Im tired of these reviews.....

Okay, lets face it, not just gamespot, but the whole gaming community are mixed up when it comes to deciding how to rate a game. On one side of the coin a game will be praised for its gameplay even tho its story was either none existant, short, or just served as a conduit for the game play (I.E. killzone, Halo 3, DEMON'S SOULS). And on the other side, a game can have the best story, excellent gameplay, but some how they throw the favorite 8.7 or 9.0 at what should be 9.5 games for something like "screen tearing", texture pop-ins, and other irrelevant graphical glitches that no one even pays attention to.

Its like the reviewers forgot the importance of immersion, and story (unless, u know, Konami, and Rockstar games throws a little extra money in their pockets, they seems to remember how 10ish storyline is in a game). Like how does a half finished, retailed priced add-on like Halo: ODST score the same as a featured filled, storyline extravagant, universe ingenius, very original and creative game like Mass Effect 2? And how does Mass Effect ONLY get 9.0?

As a matter of fact, why do all the great games that came out in 2009 get a 9.0 from gamespot these days. Its like their being paid by Square Enix or some other big company to wait for their flagship titles to come out, just to dish something higher than a 9.0 to a game.

I mean come on, how does Modern Warefare 2, Mass Effect 2, Dirt 2, Assasin's Creed 2.......all get a 9.0.....and most of these titles are either because of the multiplayer, or because there was something very non-linear and deep about the game itself...

but however, a very linear game (great story, but very linear, from the approach of how the game can be played) with a sucky and shallow mutliplayer, Uncharted 2, gets a 9.5?

Like Mass Effect 2 is a fully featured, replayable, original, unique game........and Uncharted is...ya know, u beat it....and um ok....nice indian jones feel, ya know....but but....but...is it really better than MAss Effect 2

Like atleast IGN gives a break down of what they graded.....And their grades make sense....

What the hell does gamespot grade on?

It just doesn't make sense no more. I have never seen some much space between Review and User reviews in my life...

No I decide to take somewhat of a stand. Because reviews are very useful when deciding on buying a game. But when I buy one game thats rated higher than another but the lesser is wayyyyyyyyyyyyyy more worth the 65 bucks.....then i get pissed.

I agree. Some of the reviews are horrible. No way does Uncharted deserve a 9.5 while Mass Effect 2 gets a 9.Uncharted was some generic adventure game with forgetable characters. Some of the reviews just don't make any sense.

But when I buy one game thats rated higher than another but the lesser is wayyyyyyyyyyyyyy more worth the 65 bucks.....then i get pissed.

deedee_1

What do you mean ME2 "ONLY" got a 9.0? Do you even know what 9.0 means?

The GOTY 2009 got "only" a 9.0 Ugh, review score rants.

Whats wrong with asking the reviewers how do they grade games?

And 9.0 isn't so special anymore, because Halo: ODST and DIRT FREAKIN 2 got 9.0s

The whole sense of scaling is just off with Gamespot reviews. Do you even know why one games gets a higher score than another? There is just no concrete reasoning behind the reviews.

Whats wrong with asking the reviewers how do they grade games?

And 9.0 isn't so special anymore, because Halo: ODST and DIRT FREAKIN 2 got 9.0s

The whole sense of scaling is just off with Gamespot reviews. Do you even know why one games gets a higher score than another? There is just no concrete reasoning behind the reviews.

deedee_1

:roll: So you're just figured out that the numbers slapped onto the end of text reviews aren't scientifically precise?

Whats wrong with asking the reviewers how do they grade games?

And 9.0 isn't so special anymore, because Halo: ODST and DIRT FREAKIN 2 got 9.0s

The whole sense of scaling is just off with Gamespot reviews. Do you even know why one games gets a higher score than another? There is just no concrete reasoning behind the reviews.

Have you ever played Halo: ODST or DiRT 2? Maybe they deserve 9.0s? I know I rate games a lot higher than many of the critiques because I'm looking for fun and a good game, not necessarily the most awesomeness game to be ever released.muthsera666

[QUOTE="muthsera666"]Have you ever played Halo: ODST or DiRT 2? Maybe they deserve 9.0s? I know I rate games a lot higher than many of the critiques because I'm looking for fun and a good game, not necessarily the most awesomeness game to be ever released.Aneurysm_uk

I do agree that pointing out what constitutes to the final score is important (which is why my reviews, though unsegmented, feature a score for each core component), saying you're "tired" of reviews because of their scores is not a sound argument. So reviewers don't agree with you? So what? This Mass Effect 2 argument has gone way too far. Just because a game many people really like, and gets a 9.0 (a great score!) doesn't mean that Gamespot agrees. The core thing here is that no game is the same in structure. Fahrenheit, or Indigo Prophecy, has pretty much sub-par gameplay, which was clunky then and clunky now. However, it focuses on story and manages to put that in priority. Likewise, story isn't always the core component of a game. Demon's Souls doesn't really NEED a story, its atmosphere thrives on mystery and the gameplay elements are what makes the game unique. Likewise, Mario games are known for their incredible simplicity in story, but I don't think I'd be as interested if the game was bogged down with intelligent story mechanics.

Finally, I really don't like people saying linearity is a flaw. That's just ridiculous. If it's handled badly, then it's bad, but that goes with open-ended gameplay as well. If I mention a personal opinion, I feel Fallout 3's open nature really hurt the game, and resulted in me giving it a lower score than it would have had if it was a bit more focused. FFX is one of my favorite games, and it's completely linear. My favorite game of the year (and the RC and EC choice for GotY), is the almost completely linear Uncharted 2. And I thought the multiplayer was the best I've played, and I have CoD4: MW. It's all personal opinion, and honestly, you should base your purchases on what you think of the game in question. I tend to agree with GS 80-85% of the time, so that helps, but going on about how companies have bribed a certain site is petty and desperate. KH, my all-time favorite game, which I reviewed and gave a 10. GS gave it an 8.2, but am I complaining? No, that's what they thought of the game and did a good job to drive their points home. If you go on a personal vendetta against professional reviews...well, that's just a bit childish.

And giving endless games 9.5s isn't the way to go. I'm glad GS is reluctant about their 9.5s, I can't stand when review sites give games 9.5s for being simply great games. It has to be something pretty big. And 10s? I've only given two out of my 400 game collection, and I doubt that will be changing soon. They've only given six tens, and I appreciate that. It makes a point about their objectivity as reviewers. But that's just me.

and to award a game 10 out of 10, it has to be perfect, without flawAneurysm_uk

People would be disappointed because I thought a game was fun? What do they want out of a game, then?muthsera666

You misunderstand me. I mean it's likely they wouldn't be as blown away as you are by the games you love most because they're not you.

People need objective reviews of games to give them an indication of how likely it's going to appeal to them or not, which is what seems to be the argument going on - for and against - in this thread.

Whats wrong with asking the reviewers how do they grade games?

And 9.0 isn't so special anymore, because Halo: ODST and DIRT FREAKIN 2 got 9.0sdeedee_1

So a 9.0 means nothing now because you personally do not agree with those games getting those scores? The world doesn't revolve around your opinions. 9.0 doesn't mean anything to YOU. But really, I'm not sure anyone actually cares.

[QUOTE="Aneurysm_uk"]and to award a game 10 out of 10, it has to be perfect, without flawViewtifulScott

Exactly! A perfect game is an unachievable fact, since that would mean everyone regards it as so. Something perfect IS perfect, with no flaw, after all. There's no game that falls into that exact category.

Some people can't accept that games aren't perfect, and spit their dummies out when someone says that Halo 3 really didn't do anything for them.Aneurysm_uk

Sorry, but not liking a Halo game stopped being a special opinion worthy of any extra attention several years ago now.ViewtifulScott

Okay, lets face it, not just gamespot, but the whole gaming community are mixed up when it comes to deciding how to rate a game. On one side of the coin a game will be praised for its gameplay even tho its story was either none existant, short, or just served as a conduit for the game play (I.E. killzone, Halo 3, DEMON'S SOULS). And on the other side, a game can have the best story, excellent gameplay, but some how they throw the favorite 8.7 or 9.0 at what should be 9.5 games for something like "screen tearing", texture pop-ins, and other irrelevant graphical glitches that no one even pays attention to.

Its like the reviewers forgot the importance of immersion, and story (unless, u know, Konami, and Rockstar games throws a little extra money in their pockets, they seems to remember how 10ish storyline is in a game). Like how does a half finished, retailed priced add-on like Halo: ODST score the same as a featured filled, storyline extravagant, universe ingenius, very original and creative game like Mass Effect 2? And how does Mass Effect ONLY get 9.0?

As a matter of fact, why do all the great games that came out in 2009 get a 9.0 from gamespot these days. Its like their being paid by Square Enix or some other big company to wait for their flagship titles to come out, just to dish something higher than a 9.0 to a game.

I mean come on, how does Modern Warefare 2, Mass Effect 2, Dirt 2, Assasin's Creed 2.......all get a 9.0.....and most of these titles are either because of the multiplayer, or because there was something very non-linear and deep about the game itself...

but however, a very linear game (great story, but very linear, from the approach of how the game can be played) with a sucky and shallow mutliplayer, Uncharted 2, gets a 9.5?

Like Mass Effect 2 is a fully featured, replayable, original, unique game........and Uncharted is...ya know, u beat it....and um ok....nice indian jones feel, ya know....but but....but...is it really better than MAss Effect 2

Like atleast IGN gives a break down of what they graded.....And their grades make sense....

What the hell does gamespot grade on?

It just doesn't make sense no more. I have never seen some much space between Review and User reviews in my life...

deedee_1

Well, sometimes if they like a game or company, they focus on how great and cuddly it is. But, if they hate a company, then they say, "screw the graphics, story, and gameplay! I'll just give it a 2 for that 4 seconds of lag in the intro!"

[QUOTE="ViewtifulScott"] Sorry, but not liking a Halo game stopped being a special opinion worthy of any extra attention several years ago now.Aneurysm_uk

[QUOTE="muthsera666"]People would be disappointed because I thought a game was fun? What do they want out of a game, then?Aneurysm_uk

People need objective reviews of games to give them an indication of how likely it's going to appeal to them or not, which is what seems to be the argument going on - for and against - in this thread.

Personally, I feel that objective reviews with a bit of personal thought are far better than only objective. A game can be technically proficient, but if it doesn't have heart, then it might not be as good. Personal thoughts are required to know whether the heart it present or if it's technically sound.

I appreciate the point deedee_1 is making here.Aneurysm_uk

[QUOTE="Aneurysm_uk"]I appreciate the point deedee_1 is making here.ViewtifulScott

:D

You would atleast know if a game lacks replayability, I will rate it a tad bit lower...deedee_1

[QUOTE="deedee_1"]You would atleast know if a game lacks replayability, I will rate it a tad bit lower...muthsera666

IGN does it, and makes way more money than Gamespot lol.

Just don't pay attention to reviews, I stopped years ago. I've been really successful in just going with my gut feeling.Flame_Blade88

lol

. Like how does a half finished, retailed priced add-on like Halo: ODST score the same as a featured filled, storyline extravagant, universe ingenius, very original and creative game like Mass Effect 2? And how does Mass Effect ONLY get 9.0!! However, a very linear game (great story, but very linear, from the approach of how the game can be played) with a sucky and shallow mutliplayer, Uncharted 2, gets a 9.5?

Like Mass Effect 2 is a fully featured, replayable, original, unique game........and Uncharted is...ya know, u beat it....and um ok....nice indian jones feel, ya know....but but....but...is it really better than MAss Effect 2

Like atleast IGN gives a break down of what they graded.....And their grades make sense....

What the hell does gamespot grade on?

It just doesn't make sense no more. I have never seen some much space between Review and User reviews in my life...deedee_1

ODST is a halo game therefore it gets high ratings. Mass effect 2 is not all that things you mae it sound like, espeically ingenious. Also whats wrong with 9.0? Infact its a pretty high damn rating for a game that has less content than the previous and more of a shooter than rpg. Also a 9.0 is too much when you put other superior rpgs with more content next to mass effect like dragon age or fallout 3 or original games like the witcher!! Why the hell should mass effect 2 get more than uncharted 2 because its non linear?

Uncharted 2 makes the best compaign with its story and dialogue and level design and combat and climbing that are far better than mass effect 2! The story and characters in uncharted 2 are shown and told in a very cinematic way that attaracts the player. On the other hand mass effect is just dialogue choices with a default camera on the character's face. That alone lowers the story telling and cinematic perspective. If i had to choose between having an awesome character doing the talking while fighting and in some pretty funny and cool action cutscens and a generic shephard that waits for me to choose the dialogue option i wanna say so the director will take the godamn camera from my characte's face and put it on the character that is replying........well i would choose unchared 2!!

Anyway me2 does not even have multiplayer so why should we dislike uncharted 2 for having mp?

The best thing that one could do. Is to compair diffrent reviews for the same game. And get an total overview of the game in question. I never just read one magazines/game sites review any more. Im not going to name dropp any one...but some sites gives away very high grades to games which don´t deserv them.

I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you on one subject and that is Demon's souls. Demon's souls story may not be the focus of the game but it is there and not useless. How confused would you be if no one explained the Nexus, Archstones, The Old One, and so on and so forth? Probably very confused. Although i do agree with your reasoning on certain games getting great reviews when the deserve less and others getting mediocre reviews when they deserve more. I just don't think demon's souls needs to have it's story criticized when it plays an important role in the game.

While on occassion I may think a game may have been underrated for the vast majority though I find them to fall in line with my opinions so I don't have any problems with reviews myself.

[QUOTE="muthsera666"][QUOTE="deedee_1"]You would atleast know if a game lacks replayability, I will rate it a tad bit lower...deedee_1

IGN does it, and makes way more money than Gamespot lol.

But IGN's reviews aren't as good as GS's either, at least in my opinion. I can't trust IGN, just can't.

You only replied to an excerpt of Muthsera's very well written response, and did so in a rather infantile manner as well. What does money have to do with it?

[QUOTE="muthsera666"][QUOTE="deedee_1"]You would atleast know if a game lacks replayability, I will rate it a tad bit lower...deedee_1

Okay, lets face it, not just gamespot, but the whole gaming community are mixed up when it comes to deciding how to rate a game. On one side of the coin a game will be praised for its gameplay even tho its story was either none existant, short, or just served as a conduit for the game play (I.E. killzone, Halo 3, DEMON'S SOULS). And on the other side, a game can have the best story, excellent gameplay, but some how they throw the favorite 8.7 or 9.0 at what should be 9.5 games for something like "screen tearing", texture pop-ins, and other irrelevant graphical glitches that no one even pays attention to.

Its like the reviewers forgot the importance of immersion, and story (unless, u know, Konami, and Rockstar games throws a little extra money in their pockets, they seems to remember how 10ish storyline is in a game). Like how does a half finished, retailed priced add-on like Halo: ODST score the same as a featured filled, storyline extravagant, universe ingenius, very original and creative game like Mass Effect 2? And how does Mass Effect ONLY get 9.0?

As a matter of fact, why do all the great games that came out in 2009 get a 9.0 from gamespot these days. Its like their being paid by Square Enix or some other big company to wait for their flagship titles to come out, just to dish something higher than a 9.0 to a game.

I mean come on, how does Modern Warefare 2, Mass Effect 2, Dirt 2, Assasin's Creed 2.......all get a 9.0.....and most of these titles are either because of the multiplayer, or because there was something very non-linear and deep about the game itself...

but however, a very linear game (great story, but very linear, from the approach of how the game can be played) with a sucky and shallow mutliplayer, Uncharted 2, gets a 9.5?

Like Mass Effect 2 is a fully featured, replayable, original, unique game........and Uncharted is...ya know, u beat it....and um ok....nice indian jones feel, ya know....but but....but...is it really better than MAss Effect 2

Like atleast IGN gives a break down of what they graded.....And their grades make sense....

What the hell does gamespot grade on?

It just doesn't make sense no more. I have never seen some much space between Review and User reviews in my life...

deedee_1

I fully agree. Especially Gamespot has a tendency to focus too much on irrelevant glitches if they need an excuse to not give a game a 9 or higher. Creativity and originality are often overlooked. They're mentioned in the review, but in the overall grade, the matters that weigh most seem to be pure technical achievements (they are important, but not the entire game should be judged on them), but originality is rarely rewarded. Emphasis is only put on it when a technically outstanding game happens to be original as well (Metroid Prime, for example).

I think IGN does a slightly better job, although their problem is like Gamespot's: they jump the hype bandwagon just like all major websites, probably due to advertising money being involved. You can very clearly see in their review of Halo 2 that explicitly try to push the entire Xbox crowd towards the store to buy the game, while the game clearly isn't that enjoyable if you don't have Live (although they claimed otherwise). Therefore, sites such as IGN are directly responsible for people wasting their money, and believe me, I know of quite some people who've traded the game in after being disappointed by its short single player campaign and its cliffhanger ending.

You should know by now NOT to take any review serious.. especially from sites that give G.T.A.4 10/10 then openly admit that the game has some problems !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I've already discussed this topic with 2 other people today.

Reviews are guidelines. Not Gospel. Use them accordingly, decide for yourself as a gamer. Period the end.

I've already discussed this topic with 2 other people today.

Reviews are guidelines. Not Gospel. Use them accordingly, decide for yourself as a gamer. Period the end.

SemiMaster

Its not period, the end. They get paid for this job, and they are professionals. It would be nice to have a more clear and concise reviewing rubric for which they rate their games. You can't decide for yourself as the gamer unless you play the game first. Alot of people use the reviews as means to buy a game.

Example:

Alot of people didnt by King of Fighters 12 because it received bad reviews.

But just imagine if King of Fighters would of got the 9.0, a lot of people would of bought it, and then got pissed off.

Reception matters a lot.....

[QUOTE="deedee_1"][QUOTE="muthsera666"] Why must you rate it lower if there's no added incentive to play the game again? If the game is a good game, it possesses an ability toward replaying, regardless if there are any bonuses. If it wasn't that great of a game to begin with, then it wouldn't make sense to drop points because of no replay motivation when it didn't have play motivation. muthsera666

Because what you said didn't make sense as a counter argument. Replayability, is the ability of the game to be replayed, for those who are perfectionist......Even if the game sucks, somebody may want to get that platinum trophy. Of course if a game doesn't have anything you can go back and collect, or a fun multiplayer, then obviously if it has a bad linear story, then it will get low replayability.

So you prove my point in your own explanation. If a game is good, and or have multiple story paths, or fun collectables, the replayability will be high. If a game is bad, but yet has bonuses, it replaybility will still score points, but not so high. If a game sucks on all levels, then its replayability will be rendered a low score. There is still a mathmatical scale to the degree in which the users may desire to replay the game.

My point was, however, that whether you agree or disagree to my logic, my logic will be the same every time, and you can see how I came out with my final score. That is what Gamespot should do with their reviews, some sort of tangible guideline so we just don't think they slapped a number onto a game. So you even debating the point was mute....

while the game clearly isn't that enjoyable if you don't have Live (although they claimed otherwise)DraugenCP

Alot of people didnt by King of Fighters 12 because it received bad reviews.

But just imagine if King of Fighters would of got the 9.0, a lot of people would of bought it, and then got pissed off.

Reception matters a lot.....

deedee_1