[QUOTE="jayfi33"]And from a critical standpoint, they basically removed the opportunity to score the game a 9.8, saying it is the best of the series, or a 9.3 saying it is the weakest. I actually dont take much stock in reviews, i just find it curious as to why they altered a system that allowed them to make a distinction like i described above. carolynmichelle

Misconceptions like that are part of why they changed the review system. People would often look at a score for one game that got, say, an 8.4 and then at another game that got maybe an 8.6 and interpret that as if GameSpot was saying that the 8.6 game was unquestionably better than the 8.4 game, when that's just not the case. Both numbers were just GameSpot's way of saying that those are great games.

I understand that GS is saying that all Halo games are superb by having them all score in the mid 9's, but there is no way you can tell me that if you give a game a 9.4 and another game in the same series of games a 9.8 that the 9.8 is not considered a "better" game from a critical standpoint. I think by changing the review system it was a cowardly way out of having to make those kind of decisions. So from now on everything short of perfect will get a 9.5. Ittakes some of the luster/interest/spice (whatever word you'd like to put in there)away from the review system in my opinion.

[QUOTE="jayfi33"]So if they improved on the game it would be higher, lost ground = lower. carolynmichelle

It's not quite that straightforward. You also need to take into account the fact that standards are constantly rising and that it's been a few years now since Halo 2 was released, for instance.

I think it is actually that straight forward. They basically stayed the same. they didnt make a vast enough improvement to call the game perfect. they also didnt do anything to detract from the great formula they had in place.And from a critical standpoint, they basically removed the opportunity to score the game a 9.8, saying it is the best of the series, or a 9.3 saying it is the weakest. I actually dont take much stock in reviews, i just find it curious as to why they altered a system that allowed them to make a distinction like i described above. That is why i think reviewing sequels is an extremely tight rope to walk. I think the reviewer wants to be unbiased by previous installments but how can you when you have a previous work to live up to? the old system would have worked best, especially for a game like Halo 3.

Yes and no. I pretty much know what is gonna intrest me and what isnt.. I skim over a few sites for reviews now but pretty much know what I will and wont buy, and I have wide and varied tastes in games too. Call it my magical power, name any three games that have yet to be released but are to be released soon and I will know enough about them to tell you if its crap or not.GodModeEnabled

I think this is where the argument pretty much begins and ends as far as reviews go. Most everyone has said thatif they are a fan of a particular genre then certain games, regardless of review score, is a no brainer. Like if you are into RPG's you will almost undoubtedly buy Mass Effect. I think reviews matter (maybe matter is the wrong word)more to people with varied tastes who like to experience a bit of everything, like me, but obviuosly you cant buy every game that comes out. I just feel like a review can give you a bias when you are playing because you can actually become more sensitive to an almost unnoticeable flaw that you may not have noticed had it not been pointed out in a review that you many have read/watched. This rarely happens, but when it does i ask myself -"Why the hell do i care about a 1 second hitch in framerate when it only happened 10 or 15 times in 25 hours?" but i guess if a review findsa "flaw", they need to tell you what it is, even something miniscule.

Yes and no.

...........if the vast majority of "qualified" reviewers think it is good, then there is a good chance it is.

Dragonblade01

this is probably the most intelligent thing to do in my opinion. going by one site, or one magazine is just plain shortsighted. I think with the never ending rise in prices for games you actually need a voice of reason. Is a review it? Or should you just bag reviews altogether and rent first? would it make sense to rent Halo 3 or Metal Gear solid 4 -most likely sure fire hits that are worth the price of admission?

A recurring argument at my office, which is a business firm of sorts, is what games will get what review score? It is a fun game to play and we take bets on the big titles and even have a pool for game of the year. If you are a gamer then reviews are pretty much in your face regardless of which website you frequent. the argument then leads to what does that score really mean to you in terms of guidance? Does a 9.5 from gamespot mean you have to buy it, even ifit is something you have never played before? and if you are a fan of a game and you see a 7.0 pop up in a review will it detur you from a purchase, and can a review affectyour enjoyment of a game? My opinion is that a review is merely an interpretation, strictin most cases and subjective to a myriad of criticism. I think it should in no way guide enjoyment but i do think it can prevent a waste of money on ocassion. It is a handy tool in guarding against a bad buy, but if i let reviews govern which games i would buy, there would have been several great titles that i may have avioded, yet were great games in my opinion. There is a guy who works here who wont buy a game unless it scores above a 9.0 on this site. If I suffered fromthis dimentia i would have missed out on several Ratchet and clank titles as well as silent hill sequels, Hitman 2,devil may cry 3, shadow of the colossus, metroid prime 3 (which was great), Dead rising.....i could go on and on.

Let's say you love Resident Evil and next year RE5 gets a 8.0 from gamespot, which in the grand scheme of things is not a bad score. But in the wake of a classic might cause you to question forking over $65 for the game. let's say you never read the review and went straight for your retailer andraced home to kill at will - would you find the game better because you avoided the review?there are too many scenarios to mention but i wanted to get some viewpoints on the argument. Should a review govern your wallet? Does it help/hinder your enjoyment of a game? Should you even look at a review?

Thanks in advance for anyone who contributes to this thread, your input is appreciated.

THERES THREE!!!???mattius1989

i think he meant to type the number 2 and hit 3 in error. Unless i missed something.