Lets have a real discussion here. I'm not going to name games or sites or put any blame on anyone. But why do people act like it is impossible? Considering that video game journalism isn't as prestigious or regulated there are very few standards that have to be met.

And if prominent newspapers like the New York times can be liberally biased and news channels like fox news have a bit of a conservative bias...how can you not expect there to be bias and allegiances in video game journalism?

slystallion26

Reviewers are definitely biased and that is fine as long as they are clear about what those biases are and they are game based not system based. Some people prefer certain types of games, are baised towards futuristic settings, are biased to games with a rapid pace etc etc. Gamespot has a definite bias towards epic movie-like games, which is fine. Just as long as there isn't any inherent bias against or for a game based on what system it is for then I am happy. In general this holds true at gamespot, but not always.

And gamers wonder why they can't get games accepted as art.

Mona Lisa - great painting but on returning two months later it still looks the same. I can only look at it for 20 to 30 minutes at a time. Not worth the price of admission to the Louvre.

Godfather - unfortunately this movie doesn't hold up to repeat viewings as the plot and characters remain the same. At $15 for a 3 hour experience it is overpriced. Would score a point higher if it sold for $5.

Macbeth - Great plot and character development, unfortunately it is over far too quickly and the twists at the end were far to obvious. Far too short to be a great piece of art, although it scores higher as it is included in a bundle of other plays for a reduced price.

I may not agree with his R&C review but he has point here, why are people(sheep) still supporting Nintendo?

trizzle_a

Hopefully this is someone else and not a gamespot reviewer as that was some remarkable fanboy drivel.

He spouts the usual fanboy arguments, concedes that there are good games but then decides that none of them are for him, and the only one that might be good he hasn't played because he somehow forgot about it and because it has a story. His arguments against the VC are pretty crazy as it is unlikely that any normal person is going to have the majority of the good games for all the systems including the neo-geo, PC engine plus imports that were never released in the US. However, he would definitely play these never released in the US games that he owns again on the Wii if they had new textures!

Resident Evil 4.Sants412

As we all know there has been a lot of flopping going on lately. The Wii's big titles have been struggling to meet there hype, and I won't even get into the PS3.

But then you look at the 360..... TWO games have flopped, neither which of was even hyped AAA. And remember the 360 has been out twice as long which means 2x as much time to rack up flops. But is hasnt. Only 2 games flopped, These 2 games being Crackdown which missed its hype by .2 and Blue Dragon(6.0) However when you compare these 2 non major games to the number of other 360 AAEs and AAAEs, you see that there is a world of difference between the ratio of 360 quality games to flops. Perhaps other developers should follow in these footsteps and delay there games if necissary to meet expectations.

360 Flop rate: 10%

Wii Flop rate: 50%

PS3 Flop rate: 90%

EDIT

Lets also compare the top 3 highest profile relases on each console

Wii:

Legend of Zelda TP: FLOP

Metroid Prime 3: FLOP

Super Paper Mario: FLOP

PS3:

Heavenly Sword: FLOP

Lair: MEGA FLOP

R&C: FLOP

360:

Halo3: AAA

Gears of war: AAA

Forza 2: AAA

novasypder77

If use "flop rate" for any kind of desicion about consoles then you are pretty stupid. A flop means that gamespot scored a game lower than that predicted in the system wars internet forum. If no-one hypes a single game for a console then it would have zero flops. If people think that every game on a console is going to suck then it will have zero flops even if all but a few of its games are crap.

Stick to judging by the actual quality of titles, flops are just for making fun of people, an 8.5 flop is rated just as good as an 8.5 non-flop.

Incosistency (Their review scores don't match up with the written part often and trying to compare review scores makes you scratch your head often)

MikeE21286

This is my biggest problem. People can definitely have different tastes and have their own opinions (I don't think Warioware is a AAA quality game, the reviewer on gamespot did) but if you review a game in such a way as to imply that it is a good but flawed game then it should have a score that reflects that.

Game scores are basically the gaming equivilant of baseball stats, used by nerds to try and quantify something that is inherently unquantifiable. I wish they would switch to a 5 star rating (like most movies) or even do away with ratings altogether (like book reviews). I am probably the only person on this board who thinks that gamespots switch to a .5 system is a good idea however.