Gamespot's top rated game!??!!

Ok get this!!!!! In it's history of rating games, Gamespot has only given out four ratings of "10"! Ok...so whats the big deal? Heres what those games are!!!!!!!!!!!

1. Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 3 (PS2) - Is this a joke!?!? WTF Tony Hawk!?!?! -

2. Chrono Cross (PS)

3. Soul Caliber (DC)

4. Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time (N64)

Now, out of my gaming history i can only agree that one of these games deserves a 10, which would be zelda. The fact that Tony Hawk got a 10 blows my mind.....Tony Hawk's Pro Skater was better than Gears of War? Better than Super Mario 64? Better than Resident evil 4? Better than Halo or Halo 2? Better than Metal Gear Solid or Devil May Cry? ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!?!?!? Oh yea, and Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2 also got a 9.9! WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF!!!!

I used to think of Gamespot reviews as worthy, but now that I see this information I am completely surprised.

--- If you want to access this information, just look up the top rated games of all time on the Gamespot home page ---

Um... chillax dude?

Anyone who's ever looked at the games list knows this, and knows that the rating system prior to 2000 I believe was a bit different in nature. But going on a quasi tirade won't change anything.

While this is hardly new material I will take this opportunity to opine that after THPS got a 10 there was so much blowback that I think it affected the overall review scoring of Gamespot, as since then GS scores average below that of a lot of their peers (which in my perspective is a good thing).aspro73

I think the event that spawned the single biggest change in the reviewing structure was the low review of Shenmue for the Dreamcast. It caused a bit of furor on Gamespot similar to the 8.8 given to Twilight Princess. Though it didn't bring the forums down (at least, I don't think it did), eventually the whole review was re-evaluated and it scored higher the second or third time around. There used to be a longer explanation at the end of the review for why it changed, but it's been shortened at this point. If I understand correctly, Kasavin made ita goal to revamp the standards behind the review process, and saw that process through.

Another controversy was Savage: The Battle of Newerthfor the PC. It was given a "fair" range score at one point, but there were accusations from the developers that the reviewer in question had only logged a few hours online for the game. The developers were supposedly able to see the exact time spent on the game during the life of the account, and then cried foul. Greg Kasavin then took it upon himself to completely re-review the game, and publically announced the reasons behind the re-review.

Personally, I always felt Kasavin gave that level of class to Gamespot in that way. If a real concern that compromised the integrity of the site came up, he was willingdeal with it appropriately.

[QUOTE="aspro73"]While this is hardly new material I will take this opportunity to opine that after THPS got a 10 there was so much blowback that I think it affected the overall review scoring of Gamespot, as since then GS scores average below that of a lot of their peers (which in my perspective is a good thing).m0zart

I think the event that spawned the single biggest change in the reviewing structure was the low review of Shenmue for the Dreamcast. It caused a bit of furor on Gamespot similar to the 8.8 given to Twilight Princess. Though it didn't bring the forums down (at least, I don't think it did), eventually the whole review was re-evaluated and it scored higher the second or third time around. There used to be a longer explanation at the end of the review for why it changed, but it's been shortened at this point. If I understand correctly, Kasavin made ita goal to revamp the standards behind the review process, and saw that process through.

Another controversy was Savage: The Battle of Newerthfor the PC. It was given a "fair" range score at one point, but there were accusations from the developers that the reviewer in question had only logged a few hours online for the game. The developers were supposedly able to see the exact time spent on the game during the life of the account, and then cried foul. Greg Kasavin then took it upon himself to completely re-review the game, and publically announced the reasons behind the re-review.

Personally, I always felt Kasavin gave that level of class to Gamespot in that way. If a real concern that compromised the integrity of the site came up, he was willingdeal with it appropriately.

Thanks for that summary, I found it very interesting, particularly about BoN for PC. I was playing a game recently for which I read many reviews, all of which gave it mediocre for very specific reasons, reasons which happen to go away after the first 4 hours of play. That made me wonder how long reviewers (in the current environment) can dedicate to a single game. Thanks again. I agree about Kasavin.

Um... chillax dude?

Anyone who's ever looked at the games list knows this, and knows that the rating system prior to 2000 I believe was a bit different in nature. But going on a quasi tirade won't change anything.

AHAHA thats cute you have a large vocabulary.

SemiMaster

[QUOTE="SemiMaster"]

Um... chillax dude?

Anyone who's ever looked at the games list knows this, and knows that the rating system prior to 2000 I believe was a bit different in nature. But going on a quasi tirade won't change anything.tenczas9

AHAHA thats cute you have a large vocabulary.

Are you saying that Gears of War should be up there? :shock:RK-Mara

[QUOTE="tenczas9"][QUOTE="SemiMaster"]

Um... chillax dude?

Anyone who's ever looked at the games list knows this, and knows that the rating system prior to 2000 I believe was a bit different in nature. But going on a quasi tirade won't change anything.tenczas9

AHAHA thats cute you have a large vocabulary.

More Importantly, Gamespot has only given out one 1.0

Big Rigs Over the Road Racing

Which is highly considered the best game ever here on Gamespot.

well compared to thps2, 3 was flawless and a HUGE upgrade so i guess it gets a ten, but i know what u mean how come games that are better than THPS3 dont get better ratings, have u seen the rating for MGS3!!!!? outrageoushyperbomb180

I think Gamespot reviews have been below the average of their peers ever since the site's inception. If anything, they were the most harsh when the site first started. Back then games got panned for being derivative. The editors are far more forgiving of formulaic games today. (asis the gaming public)dchan01

Ain't that the truth. Some people should look at early Gamespot reviews for console games. They are exceptionally brutal and well below the average for what many consider classics nowadays.

I know people complain about this "problem", as I did ages ago, but the review process was far different then. Regardless, you can't look at a game from 2000 getting a 9 and compare to to a game in 2007 getting a 9. Different timeframe, different standards, different reviewers (and even if the same, attitudes, personalities and preferences change).

To it's credit, and giving the devil his due, Kasavin really brought Gamespot to a good standard. Back in the day, the site was incredibly harsh and then it seemed to do a 180 around the time of 1999-2002 where everything (including absolute dreadful garbage like State of Emergency) was declared awesome for no other reason than to do so. But over the past few years the site has finally found it's standards and usually are spot on.

Except for where Gerstmann is involved. His utter bias (good or bad) on everything he reviews or talks about is disconcerting. It's no surprise than anything reviewed by him is what generally gets contested and argued over.

Shame is though, Kasavin's gone and you can see what his absense has done to the site over the past few months. Seems like Gamespot's on a downward trend right now. Heck, I'm not even sure who's in charge anymore.