New gamespot Review - Total let down

Have you seen the first review of that "new form"? there are no quick info on the start like graphics, value, gameplay and sound. The review is the same as before, except thay removed the basic quick info that I think is very useful.

For me its a total letdown and I'm very desapointed of Gamespot moves right now. The old review form is one of the best reviews on the net, but now, with the lack of quick info and the unprecision of the final score (0.5) I find the new review of gamespot like every other site and I can say, now its one of the baddest form of review out there now

Whats your opinion about this?

I think part of it is that the first review we ran was FF Anniversary, which is a game that warranted only a short review and no medals. Some games of the more middling variety will be that way, because some games just don't excel or entirely fail at anything. They just sort of are.

Today we'll be publishing some reviews with medals and demerits.

i know what the @$$@i loved that where they did all the specific stuff now iit jjust sucks

[QUOTE="igor011"]its pathetic, i hate it when sites or magazines break what wasnt broken. QUOTE]

Maybe not broken but it was flawed.

[QUOTE="igor011"]its pathetic, i hate it when sites or magazines break what wasnt broken. QUOTE]

Maybe not broken but it was flawed.

Dissipate

Yeah...barely. Too bad it's even more flawed now.

Give it a chance, stop whining about something you're not that familiar with yet.

I think part of it is that the first review we ran was FF Anniversary, which is a game that warranted only a short review and no medals. Some games of the more middling variety will be that way, because some games just don't excel or entirely fail at anything. They just sort of are.

Today we'll be publishing some reviews with medals and demerits.AlexN

Yeah, that's what I was thinking, too. Besides, The Good and The Bad sections still offer some quick info. I'll wait for a few more reviews to judge the new system. By the way, can you give us the scoop on user reviews - will we be able to use the medals system as well? So far, everything seems to be the same, 0.1 scale and all. I also accidentally rated that stupid Final Fantasy game and there doesn't seem to be a reset option.

EDIT: We have another review - an expansion pack to Sword of the Stars. It's the first medal!

Yeah, that's what I was thinking, too. Besides, The Good and The Bad sections still offer some quick info. I'll wait for a few more reviews to judge the new system. By the way, can you give us the scoop on user reviews - will we be able to use the medals system as well? So far, everything seems to be the same, 0.1 scale and all. I also accidentally rated that stupid Final Fantasy game and there doesn't seem to be a reset option.

EDIT: We have another review - an expansion pack to Sword of the Stars. It's the first medal!

UpInFlames

And another! With even more medals and demerits!

The reader review system from here on out will use the new scoring system (once it's been updated). Medals won't be available for reader reviews. Also, that rating reset issue will be fixed sometime soon. It's been bugged.

And another! With even more medals and demerits!

The reader review system from here on out will use the new scoring system (once it's been updated). Medals won't be available for reader reviews. Also, that rating reset issue will be fixed sometime soon. It's been bugged.

AlexN

Hey, I like that "Recycle" demerit. I have a feeling that one's gonna see a lot of use. I hope you guys reconsider about the reader reviews not being able to use the medals system, I'd love to use those. Thanks for the feedback.

One thing I'm missing is the individual numbered scales. It doesn't bother me that they aren't calculated into the final score, but it would still be nice to quickly look and see what individual components of the game are good and bad and to what extent. I realise that's what the good/bad and emblem part is for, but numbers and scales give a more comparable and precise way to look at it.. I think seeing an 8 in value score is more useful to me than an emblem that says "this game is long!".

On the other hand I like the new .5 rating scale. It encourages the readers to actual read the review more, which is what everyone should be doing instead of just looking at the number. People make way too much of the numbered scores. The difference between an 8.6 and an 8.7 game is very negligible, and thus we don't see too much bickering over those kinds of scores.. yet apparently the difference between an 8.9 and an 9.0 (same 0.1 difference) is huge. THAT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE. So I'm glad the new rating system has pretty much eliminated all those shenanigans.

its pathetic, i hate it when sites or magazines break what wasnt broken.igor011

Like Alex said, I think part of the problem was that the first review was a FF remake. I still believe that the quick info will be there and work rather well. What you call precision some would argue arbitary. While I liked the systematic/mathematical score but it had flaws and limitations. While some may dislike the new layout I would assume most people visit GS for their full length reviews and opinions and those have not changed.Dissipate

If anything this has more flaws than the old review system .
SmoothMoved

Furthermore, the whole concept of having subscores in different aspects of a game's design is sort of convoluted in and of itself, whereas the medal system is able to allow the reviewer to specifically pick out ANY aspect of a game's design to bring notice regarding the design choices, both good and bad, in a way that is more direct, flexible, and logical to express than the sub scores were able to.

And lastly, NONE of these changes really affect the written portion of the review, which has been the most important aspect of a review in the first place, and what I find odd is how some people think that changing to a .5 scale is going to somehow cause the written reviews to change to a point where there is no credibility in the reviews themselves...which doesn't make any sense to reach as a conclusion to me.

Now im afraid we will see a lot more 9, 9.5s and 10's handed out like the other sites. !@#$ the other sites, this is Gamespot. GodModeEnabled

That's just my feelings on the matter, though.

[QUOTE="GodModeEnabled"]Now im afraid we will see a lot more 9, 9.5s and 10's handed out like the other sites. !@#$ the other sites, this is Gamespot. Skylock00

That's just my feelings on the matter, though.

Skylock my nemesis, we are destined to never agree on anything :P

I see it as a game like RE4 which got a 9.6 will now get a 10, same with Gears Of War and stuff like Prince Of Persia: Warrior within would be a 9 instead of an 8.8 there is a huge difference. Warrior Within is not an 9.0 game it is a higher teir AA release falling just short. All of this seems to be catering to the masses to make things more simple for their pathetic little brains.

This effectivley puts the site along the same lines as IGN and *barf* 1up for the review systems as games will be rated higher than they should be because of it.GodModeEnabled

Again, there's nothing indicating such a practice will occur, and really, the main important part of a review is the written portion, not the score, and the thing is, the written review is the basis for the score, not the other way around, from what I see.

Honestly, thinking that the quality of the reviews is going to drop because the numbering system is changed to a degree feels sort of shallow to think of, especially since the information expressed though the medals is much more useful, IMHO, than the subscore system was, both from the standpoint of a reader, and from the standpoint of the people doing the reviews.

I miss the days of Gregg Kasavin and Joe Fielder.THE_DZA

[QUOTE="GodModeEnabled"] Skylock my nemesis, we are destined to never agree on anything :P

I see it as a game like RE4 which got a 9.6 will now get a 10, same with Gears Of War and stuff like Prince Of Persia: Warrior within would be a 9 instead of an 8.8 there is a huge difference. Warrior Within is not an 9.0 game it is a higher teir AA release falling just short. All of this seems to be catering to the masses to make things more simple for their pathetic little brains.

This effectivley puts the site along the same lines as IGN and *barf* 1up for the review systems as games will be rated higher than they should be because of it.Skylock00

Again, there's nothing indicating such a practice will occur, and really, the main important part of a review is the written portion, not the score, and the thing is, the written review is the basis for the score, not the other way around, from what I see.

Honestly, thinking that the quality of the reviews is going to drop because the numbering system is changed to a degree feels sort of shallow to think of, especially since the information expressed though the medals is much more useful, IMHO, than the subscore system was, both from the standpoint of a reader, and from the standpoint of the people doing the reviews.

I agree.

And to add to your comments about the medals, no one has to wonder any longer exactly what graphical aspect, for example, would get a game a lower graphics subscore. I mean, it could be framerate, jaggies, blinding bloom light, etc. The medals system tells us in more specific terms (though I don't know how GS's repertoire of medals looks) what is right or wrong with a game. And the review itself will elaborate on that. Yes, this elaboration occurred before, but now we can know what we're looking for. Some might even make a justifiable buying decision more easily because of it.

What Jeff and Alex may think deserves an 7.8 or a 9.2 could be two very different things, but when dealing with less possible scores, they'll be able to agree as to what kind of game deserves to be in what 'pile' of scores if you will.

Also it won't take me long to adapt and relate to what kind of game Gamespot classifies as a 7.5 etc so I will be able to look at the score and immediately get a accurate indication to the game's quality. Before I didn't know how to differentiate between 8.4 and 8.7.

Also, I'm expecting fanboys to rely less on review scores for their bull. Thank the lords there will be no "OMG Killzone2 got only 9.4 but HAl03 got 9.5!!!1!1!one1!1!"

[QUOTE="THE_DZA"]I miss the days of Gregg Kasavin and Joe Fielder.Skylock00

"Um, RE4 could also be rated a 9.5...and GoW and PoP could be rated an 8.5. There's absolutely nothing indicated that they're going to simply round scores up just because it would've been close to that next tier."

This is correct. We aren't rounding scores up just because they're close to the next tier.

I find it poor form by Gamespot to still go ahead with this new system even though pretty much the majority of people don't want this system implemented, but anyway...

I wouldn't say that the new system is flawed but it doesn't work nearly as good as the old system. With the old system you can easily look at and understand the review. If you just want a quick review all you had to do was look at "graphics, gameplay, the good, the bad, etc.". If you wanted a thorough review, then you can read the entire review. It would've been so much better if you guys kept the old system and just added medals. And not medals that say "Oh snap" or "Slideshow" or something sarcastic, not funny, and not self-explanitory. Rather have medals that are self-explanitory so we the readers don't have to sit there and read the description of the medal so we know what the hell you guys are talking about, we'd rather see what's good about it, what's bad about it, and go on.

I've been getting my reviews from Gamespot for a very long time and I can say that the old system was nearly perfect but now it's not so good...

"Um, RE4 could also be rated a 9.5...and GoW and PoP could be rated an 8.5. There's absolutely nothing indicated that they're going to simply round scores up just because it would've been close to that next tier."

This is correct. We aren't rounding scores up just because they're close to the next tier.

AaronThomas

I don't personally care for the change. It seems needless and the loss of individual numerical categories is unfortunate.

IGN is officially a better format for reviews now, at least in my opinion.

"Um, RE4 could also be rated a 9.5...and GoW and PoP could be rated an 8.5. There's absolutely nothing indicated that they're going to simply round scores up just because it would've been close to that next tier."

This is correct. We aren't rounding scores up just because they're close to the next tier.

AaronThomas

Rounding scores down isn't going to win you many fans either.

You had a decent system in place; you should have left well enough alone.

I like the fact that it's not based entirely on a mathematical formula now (as far as my understanding). It was always off-putting to me that the games were scored in various categories and then these were added and multiplied and divided, etc etc into the final score.

I think the final score should represent an opinion of the product as a whole; nothing more, nothing less. The details (call them badges, merits, good or bad) are there to explain why the reviewer thinks that way. In the end, it has always been nothing but an opinion. Previously the score was manipulated by tilt to get it where the reviewer wanted it, now it is just what they think.

As far as the 0.5 scale. Considering this is all so subjective, is there really a difference between the game with an 8.2 and an 8.4? Probably not enough of one to be tangible to us and thus why should we expect someone ele's opinion (or a formula) to be so precise?

I've only seen a few reviews so far, so I'll have to give it time to grow on me, but they do seem to have a more natural feel to them. The tenth of a point scoring and formula for the final score gave the impression that there was more rocket-science than review going on. When a friend asks me what I think of a game, I don't say "Graphics: 8, Sound: 9, Tilt: 10". I say "The Single Player is short, but the Multiplayer rocks."

I also have a feeling that six months from now, we won't have to mouse-over the badges to figure out what they mean. We do love video games; we spend most of our time identifying icons on user interfaces. As the review library expands, I look forward to being able to filter by badge. If you like games with great multiplayer, the ability to pull up all of the games that received that badge and maybe find a new game to add to your wish list will be pretty handy.

"Rounding scores down isn't going to win you many fans either. You had a decent system in place; you should have left well enough alone."

We're not rounding anything. We simply choose an appropriate score to go along with the review text. While there may be less scores to choose from, we now have greater flexibility when it comes to picking the score we think a game deserves. This is important with games where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts--like music games, classic games and compilations, and many puzzle games.

I'm not just spouting the company line here--I really like the new system and I think once people get used to it, they will too.

The badges are ok- though I think they should stop with the sarcasm and just cut to the chase as to what the medal means when you hover over it. I mean, I like sarcasm, but its out of place in a serious review.

But the new scoring system is atrocious nor do the reasons behind it hold water. I remember the example of a rythm game. Some will say that it could never have GeoW-type graphics...I say, why can't it? Just because its a rythm game? That doesn't excuse poor graphics. I mean, they could just as easily put DDRs gameplay over GeoW itself (the better you're dancing, the better Marcus shoots and avoids being shot...do poorly and he's unable to get behind cover and dies) and that's a game. Just because it's a rythm game or ANY type of game shouldn't excuse poorer graphics. Since Resistance isn't a rythm game, can we excuse poor sound?

I do think we're going to end up seeing a lot higher scoring games now that GS is going to give "special considerations" based off the type of game (and I'm willing to bet they consider who its aimed at). Since Wii Sports wasn't "meant" to be a graphical powerhouse, and otherwise the graphics are clean with a lot of charm, certainly the score should be higher, right? I mean, a pack-in game that teachs you how to use the remote shouldn't be expected to have excellent graphics...so give it an 8.5 now, right?

But the new scoring system is atrocious nor do the reasons behind it hold water. I remember the example of a rythm game. Some will say that it could never have GeoW-type graphics...I say, why can't it? Just because its a rythm game? That doesn't excuse poor graphics. I mean, they could just as easily put DDRs gameplay over GeoW itself (the better you're dancing, the better Marcus shoots and avoids being shot...do poorly and he's unable to get behind cover and dies) and that's a game. Just because it's a rythm game or ANY type of game shouldn't excuse poorer graphics. Since Resistance isn't a rythm game, can we excuse poor sound?Vampyronight

Even if a game in that genre has ridiculously great graphics, if the soundtrack was poorly made/lame, that is a gamebreaking element, yet getting a '1' in sound would have much less impact on the score than giving a '1' in graphics, indicating the inherent problem with the previous system.

So the only possible solutions would be to have a system where different genres would have different amounts of weight assigned to each individual subscore...which would only cause things to be more needlessly convoluted, or they could remove the whole subscore system, and simply focus on scoring games directly based on the quality of the title in and of itself, while bringing special attention to important aspects of the game (both positive and negative) through the medals system.

And yes, some might be a little cryptic initially...but really, after reading over a description once, it doesn't take much to remember what the underlaying meaning of them are from one review to the next, much like the emblems we find in eachother's profiles.

That's just my feelings on the matter at any rate.

Well, I've never relied on Gamespot for reviews that much to begin with, but I'm going to go against the pack and say I don't think the changes are that bad. It's always bothered me, especially when writing reviews myself, that the overall rating was an average of the individual ratings and not just a hand-picked number to represent how good the game is overall. Not to mention, it actually makes a lot more sense to have the scores in .5 increments. I mean, how much of a difference is there really going to be between a game that's an 8.5 and a game that's an 8.6 or an 8.7? The new way just seems a lot easier and more intuitive than the old.

I just hope they change their minds and let us use the medals in user reviews. That would be quite cool, I think.