The (in)consistency of GameSpot scoring system

Let us discuss a little about the consistency (or inconsistency) of GS' ratings, shall we?

First of all, let me say this is my perspective on the matter and not some general truth or anything.

I have been noticing the wild range of scores GS gives out to games and I can't help but question it.

Let's, for example, take the Forza series.

All the Forza games prior to Forza 4 scored really well on here, yet Forza 4 was criticized for "feeling too familiar".

But if Forza 4 feels too familiar, how come they didn't notice Forza 3 and 2 feel very familiar too?

Forza 2 was basically Forza 1.5 and Forza 3 was basically Forza 2.5, yet that didn't affect their scores.

Likewise they game SMG 2 a 10 (thus perfect score) citing it improves upon the original in every way possible and is basically flawless.

But how can a sequel that feels so familiar even score a perfect score?

Don't get me wrong, the game is great, but it's also more SMG 1.5 than anything.

By this "too familiar" logic every Gears of War or Halo game should score lower than the predecessor due to feeling too familiar (which they do).

Discuss.

not really suprising, when you consider there's more than one reviewer...

This has to do with Zelda, doesn't it?charizard1605

Well, you could say it was a motivation to make the thread but I also like to question things like that :)

I mean, 7.5 for SS and a 10 for Tony Hawk 3 on the PS2? Really GS? :P

This has to do with Zelda, doesn't it?charizard1605

Yes, yes it does.

Skyward Sword = 8th console, core Zelda title in 25 years. Major points deducted for feeling "outdated and rehashed." Scored a 7.5.

Modern Warfare 3 = 8th console, core Call of Duty title in 8 years. No points deducted for rehashing. Scored an 8.5.

Just let that sink in for a moment.

Games being familiar IMO is NOT a good reason to lower the score because almost every game out there fits into one genre or another that...feals familiar. I think what they need to express(especially with CoD) is "This game is boring". I think people need to start to admit that when a game has another title that is virtually identical every year that the game really isn't bad but within the context of playing ALL the titles before it that the game IS boring.

The parts I liked in Uncharted 3 are the parts that were familiar, the part I didn't was what was NOT familiar(the melee system).

MW3 which everyone complained was the same as MW2, and it refered to as MW2.5 gets an 8.5.

Zelda, just because it has a slight familiar feel = 7.5

Yes this scoring system is messed up.

[QUOTE="charizard1605"]This has to do with Zelda, doesn't it?peterw007

Yes, yes it does.

Skyward Sword = 8th console, core Zelda title in 25 years. Major points deducted for feeling "outdated and rehashed." Scored a 7.5.

Modern Warfare 3 = 8th console, core Call of Duty title in 8 years. No points deducted for rehashing. Scored an 8.5.

Just let that sink in for a moment.

Two different reviewers. MW3 gets a bad note for being too similar to its predecessor from the reviewer. Maybe familiarity was not that big a deal to that reviewer as it was with Tom and SS. Though I feel Tom gave a lower score more because of the controls not the familiarity.

[QUOTE="charizard1605"]This has to do with Zelda, doesn't it?nameless12345

Well, you could say it was a motivation to make the thread but I also like to question things like that :)

I mean, 7.5 for SS and a 10 for Tony Hawk 3 on the PS2? Really GS? :P

[QUOTE="peterw007"]

[QUOTE="charizard1605"]This has to do with Zelda, doesn't it?DJSAV_101

Yes, yes it does.

Skyward Sword = 8th console, core Zelda title in 25 years. Major points deducted for feeling "outdated and rehashed." Scored a 7.5.

Modern Warfare 3 = 8th console, core Call of Duty title in 8 years. No points deducted for rehashing. Scored an 8.5.

Just let that sink in for a moment.

Two different reviewers. MW3 gets a bad note for being too similar to its predecessor from the reviewer. Maybe familiarity was not that big a deal to that reviewer as it was with Tom and SS. Though I feel Tom gave a lower score more because of the controls not the familiarity.

Not bad enough to give it a 7.5 though?

The reviewer says Modern Warfare 3 sticks to a "tried and true formula," while McShea knocks Zelda for "not changing enough elements of an outdated formula."

There's an extremely different emphasis there. The reviewer for Modern Warfare 3 just brushes off rehashing, while the reviewer for Skyward Sword makes it seem like rehashing is a huge detraction from the game.

That's where the inconsistency comes in.

not really suprising, when you consider there's more than one reviewer...

Zorgax

i agree with this guy

[QUOTE="DJSAV_101"]

[QUOTE="peterw007"]

Yes, yes it does.

Skyward Sword = 8th console, core Zelda title in 25 years. Major points deducted for feeling "outdated and rehashed." Scored a 7.5.

Modern Warfare 3 = 8th console, core Call of Duty title in 8 years. No points deducted for rehashing. Scored an 8.5.

Just let that sink in for a moment.

peterw007

Two different reviewers. MW3 gets a bad note for being too similar to its predecessor from the reviewer. Maybe familiarity was not that big a deal to that reviewer as it was with Tom and SS. Though I feel Tom gave a lower score more because of the controls not the familiarity.

Not bad enough to give it a 7.5 though?

The reviewer says Modern Warfare 3 sticks to a "tried and true formula," while McShea knocks Zelda for "not changing enough elements of an outdated formula."

There's an extremely different emphasis there. The reviewer for Modern Warfare 3 just brushes off rehashing, while the reviewer for Skyward Sword makes it seem like rehashing is a huge detraction from the game.

That's where the inconsistency comes in.

I disagree, MW3 has bad controls because when I point at the screen it doesn't move, it just sits there unless I move these two spinny things.

So many mad sheep right now lmao Don't worry, WiiU may have an AAAE title. GS always was and will be the best for reviews because they're strict (can't say that to ODST tho...). Zelda looked bad, had bad art style, archaic controls since they announced it. Now, we learned its also repetitive too. 7.5 isn't that bad of a score for Wii standards anyways.silversix_

Yep, I still think Gamespot has the best reviews. They're harsh but fair.

Mind you, there are a few certain members of the reviewing team that don't live up to quite the same standard but I won't name names. (not Tom McShea if you're wondering. I respect that guy, he's got balls and doesn't buy into the hype.)

[QUOTE="charizard1605"]This has to do with Zelda, doesn't it?nameless12345

Well, you could say it was a motivation to make the thread but I also like to question things like that :)

I mean, 7.5 for SS and a 10 for Tony Hawk 3 on the PS2? Really GS? :P

Games being familiar IMO is NOT a good reason to lower the score because almost every game out there fits into one genre or another that...feals familiar. I think what they need to express(especially with CoD) is "This game is boring". I think people need to start to admit that when a game has another title that is virtually identical every year that the game really isn't bad but within the context of playing ALL the titles before it that the game IS boring.

The parts I liked in Uncharted 3 are the parts that were familiar, the part I didn't was what was NOT familiar(the melee system).

dovberg

Then why does Zelda gets points lost for "feeling too familiar" while games like Modern Warfare 3 do not although they really are carbon copys of their predecessors? Does not compute.

[QUOTE="dovberg"]

Games being familiar IMO is NOT a good reason to lower the score because almost every game out there fits into one genre or another that...feals familiar. I think what they need to express(especially with CoD) is "This game is boring". I think people need to start to admit that when a game has another title that is virtually identical every year that the game really isn't bad but within the context of playing ALL the titles before it that the game IS boring.

The parts I liked in Uncharted 3 are the parts that were familiar, the part I didn't was what was NOT familiar(the melee system).

nameless12345

Then why does Zelda gets points lost for "feeling too familiar" while games like Modern Warfare 3 do not although they really are carbon copys of their predecessors? Does not compute.

THEY ARE REVIEWED BY DIFFERENT PEOPLE.

They're not all robots programmed to have the same criteria for a good game. Gamespot isn't one huge like-minded collective entity.

They're different reviewers with different opinions. Simples.

GS always was and will be the best for reviews because they're strict (can't say that to ODST tho...).silversix_

Yeah right, their scores were never credible.

They're more fodder for System Wars than anything.

Judging by their scores, Duke Nukem Forever is less than half the game GTA IV and MGS 4 are.

But guess what?

Some people might enjoyed DNF more than the aforementioned "masterpieces".

And I'm not trying to denounce the game's qualities, but if they wanted to be credibile there shouldn't be such huge gaps in scores.

So low scores should only be reserved for really unplaylably broken games.

Some people might enjoyed DNF more than the aforementioned "masterpieces".

And I'm not trying to denounce the game's qualities, but if they wanted to be credibile there shouldn't be such huge gaps in scores.

So low scores should only be reserved for really unplaylably broken games.

nameless12345

And DNF was what exactly? A carefully and lovingly polished shooter with solid mechanics and lush, gorgeous visuals?

No, it was a steamy pile of crap, one Gearbox should be ashamed of. It deserved every low score it got.

[QUOTE="silversix_"]GS always was and will be the best for reviews because they're strict (can't say that to ODST tho...).nameless12345

Judging by their scores, Duke Nukem Forever is less than half the game GTA IV and MGS 4 are.

Their is your problem.

READ the reviews. Don't just look at the number.

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

Some people might enjoyed DNF more than the aforementioned "masterpieces".

And I'm not trying to denounce the game's qualities, but if they wanted to be credibile there shouldn't be such huge gaps in scores.

So low scores should only be reserved for really unplaylably broken games.

balfe1990

And DNF was what exactly? A carefully and lovingly polished shooter with solid mechanics and lush, gorgeous visuals?

No, it was a steamy pile of crap, one Gearbox should be ashamed of. It deserved every low score it got.

It was a solid, fun game.

[QUOTE="balfe1990"]

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

Some people might enjoyed DNF more than the aforementioned "masterpieces".

And I'm not trying to denounce the game's qualities, but if they wanted to be credibile there shouldn't be such huge gaps in scores.

So low scores should only be reserved for really unplaylably broken games.

nameless12345

And DNF was what exactly? A carefully and lovingly polished shooter with solid mechanics and lush, gorgeous visuals?

No, it was a steamy pile of crap, one Gearbox should be ashamed of. It deserved every low score it got.

It was a solid, fun game.

[QUOTE="balfe1990"]

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

Some people might enjoyed DNF more than the aforementioned "masterpieces".

And I'm not trying to denounce the game's qualities, but if they wanted to be credibile there shouldn't be such huge gaps in scores.

So low scores should only be reserved for really unplaylably broken games.

nameless12345

And DNF was what exactly? A carefully and lovingly polished shooter with solid mechanics and lush, gorgeous visuals?

No, it was a steamy pile of crap, one Gearbox should be ashamed of. It deserved every low score it got.

It was a solid, fun game.

To you, not to them.

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="balfe1990"]

And DNF was what exactly? A carefully and lovingly polished shooter with solid mechanics and lush, gorgeous visuals?

No, it was a steamy pile of crap, one Gearbox should be ashamed of. It deserved every low score it got.

Androvinus

It was a solid, fun game.

Not all reviewers agree that it's a "garbage" game and neither do all who played it.

EDIT: and if you want to bring in the mass opinion then GS' Skyward Sword score is also totaly off.

McShea's Zelda review is some grade-A trolling material.

I love his point when it comes to the controles.

"Controles respond way to perfect, 7.5 !!!"

Review scores are opinions... People are not machines so many things can effect the scores they end up giving to games they review..

GameSpot likes to be "different" from other sites.

Review scores are opinions... People are not machines so many things can effect the scores they end up giving to games they review..

Malta_1980

I can understand that completely but I don't like self-righteous opinions that go against the grain just for the sake of it.

And that's the case with GS many times unfortunately.

[QUOTE="Malta_1980"]

Review scores are opinions... People are not machines so many things can effect the scores they end up giving to games they review..

nameless12345

I can understand that completely but I don't like self-righteous opinions that go against the grain just for the sake of it.

And that's the case with GS many times unfortunately.

How do you know? Why in the name of God would they do that? Who benefits?

Maybe they just didn't like the game as much as the others did?

Get over it man,

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="Malta_1980"]

Review scores are opinions... People are not machines so many things can effect the scores they end up giving to games they review..

balfe1990

I can understand that completely but I don't like self-righteous opinions that go against the grain just for the sake of it.

And that's the case with GS many times unfortunately.

How do you know? Why in the name of God would they do that? Who benefits?

Maybe they just didn't like the game as much as the others did?

Get over it man,

It's not just for one specific game but their reviewing attitude in general.

[QUOTE="balfe1990"]

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

I can understand that completely but I don't like self-righteous opinions that go against the grain just for the sake of it.

And that's the case with GS many times unfortunately.

nameless12345

How do you know? Why in the name of God would they do that? Who benefits?

Maybe they just didn't like the game as much as the others did?

Get over it man,

It's not just for one specific game but their reviewing attitude in general.

It's fine for me.

See? I like it, you don't. Different opinions.

[QUOTE="dovberg"]

Games being familiar IMO is NOT a good reason to lower the score because almost every game out there fits into one genre or another that...feals familiar. I think what they need to express(especially with CoD) is "This game is boring". I think people need to start to admit that when a game has another title that is virtually identical every year that the game really isn't bad but within the context of playing ALL the titles before it that the game IS boring.

The parts I liked in Uncharted 3 are the parts that were familiar, the part I didn't was what was NOT familiar(the melee system).

nameless12345

Then why does Zelda gets points lost for "feeling too familiar" while games like Modern Warfare 3 do not although they really are carbon copys of their predecessors? Does not compute.

It's not the only problem though.

The reviewer noted: bad controls, fetch quests, boring backtracking and barren islands in the review.

It's not as if MW3 got a 10 as well. Also, you can attribute it to genre differences. MW3 and Forza are racers. You can't really deviate from the formula too much. Zelda, and many other games, on the other hand, can.

I don't know, but I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. Also, why you expect consistency anyway? Reviews are opinions, and depending on the person reviewing, their mood, their experience, things can change on a whim. Expecting consistency seems a little crazy to be honest.

This has to do with Zelda, doesn't it?charizard1605

Lol, it's only inconsistant when it fits your sw needs, I didn't see sheeps call it inconsistant when infamous 2 flopped.

[QUOTE="charizard1605"]This has to do with Zelda, doesn't it?CwlHeddwyn

[QUOTE="Zorgax"]

not really suprising, when you consider there's more than one reviewer...

Zorgax

i agree with this guy

[QUOTE="CwlHeddwyn"][QUOTE="charizard1605"]This has to do with Zelda, doesn't it?edo-tensei

[QUOTE="dovberg"]

Games being familiar IMO is NOT a good reason to lower the score because almost every game out there fits into one genre or another that...feals familiar. I think what they need to express(especially with CoD) is "This game is boring". I think people need to start to admit that when a game has another title that is virtually identical every year that the game really isn't bad but within the context of playing ALL the titles before it that the game IS boring.

The parts I liked in Uncharted 3 are the parts that were familiar, the part I didn't was what was NOT familiar(the melee system).

nameless12345

Then why does Zelda gets points lost for "feeling too familiar" while games like Modern Warfare 3 do not although they really are carbon copys of their predecessors? Does not compute.

your treating gamespot is like a god or something. theres more than 1 reviewer and theyre humans. shocking isnt it?sethman410

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="dovberg"]

Games being familiar IMO is NOT a good reason to lower the score because almost every game out there fits into one genre or another that...feals familiar. I think what they need to express(especially with CoD) is "This game is boring". I think people need to start to admit that when a game has another title that is virtually identical every year that the game really isn't bad but within the context of playing ALL the titles before it that the game IS boring.

The parts I liked in Uncharted 3 are the parts that were familiar, the part I didn't was what was NOT familiar(the melee system).

delta3074

Then why does Zelda gets points lost for "feeling too familiar" while games like Modern Warfare 3 do not although they really are carbon copys of their predecessors? Does not compute.

How exactly did SS not "add anything" ?

And the controls were widely praised so I think the problem lies more within the reviewer than the game itself.

And that's not what you call a unbiased, objective review.

One might as well rely more on Yahtzee's opinion instead.

One might as well rely more on Yahtzee's opinion instead.nameless12345

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]One might as well rely more on Yahtzee's opinion instead.kuraimen

Yes, but you always know his opinions aren't really serious and he just tells his personal perspective.

But sites like GS are supposed to be taken seriously so...

I just watched the Zelda review before I seen this topic. lulz... Obvious topic about Zelda's flop score disguised as a topic that cares about other game scores.

Darksiders scored 8.0

You mad?

Darksiders scored 8.0

You mad?

Mystic-G

Not really. Not interested in cheapish Zelda copycats :P

And so it begins.... stealth threads doing damage control on zelda.

[QUOTE="Mystic-G"]

Darksiders scored 8.0

You mad?

nameless12345

Not really. Not interested in cheapish Zelda copycats :P