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
Ok..1. Comet Crash and Shadow Complex are COMPLETELY different games that were released MONTHS apart from eachother and 2. They were reviewed by different people with different opinions.
Also, GS gave a perfectly fine reason for why they changed the score and it makes sense.
People always complain about GS, when they are just doing their job. They explained clearly why the changed their review...people need to chill and quit screaming bias at every turn :?
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
lol, floppnig of halo wars is your proof? how about you remove all of those sites that are BIASED towards X360 and where is that average then? I remember someone took all those scores and separated them to show how gamespot wasn't that far off in the general opinion. Just because it had the Halo name all the xbox sites scored it crazy good....remove those and it wasn't even AA.
Also I find it funny how the roles have reversed. before MGS4 came out Cows were convinced gamespot was getting $$$ from MS to give them good scores and Sony bad ones. Remember how Heavenly Sword, R&C, and Uncharted all flopped within 2 months of PS3's first year? Cows cried foul, Lems laughed and said GS is not biased. Now the exact opposite is happening, X360 can't get a good game out and PS3 is just laying down the smack with great titles. Maybe we should just look at like this, back then PS3 had subpar titles and that's why they flopped just like how at the moment X360 has been releasing subpar titles (which is why they are flopping).
in this case i agree with gamespot, they have real reasons. i can understand something like socom or fallout 3 that was patched a few weeks-month later. who wants to buy a game and sit around for a month until it's fixed. in this case the game hadn't been released, they fixed it before the game was released. this review could have put people off the game when their experience would not be as stated in the review.
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
Riverwolf007
Yet it feels like it was monkeys doing the network coding, no matter how long you wait..
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.
lol, floppnig of halo wars is your proof? how about you remove all of those sites that are BIASED towards X360 and where is that average then? I remember someone took all those scores and separated them to show how gamespot wasn't that far off in the general opinion. Just because it had the Halo name all the xbox sites scored it crazy good....remove those and it wasn't even AA.
Also I find it funny how the roles have reversed. before MGS4 came out Cows were convinced gamespot was getting $$$ from MS to give them good scores and Sony bad ones. Remember how Heavenly Sword, R&C, and Uncharted all flopped within 2 months of PS3's first year? Cows cried foul, Lems laughed and said GS is not biased. Now the exact opposite is happening, X360 can't get a good game out and PS3 is just laying down the smack with great titles. Maybe we should just look at like this, back then PS3 had subpar titles and that's why they flopped just like how at the moment X360 has been releasing subpar titles (which is why they are flopping).
The same excuse could apply to any PS3 exclusive. So don't pull the "fanboy sites gave it good scores" card. And I happen to recall the non-360 sites giving it competant scores as well. It's a good and well made game whether you admit it or not. Sure the roles have reversed as you said, but does it mean I should stick with only the PS3 for now on just because the 360 is having an off year? No I just go with what looks good to me. Not because I sell my soul to a single piece of gaming hardware.
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
Considering the server issue was enough to bump the ps3 port down a half point compared to the 360 version, returning the 2 to equal in the absense of a server issue makes sense to me.
Log in to comment