To me, I don't think games are fairly reviewed here at GameSpot. Ever since they got rid of Gamplay/Tilt/Graphics/ and so forth, I feel that the games are given whatever the reviewer feels like giving. The new system also allows for reviews to be biased in their reviews. This is because they can give a game a 9.0, but not base it on any evidence. Instead they will say the graphics were not too great and it felt like the same game and the game still gets a AAA.
I like it this way, makes more sense than having the categories. Sure graphics, sound, and value matter but they definitely shouldn't get as much weight as gameplay. They could make gameplay count towards 60% of the score and whatnot but that'll be too complicated.
However, I do have to say gamespot does seem very harsh at times. Some games will get 3.0s here while getting >6 on other sites. They should definitely have more than one person review a game but I guess they're too poor for that.
Not really, because the acts of one guy (Jeff :P) cause everyone to think that Gamespot is biased. Ridiculously flawed. Have a dual review system, where 2 or 3 reviewers review a game and they each give a score, and the average is the overall score. Like EGM.
I really could care less about how the scores are generated. My main concern is the quality of the reviews. Did anyone read the My Beautiful Katamari review? On one hand it gets a button indicating recycled gameplay and is criticized for basically being the same as the other installments. Then in the final paragraph it's still praised for feeling new and fresh because no other games are like it. . . Does anyone else see a problem with that?? I
I liked the old review system a lot better, I want to know where the points come from. GS does get it wrong sometimes like all review sites, they are only humans afterall. But their reviews themselves most fo the time are pretty good I think, even if the score doens't always reflect the review accurately.
There needs to be at LEAST two or three reviewers' opinions for each game. That way, if one reviewer is clearly biased against a game, there will be two other reviewers to provide alternate opinions.
[QUOTE="DaysAirlines"]The only thing I disagree with is how they overrate 360 games but underrate PS3 games like rfom, lair, motorstorm, heavenly sword.BigDizz
Lol? Ever heard of Flopdowm? Was it a PS3 game? In which case chances are it was underrated.
To me, I don't think games are fairly reviewed here at GameSpot. Ever since they got rid of Gamplay/Tilt/Graphics/ and so forth, I feel that the games are given whatever the reviewer feels like giving. The new system also allows for reviews to be biased in their reviews. This is because they can give a game a 9.0, but not base it on any evidence. Instead they will say the graphics were not too great and it felt like the same game and the game still gets a AAA. comstrikeiscool
Agreed, an example of that would be in the Halo 3 review.
they are great for reviews, they dont give into that nostalgia bullsh*t ... s othey always rate nintendo games the way they should be rated, same with ps3 and 360 games.
I hope they dotn start sugar coating their reviews for the moaning sheep tho ... that would suck.
Altough mario galaxy will deserve the 9.5 it will get.
I like it this way, makes more sense than having the categories. Sure graphics, sound, and value matter but they definitely shouldn't get as much weight as gameplay. They could make gameplay count towards 60% of the score and whatnot but that'll be too complicated.
Chickity_China
Gameplay was worth more in the old system as well. I think they should stick with .1 increments.
To me, I don't think games are fairly reviewed here at GameSpot. Ever since they got rid of Gamplay/Tilt/Graphics/ and so forth, I feel that the games are given whatever the reviewer feels like giving. The new system also allows for reviews to be biased in their reviews. This is because they can give a game a 9.0, but not base it on any evidence. Instead they will say the graphics were not too great and it felt like the same game and the game still gets a AAA. comstrikeiscool
please tell me you didn't make this thread because halo 3 got 9.5. Cows just have to get over it. the game rocks
I think most veteran users of GS would agree the new system plain sucks the .5 system is too leanient/harsh depending on the game because of the lack of flexibility. Also those little stupid icon/acheivement things in the review just scream super casual "ohh look we have a text review, score and now little trophies we are so cool" most of the time the things are totally lame and random and should be obvious if you read the review its like they don't want you to read the review. I still love the forums here and the reviews themselves are still alright although lately I have found ign reviews much better they may give out retarded scores sometimes but the reviews are usually very in depth an really give you a great idea of what the game is about.
Ever since Greg Kasavin left I have not found one reviewer here on gamespot that I cant agree with consistantly so the reviews here have definately fallen in my book they are still better than most but the inconsistancy has really killed it for me. I mean Greg was one of the harshest reviewers ever but was always fair across the board in terms of consistancy now on GS the effort just doens't seem to be there and seems more about what mood the reviewer was in that day and if the old system was in place it wouldn't be so noticable but now seems like if the reviewer was in a bad mood the game gets score .5-1.0 point lower or vice versa if he is in a good mood. The old reviews had categories that actually had to justify a review not just an arbitrary number that the reviewer felt like putting in there once he wrote up his review.
[QUOTE="comstrikeiscool"]To me, I don't think games are fairly reviewed here at GameSpot. Ever since they got rid of Gamplay/Tilt/Graphics/ and so forth, I feel that the games are given whatever the reviewer feels like giving. The new system also allows for reviews to be biased in their reviews. This is because they can give a game a 9.0, but not base it on any evidence. Instead they will say the graphics were not too great and it felt like the same game and the game still gets a AAA. anotherhaloguy1
please tell me you didn't make this thread because halo 3 got 9.5. Cows just have to get over it. the game rocks
I made this thread cause I don't feel reviews are correct because they don't base them on evidentual facts.
[QUOTE="comstrikeiscool"]To me, I don't think games are fairly reviewed here at GameSpot. Ever since they got rid of Gamplay/Tilt/Graphics/ and so forth, I feel that the games are given whatever the reviewer feels like giving. The new system also allows for reviews to be biased in their reviews. This is because they can give a game a 9.0, but not base it on any evidence. Instead they will say the graphics were not too great and it felt like the same game and the game still gets a AAA. anotherhaloguy1
please tell me you didn't make this thread because halo 3 got 9.5. Cows just have to get over it. the game rocks
He has a right to make this thread halo 3 scored just as well in other places he isn't talking about any specific review (althopugh I can't speak for him it may be about halo3 doesn't mean we can't give our opinion on GS reviews. Read my response as to what I feel about the reviews here on GS. if you don't want to read it I'll summarize the reviews are okay here and still better than most but were far better before the new system which sucks because reviewers do not have categories to justify their score and seems to have thrown any consistancy right out the window..
I think most veteran users of GS would agree the new system plain sucks the .5 system is too leanient/harsh depending on the game because of the lack of flexibility. Also those little stupid icon/acheivement things in the review just scream super casual "ohh look we have a text review, score and now little trophies we are so cool" most of the time the things are totally lame and random and should be obvious if you read the review its like they don't want you to read the review. I still love the forums here and the reviews themselves are still alright although lately I have found ign reviews much better they may give out retarded scores sometimes but the reviews are usually very in depth an really give you a great idea of what the game is about.
Ever since Greg Kasavin left I have not found one reviewer here on gamespot that I cant agree with consistantly so the reviews here have definately fallen in my book they are still better than most but the inconsistancy has really killed it for me. I mean Greg was one of the harshest reviewers ever but was always fair across the board in terms of consistancy now on GS the effort just doens't seem to be there and seems more about what mood the reviewer was in that day and if the old system was in place it wouldn't be so noticable but now seems like if the reviewer was in a bad mood the game gets score .5-1.0 point lower or vice versa if he is in a good mood. The old reviews had categories that actually had to justify a review not just an arbitrary number that the reviewer felt like putting in there once he wrote up his review.
Citan_Uzuki
That is exactly what I was trying to say, but you hit the nail on the head.
Heck no!! IMO GS is too inconsistent with their reviews. I mean when one game, MP3, gets pts deducted because it is too much of the same, while another game, Halo 3, gets praised and a free pass for feeling like Halo, we have a problem. Also, when a lack of multiplayer was mentioned in the MP3 review, but a lack of multiplayer was never mentioned in the Bioshock review even though both games strive for the same thing which was to provide a solid single player experience, we have a problem.
I personally think GS's inconsistent reviews are the main reason why many people don't care for them anymore.
Log in to comment