GameSpot Review History: Can you believe that.....

I'm slowly trying to add my game collection in my profile and I'm on PC games at the moment.

Boy, looking through GameSpot's history, there are some definite head scratchers.  I don't know who ran this site back in the day but it has obviously gotten much better.

Can you believe that.....

...... legendary first-person shooters such as Duke Nuke Em, Rainbow Six and Star Wars Dark Forces II (the first Jedi Knight) all failed to get above a 9.0?  Some of those scored as low as 8.0. These were all highly popular games back in the day and all 3 of them established new conceps in shooters and spawned several clones. I thought GameSpot was tougher than most big websites, but apparently they used to be a lot tougher on their reviews.

....... for as much time as people usually spend on MMORPGs, there are only 2 titles that ever scored above 9.0?  (World of Warcraft and Dark Ages of Camelot)  At a low 4.9, is Ultima Online the most commercially successful but lowest rated game in GameSpot's history?  I played that game way back in the day and I was blown away by it.  Other MMORPGs since have naturally perfected many elements of the genre since UO was the first one, but I find it hard to believe that this game that was so successful and addictive that EA cancelled an updated sequel only managed a 4.9? :o

....... that American McGee's Alice only got 7.3?  This must be because PC gamers aren't used to platformers. I'll admit it wasn't anywhere near the gameplay of Prince of Persia Sands of Time, but that was one of the oddest and visually beautiful games I've ever played. 

........ Battlefield 1942's expansion scored higher than Battlefield 1942 itself. Huh?  Just a few more maps and gameplay modes added, but the core game is what I would still rate the highest.

Agree with the reviews?  Disagree?  Anything odd you have noticed going through the game collection?

I'm slowly trying to add my game collection in my profile and I'm on PC games at the moment.

Boy, looking through GameSpot's history, there are some definite head scratchers.  I don't know who ran this site back in the day but it has obviously gotten much better.

Can you believe that.....

...... legendary first-person shooters such as Duke Nuke Em, Rainbow Six and Star Wars Dark Forces II (the first Jedi Knight) all failed to get above a 9.0?  Some of those scored as low as 8.0. These were all highly popular games back in the day and all 3 of them established new conceps in shooters and spawned several clones. I thought GameSpot was tougher than most big websites, but apparently they used to be a lot tougher on their reviews.

The__MCP

What you have to realize is that just because a game is popular, doesn't mean it should have scored 9.0+. I know that the Nuke Em series were always a blast to play and that the Star Wars Dark Forces were alright games....I never bother with Rainbow Six.

Then again, one person's opinion on a game will differ from another's. That being said, I'll use Halo as an example because so far it's been a monster in sales (popular):

I thought the first Halo was pretty darn good. Good graphics, fun game play value, good story line and the fact that it made it's way to PC made it that much better. I would have scored it between 8.5-9.0, depending on my mood after playing it. Now comes along Halo 2....which really doesn't offer anything different then the original; aside from the ability to wield dual weapons and the ability to hijack vehicles....the story wasn't as catchy and the game play was pretty much the same. If I scored Halo 2 I would have given it an 7.5-8.0.

Perhaps maybe you truely enjoyed the Halo series so far and you thought they should have received at least a 9.5 for Halo and a 9.0 for Halo 2. Let's face it, Halo is very popular, but that doesn't mean it should score high, it all just depends on your own personal view and how well you are at not being biassed towards your scoring on games that you don't find very fun.

You make it sound like any game scoring below a 9.0 has been underrated.  From what Ive read, a game that scores over a 9.0 must be not only a good game, but it must also be incredibly successful or part of a popular series.  I know, not the way it should work, but that seems to be the way it does work.

To me, any game scoring over a 6.5 is worthy of consideration, atleast by Gamespots review criterion.

Its why Deus Ex got an 8.2.  It has a diehard following, and you either love the game to death, or played it once and tossed it aside.  I think the reviewer did the same thing; he or she found nothing wrong with it, but there was also nothing special about it [for the reviewer], so the game was given a decent score and then overlooked.

Its why Deus Ex got an 8.2. It has a diehard following, and you either love the game to death, or played it once and tossed it aside. I think the reviewer did the same thing; he or she found nothing wrong with it, but there was also nothing special about it [for the reviewer], so the game was given a decent score and then overlooked.mrbojangles25

If you just ignore the number and just read what the reviewer has to say, most of the time its 100% correct. godofratz

That's what I do too. I like reading gamespots reviews though, and they seem pretty consistent.

My only complaint is they gave Delta Force Black Hawk Down a 5.6! Players gave it a 7.6. The game had some arcade-type sequences, but other parts were good solid FPS action in a believable third world setting. 

when i look at review scores, i usually interpret them like this: 6 range - only if you're a diehard fan of the genre or IP; 7 range - recommendable to everyone; 8 range - well worth a purchase for everyone; 9 range - essential purchase for everyone, so, i don't see a 6.3, i see a this game is worth buying if you love the genreA-S_FM

1 = bad
5 = mediocre
10 = perfect


How is 8 low? A 4 - 1 would be low lol.

I'm slowly trying to add my game collection in my profile and I'm on PC games at the moment.

Boy, looking through GameSpot's history, there are some definite head scratchers.  I don't know who ran this site back in the day but it has obviously gotten much better.

Can you believe that.....

...... legendary first-person shooters such as Duke Nuke Em, Rainbow Six and Star Wars Dark Forces II (the first Jedi Knight) all failed to get above a 9.0?  Some of those scored as low as 8.0. These were all highly popular games back in the day and all 3 of them established new conceps in shooters and spawned several clones. I thought GameSpot was tougher than most big websites, but apparently they used to be a lot tougher on their reviews.

....... for as much time as people usually spend on MMORPGs, there are only 2 titles that ever scored above 9.0?  (World of Warcraft and Dark Ages of Camelot)  At a low 4.9, is Ultima Online the most commercially successful but lowest rated game in GameSpot's history?  I played that game way back in the day and I was blown away by it.  Other MMORPGs since have naturally perfected many elements of the genre since UO was the first one, but I find it hard to believe that this game that was so successful and addictive that EA cancelled an updated sequel only managed a 4.9? :o

....... that American McGee's Alice only got 7.3?  This must be because PC gamers aren't used to platformers. I'll admit it wasn't anywhere near the gameplay of Prince of Persia Sands of Time, but that was one of the oddest and visually beautiful games I've ever played. 

........ Battlefield 1942's expansion scored higher than Battlefield 1942 itself. Huh?  Just a few more maps and gameplay modes added, but the core game is what I would still rate the highest.

Agree with the reviews?  Disagree?  Anything odd you have noticed going through the game collection?

The__MCP

There are only two things I want to comment on.

1 - The head scratching pheonomenon that has come about recently where people believe any score below a 9.0 is a bad score.  When did 8.0 get moved right next to 4.0????  8 is a fine score for a very good game.

2 - UO when it first came out was so unplayable there was actually was a clas action lawsuit brought against EA for releasing the game in such a state.  Granted, they improved upon the game greatly over the years, but when the review was given the game honsetly deserved that 4.9 score.