Is 1up the new GS?

Gamespot is well know for its unforgiving reveiw scores, regularly scoring games lower than its peers in the gaming press. Gamespot is also the premire site for reveiws, that is if you care for quality over complacency. From R&C, Fable, and Zelda TP many a fanboys heart has been broken here. GS regularly kicks a** and takes names.

So in comes 1up.

Crysis = 8.0

Assasins Creed= 7.0

What are they thinking? Maybe they want to prove something?

1UP's reviews suck ass. I thought we had covered this already?

They hand out perfect scores to games that aren't that great, they give low scores to games that are awesome, and they provide little to no detail about the actual game in their reviews, prefering instead to go on mindless esoteric rants that last for the majority of the article.

Gamespot on the other hand goes into detail in their reviews and explains exactly what they like and dislike about a game.

1UP is like the Play magazine of the internet.

Maybe they only gave Crisis an 8.0 cuz they're sick of FPSs like the rest of us.Number_1_Gamer

Speak for yourself.

I love FPS games.

They gave Crysis an 8? I haven't even played the game or the demo, but I found that funny. :PSolidSnake35

Maybe they only gave Crisis an 8.0 cuz they're sick of FPSs like the rest of us.Number_1_Gamer

Maybe the gave Crysis 8.0 because they have bad taste in games. Assasins Creed 7.0? Cmon guys.

For Crysis, it's not 1up, it's GFW Magazine, which posts their scores at 1up, and it's by Shawn Elliot, who I agree with most of the time, but not always. You also have to remeber over at GFW/1up/EGM a 5 is the same thing a 7. If you read the Crysis Review, he loves it, but is sure to point out his problems with it. GFW hardly ever gives out 9+ scores, it's very rare. Far Cry(PC) got a 7.5 I beleive, just for reference.

EDIT:

Also keep in mind people, the famous 7-9 scale is used here at GS and IGN, while 1up/GFW/EGM use a 5-10 scale, meaning 5 is average whereas 5 is a bomb here. People don't seem to understand that. If they score a game above a 5, it's a recomendation. Over here, the scale resembles more of the way our school system works. 7 barely makes it a good game, and a 6 or below is a bomb.

[QUOTE="Number_1_Gamer"]Maybe they only gave Crisis an 8.0 cuz they're sick of FPSs like the rest of us.kevy619

Maybe the gave Crysis 8.0 because they have bad taste in games. Assasins Creed 7.0? Cmon guys.

It's not 1up, it's GFW Magazine, which posts their scores at 1up, and it's by Shawn Elliot, who I agree with most of the time, but not always. You also have to remeber over at GFW/1up/EGM a 5 is the same thing a 7. If you read the Crysis Review, he loves it, but is sure to point out his problems with it. GFW hardly ever gives out 9+ scores, it's very rare. Far Cry for a 7.5 I beleive, just for reference. mismajor99

1up, GFW, EGM...it's all the same.

[QUOTE="kevy619"]

[QUOTE="Number_1_Gamer"]Maybe they only gave Crisis an 8.0 cuz they're sick of FPSs like the rest of us.blue_hazy_basic

Maybe the gave Crysis 8.0 because they have bad taste in games. Assasins Creed 7.0? Cmon guys.

The GS review is the one that matters most to me. But AC has been scoring very well at other places. A 9.5 from Game Imformer, 10 from Games Radar, and 9.1 from gametrailers. Maybe more reviews will fall in line with 1up, but dang, 7.0 is a lot lower than I though the game would get.

Why are people going crazy over a low scoring review from the joke that is 1up? They don't even have the same scale that GS and most other sites user either.

AC and Crysis have been getting AAA reviews everywhere. Why are people getting mad?

Also keep in mind people, the famous 7-9 scale is used here at GS and IGN, while 1up/GFW/EGM use a 5-10 scale, meaning 5 is average whereas 5 is a bomb here. People don't seem to understand that. If they score a game above a 5, it's a recomendation. Over here, the scale resembles more of the way our school system works. 7 barely makes it a good game, and a 6 or below is a bombmismajor99

For Crysis, it's not 1up, it's GFW Magazine, which posts their scores at 1up, and it's by Shawn Elliot, who I agree with most of the time, but not always. You also have to remeber over at GFW/1up/EGM a 5 is the same thing a 7. If you read the Crysis Review, he loves it, but is sure to point out his problems with it. GFW hardly ever gives out 9+ scores, it's very rare. Far Cry(PC) got a 7.5 I beleive, just for reference.

EDIT:

Also keep in mind people, the famous 7-9 scale is used here at GS and IGN, while 1up/GFW/EGM use a 5-10 scale, meaning 5 is average whereas 5 is a bomb here. People don't seem to understand that. If they score a game above a 5, it's a recomendation. Over here, the scale resembles more of the way our school system works. 7 barely makes it a good game, and a 6 or below is a bomb.

mismajor99

Thats complete bs, they give it plenty of tens over there. They just have bad reviews, end of story. Examples, Fire Emble: Radiant Dawn 9.0, Virtua Fighter 5 - 10.0, Ace Combat 6 - 6.5, Everyday Shooter 9.0, Quake Wars 9.0, should I continue to point out how poor alot of their reviews are?

Gamespot is well know for its unforgiving reveiw scores, regularly scoring games lower than its peers in the gaming press. Gamespot is also the premire site for reveiws, that is if you care for quality over complacency. From R&C, Fable, and Zelda TP many a fanboys heart has been broken here. GS regularly kicks a** and takes names.

So in comes 1up.

Crysis = 8.0

Assasins Creed= 7.0

What are they thinking? Maybe they want to prove something?

flintgijoe

they gave ratchet and clank 8.5....which is higher then both Crysis and AC.....lol they are MUCH worse then gamespot

EGM existed before gamespot.

They were always tough reviewers.

[QUOTE="flintgijoe"]

Gamespot is well know for its unforgiving reveiw scores, regularly scoring games lower than its peers in the gaming press. Gamespot is also the premire site for reveiws, that is if you care for quality over complacency. From R&C, Fable, and Zelda TP many a fanboys heart has been broken here. GS regularly kicks a** and takes names.

So in comes 1up.

Crysis = 8.0

Assasins Creed= 7.0

What are they thinking? Maybe they want to prove something?

mingo123

they gave ratchet and clank 8.5....which is higher then both Crysis and AC.....lol they are MUCH worse then gamespot

Ratchet & Clank is a great game, despite them underating other games.

[QUOTE="blue_hazy_basic"][QUOTE="kevy619"]

[QUOTE="Number_1_Gamer"]Maybe they only gave Crisis an 8.0 cuz they're sick of FPSs like the rest of us.flintgijoe

Maybe the gave Crysis 8.0 because they have bad taste in games. Assasins Creed 7.0? Cmon guys.

The GS review is the one that matters most to me. But AC has been scoring very well at other places. A 9.5 from Game Imformer, 10 from Games Radar, and 9.1 from gametrailers. Maybe more reviews will fall in line with 1up, but dang, 7.0 is a lot lower than I though the game would get.

Reviews are opinions, so they cant be wrong. After what I heard about Assassin's Creed it give it a 7.0 on GS aswell, considering how retarded the combat system is and the repetative assassinations. Just because a game is hyped into oblivion doesn't make it great, and I bet my that Crysis wouldn't be given the light of day if it wasn't for its graphics (yeah quote me on that and bold the IF)

Gamers are getting worse as time moves on, because shinny graphics are more important then the content.

I like that they use their whole review scale, but I have to say I disagree with many of their scores. I mean almost evey DS mini-game and EA sports rehash have scored better than WiC, Crysis and The Witcher just to mention few, their reviews really lack consistency when the crapphy Halo2 port scores 6 but the even crappier RE4 port scores 9... And apprently Crysis=Shadowrun...EntwineX

The PC port of RE4 got a score around 7, the Wii one got a 9.1 because of the unique controls and how well they were implimented into the game. Unless you think the RE4 Wii Edition is crap, but dont bother, atleast I wont.

They gave Crysis..... an 8.0?!?!

I'm not a PC gamer and I don't have a decent rig, but I have been paying attention to the game (as well as watching and reading GS's revews) and an 8.0 seems like a completely ridiculous score for such a high quality game.

AC I don't know anything about so I don't really care what they give that game.

[QUOTE="EntwineX"]I like that they use their whole review scale, but I have to say I disagree with many of their scores. I mean almost evey DS mini-game and EA sports rehash have scored better than WiC, Crysis and The Witcher just to mention few, their reviews really lack consistency when the crapphy Halo2 port scores 6 but the even crappier RE4 port scores 9... And apprently Crysis=Shadowrun...loky4000

The PC port of RE4 got a score around 7, the Wii one got a 9.1 because of the unique controls and how well they were implimented into the game. Unless you think the RE4 Wii Edition is crap, but dont bother, atleast I wont.

assassin's creed is flopping all over the place, so can't blame that one on 1up.

7.9 from teamxbox.com

6.7 from planetxbox

Before you say something like that go play the games first.

I already finished AC i's a great game, great controls and idea, but way too repetive it gets borring very fast, i already said yesterday that i would give it a 7.8/10 and looks like im not the only one, most of the players are complaining that it's too repetive.

[EDIT] Kinda forgot to have an opinion. 1up is a joke, basically. I don't trust any of their scores, high or low. I'm pretty sure they have monkeys throw darts with the name of each game at a board and pick the score from there.[QUOTE="mismajor99"]Also keep in mind people, the famous 7-9 scale is used here at GS and IGN, while 1up/GFW/EGM use a 5-10 scale, meaning 5 is average whereas 5 is a bomb here. People don't seem to understand that. If they score a game above a 5, it's a recomendation. Over here, the scale resembles more of the way our school system works. 7 barely makes it a good game, and a 6 or below is a bombGrive

You see, that's not how reviewers look at it though(1up). Most games here get between a 7 and 9 and in almost all publications. At 1up, and they've discussed this many times on their various podcasts, they disagree with the way reviewers throw around these safe scores and want to bring in the system of where a 5 is an average game(Recommended Game). 5 is NOT an average game here at GS, and you won't find anyone here that would call a 5 rated game with any positive characteristics.

In fact, 1up, specifically GFW, removed their numerical scoring system for a few months to show their distain with the current system. It was also to encourage reading the damn reviews, which in this case, most people haven't even read. If you read the Crysis review for instance, he praises the game, and in last weeks 1up show, he speaks highly of it as well, much more than an "8" would garner here at GS or IGN.

The rating systems are viewed differently from a philosophical point of view, whether or not they follow what they claim to believe is another story. EGM claims to have the same view point, but hands out 10's like it's going out of style. Also, GFW for instance doesn't view a "10" as a 100% recommended game like EGM does. They view it as a "perfect" game, which is why they don't hand them out. Again, different review philosophies. "Using the whole scale" is what GFW claims to do.

EDIT, here is the story from Joystiq:

http://www.joystiq.com/2006/11/18/reviewing-games-for-windows-magazine-issue-01/

"The most exciting change is GFW'snew scoring system. In a ballsy move, GFW has recalibrated their score system: a score of 5 out of 10 is "average." Anything above a five is "above average" and anything below five is "below average." Games that previously might have earned 8 or 9 might now be earning scores of 6 or 7! Let's see how long they'll stick to their guns on this one, as they're sure to catch a lot of heat from game publishers. Stay strong, guys! You're on the side of the gamer with this change. "

For Crysis, it's not 1up, it's GFW Magazine, which posts their scores at 1up, and it's by Shawn Elliot, who I agree with most of the time, but not always. You also have to remeber over at GFW/1up/EGM a 5 is the same thing a 7. If you read the Crysis Review, he loves it, but is sure to point out his problems with it. GFW hardly ever gives out 9+ scores, it's very rare. Far Cry(PC) got a 7.5 I beleive, just for reference.

EDIT:

Also keep in mind people, the famous 7-9 scale is used here at GS and IGN, while 1up/GFW/EGM use a 5-10 scale, meaning 5 is average whereas 5 is a bomb here. People don't seem to understand that. If they score a game above a 5, it's a recomendation. Over here, the scale resembles more of the way our school system works. 7 barely makes it a good game, and a 6 or below is a bomb.

mismajor99

Over here, our system is NOT like the school system. 6 or below is not a bomb at all...Even Jeff says so. Maybe in SW, but don't speak for GS.

The thing about gaming sites is that they are businesses. Businesses in reality coulden't care less about the stupid score of some game, but really do care about this little thing about MONEY. Companies that make games usually pay off advertising and a high score in gaming sites and hype so everyone would be happy in the end result. This is what will happen with Mass Effect in my opinion. For examle: let's say that after a company makes a game who's over all score is in reality something arround 8. It has great graphics and okay gameplay but the length of the game is stale and the story is worse and there are tons of games in the market that look exactly like it. What the company who made the game would do is pay off all gaming sites and hype the game, and when the game score really high, everyone is happy, even the gamers, because they are all die hard fans and their opinion of the score of the game is clouded by all the hype and by peer pressure. Never EVER take one gaming sites score for a game seriously.

But gamespot always had the nicest interfase and the best core fanbase who regularly visits, making it the best gaming site, in my opinion.

[QUOTE="mismajor99"]

For Crysis, it's not 1up, it's GFW Magazine, which posts their scores at 1up, and it's by Shawn Elliot, who I agree with most of the time, but not always. You also have to remeber over at GFW/1up/EGM a 5 is the same thing a 7. If you read the Crysis Review, he loves it, but is sure to point out his problems with it. GFW hardly ever gives out 9+ scores, it's very rare. Far Cry(PC) got a 7.5 I beleive, just for reference.

EDIT:

Also keep in mind people, the famous 7-9 scale is used here at GS and IGN, while 1up/GFW/EGM use a 5-10 scale, meaning 5 is average whereas 5 is a bomb here. People don't seem to understand that. If they score a game above a 5, it's a recomendation. Over here, the scale resembles more of the way our school system works. 7 barely makes it a good game, and a 6 or below is a bomb.

Udsen

Over here, our system is NOT like the school system. 6 or below is not a bomb at all...Even Jeff says so. Maybe in SW, but don't speak for GS.

The problem is the perception. GFW has been trying to make an 8 feel like a 9 here and at other sites and a 5 for example to feel like a 7 and so on. I edited my post, check out the link to the official press release.

Reviews aside, the Ziff Davis people are way more entertaining than Gamespot's people. 1up podcasts and shows are far superior.poovine

[QUOTE="Udsen"][QUOTE="mismajor99"]

For Crysis, it's not 1up, it's GFW Magazine, which posts their scores at 1up, and it's by Shawn Elliot, who I agree with most of the time, but not always. You also have to remeber over at GFW/1up/EGM a 5 is the same thing a 7. If you read the Crysis Review, he loves it, but is sure to point out his problems with it. GFW hardly ever gives out 9+ scores, it's very rare. Far Cry(PC) got a 7.5 I beleive, just for reference.

EDIT:

Also keep in mind people, the famous 7-9 scale is used here at GS and IGN, while 1up/GFW/EGM use a 5-10 scale, meaning 5 is average whereas 5 is a bomb here. People don't seem to understand that. If they score a game above a 5, it's a recomendation. Over here, the scale resembles more of the way our school system works. 7 barely makes it a good game, and a 6 or below is a bomb.

mismajor99

Over here, our system is NOT like the school system. 6 or below is not a bomb at all...Even Jeff says so. Maybe in SW, but don't speak for GS.

The problem is the perception. GFW has been trying to make an 8 feel like a 9 here and at other sites and a 5 for example to feel like a 7 and so on. I edited my post, check out the link to the official press release.

However, most game sites review games just as they are. GameSpot reviews based on if it would be worth the $60.

what i mostly hate about gamespot is not the reviews even though some of them stink. its more that well people dont have far arguements on here its mostly xbox fans making topics and more xbox fans bashing ps3 even more.

i like 360 better but still hating on one system so much is crazy so the thing that turns me off is all the lemmings but n4g is full of cows so cant get good opinions or arguements over there either. but 1up i like them a lot i think they been doing a good job. keeping it about even over there.