They are amongst the last because for PS3 games, they have to gauge how low to score it in order to be lower than all the competing sites (juuust kidding... or am i? :X)
But honestly I have no idea. it's not like they always spend extra time and care with their reviews... look at aaron thomas' reviews. one page of blither blather.
Seriously, what takes them? Maybe they just wanna seem professional?
Why is Gamespot so slow nowadays? The only review they got more than a day before hand since last year was Halo 3, and now they don't even get games like CoD4 when the embargo is lifted and everyother website gets it out the exact second.
And I know some will say that Gamespot likes to finish the game and get a quality review, I understand that, but all the other sites had quality reviews, infact the IGN one, now I don't even like IGN, but they had a 4 page review, when was the last time Gamespot had a review of 4 pages or over?
They are amongst the last because for PS3 games, they have to gauge how low to score it in order to be lower than all the competing sites (juuust kidding... or am i? :X)
But honestly I have no idea. it's not like they always spend extra time and care with their reviews... look at aaron thomas' reviews. one page of blither blather.
Seriously, what takes them? Maybe they just wanna seem professional?
0rin
Lets not get into how they are bias against the PS3 because I dont think thats the case. However, they sure do take there marry old time on reviewing games.
[QUOTE="0rin"]They are amongst the last because for PS3 games, they have to gauge how low to score it in order to be lower than all the competing sites (juuust kidding... or am i? :X)
But honestly I have no idea. it's not like they always spend extra time and care with their reviews... look at aaron thomas' reviews. one page of blither blather.
Seriously, what takes them? Maybe they just wanna seem professional?
neversummer75
Lets not get into how they are bias against the PS3 because I dont think thats the case. However, they sure do take there marry old time on reviewing games.
I wasn't saying GS is biased against PS3. I was joking about it. But I do think some of their writers sure are. Or if that isn't the case, then some of their writers must really hate games in general, and IMO don't belong in this line of work. But either way, they sure do take their sweet time, all for naught seemingly.
Gametrailers has the best reviews IMO. They are always spot on(with the GRs average), still have a .1 increment system, and have countdowns to big game reviews so you don't have to spend time waiting for reviews.
You think all the money being filtered through Gamespot, they would get their hands on the copies earlier. They definitely are some of the last ones to get their review out. And if they get them early already, they have some explaining to do. Those reviews are like what 2-3 small pages tops?
[QUOTE="zhuanai"]I guess they need to see what other sides say about a game first and then they can create teh controversialultima-flare
Pretty much :x
while i dont beleive this is does kind of make u wonder...i think its their arrogance...this site and its workers just to me feel full of themselves...they dont rush to get the review cause they feel people will wait for their review...though i hope no1 does, cause while the scores usually seem to be good, the written reviews here are pretty awful
They have addressed this before. They wait for the retail copy since they don't make any deal with the publisher in order to get the game early. There are exceptions as in the case of Halo 3 where they did get the game early (in order to have the review up on day 1), but they had a review embargo like all the other review sites that got the game early.
IGN has addressed this very thing in their podcasts. They make deals with publishers to get the game early and will release a review early if it gets a score that the publisher is happy with. If the game does not score well, they are not allowed to released the review early and will do it once the game is released.
They are amongst the last because for PS3 games, they have to gauge how low to score it in order to be lower than all the competing sites (juuust kidding... or am i? :X)
But honestly I have no idea. it's not like they always spend extra time and care with their reviews... look at aaron thomas' reviews. one page of blither blather.
Seriously, what takes them? Maybe they just wanna seem professional?
0rin
LMAO I totally agree. To be honest sometimes when I look at the reviews they give ps3 games, I think that these guys dont even play through the game. They prolly just look at videos of gameplay for ps3 titles and make there reviews, lol. Honestly though I sometimes think gamespot always waits for there review so they can bring theres out and have alot of people swarm there site just to leave comments for example RAC was a great way for them to get alot of hits, and I think thats what they did, they knew the game was an AAA title but decided to lower the score just so they can get tons of hits on there site about the review, too bad it backfired on them because alot of ps3 users I know that use to be on here alot have left. Anyways these guys always lag with there reviews.
Not trying to trash them or anything but does anyone know why they seem to be the last to review games amoung the heavy hitters of reivew sites?neversummer75
Yeah it seems to get worse and worse with each anticipated game. Except for Halo 3, they reviewed that early. Everyone else did that too though.
Log in to comment