Question for sheep: Is GS credible again or not?

We all know of the fabulous TP 8.8 incident. Aah, a laugh riot that was. Death threats for Jeff, sheep demanding for a rereview, accounts banned.

Since then, sheep seem to have developed a, let's say, hatred or dislike towards GS? Acting as if GS actually hated the wii. That it only gave wii games low scores just to see a bunch of users go nuts.

Anyway, ever since TP, sheep seemed to have started using Gamerankings to defend the 8.8. Which, we all know, only GS counts here. Which means, gamerankings was basically DC material.

The months passed, and MP3 came along. The first of the big three. It got an 8.5. While 8.5 is still an amazing score, sheep still seemed to complain. When halo 3 came out a month later, it got a 9.5 Sheep seemed a little pissed at the fact that Halo was praised as an amazing sequel, but mp3 was disfavored for being too much of the same.

Again, the months passed and now mario has gotten a 9.5 Amazing no?

So i ask you sheep, is GS credible, or not? Can't be one way or the other now

inb4tldr

They are not consistant.LINKloco

GS or the sheep?

No, they still aren't to me. For reasons other than disagreeable scores I mind you.

Sheep are happy, extatic rather, that SMG didn't flop on GS and got a great score. Some think GS is credible again, but I am not one of them.

I have never felt they were more credible than most other reviewing publications. Generally, I find the best reviews to be the ones written a couple of months after release, and those are usually made by the smaller, lesser known publications.

GS has always been a pretty good reference guide for me, but I've never held their reviews upon a pedestal. They were wrong about TP. They were wrong about MP3. They were wrong about Tetris DS and MP: H. They were wrong about Meteos. They were wrong about Trauma Center (DS). They have been wrong on a bunch of decisions about Nintendo lately, and I'm not really sure why they're going that route. Maybe they just need to hire some editors who have an interest in something besides MMOs and FPS.

MP3 deserved a 9.0.Glitch321

QFT. That game was awesome, and I still don't understand why it got the 8.5...

MP3 deserved a 9.0.Glitch321

According to GS, it didn't :|

I have never felt they were more credible than most other reviewing publications. Generally, I find the best reviews to be the ones written a couple of months after release, and those are usually made by the smaller, lesser known publications.

GS has always been a pretty good reference guide for me, but I've never held their reviews upon a pedestal. They were wrong about TP. They were wrong about MP3. They were wrong about Tetris DS and MP: H. They were wrong about Meteos. They were wrong about Trauma Center (DS). They have been wrong on a bunch of decisions about Nintendo lately, and I'm not really sure why they're going that route. Maybe they just need to hire some editors who have an interest in something besides MMOs and FPS.

i_like_pizza

Wrong you say?

So because they gave it a score you deemed unjustifiable, they're wrong? XD

[QUOTE="LINKloco"]They are not consistant.Sonick54

GS or the sheep?

[QUOTE="LINKloco"]They are not consistant.Sonick54

GS or the sheep?

Warioware? Too high
Twilight Princess? Too high
Metroid Prime 3? Too low

But I wouldn't say they're not credible, that's just their opinion, but at the same time, their reviews don't influence my decision making very much at all. My tastes and expectations I feel are just too different.

They're credible to the masses...

No one review site is credible in a way. They are all just one person's opinion. Read a few of the reviews out there. Now I do agree with the idea of only using GS scores on a GS forum but if anyone goes to buy a game and thinks to themself Hmm I was going to get this game but GS did not like the game so I will pass. Then they are crazy. rybe1025

Logical :)

You seem to be under the misconception that the Gamespot review score defines how good the game is. The reason only Gamespot scores count here is just to keep the arguing simpler, not because everyone agrees that the Gamespot score is always the best and most accurate assessment of a game. The problem has been that gamespot scores have been unreliable, to use your example - TP 8.8, Warioware 9.1. There are plenty of Wii owners who will argue that both scores are wrong - one too generous and one too harsh. However within system wars Warioware is a AAAE for Wii, and Wii owners will happily tally Warioware in the AAAE column for Wii when comparing systems even if they think that score is incorrect.

So no, GS is not anymore credible than before, that is to say it is dropping below some other major review sites. However, the Wii still added a AAAE game by sytem wars rules.

I think they randomly chooses which game to be harsh on, so it won't be too obvious.

There's no such thing as a credible review site. The only credible review is yours.Gunraidan

People have been saying they're credible because it's their opinion.
People have been saying they're not credible because it's their opinion.

Both correct, no?

[QUOTE="i_like_pizza"]

I have never felt they were more credible than most other reviewing publications. Generally, I find the best reviews to be the ones written a couple of months after release, and those are usually made by the smaller, lesser known publications.

GS has always been a pretty good reference guide for me, but I've never held their reviews upon a pedestal. They were wrong about TP. They were wrong about MP3. They were wrong about Tetris DS and MP: H. They were wrong about Meteos. They were wrong about Trauma Center (DS). They have been wrong on a bunch of decisions about Nintendo lately, and I'm not really sure why they're going that route. Maybe they just need to hire some editors who have an interest in something besides MMOs and FPS.

Sonick54

Wrong you say?

So because they gave it a score you deemed unjustifiable, they're wrong? XD

[QUOTE="i_like_pizza"]

I have never felt they were more credible than most other reviewing publications. Generally, I find the best reviews to be the ones written a couple of months after release, and those are usually made by the smaller, lesser known publications.

GS has always been a pretty good reference guide for me, but I've never held their reviews upon a pedestal. They were wrong about TP. They were wrong about MP3. They were wrong about Tetris DS and MP: H. They were wrong about Meteos. They were wrong about Trauma Center (DS). They have been wrong on a bunch of decisions about Nintendo lately, and I'm not really sure why they're going that route. Maybe they just need to hire some editors who have an interest in something besides MMOs and FPS.

Sonick54

Wrong you say?

So because they gave it a score you deemed unjustifiable, they're wrong? XD

No. Have you read the reviews? Did you read previews leading up to those releases? Did you read the updates? Are you aware that, in nearly every case, the previews and reviews are not done by the same person, so GS's first impressions of the games aren't done by the same person who gets the second impressions, and those aren't done by the same person who does the review.

Their reviewing system is a piece of crap, for one. But not only that, their reviewers don't score accordingly with the way that they write. They also don't have a unified system or direction on the topic of "how similar is too similar, or how different is too different."

They're not wrong because I disagree with them. They're wrong because they're wrong, and because they are wrong, I happen to disagree with them, because I don't want to be wrong.

It's not a matter of a fault in the opinion of the reviewer. It's the faulty system and the lack of direction of the GS editorial community. Don't be a prick and think you're all smart and you can slam me with a quick one sentence reply and an emoticon.

I was a bit upset with the TP review at first, but after playing it I think it got what it deserved. And also, you shouldn't look at the score alone. 8.5 for example is a REALLY great score.

I look at it this way, GS is credible, because they don't just hand out 9s to every hyped game like some other sites.

[QUOTE="Sonick54"][QUOTE="i_like_pizza"]

I have never felt they were more credible than most other reviewing publications. Generally, I find the best reviews to be the ones written a couple of months after release, and those are usually made by the smaller, lesser known publications.

GS has always been a pretty good reference guide for me, but I've never held their reviews upon a pedestal. They were wrong about TP. They were wrong about MP3. They were wrong about Tetris DS and MP: H. They were wrong about Meteos. They were wrong about Trauma Center (DS). They have been wrong on a bunch of decisions about Nintendo lately, and I'm not really sure why they're going that route. Maybe they just need to hire some editors who have an interest in something besides MMOs and FPS.

meetroid8

Wrong you say?

So because they gave it a score you deemed unjustifiable, they're wrong? XD

Argh, you beat me to my own reply. :D:

[QUOTE="Glitch321"]MP3 deserved a 9.0.Homesrfan

QFT. That game was awesome, and I still don't understand why it got the 8.5...

Didn't Jeff review it?

the fact that mario got a score it deserves on GS doesnt change the fact that zelda and metroid were 100% AAA material, and that GS flopped them. The are just inconsistent as people have said. and no, thyre not credible: halo 3, does basically the same things as halo2- 9.5, MP3, does basically the same things as MP2 just with added wii remote controls- 8.5... GS, get your act together.

GS reviews should change it up a bit...

Instead of have one reviewer give an overall score...they should have 3 reviewers play it, give it a score...and average those 3 scores...it would prevent the "only one opinion" thing...because getting one person to represent your entire site is kind of ridiculous....one reviewer might not like the game, while one reviewer does....so there really shouldnt be only one reviewer for the score...

Then after the score...they should just have one main reviewer write the actual written review (like it is now)

It would just make soooo much more sense...

[QUOTE="Sonick54"][QUOTE="i_like_pizza"]

I have never felt they were more credible than most other reviewing publications. Generally, I find the best reviews to be the ones written a couple of months after release, and those are usually made by the smaller, lesser known publications.

GS has always been a pretty good reference guide for me, but I've never held their reviews upon a pedestal. They were wrong about TP. They were wrong about MP3. They were wrong about Tetris DS and MP: H. They were wrong about Meteos. They were wrong about Trauma Center (DS). They have been wrong on a bunch of decisions about Nintendo lately, and I'm not really sure why they're going that route. Maybe they just need to hire some editors who have an interest in something besides MMOs and FPS.

i_like_pizza

Wrong you say?

So because they gave it a score you deemed unjustifiable, they're wrong? XD

No. Have you read the reviews? Did you read previews leading up to those releases? Did you read the updates? Are you aware that, in nearly every case, the previews and reviews are not done by the same person, so GS's first impressions of the games aren't done by the same person who gets the second impressions, and those aren't done by the same person who does the review.

Their reviewing system is a piece of crap, for one. But not only that, their reviewers don't score accordingly with the way that they write. They also don't have a unified system or direction on the topic of "how similar is too similar, or how different is too different."

They're not wrong because I disagree with them. They're wrong because they're wrong, and because they are wrong, I happen to disagree with them, because I don't want to be wrong.

It's not a matter of a fault in the opinion of the reviewer. It's the faulty system and the lack of direction of the GS editorial community. Don't be a prick and think you're all smart and you can slam me with a quick one sentence reply and an emoticon.

So, they're are wrong in how they review? Which is different for every person...and varies through people. I understand

Point me to where it shows you how to formely make a correct review please

the fact that mario got a score it deserves on GS doesnt change the fact that zelda and metroid were 100% AAA material, and that GS flopped them. The are just inconsistent as people have said. and no, thyre not credible: halo 3, does basically the same things as halo2- 9.5, MP3, does basically the same things as MP2 just with added wii remote controls- 8.5... GS, get your act together.

alia999

This is exactly what i'm talking about

Sheep continue to cry over the score. It's honestly getting old.

It got what it did, regardless of what the review content had. If the reviewer was inconsistant or made errors in his or her review, than so be it. But the score still stands

[QUOTE="i_like_pizza"]

I have never felt they were more credible than most other reviewing publications. Generally, I find the best reviews to be the ones written a couple of months after release, and those are usually made by the smaller, lesser known publications.

GS has always been a pretty good reference guide for me, but I've never held their reviews upon a pedestal. They were wrong about TP. They were wrong about MP3. They were wrong about Tetris DS and MP: H. They were wrong about Meteos. They were wrong about Trauma Center (DS). They have been wrong on a bunch of decisions about Nintendo lately, and I'm not really sure why they're going that route. Maybe they just need to hire some editors who have an interest in something besides MMOs and FPS.

Sonick54

Wrong you say?

So because they gave it a score you deemed unjustifiable, they're wrong? XD

no they're inconsistent and the editors rate very differently, ex: ratchet and clank

[QUOTE="Gunraidan"]There's no such thing as a credible review site. The only credible review is yours.tbone29

People have been saying they're credible because it's their opinion.
People have been saying they're not credible because it's their opinion.

Both correct, no?

How is another opinion "credible" when you have different tastes fromt hem?

[QUOTE="alia999"]

the fact that mario got a score it deserves on GS doesnt change the fact that zelda and metroid were 100% AAA material, and that GS flopped them. The are just inconsistent as people have said. and no, thyre not credible: halo 3, does basically the same things as halo2- 9.5, MP3, does basically the same things as MP2 just with added wii remote controls- 8.5... GS, get your act together.

Sonick54

This is exactly what i'm talking about

Sheep continue to cry over the score. It's honestly getting old.

It got what it did, regardless of what the review content had. If the reviewer was inconsistant or made errors in his or her review, than so be it. But the score still stands

Are they credible? Yes. Are their review's correct? Sometimes. And yes it can be both ways, since GS isn't a person, but a group of ever changing people, who are not the same, thereby one can not have a simply have a black or white view on their actions unless one is close-minded.

So, they're are wrong in how they review? Which is different for every person...and varies through people. I understand

Point me to where it shows you how to formely make a correct review please

Sonick54

"So they're wrong in how they review (grammatical error fixed)?"

Answer: Yes. Exactly.

"Which is different for every person... and varies through people"

Hurray for redundancy and failed logic.

"I understand."

I'm not so sure you do.

"Point me to where it shows you how to [formally] make a correct review (spelling error fixed)"

Are you kidding me? That's the whole point. The system which is generally followed by the major publications is a messed-up system. I already explained a couple of the faults to you, so I won't bother doing that again, but I'll give you a brief intro into my method of reviewing games (everyone is a critic).

The reviewer must spend time with that game all the way through its stages. You keep up to date with it from its inception to its release. When there is a demo, you are the one who is playing it. You don't take others' word for it. You don't just assume you can cram its history into your head in the week of release and assume that you have perspective on the whole process of the game's evolution.

Then, once the game is released (you already know everything you need to know about the game from a technical aspect, and the direction that the game is supposed to take), you can enjoy it. And when I say "enjoy it," I mean that you have to take the time to explore the game's world thoroughly. If there are 120 stars to get in SMG.... GET 120 STARS! If there are 3 modes of difficulty to unlock, play through the game at least 3 times. You should already know what the game is going to look like, be about, and play like, before you play it. The only thing that's left is to play. And at that moment, you can have a good judgment on whether or not the build-up and the process has led to a satisfying product.

Did you read the MP: H review? The reviewer hadn't even explored the online modes! The preview basically said, "this game is the god of all handheld games, and plays almost as well as a PC-shooter," while the review said, "eh, it falls short." But that noob hadn't even played the whole game, let alone explore the truly fun part about the game. The online experience.

Did you read the TP review? A week before the review, Jeff expressed his distaste for the Wii and the Wii remote at least 5 or 6 times in their big GS event where they got their first Wii.

Have you never read a bad review from GS? Their system is a shoddy one, and the reason is that they simply don't have the time or the resources to dedicate individuals to certain games. They are spread too thin.

i didnt follow gs reviews for the past 3 years. imo alex is the only reliable reviewer herenintendoman562

Now that Greg is gone, I'm inclined to agree with you.

[QUOTE="rybe1025"]No one review site is credible in a way. They are all just one person's opinion. Read a few of the reviews out there. Now I do agree with the idea of only using GS scores on a GS forum but if anyone goes to buy a game and thinks to themself Hmm I was going to get this game but GS did not like the game so I will pass. Then they are crazy. Sonick54

Logical :)

dude 8.8 is not unfair for twilight princess

what is unfair is 7.5 for r&c, every other credible reviewing site gave it at least an 8/10

[QUOTE="nintendoman562"]i didnt follow gs reviews for the past 3 years. imo alex is the only reliable reviewer herei_like_pizza

Now that Greg is gone, I'm inclined to agree with you.

No, I haven't considered GS very credible for reviews for about two years now,

and SMG hasn't changed that.

dude 8.8 is not unfair for twilight princess

what is unfair is 7.5 for r&c, every other credible reviewing site gave it at least an 8/10

mistervengeance

The GOTY for the majority of publications getting an 8.8? It's a top 20 game of all time, and it got an 8.8?

It's not "unfair" because GS can do whatever they want to, so I guess I can agree with that wording. But if you're trying to say it's not the wrong score, then you're dead wrong.

You might not have enjoyed the game yourself, but that doesn't say anything about its actual quality.

No sir, gamespot has not been credible since it gave Final Fantasy Tactics for PS an 8.9? was it?

The only credible reviewer, I find, is famitsu(sp?) magazine.

As for the Zelda score, yeah, that was terrible. GS would have given it a 9, but slighted it on purpose, so it wouldn't gain a AAA rating, as a "lesson" to nintendo for not mixing it up enough.

Why didn't they do that to Halo 3 though? Hmm, interesting.