Games not getting reviewed.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.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.

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?

[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?

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

IGN and Gametrailers review almost everything

Bigboi500

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

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

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.

Well said, Synthia.

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).

[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.

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

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

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