Gamespot Still Biased Towards The pc?

This is an observation im sure others must have made over time.

I dont understand the review systemthey use for the pc compared to the consoles. In your recent pc reviews they have given games such as Crysis high reviews even though its a bug filled boring game thats a mix between far cry and max payne. They seem very rarely if ever mention the bugs and things in pc games but yet when its a console game its picked up on straight away and in some cases deducts points. E.g Mass Effect was given and 8.5, fair enough ive played it its a good game not a great game. But Assasins Creed is just horrible, on my ps3 i get the white screen of death and the other various bugs ps3 owners have but yet that game scores a 9 even though Ubisoft have even admitted it needs a patch fast as its bugs have made it broken. It seems if you make a game with great graphics you automaticaly get a 9.5 regardless of what the gameplay is like. Im not sure if its just me but shouldnt you be more critical on the PC games considering you have to pay around 3x or even 4x what it costs to play them on a console?!

I dont think your consistent with your reviews as in one review your praise the looks of the game and then criticise the gameplay but still give it a 9 score.... Shouldnt gameplay be the most important thing because if we wanted life like graphics why dont we just go outside? Graphics make it more believable but without a story thats good who cares what its like?

This is 2007 and the consoles are just as good as pc's so should be reviewed under the same rules in my opinion especially seeing as high end pc's cost a fortune to run and over looking bugs on that is kind of a joke.

Which Crysis bugs are you referring to? And have you played the full game?

Which Crysis bugs are you referring to? And have you played the full game?

IndianaJosh

i have played the full game, the bugs ive had range from getting a Cab file error upon install to treading on land mines that make no sound and wondering why im dying....the worst one being enemies would spawn on you like they came out of thin air..most of my bugs are sound lag bugs though and hopefully the patch will fix it. My point being we all know pc games will be patched, its how its always worked. The game gets released has issues and we wait for the patch and hope it fixes one of our problems. Shouldnt sites like gamespot be more critical on pc games that are released that are bug ridden/need a patch etc..?

Only if they experience those bugs. Otherwise how would they know about them?LordAndrew

well maybe they should run them on various pc's and see if they get any? The Crysis/Assasins Creed forums is full to the brim of people complaining about bugs, if you play a pc game and not experience any bugs especially in Crysis then you must have been lucky. Its the same with Assasins Creed, the game has lots of obvious problems but its ignored. They should get 3 or 4 people to review the game and get a average score and base the review on the collective experience. Because if the review is based on wether they got a bug or not then thats a bit unfair. Majority of games ive played on consoles have been fine, majority of games ive played on pc have been okay but few problems here or there.

Of course. It's painfully obvious.

They are, and it seems they always will be.

They should get 3 or 4 people to review the game and get a average score and base the review on the collective experience. Because if the review is based on wether they got a bug or not then thats a bit unfair.Makaatsu

Kevin's a terrible reviewer. IGN REVIEWS FTW (but I like gamespots forums more.) They give fair reviews.

Seems like you are also Biased towards consoles, you've pointed out a few myths that are total BS. 4x the money?! WTH is your source? I built my own computer for 450 bucks, that's about the cost of a PS3 or a 360 elite, and I can outperform those things by a longshot! I had my computer running some seriously high end games for about a decade, until Bioshock came around, THEN I had to upgrade, that's when I had to pay my 450, and now I'm playing "next gen" games such as Crysis like a dream (btw, Max Payne? WTF? There's nothing in Crysis anything LIKE Max Payne, Crysis is only SIMILIAR to Far Cry, your on an island, and you can go whereever you want, and handle any objective any way you want, and big frikin' deal, those are the jungle levels, there's still the zero gravity and ice levels, not to mention the new weapon customization, and no more BS Trigens or w/e. nanosuit is amazing too, and what's cool is that you aren't overpowered, it's a NECCESITY to survive.)

PC games and Console games are both treated unequally here, gamespots reviews really just suck, deal with it, it's not like you can change the way they think. A console game is easier to deal with, because people don't know about computer hardware and stuff, they just wanna buy something that plays games, and then plug it in. So when a console can't handle a frikin' game, it's a big deal! PC's on the other hand, are a "personal computer" that has been custom made, so the hardware could range from ANYTHING, and if you need to upgrade, then that's a totally different story from a game having a bug. If you don't have good hardware, then your game won't function properly, it doesn't mean the game has bugs though. Bugs get fixed very fast on PC too, they are easy to ignore, but a CONSOLE? Those were practically made so they could be no brainers for everyone! So when something isn't working, then it's something to complain about. Hell, they said Crysis is a serious system hog, and that's pretty much the only reason it didn't get a 10! Sure there isn't TDM, but with the PC mod community, it's gonna get a TDM sooner or later. Since Crysis is such a system hog on "very high" settings, they just said "it looks great on medium settings anyway, so play it on that!" not "OMG IT HAS A BUG, GIVE IT A 2!!!". There's no bias to either side, it's the reviewers fault. I'm gonna stop building more on this huge wall of text now.

I think gamespot are biased towards the highest bidder, not the pc.

In this industry a company like microsoft can easily give gamespot a phone call and "persuade" them to put up that high review score up, as im sure has been the case with UbiSoft and the rather poor assassins creed.

And I agree, Kevin is a pretty poor reviewer, next time before you read a review on gamespot, check the author and if its him then dont waste your time reading it.hama666

Secondly, I'm still not sure what qualifies Kevin as a 'poor reviews,' but I'm pretty sure that at this stage, there's nothing that could be said to convince you otherwise, since you and others are so deadset in accusing him of being a bad reviewer to justify your own preferences.

I have to say that you haven't made a single sensible point here. If anything, GameSpot treats PC games more critically than any other platform becuase the standards are higher, technology moves faster, and PC gamers are known to be the fussiest crowd around. Crysis is an awesome game. Deal with it.

lol @ the mod invasion, quick to defend their beloved gamespot.

[QUOTE="hama666"]I think gamespot are biased towards the highest bidder, not the pc.

In this industry a company like microsoft can easily give gamespot a phone call and "persuade" them to put up that high review score up, as im sure has been the case with UbiSoft and the rather poor assassins creed.

And I agree, Kevin is a pretty poor reviewer, next time before you read a review on gamespot, check the author and if its him then dont waste your time reading it.Skylock00

Secondly, I'm still not sure what qualifies Kevin as a 'poor reviews,' but I'm pretty sure that at this stage, there's nothing that could be said to convince you otherwise, since you and others are so deadset in accusing him of being a bad reviewer to justify your own preferences.

a) Of course I have no proof, but I have my reasons to think so, and it includes absurd ratings over "certain" games, but I wont mention which ones incase I get bombared with fanboys.

b) In my opinion hes a poor reviewer, doesnt do very well in balancing out his points, but again thats an opinion, respect where its due of course.

While I don't believe reviewers at GameSpot are paid off, there is evidence of that in the past. For example, if you look at Mark Ecko's game, GameSpot scored it WAY higher than anyone else, and there just so happened to be gigantic and long-running ads for the game all over the site.

Saying they were paid for any of the high-profile reviews they've done in the past few weeks is baseless, though; I do agree with that.

lol @ the mod invasion, quick to defend their beloved gamespot.

...

a) Of course I have no proof, but I have my reasons to think so, and it includes absurd ratings over "certain" games, but I wont mention which ones incase I get bombared with fanboys.

hama666

The userbase of sites like this simply need to get over being so focused on reviews and scores. It seems like the game industry is the only one where you get swarms of people getting worked up over a review, becuase it doesn't seem to happen in the likes of film, TV, Music, or otherwise.

[QUOTE="hama666"]

lol @ the mod invasion, quick to defend their beloved gamespot.

...

a) Of course I have no proof, but I have my reasons to think so, and it includes absurd ratings over "certain" games, but I wont mention which ones incase I get bombared with fanboys.

Skylock00

The userbase of sites like this simply need to get over being so focused on reviews and scores. It seems like the game industry is the only one where you get swarms of people getting worked up over a review, becuase it doesn't seem to happen in the likes of film, TV, Music, or otherwise.

I don't agree with him - you're right in that it's a fairly ridiculous stance - but there's something I'd like to add.

Like I just said, I wouldn't say GameSpot reviewers are being "paid off" because it really doesn't make much sense, not from any standpoint. However, there may be an indirect influence. For example, when I get a review copy well in advance for a game, I finid myself appreciating the effort the publisher took to send it to us ahead of time, and I often have to catch myself before I head into the review with a slightly slanted outlook. GameSpot employees deal with industry people all the time, and there are business relationships there. Maybe if they receive a game where a relationship isn't so solid, the reviewer - almost subconsciously - will go into the review with a pre-set negative outlook. And the reverse might be true for great business relationships. I know Ubisoft basically ignores us and won't send us review copies (no idea why), and when reviewing Assassin's Creed, I almost wanted to drop the game below a 9 because I don't like how that publisher does business. Of course, that'd be a stupid thing to do, but I'm human.

The GameSpot reviewers are human, too; with their own preferences and industry relationships as well. To say no outside factors ever influence a score of theirs is just being naive, IMO, but I would never say they were "paid off." That's just silly.

While I don't believe reviewers at GameSpot are paid off, there is evidence of that in the past. For example, if you look at Mark Ecko's game, GameSpot scored it WAY higher than anyone else, and there just so happened to be gigantic and long-running ads for the game all over the site.fathoms_basic

Lots of games that were heavily advertised on GameSpot got average to bad reviews. I think the Getting Up review is just a case of Jeff Gerstmann liking the game more than everyone else.

[QUOTE="fathoms_basic"]While I don't believe reviewers at GameSpot are paid off, there is evidence of that in the past. For example, if you look at Mark Ecko's game, GameSpot scored it WAY higher than anyone else, and there just so happened to be gigantic and long-running ads for the game all over the site.LordAndrew

Lots of games that were heavily advertised on GameSpot got average to bad reviews. I think the Getting Up review is just a case of Jeff Gerstmann liking the game more than everyone else.

Yeah. A LOT more.

Whats with all the hate for Gamespot reviews and specifically the reviews given by Kevin??? I think thst Kevin does a great job at reviewing games and balances his reviews very well noting good and bad points in the games he reviews.

Also so what if the game you like gets a good/bad review??? Surely you don't base the purchase of a game on the score or review it gets? If so then you need to stop this process and think for yourself if you want to purchase a game based on your own judgements and not the judgement of others.

If you don't like the way Gamespot reviews games then why bother reading or watching them? Why bother coming to the site and complaining about them? All you do is stress yourself out and thats never a good thing.

As for Gamespot being biased toward PC games the same could be said for Xbox360 games or games on other consoles and platforms. It's really a double edged sword when it comes to claiming a game review site is biased as the argument can be reversed.

Crysis having getting over a 90% rating from a majority of sites and a 9.5 here at Gamespot can't be cause it's a good game, rather, it must be some industry-wide conspiracy to be "biased" towards PC gaming :roll:.....give me a break.

As for Gamespot being biased toward PC games the same could be said for Xbox360 games or games on other consoles and platforms. It's really a double edged sword when it comes to claiming a game review site is biased as the argument can be reversed.

1005

Exactly.

There was actually talk about this in another thread.

It's ironic that a couple of weeks ago a certain PC RPG's score of 8.5 was greeted with acceptance, approval, and praise. Same thing with S.T.A.L.K.E.R. when it released, when it got an 8.5 here at Gamespot people anticipating that game for PC were simply happy that it turned out to be a good game after the long wait.

.....yet yesterday when another extremely hyped RPG gets an 8.5, it's greeted with claims of "bias" and disdain that it didn't recieve like a 9 or 9.5 or even a 10 here at Gamespot, despite the fact that pretty much all reviews across the web point out glaring flaws and bugs that this game has.

I don't agree with him - you're right in that it's a fairly ridiculous stance - but there's something I'd like to add.

Like I just said, I wouldn't say GameSpot reviewers are being "paid off" because it really doesn't make much sense, not from any standpoint. However, there may be an indirect influence. For example, when I get a review copy well in advance for a game, I finid myself appreciating the effort the publisher took to send it to us ahead of time, and I often have to catch myself before I head into the review with a slightly slanted outlook. GameSpot employees deal with industry people all the time, and there are business relationships there. Maybe if they receive a game where a relationship isn't so solid, the reviewer - almost subconsciously - will go into the review with a pre-set negative outlook. And the reverse might be true for great business relationships. I know Ubisoft basically ignores us and won't send us review copies (no idea why), and when reviewing Assassin's Creed, I almost wanted to drop the game below a 9 because I don't like how that publisher does business. Of course, that'd be a stupid thing to do, but I'm human.

The GameSpot reviewers are human, too; with their own preferences and industry relationships as well. To say no outside factors ever influence a score of theirs is just being naive, IMO, but I would never say they were "paid off." That's just silly.

fathoms_basic

Those things could have possible subconscious influences on a reviewer one way or another, and it could be unintentional, but it's at least more plausible of a stance than to claim that editors are being paid off by publishers.

it did say in the review that most pc's cant handle the full graphics capabilities of the game. if i read that i automatically assume that my pc is gonna get a lot of bugs if i dont have the right pc. maybe that is what happened with your experience. also this was kind of similar to fear where they did mention that you need a powerful pc to play it to the utmost.

gs does rate a lot of pc games high up there, but with the games they did rate, i dont think its biased as most if not all those games are great.

i think the rating system took a hit when they changed it. i think rhythm games and those that arent all into graphics should have this kind of rating systems. but if they combine the badge system and the component (i think that was what they called it) would have been perfect or have 2 different ones depending on what is relevant...but i think that was 2 much for gs...so henceforth i dont really know they came up with that score cuz those badges dont always mean higher score

[QUOTE="fathoms_basic"]

I don't agree with him - you're right in that it's a fairly ridiculous stance - but there's something I'd like to add.

Like I just said, I wouldn't say GameSpot reviewers are being "paid off" because it really doesn't make much sense, not from any standpoint. However, there may be an indirect influence. For example, when I get a review copy well in advance for a game, I finid myself appreciating the effort the publisher took to send it to us ahead of time, and I often have to catch myself before I head into the review with a slightly slanted outlook. GameSpot employees deal with industry people all the time, and there are business relationships there. Maybe if they receive a game where a relationship isn't so solid, the reviewer - almost subconsciously - will go into the review with a pre-set negative outlook. And the reverse might be true for great business relationships. I know Ubisoft basically ignores us and won't send us review copies (no idea why), and when reviewing Assassin's Creed, I almost wanted to drop the game below a 9 because I don't like how that publisher does business. Of course, that'd be a stupid thing to do, but I'm human.

The GameSpot reviewers are human, too; with their own preferences and industry relationships as well. To say no outside factors ever influence a score of theirs is just being naive, IMO, but I would never say they were "paid off." That's just silly.

Skylock00

Those things could have possible subconscious influences on a reviewer one way or another, and it could be unintentional, but it's at least more plausible of a stance than to claim that editors are being paid off by publishers.

Yeah, exactly. We may not be as big as GameSpot, but I know that nobody at PSXE in the history of that site has ever been approached with a bribe to give a game a certain review. I also know several other major critics in the industry - including Aaron Thomas; I took his job as E.I.C. at PSXE when he left for GameSpot - and I've never heard of this happening before. It just doesn't serve any real purpose and is counter-productive in the long run.

However, as we established, there are outside influences. They're unavoidable. The only backlash I've experienced over game review scores is publishers being more reluctant to send review copies when we slam their previous titles. So maybe it may be in some site's best interests to give a game a higher score, just because there may be the chance the publisher continues to send those early review copies. But I seriously doubt a site as huge as GameSpot has a significant problem with advance review copies, and as far as actual pay, being passed from publisher to source for a high score? I've never heard of it.

But I seriously doubt a site as huge as GameSpot has a significant problem with advance review copies..

fathoms_basic

So.. they're biased all of a sudden because of one game review?

[QUOTE="fathoms_basic"]

But I seriously doubt a site as huge as GameSpot has a significant problem with advance review copies..

Skylock00

Oh good. That makes me feel a little better. We're not the only ones who get shafted every now and then.:P