The (in)consistency of GameSpot scoring system

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="Mystic-G"]

Darksiders scored 8.0

You mad?

Mystic-G

Not really. Not interested in cheapish Zelda copycats :P

Damn that was cold...:P

Ah, what ever. I'm still going to get it on the 20th, I'm going to enjoy it.

[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 Major points deducted for feeling "outdated and rehashed."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Warfare 3 sticks to a "tried and true formula," while McShea knocks Zelda for "not changing enough elements of an outdated formula."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 think the problem is that at the start of each console generation the scores given out are too high. I think that is why we are starting to see a correction coming now ... games that would have been given a 9-9.5 are now routinely given 8-8.5, as perhaps they should have been from the get go.

This is why we see fanboys jump up and down when the exclusives on their system of choice don't get what they would have got two years ago.

Gamespot (and other review sites) are guilty of overscoring at the start of every generation because they compare the new games to the games that were on the previous system. Whereas they should be comparing them to the best of genre available, regardless of the system they are on.

Instead they seem to be caught up in the new flash and style, the marketing hype, the graphics and a whole lot less about the core gameplay. i.e. what makes a game great.

As an example ... should MGS 4 have gotten a 10 when the stealth parts of the game (the core gameplay) had already been surpassed by other games years before on other systems? Sure the production values were awesome at the time and are completely top notch and it is a great game to boot. But the core stealth components had been done better in games like the Thief, Hitman and Splinter Cell series. Is there anything from a functional/gameplay point of view that could not have been done before? If the only differentiation is production values then you are handing out a high score based on style over substance.

Whereas they should be comparing them to the best of genre available, regardless of the system they are on.

N3xus9

What will they compare the games to?

The console is new and there aren't many games available for comparison.

[QUOTE="N3xus9"]

Whereas they should be comparing them to the best of genre available, regardless of the system they are on.

call_of_duty_10

What will they compare the games to?

The console is new and there aren't many games available for comparison.

Not true, genres dont change just because a new console comes out. For example multiplayer FPS didnt start with the XBOX and Halo.

There were many FPS already out on another system that were leagues ahead of it, and had been for some time. Was Halo the best FPS on the XBOX? Yes it was. Was it the best FPS compared to what else was available? Hell no.

gamespot is deperate for attention and hits. Thats all. You gotta compete with IGN somehow.

gamespot is deperate for attention and hits. Thats all. You gotta compete with IGN somehow.

argetlam00

I seriously doubt that's the case.

How is it so inconceivable that ONE guy just didn't liek the game as all the others?

Just because it's Zelda doesnt mean it's entitled to 10s across the board.

And if you don't like the reviews, focus on all the other positive ones if it makes you feel better.

Because Gamespot hates Zelda its official.

[QUOTE="call_of_duty_10"]

[QUOTE="N3xus9"]

What will they compare the games to?

The console is new and there aren't many games available for comparison.

N3xus9

Not true, genres dont change just because a new console comes out. For example multiplayer FPS didnt start with the XBOX and Halo.

There were many FPS already out on another system that were leagues ahead of it, and had been for some time. Was Halo the best FPS on the XBOX? Yes it was. Was it the best FPS compared to what else was available? Hell no.

[QUOTE="peterw007"]

[QUOTE="DJSAV_101"]

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.

call_of_duty_10

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.

The thing is the game does *not* feel the same and many improvements were made. As for the core mechanics feeling outdated is like saying the core mechanics in your average modern FPS feel outdated. It's like I would criticize the TES series for having a large, open world envirnment just because I happen not to like large open environments.

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_

As an example ... should MGS 4 have gotten a 10 when the stealth parts of the game (the core gameplay) had already been surpassed by other games years before on other systems? Sure the production values were awesome at the time and are completely top notch and it is a great game to boot. But the core stealth components had been done better in games like the Thief, Hitman and Splinter Cell series. Is there anything from a functional/gameplay point of view that could not have been done before? If the only differentiation is production values then you are handing out a high score based on style over substance.

N3xus9

Yea, if you put away the flash, MGS 4 is easily the worst entry in the series yet that didn't prevent them giving it a 10.

[QUOTE="silversix_"]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.ants83

But Zelda is just as big as those franchises so you can't play that card this time.

[QUOTE="call_of_duty_10"][QUOTE="peterw007"]

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.

nameless12345

The thing is the game does *not* feel the same and many improvements were made. As for the core mechanics feeling outdated is like saying the core mechanics in your average modern FPS feel outdated. It's like I would criticize the TES series for having a large, open world envirnment just because I happen not to like large open environments.

The only zelda game that I have played is Ocarnia of time.Frankly,if the core mechanics of skyward sword are just those of OoT,it does not deserve more than 7.5 imo.

All of a sudden there's an inconsistency with Gamespot scoring system

hmm.. i wonder what review brought up this issue?

[QUOTE="N3xus9"]

[QUOTE="call_of_duty_10"]

[QUOTE="N3xus9"]

What will they compare the games to?

The console is new and there aren't many games available for comparison.

call_of_duty_10

Not true, genres dont change just because a new console comes out. For example multiplayer FPS didnt start with the XBOX and Halo.

There were many FPS already out on another system that were leagues ahead of it, and had been for some time. Was Halo the best FPS on the XBOX? Yes it was. Was it the best FPS compared to what else was available? Hell no.

Forgive me if I am wrong, but it seems that you are basing that on the assumption that consoles games can only be compared to consoles games?

That should not be the case, there are also PC's. It should be games vs games regardless of the system they are on. Why should a game score highly on a system because it has better graphics than the old system had, when there is another system that has even better graphics and more evolved gameplay?

Just because it is new for that generation of whatever system, shouldnt give it a "free ride" compared to something that is out on another system already and is better.

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

nameless12345

lol? how exactly does that math work?

Forza 2 was only midly better then Forza 1 but Forza 3 feels like a sequel AND an expansion?

moreover at what point do we draw a line between "1.5" and "2"?

and if by your logic Forza 2 was only Forza 1.5 how do you even know if forza 3 feels Like forza 2 and an expansion?

or do you mean that forza 3 is forza 2.75?

seriously... do people even think before they rant?

[QUOTE="call_of_duty_10"]

[QUOTE="N3xus9"]

Not true, genres dont change just because a new console comes out. For example multiplayer FPS didnt start with the XBOX and Halo.

There were many FPS already out on another system that were leagues ahead of it, and had been for some time. Was Halo the best FPS on the XBOX? Yes it was. Was it the best FPS compared to what else was available? Hell no.

N3xus9

Forgive me if I am wrong, but it seems that you are basing that on the assumption that consoles games can only be compared to consoles games?

That should not be the case, there are also PC's. It should be games vs games regardless of the system they are on. Why should a game score highly on a system because it has better graphics than the old system had, when there is another system that has even better graphics and more evolved gameplay?

Just because it is new for that generation of whatever system, shouldnt give it a "free ride" compared to something that is out on another system already and is better.

But that would mean comparing the games on a new console to games released on older consoles.The games on the newer console would still score high due to better graphics,sound etc. as these things cannot be compared due to lack of games on the console.

call_of_duty_10

Forgive me if I am wrong, but it seems that you are basing that on the assumption that consoles games can only be compared to consoles games?

That should not be the case, there are also PC's. It should be games vs games regardless of the system they are on. Why should a game score highly on a system because it has better graphics than the old system had, when there is another system that has even better graphics and more evolved gameplay?

Just because it is new for that generation of whatever system, shouldn't give it a "free ride" compared to something that is out on another system already and is better.

N3xus9

But then they would receive lower ratings every time. PC gaming has higher standards.That is why it gets lower score for multiplats that are same on all platforms. If consoles and PCs were rated on the same scale,there would have been no console games with 9+ rating. I really don't think there's a solution to this problem.call_of_duty_10

I guess then that will always be the problem ... in my opinion, console games shouldn't be judged in some sort of "standards vacuum"especially at the start of a generation when they are pretty much identical or surpass an average gaming PC in power at that point in time.

Otherwise review sites back themselves into a corner whereby they have artificially raised the scores to the point where everything is essentially judged on an 8-10 scale ... consequently meaning they have no where else to go, except do a ratings correction, just as they seem to be doing now ... which of course makes everything they rated highly before, seem ridiculous now.

Different reviewers different standards.

[QUOTE="N3xus9"]

[QUOTE="call_of_duty_10"] But that would mean comparing the games on a new console to games released on older consoles.The games on the newer console would still score high due to better graphics,sound etc. as these things cannot be compared due to lack of games on the console.

call_of_duty_10

Forgive me if I am wrong, but it seems that you are basing that on the assumption that consoles games can only be compared to consoles games?

That should not be the case, there are also PC's. It should be games vs games regardless of the system they are on. Why should a game score highly on a system because it has better graphics than the old system had, when there is another system that has even better graphics and more evolved gameplay?

Just because it is new for that generation of whatever system, shouldnt give it a "free ride" compared to something that is out on another system already and is better.

I am not so sure about that.

http://www.gamespot.com/call-of-duty-modern-warfare-3/platform/pc?tag=masthead;search

PC games in theory have higher standards, but in reality, I see them being held more or less at the same standards except for when games dont really take advantage of the PC. Same goes for console games, if a console game doesnt take advantage of the system it is on it will get penalized.

[QUOTE="call_of_duty_10"][QUOTE="N3xus9"]

Forgive me if I am wrong, but it seems that you are basing that on the assumption that consoles games can only be compared to consoles games?

That should not be the case, there are also PC's. It should be games vs games regardless of the system they are on. Why should a game score highly on a system because it has better graphics than the old system had, when there is another system that has even better graphics and more evolved gameplay?

Just because it is new for that generation of whatever system, shouldnt give it a "free ride" compared to something that is out on another system already and is better.

Maroxad

I am not so sure about that.

http://www.gamespot.com/call-of-duty-modern-warfare-3/platform/pc?tag=masthead;search

PC games in theory have higher standards, but in reality, I see them being held more or less at the same standards except for when games dont really take advantage of the PC. Same goes for console games, if a console game doesnt take advantage of the system it is on it will get penalized.

But your link essentially proves the point that PC's are held to higher standards ... it has the same score as the console versions, but it is clearly the better version feature wise (higher resolutions, better textures, multiple control options, dedicated servers etc) - gameplay is identical. It has a host of options that the console versions don't have. If the PS3 had those options and the Xbox didnt (or vice versa) that would be more than enough for one to outscore the other.

Because Gamespot hates Zelda its official.

chocolate1325

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.

nameless12345

Some games are so good that they take longer for people to tire of the formula than others. I've never played Forza, but think about the once hugely popular Tony Hawk series. Those games came out every single year and were always the same gameplay with some new levels and eventually wierd distractions thrown in. Even with yearl installments, it took a while for people to get sick of it because it was so good and so fun.

Other series get boring real quickly, especially if the "newness" or "new take on a tried and true formula" is what made the early titles popular in the first place. Or if a gimmick is what originally makes it popular. Because that is more a game doing well because it came out at a good time than because the game is truly new and great and original and leaves people wanting more.

But as someone said, this is about Zelda. And I find it hard to believe that you don't see the difference between Forza 4 getting stale and Zelda 12 or 13 (?) getting low ratings for lack of originality. This is technically the first REAL wii zelda game. It took them 5 years to put it out. People were expecting something truly special and exceptional and all Nintendo delivered, yet again, is more of the exact same thing they've sold people 10 times before but with new waggle skills.

[QUOTE="peterw007"]

[QUOTE="DJSAV_101"]

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.

Androvinus

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.

[QUOTE="argetlam00"]

gamespot is deperate for attention and hits. Thats all. You gotta compete with IGN somehow.

balfe1990

I seriously doubt that's the case.

How is it so inconceivable that ONE guy just didn't liek the game as all the others?

Just because it's Zelda doesnt mean it's entitled to 10s across the board.

And if you don't like the reviews, focus on all the other positive ones if it makes you feel better.

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

edo-tensei

because the infamous 2 score really wasn't that far off from the average. it was blown way out of proportion cause it was hyped AAA. if it was hyped AA, not as many would have cared.

[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.

[QUOTE="balfe1990"]

[QUOTE="argetlam00"]

gamespot is deperate for attention and hits. Thats all. You gotta compete with IGN somehow.

CwlHeddwyn

I seriously doubt that's the case.

How is it so inconceivable that ONE guy just didn't liek the game as all the others?

Just because it's Zelda doesnt mean it's entitled to 10s across the board.

And if you don't like the reviews, focus on all the other positive ones if it makes you feel better.

GS are always last with their reviews. They don't want another Twilight Princess on their hands, I think they'rea little more mature than that.

Just buy the damn game and ignore the review if you don't like it :?

As a Monster Hunter fan(example of a series which is rated below average) I always ignore the reviews and get those games. Don't get too sensitive because of a review people.

I like how Tom McShea gave Skyward Sword a 7.5 then says the formula is getting old and just a little bit ago he gave Uncharted 3, a game that'son its thirdgame in the lastthreeor four yearsa 9.0.

I like how Tom McShea gave Skyward Sword a 7.5 then says the formula is getting old and just a little bit ago he gave Uncharted 3, a game that'son its thirdgame in the lastthreeor four yearsa 9.0.

Demonjoe93

I like how Tom McShea gave Skyward Sword a 7.5 then says the formula is getting old and just a little bit ago he gave Uncharted 3, a game that'son its thirdgame in the lastthreeor four yearsa 9.0.

Demonjoe93

it's almost as if there's more to a game than whether it's similar to its predecessor or not.

[QUOTE="Demonjoe93"]

I like how Tom McShea gave Skyward Sword a 7.5 then says the formula is getting old and just a little bit ago he gave Uncharted 3, a game that'son its thirdgame in the lastthreeor four yearsa 9.0.

ianuilliam

Yeah but there's not yearly releases of Zelda on consoles. Including Skyward Sword there have only been two Zelda games while Uncharted is already on it's third and its sequel probably in development as we speak.

I like how Tom McShea gave Skyward Sword a 7.5 then says the formula is getting old and just a little bit ago he gave Uncharted 3, a game that'son its thirdgame in the lastthreeor four yearsa 9.0.

Demonjoe93

These sites that "review" games have other interests at hand here. The main thing is to keep ad revenue coming in. So that means generating traffic to the site and not blacklisting themselves from these companies that give them "free" promotional materials.

[QUOTE="Demonjoe93"]

I like how Tom McShea gave Skyward Sword a 7.5 then says the formula is getting old and just a little bit ago he gave Uncharted 3, a game that'son its thirdgame in the lastthreeor four yearsa 9.0.

call_of_duty_10

Skyward's Sword's mechanics are 25 years old? I think therewas motion controls on the NES. And this game does change the formula as compared to other Zelda games as stated in earlier reviews of the game. I don't see how this game is a bad rehash while Uncharted 3 does little new and still receives praise. Not that Uncharted's formula is bad, Uncharted 3 is probably an awesome game.

But what I'm saying here is that I don't what so egregious about this game that made McShea give it the lowest score on MetaCritic and his criticisms are inconsistent with the other 99% of reviews who praise this game's controls.

[QUOTE="ianuilliam"]

[QUOTE="Demonjoe93"]

I like how Tom McShea gave Skyward Sword a 7.5 then says the formula is getting old and just a little bit ago he gave Uncharted 3, a game that'son its thirdgame in the lastthreeor four yearsa 9.0.

Demonjoe93

Yeah but there's not yearly releases of Zelda on consoles. Including Skyward Sword there have only been two Zelda games while Uncharted is already on it's third and its sequel probably in development as we speak.

[QUOTE="Demonjoe93"]

[QUOTE="ianuilliam"]25 year old formula is older than 4 year old formula...? Sounds about right. If Uncharted games are still coming out, following almost the exact same formula as they do now, in 2032, and are not getting lowered scores for it, then I will concede the point to you.

call_of_duty_10

Yeah but there's not yearly releases of Zelda on consoles. Including Skyward Sword there have only been two Zelda games while Uncharted is already on it's third and its sequel probably in development as we speak.

And how do the mechanics of Skyword Sword feel ancient? This game seems pretty different from other installments in the series, most notably the motion controls that it was made from the ground up for.

Who cares? I can't believe people are acting like children over this issue...AGAIN! You know, its funny to see people who talk about respecting other peoples opinions, but when Skyward Sword comes out everything changes. Very very hypocritical if I must say. The game hasn't even come out yet, so that only makes these complaints10x worse.

That is not news.
.
Although I like GS's reviews, their score policy don't exist.

[QUOTE="ianuilliam"]

[QUOTE="Demonjoe93"]

I like how Tom McShea gave Skyward Sword a 7.5 then says the formula is getting old and just a little bit ago he gave Uncharted 3, a game that'son its thirdgame in the lastthreeor four yearsa 9.0.

Demonjoe93

Yeah but there's not yearly releases of Zelda on consoles. Including Skyward Sword there have only been two Zelda games while Uncharted is already on it's third and its sequel probably in development as we speak.

[QUOTE="call_of_duty_10"][QUOTE="Demonjoe93"]

I like how Tom McShea gave Skyward Sword a 7.5 then says the formula is getting old and just a little bit ago he gave Uncharted 3, a game that'son its thirdgame in the lastthreeor four yearsa 9.0.

Demonjoe93

Skyward's Sword's mechanics are 25 years old? I think therewas motion controls on the NES. And this game does change the formula as compared to other Zelda games as stated in earlier reviews of the game. I don't see how this game is a bad rehash while Uncharted 3 does little new and still receives praise. Not that Uncharted's formula is bad, Uncharted 3 is probably an awesome game.

But what I'm saying here is that I don't what so egregious about this game that made McShea give it the lowest score on MetaCritic and his criticisms are inconsistent with the other 99% of reviews who praise this game's controls.

[QUOTE="call_of_duty_10"][QUOTE="Demonjoe93"]

Yeah but there's not yearly releases of Zelda on consoles. Including Skyward Sword there have only been two Zelda games while Uncharted is already on it's third and its sequel probably in development as we speak.

Demonjoe93

And how do the mechanics of Skyword Sword feel ancient? This game seems pretty different from other installments in the series, most notably the motion controls that it was made from the ground up for.

3 Uncharteds on a 5 year old PS3. 2 Zeldas on a 5 year old Wii. So 3 in one gen is the magic number when something goes from "only 2 games" to "yearly releases?"

ianuilliam

In those 3 Uncharted we've seen new and interesting and fleshed out characters with stories. We've seen new worlds and levels, encountered all kinds of exciting/tense situations and battled surprising new monsters. The story has grown and developed as have the character's relationships to one another.

In those 2 Zelda games...we've seen the same characters that have been used since N64, the story pretty much doesn't exist and hasn't really changed since the very first zelda game from NES. The same gameplay since NES, there has been no story progression, no character development, no relationship building, no real surprises anymore, and even the "new" worlds look and feel surprisingly similar to the supposedly different worlds from the games going back to the N64 (again).

People are tired of Zelda. Not of those other games. This isn't just reflected in gamespots "opinion" but in game sales themselves. Zelda sales keep dropping while those other games stay strong if not increase.