The Gunstringer GS Review | 8.5 WTH?

[QUOTE="LOXO7"]Movies are rated based on the genre of movie it is or the audience it is for. I would like to think games are too, but never looked it up. A 8.5 for a motion game is like a 5.5 for a normal game. To me it's -3. But to websites it's -1. Because if it's not a 7 or above it's not passing -er I mean not good.FrozenLiquid

No, an 8.5 for a motion game is not 5.5 for a normal game. Using your analogy, that's like rating an action movie for its horror aspects. Quite simply, it's nonsensical, and you don't do it.

An 8.5 for a Kinect game is an 8.5 for a Kinect game. It's that simple. It simply means that not only is the game good, it uses the Kinect motion control sensor very well.

this exemplafies how gamespot gives xbox exclusives a softer treatment. if this same game were a PS3 exclusive, it would have been given no higher than a 7/10.

this is the same site that thinks perfect dark zero is on an equal level as demon souls, killzone 2, and god of war 3.

arbitor365

And how about that AAAAE for the 360?

Was really hoping for a 9 for this to put the Kinect bashing to bad. All this shows is that Kinect is a viable platform for games and the masses were wrong again.

kuu2

[QUOTE="LOXO7"]Movies are rated based on the genre of movie it is or the audience it is for. I would like to think games are too, but never looked it up. A 8.5 for a motion game is like a 5.5 for a normal game. To me it's -3. But to websites it's -1. Because if it's not a 7 or above it's not passing -er I mean not good.PAL360

Hmmm, that doesnt make any sense. Just happens that this game is better in it´s genre than other 'core´games at their genres.

Also, a recent low score for 'kinect standards':

http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/action/rise-of-nightmares/index.html?tag=topten%3Bavailable%3B9

[QUOTE="ianuilliam"]

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

remember the 360's first year? that's where the "no games" thing really came from.

CaseyWegner

PS3 had 3 AAE+ in 2007 (first full year). 2 in 2006.

Yeah, 360's launch and following year were better, as far as Metagame-relevant scores go, than PS3's by 2 launch games, and 2 games the following year. If that meant "PS3 has no games" was true then, then "360 has no games" now is even more true. 5 to 2 PS3 vs 360 AAE+ in 2009. 7 to 3 in 2010. 6 to 1 so far in 2011.

Obviously, neither system ever had literally no games. 360 had a stronger exclusive library early on, partially by putting out more games (1 more AAE+ than PS3 in 2007, 1 more in 2008), but mostly just from having an extra year. PS3 has the better exclusive library now by putting out more than double the high-rated exclusives as 360 every year for the past three years. 360's WAS better, because of an extra year. PS3's IS better NOW, despite the extra year. It's a slightly different situation, but if it was fair to say "no games" then, it's every bit, or more justifiable to say "no games" now.

i don't see why you are explaining this to me. it was with the 360 thatthe "it has no games" thing started with...not the ps3 despite it having more than the ps3 did in its early years. that's where the whole backlash came from. it was revenge for early 360 bashing. now people are getting revenge for getting revenge which is much less noble than the original revenge sought.

so THAT'S how it started :lol:

seems like a certain group can't handle what they were dishing out :P

I was going to congradulate kinect on finally getting a decent game after like a year...then I saw Tom McShea's name. Sry, you need a real review to count.

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

[QUOTE="ianuilliam"]5 AAE+ in 2006 (first full year). 4 in 2005.

PS3 had 3 AAE+ in 2007 (first full year). 2 in 2006.

Yeah, 360's launch and following year were better, as far as Metagame-relevant scores go, than PS3's by 2 launch games, and 2 games the following year. If that meant "PS3 has no games" was true then, then "360 has no games" now is even more true. 5 to 2 PS3 vs 360 AAE+ in 2009. 7 to 3 in 2010. 6 to 1 so far in 2011.

Obviously, neither system ever had literally no games. 360 had a stronger exclusive library early on, partially by putting out more games (1 more AAE+ than PS3 in 2007, 1 more in 2008), but mostly just from having an extra year. PS3 has the better exclusive library now by putting out more than double the high-rated exclusives as 360 every year for the past three years. 360's WAS better, because of an extra year. PS3's IS better NOW, despite the extra year. It's a slightly different situation, but if it was fair to say "no games" then, it's every bit, or more justifiable to say "no games" now.

MozartXVI

i don't see why you are explaining this to me. it was with the 360 thatthe "it has no games" thing started with...not the ps3 despite it having more than the ps3 did in its early years. that's where the whole backlash came from. it was revenge for early 360 bashing. now people are getting revenge for getting revenge which is much less noble than the original revenge sought.

so THAT'S how it started :lol:

seems like a certain group can't handle what they were dishing out :P

it's a very forgotten era.

Can I take the Gunstringer review and compare it directly to other shooters like Killzone 3, Resistance 3, and Battlefield 3? The standards have to be different... right? Are they putting Kinect games and regular controller games on the same scale? I'm sure it's a good Kinect game, but what the ****. Nice for Kinect owners though.

[QUOTE="ianuilliam"]

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

remember the 360's first year? that's where the "no games" thing really came from.

CaseyWegner

PS3 had 3 AAE+ in 2007 (first full year). 2 in 2006.

Yeah, 360's launch and following year were better, as far as Metagame-relevant scores go, than PS3's by 2 launch games, and 2 games the following year. If that meant "PS3 has no games" was true then, then "360 has no games" now is even more true. 5 to 2 PS3 vs 360 AAE+ in 2009. 7 to 3 in 2010. 6 to 1 so far in 2011.

Obviously, neither system ever had literally no games. 360 had a stronger exclusive library early on, partially by putting out more games (1 more AAE+ than PS3 in 2007, 1 more in 2008), but mostly just from having an extra year. PS3 has the better exclusive library now by putting out more than double the high-rated exclusives as 360 every year for the past three years. 360's WAS better, because of an extra year. PS3's IS better NOW, despite the extra year. It's a slightly different situation, but if it was fair to say "no games" then, it's every bit, or more justifiable to say "no games" now.

i don't see why you are explaining this to me. it was with the 360 thatthe "it has no games" thing started with...not the ps3 despite it having more than the ps3 did in its early years. that's where the whole backlash came from. it was revenge for early 360 bashing. now people are getting revenge for getting revenge which is much less noble than the original revenge sought.

the game looks stupid. something a 4 yr old would find it fun. iwasgood2u