Why is it sooooo terrible to pay attention to critic reviews when you decide on what to buy, not buy, or rent to see if you like it? Is that part of being a hardcore gamer? Buying something random even though it is a p.o.s.? No thanks.....I will read reviews.
some of those low scores (probably all really) are legit.
zombiu making you backtrack across the entire game and walk from one end to the other just to pad out the playtime on the last level deserved to get the smack down.
they were lucky to get a 4 after pulling that silly ass crap.
Riverwolf007
ZombiU has plenty of sewer systems allowing you to go from one part of the map to another without backtracking.
So GameSpot is supposed to write reviews to help sell more games? Is that how it works?JustPlainLucas
Of course not. All reviewers (Minus gamer reviews because you can't trust fanboys) are writing reviews to tell you what is good or what should get passed up. The only problem is they never use their whole scale.. So you get a lot of 7's that deserved far worse because no one wants to hand out a 3 or 4 unless the game is basically broken. Did the new Gears or God of War really deserve the scores they got? No. They were barely above average (6 to 7). Did the 200th 2D Mario game deserve anything other than a 5 just because it came out on the Wii U? Nope. Why even score it? Everyone knows exactly what it is and compared to today's best 2D games Mario is average or tired. Reviews are nice to have by your side. The problem is they are not honest enough.
I'm sure if you looked at other review sites, you'd see they all have their fair share of left-field reviews, just for games that you might not like (and thus not pay attention to) but others might.
And to ech0 just about everyone else's opinion on the matter: "Look at the critique, not the score".
[QUOTE="JustPlainLucas"]So GameSpot is supposed to write reviews to help sell more games? Is that how it works?timbers_WSU
Of course not. All reviewers (Minus gamer reviews because you can't trust fanboys) are writing reviews to tell you what is good or what should get passed up. The only problem is they never use their whole scale.. So you get a lot of 7's that deserved far worse because no one wants to hand out a 3 or 4 unless the game is basically broken. Did the new Gears or God of War really deserve the scores they got? No. They were barely above average (6 to 7). Did the 200th 2D Mario game deserve anything other than a 5 just because it came out on the Wii U? Nope. Why even score it? Everyone knows exactly what it is and compared to today's best 2D games Mario is average or tired. Reviews are nice to have by your side. The problem is they are not honest enough.
The main problem of your argument is that you think everyone should think like you.
Here is an example. Take Batman Arkham City on the 360 and PS3. Game is a nice at the very least right? And it did enough over Arkham Asylum that is deserved every good score it got. Now here comes the Wii U version. Same game with some extras and the DLC but a crap frame-rate and some other graphical problems. I would personally rather have more content as long as the game still looks good and it does. But it is $60. The other versions are $30. The score of the other versions still holds up but they do not take into account that the game is on other systems for half the price. What would you score the Wii U version? I would give it a 6.5 or 7 because it is way late, and I know everyone already has another system where it can be bought cheaper. That never gets taken into account.
[QUOTE="timbers_WSU"][QUOTE="JustPlainLucas"]So GameSpot is supposed to write reviews to help sell more games? Is that how it works?rjdofu
Of course not. All reviewers (Minus gamer reviews because you can't trust fanboys) are writing reviews to tell you what is good or what should get passed up. The only problem is they never use their whole scale.. So you get a lot of 7's that deserved far worse because no one wants to hand out a 3 or 4 unless the game is basically broken. Did the new Gears or God of War really deserve the scores they got? No. They were barely above average (6 to 7). Did the 200th 2D Mario game deserve anything other than a 5 just because it came out on the Wii U? Nope. Why even score it? Everyone knows exactly what it is and compared to today's best 2D games Mario is average or tired. Reviews are nice to have by your side. The problem is they are not honest enough.
The main problem of your argument is that you think everyone should think like you.
Exactly. Like I said, they will not use the whole scale on their reviews. But if someone wants to completely ignore reviews and buy a game because the box art looks nice or because they like every other JRPG or Hack n Slash then so be it. On System Wars they think every game sucks anyways because it is not on their system of choice. Meaning don't trust reader reviews, only critic reviews but critics like Jim Sterling who is not afraid to call Assassins Creed a pile of ass, because it is. Now go ahead and bash me. That is all you usually do.
[QUOTE="timbers_WSU"][QUOTE="JustPlainLucas"]So GameSpot is supposed to write reviews to help sell more games? Is that how it works?rjdofu
Of course not. All reviewers (Minus gamer reviews because you can't trust fanboys) are writing reviews to tell you what is good or what should get passed up. The only problem is they never use their whole scale.. So you get a lot of 7's that deserved far worse because no one wants to hand out a 3 or 4 unless the game is basically broken. Did the new Gears or God of War really deserve the scores they got? No. They were barely above average (6 to 7). Did the 200th 2D Mario game deserve anything other than a 5 just because it came out on the Wii U? Nope. Why even score it? Everyone knows exactly what it is and compared to today's best 2D games Mario is average or tired. Reviews are nice to have by your side. The problem is they are not honest enough.
The main problem of your argument is that you think everyone should think like you.
Still his points are very much valid... so instead of advocating the "how unique and different our DNA is" try to focus on what he wants to point out.
Their job as a reviewer is to quantify and qualify their experience with a game, and your job as a reader is to evaluate their critique. They don't have to write their review in a way that fits with the Metacritic score.
Here is an example. Take Batman Arkham City on the 360 and PS3. Game is a nice at the very least right? And it did enough over Arkham Asylum that is deserved every good score it got. Now here comes the Wii U version. Same game with some extras and the DLC but a crap frame-rate and some other graphical problems. I would personally rather have more content as long as the game still looks good and it does. But it is $60. The other versions are $30. The score of the other versions still holds up but they do not take into account that the game is on other systems for half the price. What would you score the Wii U version? I would give it a 6.5 or 7 because it is way late, and I know everyone already has another system where it can be bought cheaper. That never gets taken into account.
timbers_WSU
What are you talking about :|? Reviewers do include all the negatives of the Wii U version in their review, and majority of them give the game a lower score than other versions. However, that doesn't mean that they have to score the game the same as you do.
Why is it sooooo terrible to pay attention to critic reviews when you decide on what to buy, not buy, or rent to see if you like it? Is that part of being a hardcore gamer? Buying something random even though it is a p.o.s.? No thanks.....I will read reviews.
timbers_WSU
You're doing it right. READING reviews. What most of us here are saying is terrible is the act of putting way too much stock in the numeric store, and thinking there must be some kind of conspiracy or foul play if a score strays too far from the metacritic average. That sh!t is asinine.
Again, this has nothing to do with me and my inability to properly research the game before purchases. Many people would pass up a game based solely on the review score and that's not right.hysam20241
you need to read Shashkice post... and then you need to sleep on it. because thats your answer.
Here is an example. Take Batman Arkham City on the 360 and PS3. Game is a nice at the very least right? And it did enough over Arkham Asylum that is deserved every good score it got. Now here comes the Wii U version. Same game with some extras and the DLC but a crap frame-rate and some other graphical problems. I would personally rather have more content as long as the game still looks good and it does. But it is $60. The other versions are $30. The score of the other versions still holds up but they do not take into account that the game is on other systems for half the price. What would you score the Wii U version? I would give it a 6.5 or 7 because it is way late, and I know everyone already has another system where it can be bought cheaper. That never gets taken into account.
rjdofu
What are you talking about :|? Reviewers do include all the negatives of the Wii U version in their review, and majority of them give the game a lower score than other versions. However, that doesn't mean that they have to score the game the same as you do. Well I was just using it as an example but it is a 86 on Metacritic right now. You are right. Most reviewers did point out the problems with it but an 85 or 86 for a game that has been out a while and is twice as much as the GOTY edition on the other systems seems really high to me. How about Mass Effect 3? Buy it on the Wii or spend an extra $10 and get all 3 plus all the DLC on the other systems? Does it deserve to be considered a must buy for Wii U owners? They get 1/4 of the story.
Of course not. All reviewers (Minus gamer reviews because you can't trust fanboys) are writing reviews to tell you what is good or what should get passed up. The only problem is they never use their whole scale.. So you get a lot of 7's that deserved far worse because no one wants to hand out a 3 or 4 unless the game is basically broken. timbers_WSU
That's what I've been saying for a while. If you want to actually give a sh!t about scores, the system needs to be fixed. As it is, a game usually does have to be straight up broken and unplayable for it to get less than 5. That's stupid. If the game is straight up broken, it deserves..... 0. Damaged goods. If a game is so plagued with bugs and glitches that it can be rightly described as "broken", that's how the review should read. "Game is broken. Don't buy. 0/10. Review over". For other games, which are technically functioning, but just suck, that's where 1-3 comes in.
Their reviewers just aren't very good or have really really bad taste in games(except RE6, that game really is crap) Their sports games reviews are hilariously terrible
Here is an example. Take Batman Arkham City on the 360 and PS3. Game is a nice at the very least right? And it did enough over Arkham Asylum that is deserved every good score it got. Now here comes the Wii U version. Same game with some extras and the DLC but a crap frame-rate and some other graphical problems. I would personally rather have more content as long as the game still looks good and it does. But it is $60. The other versions are $30. The score of the other versions still holds up but they do not take into account that the game is on other systems for half the price. What would you score the Wii U version? I would give it a 6.5 or 7 because it is way late, and I know everyone already has another system where it can be bought cheaper. That never gets taken into account.
timbers_WSU
What are you talking about :|? Reviewers do include all the negatives of the Wii U version in their review, and majority of them give the game a lower score than other versions. However, that doesn't mean that they have to score the game the same as you do. Well I was just using it as an example but it is a 86 on Metacritic right now. You are right. Most reviewers did point out the problems with it but an 85 or 86 for a game that has been out a while and is twice as much as the GOTY edition on the other systems seems really high to me. How about Mass Effect 3? Buy it on the Wii or spend an extra $10 and get all 3 plus all the DLC on the other systems. But it is still getting AA scores. Fair enough. However, i think price point doesn't have much to do with the game actual quality. If the game's truly inferior, it deserves to get knocked down; but as long as the quality stay the same, it should get the same score (since we're arguing about score). Deducting score of a version just because you can find the game on other system for cheaper price is silly, since after a while, all will have the same price point.
Their reviewers just aren't very good or have really really bad taste in games(except RE6, that game really is crap) Their sports games reviews are hilariously terrible mems_1224
Remember the squiggly line controversy in their NCAA football review :lol:
[QUOTE="mems_1224"]Their reviewers just aren't very good or have really really bad taste in games(except RE6, that game really is crap) Their sports games reviews are hilariously terrible Agreed. Sports games like Madden and FIFA are good games but why waste time reviewing them? Because they obviously improve the main complaints from the previous version. Actually EA tends to fix two things and then break something else and I am starting to think those pricks do it on purpose. Anyway the differences are usually minimal. They should just say upgrade or not upgrade and thats that. To be fair the New Madden was a whole new thing and I was impressed EA took the time to rebuild it.
[QUOTE="timbers_WSU"][QUOTE="mems_1224"]Their reviewers just aren't very good or have really really bad taste in games(except RE6, that game really is crap) Their sports games reviews are hilariously terrible Agreed. Sports games like Madden and FIFA are good games but why waste time reviewing them? Because they obviously improve the main complaints from the previous version. Actually EA tends to fix two things and then break something else and I am starting to think those pricks do it on purpose. Anyway the differences are usually minimal. They should just say upgrade or not upgrade and thats that. To be fair the New Madden was a whole new thing and I was impressed EA took the time to rebuild it.Thats EA though. They're usually lazy when it comes to sports games, especially madden. NBA 2K has made some pretty big changes over the past few years. Either way, the amount of changes from one year to another isn't the issue, the point is that they aren't written well and usually the guy reviewing them has no clue what he's talking about. They review CoD games every year, they review AC games every year. Being a yearly release is irrelevant. They called the squiggly lines in NCAA when you're the road team and preview a play a glitch when the feature had been in the series for years.
Again, this has nothing to do with me and my inability to properly research the game before purchases. Many people would pass up a game based solely on the review score and that's not right.hysam20241
gs has been known to be one of the most critical reviewers.been like that since ive first been on this site
[QUOTE="hysam20241"]Again, this has nothing to do with me and my inability to properly research the game before purchases. Many people would pass up a game based solely on the review score and that's not right.jsmoke03
gs has been known to be one of the most critical reviewers.been like that since ive first been on this site i read that you beat the WWE 13 Attitude Era.. how did you like it? :)
With the exception of a few terrible reviews (THPS 3 a 10?) gamespot is easily the best review site a know of. All other sties I've seen have made way more mistakes as far as their reviews go.
One of the best things about gamespot is how they deviate from the norm a bit. They tend to be harder on games; this is key to what makes them good. Most sites will give mediocre games 80+ scores so its' tough to really tell whats the cream of the crop.
Its cause Kevin V wants to be an idealist (a crappy one at that) when it comes to video game reviews, last Feb he came out and said he wanted games to be judged more harshly. It's even more ironic
It is as simple as this. The sites that give the lowest scores get almost just as many hits as the sites that give the top scores. There are so many fanboys and haters out there wanting certain games to flop that they start following or liking a site based off of what they personally agree with. It looks as though Gamespot is taking the UK reviewing stance... Just hate on it as much as possible to stick out from the crowd. It is actually brilliant to get more traffic to the site, and ultimately that is what matters to these sites the most. Sad but true.
Its cause Kevin V wants to be an idealist (a crappy one at that) when it comes to video game reviews, last Feb he came out and said he wanted games to be judged more harshly. It's even more ironic
Ballroompirate
If by "more harshly," you mean, "actually using all 10 points of the 10-point scale," then sure, he wants to judge games more harshly.
Log in to comment