Why do we only use Gamespot for "official" reviews

I come to Gamespot and system wars and other forums for news and information and reviews. I also visit IGN and Teamxbox and 1up and all sorts of other review and news places. I come here because they have the best forums, all different ones (system wars, one for each console and PC) in a nice orderly place, with a high population.

So now that is out the way, on to my point. Any person who relies on one and only one review (unless it is your own) is rediculous. The fact that people (all people, lemmings, cows, chickens and buffalo INCLUDING MODS) say that the official and FINAL word on a game or subject is the review at Gamespot is pure stupidity. Why wouldn't the collaboration of reviews from several sources be the best way as with any kind of rating system, a collaboration is 95% better than a single (ala gamerankings, which is affiliated with cnet networks, which owns gamespot).

Why don't we use Gamerankings as the official word? We don't because we are on the Gamespot forums and therefore reject all other opinions but the ones here? I guess so. Maybe we do it because Casey says so. But I am pretty confident that it is not in the TOS that all opinions that we have must be based soley on the opinions of Gamespot. Doesn't that seem pretty rediculous?

On top of that, we are forced into stickies where we can only discuss this one opinion and not give any of our own or ones that are against or opposite of this "official" review.

So I ask again: Does the fact that we are posting on a Gamespot forum make us so ignorant that we reject all other reviews but those given by this website. And why is one review better or more sound than a collaboration of over 30?

I added a poll so I don't get moderated.

I come to Gamespot....seabiscuit8686

And stop right there. On this site, we use this sites "scores". Wanna use IGN's scores, you can always register there and use their scores on their site. :shock:

If you wanna step it up a notch and become unbiased then you'd use Gamerankings.comwok7

what does using gamerankings have to do with being unbiased?

If you wanna step it up a notch and become unbiased then you'd use Gamerankings.comwok7

So the only way to become "unbiased" is to use Gamerankings? I now see the light!! :shock:

If you wanna step it up a notch and become unbiased then you'd use Gamerankings.comwok7

[QUOTE="seabiscuit8686"]

I come to Gamespot....Magical_Zebra

And stop right there. On this site, we use this sites "scores". Wanna use IGN's scores, you can always register there and use their scores on their site. :shock:

Gamespot has the best forums...but that doesn't mean they have the best or only good reviews.

[QUOTE="wok7"]If you wanna step it up a notch and become unbiased then you'd use Gamerankings.comCaseyWegner

what does using gamerankings have to do with being unbiased?

Gamerankings is not unbiased, it just gives a collaboration. That way we see the overall feel of the industry. It is like doing a scientific experiment. You will have a couple odd results that are often do to error that you can negate as the overall average is generally more technically sound

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

[QUOTE="wok7"]If you wanna step it up a notch and become unbiased then you'd use Gamerankings.comseabiscuit8686

what does using gamerankings have to do with being unbiased?

Gamerankings is not unbiased, it just gives a collaboration. That way we see the overall feel of the industry. It is like doing a scientific experiment. You will have a couple odd results that are often do to error that you can negate as the overall average is generally more technically sound

An aggregation of scores only works correctly if all parties are using the same exact scoring system.

To some publications an average game my score a 5 while at other places it will score an 8 (just an example I just made up).

Isn't the organization of gameratings better. They give you the average of like 30 review sites. That way no one can be like IGN 9.8!! but gamespot only 8.8. It will say overall 9.3 which eliminates the huge variance and gives a better feel for the industry's view on the gameseabiscuit8686

But what if on their respective scales an 9.8 at IGN = an 8.8 at GS?

What does 9.3 mean?

if we use gamerankings, we have to wait until every single source is added to it which can take a long, long time or the score will fluctuate all the time. not only that, gamerankings lumps everything together assuming that all sources use the exact same rating scale when we all know they don't. on top of that, dubious sources are included as well as system specific sources. CaseyWegner

I agree with your point on timing (as we always see in SW, even Edge magazine is considered god if they review a game first) and the fact that less than great places review these games (like spin magazine, come on). But I think that we should come up with a list of 5-10 official reviews and average them on our own. But then again, who would take the time to do that. So I guess maybe you bring up great points.

[QUOTE="wok7"]If you wanna step it up a notch and become unbiased then you'd use Gamerankings.comMagical_Zebra

So the only way to become "unbiased" is to use Gamerankings? I now see the light!! :shock:

Actually, if you go by statistics, using only Gamespot's score to measure anything is literally "biased" (a biased sample, actually) since it's only one source, and going with Gamerankings would be more unbiased since it uses a sampling procedure.

Also, your point on each review sites standards (some have 8 being good and 5 being the worst game ever while some have 8 being pretty bloody good and 5 being average) is definitely true.

The one thing that is getting really annoying though is the people saying this is Gamespot, therefore we must use theirs. Come on. Gamespot has some awesome forums with high populations...IGN and others don't. This is the place to be for this but we all agree (I just generalized and will probably get flack for it) that thier reviews are getting frustrating.

[QUOTE="Magical_Zebra"]

[QUOTE="wok7"]If you wanna step it up a notch and become unbiased then you'd use Gamerankings.comZeliard9

So the only way to become "unbiased" is to use Gamerankings? I now see the light!! :shock:

Actually, if you go by statistics, using only Gamespot's score to measure anything is literally "biased" (a biased sample, actually) since it's only one source, and going with Gamerankings would be more unbiased since it uses a sampling procedure.

Gamerankings does not use a sampling procedure....they just add up all thescores and divide by the number of reviews

That does not make it unbiased.

Yes...

Argue! AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Sure gamerankings sounds like a step in the right direction, but then it comes to...

Which sites should be included to make up the metascore? Sorry... no one will ever... EVER agree on it. It's been debated a gajillion times over with absolutely no resolution. Heck, people have a hard enough time with Gamespot scores, let alone anything else.

But one thing is certain: We are on a Gamespot forum. It's only fair to use the scores from the site that hosts these....."discussions".

It's just a matter of concensus.

[QUOTE="seabiscuit8686"]

I come to Gamespot....Magical_Zebra

And stop right there. On this site, we use this sites "scores". Wanna use IGN's scores, you can always register there and use their scores on their site. :shock:

And that pertty much sums it up.

[QUOTE="Zeliard9"]

Actually, if you go by statistics, using only Gamespot's score to measure anything is literally "biased" (a biased sample, actually) since it's only one source, and going with Gamerankings would be more unbiased since it uses a sampling procedure.

jdp0412

Gamerankings does not use a sampling procedure....they just add up all thescores and divide by the number of reviews

That does not make it unbiased.

They don't add up "all the scores". Only certain scores even make it to the final tally. And they tally up scores. That's the point. Gamespot's score is a lone score and a lone opinion, and if you consistently judge a game based on it alone, then that is biased. And note I said using GR is "more unbiased", not unbiased. And I'm not talking about Gamerankings itself being more unbiased, but rather the act of using it for more accuracy instead of just Gamespot.

To determine if its a bad game or not, Gamerankings.com or own personal opinion. To determine if its a flop, Gamespot. So I'll have to vote yes, but whatever this poll turns out to be, the rules will remain the sameSnowboarder99

My goal was mainly informational and my point was not to change the rules. Casey and others actually brought up some great points and there was more intelligent conversation in here than 90% of the SW threads. I am not afraid to change my mind and I now agree that the use of Gamespot's reviews should be the official way to go as gamerankings just isn't specific enough to be trusted.

[QUOTE="jdp0412"][QUOTE="Zeliard9"]

Actually, if you go by statistics, using only Gamespot's score to measure anything is literally "biased" (a biased sample, actually) since it's only one source, and going with Gamerankings would be more unbiased since it uses a sampling procedure.

Zeliard9

Gamerankings does not use a sampling procedure....they just add up all thescores and divide by the number of reviews

That does not make it unbiased.

They don't add up "all the scores". Only certain scores even make it to the final tally. And they tally up scores. That's the point. Gamespot's score is a lone score and a lone opinion, and if you consistently judge a game based on it alone, then that is biased. And note I said using GR is "more unbiased", not unbiased. And I'm not talking about Gamerankings itself being more unbiased, but rather the act of using it for more accuracy instead of just Gamespot.

But you can't say it is more accurate. That may be true but it may also be untrue.

If site #1 scores a game an 8 and site #2 scores the game a 5 but according to each sites standards8 = 5 you can not average those together to get a more accurate score.

There is a lack of information. I for on believe you should read multiple sites and create your own impression as a simple average can easily be maniupulated.

*EDIT*

As it is many of the sites aggregated use different scoring systems...some round to the nearest tenth, other half (on a scale of 1-10) and still others only use a 5 point scale.

They don't add up "all the scores". Only certain scores even make it to the final tally. And they tally up scores. That's the point. Gamespot's score is a lone score and a lone opinion, and if you consistently judge a game based on it alone, then that is biased. And note I said using GR is "more unbiased", not unbiased. And I'm not talking about Gamerankings itself being more unbiased, but rather the act of using it for more accuracy instead of just Gamespot.

Zeliard9

Ok so how about this. Why dont you register at a site that adds up all the scores and gives a score. Apparently GS is not making you happy with a review system thats obviously not going to change. IGN, Metacritic, Gamepro are all accepting members at this very moment.

But you can't say it is more accurate. That may be true but it may also be untrue.

If site #1 scores a game an 8 and site #2 scores the game a 5 but according to each sites standards8 = 5 you can not average those together to get a more accurate score.

There is a lack of information. I for on believe you should read multiple sites and create your own impression as a simple average can easily be maniupulated.

jdp0412

I know, but that's why I think after a certain number of scores, Gamerankings could be viable. Like maybe setting a 25 review minimum or something. That would probably be enough, especially since most of the crappier sites don't usually (and I do stress usually, not always) review games until a while after the game's been out and after the legit sites review it.

I will say that personally, I like Metacritic the best and more than Gamerankings. I think Metacritic is better and more stringent when it comes to choosing which sites' reviews to allow, actually.

One last thing: We should at least be able to discuss other reviews freely (like we can now). We have become more and more limited recently in what we can post so I hope this will not changeseabiscuit8686

I do agree with that point. However, you can't "write that rule in stone" because as soon as one reveiw comes in with a good or bad score this place errupts. If you can keep the conversation regarding other sites score fairly civil then yes, that discussion should be permitted.

One last thing: We should at least be able to discuss other reviews freely (like we can now). We have become more and more limited recently in what we can post so I hope this will not changeseabiscuit8686

Honestly I dont care what IGN or Metacritic gives a game that GS reviews. I buy ALL my games without the influence of some game site. Ill read the review to see if they noticed little quirks in the game that I may or may not have noticed. If I know Im getting a game, a review will not change it. So no, I dont agree that others sites reviews she be brought up here. Its like going to someone's house for dinner and your complementing or praising a cook from a previous dinner. Its a slap in the face of your host, bottomline.....

I know, but that's why I think after a certain number of scores, Gamerankings could be viable. Like maybe setting a 25 review minimum or something. That would probably be enough, especially since most of the crappier sites don't usually (and I do stress usually, not always) review games until a while after the game's been out and after the legit sites review it.

I will say that personally, I like Metacritic the best and more than Gamerankings. I think Metacritic is better and more stringent when it comes to choosing which sites' reviews to allow, actually.

Zeliard9

There is definatly nothing wrong with using either of those sites as an informational tool to make a better informed descion. My lone argument is that a score on such a site can not be used in the manner scores are used in SW as it is impossible to determine if that score actually conveys more information than the GS score.

just don't bother, and enjoy posting topics within what the majority agrees upon.

here are some tips

1- don't hype: just don't hype and you should be fine. Learn from pc enthusiasts, they don't seem to hype much, hense, they rarely get "pwned"

2- don't upset mods: even if you disagree, they are afterall the law enforcers around here. So read stickies before posting. Notice which topics get locked and avoid posting similar ones.

3- be calm and cool: don't get upset, just look at things from a happy perspective and you'll hopefully enjoy posting and debating :) (actually that applies to life in general as well :) )

If you wanna step it up a notch and become unbiased then you'd use Gamerankings.comwok7

When gamerankings finds the average they turn every score into a percent and then average. For example 4/5 they change to 80%, 8.5 out of 10 is 85%. Also, if one site is usually easy on reviews, and another is usually hard, wouldn't those 2 cancel each other out? There are after all what, 28 other reviews? The larger sample of the media's opinion of a game you look at, the more accurate the score will probably likely turn out to be. Sure some sites with more precise reviewing scales may round up/down, but thats why theres such a large sample, it usually evens out in the end.

[QUOTE="Zeliard9"][QUOTE="jdp0412"][QUOTE="Zeliard9"]

Actually, if you go by statistics, using only Gamespot's score to measure anything is literally "biased" (a biased sample, actually) since it's only one source, and going with Gamerankings would be more unbiased since it uses a sampling procedure.

jdp0412

Gamerankings does not use a sampling procedure....they just add up all thescores and divide by the number of reviews

That does not make it unbiased.

They don't add up "all the scores". Only certain scores even make it to the final tally. And they tally up scores. That's the point. Gamespot's score is a lone score and a lone opinion, and if you consistently judge a game based on it alone, then that is biased. And note I said using GR is "more unbiased", not unbiased. And I'm not talking about Gamerankings itself being more unbiased, but rather the act of using it for more accuracy instead of just Gamespot.

But you can't say it is more accurate. That may be true but it may also be untrue.

If site #1 scores a game an 8 and site #2 scores the game a 5 but according to each sites standards8 = 5 you can not average those together to get a more accurate score.

There is a lack of information. I for on believe you should read multiple sites and create your own impression as a simple average can easily be maniupulated.

*EDIT*

As it is many of the sites aggregated use different scoring systems...some round to the nearest tenth, other half (on a scale of 1-10) and still others only use a 5 point scale.

The worst review sites of all-time.

1. Play

2. Famitsu

3. Gamespot

4. Gamespy

5. 1up

One last thing: We should at least be able to discuss other reviews freely (like we can now). We have become more and more limited recently in what we can post so I hope this will not changeseabiscuit8686

Think of it this way. If Gamespot stopped doing reviews and just focused on previews for games do you think these forums would be anywhere near as active as they are now?

People come to these forums because they anticipate Gamespot's reviews. Gamespot forums, Gamespot reviews.