Why doesnt GS review the same game with more than one reviewer?

Since many sheep are screaming foul at scarfaces review like they were at zeldas.

Why dont gamespot do what EGM does and have more than one reviewer review each game, so no one blames a single guy (who has his own opinions BTW) for giving a bad review.

I mean if 1 of the 3 reviews is totally opposite to the others, obviously there is plenty bias there or again, OPINIONATED.

IF all 3 rate a game bad or good it actually means they think its bad or good so no one should cry foul.

I think this is the best way to shut up complainers of any console and game.

Because it takes far more resources to put three staff members on each game.

Because it takes far more resources to put three staff members on each game.

Bill_McBlumpkin

well duh lol, i kinda meant it would be a great thing though.

Because it takes far more resources to put three staff members on each game.

Bill_McBlumpkin

I think I'd rather have one definite score than three mixed scores.nyoroism

or u can add them up and come up with an average :P . math is what us asians do best ;)

One person writes the review, but every member of the GS staff reads it.TyrantDragon55

well if it gets moderated liek that then why are sheep blaming Jeff for being bias, obviously then gamespot agrees with him.

[QUOTE="Bill_McBlumpkin"]

Because it takes far more resources to put three staff members on each game.

mjarantilla

I actually prefer it this way.

I prefer to find two or three reviewers (don't care who they work for) with tastes mostsimilar to my own. I tend to read their reviews for games I'm interested in. Same with movies, I prefer reading Peter Travers reviews far more than I do Ebert and Roeper's (even though they offer mutliple perspectives.) For myself having multiple scores averaged into onemutant scorewould be needless and confusing, far less useful than finding one reviewer I really trust.

And Famitsu is absolutely useless to me, I don't read Japanese. Scores are useless, they're greatas talking points on silly forums like this one... but for games that I care about I don't consider the numerical rating at all relative to how much weight I put in theactual body of the review.

[QUOTE="TyrantDragon55"]One person writes the review, but every member of the GS staff reads it.Dane_cook_SuX

well if it gets moderated liek that then why are sheep blaming Jeff for being bias, obviously then gamespot agrees with him.

Because fanboys off all kinds love to whine when something doesn't go their way.

[QUOTE="Dane_cook_SuX"]

[QUOTE="TyrantDragon55"]One person writes the review, but every member of the GS staff reads it.TyrantDragon55

well if it gets moderated liek that then why are sheep blaming Jeff for being bias, obviously then gamespot agrees with him.

Because fanboys off all kinds love to whine when something doesn't go their way.

THANK YOU FOR STATING THAT

Both money (you gotta pay someone to do this work, and it takes time away from other things) and the amount of unecessarity of it. Besides, how confusing and pointless would SW become? "Review 1 says blah"..."NO!!, review 2 says counter blah!!". All reviews are biased and opinionated, it is your job to filter through it all and decide what the truth is.