Gamespot's opinions on familiarity...

OK, this has me baffled for a long while, so I wanted to birng it up.

Before anyone jumps down my throat, I know that it is simply one person's opinion. I also know that it is not the opinion of the collective team as a whole over at Gamespot.

Adding to that is that I've played Gears Of War 3 extensively and am thrilled with the demo for Forza Motorsport 4. Both games are amazing.

That being said, it is baffling to me that Gamespot gives Gears Of War 3 a free pass and a very high score, despite the fact that the game is all too familiar from the first two games. There hasn't been any significant changes or improvements, just a few big tweaks here and there, but it's been the same game we've played. So it gets a 9.5...and yet, a game like Forza 4 gets dropped to an 8.5 because it's all too familiar?

That's something I'll never understand; you can improve a game and do well, but it has to stick with the basic formula to be a success. There's so much you can do, but you gotta spice it up a bit, something that the campaign failed to do in Gears Of War 3, despite a few vehicular sequences in the game, and the modes have largely remained the same. Forza 4 is a sports sim and since we all know that sports games are the same, they should get better and better, but stick to the script. So why the low score for Forza 4 and the high score for Gears 3 if both games are completely familiar and have been done before?

I'll never understand that...

It's just opinions man.

From the perspective of a racing non-fan, who can't really appreciate the difference, all the Forzas look alike to me.

It's like alright....cars.... more cars...more cars....

At least with Gears, you have a different plot each time, even tho it's more or less the same crap.

I think scores in general are too high, devs are producing the same trash every year, people are buying it, and giving it 9.0 or 9.5 or 10.

Gears 3 in no way shape or form deserves higher than an 8 (and that's just for being superbly polished.)

Innovative games deserve higher scores.

Games that don't just abuse the public hunger for [AnyShooter 2011]

I've come to the point where I hate my 360 for having a controller with nice triggers, because it encourages devs to only make the same boring crap, and sites like Gamespot and IGN consistently give them good scores because there's nothing else out there.

That's because Gamespot loves to overrate games every now and then, Gears 3 is no exception.

Honestly, I'm of the opinion that games should be rated on an individual basis. What if a person hasn't played the other games in a series before? Would they care that it plays too similarly to it's predecessors?

I think games should be rated on an individual basis and you can only ever take online reviews as guidelines.

That being said however the reason why I think Gears deserved it's 9.5 is that it polished the game to perfection, gave it a deserving story and ending (Albeit cliche, but that's what Gears is about), and created fantastic visuals. In my opinion some of the best visuals in a game ever.

The gameplay didn't need to change to much; it already worked extremely well. So what they did with Gears 3 is they took Gears 2 which was already amazing and then they made everything outside of core gameplay and made it run smoother, look nicer and feel fluider. If Gears 2 is worth an 8 Gears 3 should easily get a 9/10. Sure they didn't add anything spectacular in, but they didn't need to because they had such a good groundwork already.

That's because Gamespot loves to overrate games every now and then, Gears 3 is no exception.

S0lidSnake

But Gears 3's campaign, while solid, was slow-paced and not varied a lot, except in a few spots. Again, we've been playing the same game since the first, so if I was in Chris's shoes, I would have given the game at least a 8.5. But a 9.5 for Gears 3, even though it's familiar? Shame. So to give a game like Forza 4, which has outdone its predecessor in many ways, gets an 8.5 because "it's a little too familiar." Such BS!

I suppose this thread really isn't for people like me anyway, but I just don't really care what a video game reviewer says. There are no prerequisites or accreditations for becoming a video game reviewer, so essentially, they're just (hopefully) well-written opinions. I can find a thousand of those surfing forums without any more or less possibility of secondary motives being at play behind those opinions.

I will say that one advantage "professional" reviewers enjoy is that they have a body of work for me to use as historical evidence to see if I've agreed with their opinions in the past. For example, there is one reviewer here at Gamespot that I believe just has flat terrible taste in games, and what he scores high, I usually find milquetoast at best. I don't even bother to read those reviews. In the past, there have been others that I found I agreed with more consistently, although I still don't really care what their opinion is on games and feel they have no more authority on the quality of a title than your average forum troll.

Basically, I think technology and time are making game reviewers increasingly obsolete.

It definitely is interesting how absurdly GS bounces around on certain subjects. Some games get punished for being "too familiar", while others that are too familiar are given a pass. Some games are docked points for punishing difficulty, Dark/Demons Souls takes it to a new level and gets REWARDED for it. Some games are punished for niggling technical problems like framerate dips, others have it ignored completely. (again, Dark Souls) They need to learn to apply their standards universally, across the board. As is though, they send a mixed signal.

"We don't like it when games are too much like what came before, we want more original.... OHH! GEARS OF WAR! HELL YEAH! 9.5!!!!"

Well I can agree that there seems to be a double standard at times. But in the end I believe Forza 4 didn't need to be made. Do I really need another Sim Racing title? Nope. I have GT5 and Forza 3, that is enough for now. Sports titles should only be released every 3 or 4 years in my view. I still ain't finished with either GT5 or Forza 3. And how come I put in all this work on Forza 3 and they just go and make another and don't even let me carry all my crap over.

Gran Turismo got it right... 2 titles per console generation. Turn 10 and Microsoft need to learn from that. I in no way need 3 or 4 GT or Forza games per gen.

That's because Gamespot loves to overrate games every now and then, Gears 3 is no exception.

S0lidSnake

Gears 3 isn't overrated by any means.

It's probably the most polished and viscerally satisfying third person shooter ever made.

I'd actually postulate that Gears 3 is about as close to perfection as the genre has come thus far.

[QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]

That's because Gamespot loves to overrate games every now and then, Gears 3 is no exception.

Grammaton-Cleric

Gears 3 isn't overrated by any means.

It's probably the most polished and viscerally satisfying third person shooter ever made.

I'd actually postulate that Gears 3 is about as close to perfection as the genre has come thus far.

If Repitition is perfection then yes, you're right because Gears 3 SP was repititive from start to finish.

[QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]

That's because Gamespot loves to overrate games every now and then, Gears 3 is no exception.

Metamania

But Gears 3's campaign, while solid, was slow-paced and not varied a lot, except in a few spots. Again, we've been playing the same game since the first, so if I was in Chris's shoes, I would have given the game at least a 8.5. But a 9.5 for Gears 3, even though it's familiar? Shame. So to give a game like Forza 4, which has outdone its predecessor in many ways, gets an 8.5 because "it's a little too familiar." Such BS!

I'd be okay with an 8-8.5 for Gears.

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]

[QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]

That's because Gamespot loves to overrate games every now and then, Gears 3 is no exception.

S0lidSnake

Gears 3 isn't overrated by any means.

It's probably the most polished and viscerally satisfying third person shooter ever made.

I'd actually postulate that Gears 3 is about as close to perfection as the genre has come thus far.

If Repitition is perfection then yes, you're right.

Repetition is a large component of any shooter and the vast majority of games in general. What matters is that the activity repeated is executed well enough to be continually engaging. Gears certainly recycles its components but those components are top shelf.

So out of curiosity, will you be as critical when Uncharted 3 comes out? The Uncharted series is incredibly repetitious and basically follows a very formulaic pattern of large, impressive set pieces mixed with scripted events and LOTS of shooting.

Don't get me wrong, I think the series is fantastic, but if you want to call out Gears as being fundamentally flawed based on the criticism of repetition (which for the record I don't think is a flaw at all) then Uncharted certainly deserves to be similarly derided. Certainly we can agree that Uncharted is nothing more than the same basic actions (platforming, cover and shoot) over and over again.

Repetition is a large component of any shooter and the vast majority of games in general. What matters is that the activity repeated is executed well enough to be continually engaging. Gears certainly recycles its components but those components are top shelf.

So out of curiosity, will you be as critical when Uncharted 3 comes out? The Uncharted series is incredibly repetitious and basically follows a very formulaic pattern of large, impressive set pieces mixed with scripted events and LOTS of shooting.

Don't get me wrong, I think the series is fantastic, but if you want to call out Gears as being fundamentally flawed based on the criticism of repetition (which for the record I don't think is a flaw at all) then Uncharted certainly deserves to be similarly derided. Certainly we can agree that Uncharted is nothing more than the same basic actions (platforming, cover and shoot) over and over again.

Grammaton-Cleric

If Uncharted 3 forgoes impressive setpieces, throws waves after waves of enemies at me (like in Uncharted Drake's Fortune) and relies on-rail sequences for variety then yes, I will be critical of it.

See Gears 2 already perfected the Gears formula. You fight against smart enemy AI that never overstay their welcome. The vehicle sequences actually allowed you to control the vehicles. There were many new weapons and the level design made sure you used them. The variety came in the form of boss fights, vehicle sequences and locations. You went underground, inside a giant centipede, and then finally in the heart of locust civilization. Gears 3 felt like we were just visiting locations we had already visited in Gears 1, using the same weapons and for some reason barely fighting any bosses. Above all, the lack of any vehicle sequences really didn't make any sense after the awesome tank and Brumak sequences in Gears 2.

Regardless, Gears 2 had more boss fights, more and bigger setpieces that all kept the cover based shooting segments from getting stale. Which is why precisely why Gears 3 SP feels like a step back.

ND also perfected the Uncharted formula with Uncharted 2. So now if they go back to Uncharted DF and throw waves after waves of enemies at me, instead of giviing me bigger and better setpieces then I would say they have taken a step back. Out of curiosity, what do you think Epic has done here with the SP campaign that is better than Gears 2? Aside from the storytelling, I cant think of a single thing.

Forza 4 and Gears 3 were reviewed by different persons.IronBass

Read what I said in my OP (original post). I know that it came from two different people and that it isn't the collective opinion of a team, but the way they pass off familiarity in one game and then mark off points for another game because it's "all too familiar" is screwed up.

Read what I said in my OP (original post). I know that it came from two different people and that it isn't the collective opinion of a team, but the way they pass off familiarity in one game and then mark off points for another game because it's "all too familiar" is screwed up.Metamania

There is no real criteria reviewers have to follow. It all comes down to who wants to mention what in any review. One reviewer may mention being familiar while another wont. At the end of the day its all opinion & dont think their opinion is any better than yours or mine.

Game reviewers do not understand game design. Sometimes a games potential whether it be in the gameplay, or whatever has been fully realized. Sequels aren't about adding gameplay elements, they're about making a better game with each iteration. Its a trial& error, very slow process. its about making the story, pacing, variety, mission structure, cinematics, etc, better. That is always the focus. Games evolve at a slow pace. That is why they are "familiar"

Being familiar is what makes a sequel a sequel. You cant bag on a game for that. You can bag on the game for being worse than its predecessor. If the games pacing, variety, story, characters, etc arent as good as the former iteration you can bag on that. Familiarity though comes with making better versions of a past game [sequels]. You cannot bag on that.

Also have to say i would never have bagged on GOW3 for"familiarity", or any game for that matter. It was the fact that the story, characters, pacing, variety, mission structure were terrible. GOW2 was better in every way. GOW3 did not deserve any of the praise its gotten. Actually the whole series is pretty bad in my opinion.

Anyways reviewers need to drop this "familiar" thing & stick to "is this game better than the last game", whether they feel its familiar or not is irrelevent.

I like to know if there are bugs, glitches, etc in a review, with obvious flaws mentioned. Then I take it to forums online to see a regular gamer's persepective. Then you can decide if it is a rent or buy. Familiarity should be thrown in for all sequels, but if not enough steps to outdo the original game should add/take from the score.

OK, this has me baffled for a long while, so I wanted to birng it up.

Before anyone jumps down my throat, I know that it is simply one person's opinion. I also know that it is not the opinion of the collective team as a whole over at Gamespot.

Adding to that is that I've played Gears Of War 3 extensively and am thrilled with the demo for Forza Motorsport 4. Both games are amazing.

That being said, it is baffling to me that Gamespot gives Gears Of War 3 a free pass and a very high score, despite the fact that the game is all too familiar from the first two games. There hasn't been any significant changes or improvements, just a few big tweaks here and there, but it's been the same game we've played. So it gets a 9.5...and yet, a game like Forza 4 gets dropped to an 8.5 because it's all too familiar?

That's something I'll never understand; you can improve a game and do well, but it has to stick with the basic formula to be a success. There's so much you can do, but you gotta spice it up a bit, something that the campaign failed to do in Gears Of War 3, despite a few vehicular sequences in the game, and the modes have largely remained the same. Forza 4 is a sports sim and since we all know that sports games are the same, they should get better and better, but stick to the script. So why the low score for Forza 4 and the high score for Gears 3 if both games are completely familiar and have been done before?

I'll never understand that...

Metamania

I don't think it makes sense to get hung up on numerical scores (game reviews are art, not science). I also believe that 'more of the same' is a compliment if a reviewer is a fan and an insult if the reviewer is not.

That's just the subjective nature of reviews at work. What one person may find great because it's more of the same, another might find boring for that exact reason. I just wish reviewers would make it a point to explain why more of the same is bad thing. I can't remember the last time I read that in a review where it was a justified argument.

OK, this has me baffled for a long while, so I wanted to birng it up.

Before anyone jumps down my throat, I know that it is simply one person's opinion. I also know that it is not the opinion of the collective team as a whole over at Gamespot.

Adding to that is that I've played Gears Of War 3 extensively and am thrilled with the demo for Forza Motorsport 4. Both games are amazing.

That being said, it is baffling to me that Gamespot gives Gears Of War 3 a free pass and a very high score, despite the fact that the game is all too familiar from the first two games. There hasn't been any significant changes or improvements, just a few big tweaks here and there, but it's been the same game we've played. So it gets a 9.5...and yet, a game like Forza 4 gets dropped to an 8.5 because it's all too familiar?

That's something I'll never understand; you can improve a game and do well, but it has to stick with the basic formula to be a success. There's so much you can do, but you gotta spice it up a bit, something that the campaign failed to do in Gears Of War 3, despite a few vehicular sequences in the game, and the modes have largely remained the same. Forza 4 is a sports sim and since we all know that sports games are the same, they should get better and better, but stick to the script. So why the low score for Forza 4 and the high score for Gears 3 if both games are completely familiar and have been done before?

I'll never understand that...

Metamania

I haven't played Forza 4 at length, but here are some reasons I can think of, off the top of my head, as to why Gears 3 deserves a 9.5

-The additon of 4-player co-op to the campaign

-Arcade Mode For the campaign

-Campaign Leaderboards

-Drastically improved Horde mode including fortifications, levels, and mutators.

-Fun-as-hell Beast Mode (with 4-player co-op)

-New and great Weapons (all modes)

-MANY new enemy types that require different strategies than Gears has even seen

-Fewer Vehicle Segments (which was intentional.. Epic has said it wanted to bring Gears back to it's roots)

-More emotional gravity to the story

-Ice-T

-Satisfying conclusion to the saga that answers pretty much all questions

-Superb overhaul of every aspect of gameplay in terms of polish

-One of the most complete and generous entertainment packages seen this generation (Don't believe me? Name another game this year with as many modes, as much replay, or as much polish as Gears 3. Thanks).