New gamespot Review - Total let down

The final rating of a game should never be an average of the various scores. It should reflect the reviewer's opinion, pure and simple. Reviewer's tilt would still be useful in that context, as a high tilt rating would warn ppl who dont like that kind of gme very much to take the review with a pinch of salt.

As for the new system, it's as good as any other system. Lose the decimals altogether, I say.

[QUOTE="Vampyronight"]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?Skylock00

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.

But if graphics aren't important for music games...exactly how are they important for any game so long as they're servicable? Would GeoW or Resistance been all that different if the only change was in the graphics to make it look exactly like Black? Nope, it would be the same game, just without all the little extra details in the graphics. So since it would be the same game, therefore it would be deserving of the same high praise...right?

Therein lies the problem- there's no way to quantify how much of a particular aspect (such as graphics and sound) are "necessary" to a game. I mean, remember when the TP review came out and people went on and on screeching about how Zelda games don't "need" voice acting? Well, now GS has justified this point of view- if rythm games don't need outstanding graphics, surely they can forgive Zelda for not having voice acting. Jeff was right to pan Zelda for not including voice acting because most modern action-adventure games bother to do it, and it would be right to pan a rythm game for not boasting fantastic graphics (whether technically or artistically, or through a combination) because we know they can do better.

Unfortunately, the idea of a "seperate scoring system depending on the genre" is exactly what we're getting.

Another quick example of how the "need" for things can vary by game. Take a TBS game- you select your moves, then after you're done, the computer goes ahead and moves the units for you and fights any battles based off your statistics. But lets say that when you get more than a couple of units into a single area, the game doesn't have a smooth framerate. Now, in a TBS, this has no actualy impact on gameplay since it's all stat based, it just doesn't look so pretty when acting it out. Should the game get a reduced score (or now a demerit, I suppose)? A smooth framerate isn't "needed" for the game to play out correctly, so certainly it can be forgiven? I hope not.

I see what you're trying to say about music in a rythm game, but it still doesn't stand up on its own. Music is art, and unfortunately, the quality of art can greatly depend on the person. So perhaps you think the music selection for a particular rythm game is fantastic, while I think it's absolutely terrible and far better choices could've been made. Who's right? Nobody, which is why sound should always get the least weight. But if a game has a choppy framerate, well, we're both going to see that and its undebatable. If the game is shallow, we're both going to notice it. That's why those categories need to be weighted more.

I could keep going on with examples, but I think my point stands- while I don't mind games being rated in comparison to a particular console's powers/possibilities, they should be rated at equal expectations regardless of the genre. Yes, I want fantastic looking rythm games because I want to hear an epic score in the next big FPS, despite the fact that just a "good" soundtrack is enough to satisfy most.

I could keep going on with examples, but I think my point stands- while I don't mind games being rated in comparison to a particular console's powers/possibilities, they should be rated at equal expectations regardless of the genre. Yes, I want fantastic looking rythm games because I want to hear an epic score in the next big FPS, despite the fact that just a "good" soundtrack is enough to satisfy most.Vampyronight

In fact, all the examples you threw at me came off as irrelevent to the point that I made, which has nothing to do with the standards one uses to evaluate the different catagories of a score (which is what you are talking about), and everything to do with the amount of weight each catagory had in determining the overall score of the game (Which is the only thing that I'm talking about).

I'm not talking about whether some aspect of a game is 'needed' or not, and having high expectations for quality across the board...I'm simply talking about how in different genres, different aspects of a game's design is going to be more important to the overall quality of the product than other aspects, just like in ANY artform, where different genres of film, music and paintings, if they were to be evaluated, are going to be evaluated on different sets of standards, with different aspects of the work's creation being more important than others in determining the overall quality of the work. My example with the music genre is still valid, because sound is the focal point of the game, not graphics, and as such, the sound catagory /needs/ more weight than the graphics catagory, subjectivity aside.

The problem with the older system was not that there were sub catagories where points could be allocated based on the quality of those areas in the games...the problem was that the system assumed that each of the five catagores had to have the same amount of weight /importance that they did across all games, which is just as asinine as evaulating all music by one set of standards, and all art by just one set of standards. It doesn't really work at all, and neither did the old system.

I like the new ratings system FAR better. It's simple and straightforward.

Frankly I always thought the .1 incrimental system is a rating system only fanboys clung to, so they could bicker over how much better a 9.3 was over a 9.2.

Second, there is a quick "Pro" and "Con" section people for those who don't bother to read the full review. We don't need to for a meter to tell us whether the graphics are a "9" or an "8", when it simply can be stated quickly in the Pro or Con section....especially since that way it can look at how a game looks both artistically and technically.....like "Amazing graphics on a technical scale" or "Visuals are artistically the best this year".

It will be interesting to see how these medals turn out, but already I can see a couple of medals being, well, useless....like the one about Editor's having "Oh Snap" moments....why would I care about Gamespot's reviewers having an "Oh Snap" moment in a game that got a 7.0.

Frankly I think the medals and demerits should be more in line with things that actually stand out in a game purchase decision.....

For example....I'd like to see Medals for:
"Great Storytelling"
"Great Single Player"
"Artistic Visuals"
"Great Multiplayer"
"Innovation"
"Great AI"
"Great for Groups" (ie co-op or party games)
"Great Value" (as in they offer a lot in the package for the price)

....so, lets say I see a game got a 7.5, but it got a gold star for "Great Storytelling", a gamer who really enjoys a great story in a game may still consider it. Or lets say seperate "Single Player" and "Multiplayer" medals, If I'm a gamer who mainly enjoys Single Player games, I'm gonna keep an eye out for this medal.

Meanwhile I'd like to see demerits for:
"Poor Storytelling" (shallow, cliche, and just bad storytelling)
"Left Hanging" (ie, games with an incomplete story or that end on a sudden cliffhanger)
"Shallow Characters"
"Slideshow" (supposedly they have this one)
"Been there done that" (games that really don't offer anything new or any unique approach in their genre)
"Poor value" (like a $60 game that can be finished in 6 or 7 hours)
"Poor Controls"
"Poor AI"
"Poor Single Player"

etc.....in other words, a game may have excellent multiplayer but crap single player, I'd like to see this clearly pointed out.

Yes now you can choose the score you want, many of us always wanted to do away with the math score based overall score, so that is of course better. But moving to a 0.5 system didn't seem necessary.dvader654

But without the mathematical system, the 0.1 scale seems completely worthless. On what basis do you decide whether the game gets a 7.2 or 7.3? Personally, I wish they got rid of the decimals altogether.

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

Damn, I love that avatar. Makes me wish I had thought of it.

[QUOTE="UpInFlames"]

[QUOTE="dvader654"]Yes now you can choose the score you want, many of us always wanted to do away with the math score based overall score, so that is of course better. But moving to a 0.5 system didn't seem necessary.dvader654

But without the mathematical system, the 0.1 scale seems completely worthless. On what basis do you decide whether the game gets a 7.2 or 7.3? Personally, I wish they got rid of the decimals altogether.

The same basis you score a game a 7 or a 7.5.

but there's an obvious difference between 7 and 7.5, you would be able to tell, but the difference of .1 really is negligible

The same basis you score a game a 7 or a 7.5.dvader654

But the 0.5 difference is a lot bigger and meaningful than a 0.1.

Ok thats nice and... its still just a number you choose. The fact is there are less options to choose from, you make it seem like having the 0.5 scale all of a sudden makes choosing a score more legitmate, its the same thing with less options to choose from.dvader654

All I'm saying is that without the mathematical system, it's better to have less options because there are no grounds for such a precise scale.

So much fuss such an insignificant change. People are just getting mad because maybe now Halo 3, GTA IV, Metroid, MGS will all get the same score and we won't know which is a tiny bit better. :oassassin23

People are reading to much into this. How about actually reading the reviews!?

[QUOTE="assassin23"]So much fuss such an insignificant change. People are just getting mad because maybe now Halo 3, GTA IV, Metroid, MGS will all get the same score and we won't know which is a tiny bit better. :otoment

People are reading to much into this. How about actually reading the reviews!?

"NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!"

[spoiler] jk ;) [/spoiler]

I have gone through the reviews after the Final Fantasy remake one and I have to say it bothers me that the system contains .5 increments. Even though I expected it wouldn't be as bad as I predicted. Also, I thought the emblems would give that little variety which GameSpot will definitely need to fill up the gap the .5 increments caused, but it did not.

A disappointment, if I were to review this system it will not get a sufficient score. These are my first impressions and let us hope it will get better as time goes by, but little faith have I in this system.

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?

So_Young

This is the part I agree with the most strongly. Everyone is either 1/10 or 0.5/10 or like 1/5 stars or some really nebulous concept of quantizing the numbers rather than making a continuum like Gamespot always has been. I can understand giving them more time, but a 0.5 leaves a lot of room for error. Under the old style that's like 3 points difference in graphics if I remember right, which is alone quite a difference.

[QUOTE="So_Young"]

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?

SemiMaster

This is the part I agree with the most strongly. Everyone is either 1/10 or 0.5/10 or like 1/5 stars or some really nebulous concept of quantizing the numbers rather than making a continuum like Gamespot always has been. I can understand giving them more time, but a 0.5 leaves a lot of room for error. Under the old style that's like 3 points difference in graphics if I remember right, which is alone quite a difference.

Using whole numbers is just as "continuous" as using tenths. It just doesn't allow for as much specificity, unless there are the same amount of possible scores.

[QUOTE="SemiMaster"][QUOTE="So_Young"]

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?

Angry_Beaver

This is the part I agree with the most strongly. Everyone is either 1/10 or 0.5/10 or like 1/5 stars or some really nebulous concept of quantizing the numbers rather than making a continuum like Gamespot always has been. I can understand giving them more time, but a 0.5 leaves a lot of room for error. Under the old style that's like 3 points difference in graphics if I remember right, which is alone quite a difference.

Using whole numbers is just as "continuous" as using tenths. It just doesn't allow for as much specificity, unless there are the same amount of possible scores.

There are more points in 0.1 increments on a chart than there are 0.5 increments. An assignment of an 8.5 or 9.0 can be more arbitrary this time around... think about it, a reviewer's personal opinion will influence things more than simply their opinion as a professional editor. Even though they know that little hiccup in graphics doesn't really affect the whole presentation, they may not like the game so much, and instead of giving it an 9.0, they opt to give it an 8.5. There's no 8.9 or something that's like aw, so close.

The old way has wiggle room, this has less. Essentially, if you had error bars on these scores, they would be much larger this time around.

Sure, maybe the old system was flawed, but they should have just worked out the kinks instead of implementing an entirely new one. That's why I come to Gamespot because the review system was different than the majority of review sites. The thing that I like about the new system are the badges. But I don't like the sarcastic charm they put into them. However, as long as the actually written reviews are good, which they always have been, then I got no beef.

It's funny seeing people getting worked up over nothing. I remember when news about the Xbox 360 Elite was coming out...it was like the apocalypse.

[QUOTE="Angry_Beaver"][QUOTE="SemiMaster"][QUOTE="So_Young"]

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?

SemiMaster

This is the part I agree with the most strongly. Everyone is either 1/10 or 0.5/10 or like 1/5 stars or some really nebulous concept of quantizing the numbers rather than making a continuum like Gamespot always has been. I can understand giving them more time, but a 0.5 leaves a lot of room for error. Under the old style that's like 3 points difference in graphics if I remember right, which is alone quite a difference.

Using whole numbers is just as "continuous" as using tenths. It just doesn't allow for as much specificity, unless there are the same amount of possible scores.

There are more points in 0.1 increments on a chart than there are 0.5 increments. An assignment of an 8.5 or 9.0 can be more arbitrary this time around... think about it, a reviewer's personal opinion will influence things more than simply their opinion as a professional editor. Even though they know that little hiccup in graphics doesn't really affect the whole presentation, they may not like the game so much, and instead of giving it an 9.0, they opt to give it an 8.5. There's no 8.9 or something that's like aw, so close.

The old way has wiggle room, this has less. Essentially, if you had error bars on these scores, they would be much larger this time around.

I had two ideas in mind that didn't really work well together. Anyway, the math major in me reacted to your usage of "continuous".

Yes, there will be less precision in the scoring. But it's also not really needed, and it's more difficult to score something with tenths than it is halves when there exists no objective basis for scoring games. The new system improves the application of the tier concept as it applies to cmparing games and value.

[QUOTE="dvader654"]Yes now you can choose the score you want, many of us always wanted to do away with the math score based overall score, so that is of course better. But moving to a 0.5 system didn't seem necessary.UpInFlames

But without the mathematical system, the 0.1 scale seems completely worthless. On what basis do you decide whether the game gets a 7.2 or 7.3? Personally, I wish they got rid of the decimals altogether.

seriously Skylocke disagrees, but don't reviews seem less objective to anyone one else now that this system is in place, if you wnated to show how you felt about the game you simply gave the game a high tilt score back in the day and nowadays basically tilt has become the overall score (lol). You can disagree, or find ways to nitpick around this theory, but c'mon it is true in a way and you know it whether for good or bad.

Im still somewhat perplexed why people dislike the new system simply because the ratings are "like every other site" as well as some of the other reasons people dislike the new system. GS might now have a rating system similar to countless other sites but that shouldnt matter, the actual review should. If you dont like the actual review you probably wouldnt like the score and if you cant find the time to read a 3 minute review how can you even find time to play a game. Some believe that the new scores are less precious and can actually be more arbitary but I still cant agree with that. If a movie is great then I'll give it that score, if its not then I wont. Doesnt seem that arbitrary to me.

Movie reviews have all the elements people are complaining about

• no quick reviews
• no subcategories
• some elements are more important than others depending on the genre
• huge percentage of siteshave the same rating system
• smaller overall scale. 9 for the 4 stars and 11 for 5 stars

yet somehow people still read them and decides whether it warrants a viewing. Despite all of these so called problems countless people still look to Ebert for reviews and he didnt need a special rating scheme. It was his high quality reviews that drew people to his website and tv show. I thought GS was respected amongst the video game community because of their reviews and opinions and not somesilly scoring system but I guess I was wrong. If you leave because of the rating change why were you even checking reviews in the first place because it would appear that you dislike the actual review, and isnt the score just an extention of the review? In the end you have to read reviews that share opinions similar to yours.

Im still somewhat perplexed why people dislike the new system simply because the ratings are "like every other site" as well as some of the other reasons people dislike the new system. GS might now have a rating system similar to countless other sites but that shouldnt matter, the actual review should. If you dont like the actual review you probably wouldnt like the score and if you cant find the time to read a 3 minute review how can you even find time to play a game. Some believe that the new scores are less precious and can actually be more arbitary but I still cant agree with that. If a movie is great then I'll give it that score, if its not then I wont. Doesnt seem that arbitrary to me.

Movie reviews have all the elements people are complaining about

• no quick reviews
• no subcategories
• some elements are more important than others depending on the genre
• huge percentage of siteshave the same rating system
• smaller overall scale. 9 for the 4 stars and 11 for 5 stars

yet somehow people still read them and decides whether it warrants a viewing. Despite all of these so called problems countless people still look to Ebert for reviews and he didnt need a special rating scheme. It was his high quality reviews that drew people to his website and tv show. I thought GS was respected amongst the video game community because of their reviews and opinions and not somesilly scoring system but I guess I was wrong. If you leave because of the rating change why were you even checking reviews in the first place because it would appear that you dislike the actual review, and isnt the score just an extention of the review? In the end you have to read reviews that share opinions similar to yours.

Dissipate

so because everyone else does something, it automatically means we should just learn to like it, that is a horrible way of thinking. IMO Ebert sucks at reviewing, I'd rather go to metacritic or IMDB to get a feel for whether or not I'll like a movie.

[QUOTE="Dissipate"]

Im still somewhat perplexed why people dislike the new system simply because the ratings are "like every other site" as well as some of the other reasons people dislike the new system. GS might now have a rating system similar to countless other sites but that shouldnt matter, the actual review should. If you dont like the actual review you probably wouldnt like the score and if you cant find the time to read a 3 minute review how can you even find time to play a game. Some believe that the new scores are less precious and can actually be more arbitary but I still cant agree with that. If a movie is great then I'll give it that score, if its not then I wont. Doesnt seem that arbitrary to me.

Movie reviews have all the elements people are complaining about

• no quick reviews
• no subcategories
• some elements are more important than others depending on the genre
• huge percentage of siteshave the same rating system
• smaller overall scale. 9 for the 4 stars and 11 for 5 stars

yet somehow people still read them and decides whether it warrants a viewing. Despite all of these so called problems countless people still look to Ebert for reviews and he didnt need a special rating scheme. It was his high quality reviews that drew people to his website and tv show. I thought GS was respected amongst the video game community because of their reviews and opinions and not somesilly scoring system but I guess I was wrong. If you leave because of the rating change why were you even checking reviews in the first place because it would appear that you dislike the actual review, and isnt the score just an extention of the review? In the end you have to read reviews that share opinions similar to yours.

HiResDes

so because everyone else does something, it automatically means we should just learn to like it, that is a horrible way of thinking. IMO Ebert sucks at reviewing, I'd rather go to metacritic or IMDB to get a feel for whether or not I'll like a movie.

no you completely missed my point. My point was that just because something is similar doesnt inherently make it bad and you dont always need a new way of doing something to stand out or make your point.As well as the fact it is the review that matter and not the score. Oh and yes Ebert is horrible at reviews he is just the only film critic to be awarded the Pulitzer for criticism but you are right he doesnt know anything and the users at IMDB are all so knowledgable. But back on point, Ebert was just to illustrate an example that you go to the site you agree with whether that is Metacritic or someplace else.

I don't like it. I definitely don't like it. If I were to compare 2 games and one of them is just stlightly better than the other one, I would have to games rated 8.5? Am I right? I know many of you will say things about "having to read the review" or goint for the one with the most medals. I still don't like it

They should have modified the old system and gone to a .2 scale, so it would be like this: 8.0, 8.2, 8.4, 8.6, 8.8 or maybe even go to this 8.0, 8.3, 8.5, 8.7. This way, a game that isn't good enough for 9.0 but is better than 8.5 would get 8.7.

Or switch to using images that use facial expressions to show your excitement or disgust.

Not happy with this change at all.

Actually, the review of The Bigs was pretty good. Final Fantasy didn't get much info probably because it was a remake. All the same, I wish they would bring back the normal scoring; the emblems are a good idea but the .5 increments is not.

On the bright side, they don't appear to have changed player reviews to adhere to the same .5 formula and I hope it stays that way.

I don't like it. I definitely don't like it. If I were to compare 2 games and one of them is just stlightly better than the other one, I would have to games rated 8.5? Am I right? I know many of you will say things about "having to read the review" or goint for the one with the most medals. I still don't like it

teufelherz

Just because one scores two points higher doesnt necessarily mean one is better than the other (could be two different reviewers) or that you personally would like the one that scored higher more. So either you might have to do more research to determine which game suits you more.

I don't like it. I definitely don't like it. If I were to compare 2 games and one of them is just stlightly better than the other one, I would have to games rated 8.5?

teufelherz

"slightly better" according to who? you?.....something that is "slightly better" to you, can easily be slightly inferior to other people.

I have never seen a game, that absolutely needed to be defined by the single decimal point increments, the point .5 system strikes a better balance, and also it will hopefully make reviewers put further consideration into scoring a game.

Show me one game, that really needs to be an 8.6 over an 8.5, or an 8.7 over an 8.5 or an 8.4 over an 8.5.

And once you get an editor's choice game, the decimal point matters even less.....not to mention, we've seen cases where a 9.2 has easily beaten out a 9.4 when the GOTY awards were being handed out, so considering that, the minor incremental system holds even less value.

They should have modified the old system and gone to a .2 scale, so it would be like this: 8.0, 8.2, 8.4, 8.6, 8.8 or maybe even go to this 8.0, 8.3, 8.5, 8.7. This way, a game that isn't good enough for 9.0 but is better than 8.5 would get 8.7.

Elias_Vaughn

If a game isn't good enough for a 9.0, then it should get an 8.5, simple as that. Really, what's the difference between a game that gets an 8.7 vs. one that gets an 8.5, I've pretty much never seen the difference.

Either you're good enough to make the cut as an Editor's Choice game, or your not.

And again, its all perspective, one that should be kept as simple and straightforward as possible. Show me a game that you think absolutely needed an 8.7 over an 8.5, and I'll show you a bunch of 8.5's that I would consider a better game experience.

[QUOTE="teufelherz"]

I don't like it. I definitely don't like it. If I were to compare 2 games and one of them is just stlightly better than the other one, I would have to games rated 8.5?

Robnyc22

"slightly better" according to who? you?.....something that is "slightly better" to you, can easily be slightly inferior to other people.

I have never seen a game, that absolutely needed to be defined by the single decimal point increments, the point .5 system strikes a better balance, and also it will hopefully make reviewers put further consideration into scoring a game.

Show me one game, that really needs to be an 8.6 over an 8.5, or an 8.7 over an 8.5 or an 8.4 over an 8.5.

And once you get an editor's choice game, the decimal point matters even less.....not to mention, we've seen cases where a 9.2 has easily beaten out a 9.4 when the GOTY awards were being handed out, so considering that, the minor incremental system holds even less value.

But the case is different with games which got 91% or 9.1 and games with 97% score and above. Some get that the games which are 95% and above are a must have while any game that gets under that percentage or rate might not appeal to anyone, but they have to get a high score as an appreciaition and I think this goes on games like FFXII and Okami. Both games have minors flaw but they're high quality games and surely deserve a nine.

All I have to say is, ever since Alex Navarro came on staff and Greg Kasavin pretty much dissapeared, this place has gone downhill. Alex N is imo, annoying, unprofessional, and given way too much exposure. Please god keep him off the hotspot.tflame

That's it. You're off my Christmas card list.

[QUOTE="HiResDes"][QUOTE="UpInFlames"]

[QUOTE="dvader654"]Yes now you can choose the score you want, many of us always wanted to do away with the math score based overall score, so that is of course better. But moving to a 0.5 system didn't seem necessary.dvader654

But without the mathematical system, the 0.1 scale seems completely worthless. On what basis do you decide whether the game gets a 7.2 or 7.3? Personally, I wish they got rid of the decimals altogether.

seriously Skylocke disagrees, but don't reviews seem less objective to anyone one else now that this system is in place, if you wnated to show how you felt about the game you simply gave the game a high tilt score back in the day and nowadays basically tilt has become the overall score (lol). You can disagree, or find ways to nitpick around this theory, but c'mon it is true in a way and you know it whether for good or bad.

So Jeff thought Zelda: TP was a 10, awesome! :P

I would lie and say yes to defend my philosophy, but his face just givesaway how he truly felt about the game.

[QUOTE="tflame"]All I have to say is, ever since Alex Navarro came on staff and Greg Kasavin pretty much dissapeared, this place has gone downhill. Alex N is imo, annoying, unprofessional, and given way too much exposure. Please god keep him off the hotspot.AlexN

That's it. You're off my Christmas card list.

its all about perspective others would say Greg was boring and Alex is entertaining, Ilike both of them, I mean have you seen the Big Rigs video review (its classic).

I have to say that I am VERY DISAPPOINTED at this change of scores. News, previews, movies, cheats...all of these are functions that I never relied on Gamespot for. The main draw of this site were the well written reviews and the carefully thought out scores. Other websites offer scoring systems too simplistic or too complicated, writing styles either too childish or too pretentious. Gamespot was always the place that I could get an accurate reading of whether a game was worth my money or not.

While I'm sure that the writing style will remain the same quality as always, the scoring and medal system is a big step backwards, in my opinion. A few problems I have with it are:

a) No more 0.1 differences. Basically going from a system of 100 available points and cutting it in half. The small differences created alot of debate (remember Mario Sunshine and Zelda???)...less differences in scores obviously leaves less controversy and less debate, and that was one of the fun parts about the reviews.

b) No more tilt. I thought the previous system, where gameplay and tilt were more influential than graphics and sound, was perfect. I could look at the tilt score and know what the reviewer thought of the game immediately. Now there's just a generic number.

c) Less user friendly. With only one big score, we have to drag the mouse over the medals to find out their meaning. I'm sure regular users to the site will eventually come to recognize what the mean, but first time users and casual users aren't going to have a clue.

d) Wipes out any historical context. Gamespot's review archive is one of the sites main draws. Comparing how a game scored today versus six years ago was a good thing. Now that's meaningless. How are we supposed to compare the new Metroid score to the old Metroid Prime score? It was a 9.7...are we now led to believe that's a perfect 10 now? A 9.5? A 9.0? Who knows. Only 4 games had a perfect 10 in the sites history...I see it possible to make it an easier achievement in the future. Which leads to my worst complaint...

e) Gamespot becomes just like every other site out there. The subtle differences in score is what put it above sites like IGO and GamingAge and Gamespy, the well written reviews is what put it above IGN. Again, while I'm sure the writing remains, I feel the site has lost one of its big advantages, and becomes less distinguishable from the other sites out there.

I dont post alot on the forms, I'm not too interested in them...but sometimes I lurk around and check out what people have to say, and frankly, the majority of people supporting this change are either staff or mods that would blindly support any change in format because of their loyalty to the site. Speaking as somebody who uses the site sporadically for reviews, I'll probably be relying more on sites like metacritic and less on gamespot, because if this site wants to become like everybody else, I might as well take the combined score of everybody into more consideration than one site that I could rely on for a special review.

Alex is awsome. Go watch the 2K vs Madden thing. Nuff said.

About the review thing, im probably reiterating what lots have said but the technical reviews needed to go but this system needs some work. Like I said before, say a game gets an 8.3 and another gets an 8.7, the logical solution would be to give both an 8.5 (atleast most of the time). Those are huge differences. Furthermore, when games got a 9.3, that tells you its better than most editors choice games but it doesnt deserve the very rare 9.5. Imo it makes a subtle yet needed difference.

Also, I liked the categories to give you a quick indication of how the game is overal, even if you are not going to base the final score on its average. What they should do is, instead of a number, have a similar setup for quick reference where it shows

Graphics
Sound
gameplay

and have a short sentence to describe each

Graphics- Top of the line, best looking game ever
sound- Great ambient and voice overs, bad sound effects

etc etc.

Everything else i like, the medals are genious

Alex is awsome. Go watch the 2K vs Madden thing. Nuff said.

About the review thing, im probably reiterating what lots have said but the technical reviews needed to go but this system needs some work. Like I said before, say a game gets an 8.3 and another gets an 8.7, the logical solution would be to give both an 8.5 (atleast most of the time). Those are huge differences. Furthermore, when games got a 9.3, that tells you its better than most editors choice games but it doesnt deserve the very rare 9.5. Imo it makes a subtle yet needed difference.

Also, I liked the categories to give you a quick indication of how the game is overal, even if you are not going to base the final score on its average. What they should do is, instead of a number, have a similar setup for quick reference where it shows

Graphics
Sound
gameplay

and have a short sentence to describe each

Graphics- Top of the line, best looking game ever
sound- Great ambient and voice overs, bad sound effects

etc etc.

Everything else i like, the medals are genious

F1Lengend

I actually like that idea about the indiividual categeories and I'd definitely favor that over the current system. I think that would be the most logical compromise to install a new system, without alienating anal forumites like myself.

The medals are horrible. If the idea was to give you a faster idea of what to expect, this is a horrible failure. WIth medals like "Oh Snap" the meaning isnt exactly self explanatory, so you have to spend time parsing through the snarky comments instead of getting a fast read on the game. Also given the seemingly wide scope and arbitrary nature of the types of medals, its almost like we can now expect generic review in box comments used to rate the games. Whats wrong with just providing those comments on an excepted spectrum of game elements? Frankly given the types of medals, I am surprised you didnt have a "Yet Another Final Fantasy" medal or something. The dominate personalites on Gamespot these days come accross as a bunch of egomaniacs that worship at the alter of snide and sarcasm. Now we have a reveiw system where the reader must sort through the one liners to get the information. Bad editorial move. I miss the days of Gregg Kasavin and Joe Fielder.THE_DZA

I agree 100%. Well said.

10.0 = Prime? So they finally got rid of the moniker "Perfect" that got to so many people over an issue of semantics?