Ok, there's still people who think only GS reviews count. Uh.... WHY!? (and don't say ''cuz we're on GS'') The official game scores should be gamerankings's average. It's logical
I don't care about review scores from any source. I read the reviews to learn things, but I will actually play the game before passing judgment on it. Review scores are simply the opinion of the reviewer. I am capable for forming my own opinions, and I choose to do so.
Ok, there's still people who think only GS reviews count. Uh.... WHY!? (and don't say ''cuz we're on GS'') The official game scores should be gamerankings's average. It's logicalTimesplitter14
Are you serious? What site are you posting on? No other site matters in reference to scores or reviews if your using this site. Go to another site and GS's scores/reviews dont count.
Well it's GS SW, not IGN SW, so we naturally go by what GS scores games to determine teh ownage and whatnot....but other scores can be posted, just no ownage can be claimed through them. And of course their scores aren't the end all be all of reviews, it's just an opinion to go by...frankly I usually don't pay that much attention to GS's reviews (or any for that matter) when I'm thinking about purchasing a game.
It was established a long time ago. If we were to switch it would take forever to claim ownage, fanboys would be switching back and forth between GR and GS, and it would be total chaos.
Well it's GS SW, not IGN SW, so we naturally go by what GS scores games to determine teh ownage and whatnot....but other scores can be posted, just no ownage can be claimed through them. And of course their scores aren't the end all be all of reviews, it's just an opinion to go by...frankly I usually don't pay that much attention to GS's reviews (or any for that matter) when I'm thinking about purchasing a game.Benihana7
I see where you are coming from, but I don't think just using the GS score alone to own anyone.  Just because a game is rated AAAA, it doesn't mean that it will sell good. There are even awards to games that score bad and yet was bought by a huge number of people. Jaw anyone?
We're on Gamespot forums though so only Gamespot reviews count here.
To be honest, I really like GS reviews. It's rare for me to completely disagree with their reviews. the-very-best
I agree with you on that. Yes there are times when I don't agree with them and yes, it could be said that some of their reviews are suspect. But I trust them probably more than any other game website..I don't get a fanboy vibe from them like I do at some other sites...Yes, they have their biases. But don't we all?
I don't care about review scores from any source. I read the reviews to learn things, but I will actually play the game before passing judgment on it. Review scores are simply the opinion of the reviewer. I am capable for forming my own opinions, and I choose to do so.SmashBrosLegend
Same here, God Of War got rave reveiws and everyone was saying how good it was so I went and bought it. I did not see what all the fuss was about as I didn't find it that entertaining. I won't be purchasing part 2 no matter what score it gets because it doesn't seem much different from one.
Game Rankings includes scores from magazines which people here give almost no consideration or credability and doesn't take into account that the same score can mean two totally different things in different publications.
Well actually Gamespot is the most reliable as far as reviews are concerned. Lets face it, how many other websites told Zelda fans that their prized game was basically the same gameplay but replacing the movement of fingers with the movement of wrists - basically a gimmick.
Yea, I've noticed too many platform/company centric sites that have the potential to be biased just for the hell of it, a GR based score system would be to skewed if you ask me.
I know we're on GS, but that doesn't mean we should only use GS. System wars is much larger that that. Referring only to GS is basing the value of a game on ONE PERSON's opinion, which is useless. This isn't the Gamespot editors' wars, it's the System Wars. And I say we should use Gameranking's average, which is a reliable source.
I know we're on GS, but that doesn't mean we should only use GS. System wars is much larger that that. Referring only to GS is basing the value of a game on ONE PERSON's opinion, which is useless. This isn't the Gamespot editors' wars, it's the System Wars. And I say we should use Gameranking's average, which is a reliable source.Timesplitter14
This is tantomount to heresy! The MODS have spoken. You tread a dangerous path suggesting we change the order of things.
I know we're on GS, but that doesn't mean we should only use GS. System wars is much larger that that. Referring only to GS is basing the value of a game on ONE PERSON's opinion, which is useless. This isn't the Gamespot editors' wars, it's the System Wars. And I say we should use Gameranking's average, which is a reliable source.Timesplitter14
So you want to take in the account of platform-centric sites, which often hand out more AAAs than candy on Halloween? Get real- plus it would take FOREVER to claim ownage. The average would be constantly shifting which would knock games in an out of AAA territory...no, it's just nonsensical.
Ok, there's still people who think only GS reviews count. Uh.... WHY!? (and don't say ''cuz we're on GS'') The official game scores should be gamerankings's average. It's logicalTimesplitter14
Because the alternative is not very good. Everybody's going to want to cite their own source.
I laugh at anyone who thinks using Gamerankings is logical.
Biased Sites-Sites like Nintendo Power, OXM, or PSM get counted. These factor in the average and do more than just "alter the score a little".
Hype-A reviewing site is heavily hyped for a game and it gets released. One of two things happens: 1) The site is heavily disappointed and thus rates lower than a site that wasn't hyped, for example. Or 2) Gives the game a high score anyway so they don't feel wrong about their hype.
No. of Reviews-Changes over time. Games like OoT and Soul Calibur had about 30 reviews, while games like RE4 and Halo 2 got about 100? Which games held up their high scores to more reviews?
Standards-This also changes over time. Suppose a game comes out in 1999 and gets a 95% average. Over two years, huge innovations occur and standards skyrocket. Then a game comes out in 2001 and gets a 94% average. Which is truly better? When comparing the overall best game (as you should), standards alone wreck Gamerankings.
Games w/o reviews-Big classics like Chrono Trigger, Super Mario Brothers 3, or Doom don't have reviews/many reviews. How can one factor classics into Gamerankings without them having reviews?
Subjectivity-The reviewers for the sites themselves are biased. Sure it may not be on a huge scale, but anyone has preferences of genres compared to other genres. Nobody likes every genre and every game on the same level. Otherwise, where's the comparison? Anyone claiming that they like everything are probably the most biased. Suppose a reviewer is a big shooter fan? He could approach the game with higher standards or like it more, as opposed to someone who doesn't play many shooters and sees almost every one of them as the penultimate shooter game.
Review Scales-Suppose two sites review a game. Both sites felt the game was exceptional, but not quite perfect enough for a maximum score. One gives a 9/10, which is factored into the average as 90%. Meanwhile the other gives a 4/5, which is factored into the average as 80%. Yet both tried to send the same message across, but with a big score difference. Don't think this kind of thing never happened.
I've been here what some 6yrs now (damn that's sad), you're not going to be able to do it, despite me somewhat agreeing with the concept.
Trust me I've witnessed people try, and I've lead a union (well user created board back then) to do it myself (OFJC part 2). I had a group of people from each fanboy flavor, equal representation, voted on hype levels used this site primarily but GR.com could be used if a certain criteria were met in the group between all members etc.
It's not going to change, and expect people who have nothing to do with site to come back and backlash at any large moment for change too. I'm talking about older members who now reside on other sites.
i actually just come to GS SW for the "SW" part. i would go to another SW site but i'm so used to this one now.
so no, for me GS reviews are just another review. one of the many i look at when determining if a game is worth buying before i play it. AFTER i play it, i take MY opinion over other's reviews. which is how i think it SHOULD be. cuz a site telling you what your opinions is is just stupid. and people that take reviews as their definite opinions before even playing the game are idiots
Log in to comment