New gamespot Review - Total let down

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.HiResDes

I liked the old system, I thought it was great and it set GameSpot apart. But I also get where the editorial team is coming from. You can't say that the overall score is in any way representative of 'tilt'. By looking at the few scores under the new system, I would say that GameSpot's scoring consistency has remained intact.

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

I fail to he how one reviewer coming on staff has made this place gone downhill.

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).F1Lengend

I say anything .3 / .8 or lower gets rounded down to the nearest .5, it'll make reviewers really consider the score they are giving....the 8.3 would get an 8.0 under the new system, the 8.7 would get an 8.5, an 8.4 would be an 8.5....and it would be up the reviewer to really consider if he'd want to push an 8.9 into a 9.0, or lower it back to an 8.5.

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.F1Lengend

How does the new system not work under that circumstance. If an editor's choice doesn't deserve the rare 9.5, then it should be a 9.0...simple as that.

Like I said before, I have yet to see a game mentioned where the incremental system was absolutely needed....show me that 9.3 you consider "better then most editors choice games"....and I'll show you plenty of 9.0's, 9.1's, and 9.2's that were just as critically praised, possible even more so.....so again, if it can an Editor's Choice isn't good enough to get that rare 9.5 or even 10, I don't see what's wrong with it getting a 9.0......and if it gets a 9.0, who cares!?!?....anything with 9.0 and above an editor's choice award is supossed to be in a superior range that is rare unto itself regardless.

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
F1Lengend

They have that, its the pros and cons summary section......which worked better then a number, cause it gives a quick simple sentence that actually explains it flat out. If a game has superb graphics, it'll say that in the Pro section with Medals, if the game has crappy graphics or is a slideshow, it'll say that in the Con section with demerits.

I Am so very very very very angry at gamespot. I dont want to be mean here but I hate gamespot now with a burning passion. Ive been to this site regualarily since 2003 and I'm considering leaving. Why? Because when I want to check up on a game I want to see how the graphics, sound, gameplay, replay value, the tilt not so much. The rest of those qualities are the most important in the game and the old system was excellent. Now the new rounded out system is just not cool at all. When you pay for something they don't round out the change. The minimal differences were very important for me when I was going to spend my money on a game. Games are not cheap and I want that info straight up like in the old system and accurate. This new rounding system is why I hate it alot, The medals arn't standard and are randomly thrown out there. I do not want to read the full review of everygame to pick out how different elements panned out. Bring some quick reference back on gameplay, graphics, sound, and replay value at least in some easy to read small format because I think Gamespot is sticking to this stupid system at the pressure of their advertisers who will sell much more games on the new system. That's all this new system is, a lazy let down, to quickly get as many reviews done to sell the most products by lumping everything together, I cannot express just how angry I am, I really am that angry at this.

Gamespot has become just like every other game site out there. I don't trust a site that refues to use all the points possible to review and score a game. Whether it's 1up.com, Nintendo Power or Gamespy, if a site doesn't use all 100 points on the scale, then their reviews and what else they have to say doesn't hold water. The "reason" Gamespot made the change was because "the problem was that the (old) system assumed that each of the five catagores had to have the same amount of weight /importance that they did across all games" which apparently "doesn't really work." Really? It's been working for the last 10 years! I own 100 games and have played more than I can count, and I can tell you for a fact that those small, subtle differences in decimal points do indeed make difference when it comes to how I feel about a certain game. An 87 out of 100 points is not an 85, it's an 87! If certain categories weigh differently for certain games, then you should add or refine categories of judgements, not take them out altogether!

Gamespot has become just like every other game site out there. I don't trust a site that refues to use all the points possible to review and score a game. Whether it's 1up.com, Nintendo Power or Gamespy, if a site doesn't use all 100 points on the scale, then their reviews and what else they have to say doesn't hold water. The "reason" Gamespot made the change was because "the problem was that the (old) system assumed that each of the five catagores had to have the same amount of weight /importance that they did across all games" which apparently "doesn't really work." Really? It's been working for the last 10 years! I own 100 games and have played more than I can count, and I can tell you for a fact that those small, subtle differences in decimal points do indeed make difference when it comes to how I feel about a certain game. An 87 out of 100 points is not an 85, it's an 87! If certain categories weigh differently for certain games, then you should add or refine categories of judgements, not take them out altogether!

T-Prime

[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.Robnyc22

I fail to he how one reviewer coming on staff has made this place gone downhill.

Frankly, many of Greg's reviews and opinions didn't exactly jive with my experience of the game (8.2 for Deus Ex, 9.4 for Halo 2, 9.0 for PDZ, etc.) and sometimes in fact seemed contradictory...and some of his reviews didn't really touch on very important and obvious things the consumer should know about a game, for example as his KOTOR II review barely mentions the end portion was rushed and the game practically has no ending....so there there have been many other writers whose reviews and writing I enjoyed more then Greg's, both here at Gamespot and at other sites.

Greg was my favorite reviewer at Gamespot before he left. I didn't play every genre of game he reviewed, but the ones we did have in common I felt he nailed -- especially Metroid Prime. I have some history with that game as a long-time Metroid fan. I dismissed it as soon as I found out it was from the first-person. I couldn't see how that would work. It was Greg's review that gave me the nudge to give it a chance, and I am well glad I did. One of the few exceptions where I didn't agree with Greg's take on a game was in the KOTOR 2 review you mentioned. That game was a let-down to me in terms of story, even though it did add some strong depth to the RPG gameplay, and I don't think Greg's review dealt with the shortcomings enough. Still, his review wasn't used to help me decide whether or not to buy that game, so it wasn't as much of a let-down.

As for Alex, I'm not trying to kiss his backside here or anything, but I can't see how someone could avoid liking that guy's reviews. In the games he's covered which I care about, I have never found cause to greatly disagree with the content of his review. And even in the reviews for games I don't care about, I am always entertained. I rarely read the reviews for games I am not interested in on Gamespot, but Alex's reviews are where I make an exception. He gets special points with me for the last paragraph of his recent Zelda II review for the Wii VC download of the game. I was glad to see someone set the record straight on that game, given how so many reviewers and forumites seem intent on bashing it in retrospect.

The new system is pathetic. The number score means absolutely nothing to me anymore. Now I have to read the review (which I alwaysdo anyways) to understand how the game got an 8.5 as opposed to a 9.0, whereas with the old one at least I could get the jist of it with the CS that supported the numerical score. Now it has no framework behind it, so why have it at all?

Way to go Gamespot, exactly who's brainstorm was this? Fire them. Your reviews scores are generic groupings in .5 increments for games that in reality are slightly better or slightly worse than the others. Instead of fixing the flawed .1 system, simplify it to utter meaningless number scores with no formula behind why they got that particular score. Now a 4.0 is the same as a 9.

The number scores are ultimately meaningless now.

Thanks, GS. Nowyour site is one useful feature less.

Now I have to read the review (which I alwaysdo anyways) to understand how the game got an 8.5 as opposed to a 9.0, whereas with the old one at least I could get the jist of it with the CS that supported the numerical score.

Rekunta

I know....it's crazy, actually having to read a review now :o...what as the world come to?:roll:

Now how will fanboys be able to brag that their 9.3 is better then a 9.2 on another system?

[QUOTE="SemiMaster"]One little thing to note:

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

dvader654

Thank god, now use it more. :)

(I like a lot of the changes, just not the .5 scale)

I like that fact too, some people get all uppity that you gave a game a 10. OMG THERES NO PERFECT GAME!!!!!111ONE

Fair, but how can we even have a score of 10 without there being a possibility of something getting it? Regardless, this change I do like as well.

I dont get that thought logic, how do you know you are having 80 or 85 level fun then? Its the exact same thing.

dvader654

I think the logic is that a .5 point difference would and should be more noticeable than a .2 difference, but you'd have to get the answer from him to be absolutely sure of that. I agree with the sentiment also. It seems to me that any difference in score in the old system of .2 or .1 was so negligible and that the only discussion sparked from the difference, seemed to be focused more on the numerical value of the review, rather than the components that actually made the score come out the way it did. I honestly don't see a problem with the new review system so far. Maybe people are too attached to the old system itself rather than any actual merits of the system.

I say anything .3 / .8 or lower gets rounded down to the nearest .5, it'll make reviewers really consider the score they are giving....the 8.3 would get an 8.0 under the new system, the 8.7 would get an 8.5, an 8.4 would be an 8.5....and it would be up the reviewer to really consider if he'd want to push an 8.9 into a 9.0, or lower it back to an 8.5.

Robnyc22

Thats all fine and dandy.....if you were reviewing the game...

How does the new system not work under that circumstance. If an editor's choice doesn't deserve the rare 9.5, then it should be a 9.0...simple as that.

Like I said before, I have yet to see a game mentioned where the incremental system was absolutely needed....show me that 9.3 you consider "better then most editors choice games"....and I'll show you plenty of 9.0's, 9.1's, and 9.2's that were just as critically praised, possible even more so.....so again, if it can an Editor's Choice isn't good enough to get that rare 9.5 or even 10, I don't see what's wrong with it getting a 9.0......and if it gets a 9.0, who cares!?!?....anything with 9.0 and above an editor's choice award is supossed to be in a superior range that is rare unto itself regardless.

Robnyc22

Battlefield 2 vs Call of duty

They have that, its the pros and cons summary section......which worked better then a number, cause it gives a quick simple sentence that actually explains it flat out. If a game has superb graphics, it'll say that in the Pro section with Medals, if the game has crappy graphics or is a slideshow, it'll say that in the Con section with demerits.

Robnyc22

No they don't have that, the pros and cons section does not have a comment about each category to give you a complete view on the game, instead, they tell you what it does do well, and things it doesn't. I have no idea how the sound is from that short excerpt, or the value of the game. Now, if they had a quick predefined chart with the same categories they use to, but replace a number with a short sentence, it would help a lot when trying you dont have time to read it (you know....the main reason they did this in the first place...)

To be honest, I hate the new review process. People say "What is the difference between an 8.9 and a 9?" There isn't. But there is a huge difference between an 8.3 and an 8.7, both of which would be given an 8.5. On top of that, the Gameplay, Graphics, ect. is now gone. These were the most important things in the review in my opinion. The emblems seem kind of gimmicky. What if we end up with 15 9.0 games? I'll have to go to IGN to decide which one I'm getting. It just isn't precise enough for me. jim_shorts

While the individual categories you mentioned may be gone, the jist of those categories should be contained in the text of the review. I think this clearly points out one of the problems with reviews period that people just look at the numerical value and gloss over any text that give fine detail to that numerical value.

[QUOTE="jim_shorts"]To be honest, I hate the new review process. People say "What is the difference between an 8.9 and a 9?" There isn't. But there is a huge difference between an 8.3 and an 8.7, both of which would be given an 8.5. On top of that, the Gameplay, Graphics, ect. is now gone. These were the most important things in the review in my opinion. The emblems seem kind of gimmicky. What if we end up with 15 9.0 games? I'll have to go to IGN to decide which one I'm getting. It just isn't precise enough for me. Ghost_Face

While the individual categories you mentioned may be gone, the jist of those categories should be contained in the text of the review. I think this clearly points out one of the problems with reviews period that people just look at the numerical value and gloss over any text that give fine detail to that numerical value.

See I don't like that, because while the scores are simply based on some objective judgement and some personal subjective judgement, someone's description is not as easy to comprehend as a solid number. My interpretation of "A vivid diorama of gaming goodness" might mean something different to someone else... but an 8 out of 10 for tilt for me is 8 out of 10 for tilt for the next guy. There is no arguing with the numbers.

See I don't like that, because while the scores are simply based on some objective judgement and some personal subjective judgement, someone's description is not as easy to comprehend as a solid number. My interpretation of "A vivid diorama of gaming goodness" might mean something different to someone else... but an 8 out of 10 for tilt for me is 8 out of 10 for tilt for the next guy. There is no arguing with the numbers.

SemiMaster

The same could be said of the numerical numbers. I've heard many people here say they've enjoyed games that GS scored low. There is just no universal method that is going to make everyone happy, we know that beause of the complaints leveled against the old system. I read the Darkness review yesterday and there were several comments in the review text that made me think the game had a good amount of value. There was nothing in the review as cryptic as, "...vivid diorama of gaming goodness."

Yes the 0.5 is more noticeable but whatever logic that person used to pick that score is the same one he could use to pick a number from 1-100, he just has more choices to choose from. Basically what you are saying is that people are smart enough to make a distinction from 0.5 to 0.5 but not from 0.1, its the exact same use of an opinion to come up with a score but you use more options. I understand that you are saying the 0.5 is a big noticeable difference, but people shouldn't be justifying it by saying the other system couldn't work cause thats not true, in essence its the same system of picking a score. I just don't like that specific argument, I get the point but the argument just doesn't work.

I know the argument is what is the difference between 0.1 and 0.2, I know its pretty negligible and pointless. But what happens when this fall all those huge games that come out all get the exact same score. We will be seeing mountains of 9.0's when in reality there will be some noticeable difference in quality in those games, maybe not enough to grant a game a 9.5 but enough to say its not the same as the other games with the same score.

I can understand that GS maybe wants to get away from that type of comparing, they maybe just want to give a general view that a certain game is quality or not and stop all the score fighting, thats fine. But I like to score my games with more percision cause I do like to compare all the games I play against each other, so for me this new system really kills my personal review process.

dvader654

No, I'm not basically saying that people are not smart enough to make a distinction. Not being able to perceive something like that is not an indication of a person's intelligence. I'm kind of disappointed you would take the discussion into that realm when it hasn't been broached before.

I take this discussion as worrying about something that hasn't occurred yet. You have no basis other than conjecture to say that there are going to be quality games coming down the pipeline to get lumped together when there is a noticeable difference in quality. I also think that people are trying to take a subjective matter and try and make it objective. It's not, no matter what the score says. It's a matter of opinion to begin with and not everyone is going to agree on it.

[QUOTE="dvader654"][QUOTE="SemiMaster"]One little thing to note:

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

SemiMaster

Thank god, now use it more. :)

(I like a lot of the changes, just not the .5 scale)

I like that fact too, some people get all uppity that you gave a game a 10. OMG THERES NO PERFECT GAME!!!!!111ONE

Fair, but how can we even have a score of 10 without there being a possibility of something getting it? Regardless, this change I do like as well.

but games have received perfect scores in the past, so that is broken logic.

Another useless opinion...

I too dont like the new review system at all. I used to just look at the pros and cons, and then the component score. Gameplay videos and all that stuff were good enough for me, i didnt need to read a 3 page review when i could watch a 2 minute gameplay video and see what its all about. And then the componenet scores covered everything else like sound, control, value all that stuff you couldnt see from the video.

The .5 thing too is a really bad idea, i dont understand why you guys keep trying to deny that .5 is a big difference....and as some people said, an 8.3 and an 8.7 is a big difference, thats still a .5 diff. They shouldnt be getting the same score, and there scores shouldnt be rounded...thats there score and they should get them. An 8.7 game shouldnt get a 9.0, because its not a 9.0...its an 8.7

And i think the little emblems will get old, after a while after we see them all, there just gonna be there and nobody is gonna pay attention to them. And i dont understand what some of them mean..what is "Oh Snap"??? I even read the description and i still have no idea what it is....

Anyways...im gonna start using gametrailers.com for my reviews, i can watch a giant HD video showing pretty much everything i want. I can see the graphics good and clearly, and i can hear from the reviewer everything else..

I recommend gametrailers.com to everybody by the way....they still go with .1 increments..

Fine intelligence is not a good word to use, I am not implying that you guys are insulting someone, I am just saying the human brain can just as easily choose a number from 1-100 than one from 1-20. I just dont like that specific argument, I don't mind that you think this is a better system, thats fine.

I dont need to wait till games start being released, we can use history, it happens every single year. Toward the end of the year a lot of high quality games come out do they not. If you play a lot of them aren't you going to have a different opinion on each of them. Its much easier to express your opinion with a score in a 1-100 syetem than a 1-20 system. If your response is going to be, "well read the written review", then do away with the scores if they don't matter. But the fact that they are still here means they do mean something. Thats my view on it, again I will say I really dont care what GS does, I will get used to it even if I dont agree with it.

dvader654

Dvader, discussing this issue in terms of numerical values it's easy to see on paper the difference between 8.5 and 8.7, I just think it's not as easy playing the game to actually see the difference in the quality between values so close together. In regards to video games, value is different for each individual gamer. A Dawn of Mana game could receive a 10 in value and mean little to me.

We know that humans have several things we just can't perceive due to limitations we have, we can't hear certain audible ranges, we can't see certain differences in some frames per second, etc. I think this issue lies in that realm. I get what you're saying about the numerical value and seeing the difference between 90 and 89, but I'm saying that value is based on an opinion that may not mesh with everyone's so the valued itself could be considered flawed.

The .5 thing too is a really bad idea, i dont understand why you guys keep trying to deny that .5 is a big difference....and as some people said, an 8.3 and an 8.7 is a big difference, thats still a .5 diff. They shouldnt be getting the same score, and there scores shouldnt be rounded...thats there score and they should get them. An 8.7 game shouldnt get a 9.0, because its not a 9.0...its an 8.7diettoast

On, and BTW, "Oh Snap" simply means that the game contained moments that really surprised the reviewer in a pleasant way, as the description says.

[QUOTE="SemiMaster"][QUOTE="dvader654"][QUOTE="SemiMaster"]One little thing to note:

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

HiResDes

Thank god, now use it more. :)

(I like a lot of the changes, just not the .5 scale)

I like that fact too, some people get all uppity that you gave a game a 10. OMG THERES NO PERFECT GAME!!!!!111ONE

Fair, but how can we even have a score of 10 without there being a possibility of something getting it? Regardless, this change I do like as well.

but games have received perfect scores in the past, so that is broken logic.

Buuh buhh... it was a different scoring system back then is the standard answer to that type of question.

You see, none of the logic about not giving out 10s in the first place is "logical". I can't tell you how many people, at least on System Wars forum say that 9.6 is the new 10.

The point is, I do like the fact that giving out 10s should be more plausible now that the moniker "perfect" isn't attached.

Well then that means the entire review process is flawed cause even an 85 or a 90 won't mesh with everyones opinions. Every value can be considered flaw, its still just a random opinion of a certain person no matter the amount of numbers they use. You can say having less numbers makes it easier to choose a number and makes it easier to see a difference, those are the pluses of the system but don't say that we cant distigush scores on 0.1 scale. I know its all totally objective,all scores are objective but I do find differences in many of the games I play and I feel that I would need at least a 1-100 scale to be able to distiguish the games I play from each other.

dvader654

Here's the rub, I find it perfectly fine to say that we 'generally' cannot distinguish the difference between .1 scores because it's based on a subjective score. Now if you feel 'we' doesn't encompass you, that's fine because I don't know you personally and you are probably right in stating you need a 1-100 scale to help you. I never once said that I like the new system because less numbers is easier or better to see a difference. I just think the criticism on the new system is premature and totally unfounded because any type of review is subjective no matter what system is used. One is not scientifically more acurate, regardless of numbers when both are based on opinion to begin with.

I Am so very very very very angry at gamespot. I dont want to be mean here but I hate gamespot now with a burning passion. Ive been to this site regualarily since 2003 and I'm considering leaving. Why? Because when I want to check up on a game I want to see how the graphics, sound, gameplay, replay value, the tilt not so much. The rest of those qualities are the most important in the game and the old system was excellent. Now the new rounded out system is just not cool at all. When you pay for something they don't round out the change. The minimal differences were very important for me when I was going to spend my money on a game. Games are not cheap and I want that info straight up like in the old system and accurate. This new rounding system is why I hate it alot, The medals arn't standard and are randomly thrown out there. I do not want to read the full review of everygame to pick out how different elements panned out. Bring some quick reference back on gameplay, graphics, sound, and replay value at least in some easy to read small format because I think Gamespot is sticking to this stupid system at the pressure of their advertisers who will sell much more games on the new system. That's all this new system is, a lazy let down, to quickly get as many reviews done to sell the most products by lumping everything together, I cannot express just how angry I am, I really am that angry at this.

Merl57

Over reacting much? most of your argument against the system is the fact that the scores are rounded, which, if you had read the thread was not the case.

All right I suppose I'll share my opinion on this. I've got as much Gamespot gravitas as anyone right?

Overall I don't like. I'm in the camp of, "you fixed something that didn't need to be fixed." I don't really care one way or the other about incremental ratings. A 9.0 vs an 8.8 isn't going to cause me or anyone else to lose sleep... except the guys in Systems Wars maybe. But taking away the individual score meter was a mistake. For a quick look into why a game scores how it did that was helpful.

In that's place we have the medal system. It's cute and kind of cool, but doesn't really do anything for me for a quicky review.The problem isthey're not immediately identifiable. Not yet, and depending on how many there are maybe never. For a review like The Darkness where the review gets stacked with Medals, I could read through the first page of the review by the time I've read the definition for all the medals. I don't think it offers nearly the value it was intended to.

And while I'm on the subject of review, the new layout for the Good and the Bad needs to be redone. It comes off more cluttered than anything else. Perhaps try just just have an ordered list of bullet points instead of listing them one after another. That doesn't read particularly smoothly.

So while I'm calling the new reviews disasterous by any means, I just don't think Gamespot is improved as a result of this new format.

[QUOTE="diettoast"]The .5 thing too is a really bad idea, i dont understand why you guys keep trying to deny that .5 is a big difference....and as some people said, an 8.3 and an 8.7 is a big difference, thats still a .5 diff. They shouldnt be getting the same score, and there scores shouldnt be rounded...thats there score and they should get them. An 8.7 game shouldnt get a 9.0, because its not a 9.0...its an 8.7Skylock00

On, and BTW, "Oh Snap" simply means that the game contained moments that really surprised the reviewer in a pleasant way, as the description says.

Just the fact that medals that OH SNAP have to be explained in a paraphrased sentence should tell alot right there about how much of a bad and user-unfriendly idea they are. I didnt know what it meant either, and even though I do now, it still seems like a poorly thought out idea.

And diettoast was correct with the rounded off point...if we are to apply the current review system to games reviewed under the previous and far superior system, an 8.3 and an 8.7 would receive identical scores now. The system was neither archaic nor broken...I thought dumbing down a system means its becoming more archaic, not more modern. Not to mention we can't compare current scores with past gamespot scores anymore, something that I used to get a kick out of but is useless now.

Although I agree the written parts are unchanged, and thats important, the fact is that very few people actually read the review unless they are seroiusly interested in buying the game or are a dedicated gamer. I'm sure some will say that now "they will be forced to actually read the review", but let's be honest, does anybody really think that less and more simplistic info up front will encourage more people to read the text? That's wishful thinking at best.

And diettoast was correct with the rounded off point...if we are to apply the current review system to games reviewed under the previous and far superior system, an 8.3 and an 8.7 would receive identical scores now. The system was neither archaic nor broken...I thought dumbing down a system means its becoming more archaic, not more modern. Not to mention we can't compare current scores with past gamespot scores anymore, something that I used to get a kick out of but is useless now.WindedSailor

The old system was broken, period, because it assumed that all games in all genres had the same catagories, with the same weight of importance in those catagories, as being relevent to evaluating the quality of the game in the context of its genre/platform/etc, when that simply isn't true anymore. This means, from what I understand based on the meaning of the words, that the old system was archaic (meaning it worked well back when it was originally made, but doesn't work anymore as a system of scoring), and broken (as it doesn't work across all genres as an effective means of scoring a game properly) in regards to properly giving games scores they deserved baed on what kind of game it was. There's nothing wrong in simplifying a system that was needlessly convoluted to generate something simple (an overall score/grade for a game), especially when the only point of the score system, from GS's standpoint, has always been to simply express whether a game is recommendable as a purchase for the reader.

Furthermore, GS's old scoring system stated that scores given in the past wouldn't hold the same weight/bearing to games in the future, so making comparisons to past scores before doesn't make any more sense then as it does now.

No, he was not correct at all, because there's no guarentee that an 8.3 and 8.7 would be 'rounded' to an 8.5. A game that got an 8.3 might get an 8.0 or an 8.5...and 8.7 might get an 8.5 or a 9.0, or something completely different, because the reviewer isn't restricted to a mathmatical system with built in weights that didn't make sense across all genres in regards to how to determine the score. As I said, the reviewer can directly score a game, and give it a score that it deserves.

Skylock00

Ok man, it could go either way, but what about the times when it WOULD work out like that, in which the game was rounded from an 8.3 to 8.5 and 8.7 to 8.5. Now, I know the old way was broken, but there is absolutely no reason to go to a .5 scale, it is a lazy way out, and a 100 point scale could work flawlessly in this new system.

[QUOTE="WindedSailor"]And diettoast was correct with the rounded off point...if we are to apply the current review system to games reviewed under the previous and far superior system, an 8.3 and an 8.7 would receive identical scores now. The system was neither archaic nor broken...I thought dumbing down a system means its becoming more archaic, not more modern. Not to mention we can't compare current scores with past gamespot scores anymore, something that I used to get a kick out of but is useless now.Skylock00

The old system was broken, period, because it assumed that all games in all genres had the same catagories, with the same weight of importance in those catagories, as being relevent to evaluating the quality of the game in the context of its genre/platform/etc, when that simply isn't true anymore. This means, from what I understand based on the meaning of the words, that the old system was archaic (meaning it worked well back when it was originally made, but doesn't work anymore as a system of scoring), and broken (as it doesn't work across all genres as an effective means of scoring a game properly) in regards to properly giving games scores they deserved baed on what kind of game it was. There's nothing wrong in simplifying a system that was needlessly convoluted to generate something simple (an overall score/grade for a game), especially when the only point of the score system, from GS's standpoint, has always been to simply express whether a game is recommendable as a purchase for the reader.

Furthermore, GS's old scoring system stated that scores given in the past wouldn't hold the same weight/bearing to games in the future, so making comparisons to past scores before doesn't make any more sense then as it does now.

That's a nice explanation that sounds like its straight from Gamespot's PR department, but I still disagree. We will have to agree to disagree that the previous system was broken and archaic.

I know theres no guarantee that an 8.3 and an 8.7 would get identical scores...but I think there's better than a 50/50 chance that they would, which is good enough for me to like the old system better.

I also dont think the old system assumed anything, because the gameplay and tilt scores were always given higher value in the overall score. I think most readers would agree that it wasnt convoluted, and if GS's only point of the score system is to recommend whether a game is good enough to buy, then they might as well just go to a Ebert & Roeper thumbs up/thumbs down system because that would achieve that goal better.

And even if comparisons to past games were not sensical, it was always fun to debate and discuss that anyways. That debate might as well end now.

Ok man, it could go either way, but what about the times when it WOULD work out like that, in which the game was rounded from an 8.3 to 8.5 and 8.7 to 8.5. Now, I know the old way was broken, but there is absolutely no reason to go to a .5 scale, it is a lazy way out, and a 100 point scale could work flawlessly in this new system. F1Lengend

Ultimately, I feel that a lot of the issue isn't one that stems from GS or the editors, but moreso from the userbase that seems to have taken the scores in a fashion that is against what the editor's intent with the scores has been, with some people taking that mentality to a further extreme than others in what the scores meant as opposed to what they were really suppose to mean, from what I see.

Given the intent of what GS wanted to convey with the scores, realistically, the number of people who really, really cared about having a .1 scale seems to end up being in a very vast minority of things in the grand scale regarding this sort of stuff.

That's a nice explanation that sounds like its straight from Gamespot's PR departmentWindedSailor

but I still disagree. We will have to agree to disagree that the previous system was broken and archaic.

I know theres no guarantee that an 8.3 and an 8.7 would get identical scores...but I think there's better than a 50/50 chance that they would, which is good enough for me to like the old system better.

I also dont think the old system assumed anything, because the gameplay and tilt scores were always given higher value in the overall score. I think most readers would agree that it wasnt convoluted, and if GS's only point of the score system is to recommend whether a game is good enough to buy, then they might as well just go to a Ebert & Roeper thumbs up/thumbs down system because that would achieve that goal better.

The old system definitely assumed things. It assumed that graphics were always more important than sound, and neither were /as/ important in gameplay in making a game a higher quality experience given the genre and such of the game, which is simply not the case at all in various cases.

Different genres are going to have different aspects of the score carry more importance in regards to what makes games in that genre effective and strong, the best example being music/rhythm games, where sound is not only more important as graphics, it can be held as being /as/ important as gameplay in regards to the quality of the game (not even from the standpoint of music selection, but production of music, and translating the music into the game in a smooth fashion). That is how the old system simply wouldn't work anymore in being a fair means of assigning a score to a game.

And lastly, while your argument regarding the whole 'thumbs up/thumbs down' thing has some weight to it, the purpose for having a scale in place is to allow for varying degrees of approval/dissapproval for a game. A game that is slightly under 7(6-6.5) is going to be one that, in general, GS isn't going to recommend to users, but chances are people who are fans of that particular genre/source material could find enjoyment, whereas a score that's very low (1-3) is going to be something that they, in no way, recommend anyone buying for various reasons.

On the same note, games can have varying levels of recommendations in that 7-10 range, which is important to them, but that concept of varying degrees wasn't important enough to them, from what I gathered, for them to feel that going down to .1 detail really made that much of a difference in the grand scheme of things, especially given how much more circumstantial everything is getting regarding evaluating the quality of a title. This might not be their exact thought, but it's what I've gathered from talking to them.

[QUOTE="Robnyc22"]

I say anything .3 / .8 or lower gets rounded down to the nearest .5, it'll make reviewers really consider the score they are giving....the 8.3 would get an 8.0 under the new system, the 8.7 would get an 8.5, an 8.4 would be an 8.5....and it would be up the reviewer to really consider if he'd want to push an 8.9 into a 9.0, or lower it back to an 8.5.

F1Lengend

Thats all fine and dandy.....if you were reviewing the game...

Umm....I said it's up to the reviewer to decide if they think a game should cross over into higher territory.

The point is, if a game doesn't deserve a 9.0, then it won't get a 9.0.

Like someone else said, show me a game that when someone is playing it they can tell if its a 8.7 vs. an 8.5.

Battlefield 2 vs Call of dutyF1Lengend

Ummm....those are two completely different games, ones multiplayer focused, one is based more on single player....not to mention some would choose one over the other, there is not clear definition of which is better.

Fact is under the old system one was a 9.0 the other was a 9.3........Under the new system both those games would be a 9.0, how exactly is that a bad thing or a big difference again?....especially when there are some that would say a 9.0 is fine with what Battlefield 2 deserves, in fact, some would say its a more accurate score for Battlefield 2.

No they don't have that, the pros and cons section does not have a comment about each category to give you a complete view on the game, instead, they tell you what it does do well, and things it doesn't.F1Lengend

Are you kidding....the pros and cons comments give a better and more detailed view of the game then the old numerical chart did......now under the new system I can quickly read what part of a game's value is lacking.....or what part of the sound is done exceptionally well.

How is actually quickly telling you what a game does and doesn't do well less information or a worse system from looking at a numerical chart :|, in fact, I would prefer to see a short worded single sentence description instead of trying to figure out how they came to the numerical categories they did like the old system Gamespot used.

I have no idea how the sound is from that short excerpt,F1Lengend

Really?.....from the Darkness review under "The Good"

"Amazing voice work and dialogue set the mood right out of the gate"

In case you didn't realize, Voice work is part of the sound. As we can see from the FEW reviews under the new system so far, the most certainly quickly summarize the pros and cons of what aspects of sound were done well.

or the value of the game.F1Lengend

Again...from the Darkness review....under "The Bad"

"Multiplayer feels a little tacked-on."

What was that about not being able to get a quick idea of the value under the new system....and at least now I can read what part of a game is lacking in value as opposed to just seeing a 7 or 8 on a chart.

Not only that, but the new "The Good" and "The Bad" quick summaries also mention things like difficulty, storyline, originality of setting and theme, etc....ie, things the old numerical system alone couldn't do.

And diettoast was correct with the rounded off point...if we are to apply the current review system to games reviewed under the previous and far superior system, an 8.3 and an 8.7 would receive identical scores now.

WindedSailor

How do you come to that conclusion. You don't know they'll both instantly be identical....for all we know an 8.3 under the old system can become an 8.0 now and the 8.7 can become an 8.5.....8.0 and 8.5 aren't identical scores.

If that game that would have been an 8.3 under the old system isn't good enough to be an 8.5, then it''ll be an 8.0, if it is good enough it'll be an 8.5.....while the 8.7 under the old system can either be an 9.0 if its deemed good enough or an 8.5 if not.

But again....what exactly is the big difference between an 8.3 that leans closer to an 8.5 or (say like Beyond Good & Evil) and an 8.7 that leans closer to an 8.5 (say like Warrior Within).....are you gonna tell me BG&E doesn't deserve to be an identical (or higher score) then Warrior Within, there are many that would disagree.

Or how about this....which game is clearly better....Beyond Good & Evil or Psychonauts?.....one got an 8.3, the other got an 8.8....frankly I consider them both equally great, so I would have no problem with both getting an 8.5, which is a chance that would have happened had they released under the new system.

After hearing a lot of whining, complaining and threats to leave GameSpot, it makes me say this:

"You REALLY need to adjust your priorities in life if a game site's REVIEW SYSTEM means that much to you."

After hearing a lot of whining, complaining and threats to leave GameSpot, it makes me say this:

"You REALLY need to adjust your priorities in life if a game site's REVIEW SYSTEM means that much to you."

TonicBH

we are basically customers of the website even though most of us aren't subscribers, as we generate a lot of the hits that GS gets, which increases the amount of money they get from sponsors. Therefore, since the customers do indeed come first, we do have a say, and I even if I myself liked the system I wouldn't be annoyed at people exercising their right to have an opinion. I'd hate to think that GS was run by a bunch of fascists. Your comment about adjusting priorities is entirely hypocritcal, and it makes me wanna say this: You need to adjust your priorities in life if it bothers you so much that others are speaking out against something on a video game website, in fact it is wasted energy on your part.

we are basically customers of the website even though most of us aren't subscribers, as we generate a lot of the hits that GS gets, which increases the amount of money they get from sponsors.

HiResDes

and it makes me wanna say this: You need to adjust your priorities in life if it bothers you so much that others are speaking out against something on a video game website, in fact it is wasted energy on your part.

HiResDes

I've said what I wanted to say, and I'm more or less leaving it at that. I love the new system myself. Sure, it means that 8.0s and 8.5s are gonna be more common than the whole 8 spectrum, but it's not like they'll be handing 10s out like it was candy.

All I'd really want to know is: "What would former GameSpot editors think about this change?"