Why is Gamespot so cynical?

You make an interesting point. While I can't vouch for why Gamespot is so cynical I have noticed this trend. For instance I was thinking that Skyrim would get a solid 10 but it got a 9.0. Seems like they hardly ever rate anything a 10 at all.

Reviews are just opinions. There are other sites that have very questionable ethics when it comes to reviews. I don't think this is one of them. No one is going to agree with all reviews 100% of the time.

You make an interesting point. While I can't vouch for why Gamespot is so cynical I have noticed this trend. For instance I was thinking that Skyrim would get a solid 10 but it got a 9.0. Seems like they hardly ever rate anything a 10 at all.

X-The-Doctor-X

That's because Skyrim and a lot of other games that score high doesn't deserve that score. The scoring system in the videogame industry today do suffer from score inflation. It's mostly the customers fault because they only buy games that score absurdly high, that means that the reviewers must give the games high score or else they lose important coverage of new games or they don't get an review copy at all from publishers. Don't give me the bull about that reviewers aren't bought, we all know that's BS. If they're not given money, then they are either given stuff or they lose coverage or exklusive news.

It's no fun to hand out 10's like candy. People shouldn't lose their minds when their highly anticpated game doesn't get a 10. It's not even about the score, anyway...it's the content in the review you should be questioning.

It's no fun to hand out 10's like candy. People shouldn't lose their minds when their highly anticpated game doesn't get a 10. It's not even about the score, anyway...it's the content in the review you should be questioning.

King9999

This. People shouldn't just automatically look at the score and go "Why did Gamespot or IGN do this or that?". The answers lie within the review and people ought to read more and understand why it was given that kind of a score in the first place.

You make an interesting point. While I can't vouch for why Gamespot is so cynical I have noticed this trend. For instance I was thinking that Skyrim would get a solid 10 but it got a 9.0. Seems like they hardly ever rate anything a 10 at all.

X-The-Doctor-X

Skyrim, despite being a great game, doesn't even get close to a 10. It has so many flaws in it it hardly dereves a 9. Still loads of fun and better than almost any game made this year.

And also, you call them to cynical when they gave MW3 an 8.5 despite it being the same game that was made in 2007.

Everyone in this thread is confusing "cynical" with "skeptical".

The only reviewers I like is http://www.abc.net.au/tv/goodgame/

Why? Well because they seem to be the only ones who are unbiased on their reviews, every review starts off making out the game to be awesome telling everything good about it, and then they go off and shun the game down telling everything bad about it. I don't even care about the score they give in the end, but what they actually SAY about the CONTENT

Every time they hire a new employee, they make them watch a thirty minute video of a group of puppies being beaten. It isn't Casual Friday at GameSpot, it's Ball-and-Chain Friday at GameSpot. Every time a reviewer scores a game more than a point off the expectations of the rest of the staff, they are brought before a mysterious, hooded council, who decides whether or not to cast them into the mysterious fiery inferno immediately below their offices. Instead of coffee, to get their morning jolt, all GameSpot employees must submit themselves to a rick roll. And they must watch the ENTIRE video. Once a month, the entire staff is taken out into the streets and beaten by angry Twilight Princess fans still upset by the 8.8 score. Even though the reviewer who gave it that score no longer works there. Just out of frame in the Hotspot is a giant guillotine hanging over the heads of the GameSpot editors, should they mention anything that alerts the authorities to their working conditions. They don't make Chuck Norris jokes. Ever. They remember what happened to Ron. Every grammatical or spelling hour they make in a written piece means one hour of reading System Wars. Kind of hard not to be cynical under those circumstances.Oilers99

:lol:

Anyway, I find that the content of the reviews Gamespot employeers write justifies the numerical value slapped onto the game in question. I have no problem with that. It is when I read a review that is like: "This game is so awesome just because it is. 10" or a review like "I don't like this game because I want B to be the attack button instead of A. 5/10" when I get a little skeptical of the reviewer's ability to express their opinion with clarity. And as I said ina thread earlier, Gamespot is not forced to conform and rate a game as close as possible to the arbitrary average on Metacritic. Different strokes for different folks.

Funny, when a website "underrates" a fan's favorite title they are no longer credible and are biased, but when they rate a fan favorite extremely high they are just being honest, and set the benchmark for what other reviewers should be doing.

So Gamespot should join the crowd and give the same scores as everyone else? I wonder why they would even score at all. Boggles the mind.

Man you people care too much about scores.johny300

I agree. I tend to read the review, make a decision on whether the good parts outweigh the bad based on what I like. For example, I have no desire to play the SP in BF3 (for me, BF always meant MP). For MW3, it's just the opposite (I want SP for that game). Then I go with it and buy the games.

Scores are meh.

Interesting topic. GS perhaps check out the details of the game rather than to judge it from it's fame.

But hey there were some titles like Skyrim and Uncharted 3 which deserved better, between 9.1-9.6.

My suggestion to GS is to use scores like 9.2, 9.3, 8.7 and not to take the approximate values. This will get things more specific especially for the titles for which their rating is in bit argument.

The scoring system should be entirely removed. It does not correctly reflect the state of the game and can be misleading. A system that uses adjectives should be used instead. Example: horrendous,awful, bad,mediocre, good, great, excellent. Game reviews are not mathematical equations so it should not rely on a system that gives numerial scores. This numerical scoring system that is pretty rampant in the industry gives a false sense of precision. Its made worse with the tenth of a point system.

Man you people care too much about scores.johny300

Co-sign...truth be told, I think Gamespot reviewers would have rated certain games lower than they did but knew the fanboy reaction would be through the roof. Uncharted 3's 9.0 rating for example, had fanboys in a frenzy when they didn't even play it yet. After playing it, I would have rated it an 8.5.

The scoring system should be entirely removed. It does not correctly reflect the state of the game and can be misleading. A system that uses adjectives should be used instead. Example: horrendous,awful, bad,mediocre, good, great, excellent. Game reviews are not mathematical equations so it should not rely on a system that gives numerial scores. This numerical scoring system that is pretty rampant in the industry gives a false sense of precision. Its made worse with the tenth of a point system.

Pedro

I'm in agreement with this. The only thing the score does is cause unnecessary strife. Some people will actually write user reviews out of spite and give the game a score significantly higher/lower than the official rating.

However, I would take things a step further and not even use adjectives. People will whine as long as there's any sort of rating system. All that's needed is the text, and nothing more.

I think the main problem is there is no standard definition of what a score is supposed to MEAN.

Does 90 mean the game is well-made?

Or does it mean the reviewer ENJOYED it?

The way I see ratings is like this.

A game that score 90 means the game is well-made, it's a solid product, that IF you enjoy its premise and IF the game jives with your sense of fun, then you will like it.

It does NOT mean that "oh it scored 90, that means I will probably enjoy it."

I hate Gears games.

But I would give them high scores, because it's solid product.

UC also...is not for me. Just not my cup of tea.

But they deserve 90+ rating because they are solid piece of work.

When people in the industry rant about "WHY IS EVERYTHING GETTING A 90!" everything is getting a 90 because we are late in the generation, developers have learned how to tap the hardware and get the most out of it, and they are putting out solid work that deserves a 90.

It does not mean you will enjoy every game that gets a 90.

It does not mean all of them will be a fun experience for you.

And it does not mean they need to be downgraded to 80 because "well it just wasn't that fun."

The score doesn't reflect subjective "fun", it reflects objective quality of the work.

I agree with the point at hand. It is starting to make me question their credibility. A review is an objectionaly analysis of a product, afterall. Some reviewers still maintain that attitude, but others are just completely bananas. Not to jump ship, but sometimes I'll read IGN reviews and I just think to myself, "...what?"

I think that Gamespot is way to tedious and over critical in some of their reviews, while other games they are far to generous with and give scores way higher then deserved. I take Gamespot's reviews, as well as all other "professional" gaming publication scores with a grain of salt and see them as a range of how much I'll enjoy the game; if a game gets an 8, I will probably rate it anywhere from a 6 to a 10 98% of the time.

I think that Gamespot is way to tedious and over critical in some of their reviews, while other games they are far to generous with and give scores way higher then deserved. I take Gamespot's reviews, as well as all other "professional" gaming publication scores with a grain of salt and see them as a range of how much I'll enjoy the game; if a game gets an 8, I will probably rate it anywhere from a 6 to a 10 98% of the time.

Shenmue_Jehuty

Yeah I second this notion of taking reviews and scores with a grain of salt as at the end of the day it just boils down to one person's opinion and we all know that opinions are subjective.

The scoring system should be entirely removed. It does not correctly reflect the state of the game and can be misleading. A system that uses adjectives should be used instead. Example: horrendous,awful, bad,mediocre, good, great, excellent. Game reviews are not mathematical equations so it should not rely on a system that gives numerial scores. This numerical scoring system that is pretty rampant in the industry gives a false sense of precision. Its made worse with the tenth of a point system.

Pedro

Here's a perfect reason why scores should be removed. Massive ****storm incoming.

Here's a perfect reason why scores should be removed. Massive ****storm incoming.

King9999

No surprise there...I imagine the Nintendo fanboys (and girls) will have a massive heart attack and eat Tom McShea alive for it.

I don't think enough websites use a true 1-10 scale. I like how Gamespot does their ratings, as I feel like I'll be flipping through Game Informer, and they give everything a solid 7 or above (for the most part).BadNewsBen