Games not getting reviewed.

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by Bigboi500 (30964 posts) -

Like Code of Princess on 3DS

Zero Escape: Virtue's Last Reward on 3DS

Rune Factory: Tides of Destiny on Wii

Rune Factory: Frontier on Wii

Assassin's Creed 3 on PS3

What's going on?

#2 Posted by nintendoboy16 (27887 posts) -
Let's be fair here, no critic, be it one person or one site can review EVERYTHING.
#3 Posted by kkee (1728 posts) -

I find it frustrating when games like Assassin's Creed III and MOH: Warfighter get reviewed on the PC/Xbox 360 but not on PS3. I understand why the reviews are up first (publishers only send out those copies), but in cases like the Borderlands DLC, which never got a PS3 review, it's a bit hard to understand why.

#4 Posted by michaelP4 (16680 posts) -
Apart from technicalities, I doubt there's hardly a difference between AC3 on the PS3 and 360. The review for the 360 would be sufficient enough. See here for the official GS answer to your question. And as another user already said, it's impossible for GS to cover every single game that comes out. No site has ever reviewed every single game. So they must prioritise. I could tell you of many little known and unpopular games that GS has never reviewed.
#5 Posted by c_rakestraw (14775 posts) -

GameSpot only has so many reviewers. Can't review everything. Have to prioritize on what the readership is mostly likely interested in reading about.

I find it frustrating when games like Assassin's Creed III and MOH: Warfighter get reviewed on the PC/Xbox 360 but not on PS3. I understand why the reviews are up first (publishers only send out those copies), but in cases like the Borderlands DLC, which never got a PS3 review, it's a bit hard to understand why.kkee

A matter of not having the time, no doubt. Again, it all comes back to GameSpot not having many reviewers on staff. Have to often ask yourself whether reviewing the same thing on multiple platforms is worth it when that's time that could be spent reviewing another game altogether.

#6 Posted by kkee (1728 posts) -

GameSpot only has so many reviewers. Can't review everything. Have to prioritize on what the readership is mostly likely interested in reading about.

[QUOTE="kkee"]I find it frustrating when games like Assassin's Creed III and MOH: Warfighter get reviewed on the PC/Xbox 360 but not on PS3. I understand why the reviews are up first (publishers only send out those copies), but in cases like the Borderlands DLC, which never got a PS3 review, it's a bit hard to understand why.c_rake

A matter of not having the time, no doubt. Again, it all comes back to GameSpot not having many reviewers on staff. Have to often ask yourself whether reviewing the same thing on multiple platforms is worth it when that's time that could be spent reviewing another game altogether.

I totally agree and understand that, I'm not saying someone should play through Assassin's Creed III twice in a matter of days, it's totally crazy. However, there surely must be some variety on which platforms the multiplatform games are then reviewed. If Warfighter has been rated on PC and 360, that to me means someone has near enough played through the entire game on both formats to be able to make an honest assessment that the same review can be attributed to both, but who/when/why does the decision get made to only review on those two platforms? If this is the policy going forward, and I ultimately have no problem with it, I would fully expect to see games like Bioshock Infinite, Black Ops 2, GTA V, MG Rising and many more reviewed only on PS3 or PC, or both, or Xbox 360 and PS3 etc. I just saying there needs to be variety on which platforms are and aren't reviewed.

#7 Posted by Bigboi500 (30964 posts) -

IGN and Gametrailers review almost everything, so Gamespot needs to hire more reviewers if they want to be considered to be in the same league with those guys. I also think it's pretty lame to just review popular and casual games first and foremost, probably because they bring in the most advertising dollars for the website.

#8 Posted by michaelP4 (16680 posts) -
Again, the who, when and why of those decisions being made are answered in that link. And sure, certain games there will be differences and they are usually taken into account. Ideally I'd want all games to be reviewed but I realise that isn't practical, so I'd much rather have the system of prioritising we have now. Most games that I play and catch my attention to be fair are reviewed. The games that aren't, such as a few Dynasty Warriors games I can usually predict what is going to be said anyway, which is why they aren't reviewed.
#9 Posted by jsmoke03 (13125 posts) -
[QUOTE="michaelP4"]Apart from technicalities, I doubt there's hardly a difference between AC3 on the PS3 and 360. The review for the 360 would be sufficient enough. See here for the official GS answer to your question. And as another user already said, it's impossible for GS to cover every single game that comes out. No site has ever reviewed every single game. So they must prioritise. I could tell you of many little known and unpopular games that GS has never reviewed.

actually synthia replied to my thread because A 360 REVIEW IS NOT SUFFICIENT IF YOU DO NOT OWN A 360. with games like skyrim and bayonetta, each version of the game has to be reviewed since frame rate dips and glitches could differentiate the experience of the games. its why they don't apply scores to every platform based on reviewing it on one platform, but review it for every version or leave it alone.... with that said, the ps3 version mostly gets the secondary priority in reviews...usually a week or 2 later
#10 Posted by jsmoke03 (13125 posts) -

GameSpot only has so many reviewers. Can't review everything. Have to prioritize on what the readership is mostly likely interested in reading about.

[QUOTE="kkee"]I find it frustrating when games like Assassin's Creed III and MOH: Warfighter get reviewed on the PC/Xbox 360 but not on PS3. I understand why the reviews are up first (publishers only send out those copies), but in cases like the Borderlands DLC, which never got a PS3 review, it's a bit hard to understand why.c_rake

A matter of not having the time, no doubt. Again, it all comes back to GameSpot not having many reviewers on staff. Have to often ask yourself whether reviewing the same thing on multiple platforms is worth it when that's time that could be spent reviewing another game altogether.

so gamespot is saying that ps3 owners arent the priority with not having an ac3 review score?
#11 Posted by c_rakestraw (14775 posts) -

I totally agree and understand that, I'm not saying someone should play through Assassin's Creed III twice in a matter of days, it's totally crazy. However, there surely must be some variety on which platforms the multiplatform games are then reviewed. If Warfighter has been rated on PC and 360, that to me means someone has near enough played through the entire game on both formats to be able to make an honest assessment that the same review can be attributed to both, but who/when/why does the decision get made to only review on those two platforms? If this is the policy going forward, and I ultimately have no problem with it, I would fully expect to see games like Bioshock Infinite, Black Ops 2, GTA V, MG Rising and many more reviewed only on PS3 or PC, or both, or Xbox 360 and PS3 etc. I just saying there needs to be variety on which platforms are and aren't reviewed.kkee

Hard to say. Could just be a result of being in the middle of review season (as the press lovingly calls this time of year). Also a matter of what versions they receive ahead of time. Publishers, unfortunately, aren't kind enough to send out copies for each version well before release. I imagine that's usually the deciding factor in which versions are reviewed.

with that said, the ps3 version mostly gets the secondary priority in reviews...usually a week or 2 laterjsmoke03

Publishers usually send out 360 versions first, hence why that platform gets the review first.

so gamespot is saying that ps3 owners arent the priority with not having an ac3 review score? jsmoke03

Put yourself in their position: if you were in the midst of the busiest time of the year for video games, would you think it worthwhile to spend time thoroughly reviewing every single version of a game, epsecially when retail code usually doesn't arrive too far in advance of the game's release? I'd say no. Or at the very least that it would have to fall on the backburner whlie I handle other games in the meantime.

I'd bet Kevin is trying to work through the PS3 version of Assassin's Creed 3 as quickly as he can. Not easy to do when you're not just reviewing games.

#12 Posted by c_rakestraw (14775 posts) -

IGN and Gametrailers review almost everything, so Gamespot needs to hire more reviewers if they want to be considered to be in the same league with those guys. I also think it's pretty lame to just review popular and casual games first and foremost, probably because they bring in the most advertising dollars for the website.Bigboi500

Yeah, because it's as easy as hiring more writers. Sure.

If it really were that simple, wouldn't you think they'd have done so already?

#13 Posted by Bigboi500 (30964 posts) -

[QUOTE="Bigboi500"]IGN and Gametrailers review almost everything, so Gamespot needs to hire more reviewers if they want to be considered to be in the same league with those guys. I also think it's pretty lame to just review popular and casual games first and foremost, probably because they bring in the most advertising dollars for the website.c_rake

Yeah, because it's as easy as hiring more writers. Sure.

If it really were that simple, wouldn't you think they'd have done so already?

Honestly I think they're just being cheap because it's been like this for years. Them not upgrading their glitch-ridden super old servers when every other gaming website has, should be proof enough of that.

#14 Posted by michaelP4 (16680 posts) -
If GS was cheap, you wouldn't have the vast amount of daily content that you have here immediately available. And the forums are a separate matter. Apart from the technicalities, I don't really see what the problem is. It's still the same game. If anything, if GS is inadequate as a few users here say, then why not take it into your own hands? Review those specific versions of the games, compare and contrast etc then let everybody know about it.
#15 Posted by DigitalDame (4339 posts) -


Sorry about the massive block of text incoming....

IGN and Gametrailers review almost everything

Bigboi500

But they don't review everything, it's not a realistic expectation. For example we reviewed
Liberation Maiden, Lucius, FTL: Faster Than Light, and Shad'O where as some of the other sites you mentioned did not.

As far as the review process is concerned there are several factors that first have to be realized:
Receiving the game, beating the campaign, playing the multiplayer and other modes, write, publish -- all this can take as little as a day (short game, short DLC) or over two weeks (MMOs), but I'd say average time it takes to review is is 4-6 days.

I asked staff to chime in on the subject:

Soooo....
why don't we review for every platform always? Because we have limited time and resources.
When publishers send us games early, it helps us get the review up on time. But they don't always send every platform.
So the reviewer works on that one platform. We try to go purchase the other platforms when it launches and dedicate time to them. But that isn't always possible, time-wise we have four core reviewers on staff, and through other editors and freelancers also write reviews, we still have a limited talent pool. Games come out so frequently these days that we often deem it better to put resources towards reviewing another game, rather than spending time playing an already-reviewed game on multiple platforms. By often prioritizing new games, we can cover a broader range of games and sometimes bring cool, smaller stuff to our readers' attention that they (or we) might otherwise miss.

Chris Watters - GameSpot Editor



Our resources don't allow us to review every game released at any given time. We must consider aspects like how much time the game might take to play, how far in advance we received it, who the best reviewer is for a given game, and whether the audience has demonstrated interest. Meanwhile, factors the audience may never consider may also be involved: whether a staff member is sick or on a well-deserved vacation, whether the game was given to us on retail or debug (there are limited numbers of debug units), whether staff members are at an events, and whether a freelancer might be working on the same game for a different outlet (in which case, they cannot write the review for us too.)

Kevin Van Ord - GameSpot Senior Editor

I wanna strongly point out DEMONSTRATED INTEREST. We write about the things the community shows interest about.
#16 Posted by DigitalDame (4339 posts) -


On the subject of why we review games for X platform but not Y other sites often simply re-post what they said for one system verbatim for what they said in a different, same score, same text, same everything. We try not to do that.

I asked another GameSpot editor for their feed back:


Sometimes publishers furnish us with copies of the game on one console long before they send us the game on another. So we might get the 360 version many days or weeks before we get the PS3 version, for instance (if they end up sending us other versions at all). Some sites will publish a review for a game on all platforms despite only playing the game on one--for instance, basing a review for the PS3 and 360 versions of a game on experience with just the PS3 version. We don't do that, and unless we've had adequate time with the game on a certain platform we won't post a review for it on that platform. In the event that we get a game on one platform later than on the other, we try to find the time to test it out and get a review up, but there are times where other, more pressing assignments come along and we don't end up finding the time to get a review up for every version of a game.

Carolyn Petit - GameSpot Editor


I also think it's pretty lame to just review popular and casual games first and foremost, probably because they bring in the most advertising dollars for the website.

Bigboi500


While yes, we do tend to review games that people want reviews for, we also have reviewed a large number of titles that by no means fall under the "popular" or "casual" label.

Transcripted
Tryst
I am Alive
They Bleed Pixels
Snapshot
Botanicula
Capsized
Edge

Just to name a few.


Honestly I think they're just being cheap because it's been like this for years. Them not upgrading their glitch-ridden super old servers when every other gaming website has, should be proof enough of that.

Bigboi500

We've actually commented to this issue a few times in various spots on the site. We are currently working on a redesign but as I'm sure you know those kinds of things take time.

#17 Posted by c_rakestraw (14775 posts) -

Well said, Synthia.

#18 Posted by Bigboi500 (30964 posts) -

Thanks for the responses and explanations, Synthia.

Being a member of the Gamespot community, I just want to help ensure that the experiences people have here are as fair as possible, and the advice they receive be as accurate as possible. So when I bring up something of this nature, it's not about accusations or negativity, but more an attempt to make this a better place for all of us, even gamers who don't always follow the beaten path and prefer more niche games instead of those enjoyed by the popular masses.

Most of the reviews on this site are well written, and usually fair, even if I don't always agree with them. The freelance reviewers/writers should be avoided if at all possible though, in my opinion, because we know next to nothing about them, their preferences, their histories, and we don't know if they have ties to the games' companies that they review, and because they're generally not part of this community (ie they don't have GS accounts).

#19 Posted by jsmoke03 (13125 posts) -

[QUOTE="kkee"]

Hard to say. Could just be a result of being in the middle of review season (as the press lovingly calls this time of year). Also a matter of what versions they receive ahead of time. Publishers, unfortunately, aren't kind enough to send out copies for each version well before release. I imagine that's usually the deciding factor in which versions are reviewed.

[QUOTE="jsmoke03"]with that said, the ps3 version mostly gets the secondary priority in reviews...usually a week or 2 laterc_rake

Publishers usually send out 360 versions first, hence why that platform gets the review first.

so gamespot is saying that ps3 owners arent the priority with not having an ac3 review score? jsmoke03

Put yourself in their position: if you were in the midst of the busiest time of the year for video games, would you think it worthwhile to spend time thoroughly reviewing every single version of a game, epsecially when retail code usually doesn't arrive too far in advance of the game's release? I'd say no. Or at the very least that it would have to fall on the backburner whlie I handle other games in the meantime.

I'd bet Kevin is trying to work through the PS3 version of Assassin's Creed 3 as quickly as he can. Not easy to do when you're not just reviewing games.

if its cuz they only get one version to review, then that is fine.... but saying gs puts priority with what the audience wants reviewed but NOT review a ps3 review is a bit fanboyish don't you think c rake? thats why i responded the way i did with your post.
#20 Posted by akdiuuuryttt (2854 posts) -

it would be cool once the new consoles are realeased gamespot gives a final verdict rating on wii, 360 and ps3 just for fun

#21 Posted by jsmoke03 (13125 posts) -

hey its april....ac3 still hasn't gotten a review score lol.....

#22 Posted by DigitalDame (4339 posts) -
So... I assume you're referring to the PC and PS3 copies I assume since there are currently two reviews posted. One for the X360 (8.5) and one for the WiiU (7.5).
#23 Posted by jsmoke03 (13125 posts) -
So... I assume you're referring to the PC and PS3 copies I assume since there are currently two reviews posted. One for the X360 (8.5) and one for the WiiU (7.5).Synthia
yea. i know gs can get busy, but ac3 was a major release and i don't see why ps3 and even pc users don't get to see the review score. its been like about 6 months since that game released