You're picking out games I've never played/cared about.
RE4 is the only one I have and that's for Gamecube...
Here are comparisons from games I care about:
Half-Life 2: ---Gamespot Score = 9.2
---PCG score = 98%
Both of those score mean the game is EXCELLENT, and is only .6 off...
Doom 3: ---Gamespot Score = 8.5
---PCG Score = 94%
Ok, that a legitimate one, I happen to agree with the 8.5 (as do most gamers and reviewers) but ok...
Just Cause: ---Gamespot Score = 7.2
---PCG Score = 93%
Ok, legitimate, though my thoughts are the same as above. That game has HORRIBLE driving physics, as well as crazy AI that chases you like rabid dogs.
Halo 2 (haven't played it but the score is important): ---Gamespot Score = 7.0
---PCG Score = 67%
There is a major difference between a 7-8 score game and a 6-7 score game.
.3% is a "major" difference? Sure...sure...
Far Cry: ---Gamespot Score = 9.2
---PCG Score = 95%
ROFL... its .3% difference...
Company of Heroes: ---Gamespot Score = 9.0
---PCG Score = 96%
Both scores indicate an excellent game
You did not make a very good case man, and not only that, you were cherry picking. I took EVERY review from a single issue, not just "the ones I cared about".
I guess my point is that GS doesn't give credit to games that deserve it and too much credit to games that don't deserve any. It's like they love console games and hate PC games or something.
Diablo is HARDLY the best PC game to ever exist but GS would have you think otherwise.
Thats your opinion, but diablo is the 6th best game. Thats a VERY subjective list. The exact order is uninportant, becuase when it comes down to it, I bet BOTH reviewing sources has ALL of these game rated about the same. The order may not be "exact", but all the games are there.
Look at PCG's best games ever.
50: Freedom Force (new)
D9-THC
49: Secret of Monkey Island (36)
48: Wing Commander III: Heart of the Tiger (19)
47: Worms Armageddon (45)
46: Homeworld (46)
45: Sam & Max Hit the Road (47)
44: Master of Orion (31)
43: High Heat MLB 2002 (43)
42: Panzer General (28)
41: Max Payne (new)
40: IL-2 Sturmovik: Forgotten Battles (new)
39: System Shock 2 (23)
38: Beavis & Butthead in Virtual Stupidity (48)
37: Tomb Raider (26)
36: Rise of Nations (new)
35: Neverwinter Nights (new)
34: Total Annihilation (39)
33: Beast Within: Gabriel Knight Mystery (32)
32: Ultima IV: Quest of the Avatar (21)
31: Mechwarrior 2 (8)
30: Unreal Tournament 2004 (new)
29: SimCity 2000 (25)
28: Need for Speed: Porsche Unleashed (33)
27: Deus Ex (10)
26: Quake (17)
25: Heroes of Might & Magic III (29)
24: Everquest (20)
23: The Sims (11)
22: Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six (9)
21: Star Wars: Jedi Knight - Dark Forces II (5)
20: Call of Duty (new)
19: Star Wars: KoToR (new)
18: Far Cry (new)
17: Command & Conquer: Red Alert (14)
16: Diablo II (7)
15: Duke Nukem 3D (12)
14: Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon (new)
13: Star Wars: Tie Fighter (16)
12: Grand Theft Auto III (new)
11: Baldur's Gate (13)
10: Fallout (4)
9: Battlefield 1942 (new)
8: X-Com: UFO Defense (3)
7: Starcraft (6)
6: Diablo (7)
5: Warcraft II: Tides of Darkness (5)
4: Half-Life 2 (new)
3: Civilization II (2)
2: Doom (15)
1: Half-Life (1)
Do you trust Gamespot's Scoring?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
I picked games that I've played and know.
And you might not think that there is a big difference between a 67 and a 70 or a 92 and a 95 but they're huge steps in my book. A 95 and up game is a life changing experience...anything 69 or below is NOT worth playing.
Gamespot has a noticable negative bias towards games that are original or more "indie." Indie games are my cup of tea and PCG likes them too.
I picked games that I've played and know.
And you might not think that there is a big difference between a 67 and a 70 or a 92 and a 95 but they're huge steps in my book. A 95 and up game is a life changing experience...anything 69 or below is NOT worth playing.
Gamespot has a noticable negative bias towards games that are original or more "indie." Indie games are my cup of tea and PCG likes them too.
D9-THC
Ah, thats your problem, you don't even understand the rating system...
http://www.gamespot.com/misc/reviewguidelines.html
"anything 69 or below is NOT worth playing."
Not true, you should familarize yourself with GS's rating system, and not just use the made one in your head.
I only have so much time in a day...
I only play the best games because I can only spend about an hour a day gaming...if I'm lucky.
69 and below is NOT worth playing; it bears repeating.
D9-THC
Again, you are not even using GS's rating system properly (you obviously don't understand it), and that is your problem. So read GS's rating system before repeating more non-sense.
------
7.0-7.5: Good A game within this range is good overall, and likely worth playing by fans of the particular genre or by those otherwise interested. While its strengths outweigh its weaknesses, a game that falls in this range tends to have noticeable faults.
6.0-6.5: Fair Games that earn 6-range ratings have certain good qualities but significant problems as well. These games may well be worth playing, but you should approach them with caution.
------------
A 6.9 is above "fair" (worth playing but with caution) and just a pinch below "good", which is deffinetly worth playing by fans of the genreand otherwise interested parties. All that score means is it has some serious flaws, but the good outweighs the bad.
For instance, Just Cuase got a 7.2. Which means it is worth playing, but has some serious flaws, which is absolutely true. In a game where drving is a tremendous part of the gameplay, such a poor driving model is deffinetly a flaw. But GS also recognizes that it has alot of pros (great graphics, decent story, cool stunt moves), and overall they out weight the cons.
Here is something, that, might make you even more certain.
Read reviews, of, a game, you, have, already, played. That stands out, in, your mind, as being, either, good or bad.
If you can agree with the review wholly, you will know, if the gamespot team ,are the reviewers for you.
suck it and see
It doesn't make sense to you but I work for a living and would rather not waste my time playing "fair" games.D9-THC
I work for a living also...
The difference between you and me however, is that I truly understand the rating system, and you don't.
"Fair" and "Good" still is worth playing, and still is fun. There is just obvious flaws with the game, though fans or people who enjoy it can overlook these flaws becuase there is more good then bad.
[QUOTE="D9-THC"]It doesn't make sense to you but I work for a living and would rather not waste my time playing "fair" games.dnuggs40
I work for a living also...
The difference between you and me however, is that I truly understand the rating system, and you don't.
"Fair" and "Good" still is worth playing, and still is fun. There is just obvious flaws with the game, though fans or people who enjoy it can overlook these flaws becuase there is more good then bad.
Congratz on "understanding the rating system." I'm sure it makes you a better reader of reviews...
What you should say is that you agree so wholeheartedly with the reviews at GS that it causes you cognitive dissonance whenever someone disagrees.
I understand PERFECTLY that you can't trust GS for reviews. Why don't you understand that?
It's because WE ALL HAVE DIFFERENT TASTES. PC Gamer reviewers have the EXACT same taste as me which is why I trust their reviews. Gamespot has the EXACT OPPOSITE taste as me which is why I avoid their reviews.
You are trying to defend gamespot's reviews in order to inflate the perception of importance your opinion brings. It will never be anything but an opinion, even if it's on your "home turf" here at gamespot.
You are wrestling with your own dissonance.
Nothing you have said will affect the way I play games or enjoy them.
[QUOTE="dnuggs40"]
[QUOTE="D9-THC"]It doesn't make sense to you but I work for a living and would rather not waste my time playing "fair" games.D9-THC
I work for a living also...
The difference between you and me however, is that I truly understand the rating system, and you don't.
"Fair" and "Good" still is worth playing, and still is fun. There is just obvious flaws with the game, though fans or people who enjoy it can overlook these flaws becuase there is more good then bad.
Congratz on "understanding the rating system." I'm sure it makes you a better reader of reviews...
What you should say is that you agree so wholeheartedly with the reviews at GS that it causes you cognitive dissonance whenever someone disagrees.
I understand PERFECTLY that you can't trust GS for reviews. Why don't you understand that?
It's because WE ALL HAVE DIFFERENT TASTES. PC Gamer reviewers have the EXACT same taste as me which is why I trust their reviews. Gamespot has the EXACT OPPOSITE taste as me which is why I avoid their reviews.
You are trying to defend gamespot's reviews in order to inflate the perception of importance your opinion brings. It will never be anything but an opinion, even if it's on your "home turf" here at gamespot.
You are wrestling with your own dissonance.
Nothing you have said will affect the way I play games or enjoy them.
More like, both PCG and GS (I read both)have reviews and scores so similar, it's absolutely silly to trust one and not the other. Or what your original post said, which was that GS was "terrible".
"I understand PERFECTLY that you can't trust GS for reviews. Why don't you understand that?"
Becuase they just about every game they both review gets roughly the same score. To trust one and not the other is silly, and not logical.
"Congratz on "understanding the rating system." I'm sure it makes you a better reader of reviews..."
ROFL...actually it does. If you can't even understand the context in which a review is made, how can you judge it? That's just ignorance...
"Nothing you have said will affect the way I play games or enjoy them."
True, but that doesn't stop me from pointing out your illogical reasoning ;) Do what you will with that knowledge, but don't think for a second what you say and do actually makes sense!
It doesn't make sense to you because of your opinion...
I've been a gamer all of my life and I've read PC Gamer for the last 13 years. In 13 years there has been one review I disagreed with and only because they didn't mention bugs...
I've read Gamespot since 1994 or 1995...I don't remember. In all that time I have never read a review that I agree with.
How is it logical in any way to rely on a site for reviews that you don't agree with? It ISN'T! It's logical for you because of your opinions and taste. It's completely illogical for me because my enjoyment will not be equivalent to the GS review.
If you went by Gamespot's reviews you'd believe that Twisted Metal Black is better than any PC game EVER made except for Diablo...I don't trust those numbers.
It doesn't make sense to you because of your opinion...
I've been a gamer all of my life and I've read PC Gamer for the last 13 years. In 13 years there has been one review I disagreed with and only because they didn't mention bugs...
I've read Gamespot since 1994 or 1995...I don't remember. In all that time I have never read a review that I agree with.
How is it logical in any way to rely on a site for reviews that you don't agree with? It ISN'T! It's logical for you because of your opinions and taste. It's completely illogical for me because my enjoyment will not be equivalent to the GS review.
If you went by Gamespot's reviews you'd believe that Twisted Metal Black is better than any PC game EVER made except for Diablo...I don't trust those numbers.
D9-THC
Again, context of the reviews. I don't think there is a single GS reviewer who would ever make that claim about Twisted Metal. You don't understand the rating system. It is specific for the game, and doesn't mean that just becuase a game got .2 more then another, that it is actually better than that game. The reviews are GENRE specific most of the time, and also SYSTEM specific.
And it's illogical becuase you DONT UNDERSTAND THE RATING SYSTEM. Have your opinions and all, but if they are based on FALSE information, they are ILLOGICAL.
I'll save money and time by being illogical so your accusation of illogical thought seems really illogical.D9-THC
Were not discussing money, we are discussing your claim that one reviewing source is terrible, and one is not. And I say you are illogical, becuase both reviewing sources are almost identical in their reviews, and the fact thatyou have shown that you didn't understand the reviewing protocols of the "terrible"site.
[QUOTE="D9-THC"]I'll save money and time by being illogical so your accusation of illogical thought seems really illogical.dnuggs40
Were not discussing money, we are discussing your claim that one reviewing source is terrible, and one is not. And I say you are illogical, becuase both reviewing sources are almost identical in their reviews, and the fact thatyou have shown that you didn't understand the reviewing protocols of the "terrible"site.
Why do we read reviews? In order to have a better understanding of a game so we can make an educated decision on whether or not to spend our time and money on the game.
Gamespot reviews are terrible because if I trust them I will not spend my time and money properly.
Why does it upset you so much to know that I despise gamespot's rating system? I've never seen someone with such an authoritarian view of game reviews.
By the way...if I ever need a second opinion I go straight to IGN...they seem to like the games that I do as much as I do.
I trust it up until 9.0...anything past that and I feel favoritism is factoring in a bit much.
They have a good system, however...instead of just saying "this is a good game and I give it a 9!" they break it down for us. SO for those of us who are not graphically obsessed, a game that scored a7.2 overall (and received a 9 in gameplay but a 6 in graphics, for example),is still a good game for us.
So ya, I trust Gamespot...but I trust demos even more.
mrbojangles25
They don't break down the score anymore, unfortunately. They have a new scoring system where they just have mention the good and bad qualities and the score. I have yet to figure out how they determine that score. I was even wondering about peoples saying that scores were lowered because of high system requirements; how do you know? and by how much?
"Why do we read reviews? In order to have a better understanding of a game so we can make an educated decision on whether or not to spend our time and money on the game."
Right, and they are both so similar it's silly to trust one and not the other, especially when you have shown you did not even understand the rating system.
But anyways, this is going nowhere. We are never going to agree, and no matter how much I show you that they are almost identical, and educate you on the actual reviewing system, you just wont see the light.
"Why does it upset you so much to know that I despise gamespot's rating system? I've never seen someone with such an authoritarian view of game reviews."
Pointing out the blatent similarities and educating you on the reviewing system is authoritarian? If you wish to keep your illogical opinions thats fine, but on that same token I am also allowed to point out that your views are based on what seems to be a illogical bias. Take it or leave it, doesn't matter to me.
"By the way...if I ever need a second opinion I go straight to IGN...they seem to like the games that I do as much as I do."
ROFL!
http://pc.ign.com/objects/709/709567.html#reviews
Just Cause, 6.8 according to IGN, which is actually LESS then GS ;)
"Why do we read reviews? In order to have a better understanding of a game so we can make an educated decision on whether or not to spend our time and money on the game."
Right, and they are both so similar it's silly to trust one and not the other, especially when you have shown you did not even understand the rating system.
But anyways, this is going nowhere. We are never going to agree, and no matter how much I show you that they are almost identical, and educate you on the actual reviewing system, you just wont see the light.
"Why does it upset you so much to know that I despise gamespot's rating system? I've never seen someone with such an authoritarian view of game reviews."
Pointing out the blatent similarities and educating you on the reviewing system is authoritarian? If you wish to keep your illogical opinions thats fine, but on that same token I am also allowed to point out that your views are based on what seems to be a illogical bias. Take it or leave it, doesn't matter to me.
"By the way...if I ever need a second opinion I go straight to IGN...they seem to like the games that I do as much as I do."
ROFL!
http://pc.ign.com/objects/709/709567.html#reviews
Just Cause, 6.8 according to IGN, which is actually LESS then GS ;)
dnuggs40
Just Cause is insignificant...I never even heard of it until PC Gamer reviewed it. IGN gets the major reviews right...
Half-life 2 is a monolith in gaming and GS COMPLETELY BOTCHED that review. It's the best game ever created and it's rated lower than most of the trash that comes out on a daily basis.
[QUOTE="dnuggs40"]"Why do we read reviews? In order to have a better understanding of a game so we can make an educated decision on whether or not to spend our time and money on the game."
Right, and they are both so similar it's silly to trust one and not the other, especially when you have shown you did not even understand the rating system.
But anyways, this is going nowhere. We are never going to agree, and no matter how much I show you that they are almost identical, and educate you on the actual reviewing system, you just wont see the light.
"Why does it upset you so much to know that I despise gamespot's rating system? I've never seen someone with such an authoritarian view of game reviews."
Pointing out the blatent similarities and educating you on the reviewing system is authoritarian? If you wish to keep your illogical opinions thats fine, but on that same token I am also allowed to point out that your views are based on what seems to be a illogical bias. Take it or leave it, doesn't matter to me.
"By the way...if I ever need a second opinion I go straight to IGN...they seem to like the games that I do as much as I do."
ROFL!
http://pc.ign.com/objects/709/709567.html#reviews
Just Cause, 6.8 according to IGN, which is actually LESS then GS ;)
D9-THC
Just Cause is insignificant...I never even heard of it until PC Gamer reviewed it. IGN gets the major reviews right...
Half-life 2 is a monolith in gaming and GS COMPLETELY BOTCHED that review. It's the best game ever created and it's rated lower than most of the trash that comes out on a daily basis.
lol...here is more
http://pc.ign.com/objects/014/014934.html
Doom 3, 8.9, which is more in line with GS
http://pc.ign.com/objects/743/743961.html
Company of Heroes, 9.4, which is also VERY similar to GS
Sorry dude, your views are not logical, all of these sites rate thesee games so similar, it's almost identical...
You can grab stuff from IGN if you want but I rarely look there...only if I'm teetering on the edge about a game.
What you don't understand that I'm trying to stress is that a 9.5 from gamespot means nothing to me because they are "console gamers." They like easy games that offer little challenge but a lot of stuff to blow up and pretty graphics and what not.
Would you ask a sommelier about beer? You can...but what validity does their opinion hold? Just because they know a lot about wine doesn't mean they know jack about beer. Gamespot reviewers don't know jack about PC gaming.
"What you don't understand that I'm trying to stress is that a 9.5 from gamespot means nothing to me because they are "console gamers." They like easy games that offer little challenge but a lot of stuff to blow up and pretty graphics and what not. "
Ah-ha! Now the real bias comes out!
Nothing more to be said, you just proved my point...
*tosses in my 2 cents*
in a rating scale between 1 and 10 a 9.6 is the same as a 9.2. or for that mater a 6.8 is the same as a 7. ESPECIALY in something as subjective as rating a game, hell maybe the reviewer had a quicky for lunch with his chick that day and tacked on the extra .2% because he was in an unusualy good mood, or maybe she left him the next day for his best friend to explane the .3 less he gave THAT day.its not like ANY game review sight has an actual ratingformula that can be codifiedor something.
to say that you dont trust one sight over another when there is seldom more than .2 or .3 difference in scores is just crazy talk. i agree that its probibaly the right choice to 'shop around' if your seriously looking at buying a game that you need answers about, and check other sights for their ratings as well, but to make an issue about a change of .2 or even a full point difference between sightslike it actualy MEANS something, like i said, crazy talk. now if you were to say "lookit GS gave CIV II a score of 3 and PC gamer gave it a 9.5"THEN you may have a small point. but so far you dont.
i dont think Dnuggs is 'defending' GS so much as hes laughing at your assertions. and pretty much all of us reading this thread are doing the same thing id be willing to wager. i know i am at any rate.im not laughing at you, mind. im just kinda ammused at the idea that anyone could get so riled up over so small a thing. your totaly entitled to not like GS reviews. i have my own 'issues' with some of it myself (though its more of a whole 'system' issue where big name games get better reviews on average simply BECAUSE they are big named. but thats not exclusive to GS by any means) and you feel the way you feel reguardless. but the point you have tryed to make so far just doesnt hold water. i actualy respected you more when you came right out and say you dont like GS because they are a consoll sight. that made FAR more sense than the while issue over a .2% difference in scores.
*tosses in my 2 cents*
in a rating scale between 1 and 10 a 9.6 is the same as a 9.2. or for that mater a 6.8 is the same as a 7. ESPECIALY in something as subjective as rating a game, hell maybe the reviewer had a quicky for lunch with his chick that day and tacked on the extra .2% because he was in an unusualy good mood, or maybe she left him the next day for his best friend to explane the .3 less he gave THAT day.its not like ANY game review sight has an actual ratingformula that can be codifiedor something.
to say that you dont trust one sight over another when there is seldom more than .2 or .3 difference in scores is just crazy talk. i agree that its probibaly the right choice to 'shop around' if your seriously looking at buying a game that you need answers about, and check other sights for their ratings as well, but to make an issue about a change of .2 or even a full point difference between sightslike it actualy MEANS something, like i said, crazy talk. now if you were to say "lookit GS gave CIV II a score of 3 and PC gamer gave it a 9.5"THEN you may have a small point. but so far you dont.
i dont think Dnuggs is 'defending' GS so much as hes laughing at your assertions. and pretty much all of us reading this thread are doing the same thing id be willing to wager. i know i am at any rate.im not laughing at you, mind. im just kinda ammused at the idea that anyone could get so riled up over so small a thing. your totaly entitled to not like GS reviews. i have my own 'issues' with some of it myself (though its more of a whole 'system' issue where big name games get better reviews on average simply BECAUSE they are big named. but thats not exclusive to GS by any means) and you feel the way you feel reguardless. but the point you have tryed to make so far just doesnt hold water. i actualy respected you more when you came right out and say you dont like GS because they are a consoll sight. that made FAR more sense than the while issue over a .2% difference in scores.
jeffcenate
It's really not at all about the numbers...I just had to throw them out there because that's all dnuggs was looking at.
It's more about the fact that I just don't even consider GS reviews because of their history of console preference.
And I'm not the one getting worked up if you didn't notice lol. I have an opinion and I can face that fact. Dnuggs has an opinion that he is treating like fact and if you disagree he'll force it into you. Authoritarian to a T.
I don't care what YOU think about GS reviews. If they work for you then that's great, if not, do something about it and find reviews that you trust. You won't ever find me complaining about the reviews here...why waste the energy? I know some people trust them and I'm not going to change their minds, nor do I want to.
When told to back up my OPINION of the terrible reviews I gave my reasons. However, dnuggs cannot accept the fact that my opinion is different from his own and wants to "prove" that he is right. I don't care if you like GS reviews...I don't and never will. I don't read them as they are totally useless to me. I'm not going to start reading them either.
I would probably play the EXACT same games regardless of the reviews that I read. Why does it matter at all if I agree or disagree for reasons perceived to be illogical? The only cause for such a perception is one's own bias...
It's completely illogical for anyone to buy an Xbox...in my eyes. The money spent on an Xbox could easily build a gaming PC that would be more fun to use. But you might have a different opinion of fun making a logical investment no longer logical.
See how that works?
"However, dnuggs cannot accept the fact that my opinion is different from his own and wants to "prove" that he is right."
An opinion is an opinion, I can't change that. But what I can do (and pretty much did), was show you that your opinion and the "facts" you claim to base it off of is malarky.
Go ahead and keep believing whatever it is you want to, but please don't ever attempt to say it is logical or makes sense.Your views are completely based in fantasy land, and depend entirely on made up bias...
"It's more about the fact that I just don't even consider GS reviews because of their history of console preference."
That's amazing, considering Gamespot's scores are almost entirely inline with the PCG and IGN's scores. How in the world could they have a bias? And, *if* they did, that would meant those two sites you listed ALSO have a bias!
Sorry man, have your opinion or whatever, but just know it's based off baloney...
"However, dnuggs cannot accept the fact that my opinion is different from his own and wants to "prove" that he is right."
An opinion is an opinion, I can't change that. But what I can do (and pretty much did), was show you that your opinion and the "facts" you claim to base it off of is malarky.
Go ahead and keep believing whatever it is you want to, but please don't ever attempt to say it is logical or makes sense.Your views are completely based in fantasy land, and depend entirely on made up bias...
"It's more about the fact that I just don't even consider GS reviews because of their history of console preference."
That's amazing, considering Gamespot's scores are almost entirely inline with the PCG and IGN's scores. How in the world could they have a bias? And, *if* they did, that would meant those two sites you listed ALSO have a bias!
Sorry man, have your opinion or whatever, but just know it's based off baloney...
dnuggs40
Let's see...gamespot reviewers prefer console games to PC games...that's how they're biased. I don't trust the review of anyone who prefers Halo to Half-Life...they're effing retarded in my book if they do.
PC Gamer (with the exception of Whitta...and he doesn't really count) rips on consoles and how toyish they are all the time. They play with "real gaming rigs" and because of that I hold their opinion in higher regard.
I won't read a review/take a review seriously by anyone who has demonstrated anything but absolute loyalty to the PC...
Gamespot reviewers aren't loyal to any system because they can't be or else people will rip their eyes out for being biased. Why would I want a review from a generic gamer when I can read one by a hardcore PC gamer who likes the same games that I do and sees gaming the same way that I do?
Am I getting through yet? I swear this isnt that difficult to understand. Different people have different needs.
It boggles my mind that you're so threatened by someone not liking GS reviews...there is no need to be defensive and that's all you've been. It's not like your dad works there or something...
If I read reviews would that actually make you happy? I don't understand what you're fighting for besides being a constant voice of opposition.
Let me simplify this (Me: I think GS reviews are crap) (You: You're an idiot) x 20 = I realize you have a different opinion but I have no clue what you're trying to accomplish by calling me illogical...and I think that's because you're not actually trying to accomplish anything except for trying to demean someone with a different opinion.
"I won't read a review/take a review seriously by anyone who has demonstrated anything but absolute loyalty to the PC..."
ROFL
The only thing you have proven in the "conversation" is that you are in fact the only who cannot be taken seriously...
Alright, I am done, here. This guy is a complete and utter fanboy. So much so, that he can't even see how illogical and rediculous his views are.
"PC Gamer ROXXURS!! They are loyal to teh PC!!!! Gamespot is teh SUXXORS!!!!"
But...they score the same games exactly the same...how can one suck and the other be trustworthy? Oh forget it...there is no helping this one...
Continue along your path of ultra fanboyism and illogical conclusions!
[QUOTE="YourOldFriend"]I trust PCGamer reviews and general opinion on the boards infinitely more. Even those have let me down, but they're a lot more competent than the crap that GS puts out. GS is only a decent site for previews and often silly forums.DABhand_UK
Dont mean to be rude, but for someone thats not happy with the GS "crap" you sure love to hang about :)
You must not have read my post all the way. I noted that I enjoy the forums, but that's all for me. Although, at the rate I post (a few posts every few days), even the forums are no biggie to me.
edit: whoops, wrote my pot :oops:
Trust how far is a good question....
I'll definitely double check some items that don't seem in line with comments or other reviews, but I like hearing the ins and outs of a game sometimes before I buy.
I will sign the petition to go back to .1 rating system, .5 doesn't seem to be hacking it.
Besides, if they didn't review, what would people talk about?
[QUOTE="dnuggs40"]
[QUOTE="D9-THC"]It doesn't make sense to you but I work for a living and would rather not waste my time playing "fair" games.D9-THC
I work for a living also...
The difference between you and me however, is that I truly understand the rating system, and you don't.
"Fair" and "Good" still is worth playing, and still is fun. There is just obvious flaws with the game, though fans or people who enjoy it can overlook these flaws becuase there is more good then bad.
Congratz on "understanding the rating system." I'm sure it makes you a better reader of reviews...
What you should say is that you agree so wholeheartedly with the reviews at GS that it causes you cognitive dissonance whenever someone disagrees.
I understand PERFECTLY that you can't trust GS for reviews. Why don't you understand that?
It's because WE ALL HAVE DIFFERENT TASTES. PC Gamer reviewers have the EXACT same taste as me which is why I trust their reviews. Gamespot has the EXACT OPPOSITE taste as me which is why I avoid their reviews.
You are trying to defend gamespot's reviews in order to inflate the perception of importance your opinion brings. It will never be anything but an opinion, even if it's on your "home turf" here at gamespot.
You are wrestling with your own dissonance.
Nothing you have said will affect the way I play games or enjoy them.
To barge into your discussion, that right there is the case and point imo. No review, be it GS or whoever "spot", will ever persuade me to buy a game. ONE MANS review is like a one straw or hay among MANY. To totally trust a review in making your desicion tells me you need to re-evaluate what compells you to buy games and why you love them. If you knew this, you wouldnt need ONE MANS review to judge what game you'll buy. Reviews are good however to determine bugs etc, but as far as gameplay goes reviews INCLUDING GS's mean diddly squat imho of course :D
Yes I do, hence why I am a full access subscriber. They have always been a fair review site, and when a game does score lower than expected it always has a good reason, dont agree with all scores of course but thats only natural.V4LENT1NE
Very well put, V4LENT1NE; a sensible approach to reviews. Rare around here.
i wouldnt say his approach is rare. aside from D9, we all say pretty much the same thing. we trust GS reviews to a point, and that they are no worse or better than any other review sight.
just because one person argued for 3 pages that GS is horrible that doesnt mean the majority agreed. just look at D9 as the one guy out of 10 that gave CIV II a score of 3 instead of 9 like the rest. ;)
Compare to other professional game review sites, Gamespot is very good in my opinion. If the game scored lower then my expectation are there are always reasonable explanations why.
I like the approach as well, we're here to play games not to debate favoritism.
Of course, I'll always judge the game with my own experience, however GS does a decent job of bringing an overall knowledge and given you a good understanding of a particular game strength and weakness.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment