Gamespot - what?

[maximilian]

So I've followed Gamespot's reviews for things for a long while now and I'm starting to get a bit skeptical of the quality of their reviews, especially regarding the number score and the actual analysis of the game they give. It seems that often they'll present a video review that is absolutely brilliant, but end up giving the game an "8" for no discernable reasons. Similarly, I can't understand their method of scoring. It appears that they give a 10 to a game like GTA 4 (which I personally found good, but with a few big flaws in the fun - vehicle handling for one) but dog a game like Saints Row 2 because it isn't real enough. I found the fun to be had in SR2 was far superior to the fairly dry experience had in GTA. I'm not saying that SR2 should have been a 10 and GTA should have been an 8, but that both were good in different ways.

Anyone else noticing this stranger and more loose scoring?

 

[Syphonz]

Gamespot is corrupt, they give high scores to hyped games that pay up. And those that don't abide by the rules of bribery, such as in the Kane&Lynch incident, the reviewer will get fired for giving it a proper score like 6.0

Never trust one single reviewing site, they're all corrupt one way or another. It's more reliable to go on google, type in the game title and put 'metascore' afterwards. you click a link and it'll give you a site that averages out the score for the game out of 100 from every game reviewer (IGN, Gamespot, 1UP)..It's a little more reliable, but still, whether the game is any good to YOU is something you have to decide yourself.

 

[CTU_Agent24]

BTW, what ever happened to their meters? like, graphics, sound, gameplay, value, tilt or whatever - they used to have them for each review but they're not present in the latest version of the site

I was wondering that too.
I've hear the same thing about Gamespot to. I wouldn't go as far to say don't believe any of their review, but they do give a better review to a game that 'sponsor' them (eg. GTA).

For example, they gave the first Hitman game 5.5.... Their is no way that game deserves 5.5.

The best thing to do is look at the user review on the right hand side. These are personal reviews by people who visit the site. Otherwise just watch the 'video reviews', gives u an idea of the game.

 

[SimuLord]

Dude, welcome to last year. When CNET's marketing people took over the editorial side on Gamespot it became a pay-for-play.

About the only real way reviews are going to be taken seriously online is if they drop the scoring entirely and rely on the writing to convey whether or not someone should get the game.

/me surreptitiously pockets bribe from Themis Media

 

[Littaly]

Look at the Jedi Knight: Jedi Academy video review. It's so bad it must be a prank.

HEY! Jedi Academy is actually an awesome game!

Of course, it always comes down to taste, which is why only a fool relies on scores when about to buy a game. Read reviews (from non corrupt sites) or ask friends/forums.

 

[Raven28256]

Gamespot's reviews have been degrading since before the Jeff debacle. In the Post-Jeff world of Gamespot, the reviews are even worse. I used to use Gamespot's reviews as one of many ways to determine if I should look more into a game I was unsure of. No more. I'll give you two perfect examples about how crappy Gamespot's reviews are now:

Army of Two. Why was this review so bad? It wasn't a review so much as it was a rant about how bad PMCs and mercenaries are. The writer of the review takes every opportunity to rag on about how evil and corrupt mercenaries are. I don't fucking CARE about your political or moral views; just tell me if the game is worth my time. It doesn't matter that the game itself is pretty underwhelming, the fact that the writer ranted about his personal views on PMCs and TOOK OFF POINTS because of it proves that this jackhole shouldn't be reviewing anything, games or not.

Universe at War. Firstly, the review was about two weeks late. Secondly, you could tell that the writer just played a few skirmish maps and wrote his review. It is sloppy, and the writer shows that he knows absolute jack shit about the game. He complains about the game lacking certain features standard to the RTS genre, even though Universe at War HAS these features. He just didn't take the time to learn all the basics of how to play the game. So when people pointed this out, what did he do? Did he re-review it, taking into account the fact that he took points off because he is too ignorant to learn the game? No, he just edited these parts out and replace it with things he pulled out his ass, like "bad controls." Things he didn't complain about the first time.

Not to mention the fact that, unless the game is really hyped, expect the review two-ten weeks after release. Hell, Gamespot never reviewed the PC version of Frontlines, and that came out in February. Actually, pretty much every game that came out in February-March 2008 didn't get reviewed until late April or early May.

Bottom line: Gamespot has zero integrity as far as I'm concerned. I still use the site, but only to track games, blog, and participate in forums and unions.

 

[TsunamiWombat]

Was Kane & Lynch actually any good? I think I ignored it cause of this review...

 

[Raven28256]

Was Kane & Lynch actually any good? I think I ignored it cause of this review...

Sucked.

Basically. It was mediocre at best.

 

[K_Dub]

Personally I hate games that are reviewed with scores. I understand how it works, and it seems like a good idea on paper, but it overall just isn't a very good system to review with. I think that a better review system is one that tells me if I should skip it, rent it, or buy it. And there's a good chance that Gamestop won't switch to that review system because by keeping the numerical review system they can give all the games in the store a high score, and trick consumers into buying these "highly reviewed" titles when they miserably suck.

 

[Flour]

The sacking of Gerstmann was one of the greatest moments in he history of the industry. I'll never understand why such a talentless hack with such horrible taste had so many "fans". God bless CNET and their editorial meddling.

That said, Gamespot has been a joke ever since they gave Silent Hill 2 a 7.8.

Yeah, Silent Hill deserves nothing higher than a 3.0

There's a reason numerical scores don't work. If I had to review a fighting game, or a game like Silent Hill, it would never rate above a 3.0(for graphics) because I hate both types of games.

As others have said, reviews should just give information about the game, with maybe a recommendation for fans of similar games, not a score based on some invisible list.

 

[DamienHell]

BTW, what ever happened to their meters? like, graphics, sound, gameplay, value, tilt or whatever - they used to have them for each review but they're not present in the latest version of the site

Its easier to give bad reviews to good games and good reviews to bad games if you don't have to justify why.

 

[Gestapo Hunter]

if you want good review go to Game revolution

 

[Flour]

As others have said, reviews should just give information about the game, with maybe a recommendation for fans of similar games, not a score based on some invisible list.

Isn't that what previews and trailers are for?

I agree that the idea of scoring games on a numerical scale is somewhat juvenile. However, I still think there's room for a serious discussion of the merits/flaws of each new release (ideally with genre specialists reviewing the relevant titles). I don't see why games should be exempt from the centuries-old practice of professional criticism.

Previews and trailers often show pre-rendered footage, and if you want you could edit a video in such a way that even Mary Poppins can be a horror movie [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T5_0AGdFic]
There is always room for a good discussion, and nothing should be without criticism.(but seriously.. genre specialist?)

 

[goodman528]

Scoring a game is always flawed way of doing a review.

 

[Grampy_bone]

Of course, it always comes down to taste, which is why only a fool relies on scores when about to buy a game. Read reviews (from non corrupt sites) or ask friends/forums.

I love it when people say this. Basically whenever I hear "Only morons listen to reviews!!!" the person is in denial over their personal favorite game getting shit scores.

I would contest that a fool is someone who doesn't rely on reviews, and instead relies on random garbage sites with questionable content or forums full of raving fanboys. User reviews are no less susceptible to bias than a professional site. When someone buys a game they feel invested in it and its success, and there is a need to validate this investment by getting others to buy in as well, to make them feel more secure in their investment (psychology: Social Proof).

The solution is to treat reviews as an information gathering tool and glean them for the bits which are useful to you. We have a subscription to Official Xbox Magazine and I read their Fable 2 review hoping to learn about the combat. The combat in Fable 1 was awful so this was an important bit of information to me. I don't care about their opinion of this or that, I wanted an in-depth look at the combat mechanics and an analysis of how they work in the context of the game. Needless to say, the OXM review did none of this, only barely touching on the combat in one little paragraph (just to mention that it wasn't very good). I have read many reviews and I get nothing about the combat from any of them except... Gamespot's. Their review is the only one so far which has even come close to providing me with info about how the game actually plays, instead of simply gushing over the feature list like an overblown advertisement.

So while I agree that Gamespot hasn't been doing well lately with the overall quality of their reviews, as an information source they're still ahead of most of the competition. That's how you should treat a review; discard the opinions, just stick to the facts, ma'am.

 

[Flour]

(but seriously.. genre specialist?)

I don't see what's so weird about the idea of a genre specialist. Someone who likes first-person shooters and has knowledge of the genre should be the one to review a first-person shooter. It's especially important with niche genres like strategy RPGs, Beat 'Em Ups and Survival Horror; otherwise, there's a danger the reviewer might not get it [http://uk.ps2.ign.com/articles/738/738253p1.html] (or, worse, may not be able to appreciate/criticise the context of the release).

And I don't mean "previews and trailers" as in stuff which is released twelve or eighteen months before release date - I mean the sort of articles discussing Fallout 3 that have been circulating for the past few months. Everyone is already familiar with the various features, so why turn a review into another press release? If I wanted to know what was in a game I'd look at the back of the box or on Wikipedia.

A genre specialist wouldn't work, there are too many differences within a genre. I mean, it's a good idea, but someone that likes Street Fighter wouldn't like Tekken. So I guess I'm saying a series specialist would be better, with maybe a genre specialist for new games.

The way I see it, reviews should be for people like me, that only know there will be a game called "Fallout 3". Those that want the game already know everything about it, so a review should convince me that the game is worth my money.

I love it when people say this. Basically whenever I hear "Only morons listen to reviews!!!" the person is in denial over their personal favorite game getting shit scores.

I would contest that a fool is someone who doesn't rely on reviews, and instead relies on random garbage sites with questionable content or forums full of raving fanboys. User reviews are no less susceptible to bias than a professional site. When someone buys a game they feel invested in it and its success, and there is a need to validate this investment by getting others to buy in as well, to make them feel more secure in their investment (psychology: Social Proof).

The solution is to treat reviews as an information gathering tool and glean them for the bits which are useful to you. We have a subscription to Official Xbox Magazine and I read their Fable 2 review hoping to learn about the combat. The combat in Fable 1 was awful so this was an important bit of information to me. I don't care about their opinion of this or that, I wanted an in-depth look at the combat mechanics and an analysis of how they work in the context of the game. Needless to say, the OXM review did none of this, only barely touching on the combat in one little paragraph (just to mention that it wasn't very good). I have read many reviews and I get nothing about the combat from any of them except... Gamespot's. Their review is the only one so far which has even come close to providing me with info about how the game actually plays, instead of simply gushing over the feature list like an overblown advertisement.

So while I agree that Gamespot hasn't been doing well lately with the overall quality of their reviews, as an information source they're still ahead of most of the competition. That's how you should treat a review; discard the opinions, just stick to the facts, ma'am.

At least someone that enjoys games isn't going to say "Halo3 is the best game ever, BUY NOW" only to say three months later "Call of duty 4 is the best game ever, BUY NOW".
Only a fanboy(read:idiot) will go around saying that is the best game ever, ignoring all evidence saying something else.

Also, saying "only fools rely on random garbage sites" and then saying that you use gamespot and some xbox advertisement magazine doesn't help you. You're talking about the website that fires reviewers for honest reviews, and complains that metroid, a game series that only experimented with multiplayer once, has no multiplayer. I've looked on gamespot, and the only thing I found for it's combat was

"you're pressing random buttons until you can do combos"

which is a GREAT explanation of it's combat system.

If gamespot has any good information, then my left leg is the queen of France.