Let me start off by making it clear that the anti-christ bit at the end was just a joke. After writing a "bible" like some mentioned, I figured I should end the post on a light note.

Not once in Howdy's mediation or my own post did we assume or state that the game starts at ten and is subsequently subtracted from throughout the review. Just because I or him say the game "lost points," that doesn't mean a default score has been suggested. You don't get a default perfect score on a math test either, but if you don't show your work on the exam, the professor will still tell you that you "lost points." The point here is that I and he observed how you stated there was a drawback to the game by attaching a concessionary clause to your concluding remark-one that you're denying the existence of even though you just wrote it and it's staring you right in the face. This attack by you and Sonic seems more like a distraction or a non-sequitur. You're not going for what I or him actually mean and so you resort to a typical knee jerk response that's supposed to make addressing the issue seem like a typical misunderstanding on my and Howdy's part. Your 'doesn't start from 10' response seems to be in the same vein of the usual "standards change" motto.

We both demonstrated very clearly that the language in that excerpt quote of your review makes conflicting suggestions as to what the meaning of God of War 3's "strengths" are. Right after saying it concentrated on the series' prior strengths, you CONCEED, "-but what it lacks in innovation-," before following up with, "-it more than makes up for-," which outright states that it had pitfalls to compensate for that are in direct regards to GoW3's "strengths." And these alleged pitfalls kept you from being motivated to round the score up (note I use adding terminology as opposed to subtraction for your and Sonic's benefit). More succinctly, you assigned a double meaning to the series' "strengths" and designated them as weaknesses in regards to this game. Do I have to go over the bloody etymology to continue clarifying the point? If you're going to further mince meaning on the subject, then I don't know what to tell you except you better be sure to CYA next time and not use such ambiguous language.

And while I'm here: GreySeal is still being tokenly militant, Jg4 is still being preachy and ad hominem, H's repetitious cries of "damage control" have caused the phrase to lose all meaning, and Vaasman: the evidence for his assertion is in the exact same post in which he asserted it. Your oversimplification of the scenario is….Well, it's an oversimplification.

--Chaos SoS

Sorry double post due to error on first attempt.

[QUOTE="Cali3350"]

I expect the 360 version to win in the end. Lots of people playing BFBC2 will want to "try something pretty and new" and more will come from 360 than anything else.

25 hours into the 360 version myself now, pretty damn good game :)

mztazmz

Are some 360 fans really so bothered by the fact that a multiplat is going to sell far better on PS3?

So bothered that you can actually convince yourself that all of a sudden millions of 360 fans are just gonna wake up one day and go buy XIII for no specific reason???

This is about as likely as Modern Warfare 2 all of a sudden selling millions more on PS3 than on 360, for NO REASON WHATSOEVER:roll:

I've been a lurker for quite a while and never made a post before, but I just had the need to speak up this time (hopefully it doesn't get me banned).

I just love how whenever one of the GS staff decides to post, the thread turns into a major love fest. Between McShea's rationalizations, Stevo's passive aggressive trolling (which he tries to pass off as constructive criticism), and the same "9.0 is a good score. Why are you complaining!?" non-sequiturs that plagued the 'GT review of U2' debacle, the pathetic hilarity in this thread has become so prevalent, you could cut it with a knife.

I just finished playing my advance copy of GoW3 and decided that, bearing all factors in mind, I'd comment:

First of all,there's nothing wrong with a 9.0….Unless of course, the score is inaccurate and should have been higher or lower. In this case, I'd say it's definitely the former. More specifically, after having one of the most intensely enjoyable experiences of my gaming career, this game deserved at LEAST a 9.5.

With regards to McShea's review, he has committed one of the most mortal of sins a reviewer could possibly take part in and another that's annoyingly venial. Thus far, none of the GS/GT/EG/GI/etc. staff seems to be above them—with the exception of Kevin Van Ord and all of 1Up whom I always seem to agree with. But following a trend is hardly an excuse for writing a poorly thought out review—that's especially so if it's a particular game that I'd like to see excel in the media.

I think the most outrageous offense to come out of this review was how you, McShea, decided it was okay to start emulating GT reviewer Shane McGlaun's grading criteria by attacking whatever lack of innovation it might have (if such a problem weren't so rampant in the industry, I'd imagine this would have something to do with the "Mc" in your names). I am, of course, referring to grading a game based on whatever amount of innovation/originality applied to it. It has been pointed out numerous times in the past how much this point of view constitutes a fallacy since a game doesn't need to be original or innovative to be considered good or refined or even deserving a perfect score. If such were the case, Modern Warfare wouldn't have the popularity that it does, Halo wouldn't consistently be receiving AAA scores, and MGS4/GTAIV wouldn't have been AAAAs.

In fact, going back to McGlaun, I find it curious how both you and him spout the same lip-service about originality and innovation, and yet your score for Uncharted 2 was higher than his. I realize that GT probably operates on different standards from GS, but I do recall thinking that I respected you as a reviewer moreso than him because you didn't get caught up on a lack of originality anywhere throughout your U2 review; despite having mechanics that originated from last generation's KillSwitch and Red Dead Revolver, you still recognized the game for its merits rather than its similarity to others….And yet, we have this situation with GoW3. Conversely, McGlaun couldn't attack it enough for having online and SP mechanics similar to others throughout this generation…And yet, he gave Halo3 a 9.8. Very interesting.

Anywho, filing away that little nugget of info away for the conclusion: I realize GS—like most other review sites—has an 'innovation and originality' clause attached to its reviewing parameters. However, this stipulation is more easily, and logically, interpreted as a point of additive scoring. That is, rewarding innovation and originality without punishing a lack of it. GTAIV for instance, was not in any way innovative or original: it's a refined product of a pre-established genre birthed by the first game in the GTA series. As such, compared to its predecessors it was considered refined and functional enough to be prime—ditto for MGS4.

Based on these examples, it is effectively proven that innovation and originality within a game is subject to additive scoring according to GS' own policy.

Moving on to the second offense: while I can accept that this game deserves some criticism in the repetition department as Kratos slaughters god after god, it's ridiculous to actually require more criteria with regards to Kratos being RELATABLE when it's thoroughly acknowledged that this game picks up exactly where GoW2 left off; that's what a cliffhanger is for in the first place. This game wasn't about getting people acquainted with Kratos, its about concluding his exploits from the first two games.GoW2 may have needed more padding—which it received—due to GoW's conclusive ending, but since GoW2 was designed to warm up the audience for the third game, there was no need to try and emulate John Byrne and create a story that awkwardly rehashes the previous epics.

Finally, there's the murkiness: God of War 2 is, apparently, more "varied" than God of War 3….What exactly does that mean? That sounds almost as bad, if not worse than, "Platforming elements can be too forgiving," and "Certain story elements are underdeveloped," ala Ryan Davis (another reviewer that's as shady as McGlaun) on the review for Drake's Fortune. These things sound really complicated and edgy to be sure, but they have no substance and are fraught with ambiguity.

Above all else, I believe your review suffers a blatant lop-sidedness. i.e. Your review is not proportionate to the score. This is one of the most aggravating characteristics I've seen exhibited from game reviewers and has served to solidify my general dislike for them and their apparent disingenuousness—I remember being especially upset with Aaron Thomas over this with regards to Heavenly Sword (the review he gave absolutely glowed but it still received an 8.0). You wrapped up your review with "God of War III sticks to the strengths already established by its predecessors, but what it lacks in innovation it more than makes up for in execution.": not only do you refer to GoW III's mechanics as "strengths" (i.e. not weaknesses), but you acknowledge the prevalence of its predecessors that produced both those strengths and the story you claim is too stringy. And to top it off, you say that these alleged drawbacks (the wording you use certainly doesn't suggest as much) are "more than" compensated for. Either you overstated its strengths or you didn't stress its problems enough to properly express how GoW III was barred from receiving the 9.5 – 10 score I find that it truly deserved. Your erroneous observations aside, the review still read like the game was a 9.5 easy. The 9.0 just doesn't make sense for the all the gushing glamour you've offered on this game.

In conclusion, AAA and AAAA games are very curious (and dangerous) things. In one avenue, a game review site is willing to actually state that games of that caliber exist. In another, whenever they're assigned to any game, they bring to light the flaws and inconsistencies within the rating system and the staff itself. This would usually lead one to believe that there is either a common ineptitude about the industry or a prevalent bias that's polluting the review trough. In the case of Shane McGlaun, I maintain that he—and all of GT—are apparently biased in favor of Microsoft. His malevolent backhandedness towards U2 throughout his review with regards to originality reeked of bitterness produced by someone who was grudgingly forced to acknowledge a PS3 game's quality. It was only up until that point in his reviewing career that he finally stressed any sort of regard for originality and innovation; supposing he had operated on the same standards with his reviews on Halo3 or even Gears of War 2, they simply would not have scored as high as they did. As it stood, McGlaun resorted to the "originality" card and proceeded to give Uncharted 2 a "safe" score of 9.3. Low enough to keep the game just under his more favored brand's review scores, but high enough to make the bias reviewer's intent adequately ambiguous and motivate people to say, "It's a good score. Why are you complaining?" to whomever recognizes it to be inaccurate.

But in the case of GT where I honestly believe that the staff is bias in favor of the 360, I think that GS is so desperate to maintain an aura of exclusiveness and being unbiased that it budgets 9.5s and 10s regardless of whether or not a game comes along that truly deserves them. Instead of handing out an accurate score, they go with a "safe" score like 9.0. And I'm compelled to believe that-that's exactly what happened here. In fact, I'll go so far as to say that's exactly why they eliminated the 100 point system: so no one will believe that they're ever consciously pulled a Shane McGlaun.

I don't think you, McShea, are like McGlaun in that your bias. But I do think you regurgitated a "safe" score as opposed to the real score that God of War III deserved.

To wrap it up McShea, you're the antichrist and GS is the Devil. But don't worry: Aaron Thomas is still a far bigger wretch than you. And that makes him…..I don't know…..Beelzebub?

--Chaos SoS