R&C TOD / Blue Dragon comparison - deals with GS bias, or lack there of

both were hyped AA here on GS and both flopped

gamerankings score is much higher than GS score

GS R&C review - 7.5 GR - 9.0 (15 reviews) point gap - 1.5

GS BD review - 6.0 GR - 7.7 (48 reviews) point gap - 1.7

my point here being is that gamespot doesn't just rate PS3 games lower. it happens to games on all consoles. i just showed one example and in it you can see that BD, a 360 exclusive game, scored much lower on GS then on GR. the point gap is actually higher with blue dragon (with more reviews) then it is with R&C. also the GR score is bound to go down more as more sites review it (as it happens with every other game also).

ok, now i know these games are in two diffent leagues R&C obviously being the better game as shown by all the great scores it is getting. i'm just trying to make you see that maybe, just maybe, gamespot isn't "lemspot" or "teh bias" and maybe just a really tough reviewing site.

The difference is R&C is a good game :|

----------

Just kidding.

But seriously,I don't think that Gamespot's bias is too bad normally. However, that R&C score reeks of bias.

Oh noes, teh conspiracy!!!!

Cows wont understand that, GS is bias! Give them a week to chill and cool down a bit.

both were hyped AA here on GS and both flopped

gamerankings score is much higher than GS score

GS R&C review - 7.5 GR - 9.0 (15 reviews) point gap - 1.5

GS BD review - 6.0 GR - 7.7 (48 reviews) point gap - 1.7

my point here being is that gamespot doesn't just rate PS3 games lower. it happens to games on all consoles. i just showed one example and in it you can see that BD, a 360 exclusive game, scored much lower on GS then on GR. the point gap is actually higher with blue dragon (with more reviews) then it is with R&C. also the GR score is bound to go down more as more sites review it (as it happens with every other game also).

ok, now i know these games are in two diffent leagues R&C obviously being the better game as shown by all the great scores it is getting. i'm just trying to make you see that maybe, just maybe, gamespot isn't "lemspot" or "teh bias" and maybe just a really tough reviewing site.

ItalStallion777

the difference between 9.0 and 7.5 is much different than the difference between 7.7 and 6.0.....even though the gap may not be numerically larger......it is nonetheless larger....

6s and 7s are almost clumped together (IMO) lots of the times.....but you dont' see 9s and 7s clumped together....

Each time you go up a level of rating it is harder and harder to achieve that next level (from 6 to 7 to 8 to 9....it becomes progressively harder to move your way up)

The difference is R&C is a good game :|

----------

^^^^My first fanboy statement. Yay! :P Just kidding

Khnemu23

Crash only got a7 so I do not think they are biased to the ps3 rather than specificgames.

the difference between 9.0 and 7.5 is much different than the difference between 7.7 and 6.0.....even though the gap may not be numerically larger......it is nonetheless larger....

6s and 7s are almost clumped together (IMO) lots of the times.....but you dont' see 9s and 7s clumped together....

Each time you go up a level of rating it is harder and harder to achieve that next level (from 6 to 7 to 8 to 9....it becomes progressively harder to move your way up)

MikeE21286

Exactly, for example there a bigger difference in an 8.5 GS score to a 99.9% ranking on gamerankings.com than a 1/10 from GS and a 30% ranking on gameranking. Not numerically but a 6.0 ranking to a A(7-7.9) is way different than a A to AAA(9-9.99).

the difference between 9.0 and 7.5 is much different than the difference between 7.7 and 6.0.....even though the gap may not be numerically larger......it is nonetheless larger....

6s and 7s are almost clumped together (IMO) lots of the times.....but you dont' see 9s and 7s clumped together....

Each time you go up a level of rating it is harder and harder to achieve that next level (from 6 to 7 to 8 to 9....it becomes progressively harder to move your way up)

MikeE21286

agreed. however, i was simply trying to make the point that gamespot just doesn't underrate, or be tough, when it comes to ps3 games.

[QUOTE="Khnemu23"]

The difference is R&C is a good game :|

----------

^^^^My first fanboy statement. Yay! :P Just kidding

grady01

Crash only got a7 so I do not think they are biased to the ps3 rather than specificgames.

I know. I was just kidding. I don't hate gamespot for being biased, just for giving R&C a score that it didn't deserve. They sometimes do that to different games, but R&C was just obvious. Most people didn't care about Crash. (And by most people I mean me. It didn't look very good at all. It looked bizarre.)

The difference is R&C is a good game :|

----------

Just kidding.

But seriously,I don't think that Gamespot's bias is too bad normally. However, that R&C score reeks of bias.

Khnemu23

the difference between 9.0 and 7.5 is much different than the difference between 7.7 and 6.0.....even though the gap may not be numerically larger......it is nonetheless larger....

6s and 7s are almost clumped together (IMO) lots of the times.....but you dont' see 9s and 7s clumped together....

Each time you go up a level of rating it is harder and harder to achieve that next level (from 6 to 7 to 8 to 9....it becomes progressively harder to move your way up)

MikeE21286

You sir are 100% correct

Which is exactly why its obvious that their is something wrong with the R&CF: ToD review and it needs to be re-reviewed. I mean look atGR avg. 90% -> from 15 reviews and itsGamespotsreview which which is pulling down the average ...

IFRachet and Clank: ToD had been given 8.0 or 8.5 it would of been easier to justify however im preety sure the game deserves a 9.0 .... Gamespot is meant towrite reviews for its readers-- and double standards such as Heavenly Sword been marked down for lack of content, and then Rachet and Clank being marked down for too much content is stupid ....
Should Oblivion or any RPG's of been marked down 2.5 points because a gamer with decades of experience thought the game was easy and didn't like the story ....

Because just to let you know Halo isn't that hard in its SP -> but its still EXTREMLY fun which is why PEOPLE LIKE IT ....
PS GamespotIMO (and i hope others agree) with Platformers:
Gameplay > length / replayability > Graphical Design/ Sound > Story > difficulty ( unless the difficulty is excessivly hard)

the difference between 9.0 and 7.5 is much different than the difference between 7.7 and 6.0.....even though the gap may not be numerically larger......it is nonetheless larger....

6s and 7s are almost clumped together (IMO) lots of the times.....but you dont' see 9s and 7s clumped together....

Each time you go up a level of rating it is harder and harder to achieve that next level (from 6 to 7 to 8 to 9....it becomes progressively harder to move your way up)

MikeE21286

agreed.

But his overall point still stands. Even the the logic is partially lacking.

Gamespot's reviews are not bias or skewed in anyway. But some fanboys like to think so. It's a psychological defense mechanism that can be described to a great extent...or in layman's terms...what ever helps you sleep at night :P

I know. I was just kidding. I don't hate gamespot for being biased, just for giving R&C a score that it didn't deserve. They sometimes do that to different games, but R&C was just obvious. Most people didn't care about Crash. (And by most people I mean me. It didn't look very good at all. It looked bizarre.)

Iguess what it comes down to is the person themselves and their interest. I consider crash and R&C to be a similar style considering I mostlyplay rpg and fps. Crash is the reason why I plan on buying R&C, after playing the demo for crash I decided I would rent one and buy the other.I played both demos btw.

both were hyped AA here on GS and both flopped

gamerankings score is much higher than GS score

GS R&C review - 7.5 GR - 9.0 (15 reviews) point gap - 1.5

GS BD review - 6.0 GR - 7.7 (48 reviews) point gap - 1.7

my point here being is that gamespot doesn't just rate PS3 games lower. it happens to games on all consoles. i just showed one example and in it you can see that BD, a 360 exclusive game, scored much lower on GS then on GR. the point gap is actually higher with blue dragon (with more reviews) then it is with R&C. also the GR score is bound to go down more as more sites review it (as it happens with every other game also).

ok, now i know these games are in two diffent leagues R&C obviously being the better game as shown by all the great scores it is getting. i'm just trying to make you see that maybe, just maybe, gamespot isn't "lemspot" or "teh bias" and maybe just a really tough reviewing site.

ItalStallion777

The biggest problem with your argument is that scores aren't rated linearly. In other words, a drop from a 9.0 to 7.5 is more significant than a drop from 8.0 to 6.5 which then is also more sig. than a drop from 5.0 to 3.5. Imagine if Halo 3 got a 1.5 point drop; it'd put the game on par with Heavenly Sword.

[QUOTE="ItalStallion777"]

both were hyped AA here on GS and both flopped

gamerankings score is much higher than GS score

GS R&C review - 7.5 GR - 9.0 (15 reviews) point gap - 1.5

GS BD review - 6.0 GR - 7.7 (48 reviews) point gap - 1.7

my point here being is that gamespot doesn't just rate PS3 games lower. it happens to games on all consoles. i just showed one example and in it you can see that BD, a 360 exclusive game, scored much lower on GS then on GR. the point gap is actually higher with blue dragon (with more reviews) then it is with R&C. also the GR score is bound to go down more as more sites review it (as it happens with every other game also).

ok, now i know these games are in two diffent leagues R&C obviously being the better game as shown by all the great scores it is getting. i'm just trying to make you see that maybe, just maybe, gamespot isn't "lemspot" or "teh bias" and maybe just a really tough reviewing site.

Datheron

The biggest problem with your argument is that scores aren't rated linearly. In other words, a drop from a 9.0 to 7.5 is more significant than a drop from 8.0 to 6.5 which then is also more sig. than a drop from 5.0 to 3.5. Imagine if Halo 3 got a 1.5 point drop; it'd put the game on par with Heavenly Sword.

yes, i understand this counter arguement as i stated in the original post "i know these games are in two diffent leagues" but i think the overall point i was making still remains.

sorry i wasn't as clear as i should have been.

The difference is R&C is a good game :|

----------

Just kidding.

But seriously,I don't think that Gamespot's bias is too bad normally. However, that R&C score reeks of bias.

Khnemu23

R & C was a bad series :S

The best series insomniac ever had was Spyro. ND are much better developers. It seems that Insomniac are like 500 miles behind ND and just steal all of their ideas. Yes i know they are friends within the dev world. They just come out with the same style of games. and ND does it better, two million times better.

yes, i understand this counter arguement as i stated in the original post "i know these games are in two diffent leagues" but i think the overall point i was making still remains.

sorry i wasn't as clear as i should have been.ItalStallion777

Well, if your point was that GS can rate games lower than the general consensus on any platform, then yea, that seems to be the trend.

But comparing a 7.7 -> 6.0 drop to a 9.0 -> 7.5 drop isn't valid because the numerical values - minus 1.7 and 1.5 respectively - mean different things depending on what the pre-drop number was. Like someone else said, it's progressively harder to get a game in the "AA" range than in the "A" range, even moreso with "AAA", and almost impossible to get a "AAAA" nowadays. A drop from a perfect 10 to a 8.5 is a huge deal, much moreso than a drop from a 5.0 to a 3.5, say.

Actually, you can't quite compare them like that. You could if review sites were allowed to give infinitely high/low review scores, but because they must be between 0-100, this mean automatically an average is skewed towards 50. The closer you get to either side the more skewed it becomes. Hench a difference at say 9+ is actually larger than a difference at 5.

Further, even in the review systems themselves, anything below a 7 tends to get a huge scatter of reviews as generally these are bad games, and some review sites are much harder on them then others depending on their particular standards. Take a look at say Charlie's Angels for GC (currently the worst game on GR) and you see a scatter of 5%-50%, a ten fold difference, and compare that to say the recent orange box release which is currently sitting with 90%-100% reviews, only a 10 point scatter. The lower you get, the bigger the scatter tends to get.

R & C was a bad series :S

The best series insomniac ever had was Spyro. ND are much better developers. It seems that Insomniac are like 500 miles behind ND and just steal all of their ideas. Yes i know they are friends within the dev world. They just come out with the same style of games. and ND does it better, two million times better.

Spyro was a great series. In fact, Spyro 3 was my favorite platformer of all time, although I have yet to defile my PS2 with the crap that Spyro has turned into. ND were great developers, but R&C games are the closest I can get to satifying my platforming needs. I liked when ND did the Crash series. It was the golden era of Playstaion platforming.

how many times do i need to say i understand this whole concept? i understand that the higher the score the harder it is to earn the score. now as much as you say you can't compare them, it really isn't that hard and it will become progressively easier as R&C's score falls on GR. (assuming it will)

please don't look into the post that literally, instead try to understand the point i'm trying to make.

The difference is R&C is a good game :|

----------

Just kidding.

But seriously,I don't think that Gamespot's bias is too bad normally. However, that R&C score reeks of bias.

Khnemu23

The real difference is BD lasts 60+ hrs while R&C lasts 10 hrs