Are all gamespot reviews wrong?

People oftenly say that gamespot reviews are wrong. Do people think that 1 man do all the reviews? I'll check which games are reviewd by a person who knows his stuff. I find this out by comparing his scores (the ones he have given 9.0+)to the average user score.

It goes like this

Name of game - reviewed score - user score - difference

Wic - Jason Ocampo.

WiC - 9,5 - 8,7 - +0,8

Rainbow six vegas (Ps3) - 9.0 - 8.6 - +0.4

F.E.A.R - 9.1 - 9.2 - -0.1

Far cry instincts - 9.2 - 9.1 - +0.1

Battlefield 2 - 9.2 - 9.2 - +0.0

Half life 2 - 9.2 - 9.4 - -0.2

Rome total war - 9.1 - 9.4 - -0.3

Rise of nations: Thrones and patriots - 9.0 - 9.1 - - 0.1

Far cry - 9.2 - 9.1 - +0.1

Total + 1,4 and -0.7 = +0.7 on 9 games... that is less than 0.1 to much in average pr game, a totally ok reviewer.

According to this, WiC deserved it's score`

Halo 3: Jeff gerstmann

This guy has given over 1000 reviews, I won't bother going through all pages, I stop when it comes to the Ps2 gen.

Halo 3: 9.5 - 9.0 - +0.5

Bioshock (PC): 9.0 - 8.8 - +0.2

Wario ware: 9.1 - 8.5 - +0.6

Gears of war: 9.6 - 9.4 - +0.2

Tekken: DR - 9.2 - 9.1 - +0.1

Total: +1.6 on 5 games. That's 0.3 too much in average. He seems to overrate almost all the time, but wait? he did TP.

Which got 8.8 - 9.4 - -0.6... That seems odd? Anyway. Can this be trusted?

The halo3 review appears to be a bit odd, and can't be taken on in any second

Gears of war: Jeff, see Halo 3 for more info

Gears review also seems to be a bit odd

Metroid prime 3: Kevin van ord

Metroid prime 3 - 8.5 - 9.1 - -0.6

Re4 WE - 9.1 -9.1-0.0

Command and conquer 3 - 9.0 9.0 -0.0

That's all his AAAs.

First Halo and Metroid has always gotten the best reviewer possible, why not give a man who has done 60 reviews the role of Mp3, while Jeff (the man who has rated most games) reviews halo 3? Seems odd.

So he has -0.6 on 3 games, that's -0.2 in average. That seems a bit odd...

Metroid prime 3 review seems a bit odd.

The elder scrolls: oblivion Greg K

All his reviews are, GONE! I can't find any. They deleted it from his profile! What the?

Forza 2 - Alax navarro

He has given 600+ reviews, won't go through all

Forza 2 - 9.2 - 9.0 - +0.2

God of war 2 - 9.2 - 9.4 --0.2

Burnout legends - 9.0 - 9.1- -0.1

Looked up 400 reviews, and that's all the AAAs anyway

Forza 2 review seems fine.

Hope this was intresting info.

But ++ in the start of your sentence if you read down here

you shouldn't use user ratings, they mostly consist of fanboys, like the many 1s halo 3 got from jealos sony guys... you should use gamerainkings.

No. Fanboys often scream that Gamespot is "biased" or "bribed" if a game they hate does well. I guess some fanboys can't understand what the hell an "opinion" is.BioShockOwnz

That just wraps the thread up.

No. Fanboys often scream that Gamespot is "biased" or "bribed" if a game they hate does well. I guess some fanboys can't understand what the hell an "opinion" is.BioShockOwnz

Cows are notorious for saying that, since no ps3 game is AAA.

user score? :lol:

no. no. no.

those can not be trusted.

If Halo 3 got a 7 what would people say? "That guy's retarded!!". How many people would agree with that score? But it's just his opinion right? brightshadow525

That would be embarassing.

um......well.....

Opinions can never be wrong, only "Facts" can be wrong.

So therefore, no. Do people disagree with them? Yeah sure, with their OWN opinions, which are also "not wrong".

userscores are more accurate

because they take more opinions into account

for instance mario kart 64 did not deserve the obscenely low score it got.

gears of war did not deserve the insanely high score it got

LMAO of you going by user score.

Halo 3: 9.5 - 9.0 - +0.5

Bioshock (PC): 9.0 - 8.8 - +0.2

Halo 3 is scoring above 9.5 at gamerankings and Bioshock is also scoring above 9.0.Go read some of those user reviews on Halo 3 where cows will submit 1.0 scores (is that accurate?).

userscores are more accurate

because they take more opinions into account

for instance mario kart 64 did not deserve the obscenely low score it got.

gears of war did not deserve the insanely high score it got

mistervengeance

no. people give games 1s and 10s far too often.

[QUOTE="mistervengeance"]

userscores are more accurate

because they take more opinions into account

for instance mario kart 64 did not deserve the obscenely low score it got.

gears of war did not deserve the insanely high score it got

CaseyWegner

no. people give games 1s and 10s far too often.

So you are saying I am stupid because I gave TP 10? Huh? Are you calling me fat?

What should I use to compare then? There aren't any "Mod scores"

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"][QUOTE="mistervengeance"]

userscores are more accurate

because they take more opinions into account

for instance mario kart 64 did not deserve the obscenely low score it got.

gears of war did not deserve the insanely high score it got

oyvoyvoyv

no. people give games 1s and 10s far too often.

So you are saying I am stupid because I gave TP 10? Huh? Are you calling me fat?

What should I use to compare then? There aren't any "Mod scores"

do whatever the **** you want.

[QUOTE="oyvoyvoyv"][QUOTE="CaseyWegner"][QUOTE="mistervengeance"]

userscores are more accurate

because they take more opinions into account

for instance mario kart 64 did not deserve the obscenely low score it got.

gears of war did not deserve the insanely high score it got

CaseyWegner

no. people give games 1s and 10s far too often.

So you are saying I am stupid because I gave TP 10? Huh? Are you calling me fat?

What should I use to compare then? There aren't any "Mod scores"

do whatever the **** you want.

:lol:

[QUOTE="mistervengeance"]

userscores are more accurate

because they take more opinions into account

for instance mario kart 64 did not deserve the obscenely low score it got.

gears of war did not deserve the insanely high score it got

CaseyWegner

no. people give games 1s and 10s far too often.

yeah..... and

[QUOTE="mistervengeance"]

userscores are more accurate

because they take more opinions into account

for instance mario kart 64 did not deserve the obscenely low score it got.

gears of war did not deserve the insanely high score it got

CaseyWegner

no. people give games 1s and 10s far too often.

Haha look at mistervengeance's profile, gave Perfect dark zero a 1.0. A perfect example of what you're communicating.

[QUOTE="oyvoyvoyv"][QUOTE="CaseyWegner"][QUOTE="mistervengeance"]

userscores are more accurate

because they take more opinions into account

for instance mario kart 64 did not deserve the obscenely low score it got.

gears of war did not deserve the insanely high score it got

CaseyWegner

no. people give games 1s and 10s far too often.

So you are saying I am stupid because I gave TP 10? Huh? Are you calling me fat?

What should I use to compare then? There aren't any "Mod scores"

do whatever the **** you want.

If I did that I would get banned...

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"][QUOTE="mistervengeance"]

userscores are more accurate

because they take more opinions into account

for instance mario kart 64 did not deserve the obscenely low score it got.

gears of war did not deserve the insanely high score it got

mistervengeance

no. people give games 1s and 10s far too often.

yeah..... and

You're guilty of it.

[QUOTE="mistervengeance"][QUOTE="CaseyWegner"][QUOTE="mistervengeance"]

userscores are more accurate

because they take more opinions into account

for instance mario kart 64 did not deserve the obscenely low score it got.

gears of war did not deserve the insanely high score it got

BioShockOwnz

no. people give games 1s and 10s far too often.

yeah..... and

You're guilty of it.

[QUOTE="BioShockOwnz"][QUOTE="mistervengeance"][QUOTE="CaseyWegner"][QUOTE="mistervengeance"]

userscores are more accurate

because they take more opinions into account

for instance mario kart 64 did not deserve the obscenely low score it got.

gears of war did not deserve the insanely high score it got

BreakingPoint8

no. people give games 1s and 10s far too often.

yeah..... and

You're guilty of it.

Not really...

yeah..... and

mistervengeance

That completely throws off the true rating? People rating 1s and 10s only because its not on their console or because it is on their console will tend to underrate a game.

I know I'm wasting my time, but here's the long explanation, in easy-to-understand form:

Let's assume a game deserves a 9.0, and gets that when, say, 100 people truly review it (the scores range from 8 to 9.5 and a couple of serious 10's). Now, lets add the fanboys! 100 fanboys vote 1 and 10, 50/50. The average score from them would be a 5.5. If we average all 200 votes, we get a 7.25 score for a game that should've been a 9.0.

For fanboys to not harm the score, the number of 10s should be considerably higher than the number of 1s. In our 9.0 example, you would need that 89% of fanboys rate it a 10, and 11% rate it a 1 in order to keep the true score (the one based on people with actual rating skills) accurate.

So no, user scores cannot be used as any sort of objective metric. Too much noise from fanboys. BTW, thanks for being part of the problem.

Did you ever stop to think maybe Dead Rising and PDZ deserved a 1???????????????????
BreakingPoint8

Of course. However, the answer is, "no rational person trying to be objective would even think so, only a rabid fanboy would". A 1.0 score is reserved for the lowest of the low in gaming. Broken, ugly, completely poorly executed on levels few gamers have truly seen. PDZ and DR are hardly fitting that description.

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"][QUOTE="mistervengeance"]

userscores are more accurate

because they take more opinions into account

for instance mario kart 64 did not deserve the obscenely low score it got.

gears of war did not deserve the insanely high score it got

mistervengeance

no. people give games 1s and 10s far too often.

yeah..... and

knock it off.

i dont trust user scores cause a lot of fanboys that give 1s to games arent in their prefer console. i remember this guy from sw he gave rainbow six vegas for the 360 a 1 and then for the ps3 a 10.

the only time i ever gave a 10 were to ninja gaiden black and halo 3. those 2 games just blew me away from how good the gameplay is to how smart the AIs are. to me halo 3 deserved higher than a 9.5, but cause of the new scoring system i can only give a 10.

Its their professional OPINION. Their ratings do not make it a FACT.

User-generated scores can be accurate but do not deviate too far from the GS score (You don't see a GS 9.0 being a US 4.0 vice versa)

But with some games Users are biased because they are a fan of the series (Anime based games for example, some aren't as good as the user-score says)

GS does a good job of trying to be unbiased to their own favorism than users... But obviously, in the end its their professional opinion. There is no answer to these stuff you know!

you shouldn't use user ratings, they mostly consist of fanboys, like the many 1s halo 3 got from jealos sony guys... you should use gamerainkings.

tomertr

Metroid Prime 3 got a bunch of 1.0's from fanboys also. Just a shame, I reported one of them who gave a written review of 1.0, he made several fatal mistakes in his review, worthy of being banned.

GS took the action ;).

[QUOTE="mistervengeance"][QUOTE="CaseyWegner"][QUOTE="mistervengeance"]

userscores are more accurate

because they take more opinions into account

for instance mario kart 64 did not deserve the obscenely low score it got.

gears of war did not deserve the insanely high score it got

BioShockOwnz

no. people give games 1s and 10s far too often.

yeah..... and

You're guilty of it.

and.... i hated that game. i thought it was completely horrible and deserved a 1.0

people have different opinions, a score is more fair when you take everyone's into account.

[QUOTE="mistervengeance"]

yeah..... and

Grive

That completely throws off the true rating? People rating 1s and 10s only because its not on their console or because it is on their console will tend to underrate a game.

I know I'm wasting my time, but here's the long explanation, in easy-to-understand form:

Let's assume a game deserves a 9.0, and gets that when, say, 100 people truly review it (the scores range from 8 to 9.5 and a couple of serious 10's). Now, lets add the fanboys! 100 fanboys vote 1 and 10, 50/50. The average score from them would be a 5.5. If we average all 200 votes, we get a 7.25 score for a game that should've been a 9.0.

For fanboys to not harm the score, the number of 10s should be considerably higher than the number of 1s. In our 9.0 example, you would need that 89% of fanboys rate it a 10, and 11% rate it a 1 in order to keep the true score (the one based on people with actual rating skills) accurate.

So no, user scores cannot be used as any sort of objective metric. Too much noise from fanboys. BTW, thanks for being part of the problem.

Did you ever stop to think maybe Dead Rising and PDZ deserved a 1???????????????????
BreakingPoint8

Of course. However, the answer is, "no rational person trying to be objective would even think so, only a rabid fanboy would". A 1.0 score is reserved for the lowest of the low in gaming. Broken, ugly, completely poorly executed on levels few gamers have truly seen. PDZ and DR are hardly fitting that description.

in my opinion they did deserve a 1.

and as to those replies to my user score idea, in gamespot the 10's and 1's usually balance themselves out to make it a fair score.

also, you have to take into account paradoxes.

ex: metroid prime 3 was discredited for doing more of the same:8.5

halo 3 was encouraged for doing more of the same:9.5

~-~I just come to figure out with GS that if the game has multiplayer it's overrated if not then it's right.~-~The_PirateKing

and as to those replies to my user score idea, in gamespot the 10's and 1's usually balance themselves out to make it a fair score.

also, you have to take into account paradoxes.

ex: metroid prime 3 was discredited for doing more of the same:8.5

halo 3 was encouraged for doing more of the same:9.5

mistervengeance

Depends if that more of the same is beneficial or needing of improvement. And that is only a part of the review... Its not the only reason for their scores.

The intresting is that if halo had been given a 9.0, what would have happened?

Metroid got 8.5 and is now REAAALLLLY underrated.

Halo got 9.5 and is SOOOOOOOOOo overrated.

Wasn't both predicted to be 9.0 ish in the beginning?

Now people act like Halo should have gotten 8.0 or 8.5

And if TP was 8.8 I agree with MP3 being 8.5