reviews that a comparabale to Gamespot's.

Yes, I agree that rival sites are starting to pick it up a bit, and that's great. But if its merely timing that we're talking about here, I fail to see how that really reduces GSs relevance. It merely becomes an annoyance, but I wouldn't go so far as DZA to say that it curbs GSs relevance. There's no substitute for quality, especially with $60 at stake. I'll gladly wait to read all of the best written reviews to get a clearr idea of what's in store for me with games that do not have playable demos.

[QUOTE="THE_DZA"]Exactly, you dont feel the need to wait because you are pretty certain you can rely on the rest of the press. Doesnt mean that gamespot didnt write a fine review in the end, its just not as important as it once was. People on these forums see everything in black and white, gamespot can have good reviews, get them out before the game, and still be slipping. Its not a knock on the site so much as a call to get with the now.Pedro

I don't think folks are even trying to grasp the point that you are making; even though its clear as day. Simply put, Gamespot review is not as important as it used to be due to the increase in real competition. Why bother with Gamespot review when you can get a review of similar quality from one or more sites.

Well, I don't think it's just the increase in competition- that would imply that other sites/mags are taking viewers directly. But even if I considered all the other competition slightly below GS in terms of quality, after you read 5 other reviews from well respected sites (even if slightly less respected than GS), it's a much higher chance that it's a great/terrible game based off what they said. The odds of all 5 of them getting it completely wrong are pretty low. I mean, I know GS rated Zelda: TP lower than other sites and was a bit vindicated by fans after they played it, but they still said it was a great game.

The only time I can think of where only one site actually seemed to get it right is in the case of Oblivion. RPGCodex was the only site that really played that game extensively and their review shows it. I have never once seen any rebuttal to the things mentioned. They were all things that the big sites seemed to have just glossed over, or more likely, didn't devote enough playing time to see how prevelant those problems were. So there is precedent, but it's absolutely rare.

[QUOTE="grarap"]

I'd be quick to remind you that Gamespot isn't late. Other media are early. Once the GS review comes out I think you'll find that it'll be of a far higher quality in terms of detail than those of other sites. I agree that the Bioshock review is delayed, but I don't think that it's a sign that the entire organisation is going down the drain.

Pedro

One can also say, other sites are on time while Gamespot's is late. Fact of the matter is that they are not on the ball as their competition. While Gamespot may have a well written review, I trully doubt that it would add any more insight about the game than other reviews sites.

I think that you're trying to nail a hell of a lot on Gamespot here just for delivering the Bioshock review after other sites. It's a late review. A one off. Something that doesn't happen very much. Understand? It isn't indicitive of laziness, irrelevance, or ignorance of the gaming market. Jeff has simply decided to play the game for longer than other reviewrs from what I understand, and therefore you'll only get his $00.02 a few days before the game release. Take that as a positive or a negative, but Gamespot is still up there as a competitor in the gaming media in my books.

GameSpot has always been slower than the other sites. But when you compare the writing quality of GameSpot's reviews to those of sites like IGN and 1UP you will see that GameSpot's reviews are almost always much better written, cover more aspects of the game, and are just complete higher quality.

KnightsofRound

That is completely untrue.

As a point of fact, IGN reviews tend to be significantly longer and often go into more depth than GS reviews. Actually, IGN oftenposts reviews for larger, AAA games that are literally twice the size of the GS reviews.

As for writing quality, both sites are equal and the quality of the text varies based on who is writing the editorial.

I like GS and prefer them for most things but they are really no better than IGN when it comes to reviews.

I think the problem here is neither side is going to budge on their postition. For some, late reviews is the end all for their trust and others just think thatquality takes time.

I don't see the gamespot reviewers about to change their habits either... so if getting a review 4 days after release is unacceptable, there are plenty of other sites that cater to your needs.

to respond to the statement in the title of this thread: yes they can be seen as losing relevance but on the other hand, a vast majority still relies and trusts their reviews no matter how late they are.

I think the problem here is neither side is going to budge on their postition. For some, late reviews is the end all for their trust and others just think thatquality takes time.

smerlus

That is completely untrue.

As a point of fact, IGN reviews tend to be significantly longer and often go into more depth than GS reviews. Actually, IGN oftenposts reviews for larger, AAA games that are literally twice the size of the GS reviews.

As for writing quality, both sites are equal and the quality of the text varies based on who is writing the editorial.

I like GS and prefer them for most things but they are really no better than IGN when it comes to reviews.

Grammaton-Cleric

I wouldn't sayIGN goes into more depth, I just think that their reviews are a bit more idealistic. Take the Bioshock review for example; it's three pages long but on the first page, the reviewer makes blog-worthy comments like his sadness that Irrational games changed their name, or his little dive off into the current state of affairs regarding creativity in the industry... not to mention his artistic/psychological impressions of why the foes in the game wear masks...

In fact, most of the first page in the review could be gleaned off of reading news and looking at screenshots of the game.

Before Bioshock, the last review I read was for Spider-Man 3 and that review was laughably ammateurist because the reviewer only relied on one tactic throughout the whole game and then spent paragraphs complaining that it wasn't working out for him.

Not to say that Gamespot doesn't have bad reviews... but IGN's AAA reviews are mostly fluff about the butterfies in their stomachs, their feelings of euphoria and their dreams of ice skating on sherbert lakes under cotton candy clouds...things that really don't mean much to anybody.

I wouldn't sayIGN goes into more depth, I just think that their reviews are a bit more idealistic. Take the Bioshock review for example; it's three pages long but on the first page, the reviewer makes blog-worthy comments like his sadness that Irrational games changed their name, or his little dive off into the current state of affairs regarding creativity in the industry... not to mention his artistic/psychological impressions of why the foes in the game wear masks...

In fact, most of the first page in the review could be gleaned off of reading news and looking at screenshots of the game.

Before Bioshock, the last review I read was for Spider-Man 3 and that review was laughably ammateurist because the reviewer only relied on one tactic throughout the whole game and then spent paragraphs complaining that it wasn't working out for him.

Not to say that Gamespot doesn't have bad reviews... but IGN's AAA reviews are mostly fluff about the butterfies in their stomachs, their feelings of euphoria and their dreams of ice skating on sherbert lakes under cotton candy clouds...things that really don't mean much to anybody.

smerlus

As I mentioned, the text of reviews varies in quality depending on the writer and their approach to the editorial. Your examples of IGN fluff can be countered with examples of GS shallowness, so it's really a matter of how muchindulgence you're willing to give a site and their reviews. Personally, I think IGN and GS serve the same function and deliver reviews on par with one another but some people want to elevate GS and that is their prerogative.

That said, GS reviews really aren't any better than other sites and magazines, no matter what their fan base may profess.

I think that you're trying to nail a hell of a lot on Gamespot here just for delivering the Bioshock review after other sites. It's a late review. A one off. Something that doesn't happen very much. Understand? It isn't indicitive of laziness, irrelevance, or ignorance of the gaming market. Jeff has simply decided to play the game for longer than other reviewrs from what I understand, and therefore you'll only get his $00.02 a few days before the game release. Take that as a positive or a negative, but Gamespot is still up there as a competitor in the gaming media in my books.

grarap

If only it was just Bioshock you would have a point but its not only Bioshock. The late reviews is nothing particularly new for Gamespot over the last 6 years.

fluff about the butterfies in their stomachs, their feelings of euphoria and their dreams of ice skating on sherbert lakes under cotton candy clouds...things that really don't mean much to anybody.

smerlus

[QUOTE="grarap"]

I think that you're trying to nail a hell of a lot on Gamespot here just for delivering the Bioshock review after other sites. It's a late review. A one off. Something that doesn't happen very much. Understand? It isn't indicitive of laziness, irrelevance, or ignorance of the gaming market. Jeff has simply decided to play the game for longer than other reviewrs from what I understand, and therefore you'll only get his $00.02 a few days before the game release. Take that as a positive or a negative, but Gamespot is still up there as a competitor in the gaming media in my books.

Pedro

If only it was just Bioshock you would have a point but its not only Bioshock. The late reviews is nothing particularly new for Gamespot over the last 6 years.

I beg to differ, and considering that you don't name any notable examples I'm not inclined to believe that this isn't the first case of a late review either. I've been here for years too, and this is the first time that I've ever even noticed a late review from GS. Sure, there may be isolated cases, but to suggest a trend is ludicrous. How could Gamespot have risen to the point it has now if it consistently releleased late reviews for 6 years running?

I beg to differ, and considering that you don't name any notable examples I'm not inclined to believe that this isn't the first case of a late review either. I've been here for years too, and this is the first time that I've ever even noticed a late review from GS. Sure, there may be isolated cases, but to suggest a trend is ludicrous. How could Gamespot have risen to the point it has now if it consistently releleased late reviews for 6 years running?

grarap

You can beg to differ as much as you like but when a staff member actually says other wise,

I won't sit here and pretend we aren't late with some stuff. That'd just be a lie.

Alex N

there is no need for me to go hunting for past games that were late on reviews.

[QUOTE="grarap"]

I beg to differ, and considering that you don't name any notable examples I'm not inclined to believe that this isn't the first case of a late review either. I've been here for years too, and this is the first time that I've ever even noticed a late review from GS. Sure, there may be isolated cases, but to suggest a trend is ludicrous. How could Gamespot have risen to the point it has now if it consistently releleased late reviews for 6 years running?

Pedro

You can beg to differ as much as you like but when a staff member actually says other wise,

I won't sit here and pretend we aren't late with some stuff. That'd just be a lie.

Alex N

there is no need for me to go hunting for past games that were late on reviews.

Put your comprehension skills to the test and read my post again. In fact, I'll be generous and hilight the important bits for you:

I beg to differ, and considering that you don't name any notable examples I'm not inclined to believe that this isn't the first case of a late review either. I've been here for years too, and this is the first time that I've ever even noticed a late review from GS. Sure, there may be isolated cases, but to suggest a trend is ludicrous. How could Gamespot have risen to the point it has now if it consistently releleased late reviews for 6 years running?

Do you see what I'm getting at?

Put your comprehension skills to the test and read my post again. In fact, I'll be generous and hilight the important bits for you:

I beg to differ, and considering that you don't name any notable examples I'm not inclined to believe that this isn't the first case of a late review either. I've been here for years too, and this is the first time that I've ever even noticed a late review from GS. Sure, there may be isolated cases, but to suggest a trend is ludicrous. How could Gamespot have risen to the point it has now if it consistently releleased late reviews for 6 years running?

Do you see what I'm getting at?

grarap

Firstly, you are implying that Gamespot reviews are the main reason it has risen to this point. In fact late reviews(in comparison to its competitors) is nothing new to this site as I have said before. You are making it out to be as if this is the first time when it isn't. These types of thread has routinely showed up in the past especially for major releases. There are also several instances where games aren't reviewed by this site but is reviewed by its competitors. But guess what, its still a top rated site, however that doesn't make the late reviews non-existent or some sort of rare anomally. Alex has already explained some of the reason for these late reviews, so really what is your point?

[QUOTE="grarap"]

Put your comprehension skills to the test and read my post again. In fact, I'll be generous and hilight the important bits for you:

I beg to differ, and considering that you don't name any notable examples I'm not inclined to believe that this isn't the first case of a late review either. I've been here for years too, and this is the first time that I've ever even noticed a late review from GS. Sure, there may be isolated cases, but to suggest a trend is ludicrous. How could Gamespot have risen to the point it has now if it consistently releleased late reviews for 6 years running?

Do you see what I'm getting at?

Pedro

Firstly, you are implying that Gamespot reviews are the main reason it has risen to this point. In fact late reviews(in comparison to its competitors) is nothing new to this site as I have said before. You are making it out to be as if this is the first time when it isn't. These types of thread has routinely showed up in the past especially for major releases. There are also several instances where games aren't reviewed by this site but is reviewed by its competitors. But guess what, its still a top rated site, however that doesn't make the late reviews non-existent or some sort of rare anomally. Alex has already explained some of the reason for these late reviews, so really what is your point?

Until you've shown that you read my post I'm not going to bother furthering this conversation. Note that I said there may may some isolated cases, but to suggest a trend is ludicrous. You can't just imply that Gamespot always releases late reviews to the actual detriment of the site and its readers and get away with it without backing yourself up. I'll repeat again: of course some reviews may be late, and that's forgivable, but there is no pattern of late reviews as far as I've observed

Until you've shown that you read my post I'm not going to bother furthering this conversation. Note that I said there may may some isolated cases, but to suggest a trend is ludicrous. You can't just imply that Gamespot always releases late reviews to the actual detriment of the site and its readers and get away with it without backing yourself up. I'll repeat again: of course some reviews may be late, and that's forgivable, but there is no pattern of late reviews as far as I've observed

grarap

The point is that its not isolated and I don't understand why you think its unbelievable that it happens rather often. Even IGN has late reviews however I have not seen it as frequent as GS.

IGN: Unreal Championship 2: The Liandri Conflict - April 15, 2005
GS : Unreal Championship 2: The Liandri Conflict - April 18, 2005

IGN: Burnout Revenge - September 8, 2005
GS : Burnout Revenge - September 9, 2005

IGN: Half-Life 2 - November 11, 2005
GS : Half-Life 2 - November 15, 2005

IGN: Burnout 3: Takedown - September 2, 2004
GS : Burnout 3: Takedown - September 7, 2004

IGn: Far Cry Instincts - September 26, 2005
GS : Far Cry Instincts - September 29, 2005

IGN: Otogi: Myth of Demons - August 22, 2003
GS : Otogi: Myth of Demons - August 25, 2003

IGN: RalliSport Challenge - February 28, 2002
GS : RalliSport Challenge - March 6, 2002

IGN: SSX 3 - October 17, 2003
GS : SSX 3 - October 20, 2003

IGN: SSX Tricky - November 29, 2001
GS : SSX Tricky - December 5, 2001

IGN: Panzer Dragoon Orta - January 10, 2003
GS : Panzer Dragoon Orta - January 13, 2003

IGN: Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter - March 7, 2006
GS : Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter - March 8, 2006

IGN: Dead Or Alive 4 - December 28, 2005
GS : Dead Or Alive 4 - January 1, 2006

IGN: Grand Theft Auto Double Pack - October 22, 2003
GS : Grand Theft Auto Double Pack - October 24, 2003


IGN: God of War - March 18, 2005
GS : God of War - March 21, 2005

The interesting thing is that the bulk of those reviews you listed were based on embargoes due to exclusive reviews. At least the ones you listed since I started working here in 03. Not to mention that most of the reviews you listed were still reviewed on or before the day the game came out. I guess my question is, does that even qualify as "late" if we're getting the review up before the public can go out and buy stuff? Frankly, that's my only concern, that we're ahead of or on the release date.AlexN

Actually some of the games I looked at, you all were ahead or on the review was released on the same date. Reviews maybe considered late if other sites have a review for the game a day or two earlier and this is because of anticipation.

Gamespot is still one of the most respected videogame review websites out there. They always try and do a proper review so we will have to wait. Plus, the game isn't even officially out yet, so hold on, you'll see a review soon enough.KabalCage

I agree, I would rather wait for a good written review then to read something poorly written anyday.

For what it's worth guys, I do appreciate the feedback you've given, positive or negative. As the guy who assigns reviews around here, it's good to get a sense of what people think about the job we're doing.

I can come up with any number of reasons why we're later with this review or that review than the competition, but in the end, the reasons don't really matter to the average user, since you guys can't see the behind the scenes situations that lead to that stuff. To you guys, it's merely a matter of getting the information as soon as you can, and I get that.

I don't necessarily agree with some of the sentiments about relevance or lateness or whatnot, but as a whole, it's good to see both sides of the equation and know where the audience is coming from on this stuff. We're always looking to improve, and this info is useful. Thanks guys.

[QUOTE="smerlus"]

I wouldn't sayIGN goes into more depth, I just think that their reviews are a bit more idealistic. Take the Bioshock review for example; it's three pages long but on the first page, the reviewer makes blog-worthy comments like his sadness that Irrational games changed their name, or his little dive off into the current state of affairs regarding creativity in the industry... not to mention his artistic/psychological impressions of why the foes in the game wear masks...

In fact, most of the first page in the review could be gleaned off of reading news and looking at screenshots of the game.

Before Bioshock, the last review I read was for Spider-Man 3 and that review was laughably ammateurist because the reviewer only relied on one tactic throughout the whole game and then spent paragraphs complaining that it wasn't working out for him.

Not to say that Gamespot doesn't have bad reviews... but IGN's AAA reviews are mostly fluff about the butterfies in their stomachs, their feelings of euphoria and their dreams of ice skating on sherbert lakes under cotton candy clouds...things that really don't mean much to anybody.

Grammaton-Cleric

As I mentioned, the text of reviews varies in quality depending on the writer and their approach to the editorial. Your examples of IGN fluff can be countered with examples of GS shallowness, so it's really a matter of how muchindulgence you're willing to give a site and their reviews. Personally, I think IGN and GS serve the same function and deliver reviews on par with one another but some people want to elevate GS and that is their prerogative.

That said, GS reviews really aren't any better than other sites and magazines, no matter what their fan base may profess.

it's funny that my examples are the last two times that i checked IGN's site since the last time they disappointed me. so that's equals the last 3 reviews that have meant nothing to me vs the majority of gamespot's review that seemed to mirror my own thoughts. While i can't even remember what review that turned me off to IGN i can remember the Spider-Man 3 review and see where gamespot was coming from with their deductions and recall that IGN seemed so far off it wasn't even funny. IGN actually punished the game because the reviewer didn't use any of the move in the game.

and you saying the reviews are more in depth while the reviewer waxes philisophically about nonsense that exists in his own head which adds nothing to adds nothing to the review and take the offensive that gamespot does the opposite... i'd really like for you to back up your own claims.

the only time i think gamespot reviews were totally uncalled for were their most glaring mistakes.

it's easy to claim someone is wrong.. at least back it up.

For what it's worth guys, I do appreciate the feedback you've given, positive or negative. As the guy who assigns reviews around here, it's good to get a sense of what people think about the job we're doing.

I can come up with any number of reasons why we're later with this review or that review than the competition, but in the end, the reasons don't really matter to the average user, since you guys can't see the behind the scenes situations that lead to that stuff. To you guys, it's merely a matter of getting the information as soon as you can, and I get that.

I don't necessarily agree with some of the sentiments about relevance or lateness or whatnot, but as a whole, it's good to see both sides of the equation and know where the audience is coming from on this stuff. We're always looking to improve, and this info is useful. Thanks guys.

AlexN

[QUOTE="AlexN"]

For what it's worth guys, I do appreciate the feedback you've given, positive or negative. As the guy who assigns reviews around here, it's good to get a sense of what people think about the job we're doing.

I can come up with any number of reasons why we're later with this review or that review than the competition, but in the end, the reasons don't really matter to the average user, since you guys can't see the behind the scenes situations that lead to that stuff. To you guys, it's merely a matter of getting the information as soon as you can, and I get that.

I don't necessarily agree with some of the sentiments about relevance or lateness or whatnot, but as a whole, it's good to see both sides of the equation and know where the audience is coming from on this stuff. We're always looking to improve, and this info is useful. Thanks guys.

THE_DZA

Group hug, everyone!

Awwwww....

That tiger is huge :shock:gaminggeek

It looks really friendly.

[QUOTE="gaminggeek"]That tiger is huge :shock:SteelAttack

It looks really friendly.

Yeah, but when they're hungry... :o