Best of 2007 rigged?

Which ones are you referring to? I thought UT3 was great and so was Orange box. What are you looking for that is missing sir?ColdfireTrilogy

Why is the 8.5 scoring Mass Effect up there at one of the best titles, but not the 8.5 scoring The Witcher?

[QUOTE="ColdfireTrilogy"]Which ones are you referring to? I thought UT3 was great and so was Orange box. What are you looking for that is missing sir?XaosII

Why is the 8.5 scoring Mass Effect up there at one of the best titles, but not the 8.5 scoring The Witcher?

the only games on the list, are the ones that were included on the original hype 2007 list in early 2007...the Witcher was sort of a surprise hit.

Which ones are you referring to? I thought UT3 was great and so was Orange box. What are you looking for that is missing sir?ColdfireTrilogy

The Witcher and Mask of the Betrayer to name a couple. It's like the hardcore RPG scene doesn't exsist according to this poll except for Mass Effect.

[QUOTE="XaosII"]

[QUOTE="ColdfireTrilogy"]Which ones are you referring to? I thought UT3 was great and so was Orange box. What are you looking for that is missing sir?cobrax75

Why is the 8.5 scoring Mass Effect up there at one of the best titles, but not the 8.5 scoring The Witcher?

It wasn't really a suprise hit to those of us who closely follow the genre. If they really want to have a hype based vote they shouldn't call it "Best of 2007" but instead "2007 Hyped Games That Actually Worked Out" or something.

the only games on the list, are the ones that were included on the original hype 2007 list in early 2007...the Witcher was sort of a surprise hit.

And the dumb forums omitted my text. What I said below the above quote was this:

It wasn't a suprise hit to folks who closely follow the genre. If the poll is only on 'heavily hyped' games then it should not be the "Best of 2007" poll. Period.

Of course it's rigged, what did you except

And Mass Effect deserved at least a 9.5 (Oblivion had even more problems and got 9.6)(Every other site gave it above 9)

GameSpot gets paid by someone to rig the results and write untrue reviews (Vampire-Bloodlines deserved at least a 8.5)

Who cares. There are so many awards given out these days they don't mean anything. It's like when you were in elementary school and everyone got a trophy, even the "slow" kids, so no one would feel bad. Just because a game gets an award doesn't mean it was any good. Personally I'd love to have all of the money I've spent in years past on steaming piles that were "game of the year contenders." fenriz275

There have always been some pretty questionable nominations in the past but I don't recall a year where many of the best games weren't even in the running until now.

Of course it's rigged, what did you except

And Mass Effect deserved at least a 9.5 (Oblivion had even more problems and got 9.6)(Every other site gave it above 9)

GameSpot gets paid by someone to rig the results and write untrue reviews (Vampire-Bloodlines deserved at least a 8.5)

Darth_Kane

Someone is paying GS to give Vampire less than it deserves? I doubt that.

And yes, you can vote multiple times.

[QUOTE="Darth_Kane"]

Of course it's rigged, what did you except

And Mass Effect deserved at least a 9.5 (Oblivion had even more problems and got 9.6)(Every other site gave it above 9)

GameSpot gets paid by someone to rig the results and write untrue reviews (Vampire-Bloodlines deserved at least a 8.5)

RK-Mara

Someone is paying GS to give Vampire less than it deserves? I doubt that.

And yes, you can vote multiple times.

That's not what I meant:

Reviewers get paid by developers or publishers to give crappy games big scores (KOTOR2,NWN2,Halo3,Oblivion etc.) and those that don't pay them they give their games low scores (Vampire-Bloodlines,Mass Effect etc.)

That's not what I meant:

Reviewers get paid by developers or publishers to give crappy games big scores (KOTOR2,NWN2,Halo3,Oblivion etc.) and those that don't pay them they give their games low scores (Vampire-Bloodlines,Mass Effect etc.)

Darth_Kane

Because eeryone else's opinion must be the same as yours, otherwise it must be biased.

[QUOTE="Darth_Kane"]

That's not what I meant:

Reviewers get paid by developers or publishers to give crappy games big scores (KOTOR2,NWN2,Halo3,Oblivion etc.) and those that don't pay them they give their games low scores (Vampire-Bloodlines,Mass Effect etc.)

Baiyan

Because eeryone else's opinion must be the same as yours, otherwise it must be biased.

Trust me, almost everyone who has played the games agrees. There have been tons of posts on these forums that said that KOTOR2, NWN2, Halo3, Oblivion and other overhyped games suck and that Vampire-Bloodlines, Mass Effect and other underrated games are great

Just look at the user scores

[QUOTE="Baiyan"][QUOTE="Darth_Kane"]

That's not what I meant:

Reviewers get paid by developers or publishers to give crappy games big scores (KOTOR2,NWN2,Halo3,Oblivion etc.) and those that don't pay them they give their games low scores (Vampire-Bloodlines,Mass Effect etc.)

Darth_Kane

Because eeryone else's opinion must be the same as yours, otherwise it must be biased.

Trust me, almost everyone who has played the games agrees. There have been tons of posts on these forums that said that KOTOR2, NWN2, Halo3, Oblivion and other overhyped games suck and that Vampire-Bloodlines, Mass Effect and other underrated games are great

Just look at the user scores

Mass Effect and Bloodlines got what they deserved, but I do agree that Halo 3 and Oblivion were slightly over-rated. When it all comes down to it, the review is based off of the experience of the reviewer. With the complexity of games now-a-days, everyone experiences games differently, is turned-on by different things, has different complaints, ect. In the end, the only review you can trust is your own.

But to get back on topic, Best of 2007 may or may not be rigged, but there's definitely problems with the system and it can't be trusted. Of course, GameSpot won't make any comments on it until the whole process is done and overwith. It's pretty obvious that Kane and Lynch is going to win anyway...

I kind of wish people would stop with the blatant shill accusations. There are several reasons for this:

1) There's really no point to persuing it because there's no way to prove one way or the other.

2) Generally the reasoning in such accusations is pretty obviously full of the accusers personal bias and there is absolutely nothing wrong with giving a game that person X likes on purely subjective grounds a bad rating.

3) These kind of wild accusations detract from the very legitamate beef that taking a narrow slice of games based on hype, soliciting user votes one them, and then claiming the winner is the 'best of the year' is poor journalism.

[QUOTE="RK-Mara"][QUOTE="Darth_Kane"]

Of course it's rigged, what did you except

And Mass Effect deserved at least a 9.5 (Oblivion had even more problems and got 9.6)(Every other site gave it above 9)

GameSpot gets paid by someone to rig the results and write untrue reviews (Vampire-Bloodlines deserved at least a 8.5)

Darth_Kane

Someone is paying GS to give Vampire less than it deserves? I doubt that.

And yes, you can vote multiple times.

That's not what I meant:

Reviewers get paid by developers or publishers to give crappy games big scores (KOTOR2,NWN2,Halo3,Oblivion etc.) and those that don't pay them they give their games low scores (Vampire-Bloodlines,Mass Effect etc.)

The critic score of NWN2 is 8.2 and the score on GS is 8.6. Biased indeed. And it's published by Atari. Since when has Atari had money? KOTOR2's critic score is 8.6, user score 9 and GS score 8.5. What's wrong with that?

Halo 3 is praised in every media and it won the GOTY from Time.

PC version of Oblivion has 9.3 critic, user and GS score.

None of them are bad games. They aren't just as good as their predecessors. You are just making brainless speculations after the Jeff scandal.