Has Gamespot lost its hardcore appeal?

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by robotapple (663 posts) -
Now, I don't want to ruffle any jimmies, but a lot of the "AAA" games this generation would have been ripped apart by the old Gamespot. They seem really short on gameplay and casualized, dumbed down. Then I play a truly awesome core title like ZombiU and we see 4.5 and Gamespot saying they want it to be more of an action game... when it's a throwback to old schoool survival horror. That was the lowest professional score it received out of about 30 reviews. Yet they reward causalized dumbed down games with big advertising budgets top marks. I think back in the old days this would have never happened. I don't want to insult anyone who loves this site but it's hard to admit the quality has not slid some. Do you feel the same?
#2 Posted by Allicrombie (25197 posts) -
So because you don't agree with one subjective review score, GS sucks?
#3 Posted by robotapple (663 posts) -
So because you don't agree with one subjective review score, GS sucks? Allicrombie
I disagee with many, many, many of the games they gave 8's, 9's and 10's with this generation. It's really been abysmal. I remember on Gamespot 9's were once only reserved only for truly amazing games, not truly amazing marketing budgets.
#4 Posted by LoG-Sacrament (20397 posts) -

arguing on who/what is "hardcore" is the video game witch hunt of today, so i'm not getting into that.

however, i think it's odd how gamers focus so much on averaging scores like metacritic. people talk about how it's suspicious when a reviewer gives a game an especially how or low score, but i worry more when every source gives the same review. especially in an interactive medium, people should be having different experiences. i hope at least some reviewers will be individuals and actually react to a game.

#5 Posted by MrGeezer (56232 posts) -
Who gives a $*** about SCORES in the first place? That's the equivalent of Roger Ebert's "Thumbs Up!" Scores, "fresh/rotten", "thumbs up/thumbs down" and star ratings have pretty much always been inherently stupid and largely meaningless. Yeah, I get that reviewers put that $*** in anyway as a quick indicator for readers who just want a quick general concensus, but that $*** has never really had any relevance to quality or merit. You can't sum up any work of art fairly with "thumbs up" or "thumbs down". Giving the Mona Lisa an 8.9 score doesn't mean anything, and neither does giving Call of Duty a 6.7. You want to complain, then complain that the content of the review was innacurate. Take issue with what they SAID about the game. But seriously...f*** scores. "Oh boo hoo, this game got a bad score when I think it sucks." If you're so hardcore, then why do you care so much about a f***ing number? Scores and numerical ratings are the kinds of $*** that only exists for the sake of casual audiences who don't want to dig deeper, so what the hell reason does a HARDCORE fan have to go ape$*** over that stuff? F*** scores. If you're really hardcore, then you wouldn't give a $***.
#6 Posted by Allicrombie (25197 posts) -
Who gives a $*** about SCORES in the first place? That's the equivalent of Roger Ebert's "Thumbs Up!" Scores, "fresh/rotten", "thumbs up/thumbs down" and star ratings have pretty much always been inherently stupid and largely meaningless. Yeah, I get that reviewers put that $*** in anyway as a quick indicator for readers who just want a quick general concensus, but that $*** has never really had any relevance to quality or merit. You can't sum up any work of art fairly with "thumbs up" or "thumbs down". Giving the Mona Lisa an 8.9 score doesn't mean anything, and neither does giving Call of Duty a 6.7. You want to complain, then complain that the content of the review was innacurate. Take issue with what they SAID about the game. But seriously...f*** scores. "Oh boo hoo, this game got a bad score when I think it sucks." If you're so hardcore, then why do you care so much about a f***ing number? Scores and numerical ratings are the kinds of $*** that only exists for the sake of casual audiences who don't want to dig deeper, so what the hell reason does a HARDCORE fan have to go ape$*** over that stuff? F*** scores. If you're really hardcore, then you wouldn't give a $***.MrGeezer
that was certainly hardcore.
#7 Posted by MrGeezer (56232 posts) -

arguing on who/what is "hardcore" is the video game witch hunt of today, so i'm not getting into that.

however, i think it's odd how gamers focus so much on averaging scores like metacritic. people talk about how it's suspicious when a reviewer gives a game an especially how or low score, but i worry more when every source gives the same review. especially in an interactive medium, people should be having different experiences. i hope at least some reviewers will be individuals and actually react to a game.

LoG-Sacrament
You know...as much as I like videogames, I'll be the first to say that they're mostly stupid as hell, and are one of the lowest forms of pop art. But they are art. Or at the least, they CONTAIN art. Yes, even the bad ones. And one doesn't get a good handle on art by looking at numerical scores or how many "thumbs up" it got. One discusses its flaws and merits, comments on how the individual parts relate to one another, and how well it communicates what it's trying to. You want to know what's wrong with this or that, then you ignore the goddamn star ratings and numerical scores and listen to what people have to SAY about it. And yes...I understand that scores and ratings exist for a reason. The thing is, they DON'T exist for the sake of the "hardcore" fans, they exist for the sake of the "casuals". So it's pretty goddamn wonky to complain about reviewers becoming "less hardcore", and making that entire argument rvolve around f***ing numerical scores. I'm not even saying that Gamespot ISN'T becoming crap. But if they are, a "hardcore" gamer should be able to come up with something a bit more substantial than "wah...I don't agree with the scores that they give." F*** the scores. That $*** doesn't really matter very much, especially to someone who's "hardcore". Anyone "hardcore" should at least be able to discuss the art and the art criticism without throwing a tantrum because it didn't get a high enough score.
#8 Posted by LoG-Sacrament (20397 posts) -
[QUOTE="LoG-Sacrament"]

arguing on who/what is "hardcore" is the video game witch hunt of today, so i'm not getting into that.

however, i think it's odd how gamers focus so much on averaging scores like metacritic. people talk about how it's suspicious when a reviewer gives a game an especially how or low score, but i worry more when every source gives the same review. especially in an interactive medium, people should be having different experiences. i hope at least some reviewers will be individuals and actually react to a game.

MrGeezer
You know...as much as I like videogames, I'll be the first to say that they're mostly stupid as hell, and are one of the lowest forms of pop art. But they are art. Or at the least, they CONTAIN art. Yes, even the bad ones. And one doesn't get a good handle on art by looking at numerical scores or how many "thumbs up" it got. One discusses its flaws and merits, comments on how the individual parts relate to one another, and how well it communicates what it's trying to. You want to know what's wrong with this or that, then you ignore the goddamn star ratings and numerical scores and listen to what people have to SAY about it. And yes...I understand that scores and ratings exist for a reason. The thing is, they DON'T exist for the sake of the "hardcore" fans, they exist for the sake of the "casuals". So it's pretty goddamn wonky to complain about reviewers becoming "less hardcore", and making that entire argument rvolve around f***ing numerical scores. I'm not even saying that Gamespot ISN'T becoming crap. But if they are, a "hardcore" gamer should be able to come up with something a bit more substantial than "wah...I don't agree with the scores that they give." F*** the scores. That $*** doesn't really matter very much, especially to someone who's "hardcore". Anyone "hardcore" should at least be able to discuss the art and the art criticism without throwing a tantrum because it didn't get a high enough score.

i agree. i think it's often the reviews that receive the game differently (yes, they probably also give the game an exceptionally high or low score, but that is a reflection of the text) that generate the best discussion. skipping over that part and saying "reviewer x isn't hardcore anymore" is a missed opportunity.
#9 Posted by MadVybz (2797 posts) -

Seems to me that someone doesn't understand the concept of subjectivity.

#10 Posted by Archangel3371 (15493 posts) -
Nope, doesn't really seem that way at all to me. The vast majority of triple A games that I've played seem to be excellent games to me and I agree with the high ratings they get here and elsewhere for that matter. In fact sometimes I feel they should be rated higher. I haven't played ZombiU myself so I can neither agree or disagree but to be honest I was never all that interested in it before and I doubt I'll ever get around to trying it.
#11 Posted by wiouds (5131 posts) -

It seem that this is less to do with if Gamespot has not lose its hardcore appeal but more about your standers are unreasonably high.

#12 Posted by nameless12345 (15125 posts) -

I find they are better now than they were in the past tbh.

There's not so many unreasnobly high scores just to please the fanboys of *insert random gaming system here* anymore.

I mean, in the past a game like Tony Hawk 3 could score a 10... (and the worst PS2 version for that matter)

Some games were also rated unreasnobly low (for example Diddy Kong Racing).

They still happen to "tear down" some games for questionable reasons but like I said atleast there's not that many "9.5s" and "10s" to please the fanboys anymore...

In the end, every review is an opinion so people going mad over them are silly tbh.

#13 Posted by jim_shorts (7320 posts) -

I dunno about the whole "hardcore" aspect of it, but I do think that Gamespot's review system has lost a lot of overall quality, especially since the overhaul. A lot of objectivity in the reviews has been lost and I feel like they give out high scores to high profile releases automatically.

#14 Posted by Jackc8 (8500 posts) -

They've just completely lost my respect. Their articles oftentimes aren't worthy of appearing in a high school newspaper, there's absolutely no thought put into them. They read like something a student wrote just to get their assignment turned in on time. As far as their reviews, I might as well ask the kid behind the counter at Gamestop what I should buy. Mostly the big AAA titles, though he probably doesn't like a couple of them - the whole damned thing is utterly useless to me. They've given lousy scores to some of my favorite games of this gen - and from reading the reviews after playing the game myself it's obvious they spent very little time with it and made no attempt whatsoever to review it in a professional manner. And at the same time I've got half a shelf full of mundane mainstream junk that they literally wet themselves over. :roll:

My bookmark for this site takes me straight to the forum index.

#15 Posted by The_Last_Ride (71268 posts) -
A lot of the newer reviews take how hard the game is or how accesable it is or how easy it is for casual gamers to play it. I would agree there, and this also takes a huge part of the reviews nowadays compared to the old reviews. But i do trust some reviewers like Aron Waters and Shaun McInnis
#16 Posted by PetJel (3723 posts) -

Mainstream games have changed. Modern games are easier and more casual but can still be great fun. I can find myself in most GS reviews actually.

#17 Posted by renome (49 posts) -
In short? Yes.
#18 Posted by Ballroompirate (22778 posts) -

Gamespot is actually the lowest avg score of review sites, most of the time. The day I actually take one of GS reviews seriously is the day I quit gaming, they are so inconsistent with their reviews (actually that's the majority of reviewers now and days).

Hey there's bugs in this game, lets give it a 4.5, bugs in this game hell lets give it a 9. The one I love most "this sequel is better than the previous entry but it scores lower", god that pisses me off.

#19 Posted by The_Last_Ride (71268 posts) -

Gamespot is actually the lowest avg score of review sites, most of the time. The day I actually take one of GS reviews seriously is the day I quit gaming, they are so inconsistent with their reviews (actually that's the majority of reviewers now and days).

Hey there's bugs in this game, lets give it a 4.5, bugs in this game hell lets give it a 9. The one I love most "this sequel is better than the previous entry but it scores lower", god that pisses me off.

Ballroompirate
that's a lot of good points, and gamespot doesn't follow them mostly
#20 Posted by capaho (1253 posts) -
Why do you care so much about the GS review of Zombie U? The average for user scores for the game is 6.8. If you really like the game start a thread for like-minded gamers and stop coming across like you're running a clandestine marketing campaign.
#21 Posted by skrat_01 (33767 posts) -
Gamespot is as mainstream as a gaming website comes, what do you expect? They don't like zombie U, oh the horror.
Now, I don't want to ruffle any jimmiesrobotapple
then go back to /v/?
#22 Posted by Business_Fun (2282 posts) -

Is this the right time for that So Hardcore pic? Or is that a bit too System Warsy?

#23 Posted by robotapple (663 posts) -

Gamespot is as mainstream as a gaming website comes, what do you expect? They don't like zombie U, oh the horror. [QUOTE="robotapple"]Now, I don't want to ruffle any jimmiesskrat_01
then go back to /v/?

It didn't used to be that way.

Under Kasavin's rule this site panned casual games with shallow gameplay.

I'd wager half the AAA titles this gen would have not see their scores.

#24 Posted by jun_aka_pekto (15990 posts) -

I've never regarded GS, IGN, and other general review sites as "enthusiasts" sites. Now, genre-specific game sites are a totally different matter. Flight sims (not the arcade flight games) are almost unknown here at GS except for a few. But, there's a surprising number of sites that cater only to flight sim enthusiasts.

#25 Posted by skrat_01 (33767 posts) -

It didn't used to be that way.

Under Kasavin's rule this site panned casual games with shallow gameplay.

I'd wager half the AAA titles this gen would have not see their scores.

robotapple
Casual games with shallow gameplay can be good for just that, they're not going to discriminate for the sake of it. Kasavin left ages ago, and quite frankly gushed over games like Oblivion completely forgiving how shallow and 'causal' it was for everything else it offered. Hell he was harsh on Deus Ex and that's damn 'deep' and 'complex'. Which isn't to say that GameSpot got worse, it did, around the Kane and Lynch times it was terrible. Much, much, MUCH better nowadays from the looks of things - honestly I'd be grateful for that.
#26 Posted by Venom_Raptor (6958 posts) -

For some reason I'm still drawn to Gamespot, and while I don't agree with some of the scores, the reviews themselves are mostly well written. Gamespot has lost some of it's appeal mainly because it's nearly as broken and buggy as Big Rigs Over the Road Racing.