Im tired of these reviews.....

What the hell does gamespot grade on?

deedee_1

This is the crux of your statement--and I say statement, because I don't know you are arguing a point of view as much as you are complaining in essence that we are doing our jobs--that is, evaluating games and writing a review based on that evaluation.

Reviews are not mathematical formulas, in which games start at a 10 and we then plug in numbers based on their flaws and foibles. As you are well aware, games are whole experiences made up of parts and pieces, and those parts and pieces contribute to a game's overall quality. It is art, not science, based on an overall impression formed by any number of factors. Criticism starts with a knowledge of games and what they are capable of providing, and critics in turn apply that knowledge to critique.

This is why there is a big review text next to these scores. That text explains the reviewer's position in a way that balances information and evaluation. The overall experience is described, as are the individual pieces that affect that experience. Screen tearing may not be much of an issue in one game, but might be distracting in another. Poor voice acting may be all but meaningless in a brisk action game with little dialogue, but may mean everything in a story-oriented role-playing game. We're very familiar with our own review scale, and part of our reviews vetting process is to ensure that the review text matches the score provided. Please bear in mind: We don't score based on any other site's scale, or on your personal perception of what that score means. If a game gets, for example, a 7 at GameSpot, that means "good." It may mean "mediocre" in your mind, but we aren't scoring to your personal scale, but to ours. You can read more about that scale by clicking the help button at the top of every page.

What you want is for a gaming publication to cater to your particular tastes. I might be wrong, but like so many others--essentially, anyone that ever complains about a review score--you designate a review that does not reflect your own views as having little worth. A critic that does not weight different aspects of a game in equal proportion to your own is wrong, and therefore is to be criticized. I'm a critic, so I am used to having people complain about what I write, but defending a review is a time-consuming and ultimately pointless endeavor, because the dissenter will always be convinced of his own assumptions and disregard counterpoint.

It's why the text exists--to explain where we're coming from, using all the tools we have from our vast expanses of knowledge. But critics can only do so much. My goal with every review is to communicate what it's like to play a game, and when doing so, hopefully provide a clear explanation of its quality. But I do so wholly aware of what various platforms and genres are capable of. In the case of something like Mass Effect 2, for example, I drank deeply of that game's awesomeness, while also remaining aware that the RPG genre can offer greater depth and breadth. It's my job to be aware of such room for growth, knowing what I do about the given genre. What I can't do is know what's important to you. If you don't care about texture pop-in, no matter how distracting, then you can safely disregard any mention of it when reading the text. If the game looks terrible but you simply don't care, evaluation of the visuals can be cast aside. Story is important to you, I can see--so if you see that the game lacks a good story, you may want to steer clear. But it is up to you to apply your taste to the text you read. We can't do it for you, no matter how well the review is written, no matter how appropriately the score may fit the text.

The favorite mantra is, "oh goodness, I disagreed with the score; GameSpot was paid off (or fell for the hype, or [insert your favorite conspiracy-laden argument here]). The truth is far more simple: The text reflects the critic's evaluation. For example, if you see my byline on the article, it means those words represent my experience. But they cannot represent yours. Once the review is written and published, my job is done. And it is where yours begins, and you must apply your own intelligence, taste, and personality to the text you just read; scores are meaningless if you don't do so, and then you end up in an Internet forum expressing your disappointment at a review that didn't accurately reflect your personal take.

As a side note, I remember as a GameSpot reader how exciting it was when a game got an 8--it meant that it was time to add a new game to my collection. 9's were special, a score to be celebrated that indicated a game to be loved and embraced. It is flabbergasting to me that anyone would use the word "only" to describe a 9.0, as if we were stating that the game was not an absolute must-play, as if the earth had opened and we had cast the game into the very flames of hell. There is no "only" about a 9.0. It means "this is a superb game that must be played." It is the score that graced our Game of the Year of 2009; it is a score that you can comfortably take to mean "this is a special experience that rises above the rest."

[QUOTE="deedee_1"]

What the hell does gamespot grade on?

Kevin-V

This is the crux of your statement--and I say statement, because I don't know you are arguing a point of view as much as you are complaining in essence that we are doing our jobs--that is, evaluating games and writing a review based on that evaluation.

Reviews are not mathematical formulas, in which games start at a 10 and we then plug in numbers based on their flaws and foibles. As you are well aware, games are whole experiences made up of parts and pieces, and those parts and pieces contribute to a game's overall quality. It is art, not science, based on an overall impression formed by any number of factors. Criticism starts with a knowledge of games and what they are capable of providing, and critics in turn apply that knowledge to critique.

This is why there is a big review text next to these scores. That text explains the reviewer's position in a way that balances information and evaluation. The overall experience is described, as are the individual pieces that affect that experience. Screen tearing may not be much of an issue in one game, but might be distracting in another. Poor voice acting may be all but meaningless in a brisk action game with little dialogue, but may mean everything in a story-oriented role-playing game. We're very familiar with our own review scale, and part of our reviews vetting process is to ensure that the review text matches the score provided. Please bear in mind: We don't score based on any other site's scale, or on your personal perception of what that score means. If a game gets, for example, a 7 at GameSpot, that means "good." It may mean "mediocre" in your mind, but we aren't scoring to your personal scale, but to ours. You can read more about that scale by clicking the help button at the top of every page.

What you want is for a gaming publication to cater to your particular tastes. I might be wrong, but like so many others--essentially, anyone that ever complains about a review score--you designate a review that does not reflect your own views as having little worth. A critic that does not weight different aspects of a game in equal proportion to your own is wrong, and therefore is to be criticized. I'm a critic, so I am used to having people complain about what I write, but defending a review is a time-consuming and ultimately pointless endeavor, because the dissenter will always be convinced of his own assumptions and disregard counterpoint.

It's why the text exists--to explain where we're coming from, using all the tools we have from our vast expanses of knowledge. But critics can only do so much. My goal with every review is to communicate what it's like to play a game, and when doing so, hopefully provide a clear explanation of its quality. But I do so wholly aware of what various platforms and genres are capable of. In the case of something like Mass Effect 2, for example, I drank deeply of that game's awesomeness, while also remaining aware that the RPG genre can offer greater depth and breadth. It's my job to be aware of such room for growth, knowing what I do about the given genre. What I can't do is know what's important to you. If you don't care about texture pop-in, no matter how distracting, then you can safely disregard any mention of it when reading the text. If the game looks terrible but you simply don't care, evaluation of the visuals can be cast aside. Story is important to you, I can see--so if you see that the game lacks a good story, you may want to steer clear. But it is up to you to apply your taste to the text you read. We can't do it for you, no matter how well the review is written, no matter how appropriately the score may fit the text.

The favorite mantra is, "oh goodness, I disagreed with the score; GameSpot was paid off (or fell for the hype, or [insert your favorite conspiracy-laden argument here]). The truth is far more simple: The text reflects the critic's evaluation. For example, if you see my byline on the article, it means those words represent my experience. But they cannot represent yours. Once the review is written and published, my job is done. And it is where yours begins, and you must apply your own intelligence, taste, and personality to the text you just read; scores are meaningless if you don't do so, and then you end up in an Internet forum expressing your disappointment at a review that didn't accurately reflect your personal take.

As a side note, I remember as a GameSpot reader how exciting it was when a game got an 8--it meant that it was time to add a new game to my collection. 9's were special, a score to be celebrated that indicated a game to be loved and embraced. It is flabbergasting to me that anyone would use the word "only" to describe a 9.0, as if we were stating that the game was not an absolute must-play, as if the earth had opened and we had cast the game into the very flames of hell. There is no "only" about a 9.0. It means "this is a superb game that must be played." It is the score that graced our Game of the Year of 2009; it is a score that you can comfortably take to mean "this is a special experience that rises above the rest."

You're totally not getting the point. You think I'm arguing from the perspective of someone who already bought the game. On the contrary, I am speaking from the perspective of not having the game yet, going to buy it based on your reviews.

The purpose of the review is to give the users a premise on which to play or don't play a game. So lets just assume I don't care about graphics...Well atleast it would be nice to see the individual grade for the graphics and or sound, so I can say "okay, this game got an 8.0 because the graphics weren't so good, and the sound wasn't up to par, but hey look, the gameplay scored great, so I should try it"....That way, atleast people who use the review as a premise of whether they would enjoy the game or not can get an understanding of why a game was rated such a way.

Think about it, everybody doesn't have money to just go buy any game that comes out. Sometimes we just have money to buy the best games. So when a game gets an 8.0, and the specific reasonings aren't cited concretely, a individual would probaley miss out on something they really enjoyed, because the flaws may have been something they didn't care about.

All I was saying is, if to the reviewer, the graphical errors and bad menu layout is what pimp smacks a game down to 8.0 PLEASE LET IT BE KNOWN THAT IT WAS THOSE SPECIFIC FLAWS THAT RENDERED THE VERDICT...because when you say 8.0 or 6.0, it makes it seem every aspect of the game is a 8.0 or 6.0....

[QUOTE="deedee_1"]Alot of people didnt by King of Fighters 12 because it received bad reviews.

But just imagine if King of Fighters would of got the 9.0, a lot of people would of bought it, and then got pissed off.

Reception matters a lot.....

ViewtifulScott

Lol, I laugh at how smart you try to be, and how wrong you actually are. Whether its professional, or word of mouth, previews and reviews serve great purpose in marketing the buyability of a game. Why you think every commercial, and every box cover shows the reviews score, or review quotes. Thats just simple Marketing for those of us who payed attention in college.

How many people you think bought Demon's Souls after it got Gamespot's GOTY? And then, how many of those you think told their friends about that game? And how many Box Covers, and Commercials you think that GOTY will be mentioned in?

The original Halo didn't get that many opening sales, but after the great reviews, and great reception hit, it became a power house. And because of those reviews and reception, it created Halo fanboys and Halo Haters (i wear my badge proudly) that flurried on into today.

Remember why everybody bought Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas? Because everybody heard about how u can work out and get buff, eat, and all those things that were mentioned in the reviews and previews.

And negative reviews about San Andreas, like the one from the media, made the sales slow down. And those negative reviews is why Grand Theft Auto 4 played it safe for the most part. You want to know why Call of Duty lets you skip the Airport scene? Yeah....I'll let you figure that one out, genius...

p.s. you can't name one game that sold a lot but had bad reviews......

You want story? Read a book.

Kids these days.

[QUOTE="deedee_1"]

What the hell does gamespot grade on?

Kevin-V

This is the crux of your statement--and I say statement, because I don't know you are arguing a point of view as much as you are complaining in essence that we are doing our jobs--that is, evaluating games and writing a review based on that evaluation.

Reviews are not mathematical formulas, in which games start at a 10 and we then plug in numbers based on their flaws and foibles. As you are well aware, games are whole experiences made up of parts and pieces, and those parts and pieces contribute to a game's overall quality. It is art, not science, based on an overall impression formed by any number of factors. Criticism starts with a knowledge of games and what they are capable of providing, and critics in turn apply that knowledge to critique.

This is why there is a big review text next to these scores. That text explains the reviewer's position in a way that balances information and evaluation. The overall experience is described, as are the individual pieces that affect that experience. Screen tearing may not be much of an issue in one game, but might be distracting in another. Poor voice acting may be all but meaningless in a brisk action game with little dialogue, but may mean everything in a story-oriented role-playing game. We're very familiar with our own review scale, and part of our reviews vetting process is to ensure that the review text matches the score provided. Please bear in mind: We don't score based on any other site's scale, or on your personal perception of what that score means. If a game gets, for example, a 7 at GameSpot, that means "good." It may mean "mediocre" in your mind, but we aren't scoring to your personal scale, but to ours. You can read more about that scale by clicking the help button at the top of every page.

What you want is for a gaming publication to cater to your particular tastes. I might be wrong, but like so many others--essentially, anyone that ever complains about a review score--you designate a review that does not reflect your own views as having little worth. A critic that does not weight different aspects of a game in equal proportion to your own is wrong, and therefore is to be criticized. I'm a critic, so I am used to having people complain about what I write, but defending a review is a time-consuming and ultimately pointless endeavor, because the dissenter will always be convinced of his own assumptions and disregard counterpoint.

It's why the text exists--to explain where we're coming from, using all the tools we have from our vast expanses of knowledge. But critics can only do so much. My goal with every review is to communicate what it's like to play a game, and when doing so, hopefully provide a clear explanation of its quality. But I do so wholly aware of what various platforms and genres are capable of. In the case of something like Mass Effect 2, for example, I drank deeply of that game's awesomeness, while also remaining aware that the RPG genre can offer greater depth and breadth. It's my job to be aware of such room for growth, knowing what I do about the given genre. What I can't do is know what's important to you. If you don't care about texture pop-in, no matter how distracting, then you can safely disregard any mention of it when reading the text. If the game looks terrible but you simply don't care, evaluation of the visuals can be cast aside. Story is important to you, I can see--so if you see that the game lacks a good story, you may want to steer clear. But it is up to you to apply your taste to the text you read. We can't do it for you, no matter how well the review is written, no matter how appropriately the score may fit the text.

The favorite mantra is, "oh goodness, I disagreed with the score; GameSpot was paid off (or fell for the hype, or [insert your favorite conspiracy-laden argument here]). The truth is far more simple: The text reflects the critic's evaluation. For example, if you see my byline on the article, it means those words represent my experience. But they cannot represent yours. Once the review is written and published, my job is done. And it is where yours begins, and you must apply your own intelligence, taste, and personality to the text you just read; scores are meaningless if you don't do so, and then you end up in an Internet forum expressing your disappointment at a review that didn't accurately reflect your personal take.

As a side note, I remember as a GameSpot reader how exciting it was when a game got an 8--it meant that it was time to add a new game to my collection. 9's were special, a score to be celebrated that indicated a game to be loved and embraced. It is flabbergasting to me that anyone would use the word "only" to describe a 9.0, as if we were stating that the game was not an absolute must-play, as if the earth had opened and we had cast the game into the very flames of hell. There is no "only" about a 9.0. It means "this is a superb game that must be played." It is the score that graced our Game of the Year of 2009; it is a score that you can comfortably take to mean "this is a special experience that rises above the rest."

I think part of the problem is that people that frequent this site, and others, throw fits if a popular franchise/hyped game gets too low a score. This has thrown the rating system out of sync, where a score of 7.5 is no longer a good game. Readers read a 7.5 more along the lines of a game getting a 5.0--a disappointment. Dirt 2 is a perfect example. If i remember correctly, it recieved a 9, no? So, I've played the game and it's alright, a little boring really, but even if I thought it was the greatest racing game ever--along with fans alike--I'd still be willing to admit there's alot of room for improvement. So let's say Dirt 3 comes out and completely blows Dirt 2 out of the water. There's no choice but to give it a 9.5, or 10. But if this sequel is so much better than the one that came before, is 1/.5 point enough to differentiate the quality of the two games? So Tekken: DR is a better made Tekken game than Tekken 6, on the psp? Perfect Dark Zero is a better made game than more recent fps games? On a 1 out of 10 scale, far too many scores hover around a 9.

Well, most are helpful when thinking to buy a game. But others... not so much. Metroid Prime 3: 8.0? WTF?

[QUOTE="muthsera666"][QUOTE="deedee_1"]IGN does it, and makes way more money than Gamespot lol.deedee_1

So you prove my point in your own explanation. If a game is good, and or have multiple story paths, or fun collectables, the replayability will be high. If a game is bad, but yet has bonuses, it replaybility will still score points, but not so high. If a game sucks on all levels, then its replayability will be rendered a low score. There is still a mathmatical scale to the degree in which the users may desire to replay the game.

My point was, however, that whether you agree or disagree to my logic, my logic will be the same every time, and you can see how I came out with my final score. That is what Gamespot should do with their reviews, some sort of tangible guideline so we just don't think they slapped a number onto a game. So you even debating the point was mute....

Mute means to be silent, without sound, so I'm not sure what is silent here. As far as your nonsensical statement as a reply in kind, that doesn't make sense either. Replayability, by definition, is the ability to be replayed. My statement was that if a game is a good and fun game, there is replay inherent in the game, regardless as to whether there is additional content to be achieved or unlocked. Replayability can be high in a game that has nothing extra to unlock if the game was that much fun to prompt another playthrough. Just because your logic will remain the same throughout your reviews does not mean that your logic is logical. What does the number matter on the game. If the review points out things that you cannot abide, don't get the game. If the review sounds promising, what does it matter if a game got a 9.0 or an 8.5? Or even a 6.0? Who cares? If you see from the content of the review that the game looks like it has great potential, but some problems, wait until the game goes down in price and then pick up. It's not that hard of a concept. Your inability to consider other points made during the content of this thread renders the existence of the thread moot.

Reviews are opinions based on facts. It's up to you to decide whether or not the facts would influence your decision.Pvt_r3d

When it comes to reviews, I only read reviews just for the sake of finding out what they are about. I don't read them just because of the opinion that's in there, because it ain't my own opinion. My opinion is the most important out of anyone else's and I prefer it that way.

If you don't like the reviews that's out there, then stop reading them. If you're throwing a fit because the score is higher or lower than yours, then I don't know what to tell you. But a review is a review - you can't change it. If you feel the need to do something about it, then write your own review and have it posted, something that I've done since the inception of Gamespot. Otherwise, don't bother with reviews at all. It will only make you more angry.

What annoys me about some reviews (not necessarily here), is when the reviewer clearly doesn't like the game type, and blasts the game for not being completely different from what it was intended. For example, blasting a RP game for not having enough run and gun action, or something like that. The reviewer should like that type of game, imo, for an honest review.

I have been a member here since '04. I remember when I was a kid, Gamespot used to have very legitimate reviews. I had a lot of respect for GS way back when because the site had never given out a ten. After the 10 was given to GTA 4, Gamespot lost all credibility in my book and I no longer take reviews here seriously anymore.

@Those that are saying that only YOUR opinion matters. I believe the TC is trying to say that many gamers base their purchases off of reviews. Hell, a few people have already stated such in my AvP thread. It's sad that many gamers base their purchases off of fraudulent reviews from sites.

p.s. you can't name one game that sold a lot but had bad reviews......

deedee_1

I believe 50 Cent: Bulletproof is a good example of game that gets poor ratings, yet ends up selling pretty well.

My point was, however, that whether you agree or disagree to my logic, my logic will be the same every time, and you can see how I came out with my final score. That is what Gamespot should do with their reviews, some sort of tangible guideline so we just don't think they slapped a number onto a game. So you even debating the point was mute....

deedee_1

The flaw in your logic is that video games are not made with cookie cutters. There is not a perfect mold out there that makes a perfect 10 game. You can't simply say that a game deviated from the mold in 3 ways so it is a 7. Each game cannot be judged in the same way. There are too many different genres and types of gameplay out there to fit all games into one mold.

Reviews are opinions and opinions are subjective. That's just the way it is.

You clearly have a vision in your head of a perfect video game that has everything that you think makes a game good – that vision is subjective. It doesn't become objective just because you make a list of subjective things that you like and judge all games by that subjective list. The simple truth is that not all games are going to fit into your subjective list so you will need to deviate from it. In other words, your method will not result in a perfectly objective/logical review. The more a game deviates from your perfect mold, the more arbitrary your review will appear, especially to people who do not share your vision of what subjective factors make a perfect game.

That makes GS's method superior to yours because it is able to deal with games from different genres that have different gameplay goals/elements. Your method, on the other hand, assumes that there is some perfrect game mold out there that simply does not exist.

[QUOTE="deedee_1"]

p.s. you can't name one game that sold a lot but had bad reviews......

_Dez_

I believe 50 Cent: Bulletproof is a good example of game that gets poor ratings, yet ends up selling pretty well.

Lol, nice point only dulled by the fact we are talking bout a game made after a rapper who's sold over 22 million records in his career. In which, you can see the game sold not because it was good, but because its a 50 cent, the rapper, game. The people who bought it obviously liked killing people as 50 cent, and the games reviews state it was ALOT of KILLING, and those people who listen to 50 cent LOVES the gangsta vibe and and the idea of 50 Cent killing people.

Now lets say the reviews said you don't even play as 50 cent or G-Unit, and there is no killing. Do you think that game would of sold?

Like I said, nice point, but the particular case you brought up is a matter of pop culture, in which someone famous can sell whatever the hell they want. 50 cent has clothing lines, and flavored water that both suck and it sales well, because he is who he is.

[QUOTE="deedee_1"]

My point was, however, that whether you agree or disagree to my logic, my logic will be the same every time, and you can see how I came out with my final score. That is what Gamespot should do with their reviews, some sort of tangible guideline so we just don't think they slapped a number onto a game. So you even debating the point was mute....

Solori

Your method, on the other hand, assumes that there is some perfrect game mold out there that simply does not exist.

Lol, you guys are killing me with these very wrong responses. Look, if the games weren't being reviewed on a perfect mold, then it wouldn't have a 9.0 out of 10.0 grading scale. Now LISTEN....I AM SAYING...If you're going to have this GRADING Scale, make it logical on the specifics of what you deducted points on, and or what you gave it points for, so we can have some tangible idea of why a game is this good or bad, or if an aspect that made it good or bad is something an individual would either care or don't care about.

However, if the reviewers ARE NOT deducting or adding points, and just conjuring up a number from the pit of their bosoms, then why even grade with numbers or letters? Why not just say "a game is great", "This game is bad", "this game is just a rental".

I mean, are you telling me the numbers are irrelevant? Then why have them?

If the reviewers have the right to slap numbers onto things, well its bout time someone slap a number on the reviews....

Gamespot Reviewers Receive

6.5

for pop-ins of random numbers as scores, poor voice acting on video reviews, and computer screen tearing, due to user frustration....

Perfect scores should not be out of the question. Whether the game is enjoyable or not is up to the player, but if the development team produces a game that gets its ideas across without anything interfering with said ideas--it should be penalized for what? Obviously story based games, technical issues, and original ideas add quite a bit of variables to the mix, its still possible, no? I know this is a stretch, but a game like Tetris deserves a ten...Perhaps even the original Super Mario Bros.

… if the games weren't being reviewed on a perfect mold, then it wouldn't have a 9.0 out of 10.0 grading scale.

…[reviews should give us] specifics of what you deducted points on, and or what you gave it points for, so we can have some tangible idea of why a game is this good or bad

I mean, are you telling me the numbers are irrelevant? Then why have them? ….

deedee_1

Reread my above post, it already addressed why your method of judging all games as coming from the same cookie cutter mold is flawed.

As to your confusion over what the numbers means – they are guidelines. As has been pointed out by other posters, you are supposed to actually read the reviews, not just look at the numbers. The words are what tells you why a reviewer felt a game was good or bad or in between.

You are putting too much reliance on the number score. Its just a general guideline. It's the words that are important.

For example your score of 6.5 for Gamespot Reviewers is mostly arbitrary and meaningless by itself. It lets us know that you generally have a low opinion of GS reviewers, but it doesn't tell us why. You recognize this because you included words to explain your number score (for pop-ins of random numbers as scores, poor voice acting on video reviews, and computer screen tearing, due to user frustration....). You recognized that your number provided a general guideline but that you needed words to explain the specifics of your score and let the reader judge whether it had merit or not.

GS reviews are the same. The score lets us know what the reviewers general opinioin of a game is. But it is the actual words of the review that explain the score and let the reader judge its worth.

These days i take a quick look over the GS review just to see if there aren't any massive glitches / problems and then head over an check out the user ratings, they are much better for me as i like RPG's quite a bit and the reviewers only generaly skim through a game, so if you want to know what one is really like ask the guys who have stuck 60+ hours into it and you get the full picture

Okay, lets face it, not just gamespot, but the whole gaming community are mixed up when it comes to deciding how to rate a game. On one side of the coin a game will be praised for its gameplay even tho its story was either none existant, short, or just served as a conduit for the game play (I.E. killzone, Halo 3, DEMON'S SOULS). And on the other side, a game can have the best story, excellent gameplay, but some how they throw the favorite 8.7 or 9.0 at what should be 9.5 games for something like "screen tearing", texture pop-ins, and other irrelevant graphical glitches that no one even pays attention to.

Its like the reviewers forgot the importance of immersion, and story (unless, u know, Konami, and Rockstar games throws a little extra money in their pockets, they seems to remember how 10ish storyline is in a game). Like how does a half finished, retailed priced add-on like Halo: ODST score the same as a featured filled, storyline extravagant, universe ingenius, very original and creative game like Mass Effect 2? And how does Mass Effect ONLY get 9.0?

As a matter of fact, why do all the great games that came out in 2009 get a 9.0 from gamespot these days. Its like their being paid by Square Enix or some other big company to wait for their flagship titles to come out, just to dish something higher than a 9.0 to a game.

I mean come on, how does Modern Warefare 2, Mass Effect 2, Dirt 2, Assasin's Creed 2.......all get a 9.0.....and most of these titles are either because of the multiplayer, or because there was something very non-linear and deep about the game itself...

but however, a very linear game (great story, but very linear, from the approach of how the game can be played) with a sucky and shallow mutliplayer, Uncharted 2, gets a 9.5?

Like Mass Effect 2 is a fully featured, replayable, original, unique game........and Uncharted is...ya know, u beat it....and um ok....nice indian jones feel, ya know....but but....but...is it really better than MAss Effect 2

Like atleast IGN gives a break down of what they graded.....And their grades make sense....

What the hell does gamespot grade on?

It just doesn't make sense no more. I have never seen some much space between Review and User reviews in my life...

deedee_1

it depends on how much hype it has, and if its an exclusive. hype + exclusivity = 9+

[QUOTE="deedee_1"]

… if the games weren't being reviewed on a perfect mold, then it wouldn't have a 9.0 out of 10.0 grading scale.

…[reviews should give us] specifics of what you deducted points on, and or what you gave it points for, so we can have some tangible idea of why a game is this good or bad

I mean, are you telling me the numbers are irrelevant? Then why have them? ….

Solori

For example your score of 6.5 for Gamespot Reviewers is mostly arbitrary and meaningless by itself. It lets us know that you generally have a low opinion of GS reviewers, but it doesn't tell us why. You recognize this because you included words to explain your number score (for pop-ins of random numbers as scores, poor voice acting on video reviews, and computer screen tearing, due to user frustration....). You recognized that your number provided a general guideline but that you needed words to explain the specifics of your score and let the reader judge whether it had merit or not.

GS reviews are the same. The score lets us know what the reviewers general opinioin of a game is. But it is the actual words of the review that explain the score and let the reader judge its worth.

It was sarcasm, judging Gamespot based on Gamespot's own scoring system. I just threw in a lower number for insult (in which I got a warning for it, which means mission accomplished). Don't look too much into it.

However, to entertain you, those words alone only describe why it was rated low. What that simple description failed to do is describe what makes Gamespot atleast decent enough to not have a 0 and not mention what contributed to all the points up to 6.5...

I only gave one sided negative description to something because it scored low. However, I failed to mention any other factors about Gamespot, in which someone may like, despite the negativity.

A taste of their own medicine gave me a warning. How ironic...

A taste of their own medicine gave me a warning. How ironic...

deedee_1

2.) I suggest you edit that post you're referring to, since giant font like that is considered disruptive.

3.) The moderators here are not GameSpot's goons. We don't moderate people for not liking the site's reviews. We do moderate people if they can't respect the forum rules, or the other members of the community. You need to respect the opinions of others in this thread and refrain from provoking or belittling them, unless you'd like for me to lock this thread.

4.) Related to #4, the GameSpot reviewers are a part of the community here. Kevin-V himself already posted in this thread. So while it's perfectly okay to have negative opinions about the reviews here and share them in a respectful manner, you shoud make sure that those criticisms don't cross over into personal insults.

Like how does a half finished, retailed priced add-on like Halo: ODST score the same as a featured filled, storyline extravagant, universe ingenius, very original and creative game like Mass Effect 2? And how does Mass Effect ONLY get 9.0?deedee_1

That's what I love about the review system here-- They allow their users to score the game, and the numbers reflect the games a lot better.
For example:

Halo: ODST -- User Score: 8.3 [5,753 votes]
Mass Effect 2 -- User Score: 9.4 [2,617 votes]

A 9.4 user score is phenomenal. Especially considering that it has been reviewed by our peers over 2,000 times.

I only wish that Gamespot would create a search system that would allow you to filter by user review score as well as by than their own scores.

[QUOTE="deedee_1"]

A taste of their own medicine gave me a warning. How ironic...

Teufelhuhn

2.) I suggest you edit that post you're referring to, since giant font like that is considered disruptive.

3.) The moderators here are not GameSpot's goons. We don't moderate people for not liking the site's reviews. We do moderate people if they can't respect the forum rules, or the other members of the community. You need to respect the opinions of others in this thread and refrain from provoking or belittling them, unless you'd like for me to lock this thread.

4.) Related to #4, the GameSpot reviewers are a part of the community here. Kevin-V himself already posted in this thread. So while it's perfectly okay to have negative opinions about the reviews here and share them in a respectful manner, you shoud make sure that those criticisms don't cross over into personal insults.

You could lock it for all I care......just means I got under that skin....

You could lock it for all I care......just means I got under that skin....

deedee_1