GameSpot's Reviewers Are Confusing Me

They rate Black Ops, a game that didn't add that much new content, a 9.0, but they rate Cataclysm, an expansion full of new content, with an 8.5.

Why??

They rate the overall package, not just the new content.

They rate the overall package, not just the new content.

Yangire

You may be right.....but why??

The most important parts of Cata wasn't counted cause it was added ina free patch before release.

Game vs game, not content vs content. However, what I played of black ops is definitely no 9.

Right. Game vs Game. This has happened to other games, like GT5 and Epic Mickey. The reviewers are beating them down!

An expansion to a 2004 game that you pay monthly fees for got a lower review than a new game with a good (for COD) campaign, Coop zombies, wager matches, theater, and and multiplayer from the most popular competitive online shooter to date.

:o

Right. Game vs Game. This has happened to other games, like GT5 and Epic Mickey. The reviewers are beating them down!

ichc1000x

I've heard from some people who actually bought Epic Mickey say it's great despite its flaws. I don't know how on earth No More Heroes managed to get AAA, or the first Assassin's Creed. There are plenty of other examples that make you think, "wtf were they thinking?" when they reviewed x or y game.

An expansion to a 2004 game that you pay monthly fees for got a lower review than a new game with a good (for COD) campaign, Coop zombies, wager matches, theater, and and multiplayer from the most popular competitive online shooter to date.

:o

dercoo

Not biased at all ...

[QUOTE="dercoo"]

An expansion to a 2004 game that you pay monthly fees for got a lower review than a new game with a good (for COD) campaign, Coop zombies, wager matches, theater, and and multiplayer from the most popular competitive online shooter to date.

:o

-Snooze-

Not biased at all ...

Its not like SW community is biased against COD....

[QUOTE="-Snooze-"]

[QUOTE="dercoo"]

An expansion to a 2004 game that you pay monthly fees for got a lower review than a new game with a good (for COD) campaign, Coop zombies, wager matches, theater, and and multiplayer from the most popular competitive online shooter to date.

:o

dercoo

Not biased at all ...

Its not like SW community is biased against COD....

[QUOTE="-Snooze-"]

[QUOTE="dercoo"]

An expansion to a 2004 game that you pay monthly fees for got a lower review than a new game with a good (for COD) campaign, Coop zombies, wager matches, theater, and and multiplayer from the most popular competitive online shooter to date.

:o

dercoo

Not biased at all ...

Its not like SW community is biased against COD....

When you release the same game year after year and have the audacity to increase the price, that'll happen.

Like someone already said some of the content in Cataclysm was already added in a free patch update. While this is good for all gamers it is bad for review scores since you pay for less new features.

They rate Black Ops, a game that didn't add that much new content, a 9.0, but they rate Cataclysm, an expansion full of new content, with an 8.5.

Why??

[QUOTE="ichc1000x"]

They rate Black Ops, a game that didn't add that much new content, a 9.0, but they rate Cataclysm, an expansion full of new content, with an 8.5.

Why??

Skittles_McGee

[QUOTE="Skittles_McGee"][QUOTE="ichc1000x"]

They rate Black Ops, a game that didn't add that much new content, a 9.0, but they rate Cataclysm, an expansion full of new content, with an 8.5.

Why??

Bigboi500

I disagree. Take away the number and what is left? The exact same thing as before except with 1 to 3 less characters. Game reviews will hold more weight when the audience that reads them gets a little smarter and cares about the content of the review. I don't blame the media for trying to feed us numbers that we can attach to their names, I blame the readers for not wanting to educate themselves.

[QUOTE="Bigboi500"]

[QUOTE="Skittles_McGee"] Have you tried reading the reviews? That might answer your question.ActicEdge

I disagree. Take away the number and what is left? The exact same thing as before except with 1 to 3 less characters. Game reviews will hold more weight when the audience that reads them gets a little smarter and cares about the content of the review. I don't blame the media for trying to feed us numbers that we can attach to their names, I blame the readers for not wanting to educate themselves.

a full game fps vs. a mmorpg expansion?

those numbers are usually dead wrong to boot.

Bigboi500

"usually" is an exagerration, don't you think? You have to remember the scores that did agree with the review as well as the ones that didn't, and there are many many reviews that don't get much attention here.

Scoring scales larger than 5 just need to go away forever. Having silly numbers like 9.5 is only a way to manufacture more hype for games and get people looking at the reviews, and it leaves most of the scale redundant.

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

[QUOTE="Bigboi500"]Game reviews in general would hold much more water if they didn't have a stupid number stamped along with it.

Bigboi500

I disagree. Take away the number and what is left? The exact same thing as before except with 1 to 3 less characters. Game reviews will hold more weight when the audience that reads them gets a little smarter and cares about the content of the review. I don't blame the media for trying to feed us numbers that we can attach to their names, I blame the readers for not wanting to educate themselves.

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

[QUOTE="Bigboi500"]Game reviews in general would hold much more water if they didn't have a stupid number stamped along with it.

Bigboi500

I disagree. Take away the number and what is left? The exact same thing as before except with 1 to 3 less characters. Game reviews will hold more weight when the audience that reads them gets a little smarter and cares about the content of the review. I don't blame the media for trying to feed us numbers that we can attach to their names, I blame the readers for not wanting to educate themselves.

I think you are simplifying this too much atleast for me. Its not as easy as remove number and magically reviews will mean more. That's not the point. A review is suspose to provide us with information we can use to make educated purchases (though the reviewers and the industry are totally not getting that), a number under correct context can give you a much better picture of a game vs another. A 6 vs a 9 is an easy comparison on which is probably a better buy. Its up to the reader after to specialize the info and pick out what is important for him or her. I don't like pinning the blame on something so meaningless as if getting rid of it is going to solve all the problems, its not, people aren't going to magically change their ways. Its the fault of people not interested in actual games and instead in numbers that's the problem, the number is just an easy target to pin the blame on because people don't want to take responsibility for themselves.

[QUOTE="Bigboi500"]

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

I disagree. Take away the number and what is left? The exact same thing as before except with 1 to 3 less characters. Game reviews will hold more weight when the audience that reads them gets a little smarter and cares about the content of the review. I don't blame the media for trying to feed us numbers that we can attach to their names, I blame the readers for not wanting to educate themselves.

locopatho

So you might say reviewers have vested interests in trying to control, to a certain extent, what's popular and what sells well, molding the industry and shaping opinion in disingenuous ways to suit their personal preferences. It gives them too much power in an age that is fascinated with the celebrity image. That might sound a little extreme, but some posters really do put some reviewers up on a pedestal and think that what they say is absolute.

[QUOTE="locopatho"][QUOTE="Bigboi500"]Take away the number and what's left is pure information without a stupid label, those numbers are usually dead wrong to boot. Sure it's fun for System Wars, but other than that they serve no real purpose. Reviews are meant to inform gamers and consumers, not brand them with some make-believe number imo.

Bigboi500

So you might say reviewers have vested interests in trying to control, to a certain extent, what's popular and what sells well, molding the industry and shaping opinion in disingenuous ways to suit their personal preferences. It gives them too much power in an age that is fascinated with the celebrity image. That might sound a little extreme, but some posters really do put some reviewers up on a pedestal and think that what they say is absolute.

This is an industry about making money, it never was and never will be about the industry or the games. If it was, they'd give it to us for free, wouldn't let companies advertise there stuff on the site, they wouldn't accept press kits and they wouldn't let pubs pay and or influence them in any way. That is the first part that has to be understood.

This isn't journalism, this is gaming media, that's all it is.

They rate Black Ops, a game that didn't add that much new content, a 9.0, but they rate Cataclysm, an expansion full of new content, with an 8.5.

Why??

ichc1000x

a full game fps vs. a mmorpg expansion?

CaseyWegner

a full game fps vs. a mmorpg expansion?

CaseyWegner

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

a full game fps vs. a mmorpg expansion?

djsifer01

There is no reason to believe COD is overated. People say it is but so what? Overated is a meaningless term for, "I don't like it as much as other, I prefer other games, conform to my opinion". I would rather people just say the former because that's what they actually are saying 90% of the time.

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

a full game fps vs. a mmorpg expansion?

brennan7777

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

a full game fps vs. a mmorpg expansion?

brennan7777

sounds like something i've said here many times. they're not even the same genre though.

[QUOTE="brennan7777"]

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

a full game fps vs. a mmorpg expansion?

CaseyWegner

sounds like something i've said here many times. they're not even the same genre though.

They rate Black Ops, a game that didn't add that much new content, a 9.0, but they rate Cataclysm, an expansion full of new content, with an 8.5.

Why??

ichc1000x

Black Ops has the complete Zork game in it that is always good for an extra point.

They rate the overall package, not just the new content.

Yangire

and by package you mean the "incentives" that gamespot gets for throwing 9's activisions way right?

[QUOTE="Yangire"]

They rate the overall package, not just the new content.

cowgriller

and by package you mean the "incentives" that gamespot gets for throwing 9's activisions way right?

They rate Black Ops, a game that didn't add that much new content, a 9.0, but they rate Cataclysm, an expansion full of new content, with an 8.5.

Why??

[QUOTE="cowgriller"]

[QUOTE="Yangire"]

They rate the overall package, not just the new content.

IronBass

and by package you mean the "incentives" that gamespot gets for throwing 9's activisions way right?

then again, all publishers do this. it's the same reason MS markets halo more than other 360 exclusives or why sony markets GT more than otehr games. more potential sales.

that's the tricky thing. i could say that because CoD is more popular, but that's not true. i could say it makes more money that WoW, but that's also not true. it could be do the wide availability of CoD, thus giving it a larger marketing campaign and Activision paying for better reviews. simply put, better review scores could translate to more sales on multiple consoles.then again, all publishers do this. it's the same reason MS markets halo more than other 360 exclusives or why sony markets GT more than otehr games. more potential sales.cowgriller

[QUOTE="-Snooze-"]

[QUOTE="dercoo"]

An expansion to a 2004 game that you pay monthly fees for got a lower review than a new game with a good (for COD) campaign, Coop zombies, wager matches, theater, and and multiplayer from the most popular competitive online shooter to date.

:o

dercoo

Not biased at all ...

Its not like SW community is biased against COD....

Its an opinion. You ether agree or you dont.

They rate Black Ops, a game that didn't add that much new content, a 9.0, but they rate Cataclysm, an expansion full of new content, with an 8.5.

Why??

ichc1000x