every time a game flops, gamespot is biased or unreliable

[QUOTE="animateria"][QUOTE="squallff8_fan"][QUOTE="Mass_Effect"]

[QUOTE="Lazy_Boy88"]No every time GS flops a game that does well everywhere else they are bias. Lair was a universal (almost) flop. GS flopped R&C 7.5 with the average elsewhere being over 9. That's plain out bias.
squallff8_fan

How does that make them biased? Not all reviewers share the same opinions: get over it.

Dude u get over it, just because u dont own a ps3, doesnt mean we have to take this crap. I mean first off if your going to let anyone rate a game from any gaming site atleast let that person be some1 who enjoys those type games, that way when they rate the game, they can honestly rate it with no bs and also give the good and bads about why he didnt like the game, that way when the game gets rated atleast we would understand because everyone knew he was into platform games. U dont just pick a guy that enjoys sports games and hand him a platformer game and expect him to rate the game good, because like u said, there are different reviewers with different opinions, well thats the same way it goes if u give a sports games lover a platforming game to rate, u think he is going to give it a fair score? No because he isnt into that type of game. Its like giving some1 who is into fps games to rate a final fantasy game, dude I can guarantee u that he will rate it low if he isnt into rpg games because it would be to boring for him.

You can migrate over to the IGN forum if you think there is a problem in GS.

For disgruntled PS3 fans... I think thats the best way to show your displeasure towards GS.

I will, dont have to tell me u bill gate di** swanger.

Language... I don't think anyone on the IGN boards are going to think you are a constructive member...

Loss to GS board 0 users, Gain to IGN boards 0 users.

[QUOTE="-Serpahim-"]Dude...im still amazed at the score...7.5? So if a game gives you options to do alot, but u r not forced to....it gets marked down? At this point, i think i will have to adjust my MGS4 hype from AAA to B... I would hype it A but these days, its like playing the lotto.animateria

Too much can take away from the focus of the game. Especially if the variations seem pointless and uninteresting.

I personally can't say its too much or not though...

thats like saying "UT2004 was a great game, but the mutators sucked, so im gonna give it a 7.5"...you are in no way or manner obligated to use the mutators. I would rather have a game with options to do extra stuff for longetivity, than a game that is just flat out linear, and when u r done, there is nothing to come back for. If we went by the way GS is reviewing games, then it would be very possible for someone to rate Halo based on the legendary mode and to bash the game from saying "Its too hard for beginners." Sure its retarded to play legendary mode if you are a beginner, but the game gives u the OPTION of doing so. So should it be docked points for giving you an option u r in no way obligated to use?

[QUOTE="animateria"]

[QUOTE="-Serpahim-"]Dude...im still amazed at the score...7.5? So if a game gives you options to do alot, but u r not forced to....it gets marked down? At this point, i think i will have to adjust my MGS4 hype from AAA to B... I would hype it A but these days, its like playing the lotto.-Serpahim-

Too much can take away from the focus of the game. Especially if the variations seem pointless and uninteresting.

I personally can't say its too much or not though...

thats like saying "UT2004 was a great game, but the mutators sucked, so im gonna give it a 7.5"...you are in no way or manner obligated to use the mutators. I would rather have a game with options to do extra stuff for longetivity, than a game that is just flat out linear, and when u r done, there is nothing to come back for. If we went by the way GS is reviewing games, then it would be very possible for someone to rate Halo based on the legendary mode and to bash the game from saying "Its too hard for beginners." Sure its retarded to play legendary mode if you are a beginner, but the game gives u the OPTION of doing so. So should it be docked points for giving you an option u r in no way obligated to use?

Its different when you have a choice to ignore the factor... In an Adventure Platformer you need to go through every part of the game with out being able to ignore it.

Dude u get over it, just because u dont own a ps3, doesnt mean we have to take this crap. squallff8_fan

I wasn't slagging off the PS3 or anything; but at the end of the day a review is just someones opinion. On GS, GeOW rated higher than Dead Rising; which I completely disagree with, but I don't really care because I enjoy both games anyway. My brother owns a PS3, and I think its a great console :P.

I mean first off if your going to let anyone rate a game from any gaming site atleast let that person be some1 who enjoys those type games, that way when they rate the game, they can honestly rate it with no bs and also give the good and bads about why he didnt like the game, that way when the game gets rated atleast we would understand because everyone knew he was into platform games. U dont just pick a guy that enjoys sports games and hand him a platformer game and expect him to rate the game good, because like u said, there are different reviewers with different opinions, well thats the same way it goes if u give a sports games lover a platforming game to rate, u think he is going to give it a fair score? No because he isnt into that type of game. Its like giving some1 who is into fps games to rate a final fantasy game, dude I can guarantee u that he will rate it low if he isnt into rpg games because it would be to boring for him.

If you give a sports loving person a platformer to review, he will not give it such a good score. However, if you give the same game to someone who loves platformers, the score will be unfairly high. Reviewers are generally into all types of games.

Too much can take away from the focus of the game. Especially if the variations seem pointless and uninteresting.

I personally can't say its too much or not though...

animateria

Its different when you have a choice to ignore the factor... In an Adventure Platformer you need to go through every part of the game with out being able to ignore it.

animateria

Your defense of his review would be a lot stronger if the flaws he pointed out were widely acknowledged in other reviews as well, indicating that they were hurdles to enjoying the game and a good number of players felt that way. The only thing I found him talking about that other reviews also mention is the lack of difficulty; everybody else praised the good writing and the weapon selection as well as the level designs.

[QUOTE="animateria"]

Too much can take away from the focus of the game. Especially if the variations seem pointless and uninteresting.

I personally can't say its too much or not though...

Datheron

Its different when you have a choice to ignore the factor... In an Adventure Platformer you need to go through every part of the game with out being able to ignore it.

animateria

Your defense of his review would be a lot stronger if the flaws he pointed out were widely acknowledged in other reviews as well, indicating that they were hurdles to enjoying the game and a good number of players felt that way. The only thing I found him talking about that other reviews also mention is the lack of difficulty; everybody else praised the good writing and the weapon selection as well as the level designs.

"The game's script is well written and the dialogue is quite funny, but the story is barely fleshed out enough to give you reason to go from one level to the next."

"The weapons Ratchet can use are extremely varied: There are grenades, rockets, spikes, blasters, a whip, bouncing saw blades, and a whole lot more. The game does a nice job of encouraging you to use different armaments. Not only are certain weapons more useful against specific creatures, but as you use a weapon, its level will increase and it will get more powerful. You can also improve weapons' range, ammo-carrying capacity, rate of fire, and more by collecting crystals that some enemies drop."

"Each level has a unique (though not particularly original) visual style, so you really feel as if you're visiting different planets when you move from one level to the next, not just different areas of the same place."

Have you actually read the review?

Here are some qoutes from the review:

"so it's possible to get into a rut of using the same attack patterns over and over because they're so effective."

- Please tell me one game that isnt like that. In every game, that involves combat, you will settle down on a weapon and an attack pattern because it works. Thats like bashing Ninja Gaiden because you end up using you sword most of the time, instead of the oversized scythe you get from the scantly clad demon hunter woman.

"All of this, and we haven't even gotten to the Sixaxis stuff yet. Early on in the game, Clank learns he can sprout wings, so there are a few times when you'll fly around levels while tilting the controller to steer. It's kind of fun, but ultimately pointless."

-Why do we play games? for fun! Think puzzle games, they have no story, they are pointless, but we play them because they are FUN. I dont understand how sumthing being fun can be seen as a bad thing.

"The game's script is well written and the dialogue is quite funny, but the story is barely fleshed out enough to give you reason to go from one level to the next. It's not helped by a cliffhanger ending that does everything but plaster "Find out the exciting conclusion in the sequel!" across the screen."

-Wow...this reminds me of a certain AAA game that gamespot gave the editor's choice award.

I'm not sure if I entirely agree with you two.animateria

You bring up some interesting points.

Movie reviewers are not unbiased towards their personal views.animateria

Which is why movie reviews are lackluster in general and why sites like Rotten Tomatoes are used over any one critic's. As a matter of fact, reviews which take personal biases too far and deviate too much from the norm on RT are routinely trashed and ignored; no one bothers to defend some mother criticizing Pixar's Cars because she couldn't relate to motor vehicles.

That goes for Music reviewers and Automobile reviewers too.animateria

Music, I see as more subjective, and I really don't know anybody who scutinizes over those reviews. I don't see many auto review sites or publications (most magazines are more preview-like anyway), but again, a ton of car forums exist to give people tips because the reviews are scarce and barely give any information.

Many journalists in different work also have a problem with the same issue.animateria

That may very well be true, but video games are in a unique position because:

• Lots of material are written about them, it's quite a complex subject
• People rely on the, as the barrier of entry ($60 per game now) is non-trivial
• There is no standard in the material written

Here are some qoutes from the review:

"so it's possible to get into a rut of using the same attack patterns over and over because they're so effective."

- Please tell me one game that isnt like that. In every game, that involves combat, you will settle down on a weapon and an attack pattern because it works. Thats like bashing Ninja Gaiden because you end up using you sword most of the time, instead of the oversized scythe you get from the scantly clad demon hunter woman.

"All of this, and we haven't even gotten to the Sixaxis stuff yet. Early on in the game, Clank learns he can sprout wings, so there are a few times when you'll fly around levels while tilting the controller to steer. It's kind of fun, but ultimately pointless."

-Why do we play games? for fun! Think puzzle games, they have no story, they are pointless, but we play them because they are FUN. I dont understand how sumthing being fun can be seen as a bad thing.

"The game's script is well written and the dialogue is quite funny, but the story is barely fleshed out enough to give you reason to go from one level to the next. It's not helped by a cliffhanger ending that does everything but plaster "Find out the exciting conclusion in the sequel!" across the screen."

-Wow...this reminds me of a certain AAA game that gamespot gave the editor's choice award.

-Serpahim-

At least read you the review... Unlike than Datheron up there.

I do find it puzzling that he gives so much positive feed back yet the score is lower than what he wrote... I think his review indicates a 8.X yet the score is lower.

I think people are mad that the game is averaging 90% and above elsewhere and got 75% here

VanillaCremePop

What are you talking about? The Metacritic score is now down to 89.

The game was a flop here and it also flopped in Metacritic (confirming the suckage).

[QUOTE="Lazy_Boy88"]No every time GS flops a game that does well everywhere else they are bias. Lair was a universal (almost) flop. GS flopped R&C 7.5 with the average elsewhere being over 9. That's plain out bias.
Mass_Effect

How does that make them biased? Not all reviewers share the same opinions: get over it.

PDZ = 8.1 AVe 9.0@ GS
Halo 3 = 9.3 Ave 9.3 @ GS
Forza 2 9.0 Ave 9.2 @ GS
Bioshock 9.5 Ave 9.0 @ Gamespot

RFOM 8.7 Ave 8.6 @ GS
RC TOD 9.0 Ave 7.5 @ GS
HS 8.1 AVe 8 @ GS
VF5 8.7 Ave 8.1 @ GS

Isn't It odd PS3 games score less or close to the average scores of other sites while 360 games score just about or even better than other sites???

[QUOTE="VanillaCremePop"]

I think people are mad that the game is averaging 90% and above elsewhere and got 75% here

Pimpshigity21

What are you talking about? The Metacritic score is now down to 89.

The game was a flop here and it also flopped in Metacritic (confirming the suckage).

how is 89% flopping on metacritic when it was hyped AA?

[QUOTE="animateria"]I'm not sure if I entirely agree with you two.Datheron

You bring up some interesting points.

Movie reviewers are not unbiased towards their personal views.animateria

Which is why movie reviews are lackluster in general and why sites like Rotten Tomatoes are used over any one critic's. As a matter of fact, reviews which take personal biases too far and deviate too much from the norm on RT are routinely trashed and ignored; no one bothers to defend some mother criticizing Pixar's Cars because she couldn't relate to motor vehicles.

That goes for Music reviewers and Automobile reviewers too.animateria

Music, I see as more subjective, and I really don't know anybody who scutinizes over those reviews. I don't see many auto review sites or publications (most magazines are more preview-like anyway), but again, a ton of car forums exist to give people tips because the reviews are scarce and barely give any information.

Many journalists in different work also have a problem with the same issue.animateria

That may very well be true, but video games are in a unique position because:

• Lots of material are written about them, it's quite a complex subject
• People rely on the, as the barrier of entry ($60 per game now) is non-trivial
• There is no standard in the material written

I think the standard that video game journalism should try to attain would be of the tech industry, which gives much more thorough previews/reviews of technology items and gadgets and analomies like this almost never happen because everybody agrees to the same standards of product quality and editorial oversight. iPod sites review iPods because they care passionately about the subject, and they'll spend 5 pages on a new gen. iPod detailing every plus and minus to the curious customer; in comparison, devoting one page to a game three years in the making from a guy who doesn't even play platformers regularly seems lacking.

I do not think videogames is limited to technology. Its easier to nick-pick about technology since there cannot be bias against actual performance

Video games are more closer to movies because they have a technical aspect (graphics, acting/voice acting for example). But also have a less obvious standard (story, artst yle for example).

I'm not in anyway saying that GS is perfect in their rating system. I posted enough times I go to other review sites also when I'm researching a game.

[QUOTE="VanillaCremePop"]

I think people are mad that the game is averaging 90% and above elsewhere and got 75% here

Pimpshigity21

What are you talking about? The Metacritic score is now down to 89.

The game was a flop here and it also flopped in Metacritic (confirming the suckage).

so 8.9 is a flop in Metacritic?

"The game's script is well written and the dialogue is quite funny, but the story is barely fleshed out enough to give you reason to go from one level to the next."

"The weapons Ratchet can use are extremely varied: There are grenades, rockets, spikes, blasters, a whip, bouncing saw blades, and a whole lot more. The game does a nice job of encouraging you to use different armaments. Not only are certain weapons more useful against specific creatures, but as you use a weapon, its level will increase and it will get more powerful. You can also improve weapons' range, ammo-carrying capacity, rate of fire, and more by collecting crystals that some enemies drop."

"Each level has a unique (though not particularly original) visual style, so you really feel as if you're visiting different planets when you move from one level to the next, not just different areas of the same place."

Have you actually read the review?animateria

Yea, and here are some other choice quotes:

• Although the game does a good job of encouraging you to use different weapons, devices, and gadgets (there are over 30 total), you'll find that there are a handful that work extremely well (and some that are useless), so it's possible to get into a rut of using the same attack patterns over and over because they're so effective.
• There are so many different gameplay mechanics that you get the sense that the developer didn't say "no" to any idea that was presented during the design process. Some of these mechanics add to the experience, but others feel as if they're here just because they could be.
• These situations are more puzzle- and platforming-oriented than Ratchet's, and you'll have to use the zoni aliens to help repair items and manipulate bridges. They say variety is the spice of life, but there's such a thing as too much spice.

[QUOTE="animateria"]"The game's script is well written and the dialogue is quite funny, but the story is barely fleshed out enough to give you reason to go from one level to the next."

"The weapons Ratchet can use are extremely varied: There are grenades, rockets, spikes, blasters, a whip, bouncing saw blades, and a whole lot more. The game does a nice job of encouraging you to use different armaments. Not only are certain weapons more useful against specific creatures, but as you use a weapon, its level will increase and it will get more powerful. You can also improve weapons' range, ammo-carrying capacity, rate of fire, and more by collecting crystals that some enemies drop."

"Each level has a unique (though not particularly original) visual style, so you really feel as if you're visiting different planets when you move from one level to the next, not just different areas of the same place."

Have you actually read the review?Datheron

Yea, and here are some other choice quotes:

• Although the game does a good job of encouraging you to use different weapons, devices, and gadgets (there are over 30 total), you'll find that there are a handful that work extremely well (and some that are useless), so it's possible to get into a rut of using the same attack patterns over and over because they're so effective.
• There are so many different gameplay mechanics that you get the sense that the developer didn't say "no" to any idea that was presented during the design process. Some of these mechanics add to the experience, but others feel as if they're here just because they could be.
• These situations are more puzzle- and platforming-oriented than Ratchet's, and you'll have to use the zoni aliens to help repair items and manipulate bridges. They say variety is the spice of life, but there's such a thing as too much spice.

Those are the main gripes that people have with his review, yes? Like I said, are these issues reflected on a large scale with other reviews, and are they significant enough that despite all the pluses others and GS's review itself have listed, it got the score it did?

Thats why I pointed out (Either here or on another review discussion) that people should read his review instead of relying on the score. The review represented the game much better than the score indicated.

Its easy to just look at the score and complain but the reviewer has a history of giving low scores to games. I think this is because he is conservative when in comes to giving scores (Which I think he needs to standardize with other reviewers).

If you read the IGN reviewer he just tossed out bad parts of the game as an after thought at the end of his review. Can you say that represents the game well?

I see flaws in every reviewer. So I don't take any review serious by itself.

I do not think videogames is limited to technology. Its easier to nick-pick about technology since there cannot be bias against actual performance

Video games are more closer to movies because they have a technical aspect (graphics, acting/voice acting for example). But also have a less obvious standard (story, artst yle for example).

I'm not in anyway saying that GS is perfect in their rating system. I posted enough times I go to other review sites also when I'm researching a game.animateria

I agree that VG's have both aspects and good reviews should cover both areas, and I didn't mean to imply that VG's should only focus on the technological side. What I meant is that they should try to live by the standard that the tech. industry has set for journalism.

Read a hardware preview and review, for example. At the very least, it's evident that the guy knows his subject matter, is passionate about the piece of hardware he's featuring, goes into detail all aspects of the component - history, changes, potential plusses and minuses - before he delves into technical benchmarks and specs. In the end, the score that you see is justified by the 10 or so pages you read before it.

Video games don't have the luxury of looking just at raw objective numbers, but people can't seem to even agree on a set of criteria on what makes a game "good". Innovation, wow-inducing graphics, addictive gameplay, longevity, multiplayer, presentation, storyline and plot, production values, "fun" factor, availibility of similar games on the console...all these and more are routinely used as a reason why game X is "AAA", and debates usually revolve around picking a few areas the game is good in where one guy will argue they're important to the quality of the game while the other guy disagrees. Apparently, in GS's R&C review's case, storyline + multiplayer + "too much to do" were enough to bring down the score of the game despite a majority of the population thinking that other factors overshadow it, but trying to analyze stuff like this is swept under the rug under the guise of "opinion".

[QUOTE="Gamer46"]

[QUOTE="Lazy_Boy88"]No every time GS flops a game that does well everywhere else they are bias. Lair was a universal (almost) flop. GS flopped R&C 7.5 with the average elsewhere being over 9. That's plain out bias. Especially considering the reviewer's main complaint was that it was too easy and has TOO MANY gameplay elements (wtf?). What game isn't easy these days? Halo3 should've got knocked big time if difficulty is now primary criteria..... god damned hypocrits. R&C exclusive to 360 = 9.0.
The_Ish

And that is 100% correct. Too bad lemmings have their heads too far up their butts to figure that out.

The guy who reviewed it has never given a score greater than 8.5 though...I would take the review with a grain of salt...

Cows seem to be ignoring this fact

[QUOTE="VanillaCremePop"]

I think people are mad that the game is averaging 90% and above elsewhere and got 75% here

Pimpshigity21

What are you talking about? The Metacritic score is now down to 89.

The game was a flop here and it also flopped in Metacritic (confirming the suckage).

When did a AA game sucks?

[QUOTE="animateria"]I do not think videogames is limited to technology. Its easier to nick-pick about technology since there cannot be bias against actual performance

Video games are more closer to movies because they have a technical aspect (graphics, acting/voice acting for example). But also have a less obvious standard (story, artst yle for example).

I'm not in anyway saying that GS is perfect in their rating system. I posted enough times I go to other review sites also when I'm researching a game.Datheron

I agree that VG's have both aspects and good reviews should cover both areas, and I didn't mean to imply that VG's should only focus on the technological side. What I meant is that they should try to live by the standard that the tech. industry has set for journalism.

Read a hardware preview and review, for example. At the very least, it's evident that the guy knows his subject matter, is passionate about the piece of hardware he's featuring, goes into detail all aspects of the component - history, changes, potential plusses and minuses - before he delves into technical benchmarks and specs. In the end, the score that you see is justified by the 10 or so pages you read before it.

Video games don't have the luxury of looking just at raw objective numbers, but people can't seem to even agree on a set of criteria on what makes a game "good". Innovation, wow-inducing graphics, addictive gameplay, longevity, multiplayer, presentation, storyline and plot, production values, "fun" factor, availibility of similar games on the console...all these and more are routinely used as a reason why game X is "AAA", and debates usually revolve around picking a few areas the game is good in where one guy will argue they're important to the quality of the game while the other guy disagrees. Apparently, in GS's R&C review's case, storyline + multiplayer + "too much to do" were enough to bring down the score of the game despite a majority of the population thinking that other factors overshadow it, but trying to analyze stuff like this is swept under the rug under the guise of "opinion".

I think we are constantly posting on each others older reply!

The lag is a bit humourous!

It think its a problem that many media-type reviews suffer from. But I think it got over-blown by one review.

Well... Perhaps it exposed the problem with game reviewing in general.

I don't think this is limited to GS nor gaming reviews. Its always hard to find a perfectly objective standard when it comes to media type reviews.

The best way to solve this problem is by making GS, IGN, 1up, and other reliable sites' reviewers to go into a discussion and find a score that is objective as possible. Now obviously this is impossible.

The best way is for us, the posters to be objective and try to debate whether or not the game has merits/flaws that the review missed or under/overstated.

Sadly... Many are too emotional about the subject.

Though I'd say I can probably trust you more than others. :)

Alright, last post of the night, it's getting late.

Thats why I pointed out (Either here or on another review discussion) that people should read his review instead of relying on the score. The review represented the game much better than the score indicated.

Its easy to just look at the score and complain but the reviewer has a history of giving low scores to games. I think this is because he is conservative when in comes to giving scores (Which I think he needs to standardize with other reviewers).

If you read the IGN reviewer he just tossed out bad parts of the game as an after thought at the end of his review. Can you say that represents the game well?

I see flaws in every reviewer. So I don't take any review serious by itself.animateria

I agree completely that the text of a review is more important than the score and gives much more insight. It also allows you to form a better opinion about the reviewer in question so you can measure how well (or poorly) your gaming tastes align with his.

That said, you and I both know that scores are given because they label a review and it's what readers remember about the game, and it serves as a basis of comparison between games. If everybody thought like we did, the format that Joystiq takes with its reviews (it gives no scores, as far as I know) would be ideal as it forces everyone to read about the game, but reality is people latch onto the score and blow it out of proportion.

This wouldn't be that big of a deal except that Gamespot is a big enough player in the market that their low review score will influence people. Already in the stickied thread I saw a few people genuinely concerned about the game and are either not buying it or renting it; that's a direct loss of revenue for Sony & Insomiac because the reviewer (IMO) was irresponsible in handing out his score.

Thats not true TC. GS was right when Lair flopped and were not biased there and folklore score was fair, this is one of the few times I have questioned them.DeathIsARight

I still think I will pick up Folklore when I (ever) get a PS3. The review seemed positive enough.

Lair probably would have benefitted as a graphical tech demo.

[QUOTE="PBSnipes"]The problem is that GS's reviews have lost their identity. Before this gen you knew what to expect from GS, a tough but fair review. Sure a couple of games would slip through the cracks but generally speaking the reviews were spot on. Seldom would GS dramatically overrate/underrate a game. They may not have gone along with the popular line of thinking (looks at Jade Empire) but they did bring fair criticism to the table. However these days it seems that every reviewer is going to score very differently, its almost as if GS has hired only freelance writers and doesn't keep a review staff. We see a game like Halo 3, that while excellent, certainly had its share of flaws score 9.5, the second highest score possible, but then other games with similar flaws like R&C and MP3 get scored much lower. We no longer know what to expect from a GS review, which is what makes it seem like GS is biased. madterps

Because their writers are garbage now. Nothing but crap.They loved Bioshock but they hate R&C for being too easy? Garbage, absolutely garbage...

9.0 =I loved bioshock .. they gave it the lowest rating aswell.

[QUOTE="DeathIsARight"]Thats not true TC. GS was right when Lair flopped and were not biased there and folklore score was fair, this is one of the few times I have questioned them.animateria

I still think I will pick up Folklore when I (ever) get a PS3. The review seemed positive enough.

Lair probably would have benefitted as a graphical tech demo.

I want folklore to, seems fun enough. But Lair would have benefited more without the sixaxis controls.

uh huh.... like with warioware for the wii? besides it not just the score..... its that ALL other review sites rated it 8.5+tomjoetan

Yeah, exactly, like how are you going to give a game an A wen the lowest score is an 8.5 and thats the only AA, I think they went so low because they are biased and they want to balance that Gametrailers overall score so it goes AA(lol)

The problem is that GS's reviews have lost their identity. Before this gen you knew what to expect from GS, a tough but fair review. Sure a couple of games would slip through the cracks but generally speaking the reviews were spot on. Seldom would GS dramatically overrate/underrate a game. They may not have gone along with the popular line of thinking (looks at Jade Empire) but they did bring fair criticism to the table. However these days it seems that every reviewer is going to score very differently, its almost as if GS has hired only freelance writers and doesn't keep a review staff. We see a game like Halo 3, that while excellent, certainly had its share of flaws score 9.5, the second highest score possible, but then other games with similar flaws like R&C and MP3 get scored much lower. We no longer know what to expect from a GS review, which is what makes it seem like GS is biased. PBSnipes

Woah I thought you where a hardcore lemming that laughed at the competition whenever GS flopped a game of the competition...

I stand corrected I guess ;P

Oh and I totally agree with ya. It is rather weird that a games with similiar "flaws" as Halo 3 scored THAT much lower, and these games are not new IPS they are proven games, much like HALO 3.

no offence but its nothing new!!

Pc games get it worse too is some games. Medieval and its expansions Fallout!!deus ex!!etc etc!!

Its been going for years!

[QUOTE="PBSnipes"]The problem is that GS's reviews have lost their identity. Before this gen you knew what to expect from GS, a tough but fair review. Sure a couple of games would slip through the cracks but generally speaking the reviews were spot on. Seldom would GS dramatically overrate/underrate a game. They may not have gone along with the popular line of thinking (looks at Jade Empire) but they did bring fair criticism to the table. However these days it seems that every reviewer is going to score very differently, its almost as if GS has hired only freelance writers and doesn't keep a review staff. We see a game like Halo 3, that while excellent, certainly had its share of flaws score 9.5, the second highest score possible, but then other games with similar flaws like R&C and MP3 get scored much lower. We no longer know what to expect from a GS review, which is what makes it seem like GS is biased. 0rin

I will always stick to my solution, GS need to implement more reviewers. If we going to have an official thread of game floppage, then we really can't base how a game is just on one reviewer. Cause truth be told, GS really can't put a stamp of approval on if a person is for a particular system. Hell they could be the biggest fanboy around....but we wouldn't know and GS wouldn't either. To me that when I will agree when a game flops or not IMO

[QUOTE="Mass_Effect"]

[QUOTE="Lazy_Boy88"]No every time GS flops a game that does well everywhere else they are bias. Lair was a universal (almost) flop. GS flopped R&C 7.5 with the average elsewhere being over 9. That's plain out bias.
Blinblingthing

How does that make them biased? Not all reviewers share the same opinions: get over it.

PDZ = 8.1 AVe 9.0@ GS
Halo 3 = 9.3 Ave 9.3 @ GS
Forza 2 9.0 Ave 9.2 @ GS
Bioshock 9.5 Ave 9.0 @ Gamespot

RFOM 8.7 Ave 8.6 @ GS
RC TOD 9.0 Ave 7.5 @ GS
HS 8.1 AVe 8 @ GS
VF5 8.7 Ave 8.1 @ GS

Isn't It odd PS3 games score less or close to the average scores of other sites while 360 games score just about or even better than other sites???

I think we are constantly posting on each others older reply!

The lag is a bit humourous!

It think its a problem that many media-type reviews suffer from. But I think it got over-blown by one review.

Well... Perhaps it exposed the problem with game reviewing in general.

I don't think this is limited to GS nor gaming reviews. Its always hard to find a perfectly objective standard when it comes to media type reviews.

The best way to solve this problem is by making GS, IGN, 1up, and other reliable sites' reviewers to go into a discussion and find a score that is objective as possible. Now obviously this is impossible.

The best way is for us, the posters to be objective and try to debate whether or not the game has merits/flaws that the review missed or under/overstated.

Sadly... Many are too emotional about the subject.

Though I'd say I can probably trust you more than others. :)

animateria

Right, I find the whole system to stand up on thin legs, and when something people are this emotional about fails, people react strongly to the broken part.

I don't think they have to discuss a score, like you say that's a pipe dream and impossible to achieve. What they do agree on is what makes a game good: what matters and what should not matter, what kind of circumstances need to be taken into consideration (e.g., sequel, first game on a new console, etc.) that may affect the score, etc. If they can come up with a set of guidelines everybody agrees on, you should find games to line up naturally - both for reviews and for people on forums trying to debate whether game X > game Y.

all this bias crap started right after twilight princess....

so what if gamespot gave ratchet and clank a 7.5? if you like the series, go right ahead and buy it, stop being so damn whiny

PDZ = 8.1 AVe 9.0@ GS
Halo 3 = 9.3 Ave 9.3 @ GS
Forza 2 9.0 Ave 9.2 @ GS
Bioshock 9.5 Ave 9.0 @ Gamespot

RFOM 8.7 Ave 8.6 @ GS
RC TOD 9.0 Ave 7.5 @ GS
HS 8.1 AVe 8 @ GS
VF5 8.7 Ave 8.1 @ GS

Isn't It odd PS3 games score less or close to the average scores of other sites while 360 games score just about or even better than other sites???

Blinblingthing

Crackdown = 8.4 Ave 7.8@GS

CoD2 =9.0 Ave 8.9@GS

Dead Rising = 8.5 Ave 8.4@GS

Viva Piñata = 8.5 Ave 8.@GS

Ninja Gaiden Sigma = 8.7 Ave 9.1@GS

Warhawk= 8.4 Ave 8.5@GS

Rainbow 6 =8.6 Ave 9.0@GS

Armored Core 4=6.9 Ave 7.7@GS

Isn't It odd 360 games score less or close to the average scores of other sites while PS3 games score just about or even better than other sites???

i dont understand how the snooz fest Kingdom Puzzle or whatever got a 9.5. The music was enough to annoy me.RedMarzBoy

[QUOTE="Gamer46"]

[QUOTE="Lazy_Boy88"]No every time GS flops a game that does well everywhere else they are bias. Lair was a universal (almost) flop. GS flopped R&C 7.5 with the average elsewhere being over 9. That's plain out bias. Especially considering the reviewer's main complaint was that it was too easy and has TOO MANY gameplay elements (wtf?). What game isn't easy these days? Halo3 should've got knocked big time if difficulty is now primary criteria..... god damned hypocrits. R&C exclusive to 360 = 9.0.
mclovin401

And that is 100% correct. Too bad lemmings have their heads too far up their butts to figure that out.

HOW RIGHT U BOTH ARE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is something a 5yr old can spot. the level of biasness is astounding and quite appauling.

Then leave....

I think people take reviews too serious, they complain about one sit gave it 7.5 while other sits gave it above that, just because gamespot gave it a bad score it idoesn't mean the end of the world WOW PS3fanboys need to look at the bright sight other sites talked good about it not just IGN but the majority of sites.

Besides most of you played the demo and know how it plays.

But according to the rules of system wars the game flopped so get over it.

Wow sooooo much crying over a game score. Cows really are pathetic. Just stop your crying and either LEAVE or shut up already. No point in milking the tears.

i think once (if) lemmings get a big flop they will see what its like and then we all have fun agreeing with each other.

*waits for mass effect to get 8.5*

---OkeyDokey---

See this generation, thats what seperates the Lemmings, Cows and Sheep. Lemmings have been consistantly getting great exclusive games for 2 years with no waiting involved. So if a game flops that the Lemmings are hyping, big deal. Sheep, while having less *good* games overall are content with their prodominately crappy mini-games with a few great exclusive games to boot. Cows, have no exclusive worthwile games and only games that Lemmings have been playing for months prior. Cows are basically starved for games and that is why we see days like today and yesterday.

I don't recall Sheep running rabid when MP3 was reveiwed. The Sheep acted like men( :lol: ) and accepted it because flop or not, it was still a great game.

Note: I excluded hermits because they always get great games.