it's just the reviewer. Why the hell would they pick that guy? He's reviewed almost 70 games, and besides Hevenly Sword (8.0) he's had no non-sports AA or AAA games. Obviously he wouldn't have liked R&C, it's not his kind of game.
GS don't get carried away with looks, the others do. They looked beneath the shiny exterior and found that the core gameplay wasn't really worth anything more than 7.5
GS don't get carried away with looks, the others do. They looked beneath the shiny exterior and found that the core gameplay wasn't really worth anything more than 7.5
SgtWhiskeyjack
Why do people constantly praise Gamespot as the only "true" review source? Does GS have some godly powers that make its reviews better than others? GS is an opinion, just like every other one.
ultimately it comes down to what 1 person or a group of people THINK about the game. There is no standardized way of rating games that everyone uses...
I think some of Planet Bovine need to find a new hobby and stop playing games. They get way to worked up over one game score. It has been around 5 days now and some are still worked up over one score from one website.
So you are saying that Gamespot is wrong because the reviewer who played the game actually found the game to be good but nothing compared to Ratchets initial outting. Aside from the graphical update, what does this ratchet add that Deadlock didnt? Correct me if I am wrong, but R&C: Up your Arsenal, the last traditional console R&C (as deadlock was a different type of game) had a multiplayer component, so my question to you is why should this game, which from what I see adds little to the franchise and in a sense actually takes a step backwards for the series, deserves anything more than the score it recieved here? In my opinion a 7.5 represents a game that excels at what it does, but fails to set itself apart from its competition (in this case, its predecessors). Why should a game that takes a step backwards in content and adds little to the core gameplay deserve a AA let a lone a AAA score? I sometimes do not understand the mentality of some people on these boards...
So you are saying that Gamespot is wrong because the reviewer who played the game actually found the game to be good but nothing compared to Ratchets initial outting. Aside from the graphical update, what does this ratchet add that Deadlock didnt? Correct me if I am wrong, but R&C: Up your Arsenal, the last traditional console R&C (as deadlock was a different type of game) had a multiplayer component, so my question to you is why should this game, which from what I see adds little to the franchise and in a sense actually takes a step backwards for the series, deserves anything more than the score it recieved here? In my opinion a 7.5 represents a game that excels at what it does, but fails to set itself apart from its competition (in this case, its predecessors). Why should a game that takes a step backwards in content and adds little to the core gameplay deserve a AA let a lone a AAA score? I sometimes do not understand the mentality of some people on these boards... gamer620
Um no. Epic phail.
Jeff reviewed the first R&C. Jeff is the best reviewer out there.
Aaron Thomas is some hack that rates multiplat MLB games and for some reason they handed him both Heavenly Sword and Ratchet.
Adds very little to the core? You've never even played the game, obviously. You probably shouldn't speak on the subject again.
The game might be AAA for a 10 year old kid , the game is tooo easy , why the F*** would you like game with no challange , it's stupid. Gamespot ceeps it real , that's all.
So then the game is great and people should love it. So what? Regardless of what fanboys on this forum do...the real world doesn't only restrict themselves to GS scores.
So the guy here doesn't like the games you enjoy as much as you do. There are plenty of other communities to join if you think this site is in line with your tastes. But really, nobody's views will align perfectly with your own. That'sjust common sense.
So you are saying that Gamespot is wrong because the reviewer who played the game actually found the game to be good but nothing compared to Ratchets initial outting. Aside from the graphical update, what does this ratchet add that Deadlock didnt? Correct me if I am wrong, but R&C: Up your Arsenal, the last traditional console R&C (as deadlock was a different type of game) had a multiplayer component, so my question to you is why should this game, which from what I see adds little to the franchise and in a sense actually takes a step backwards for the series, deserves anything more than the score it recieved here? In my opinion a 7.5 represents a game that excels at what it does, but fails to set itself apart from its competition (in this case, its predecessors). Why should a game that takes a step backwards in content and adds little to the core gameplay deserve a AA let a lone a AAA score? I sometimes do not understand the mentality of some people on these boards... gamer620
GS don't get carried away with looks, the others do. They looked beneath the shiny exterior and found that the core gameplay wasn't really worth anything more than 7.5
SgtWhiskeyjack
Well im not implying anything...like I dont think they are biased or anything...
But if they used your logic then Bioshock wouldnt have gotten so high....because other than the "shiny exterior" the "core gameplay" isnt that good at all.....anybody thats not a fanboy admits that Bioshocks actual gameplay wasnt that great...still a good game....but the gameplay is nothing special...
it's just the reviewer. Why the hell would they pick that guy? He's reviewed almost 70 games, and besides Hevenly Sword (8.0) he's had no non-sports AA or AAA games. Obviously he wouldn't have liked R&C, it's not his kind of game.mightywarlord
Log in to comment