Transformers: War for Cybertron - GS Review

[QUOTE="blaznwiipspman1"]Yes maybe people who love the license may be biased but why is there such a huge difference b/w the gamespot score and the user score as well as the average critic score? Even if you love the licence the difference between a 6.5 and a 8.9 is enough that the gamers should not enjoy the game as much as they are. A 6.5 means that the game is boring, has bad graphics and gameplay, repetitive etc etc. Taking a look at other games such as spiderman 3 that is a game that almost everybody grew up with, you can see that the rating was 6.6 here on gamespot, the average critic score was ALSO 6.6 and the average user score based on 4500 people was 7.5. So if the user is giving a rating of a 9.0 for transformers and gamespot is giving a score of 6.5 then I think there is something else going on there.TomMcShea

First of all, user scores are usually higher than critics scores.

Second, this is the description for a Fair game:

"Games that earn 6-range ratings have certain good qualities but significant problems as well. These games may well be worth playing, but you should approach them with caution."

Notice how it doesn't say anything about bad graphics or gameplay. It doesn't mention reptitive either, but Transformers certainly fits that description. I have no idea why you're bringing up Spiderman 3. That was, what, four years ago? Standards change. Heck, our review scale has changed since then.

What else do you think is going on here? And, as you may have noticed, the critic average has gone down as the week has gone on. Every critic score was 8s and 9s before, but now there are 6s and 7s from sites like Giant Bomb, Wired, and Eurogamer. Just because the rating is at 8.1 now doesn't mean it will stay there forever. And just becuase some people think this game is great doesn't mean my fair rating isn't valid.

Wow, sounds like you hated it, suprised it even got a 6.5 from you after reading this. Seems lots of people besides you are having fun with it, also why is it rated lower then the Transformers movie game? Do you really think it was better then this one.Advid-Gamer

I did not enjoy the campaign, that's right. It got a 6.5 because Escalation and Competitive Multiplayer are quite good. In regards to the other Transformers game (Rise of the Fallen?), I've never played it. Chris Watters reviewed that last year, but he was not available to review this one. Bad time to take a vacation.

Why do you people get so mad over the scores...just buy it if you want it.

And people were hyping this game based on a review by IGN. :lol:

C'mon people IGN.

And people were hyping this game based on a review by IGN. :lol:

C'mon people IGN.

And people were hyping this game based on a review by IGN. :lol:

C'mon people IGN.

stvee101

Well they are human so they will have a different opinion on it. As you have seen this game has been getting mixed reactions.

[QUOTE="stvee101"]

And people were hyping this game based on a review by IGN. :lol:

C'mon people IGN.

Sollet

And it looks like they'll need to keep waiting for that game.

Or they could just play that one on the PS2,seem to remember it being decent.

[QUOTE="Advid-Gamer"]Wow, sounds like you hated it, suprised it even got a 6.5 from you after reading this. Seems lots of people besides you are having fun with it, also why is it rated lower then the Transformers movie game? Do you really think it was better then this one.TomMcShea

I did not enjoy the campaign, that's right. It got a 6.5 because Escalation and Competitive Multiplayer are quite good. In regards to the other Transformers game (Rise of the Fallen?), I've never played it. Chris Watters reviewed that last year, but he was not available to review this one. Bad time to take a vacation.

Maybe Chris should have reviewed it regardless if there was a delay then. I say this as he has given great scores (editor choices) on games with lackluster single player and good online. Bad company 2 and even modern warfare 2 comes to mind on that one. Though this is a 3rd person, this seems a bit of dejavu. A bland single player but good multiplayer but unlike some others, this game was pentalized highly in that regard. I'm not saying this game matches those games in anyway but just looking at your statements on how you like the online but did not like the bland AI and linearity of single player Tom Shea, something just seems off on my observation. Guess that kinda what happens when reviews take a onsided view from a editor staff as only 1 editor is reviewing it. Again, I wish gamespot had some policy of atleast 2 members reviewing all games and throwing a consensus score up. You stated, other editors felt the same but the "proof is in the pudding" here as it is just your name on this review.

All of this is just a outside perspective and just using your statements. I can't pass judgement on this game in anyway as I have not played it. I thought your review was well written and had some great points. This is all observation on your review and how your statements in this thread.

[QUOTE="Sollet"][QUOTE="stvee101"]

And people were hyping this game based on a review by IGN. :lol:

C'mon people IGN.

And it looks like they'll need to keep waiting for that game.

Or they could just play that one on the PS2,seem to remember it being decent.

Maybe Chris should have reviewed it regardless if there was a delay then. I say this as he has given great scores (editor choices) on games with lackluster single player and good online. Bad company 2 and even modern warfare 2 comes to mind on that one. Though this is a 3rd person, this seems a bit of dejavu. A bland single player but good multiplayer but unlike some others, this game was pentalized highly. I'm making this observation base on Toms statements the last few pages and how other games in the shooter genre have been reviewed latelyjedikevin2

It's not even a sequel to the last game, though. It's just another Transformers game made by a different developer. Chris, Justin, and I are more than qualified to review a third-person shooter. There was no reason to sit on the review for another week so Chris could review it, especially since he has something else he needs to work on as soon as he gets back in the office. I don't believe there is anyone in our office who loves Transformers, and even if there was, we don't artificially bump scores because we like the license. Justin and Kevin have played tons of shooters and agreed with my assessment.

Unless my memory is off, I believe Chris really enjoyed the single-player portions of BF2 and MW2. I would have to double check the reviews, but I remember him thinking they were excting. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't remember our review team giving a high score to a shooter with a tedious campaign but good multiplayer, like Transformers has.

Again, I wish gamespot had some policy of atleast 2 members reviewing all games and throwing a consensus score up. You stated, other editors felt the same but the "proof is in the pudding" here as it is just your name on this review.jedikevin2

We only have four full-time reviewers on staff: Justin, Kevin, Chris and I. It's not feasible for more than one person to play through a game. Justin and I did play cooperatively, though. All of our reviews and scores have to be approved by the entire team. When we think the other person is crazy, we have a discussion, but everyone who played and saw this game agreed with my assessment.

[QUOTE="stvee101"]

[QUOTE="Sollet"] or maybe you know TF fans has been looking forward to a good TF game?Sollet

And it looks like they'll need to keep waiting for that game.

Or they could just play that one on the PS2,seem to remember it being decent.

Eh fair enough,thats a decent score,but the way some people were describing this game it was as if it was going to be brilliant.Mainly on the back of that review from IGN.

The GameSpot reviews over the years have contradicted themselves so often its impossible to know what to expect. You slam WFC for its 15-hour single-player campaign, yet SC:C gets an 8.0 with its whopping 5 hour Bourne-fest. You degrade WFC's 3-player co-op to merely an alternative to bad AI, yet you give Resident Evil 5 an 8.5 with its utterly game-breaking AI partner. You gave Shadowrun a 6.9 and it didn't even have a single-player campaign.

GameSpot writers are always talking about how they pass things around to one another, but it never seems like you are on the same page. People can't trust the reviews here because you either have no criterion or its extremely slack. I wouldn't be surprised if you had a number-scale glued to a door and just threw darts at it. After all, you can just say, "Hey! Its just my opinion!"

The GameSpot reviews over the years have contradicted themselves so often its impossible to know what to expect. You slam WFC for its 15-hour single-player campaign, yet SC:C gets an 8.0 with its whopping 5 hour Bourne-fest. You degrade WFC's 3-player co-op to merely an alternative to bad AI, yet you give Resident Evil 5 an 8.5 with its utterly game-breaking AI partner. You gave Shadowrun a 6.9 and it didn't even have a single-player campaignGame-fu

I don't know what WFC is...

But you're focusing on just one element of a review instead of the experience as a whole. Kevin thought SC:C was pure entertainment, which is better than a longer campaign with bad stretches. It also has fantastic co-op and innovative storytelling. So Kevin believed the entire package was worthy of a Great score even if one element (the stort campaign) was disappointing.

[QUOTE="Game-fu"]The GameSpot reviews over the years have contradicted themselves so often its impossible to know what to expect. You slam WFC for its 15-hour single-player campaign, yet SC:C gets an 8.0 with its whopping 5 hour Bourne-fest. You degrade WFC's 3-player co-op to merely an alternative to bad AI, yet you give Resident Evil 5 an 8.5 with its utterly game-breaking AI partner. You gave Shadowrun a 6.9 and it didn't even have a single-player campaignTomMcShea

I don't know what WFC is...

But you're focusing on just one element of a review instead of the experience as a whole. Kevin thought SC:C was pure entertainment, which is better than a longer campaign with bad stretches. It also has fantastic co-op and innovative storytelling. So Kevin believed the entire package was worthy of a Great score even if one element (the stort campaign) was disappointing.

Thanks for proving my point.

[QUOTE="Game-fu"]The GameSpot reviews over the years have contradicted themselves so often its impossible to know what to expect. You slam WFC for its 15-hour single-player campaign, yet SC:C gets an 8.0 with its whopping 5 hour Bourne-fest. You degrade WFC's 3-player co-op to merely an alternative to bad AI, yet you give Resident Evil 5 an 8.5 with its utterly game-breaking AI partner. You gave Shadowrun a 6.9 and it didn't even have a single-player campaignTomMcShea

I don't know what WFC is...

But you're focusing on just one element of a review instead of the experience as a whole. Kevin thought SC:C was pure entertainment, which is better than a longer campaign with bad stretches. It also has fantastic co-op and innovative storytelling. So Kevin believed the entire package was worthy of a Great score even if one element (the stort campaign) was disappointing.

Umm, it's War for Cybertron.

Thanks for proving my point.Game-fu

How does that prove your point? I've only reviewed 3 games that have started with a W (White Knight Chronicles, Wall-E, and Wacky Racers) so, even though you said "you reviewed WFC" you weren't actually talking about me. I don't know the acronym of every game out there.

Umm, it's War for Cybertron.789shadow

Now I'm even more confused. Can you tell me where I slammed it for being 15 hours? I said it felt too long because it's so repetitive, not short.

[QUOTE="789shadow"]Umm, it's War for Cybertron.TomMcShea

Now I'm even more confused. Can you tell me where I slammed it for being 15 hours? I said it felt too long because it's so repetitive, not short.

Hey, don't jump on me! I'm just telling you what that acronym means. :P

A couple other games start to remind me of this same situation but with higher scores. Ghostbusters: the video game and Frontlines: Fuel of war (pretty weak single player but ok good multiplayer) I digress though.

Offcourse there is many other factors in the game reviews. Many members though are beginning to feel that the global standards of reviews are becoming flawed on gamespot. You state you have a board on the reviews but that doesn't show itself. Gamespot like others come out as having each editor with its own full out standard on games. What happens then is many games get punched significantly on areas that other games just get a slapped for by other editors. As its all subjective as its just a opinion of a reviewer this will always happen but it just seems gamespot has been disconnecting itself in this regard to what many members remember years ago.

Hey, don't jump on me! I'm just telling you what that acronym means. :P789shadow

Sorry, that was directed at Game-Fu. I've never seen or used that acryonym before.

[QUOTE="789shadow"]Hey, don't jump on me! I'm just telling you what that acronym means. :PTomMcShea

Sorry, that was directed at Game-Fu. I've never seen or used that acryonym before.

Whats your personal opinion on the transformers game and the ranking you would give it?Easyle

War for Cybertron? I wrote the GS review. 6.5. Revenge of the Fallen? Never played it.

I'm just surprised you called it a cover based shooter to be honest. I always thought games like Gears of War, and Rainbow Six Vegas were cover based shooters since you really have to rely on it to stay alive, and it's a large part of the game mechanics. I've only played through the Autobots campaign, but it feels like a straight up third person shooter/action game.

Not bashing your review just that part I really don't agree with. Glad you liked Escalation mode at least. That's my favorite part of the game by far since it's so similar to Nazi Zombies. :)

[QUOTE="789shadow"]Umm, it's War for Cybertron.TomMcShea

Now I'm even more confused. Can you tell me where I slammed it for being 15 hours? I said it felt too long because it's so repetitive, not short.

I don't get why you keep discussing this.

You're trying to sway the opinions of people too stubborn to come to an agreement that your opinion can sometimes conflict with their own. They're never going to budge on this issue no matter how many times you try to justify your reasons for disliking the game.

Better to just let them be.

[QUOTE="Easyle"]Whats your personal opinion on the transformers game and the ranking you would give it?TomMcShea

War for Cybertron? I wrote the GS review. 6.5. Revenge of the Fallen? Never played it.

I don't get why you keep discussing this.

You're trying to sway the opinions of people too stubborn to come to an agreement that your opinion can sometimes conflict with their own. They're never going to budge on this issue no matter how many times you try to justify your reasons for disliking the game.

Better to just let them be.treedoor

Yeah, I know I'm not going to change any minds, but I like to be available if people have questions or complaints about a review. Plus, I hate being misrepresented. I never complained about Cybertron's length so it was weird seeing someone say that.

I really don't think the reviewer should have to come up here and have to defend what he/she gave the game, like someone said before it me,seems to be a hate it/love it game, I love Transformers so my purchase is justified imo and I probably will enjoy it. It looks alot better than the movie tie in games to me.

It goes to show how lacking of ideas we are this decade when we're trawling the 1980s cartoons and cheesy television shows for big budget remakes, but in gaming terms Transformers isn't a terrible idea. The films are, but the games make more sense. I liked the one on the PS2, it had an unprecedented for its time level of scale and I feel there is a game out there to justify bringing transformers back but this isn't it.

I really don't think the reviewer should have to come up here and have to defend what he/she gave the game, like someone said before it me,seems to be a hate it/love it game, I love Transformers so my purchase is justified imo and I probably will enjoy it. It looks alot better than the movie tie in games to me.

SonyIsh6Fotta

I find myself a bit outspoken when it comes to discussing review scores, and why people shouldn't care about them all too much. I mean a lot of times you might find yourself enjoying all the AAA games that come out, but other times you just go to go with your gut feeling on a game, and just jump in. It hampers your love with gaming if you just restrict yourself to what gets reviewed well. You'll miss out on a lot of titles you could potentially love.

If you like Transformers, and you like the style of gameplay, then there should be nothing standing in your way from enjoying this game.

I wanted to get a little city building game off Steam from this sale, and I settled on Tropico. Didn't read a single review. Just looked at it, and thought the setting looked great, and the gameplay looked great, and bought it, and you know what? I'm enjoying it. Would have completely missed out on it if I decided to take the opinions on others (assuming other people disliked it).

Even in this thread (I won't name names, but I was discussing it with them earlier on), there are people who love this Transformers game who regularly bash on other forum members that like supposedly "bad" games. Games they never even tried, and here they are defending their love of this Transformers game when they find themselves in the same shoes.

I hope everyone in this thread comes to the realization that your opinions shouldn't be swayed entirely by the opinions on others. Make a choice yourself, and stand up for what you like.

This goes to show me that My gaming tastes do not go with review sites these days. I love transformers, I am already replaying it on hard mode, I would give it a 9.0 where the hell did this 6.5 come from? I call BS. I also loved Mirrors edge that got a bad score as well.

Advid-Gamer

And for any transformers fan, this game is definitely made with the fans at mind so dont stray away from it due to this very harsh review.desyple

And that's the problem. It's a good Transformers game but not a very good shooter. I agree that fans of the license will enjoy it, but everyone else has far better alternatives.

Flop... I knew it.

GreenGoblin2099

Its a great game Regardless of GS's opinon.

[QUOTE="desyple"]And for any transformers fan, this game is definitely made with the fans at mind so dont stray away from it due to this very harsh review.TomMcShea

And that's the problem. It's a good Transformers game but not a very good shooter. I agree that fans of the license will enjoy it, but everyone else has far better alternatives.

[QUOTE="TomMcShea"]

[QUOTE="desyple"]And for any transformers fan, this game is definitely made with the fans at mind so dont stray away from it due to this very harsh review.Microsoft1234

And that's the problem. It's a good Transformers game but not a very good shooter. I agree that fans of the license will enjoy it, but everyone else has far better alternatives.

Well, that's just your opinion dude.

[QUOTE="Microsoft1234"][QUOTE="TomMcShea"]

And that's the problem. It's a good Transformers game but not a very good shooter. I agree that fans of the license will enjoy it, but everyone else has far better alternatives.

789shadow

Well, that's just your opinion dude.

[QUOTE="789shadow"]Umm, it's War for Cybertron.TomMcShea

Now I'm even more confused. Can you tell me where I slammed it for being 15 hours? I said it felt too long because it's so repetitive, not short.

For the record, I never said that you directly criticized "WFC" for its single-player length. I was merely pointing out the lack of consistency when it comes to GameSpot's criterion. You can readily "bash" a game like Splinter Cell: Conviction for its brief campaign and still give it an 8.0, but the generous 15 hour single-player campaign in "WFC" is somehow irrelevant. Sure, I understand that this is just one aspect of a bigger picture. The problem is: which pieces of the picture do you put together and which do you discard come review-time. To me this is what makes GameSpot's reviews inconsistent and unreliable.

For the record, I never said that you directly criticized "WFC" for its single-player length. I was merely pointing out the lack of consistency when it comes to GameSpot's criterion. You can readily "bash" a game like Splinter Cell: Conviction for its brief campaign and still give it an 8.0, but the generous 15 hour single-player campaign in "WFC" is somehow irrelevant. Sure, I understand that this is just one aspect of a bigger picture. The problem is: which pieces of the picture do you put together and which do you discard come review-time. To me this is what makes GameSpot's reviews inconsistent and unreliable.Game-fu

I spelled out in the text that 15 hours was actually too long because the game drags for so much of the campaign.

[QUOTE="789shadow"]

[QUOTE="Microsoft1234"] ya when mw2 gets a 9 , you know the gaming review industry isn't messed with whatsoever :roll:Microsoft1234

Well, that's just your opinion dude.

I fail to see how the majority is in any way automatically correct at all.

[QUOTE="Microsoft1234"][QUOTE="789shadow"]

Well, that's just your opinion dude.

789shadow

I fail to see how the majority is in any way automatically correct at all.

I think I'll pass, there are too many games out this year, and i don't want to take a risk on this.

I really don't think the reviewer should have to come up here and have to defend what he/she gave the game,

SonyIsh6Fotta

Tom McShea is a man.

First, the author of the review is certainly entitled to ther opinion. However, a good review from a paid reviewer should not be an object of opinion but of facts. And the facts mentioned as flaws in the review are not critic-proof as shown in other reviews and user complaints. Also, notice how said flaws are not mentioned in the definite majority of official reviews. Last, I want to state that the reviewer should at least have read the review of Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, the movie game that got 7.5 points from gamespot. War for Cybertron is by facts superior to that game, but got a lower score.

Now here's MY opinion: Gamespot wasn't paid for this review.

Looks like IGN over rated it and GS under rated it.

I just wish they were this harsh with ODST and MWF2. All the critiques (and they're numerous) sound very legit to me, I know I don't enjoy those types of flaws in games, they're just bad design choices. Maybe we should thank Mr McShea for actually doing his job instead of being a TF fanboy. My only problem is inconsistency, especially when it involves massively hyped games like ODST and MW2, or even R2 which should have been docked for a pathetic campaign. Thank you for being objective, Tom. Deathtransit