gamespot changes score of ps3 nhl 10.

didnt gamespot say that they will never change scores and will only give a score of the game as it is when released. if they change this shounld they change other games that have been patched and improved?

http://www.gamespot.com/news/blogs/review-blog/909185210/27039338/nhl-10-ps3-score-change.html

Last paragraph. First sentence.

Oh this just confirms what side Gamespot seems to lean toward.:evil:

it is becoming very apparent that gamespot has become sonyspot.

first flopping halo wars a 82% on metacritic game then this. gamespot is becoming very biased they even gave mgs4 a graphical award over crysis.

im certain no one will say AGAIN that gamespot is getting paid by M$ but the vice versa sound more rational.

also any person that played BOTH comet crash adn shadow complex cannot say that commet crash is an 9 and shadow complex is an 8.5. seriously they dont even compare in term of presentation and fun factor

didnt gamespot say that they will never change scores and will only give a score of the game as it is when released. if they change this shounld they change other games that have been patched and improved?

halo_wars86

also any person that played BOTH comet crash adn shadow complex cannot say that commet crash is an 9 and shadow complex is an 8.5. seriously they dont even compare in term of presentation and fun factor

halo_wars86

You really cant blame the game for online problems. That is EA's job to make sure their servers are running fine.

It could be a problem with the firmware 3.00 and 3.01 updates that caused the servers to disrupt? Who knows?

Now that is the case, where have the lemmings who called PSN crappy yesterday gone to?

"We were contacted by EA Sports this morning and told that, while the PS3 servers were still being optimized up until late last night--not in time for our review, but in time for the game's arrival in stores--today they're up and running, and making the multiplayer every bit as smooth as it is on the X360"

It was a server issue that was fixed BEFORE the game came out.

didnt gamespot say that they will never change scores and will only give a score of the game as it is when released. if they change this shounld they change other games that have been patched and improved?

halo_wars86

This is different, as when the reviewed the game, it wasn't for sale so the servers were not totally ready on the PS3 side.

Oh this just confirms what side Gamespot seems to lean toward.:evil:

vaderhater

Well, it's not about either console. EA sent them the early games, and EA called them when they saw what hurt their review. Since the game is technically not out, the online aspect of the review wasn't correct.

Still, I don't like this, since I know other games have been greatly improved with patches...however, this wasn't a PATCH case.

"We were contacted by EA Sports this morning and told that, while the PS3 servers were still being optimized up until late last night--not in time for our review, but in time for the game's arrival in stores--today they're up and running, and making the multiplayer every bit as smooth as it is on the X360"

It was a server issue that was fixed BEFORE the game came out.

micky4889

I thought it was PSN that sucked? :roll:

Seems fair to me.

it is becoming very apparent that gamespot has become sonyspot.

first flopping halo wars a 82% on metacritic game then this. gamespot is becoming very biased they even gave mgs4 a graphical award over crysis.

im certain no one will say AGAIN that gamespot is getting paid by M$ but the vice versa sound more rational.

halo_wars86

Not sure how this means that Sony is paying GS. Someone was nice enough to provide a link explaining why the score was changed explaining why it was changed, but apparantley you didn't read it so I'll bring it here.

In case you're wondering, the main reason we opted to go back and edit the review on this occasion rather than post one of our "After the Fact" updates is that the improvements to the game were made prior to the game being available in stores.

Article

Seems like a reasonable reason to change the score.

it was out the nhl was out on the 14th

So who's actually getting this game?

it was out the nhl was out on the 14th

halo_wars86

it is becoming very apparent that gamespot has become sonyspot.

first flopping halo wars a 82% on metacritic game then this. gamespot is becoming very biased they even gave mgs4 a graphical award over crysis.

im certain no one will say AGAIN that gamespot is getting paid by M$ but the vice versa sound more rational.

halo_wars86

stop making excuses because they know how to rate good games.

face it halo wars just was a horrible game that deserved to flop it's a horrible attempt at a console rts.

Oh this just confirms what side Gamespot seems to lean toward.:evil:

vaderhater

what about you actually READ the damnarticle before making such a comment.

Really? People really have a problem with altering a score to more accurately reflect the conditions in a game when it releases to consumers? We aren't talking patches, we aren't talking fixes down the line... we are talking about the conditions the day 1 purchaser would see.

I find it noble that GS would take the extra effort to "get it right" when it would have been so easy to let the review stand based on standards no consumer would ever face. And we aren;t exactly talking a GOTY candidate here... it isn't like NHL 10 was gonna determine the System Wars :roll:

GS went up a notch in my book today. They haven't always been so commited to reflecting the actual consumer's gameplay (Civ Rev's online multiplayer was horribly broken on both console versions, and nary a word was mentioned here since the controlled online they played didn't have it), but hey... I'll take what I can get.

Really? People really have a problem with altering a score to more accurately reflect the conditions in a game when it releases to consumers? We aren't talking patches, we aren't talking fixes down the line... we are talking about the conditions the day 1 purchaser would see.

I find it noble that GS would take the extra effort to "get it right" when it would have been so easy to let the review stand based on standards no consumer would ever face. And we aren;t exactly talking a GOTY candidate here... it isn't like NHL 10 was gonna determine the System Wars :roll:

GS went up a notch in my book today. They haven't always been so commited to reflecting the actual consumer's gameplay (Civ Rev's online multiplayer was horribly broken on both console versions, and nary a word was mentioned here since the controlled online they played didn't have it), but hey... I'll take what I can get.

santoron

true I just wish they would rereview socom for ps3 that game should gt a higher score due to how good it is now.

Really? People really have a problem with altering a score to more accurately reflect the conditions in a game when it releases to consumers? We aren't talking patches, we aren't talking fixes down the line... we are talking about the conditions the day 1 purchaser would see.

I find it noble that GS would take the extra effort to "get it right" when it would have been so easy to let the review stand based on standards no consumer would ever face. And we aren;t exactly talking a GOTY candidate here... it isn't like NHL 10 was gonna determine the System Wars :roll:

GS went up a notch in my book today. They haven't always been so commited to reflecting the actual consumer's gameplay (Civ Rev's online multiplayer was horribly broken on both console versions, and nary a word was mentioned here since the controlled online they played didn't have it), but hey... I'll take what I can get.

santoron

They didn't do it for other games that didn't have online setup before release but had it after release.

[QUOTE="santoron"]

Really? People really have a problem with altering a score to more accurately reflect the conditions in a game when it releases to consumers? We aren't talking patches, we aren't talking fixes down the line... we are talking about the conditions the day 1 purchaser would see.

I find it noble that GS would take the extra effort to "get it right" when it would have been so easy to let the review stand based on standards no consumer would ever face. And we aren;t exactly talking a GOTY candidate here... it isn't like NHL 10 was gonna determine the System Wars :roll:

GS went up a notch in my book today. They haven't always been so commited to reflecting the actual consumer's gameplay (Civ Rev's online multiplayer was horribly broken on both console versions, and nary a word was mentioned here since the controlled online they played didn't have it), but hey... I'll take what I can get.

xionvalkyrie

They didn't do it for other games that didn't have online setup before release but had it after release.

That isn't the case here. GS got a copy of the final release before the game came out, and reported on online lag issues that they noticed. But those issues were actually addressed before the game officially released to the public. So the review was deriding an issue that no consumer would actually face when buying a game. The online was corrected after the review but before the release, and that is why GS went the extra mile. Makes sense to me.

Really TC, did you even bother reading what you linked?

so because ea fixed the servers, as of last night, gs is now bad because they fixed the review......are u lemmings serious! wow Liquid_DC

it is becoming very apparent that gamespot has become sonyspot.

first flopping halo wars a 82% on metacritic game then this. gamespot is becoming very biased they even gave mgs4 a graphical award over crysis.

im certain no one will say AGAIN that gamespot is getting paid by M$ but the vice versa sound more rational.

halo_wars86

Fail on the part of lemmings.

"In case you're wondering, the main reason we opted to go back and edit the review on this occasion rather than post one of our "After the Fact" updates is that the improvements to the game were made prior to the game being available in stores. Therefore, the multiplayer portion of our original PS3 review, while based entirely on time spent with a retail copy of the game and accurate at the time that we posted it, wasn't actually representative of the online experience that any of you going out and buying the game are going to have."

Do fanboys read? Or do they just look at something and guess? Some people should actually look at why it changed. The game wasn't even out! They reviewed a copy which hadn't been released to the mass market and they fixed it up before it did.

Gamespot is the kid on the playground that keeps changing the rules of the game to suit himself... everyone puts up with it because he owns the ball.

But really Gamespot should adjust reviews if there is good cause for it.... problem is, it seems a bit fishy that they once claimed they NEVER adjust their scores, when it came to another game.... and now, well... you know.

"We were contacted by EA Sports this morning and told that, while the PS3 servers were still being optimized up until late last night--not in time for our review, but in time for the game's arrival in stores--today they're up and running, and making the multiplayer every bit as smooth as it is on the X360"

It was a server issue that was fixed BEFORE the game came out.

micky4889

This.

The score was given to the game before it was released to the public. I think GS's reason is perfectly justifiable.

I also think that the score for a game like SOCOM should not be changed, as the game was released to the public in a broken condition.

lol....

[QUOTE="halo_wars86"]

it is becoming very apparent that gamespot has become sonyspot.

first flopping halo wars a 82% on metacritic game then this. gamespot is becoming very biased they even gave mgs4 a graphical award over crysis.

im certain no one will say AGAIN that gamespot is getting paid by M$ but the vice versa sound more rational.

mgs_freak91

Fail on the part of lemmings.

"In case you're wondering, the main reason we opted to go back and edit the review on this occasion rather than post one of our "After the Fact" updates is that the improvements to the game were made prior to the game being available in stores. Therefore, the multiplayer portion of our original PS3 review, while based entirely on time spent with a retail copy of the game and accurate at the time that we posted it, wasn't actually representative of the online experience that any of you going out and buying the game are going to have."

Do fanboys read? Or do they just look at something and guess? Some people should actually look at why it changed. The game wasn't even out! They reviewed a copy which hadn't been released to the mass market and they fixed it up before it did.

Judging by some of the posts, I think the answer is "no".

I'm surprised that change was enough to bump it up .5 on the review scale. It may not bother me if we hadn't had the LO situation in the past... (And no I'm not calling GS cowspot, or moospot, or sonyspot, etc). Just an observation.musicalmac

I see no reason why Gamespot shouldn't have changed the review score. They did the fair, reasonable thing not just for EA, but for consumers who want an objective opinion and fair review of a popular game.

[QUOTE="Liquid_DC"]so because ea fixed the servers, as of last night, gs is now bad because they fixed the review......are u lemmings serious! wow Midnightshade29

why would you ever base the initial score from online performance? the vast majority of online enabled titles get a patch after the first week or so to fix the problems that come up when the title is released to a mass audience

this happens for ps3 and 360 titles alike

[QUOTE="halo_wars86"]

it is becoming very apparent that gamespot has become sonyspot.

first flopping halo wars a 82% on metacritic game then this. gamespot is becoming very biased they even gave mgs4 a graphical award over crysis.

im certain no one will say AGAIN that gamespot is getting paid by M$ but the vice versa sound more rational.

simslifer

stop making excuses because they know how to rate good games.

face it halo wars just was a horrible game that deserved to flop it's a horrible attempt at a console rts.

But on topic I don't think GS is being payed by anyone. Just maybe a little bias. I love MGS4, but a 10 was a bit much I agree.

Edit: Come to think of it the bias belongs to the reviewer notGS in general.

Oh this just confirms what side Gamespot seems to lean toward.:evil:

vaderhater

I don't mind that they fixed the score. In fact, I was glad to see the explanation as I saw the changed score earlier and got confused. What does bother me is the idea that al these things can be fixed up to release or with patches. Why don't we have polished games waiting to ship at release anymore?

I know others have argued in the past, "better a patch later then a broken game forever." which while true doesn't chance my opinion of how lazy the practice has made developers. Why were they still working on the servers on the 14th? Good for them that they got it fixed, but what if they hadn't until the 21st? What about print reviews that need to be done well ahead? I'm sure none of them got a magic update at the last minute, at least one that is in time enough to do any good.