Why not just officually use Gamerankings for ratings.

Ok obviously this is Gamespot so the Gamespot rating is the most important rating.  But why can't we just use Gamerankings as the main rating system?  We would simply not use a Gamerankings rating until the Gamespot rating is posted for a particular game.

All the Lemmings are ticked right now because of Crackdown.  This idea is coming from a Sheep.  I don't know anyone who doesn't think that Gamerankings is a great rating system.  When just one person is rating the game there is simply to much room for personal bias.

I agree. I don't know why SW uses a review of a single person to determine if something is a flop or not.16bitkevin

Ok obviously this is Gamespot so the Gamespot rating is the most important rating. But why can't we just use Gamerankings as the main rating system? We would simply not use a Gamerankings rating until the Gamespot rating is posted for a particular game.

All the Lemmings are ticked right now because of Crackdown. This idea is coming from a Sheep. I don't know anyone who doesn't think that Gamerankings is a great rating system. When just one person is rating the game there is simply to much room for personal bias.

Firelore29

Intelligent people already to use Gamerankings as the true score. To pretend Gamespot's score is the only one that matters is akin to saying President Bush is the only world leader who matters on the international scene.Spartan4001

Intelligent people already to use Gamerankings as the true score. To pretend Gamespot's score is the only one that matters is akin to saying President Bush is the only world leader who matters on the international scene.Spartan4001

[QUOTE="Spartan4001"]Intelligent people already to use Gamerankings as the true score. To pretend Gamespot's score is the only one that matters is akin to saying President Bush is the only world leader who matters on the international scene.sdelaney86

Granted, but it's much better than blindly denying the existence of all other information.

[QUOTE="sdelaney86"][QUOTE="Spartan4001"]Intelligent people already to use Gamerankings as the true score. To pretend Gamespot's score is the only one that matters is akin to saying President Bush is the only world leader who matters on the international scene.Spartan4001

Granted, but it's much better than blindly denying the existence of all other information.

Intelligent people already to use Gamerankings as the true score. To pretend Gamespot's score is the only one that matters is akin to saying President Bush is the only world leader who matters on the international scene.Spartan4001

Intelligent people already to use Gamerankings as the true score. To pretend Gamespot's score is the only one that matters is akin to saying President Bush is the only world leader who matters on the international scene.Spartan4001

On this site it is.  When a game like Crackdown gets a 7.8 it's a flop.  If it had gotten a 8 it would not have been.  Zelda got an 8.8 if it had gotten a 9 it would not have been.  Warioware got a 9.1 on GS.  It's barely AA on Gamerankings.

All of those games are rated closer to what they really are on Gamerankings.  There are countless examples of that available.

Intelligent people already to use Gamerankings as the true score. To pretend Gamespot's score is the only one that matters is akin to saying President Bush is the only world leader who matters on the international scene.Spartan4001

Added a poll.

[QUOTE="Spartan4001"]

[QUOTE="sdelaney86"][QUOTE="Spartan4001"]Intelligent people already to use Gamerankings as the true score. To pretend Gamespot's score is the only one that matters is akin to saying President Bush is the only world leader who matters on the international scene.sdelaney86

Granted, but it's much better than blindly denying the existence of all other information.

[QUOTE="Spartan4001"]Intelligent people already to use Gamerankings as the true score. To pretend Gamespot's score is the only one that matters is akin to saying President Bush is the only world leader who matters on the international scene.sdelaney86

why did you add "and this is comming from a sheep?"The Sheep started this whole thing with Zelda..Face it on Gamespot gamespot scores count...but if I want to buy a game ill check Gamerrankingspoopinloop32

Ok obviously this is Gamespot so the Gamespot rating is the most important rating.  But why can't we just use Gamerankings as the main rating system?  We would simply not use a Gamerankings rating until the Gamespot rating is posted for a particular game.

All the Lemmings are ticked right now because of Crackdown.  This idea is coming from a Sheep.  I don't know anyone who doesn't think that Gamerankings is a great rating system.  When just one person is rating the game there is simply to much room for personal bias.

Firelore29

Where were you when the Sheep were getting OWned for Zelda?

No, sorry, isn't going to work.

i think people shudnt try to claim ownage for another site besides Gamespot, after all we are on gamespot, if gamerankings matters then people shud use gameranking forums.

yea i dont mind it when people cite gameranking or IGN etc. But example GOW2 got 9.7 on IGN, but if it gets a 8 on Gamespot even regardless of the IGN score cows get owned.

Hope ya'll get my drift

To stop Lemmings from saying we should use gamerankings instead of Gamespot scores. If we use gamerankings, then: Metroid Prime > Halo Zelda:TP > Gears of WarKaarstein

[QUOTE="Kaarstein"]To stop Lemmings from saying we should use gamerankings instead of Gamespot scores. If we use gamerankings, then: Metroid Prime > Halo Zelda:TP > Gears of Warpoopinloop32

No.

Gamerankings not only shifts over time (bad), but it's always been a sort of tool of last resort. I have no problem if people use it to justify their purchases, but it's not the guidelines for floppage.

When people hype a game on these forums, it's assumed that the score they're hyping it for is the score at Gamespot. Making Gamerankings the official score is a copout that would only be used when a game should really be a flop.
sonicmj1

No.

Gamerankings not only shifts over time (bad), but it's always been a sort of tool of last resort. I have no problem if people use it to justify their purchases, but it's not the guidelines for floppage.

When people hype a game on these forums, it's assumed that the score they're hyping it for is the score at Gamespot. Making Gamerankings the official score is a copout that would only be used when a game should really be a flop.
sonicmj1

Gamerankings is unreliable and shouldn't be used when comparing games.

1. 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".
2. 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.
3. 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?
4. 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.
5. 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?
6. 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.
7. 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.