The new Gamespot's rating system isn't that new, but I have only realized today, that I really don't like this method. In some profiles and forum posts I saw people complaining about the editors method to rate the games in their reviews, and there are even petitions for Gamespot's members to sign, which clearly shows the disagreement of most of the people that contributes to this gaming website.

Of course that when there's disagreement there's agreement so, I also saw some people that enjoyed the new reviewing method, but still with a few complaints like the fact that, in this new system, people can't rate one game better than other when the two have a very close score given by them. This is due to the fact that you can only rate the game choosing 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, and so on.... So if you want to express that a game is better than the other but, still not much better, you can't. For example, if a gamer thinks a game deserves 8.4 and another 8.7, you'll have to choose 8.5 for the two because the best game didn't make it to the 9 in the reviewer's opinion. This is bad for the reviewers and for the players that read the reviews because it will not give them a clear sense of how the other one thinks about the product.

The bad aspect that most annoys me is that you can't rate the game's different characteristics like in the previous rating system. Before, the way you rated the graphics, the gameplay, the sound, the value and the Tilt (overall experience with the game) influenced the score that the game would have in the final review, which for me was great, but now I can't do that and writing a review ends up being a little boring, because of the lack of aspects that made the old review method way more fun and better. I really enjoy writing reviews and for me it's a shame that Gamespot changed the review system so suddenly without asking the player's opinion.

The rating system also features a new addiction: the introduction of emblems. Although this may seem interesting first, it has nothing special and, in my opinion, players don't want to know if this game is shallow or of it has a good voice acting. They want to know the site's opinion about the major aspects that make a game good or bad. I always keep trying to find new old reviews to know what score the reviewer gives to aspects present in the last RS. In the actual reviews I only read them to know the score and nothing more. Coming back to the emblems, couldn't Gamespot retire them and put them in the good and bad features? I say this because most of what the emblems say is also in the game's goods and bads. With this they become almost completely useless and you'll find yourself reading the same thing in two different parts of the review.

I developed my rating system, and by doing this, I feel that I'm giving the players what they want in a review and also, I want them to know about my overall experience with the game without even reading the text. I don't like to read the text review because I want to play the game without knowing what to find in it. Sure there are more people out there like me and due to Gamesopt's RS; players will not have a clear idea of the game unless they read the complete review. It clearly ends up being less fun to explore the various reviews without staying only with the score that could be the same on another game. I can't still understand the why of so little variety in the scores. Can anyone please tell me?

I really think Gamespot is one, if not the best, website about games and gaming community. It is easy to navigate and has the best features for a player to register and have fun talking to other people and making new online friends, but that fun has slightly been reduced due to the innovation (or not) of its reviewing system, that clearly is bad, what makes the reviews poorer, making that the player doesn't get the truly ideas of the reviewer and of what the game can really offer. If you agree with me please, express your opinion.

If you go to http://www.capcom-unity.com/ you'll see a countdown reaching zero in October 17th (my birthday) and a saying"prepare yourself". Sure Capcom is planning something big for us.

Visiting a Portuguese game-themed website, I saw an article that says that Capcom big surprise is probably the announcement of a new game franchise called Dark Void, apparently for the PS3. This was discovered by entering in the United States patent and trademark office.

I'm sure we are all looking forward for the big announcement, so October 17th, be prepared!

Did you ever noticed, that a big part of modern and upcoming games are concentrating all the game's potentialities in the online mode? I did and due to this I got to ask a question: Will players like me, that now don't play online, be "harmed" by the wave of online games that is coming?

The first-person shooters are one of my favourite type of games, although, I don't have many of them. I want to start playing this type of games often, but everywhere I look, I only see online and more online. The PS2 is not a good platform for this genre, what makes the choice much more difficult. Good FPSs like Soccom or Time Splliters are good games but, the single player mode is short and all its goods are in the online mode. Playing for 6 or 8 hours and then don't enjoying the games greatest parts is frustrating for me that I'm a gaming lover.

The next-gen games like Halo 3 are most concentrated in the online than in the main story, what makes of this one and of many other games to come worth only for online players. With this measure, developers may loose money and time, because it's risky to concentrate only in the online, when many only single player gamers are out there waiting for a good game that probably they will not be able to play. That makes me sad assuming that, when I get online it will be too late to play an online game that I enjoyed because, there won't be any players playing that particular game due to a more recent release.

What I think developers should do is to separate the online mode and the single player mode, like in Metal Gear Solid 3: Subsistence. With this measure, publishers and all the team working in the game might earn more cash than they would win joining the two games on a DVD/CD. If they do their jobs right and release a good game sure they would have more profit but still, investing more money for disks maybe would make them having less advantages. If they add plenty of extra content and make the single player mode longer, sure the players will be more pleased with the final product. Another option is to make to different games: one online and other not online.

Maybe it's too late to put my PS2 online, but I would like to appreciate the games, either they are online or not. Finishing, I really think developers should put on their minds that online gaming is not for everybody or otherwise, the investment might be in vain.

Hi guys. I find myself with nothing to do so I decided to write my wish list in order of wanting. All because of the Swap disc that, I hope getting until the end of the month. So here it is:

1 - Metal Gear Solid 3

2 - Final Fantasy XII

3 - Rogue Galaxy

4 - Devil May Cry

5 - Mercenaries

6 - Okami

7 - Bully

8 - Devil May Cry 2

9 - Onimusha: Warlords

10 - Final Fantasy X-2

When I first started visiting websites about games, I concentrated only on PS2 games so, among the highest rated games I saw God of War. I was not very impressed with the game, but with all those high ratings and good-talking reviews, I felt the game worth looking.

As Iprogressed through the game, I was not impressed with it and when I finished it I asked myself "What is the fuzz about this game?". I played it again in God mode, but it was so hard and frustrating that all the fun had just disappeard, taking place all the anger inside me. As you can see in my review of the game, I rated God of War with a 9, but it was just because of the outstanding graphics, the amazing soundtrack and the variated gameplay, because the rest of the game doesn't have "spirit". What I want to say is thatthe overall game is poor and will not make youe xcited and thrilled with the story and the brutal and blasting gameplay, that consists basicaly in furiously killing anmd killing many enemies.

The characters are bad, mainly Kratos, that despite of his cruel past, doesn't have the story and neither the characteristics to be a liked video game character, in my opinion. He's just one disturbed red and white guy, who kills without mercy and due to his mistakes, does everything the Gods tell them to do.

Another aspect that I didn't liked, was the environment of the game or how it felt seeing the greek cities and temples. I personaly don't like games set in early ages, but for egxample I enjoyed Prince of persia, in which the environments were rich and wonderful. In God of War I didn't get its"magic", despite they were graphically the bests in the PS2. It just felt they were just one more scenario were Kratos would kill dozens of monsters.

I didn't enjoyed playing God of War, but I will buy and play the second one to see if the content not present in the first game will be there, although, I have the same expectations for this game as for the first one and I hope it won't disappoint me, because God of War 1 ends up being "All flash, no substance".

I was seated in my chair looking to the computer screen and listening to All-American rejects, when I decided to write about one of my favourite video game series, Jak&Daxter, the was basically the main reason I bought my PS2 and, as I entered to the Jak and Daxter union, it felt quite appropriate.

I first became captivated by this series, when I saw a publicity poster announcing Jak II, in a bus stop near my town. In the following days I convinced my mom to give me a Playstation 2, with a little help from a guy (André) working near my house. I knew about Jak II, but I didn't knew what the previous game was, so André told me that he had Jak&Daxter, because he got a PS2 too. So he lend me the game and I loved it. It had the best graphics I had ever seen in my life and all the fun a game needed to have. I played it over and over again for at least 5 times.

Then, André buyed Jak II, the most awainted game of my life. As he progressed through the game he was telling me what he did in it and when he finished it I couldn't wait until he was lending it. I counted every second and when I was not expecting, I came home one day and the game was there. I eated fast, jumped to my room and started playing it. It was even better than the first, now with weapons, more action and more fun than never. When I finished it I wanted even more. I couldn't wait until Jak 3.

This time, I bought Jak 3, that came with a Pizza promotion (weird!!), so after a fantastic week playing it until the very last second, I was amazed by its greatness and it is definetly the best game of the series. The graphics are not very refined as of the ones of the other two games, but Jak 3 delivered the most impressive adventure of the trilogy.

Next Jak X. I got the game when it came out, with special New year's discount, (after a lot of work convincing my mom). It had a few defects, but it delivered the same action and fun like the 3 previous games.

It's late. so I'll be brief: I hope that there will be another Jak because if there is, I will buy a PS3 just to play it.

Bye,_overdose

Lately, one of the topics that i've seen mostly discussed is that the PS2 is "dead", this means if is it still worth the purchase. So I want to express my opinion.

Honestly i think the PS2 has still a lot to give to people like me, that don't constantly keep buying games and just get them from month to month or maybe more time. For those who have over 80 or 100 games and if they played the most loved games like Devil may cry or Metal gear, the PS2 has almost nothing to offer them. For those players who haven't played a lot of games and if they think the next-gen consoles are to expensive, the PS2 as plenty to offer until the the prices low. Still, if your PS2 brakes down, I don't think it's a good investiment to buy another one.

I will keep playing this console for a long time because there are so many games to try and now that I'm getting a swap DVD I will be able to play plenty of them. If you wan't to enjoy your PS2 to its maximum you should think of this option too.

Bye, _overdose

The last 3 reviews that I wrote were for the three Prince of Persia games and now, i think it's time to review them together.

The Sands of Time

This is probably one of the most innovative games ever. It was more enjoyable too see than to play. The Prince's acrobatic moves were awesome and the atmosphere of the game made the players feel attracted to it. The gameplay was not very variated but still, extremely fun, the visuals were amazing, the music was gorgeous and the story was interesting and captivating. It was one of the most highlighted games of 2003, and people had reasons to do that. This game is amazing.

Warrior Within

One thing that you can notice, by just looking to its cover is the more mature and darker tone. The good and gentile Prince that people knew from TSOT was no longer to see and know, an angrier and brutal Prince was there. There were new addictions to the gameplay: a brand new combat system with more deadly combos. The Persian environments were replaced by dark-gothic scenarios, giving the game a brand new ton. The soundtrack had now heavy- metal songs, that accentuated the new mature content. The story was good and quite appropriate. This game is more thrilling and more action-packed but also gives the players a feeling of playing another different game than Prince of Persia. The overall game wasn't bad, but its charm had simply disappeard.

The Two Thrones

In the last game of the series, new gameplay mechanics were implemented, and it worked very well. The game returned to its "origins", now with the Persian scenarios coming back and more beautiful than never. The soundtrack was also back, returning to the game all it's magic, making of it, in my opinion, the best game of the series. This game had elements from the two previous games that were integrated almost perfectly. The only thing that I didn't enjoyed was the ending, witch was very poor.

Best gameplay: The Two Thrones

Best visuals: Warrior Within

Best sound: The Sands of Time

Best story: The Sands of Time

Overall score: 9

I recently started writing reviews for games, one thing that i found out being highly addictive. I just can't stop writing them, so i want to say a thing to you.

I'm trying to find a way to improve my reviews, so i decided to divide them in categories, like the old gamespot's reviews. But i wanted to add more parameters, so in my reviews like Jak II or Tekken 5, the review is divided in 13 or 14 parameters. Now the actual number is of 8 (in some cases 9), but i haven't wrote any review with this new number.

The only thing want to tell you is to stay alert to my next reviews, comment them (for good and for bad) and give suggestions of how to improve them.

Thanks, _Overdose