Gamespot better not give Starcraft II 90%

9.1 or higher.

Very dirty makerting gamespot, you dont think i see this one coming do u?

its ironic how every time ea always realease a command & conquer game , cnc game always get a 80% rating well,

Starcraft or warcraft are both enjoying a nice big juciy 90% rate :evil:

I know what most of you are thinking, is that starcraft II wont have problems or lags, or glitches and ti will eat up command & conquer.

This form of marketing gamespot is getting really lame

heres an example

here in canada we have a store called future shop, and there

they have listed starcraft II and can you see something strange?

Customer Rating: 3.86

which means 3 stars however does not case with star banner above the customer rating.

If gamespot reviews starcraft II near the future PLEASE DONT Let a FANBOY review the game, if starcraft II gets a 8.9

I would be happy.

You do know that the gamespot rating system works with 0.5 increments.greatmax1

This guy's right, they only work in .5 increments now.

Gameropsteel, please........

Blizzard polishes their games a lot more than EA does.

you're judging a game thats not out yet? not only that but you're going by ratings of a game thats not out?

Thats like when I looked at dead space on amazon before its release (for the PC, it was out for the 360). It has a 1 star, yet it is the best horror game this year. This is because people don't like securom, so they vote 1 star.

Two thoughts here:

1) Why do people care what scores games receive? If you don't like Starcraft and Blizzard's other games then simply don't play them, but saying they don't deserve a score when almost every publication and website have lobed praise at all their products doesn't make sense. Maybe the problem isn't all the reviewers but simply that the games don't match your taste. If you disagree with a review, then write your own and tell us all how the game simply doesn't meet your criteria but don't bash a website or its authors.

2) No online merchants even have a tenative date for Starcraft II which means that there is still a long development cycle ahead and absolutely no way Gamespot will be reviewing it anytime soon, so calm down my friend. The site that you reference is a store's website where people most likely click on a rating as they browse the site, it is not a collective average of people's opinions of the finished product.

On a side note (and please don't take this as disrespectful because it really isn't meant to be) but the sty!e with which you posted makes it very hard to figure out what your main point is, especially when you would hit enter a couple of times and then continue a sentence/thought...

here in canada we have a store called future shop, and there

they have listed starcraft II and can you see something strange?

Customer Rating: 3.86

which means3 stars however does not case with star banner above the customer rating.

CommandoAgent

It's been a long time since middle school math, but I'm pretty sure that .5 and above rounds up, not down.

Gamespot better not give Starcraft II 90%...

...or what? Is this another "I'll boycott Gamespot for giving my uber-favorite game an 8.5/10!"?

The game isn't out yet so chill out and go play all the other great games coming out this year and the ones that have been released already.

Well its not that i hate, starcraft, or anything like that, in fact i like starcraft a bit more,

Its just this form of reviewing games tactic is getting pretty lame, thats all.

I bet RA3 will go offline in less than a year, as RA3 team would be disbanded to work on some new project and RA3 support will be dropped. EA will never learn.Creative

I highly doubt that's going to happen, the CNC3 main servers are still up and running, and I haven't seen any indication that they're even contemplating taking them down in the near future.

And of course the developer behind RA3 (EA LA) will be working on another project now. Most of the time, the studio's new game(s) will have work started on it as soon as work begins to wrap up on the previous game. And the individual developers may be working on different projects, so now that work on RA3 pretty much finished (Aside from patches), they'll be reallocated to another game.

The actual Studio wouldn't be disbanded though.

SC II will be light years away from RA 3. RA3 has zero innovations, just plain revamp of RA2, trying to ride out on RA2 glory; RA for that reason.

SC II will actually introduce many, never before seen elements to RTS genre and will offer awesome online experience. Blizzard games are popular online even after 10 years . . . I bet RA3 will go offline in less than a year, as RA3 team would be disbanded to work on some new project and RA3 support will be dropped. EA will never learn.Creative

Ummmm actually SC II looks like a rehash of SC... RA3 is much more different than RA 2 or RA 1.

[QUOTE="Creative"]SC II will be light years away from RA 3. RA3 has zero innovations, just plain revamp of RA2, trying to ride out on RA2 glory; RA for that reason.

SC II will actually introduce many, never before seen elements to RTS genre and will offer awesome online experience. Blizzard games are popular online even after 10 years . . . I bet RA3 will go offline in less than a year, as RA3 team would be disbanded to work on some new project and RA3 support will be dropped. EA will never learn.simardbrad

Ummmm actually SC II looks like a rehash of SC... RA3 is much more different than RA 2 or RA 1.

What he said. I was pretty disappointed in how freakishly similar SCII looks to SC. RA3 on the other hand...NOTHING like RA2. Have you played the game?! It's like a mix between WC3, RA/CnC, maybe SC, and then it's own shabang with navies, scouting emphasis, and secondary abilities. Definitely the biggest step forward for any CnC game.

[QUOTE="simardbrad"]

[QUOTE="Creative"]SC II will be light years away from RA 3. RA3 has zero innovations, just plain revamp of RA2, trying to ride out on RA2 glory; RA for that reason.

SC II will actually introduce many, never before seen elements to RTS genre and will offer awesome online experience. Blizzard games are popular online even after 10 years . . . I bet RA3 will go offline in less than a year, as RA3 team would be disbanded to work on some new project and RA3 support will be dropped. EA will never learn.ace52387

Ummmm actually SC II looks like a rehash of SC... RA3 is much more different than RA 2 or RA 1.

What he said. I was pretty disappointed in how freakishly similar SCII looks to SC. RA3 on the other hand...NOTHING like RA2. Have you played the game?! It's like a mix between WC3, RA/CnC, maybe SC, and then it's own shabang with navies, scouting emphasis, and secondary abilities. Definitely the biggest step forward for any CnC game.

While I agree that Blizzard really isn't taking any risks at all on improving the Starcraft formula, they are adding enough different things into the game so it isn't a complete rehash. Sometimes totally changing a game doesn't mean it's better. And I'm sure the campaign/storyline will be far superior to anything we've seen RTS related in quite some time. Yes, I know some people are ticked off about them separating the campaigns into three different packages, but assuming they are all top notch quality and very long, I have no problem with that.

Didn't CnC3 get a 90%? It's just like every other CnC game except with better graphics. How's that different then what SC II is going to be?

I'm skeptical about Gamespot's RTS reviews. The blatantly favor the same old, same old over innovation. That's why I don't look at their RTS scores when looking to purchase a game.

Sorry, but Starcraft 2 is gonna be the best RTS for years to come.

i don't understand what you are trying to say.

Really, who cares what gamespot ranks a game. Most of their reviews are off, scorewise, imo. I stopped relying on them long ago. I always rely on the commnunity score because it's an average of a large sample of people as opposed to the iddy biddy and insignificant gamespot crew.claytoma

Yeah, I use the gamespot score as an "average". If a game scores pretty low, then I read on to find out why. I get more real info about a game from the player reviews. Typically, I browse through for people who scored it low, and see their reasons why. That helps me far better in my purchasing decisions than any review gamespot has ever done.

If I was interested in buying a game, I don't need to read paragraphs of praise. I want to skim through to see what, if any, problems the game may have that would sway my decision to buy it.

Really, who cares what gamespot ranks a game. Most of their reviews are off, scorewise, imo. I stopped relying on them long ago. I always rely on the commnunity score because it's an average of a large sample of people as opposed to the iddy biddy and insignificant gamespot crew.claytoma

Unfortunately, the player scores are also off. People will usually rate a game unrealisticly (with really low scores like 1.0, it's usually never that bad). 1.0s have a much more impact then 10.0s. I like to read each one individually, then look over the scores myself to make sure there aren't a ton of 1.0s by idiotic players that most likely haven't even played the game.

[QUOTE="claytoma"]Really, who cares what gamespot ranks a game. Most of their reviews are off, scorewise, imo. I stopped relying on them long ago. I always rely on the commnunity score because it's an average of a large sample of people as opposed to the iddy biddy and insignificant gamespot crew.Swiftstrike5

Unfortunately, the player scores are also off. People will usually rate a game unrealisticly (with really low scores like 1.0, it's usually never that bad). 1.0s have a much more impact then 10.0s. I like to read each one individually, then look over the scores myself to make sure there aren't a ton of 1.0s by idiotic players that most likely haven't even played the game.

Yeah, I don't really consider the insanely low scoring player reviews, as it takes a special breed of game to deserve a 1 or 3. I just read them, and look for the more middle of the road scoring reviews. And ones with actual substance, not like "This game sucks, I spent an hour trying to install it and it won't work. Gamestop won't let me take it back, so I give it a 1 out of 10"

lol.

9.1 or higher.

Very dirty makerting gamespot, you dont think i see this one coming do u?

its ironic how every time ea always realease a command & conquer game , cnc game always get a 80% rating well,

Starcraft or warcraft are both enjoying a nice big juciy 90% rate :evil:

I know what most of you are thinking, is that starcraft II wont have problems or lags, or glitches and ti will eat up command & conquer.

This form of marketing gamespot is getting really lame

heres an example

here in canada we have a store called future shop, and there

they have listed starcraft II and can you see something strange?

Customer Rating: 3.86

which means 3 stars however does not case with star banner above the customer rating.

If gamespot reviews starcraft II near the future PLEASE DONT Let a FANBOY review the game, if starcraft II gets a 8.9

I would be happy.

CommandoAgent

Yeah, I would definitely listen to the ratings of a game not out yet to base my decision too, its the only logical thing to do..