Decision time: Only use Gamespot or switch to gamerankings?

WE are on Gamespot, so we should only use Gamespot scores.kool-aids

Agreed.

If it's a good game, just play it.

I don't see this going to happen, GS wouldn't allow it.

Gamespot for ownage/flops

what ever review site just for discussions

If it's a good game, just play it.

I don't see this going to happen, GS wouldn't allow it.

SolidTy

[QUOTE="SolidTy"]

If it's a good game, just play it.

I don't see this going to happen, GS wouldn't allow it.

Mr_lulz

I find aggregate sites to be very flawed. But no systeem is perfect. What I do is find a few sites/mags that I personally agree with (Am in tune with) and use their scores to make purchases.

Jesus, it doesn't matter. If we don't use Gamespot then we don't have a solid frame of reference, no arguments could be won/solved and everybody would complain about fanboy sites diluting/inflating the score. If GS scores a game way off from its GR average, then everybody will know about it and that title will carry less weight in discussions.

Its fine the way it is, and even if you do "make" a new "rule," everybody is just going to do what they want anyways. Follow it, not follow it, it doesn't matter.

If we don't use Gamespot then we don't have a solid frame of reference,

t3hTwinky

This. I'd say end thread, but it never does. Using GR is silly. Since the score constantly changes there can never be a definitive answer on if a game is a flop or not, or the arguments will go on for weeks. (Not that it doesn't anyway).

People that want to use other sites should post there.

OMG...DO WE REALLY CARE ABOUT THE SCORESMikeE21286

I was just wondering where the "I don't care" option is.

[QUOTE="t3hTwinky"]

If we don't use Gamespot then we don't have a solid frame of reference,

heretrix

This. I'd say end thread, but it never does. Using GR is silly. Since the score constantly changes there can never be a definitive answer on if a game is a flop or not, or the arguments will go on for weeks. (Not that it doesn't anyway).

People that want to use other sites should post there.

End Thread/

Lol.

Broken or great, we are here, that's that.

For flops, Gamespot.

For your own personal purchase, do whatever you want. I personally don't use reviews at all.

it's not illegal to discuss other scores guys... can i just point that out?crunchUK

yeah i agree with that, allthough we shouldn't claim ownage or fail on reviews outside Gamespot

it's not illegal to discuss other scores guys... can i just point that out?crunchUK

Yes, but it's annoying going into threads an seeing "______ got AAAs everywhere else!".

Funny how the lemmings were so intent on GS only scores. They hated when people pointed out GR. Yet now that the PS3 has the very first AAAAE, suddenlt GS isn't the way to go and only GR, where the game scored lower (probably lower than some 360 exclusive).

You made the rule, Lems...now you have to live with it.

*edit* The funny thing is, if we switch to GR, then a bunch of games that lemmings constantly bash as being flops (Unchared, Ratchet and Clank, etc) will suddenly get a boost.

[QUOTE="t3hTwinky"]

If we don't use Gamespot then we don't have a solid frame of reference,

heretrix

This. I'd say end thread, but it never does. Using GR is silly. Since the score constantly changes there can never be a definitive answer on if a game is a flop or not, or the arguments will go on for weeks. (Not that it doesn't anyway).

People that want to use other sites should post there.

Not that you don't have a point but your last comment reaks of Gamespot brand arrogance.

It's a common point made that if we were on another site then we'd use that sites score system...the problem is simple:

Have any of you guys actually gone on other sites? Because I assure you they are not so gung-ho about the whole home-advantage rule. Infact on many sites home advantage is totally ignored (take Gametrailers for instance) and on IGN it isn't really used either. The reason may simply be that those sites don't have cess pits like SW (so far as I can tell) so playing such a low brow move isn't part of the forum cultures over there.

Fanboys defend their consoles based on the very same reasoning many use to justify GS's scores only which when it boils down to it is a jingoistic nonesense about virtual territory. Maybe that kind of reasoning is intentional though...after all this is system wars; if anywhere we are going to adopt such a primitive defensive stance then why not the place where the very arguments are all about "defending your side"?

When I think of that I have to sit back and laugh. Isn't it ironic that the fanboys trying to win arguments here against other fanboys are also following similarly fanboyish sentiments with their score choosing methods?

GS_user to GS_user2: owned, barbie gaiden solid = AAA, it got a 9.1 on gamerankings

1 week later

GS_user 2 to GS_user:: owned, barbie gaiden solid = flop, it just moved to 8.9 on gamerankings

TEH CHAOS PEOPLE!

My readson behind not using gamerankings/meta is that it gives too much power to notwell known/not realiable sources who would post extreme scores.

to get what i mean look at this hypothetical example

5 sites, give a game a 90% then one rogue site gives a game a 30%- the average would be 80%....is that game worse then a game that has 6 reviews of all 85% just becuase of one random review of a site...i honestly done think so

Or the scenario where say the average of 100 reviews for a game is 9.0...all it takes is one unreliable source to give a below 9.0 and the game isn't aaa anymore - obviously not fair

And not to mention gameranking/meta dont use the same reviews for everygame making the above scenario possible if you extrapulate

Gameranking/meta give u a general idea of wether a game is good enough but u cant split hairs with it

My readson behind not using gamerankings/meta is that it gives too much power to notwell known/not realiable sources who would post extreme scores.

to get what i mean look at this hypothetical example

5 sites, give a game a 90% then one rogue site gives a game a 30%- the average would be 80%....is that game worse then a game that has 6 reviews of all 85% just becuase of one random review of a site...i honestly done think so

Or the scenario where say the average of 100 reviews for a game is 9.0...all it takes is one unreliable source to give a below 9.0 and the game isn't aaa anymore - obviously not fair

And not to mention gameranking/meta dont use the same reviews for everygame making the above scenario possible if you extrapulate

Gameranking/meta give u a general idea of wether a game is good enough but u cant split hairs with it

RingX5

Then take a fragment of publications that are generally considered informative and make a new averaging style. As for which publications are considered useful...well you can vote on that.

[QUOTE="RingX5"]

My readson behind not using gamerankings/meta is that it gives too much power to notwell known/not realiable sources who would post extreme scores.

to get what i mean look at this hypothetical example

5 sites, give a game a 90% then one rogue site gives a game a 30%- the average would be 80%....is that game worse then a game that has 6 reviews of all 85% just becuase of one random review of a site...i honestly done think so

Or the scenario where say the average of 100 reviews for a game is 9.0...all it takes is one unreliable source to give a below 9.0 and the game isn't aaa anymore - obviously not fair

And not to mention gameranking/meta dont use the same reviews for everygame making the above scenario possible if you extrapulate

Gameranking/meta give u a general idea of wether a game is good enough but u cant split hairs with it

Articuno76

Then take a fragment of publications that are generally considered informative and make a new averaging style. As for which publications are considered useful...well you can vote on that.

Oh i agree, but we shouldn't take the mean, i would prefer the median score from so many major sites/info which would gives us the most fair score - but this is just hypothetical u know...its gonna be hard to change system wars ( or anything really) to break its old ways and go for the logical/most fair rotue

[QUOTE="Articuno76"][QUOTE="RingX5"]

My readson behind not using gamerankings/meta is that it gives too much power to notwell known/not realiable sources who would post extreme scores.

to get what i mean look at this hypothetical example

5 sites, give a game a 90% then one rogue site gives a game a 30%- the average would be 80%....is that game worse then a game that has 6 reviews of all 85% just becuase of one random review of a site...i honestly done think so

Or the scenario where say the average of 100 reviews for a game is 9.0...all it takes is one unreliable source to give a below 9.0 and the game isn't aaa anymore - obviously not fair

And not to mention gameranking/meta dont use the same reviews for everygame making the above scenario possible if you extrapulate

Gameranking/meta give u a general idea of wether a game is good enough but u cant split hairs with it

RingX5

Then take a fragment of publications that are generally considered informative and make a new averaging style. As for which publications are considered useful...well you can vote on that.

Oh i agree, but we shouldn't take the mean, i would prefer the median score from so many major sites/info which would gives us the most fair score - but this is just hypothetical u know...its gonna be hard to change system wars ( or anything really) to break its old ways and go for the logical/most fair rotue

so because its not well known its not valid? as well metacritic is much more stringent on what sites its accept, and its scores still match those of gamerankings.com.

Funny how the lemmings were so intent on GS only scores. They hated when people pointed out GR. Yet now that the PS3 has the very first AAAAE, suddenlt GS isn't the way to go and only GR, where the game scored lower (probably lower than some 360 exclusive).

You made the rule, Lems...now you have to live with it.

*edit* The funny thing is, if we switch to GR, then a bunch of games that lemmings constantly bash as being flops (Unchared, Ratchet and Clank, etc) will suddenly get a boost.

ZIMdoom

funny how cows were so intent on using GS scores only when certain games got good scores here, or when certain games got bad scores here and they were so intent on using gamerankings...ect
lol

ZIM you never ever put cows in the mix, lemmings are the root of all evil in your opinion.

so because its not well known its not valid? as well metacritic is much more stringent on what sites its accept, and its scores still match those of gamerankings.com.

To some extent yes, depends on how well known the website/review is, if we its not well known it might as well be me or some rabid fanboys making up reviews

But the bigger factors that i dont like about it is, every game doesnt have the same review sites so its unfair to compare and more importantly is the fact that the average is a mean. when u take an average with a mean...the reviews farther away from the mean count for more then other averages

it really gives rogue opions more power over the average of the scores then the mainstreem opinion. (u could have 1 million websites who all rank a game 90%.....then 1 site that gives it a 70 then its not AAA material) - that one review of the 70 single handly made the game from AAA to AA. Thats why i suggest the median, but obvisouly not everyone will agree with me.

MGS4, fantastic game witch got a 10/10 here, but it is currently averaging around a 92-93% on GR. Wicth one should we use? Should we stick to only gamespot like we have been doing or use combined averages on GR? Mr_lulz

[QUOTE="ZIMdoom"]

Funny how the lemmings were so intent on GS only scores. They hated when people pointed out GR. Yet now that the PS3 has the very first AAAAE, suddenlt GS isn't the way to go and only GR, where the game scored lower (probably lower than some 360 exclusive).

You made the rule, Lems...now you have to live with it.

*edit* The funny thing is, if we switch to GR, then a bunch of games that lemmings constantly bash as being flops (Unchared, Ratchet and Clank, etc) will suddenly get a boost.

WilliamRLBaker

funny how cows were so intent on using GS scores only when certain games got good scores here, or when certain games got bad scores here and they were so intent on using gamerankings...ect
lol

ZIM you never ever put cows in the mix, lemmings are the root of all evil in your opinion.

For the record, I do NOT believe lemmings are the root of all evil. But as an admitted Sony/Nintendo fan who hated the original Xbox, I care more when people unfairly bash the PS3/Wii than the 360. However, also for the record, I HAVE posted pro-360 comments in threads where I felt the cow criticism of the 360 was stupid and completely irrational. But like I said, as a non-360 fan, it is rare that I even bother to look at anti-360 threads. What do I care since i don't own one and have no interest in owning one.

I also have a memory. And while I admit that ALL fanboys love to cherry pick which reviews meet their pre-existing opinions, the FACT remains that lemmings started the "GS only" rule back when they were angry that Nintedo games like Metroid kept beating their games on GR, but scored lower on GS. Lemmings made the rule and yet were unable to stick to it. That is fact. So it is totally different when cows or sheep cherry pick game scores because they weren't the group who tried to impose rules on the forum in the first place.

I have ALWAYS, consistently been an advocate for using site like GR that collect a number of reviews. Then again, I couldn't care less if a game I like scores .2% lower than some other game. I've been playing games since consoles were first invented. I'm an old-timer here. And the games i have the fondest memories of and feel were the "best" games have been 8 scoring games anyway. Scores mean nothing to me compared to the fun and experience.

This is gamespot, where else would GS scores be used? Plus Game Rankings is just a collection of amateurs who have just learnt english punching in scores that reflect their bloated and bias opinions.

How many people here have gaming as a job here? Not many I assume. These guys have gaming as an occupation so naturally thing exciting to us many pass for boring or overdone by them. Unless you have played Rainbow Six Vegas 1 (example here...) you would find the sequel RSV2 to be every bit as entertaining and have hours of fun regardless of a reviewers opinion. But because its mostly been done before it somehow deserves a %6 reduction in score, if its more of the same why not give it the same score? Let the reader decide if they are tired of it not whether they are tired of it, having played games all week 24/7

Gamespot for Hype/Flop .

Gameranking for normal discussions.

WE are on Gamespot, so we should only use Gamespot scores.kool-aids

LOL, that is SO bulls*it! MGS 4 is not better than Gears, FOR EXAMPLE, because it scored higher at GAMESPOT, because GamesPOT is only 1 site, and it would be MUCH MORE FAIR to compare when using the avreage of both game's reviews

WE are on Gamespot, so we should only use Gamespot scores.kool-aids

Why are you on a Gamespot fourm? cosmostein77

Best forums and community? I don't think anyone uses GS for the reviews anymore.

It's never going to end, and if it does, it'll be in favor of GR. So let's keep it how it is now - both aware of GR's score and Gamespot's, perhaps leaning towards Gamespot at the time of the review but leaning towards Gamerankings later on.

[QUOTE="kool-aids"]WE are on Gamespot, so we should only use Gamespot scores.WeAreBorn

LOL, that is SO bulls*it! MGS 4 is not better than Gears, FOR EXAMPLE, because it scored higher at GAMESPOT, because GamesPOT is only 1 site, and it would be MUCH MORE FAIR to compare when using the avreage of both game's reviews

Deal with it, Cows tried to use that and they were shunned by the Lemmings. Now its the Cows turn :evil:

[QUOTE="heretrix"][QUOTE="t3hTwinky"]

If we don't use Gamespot then we don't have a solid frame of reference,

Articuno76

This. I'd say end thread, but it never does. Using GR is silly. Since the score constantly changes there can never be a definitive answer on if a game is a flop or not, or the arguments will go on for weeks. (Not that it doesn't anyway).

People that want to use other sites should post there.

Not that you don't have a point but your last comment reaks of Gamespot brand arrogance.

It's a common point made that if we were on another site then we'd use that sites score system...the problem is simple:

Have any of you guys actually gone on other sites? Because I assure you they are not so gung-ho about the whole home-advantage rule. Infact on many sites home advantage is totally ignored (take Gametrailers for instance) and on IGN it isn't really used either. The reason may simply be that those sites don't have cess pits like SW (so far as I can tell) so playing such a low brow move isn't part of the forum cultures over there.

Fanboys defend their consoles based on the very same reasoning many use to justify GS's scores only which when it boils down to it is a jingoistic nonesense about virtual territory. Maybe that kind of reasoning is intentional though...after all this is system wars; if anywhere we are going to adopt such a primitive defensive stance then why not the place where the very arguments are all about "defending your side"?

When I think of that I have to sit back and laugh. Isn't it ironic that the fanboys trying to win arguments here against other fanboys are also following similarly fanboyish sentiments with their score choosing methods?

If I cared about what others sites said, I'd post there about it. I'm not going to go to IGN to discuss GS topics. To me that's pretty silly when both sites have their own forums. There are enough debates that go sideways in here without people bringing in different sites just to suit their arguments. I really don't care about review scores all that much to be worring about where the source of the review score is coming from. Lets just keep it simple. We aren't debating politics here.

[QUOTE="WilliamRLBaker"][QUOTE="ZIMdoom"]

Funny how the lemmings were so intent on GS only scores. They hated when people pointed out GR. Yet now that the PS3 has the very first AAAAE, suddenlt GS isn't the way to go and only GR, where the game scored lower (probably lower than some 360 exclusive).

You made the rule, Lems...now you have to live with it.

*edit* The funny thing is, if we switch to GR, then a bunch of games that lemmings constantly bash as being flops (Unchared, Ratchet and Clank, etc) will suddenly get a boost.

ZIMdoom

funny how cows were so intent on using GS scores only when certain games got good scores here, or when certain games got bad scores here and they were so intent on using gamerankings...ect
lol

ZIM you never ever put cows in the mix, lemmings are the root of all evil in your opinion.

For the record, I do NOT believe lemmings are the root of all evil. But as an admitted Sony/Nintendo fan who hated the original Xbox, I care more when people unfairly bash the PS3/Wii than the 360. However, also for the record, I HAVE posted pro-360 comments in threads where I felt the cow criticism of the 360 was stupid and completely irrational. But like I said, as a non-360 fan, it is rare that I even bother to look at anti-360 threads. What do I care since i don't own one and have no interest in owning one.

I also have a memory. And while I admit that ALL fanboys love to cherry pick which reviews meet their pre-existing opinions, the FACT remains that lemmings started the "GS only" rule back when they were angry that Nintedo games like Metroid kept beating their games on GR, but scored lower on GS. Lemmings made the rule and yet were unable to stick to it. That is fact. So it is totally different when cows or sheep cherry pick game scores because they weren't the group who tried to impose rules on the forum in the first place.

I have ALWAYS, consistently been an advocate for using site like GR that collect a number of reviews. Then again, I couldn't care less if a game I like scores .2% lower than some other game. I've been playing games since consoles were first invented. I'm an old-timer here. And the games i have the fondest memories of and feel were the "best" games have been 8 scoring games anyway. Scores mean nothing to me compared to the fun and experience.

lol and where is the proof that the lemmings as a community made this rule? where is the proof that cows didn't do the same? you stand and say so much but the proof is in the pudding.

the first words out of your mouth are LEMMINGS are so intent on using gamespot, or LEMMINGS are so intent on using gamerankings thats the proof that you believe lemmings are the root of all evil because whenever a fanboy rant comes up, your there with Lemmings did this, and lemmings did that.

I atleast accept that cows as a community didn't come together and say we can only use that, or this, or sheep, or lemmings, but seemingly you think that what one lemming says applies to the entire community, and thats BS.

I will continue to use gamerankings becaue its a much more valid score then a single review source, metacritic as well.

We are on a Gamespot forum...

I would go for Gamespot, I rather have 1 biased review than many biased reviews

WE are on Gamespot, so we should only use Gamespot scores.kool-aids

Exactly!