Gamespot's reviews?

I think they're trying to spread out the scores more to make better use of the 1-10 scale. Gaming sites regularly hand out scores between 7-10, with anything lower being considered absolute trash and even games score 7-8 are often called "flops". Gamespot seems to be trying to change that a bit, as you may have noticed with many games scoring in the 7ish range lately (from what I've seen). Personally I'm in favor of this as in the past the scale has been used poorly.

They might be quite critical, but I'd rather have a reviewer be overly critical of a game than one that isn't critical enough.

Like the person above said, they're actually using the 1-10 scale. Most sites could just use a 5 star rating system, as they never use the lower range of the 1-10 scale. That said, the reviews are becoming more critical, which is usually a good thing. Though, sometimes it seems like they become not so much critical but more so obsessed with things that don't matter, such as the only thing in the bad category for Sleeping Dogs being "Artificial-looking character models and animations." I'm sure that can't be the only thing to make it an 8/10, but it's harped on so much in the review that it gets annoying (granted, it's kind of true, as I have the game and the facial animations aren't anything to brag about, but to mainly focus on that just comes off as an annoying review, though not as poorly written as IGN's Darksiders II review, which basically said it's not Zelda so it sucks and here are all the things I like more about Zelda).

Granted, you are somewhat right about games with hype getting better scores, but it's still opinion, so they may think they deserve the scores (i.e. I don't think RDR should have a 9.5 as it was just a giant world with little to do other than the main story and Dark Souls has more framerate issues than Skyrim and I find it less balanced than Demon's Souls but it scored higher than both of those games). Still, it's nice to see they at least realize they have a full 1-10 scale to use.

Made this in MS paint in like 3 minutes so excuse the crapulence. Hope it explains things for you though.

I haven't read a Gamespot review in ages. They basically fall into two categories:

1) AAA franchise sequels get reviews that sound like they were run past the game's publisher for approval before they appear on the site.

2) New IP's / lesser known / less popular games get reviews that sound like the guy didn't even want to play them, but had to because it was his job.

Oh sure there are a few exceptions to that rule, but you can count them on the fingers of one hand. With reviews like that, I might as well just walk into Gamestop and buy whatever's got the biggest display in the front of the store - because that's exactly what they always recommend.

I haven't read a Gamespot review in ages. They basically fall into two categories:

1) AAA franchise sequels get reviews that sound like they were run past the game's publisher for approval before they appear on the site.

2) New IP's / lesser known / less popular games get reviews that sound like the guy didn't even want to play them, but had to because it was his job.

Oh sure there are a few exceptions to that rule, but you can count them on the fingers of one hand. With reviews like that, I might as well just walk into Gamestop and buy whatever's got the biggest display in the front of the store - because that's exactly what they always recommend.

Jackc8

It would be best to ignore the number and focus on the written review as it shows how a reviewer thinks about a game. Personally, I find some of GameSpot's written reviews questionable because some of them focus on things that are irrelevant or trivial. These things are not important and a waste of review space. A written review should focus on the major points and what readers need to know.

Let me put it to you this way.

A review is basically someone's opinion while offering a general description of the game. They talk about it from their point of view and they tell you what it felt like to them. The problem is, no matter how intelligent or dumb they come off in the review, you can't trust them at all. Why? Because their experience is vastly different from your experience. In other words, how they played it or what they felt from their time with the game isn't the same for both factors. That's why I do not let those reviews influence my choices in gaming anymore. As great as it is to hear about the game, it won't be enough for you. They tell you that it's good or bad and explain why, in their point of view. But the truth is, you don't know that for a fact that it's good or bad. So the only way to discover the truth is to play it for yourself, whether it's through a demo or getting a full taste of the retail product.

That's how I go about with my gaming. Whether it's good or bad, I alone decide what's good or bad by playing it. Once I played it and get to know pretty well, then I can ultimately judge the product. And even then, you shouldn't be listening to me or anyone else, because what we say about it won't make a damn difference in the end. I told someone else this recently; DO NOT trust or go to reviews for your purchases or what you feel. You do that by trying out the product and getting the verdict all on your own.

Well, as far as their scores go, I think they're fairly balanced. According to Metacritic, 45% of their score are above that of the average critic score, and 49% below. I've read reviews that I thought were well-written and fairly backed up the writer's opinion, while others seem to get nit-picky about small things and sometimes even give me the impression that they were just bad at the game. One such example was the Infamous 2 review in which the author complained about the combat being "unbalanced" and also about how the screen turned black and white when your health got low. The review for the first game didn't bring up either of these points, despite the both reviews coming from the same author. And the second game was definitely not any more difficult than the first. In all, I don't pay too much attention to GameSpot's reviews except in a few cases like the one previously mentioned, but in the end it's just one person's opinion, which seems to have more of an impact on people than it should, as it's your opinion that should be the only one that matters.

i think gamespot's reviews are more critical overall than most major review sites, which i dont think is a bad thing. however, ive noticed 2 things:

1) while this isnt a rule set in stone, there are some reviewers here that review popular games while others review less well known games. chris waters and kevin van ord review a lot of shooters and big rpg's (obviously popular genres) and they are less critical as reviewers than tom mcshea, who does a lot of lesser known games.i see that as differing review sty|es than any agenda for or against certain games.

2) the other thing, and i dont think this is just gamespot, is that reviewers tend to be more favorable to games that are extremely polished but unambitious. so sequels (generally more popular) that do little but hone what they did in the last entry are more likely to get positive reviews than a game with an original vision and a lot of personality that doesnt sharpen everything to a factory edge.

so madden 13 just came out and most reviewers agree that it made little or no advancement from last year. it may not be broken, but thats because EA has been polishing the same game yearly for a long time. ill read the reviews and think it sounds like a bore. of course, the reviews are so focused on whats not broken that they give the bottom line score as "good."

personally, ill take the "less polished" game any day if it does something interesting.

Let me put it to you this way.

A review is basically someone's opinion while offering a general description of the game. They talk about it from their point of view and they tell you what it felt like to them. The problem is, no matter how intelligent or dumb they come off in the review, you can't trust them at all. Why? Because their experience is vastly different from your experience. In other words, how they played it or what they felt from their time with the game isn't the same for both factors. That's why I do not let those reviews influence my choices in gaming anymore. As great as it is to hear about the game, it won't be enough for you. They tell you that it's good or bad and explain why, in their point of view. But the truth is, you don't know that for a fact that it's good or bad. So the only way to discover the truth is to play it for yourself, whether it's through a demo or getting a full taste of the retail product.

That's how I go about with my gaming. Whether it's good or bad, I alone decide what's good or bad by playing it. Once I played it and get to know pretty well, then I can ultimately judge the product. And even then, you shouldn't be listening to me or anyone else, because what we say about it won't make a damn difference in the end. I told someone else this recently; DO NOT trust or go to reviews for your purchases or what you feel. You do that by trying out the product and getting the verdict all on your own.

Metamania

[QUOTE="Metamania"]

Let me put it to you this way.

A review is basically someone's opinion while offering a general description of the game. They talk about it from their point of view and they tell you what it felt like to them. The problem is, no matter how intelligent or dumb they come off in the review, you can't trust them at all. Why? Because their experience is vastly different from your experience. In other words, how they played it or what they felt from their time with the game isn't the same for both factors. That's why I do not let those reviews influence my choices in gaming anymore. As great as it is to hear about the game, it won't be enough for you. They tell you that it's good or bad and explain why, in their point of view. But the truth is, you don't know that for a fact that it's good or bad. So the only way to discover the truth is to play it for yourself, whether it's through a demo or getting a full taste of the retail product.

That's how I go about with my gaming. Whether it's good or bad, I alone decide what's good or bad by playing it. Once I played it and get to know pretty well, then I can ultimately judge the product. And even then, you shouldn't be listening to me or anyone else, because what we say about it won't make a damn difference in the end. I told someone else this recently; DO NOT trust or go to reviews for your purchases or what you feel. You do that by trying out the product and getting the verdict all on your own.

godzillavskong

I've seen it happen before in other publications. A publication, like Gamepro, would rate some really good games low and bad games high. I'll never understand it, but I was in a different frame of mind back then.

If you ignore the scores and just focus on the contents of the reviews you'll be much better served.

Gamespots reviews are like everyone elses,one persons thoughts on any given game.I know what I like in games so the only point to them for me is to see if the given game has any bad technical problems,but even then I will mostly ignore that if I like the look of the game.

[QUOTE="Jackc8"]

I haven't read a Gamespot review in ages. They basically fall into two categories:

1) AAA franchise sequels get reviews that sound like they were run past the game's publisher for approval before they appear on the site.

2) New IP's / lesser known / less popular games get reviews that sound like the guy didn't even want to play them, but had to because it was his job.

Oh sure there are a few exceptions to that rule, but you can count them on the fingers of one hand. With reviews like that, I might as well just walk into Gamestop and buy whatever's got the biggest display in the front of the store - because that's exactly what they always recommend.

godzillavskong

Any examples? I think most games reviewed here are scored fairly enough.