Which GS review was the bigger crime? Mass Effect, Twilight Princess, or R&C

Even tho I haven't played it, I'd have to say R&C, the whole review was a bit funky with "identity crisis" and "too much variety", not to mention the score differs greatly from other critic and user scores.

Mass Effect got what it deserved imo, it was a good game, worthy of 9 on PC and with some extra issues on 360 8.5 sounds justified as well.

Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn. It scored a 6.0 here and was a much better game than that. The reviewer scored it so low because he said it was too "hardcore" even on the easy setting. So essentially he scored it low because he couldn't beat it.

I beat it on normal setting which is the hard setting in Japan, wasn't that hard. :?

Bigboi500

I also need to point out the DMC3 and DMC3:SE reviews...both were taken points off for opposite things...DMC3 for being too hard...DMC3:SE for not being as hard as the orignal. Seriously, Greg should have been fired for overwhelming stupdity after that.

R&C is a AA game just go look at game rankings its still the furthest off but its not off by 1.5 points as some say

tp was off by a bit because it was a AAA game same with ME i dont agree with ME being AAA but game rankings out ranks me

[QUOTE="fenwickhotmail"]

Mass Effect. Still the best game on the 360 imo. That review was so full of nick-picking it was unreal.

TP I felt was too similar to previous editions and got what it deserved.

gamer620

You know what else mass effect was full of? Game stopping bugs. I ran across 2 upon my first playthrough.

if they were GAMESTOPPING bugs how could u run into 2 on your FIRST playthrough?

[QUOTE="gamer620"][QUOTE="fenwickhotmail"]

Mass Effect. Still the best game on the 360 imo. That review was so full of nick-picking it was unreal.

TP I felt was too similar to previous editions and got what it deserved.

o0_L0st_B0y_0o

You know what else mass effect was full of? Game stopping bugs. I ran across 2 upon my first playthrough.

if they were GAMESTOPPING bugs how could u run into 2 on your FIRST playthrough?

lol. The bugs in ME were blown way out of proportion. Small potatoes compared to rest of the game.

Conversations like this are why I hate ten point scales. All of those are good games, what's .5 points here and there? What does .5 points even mean?supercubedude64

I still don't get how Mass Effect could get above an 8, horrible game, and even 9 on the PC?

LOL.

ME

TP was underwhelming, and RoC had too much variety lawl

Twilight Princess by far.

Mass Effect and RC got a score that they deserved imo.

[QUOTE="gamer620"][QUOTE="fenwickhotmail"]

Mass Effect. Still the best game on the 360 imo. That review was so full of nick-picking it was unreal.

TP I felt was too similar to previous editions and got what it deserved.

o0_L0st_B0y_0o

You know what else mass effect was full of? Game stopping bugs. I ran across 2 upon my first playthrough.

if they were GAMESTOPPING bugs how could u run into 2 on your FIRST playthrough?

They would be game-stopping if he had to re-load a save game to continue playing. I encountered two, as well. The first time, I got stuck in the wall of the Normandy, and the second time, I used one of my Force powers (the black hole), and all the debris in the corridor piled up in front of me and blocked my progress. It took me half an hour of trying to clear everything away before deciding to just give up and re-load from the beginning of the level.

The sheer lack of polish and design consideration in this game is mind-boggling.

[QUOTE="o0_L0st_B0y_0o"][QUOTE="gamer620"][QUOTE="fenwickhotmail"]

Mass Effect. Still the best game on the 360 imo. That review was so full of nick-picking it was unreal.

TP I felt was too similar to previous editions and got what it deserved.

fenwickhotmail

You know what else mass effect was full of? Game stopping bugs. I ran across 2 upon my first playthrough.

if they were GAMESTOPPING bugs how could u run into 2 on your FIRST playthrough?

lol. The bugs in ME were blown way out of proportion. Small potatoes compared to rest of the game.

No, they really were not blown out of proportion. There were more instances of texture pop-in during ONE cutscene of Mass Effect than in the entirety of Gears of War, and there were indeed glitches or instances of bad design where you would just be stopped and wouldn't be able to progress. Just because you were lucky enough not to encounter them doesn't mean the aren't there or that they aren't a problem.

I'm fine with all those reviews, honestly. R&C was way too linear, TP was a OOT clone (and felt almost as dated), and Mass Effect had terrible side quests.Gamer556

The best way to see if these reviews are far off is to compare them to Gamerankings, then to MetaCritic.

The Game(s) that are too far off what those two sites say, may actually be a bigger crime, imo.

Half-Life 2, GS's biggest crimeStreetrider9873

Diablo 2, far bigger crime.

Half-Life 2, GS's biggest crimeStreetrider9873

[QUOTE="Streetrider9873"]Half-Life 2, GS's biggest crimeninjaxams

Gears of War got a 9.6 buddy

Half-Life 2, GS's biggest crimeStreetrider9873

No giving a movie a 10 was.

[QUOTE="ninjaxams"]9.2 was to high for a glorified tech demo there buddy...MarloStanfield

Gears of War got a 9.6 buddy

What in Pete's sake, are you two buddies talking about, buh-ddy? Oh nevermind, I figured it out, buddy.

No giving a movie a 10 was.

SSCyborg

That's harsh!

OUCHIE!

First time we have all heard that mentioned....but then again, the gameplay in GTA4 was a Monumental step back from GTA:SA, so I can see people basiscally playing it for the JUST THE STORYs.

Hey, at least M$ paid $50 Million so that we get some exclusive DLC for our movie game! :)

Well, if we take into consideration the averages of all reviewer scores versus the Gamespot score we will find that LoZ:TP got a 94.4% and was awarded an 8.8 (88%) here, for a difference of 6.4%; Mass Effect was awarded a 91.1% and was awarded an 8.5 (85%) here for a difference of 6.1%; Ratchet and Clank Future: Tools of Destruction was given an 88.7% and was awarded a 7.5 (75%) here for a difference of 13.7%

Therefore, the answer is Ratchet and Clank Future: Tools of Destruction by quite a bit.

Newsboy

Yep, I'm going with that as well.

[QUOTE="Newsboy"]

Well, if we take into consideration the averages of all reviewer scores versus the Gamespot score we will find that LoZ:TP got a 94.4% and was awarded an 8.8 (88%) here, for a difference of 6.4%; Mass Effect was awarded a 91.1% and was awarded an 8.5 (85%) here for a difference of 6.1%; Ratchet and Clank Future: Tools of Destruction was given an 88.7% and was awarded a 7.5 (75%) here for a difference of 13.7%

Therefore, the answer is Ratchet and Clank Future: Tools of Destruction by quite a bit.

SOedipus

Yep, I'm going with that as well.

Earlier, I mentioned the best way to see what was the biggest crime, was comparing the GS scores to MetaCritic/Gamerankins, or both.

I had no idea, that someone did that, and went further with it.
Good job, Newsboy.

R&C by a mile. The other games scored pretty close to their average.

[QUOTE="Streetrider9873"]Half-Life 2, GS's biggest crimeSSCyborg

No giving a movie a 10 was.

lame... come back when you've played the game.

I wouldn't have given Zelda: TP that high of a score. And this is coming from a big Zelda fan.

Mass Effect got what it deserved, and I haven't played Ratchet, so I can't say anything.

People talk about Twilight Princess, but forget about Majoras Mask.Gamingcucumber

TP IMO was a solid 9.0 game that just missed that score by .2 points.

Majora's mask however was a master piece for it's time....and it got 8.3 because it was too different :?

I don't think they were crimes necessarily , but giving other games better scores and going super-lenient on them just doesn't seem right by comparison.

Mass Effect's review was poorly written, had inaccuracies and was full of nit-picking. Kevin really screwed up big time while reviewing Mass Effect. Personally, I don't even think Kevin completed the game by doing all the side quests, exploring, ect. Stevo_the_gamer

If he did the side quests I bet the score would have been even lower.. those were really badly done.

[QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"]Mass Effect's review was poorly written, had inaccuracies and was full of nit-picking. Kevin really screwed up big time while reviewing Mass Effect. Personally, I don't even think Kevin completed the game by doing all the side quests, exploring, ect. Espada12

If he did the side quests I bet the score would have been even lower.. those were really badly done.

[QUOTE="Gamer556"]I'm fine with all those reviews, honestly. R&C was way too linear, TP was a OOT clone (and felt almost as dated), and Mass Effect had terrible side quests.SolidTy

The best way to see if these reviews are far off is to compare them to Gamerankings, then to MetaCritic.

The Game(s) that are too far off what those two sites say, may actually be a bigger crime, imo.

I wholeheartedly DISagree.

Reviews from pretty much all sites are far too impulsive when they give out their scores. They review based on immediate impression rather than long-term appeal. Game reviewers need to do a "retrospective" review six months to a year after a game's been released, and use that as the "real" review.

[QUOTE="SolidTy"]

[QUOTE="Gamer556"]I'm fine with all those reviews, honestly. R&C was way too linear, TP was a OOT clone (and felt almost as dated), and Mass Effect had terrible side quests.mjarantilla

The best way to see if these reviews are far off is to compare them to Gamerankings, then to MetaCritic.

The Game(s) that are too far off what those two sites say, may actually be a bigger crime, imo.

I wholeheartedly DISagree.

Reviews from pretty much all sites are far too impulsive when they give out their scores. They review based on immediate impression rather than long-term appeal. Game reviewers need to do a "retrospective" review six months to a year after a game's been released, and use that as the "real" review.

This is actually a good idea, but it doubles the work. I don't see it happening. Plus that would only work for MP games :P.

[QUOTE="SolidTy"]

[QUOTE="Gamer556"]I'm fine with all those reviews, honestly. R&C was way too linear, TP was a OOT clone (and felt almost as dated), and Mass Effect had terrible side quests.mjarantilla

The best way to see if these reviews are far off is to compare them to Gamerankings, then to MetaCritic.

The Game(s) that are too far off what those two sites say, may actually be a bigger crime, imo.

I wholeheartedly DISagree.

Reviews from pretty much all sites are far too impulsive when they give out their scores. They review based on immediate impression rather than long-term appeal. Game reviewers need to do a "retrospective" review six months to a year after a game's been released, and use that as the "real" review.

so... how come you think WKS will flop?

[QUOTE="SolidTy"]

[QUOTE="Gamer556"]I'm fine with all those reviews, honestly. R&C was way too linear, TP was a OOT clone (and felt almost as dated), and Mass Effect had terrible side quests.mjarantilla

The best way to see if these reviews are far off is to compare them to Gamerankings, then to MetaCritic.

The Game(s) that are too far off what those two sites say, may actually be a bigger crime, imo.

I wholeheartedly DISagree.

Reviews from pretty much all sites are far too impulsive when they give out their scores. They review based on immediate impression rather than long-term appeal. Game reviewers need to do a "retrospective" review six months to a year after a game's been released, and use that as the "real" review.

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"][QUOTE="SolidTy"]

[QUOTE="Gamer556"]I'm fine with all those reviews, honestly. R&C was way too linear, TP was a OOT clone (and felt almost as dated), and Mass Effect had terrible side quests.st1ka

The best way to see if these reviews are far off is to compare them to Gamerankings, then to MetaCritic.

The Game(s) that are too far off what those two sites say, may actually be a bigger crime, imo.

I wholeheartedly DISagree.

Reviews from pretty much all sites are far too impulsive when they give out their scores. They review based on immediate impression rather than long-term appeal. Game reviewers need to do a "retrospective" review six months to a year after a game's been released, and use that as the "real" review.

so... how come you think WKS will flop?

It's just another feeling I have. Same feeling I got with Too Human, Lair, Haze, etc. Now, to be honest, I haven't seen the latest videos from TGS, yet, but the last time I saw gameplay videos, I saw a game that had completely failed to live up to the gameplay promises of its original target video, which is what earned all the attention in the first place. Before TGS, the only reason people were still hyped over WKS was that target video and nothing else, despite the fact that more current videos were available, and that, to me, spells F-L-O-P.

However, as I said, I haven't seen the latest TGS videos, which is why I haven't definitively cla$$ified it as a flop yet.

It's just another feeling I have. Same feeling I got with Too Human, Lair, Haze, etc. Now, to be honest, I haven't seen the latest videos from TGS, yet, but the last time I saw gameplay videos, I saw a game that had completely failed to live up to the gameplay promises of its original target video, which is what earned all the attention in the first place. Before TGS, the only reason people were still hyped over WKS was that target video and nothing else, despite the fact that more current videos were available, and that, to me, spells F-L-O-P.

However, as I said, I haven't seen the latest TGS videos, which is why I haven't definitively cla$$ified it as a flop yet.

mjarantilla

what other possible flops are you predicting?

also what is your opinion about Fable 2?

Mass Effect was lucky to get 8.5.

Uncharted was ****ing robbed. |:

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"][QUOTE="SolidTy"]

[QUOTE="Gamer556"]I'm fine with all those reviews, honestly. R&C was way too linear, TP was a OOT clone (and felt almost as dated), and Mass Effect had terrible side quests.DireToad

The best way to see if these reviews are far off is to compare them to Gamerankings, then to MetaCritic.

The Game(s) that are too far off what those two sites say, may actually be a bigger crime, imo.

I wholeheartedly DISagree.

Reviews from pretty much all sites are far too impulsive when they give out their scores. They review based on immediate impression rather than long-term appeal. Game reviewers need to do a "retrospective" review six months to a year after a game's been released, and use that as the "real" review.

When the biggest name games tend to come out only in the months of October and November, "game of the year" awards tend to be nearly as short-sighted and impulsive as the reviews themselves.

GameSpot used to have an awesome weekly feature called "Greatest Games of All Time" that I felt was very accurate, and GameSpy does a "retrospective" review for multiplayer games, especially MMOs.

You're right that reviews are supposed to tell you what's good and bad right now. The problem is that they don't. Reviewers tend to rely on a good first impression when they decide on a score rather than the overall package and long-term appeal. That's even more true now more than ever since GameSpot switched their reviewing system to 0.5 increments with no breakdown, because now GameSpot reviews are even more susceptible than ever to personal biases and flashes of emotion.