Is Gamespot getting a little more harsh?

this is nothing against gamespot. Its just I've noticed that they've become a little more harsh on games lately. It may be part of the new rating system, I like the new voting system and how there are the icons for whats good and bad but the .5 scale makes it harder to gauge new games to old ones. Has anyone noticed this? Also games that are old school are getting horrible ratings on new platforms and I know change and progress is good but why rule out the old. I use the ratings as guidelines not the final word, but I still am curious if anyone else noticed the lower scores.

this is nothing against gamespot.Its just I've noticed that they've become a little more harsh on games lately. It may be part of the new rating system, I like the new voting system and how there are the icons for whats good and bad but the .5 scale makes it harder to gauge new games to old ones. Has anyone noticed this? Also games that are old school are getting horrible ratings on new platforms and I know change and progress is good but why rule out the old. I use the ratings as guidelines not the final word, but I still am curious if anyone else noticed the lower scores.

Limp_Laky

Old games are getting bad ratings not because they don't live up to today's standards in terms of Graphics and Sound but they are judged on how well they stood the test of time and on how fun they are to play. You got to remember that it's harder to review old games as you've got to think of how they compared to games back in the day.

Well if a game that would have scored a 7.7 now gets 7.5 instead then techincally yes it looks like a lower score but it really means the same thing in the end. Numbers are big and bright and in your face but I think the actual reviews have remained fairly consistent, and that's what I personally go by more than the score awarded. Reviewers should be tough when so many games are released and with the incredible hype/PR machines behind the big ones trying to influence perception and review scores.

There's always dissapointment floating around when a highly anticipated or a classic title scores, say, a 8.0 even if 8.0 by Gamespot's definition still means 'Great.' With a .5 scale in place I'm glad they're awarding 6's and 7's to games that are probably still worth purchasing despite some problems - use the whole specturm, I say.

Everyone moans when a game gets like 8.5 or TP getting 8.8 and more recently Bioshokc getting 9.0. Apparently these reviews are too low but obviously they never read the Gamespot review guidelines and 5 being Average and 8+ being nearly perfect.

I can't say I'm fond of the .5 scale, but Gamespot has always been stingy about handing out the Editors Choice Awards (9.0 and above). I like that. It leaves room for truly outstanding games. Too many sites hand out high scores right and left. IMO that muddies the water and the outstanding games don't stick out as they should.duxup

Agreed.

well what I mean is like PSU last year didnt do well cause well ya its not great and the content was lacking then but mostly because it was a PSO remake basically same gameplay GS decided wasnt up to snuff and rated it low even though it is a really fun game. Or so far in Blue Dragon, I havnt had this much fun in a game for years and yet it got a 6 and my guess is part of it is cause a lot of people are saying gameplay is like FF7, not bad just not an improvement. That and the anime style graphics I believe. Thats more what I meant, new games coming out in style of older ones arent being appreciated IMO but maybe its just me, I havnt agreed with GS on losta RPG decisions for years.Limp_Laky

I would counter that with, what's really so bad about a 6.0 being a score for a title worth buying for its intended audience? Maybe Blue Dragon isn't an RPG that transcends the genre and the reviewer took issue with the generic storyline, but it's not a bad game by any means and a 6.0 score plus the review itself reflects that.

We've just all been conditioned that anything under a 7.5 or so isn't worth purchasing which clearly isn't the case anymore, especially if you're a fan of a particular genre/series/developer/the original game (in PSO's case). Plus there's always user reviews and other sites to get second opinions if you disagree with a review. But Gamespot has always been harsher than other sites I don't see why they would change under a new review system.

ya I rarely agree with their high scores, some I do but others I dont at all. Plus the different ratings that a game can get when its released on a diff system like a month later or so can be WAY to harsh cause honestly if its on PS3 and 360 they will be really close unless developer did console unique stuff. Oblivion was nice only a .1 drop but there is stuff that drops 1 or more full points in the year or less it took to port when the game itself is the same. Dunno I just think high scores are handed out to games that shouldnt have them then they give reasons for low scoring games that apply easily to their editors choice fromt he same months not like from 4 years ago.

I was about to make this topic :)

Bioshock: 9.0

Metroid Prime 3: 8.5

Blue Dragon: 6.0

So yeah, they're more harsh now. I think it's good though. Only a few, special games each year deserves 9.0+.

I was about to make this topic :)

Bioshock: 9.0

Metroid Prime 3: 8.5

Blue Dragon: 6.0

So yeah, they're more harsh now. I think it's good though. Only a few, special games each year deserves 9.0+.

kilik

[QUOTE="duxup"]I can't say I'm fond of the .5 scale, but Gamespot has always been stingy about handing out the Editors Choice Awards (9.0 and above). I like that. It leaves room for truly outstanding games. Too many sites hand out high scores right and left. IMO that muddies the water and the outstanding games don't stick out as they should.SavageM2

Agreed.

Seeing as how everyone has been giving MP3 9.5 and 10 and GS only gave it a 8.5. Yeah I would say that they have gotten a lot harsher on games. But being harsh just for the sake of it isn't all that great either and it kinda feels that way to me.

well ocarina of time originally got a 10 on the N64 but when it came out on the VC it got somewhere in the 8's I think, even though it is the exact same game...I don't really get that but I think they are getting a lot harsher...Shillster89

Standards change with the times. Nine years later OoT doesn't hold up as perfect for a game in 2007. In 1998, it couldn't be any better, but it's aged.

I don't think GameSpot's gotten more harsh recently. I think they've always been pretty harsh, and that's why I trust them so much. I know if they say something's good, it's actually good.

[QUOTE="Shillster89"]well ocarina of time originally got a 10 on the N64 but when it came out on the VC it got somewhere in the 8's I think, even though it is the exact same game...I don't really get that but I think they are getting a lot harsher...Korubi

Standards change with the times. Nine years later OoT doesn't hold up as perfect for a game in 2007. In 1998, it couldn't be any better, but it's aged.

I don't think GameSpot's gotten more harsh recently. I think they've always been pretty harsh, and that's why I trust them so much. I know if they say something's good, it's actually good.

I can't really agree with that, in this case age isn't the factor so much as formula. Twilight Princess illustrates this well enough, it isn't a bad game, the problem is simply that a large part of what makes Zelda so great is in the sense of discovery it brings, you don't know the 'rules' of the game when you first play it so you end up esentually rediscovering the game constantly as you play through it. Because we pretty much know the rules of 3-D Zelda now the act of discovery is lost,so a complete change of rules is what's needed to bring that discovery back.

That is why Zelda is getting lower scores then it used to.

Personally I'd rather have the old score system back. People said it before and I'll say it again. Breaking down Graphics/Gameplay/Sound/etc really lets you know where to expect or have the lack of a certain amount of quality. Now it's like... here's the score, now read the details to figure out why. Your prose can be pretty descriptive, or it could just be easier to say 7/10.

But overall, Gamespot is getting harsher because they say their standards increase as time goes on simply because that's the nature of the beast. A game that got an 8.0 today is better than a game that got an 8.0 yesterday... in theory, at least according to their scoring rules.

Whatever, they are USUALLY pretty good with their scores, and mere 8.4s and 8.3 games (Dead Rising and Saints Row) have been some of the greatest game's I've played in the past two years.

But the Metal Gear Solid and Super Smash Bros Melee scores were downright shameful. But let bygones be bygones.

Gamespot just has high standards. Whether this is good or bad, is up to you.

For example, read all the editorial Metroid Prime 3 reviews on the Web and compare them to Gamespot's review. They are basically the same. They make all the same points, highlight all the same pros and cons, and more or less agree with each other. Gamespot just stamped a lower number on the front. So my advice is to put more stock in the review itself and less on the score.

i find it funny how Gamespot can say Blue Dragon's story sucks when FFXII's story was absolute garbage yet they say it was fantastic.

Dude, the thing is that most of the time THEY ARE RIGHT! Bioshock is fantastic, but it is far from a perfect game. I've already ran into 3 or 4 splicers frozen in place, the combat is kinda lame except for the plasmids, and the death system reminds me a little too much of Prey in a bad way. Giving this game a 10 is an outright lie, but many reviewers did just that.

Also, remember when Halo 2 was getting 10s everywhere and people were mad about it not getting in the upper 9s here? Then remember actually playing it? Yeah...