Why I am leaving Gamespot and game sites

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Edited by Rikomi (7 posts) -

deleted

#2 Posted by SaintsRowLA (51 posts) -

You're giving GameSpot and the outside world too much power, or just power period, over your thinking.

I don't care what GameSpot's rating is or what anyone else thinks of Lightning Returns or any other game I enjoy, I've bought, or I want to buy. They aren't always right. That's just one person's opinion. The reviewer, you and I don't always have the same tastes. So, who cares if GameSpot or the rest of the word doesn't enjoy what I enjoy. As long as I enjoy it, then that's all that matters.

I love Lightning and Ali Hillis. Does it matter if Kevin Van Ord or anyone else doesn't. No! I'm going to love Lightning and Lightning Returns anyway.

Remember your experience. There are plenty of games that got low or mediocre ratings that you have enjoyed or just loved. There are many games that have received great reviews which are turkeys. The reviewer cherry picked the best parts of the game and didn't tell you how boring and full of drudgery and tedium it was the rest of the time. Or they just didn't play the game at least half way through.

#3 Posted by SoNin360 (5216 posts) -

I don't see the problem, you're letting a rating from one site bother you too much. Of course they're going to promote their new reviews on the front page. As articles saying how long a game is, I also don't see the big deal. I find it a stretch to say that's a spoiler of any sort, but I personally like to know how long a game is before I play it. But do whatever works for you I guess. I don't think this is really anything new, so I don't really understand the sudden desire to leave.

#4 Posted by The_Last_Ride (69112 posts) -

You really shouldn't take their reviews seriously. I sure don't

#5 Edited by Zen_Light (1199 posts) -

Once you realize that reviews are nothing more than opinions, they wont bother you any more.

#6 Posted by IMAHAPYHIPPO (2537 posts) -

I see what you mean. I don't think it's so much review scores and play time, but I think there's a little bit of over-exposure when it comes to new releases on these sites. When it comes to games I'm really excited for, I try to avoid watching too many trailers and gameplay videos. I've never been a big fan of watching two journalists play the opening two hours of a game I'll be playing myself a few weeks later. I think, in a lot of cases, there's far too much information out there about new games, which I understand because people are investing 60$ on an unknown. But at the same time I think it has the ability to dull an otherwise exciting experience, which can ruin the experience.

#7 Posted by ZZoMBiE13 (22911 posts) -

The review, in it's current form, is designed as consumer buying advice. Now, I'm the first to say we should be leaning more towards an artistic critique rather than just a number with that scores justification in text underneath, but that is what we have. Primarily because that's the way it's always been and no one other than me seems to want it to change much.

But you have to know that if you've spent even a minute reading online news sites and review sites like this one. And while you're well within your rights to not partake in gaming news sites or the reading of reviews, I think calling any of the headlines a spoiler is a misinterpretation of what that word means in the common parlance. A spoiler, provided we are not talking about cars, is meant as a reveal of important plot details. The length of the game is not a spoiler and neither is one person's assessment of the game's quality. Not in any way.

Again, I'm more sensitive to spoilers than most. I don't want any interesting facts leaking out beforehand. But the length of the game doesn't take anything away from the content contained within the game. And a score is just an arbitrary number that is largely subjective.

To put it in context, I adored reading Roger Ebert's movie reviews for most of my life up until he passed away. But many of my favorite movies did not receive kind scores on his site. That didn't spoil anything for me however. It was another person's assessment and little more. And often times I was richer for reading the conflicting opinion. It rarely affected my way of thinking, but I think it's always important to see things from multiple sides, even the ones I don't agree with.

Still, it's not the end of the world. I have a good friend who made a new year's resolution to avoid gaming news sites of all kinds. He's frustrated with the current state of the enthusiast press and I support his decision and yours. If this isn't your thing, then it's a waste of your time. Good luck and I hope you find the right balance that meets your needs.

-Cheers

#8 Edited by stizzal13 (569 posts) -

Once you realize that reviews are nothing more than opinions, they wont bother you any more.

This ^^^.

@Rikomi I respect your position, but you are too impressionable if that is really the reason you are leaving.

Why in the world would we want to go back to the way things were in the 90's? (I understand the nostalgia aspect.) We live in a world where people want a vast amount of information about the products their buying (opinions & facts), and the internet allows us to deliver it to virtually to every consumer. Websites like Gamespot give you quick access to opinions & facts about the game that you are free to interpret for yourself. I actually love the fact that they show game review scores right away. It entices me to click and read what the author had to say about the game.

And, why would any one want to be surprised by a game (in the sense of whether it turns our to be a good game or not)?!? I mean...If you are about to drop $40-$60 dollars on a game or $400-$500 on a console, do you not want to do some research on it?!? SMH...I mean come on...

Anyways, I hope you find what you are looking for.

#9 Edited by BranKetra (47524 posts) -

Know that reviews are opinions of others. The influence of others can be negative, but it can also be positive. Keep a fresh mindset. If you ever come to a point in which you feel that you can be aware of those opinions while remaining steadfast having your own, you will still be welcome here.

Before I became a moderator, I would take a break from GameSpot for about half a year every couple years to focus on my other interests. You doing the same might help you put things in perspective.

#10 Posted by wiouds (4994 posts) -

Now, I'm the first to say we should be leaning more towards an artistic critique rather than just a number with that scores justification in text underneath, but that is what we have.

The last think the gaming world need is more people running about trying to hold game as art.

#11 Posted by ShangTsung7 (247 posts) -

"don't wanna know how long a game is before you buy it" ??? so.. you'd rather just blow 60$ on a 1 or 2 hour long game? i'm not sure how you look at things m8 but when i'm about to be wallet raped by a greedy game dev i'd like to at least see it coming, so yea shame on gamespot for providing us fair warning.

#14 Posted by Gallowhand (476 posts) -

I take Gamespot's review scores with a pinch of salt - it's very rare that I agree with them. However, I wish scores would just go away, because nowadays anything that gets a 7 or below is somehow considered 'bad'. A five out of ten should simply mean 'average', not bad, but gamer perceptions have become so skewed over the years that scores are now essentially meaningless, and Metacritic makes things even worse with developer bonuses being tied to some other company's obscure weighted algorithm.

#15 Posted by SaintsRowLA (51 posts) -

@Rikomi:

Isn't Jess McDonell reason enough to come back to GameSpot. Forget everyone else, but not Jess.

#16 Edited by insanegame377 (332 posts) -

I quite enjoy reading reviews, but only if I'm really torn on whether or not to buy a game or to see other peoples' opinions on a game I've recently finished. The majority of reviews these days are too spoiler-heavy.

#17 Posted by bezza2011 (2224 posts) -

@insanegame377: I agree alot of reviewers nowdays really can't write very well without giving alot of spoilers away and i mean video reviews are the worst, they show alot of the best bits in the game and well we really dont need that

On Topic: Wait You've been a member since 2003 but you have only posted 10posts :S and your telling us your leaving :S

I mean what does the homepage do to spoil anything it gives the rating of the game, what does that matter, are you bothered that everyone will see the score of your beloved game and thats bad :S

#18 Posted by loafofgame (381 posts) -

The review, in it's current form, is designed as consumer buying advice. Now, I'm the first to say we should be leaning more towards an artistic critique rather than just a number with that scores justification in text underneath, but that is what we have. Primarily because that's the way it's always been and no one other than me seems to want it to change much.

I think a lot of people already think many reviews are becoming too much of an artistic critique. I'm with you though. Reviews have become rather redundant when it comes to factual information about games and advice on whether or not to buy them. There are plenty of other resources on the internet to make an informed choice. I'd rather read more critical and personal pieces.

#19 Edited by Randolph (10346 posts) -

As ZZombie mentioned earlier, reviews are a purchase guide for undecided consumers. If I was undecided on Lightning Returns, this would influence me, but if I had played the demo and decided "Hey I like it", much as I like Kevin, I'd get it nay damn way because that review wouldn't be for me. Try getting Lightning Returns anyway and see how it goes. You'd be surprised how often you're likely to completely disagree with reviewers in general. Other sites liked it a bit better, some even thought it was the best game in the XIII series. So if you like those games, go for it.

#20 Posted by nicecall (428 posts) -

i've felt same as you sometimes and thought about going dark in the game world and just letting myself discover games as they come out rather then have them all spoiled before hand... but i don't think i will.

Theres just so many games out these days and I don't have time to play them all and test for myself if they are worth my time or not.... but even reading user reviews on games and stuff, I always end up getting a game i regret but you learn from your failures and each time become wiser. I have learned though to not trust any gamespot review and rather trust the opinions of as many regular people as possible and try to get a good picture of the game from that.

#21 Posted by The_Last_Ride (69112 posts) -

@wiouds said:

@ZZoMBiE13 said:

Now, I'm the first to say we should be leaning more towards an artistic critique rather than just a number with that scores justification in text underneath, but that is what we have.

The last think the gaming world need is more people running about trying to hold game as art.

Games are art mate

#22 Posted by IMAHAPYHIPPO (2537 posts) -

@ZZoMBiE13: You want more artistic reviews? Have you ever read a Pitchfork review? There's so much pretension, it makes me want to vomit.

#23 Edited by turtlethetaffer (16439 posts) -

Have a good life, person I don't know.

#24 Edited by Archangel3371 (15165 posts) -

Review scores and game length are not spoilers no matter how sensitive one may be. That's a pretty lame reason for one to leave imo, not that I really care one way or the other.

#25 Posted by t1striker (1549 posts) -

I most definitely know where your coming from, but I can't stop myself. I usually stick with sites like IGN/RPS/RPGWATCH for news, and use gamespot/gamefaqs for forums, and I'm not usually spoiled, but gamespot is much worse in this regard than gamefaqs.

#26 Edited by Minishdriveby (10008 posts) -

Somehow I manage to ignore reviews. I like to be informed about the length of a game before I jump in, so I know how much time investment I need to put away before starting. I don't think reviews should ruin your excitement, if you've seen gameplay and trailers and tend to know what to expect going in you should have fun. Last year GameSpot gave Killer is Dead a 5.0 and it was one of my top 10 games of 2013.

Have fun in your endeavours, there are better ways to spend your time then on video game forums anyway.

#27 Posted by wiouds (4994 posts) -

@wiouds said:

@ZZoMBiE13 said:

Now, I'm the first to say we should be leaning more towards an artistic critique rather than just a number with that scores justification in text underneath, but that is what we have.

The last think the gaming world need is more people running about trying to hold game as art.

Games are art mate

After looking at a number of "art games," I find most are not that good when it comes to game play.

What about the staging in a single player and co-op FPS? What about the flow control in a deathmatch map? What about how a player affect the game play by level up their characters in a RPG?

These are some of the factors that can make a good game, but they are parts that those that look at game as art seem to not care about.

Games should be entertainment more than art.

#28 Posted by The_Last_Ride (69112 posts) -

@wiouds said:

@The_Last_Ride said:

@wiouds said:

@ZZoMBiE13 said:

Now, I'm the first to say we should be leaning more towards an artistic critique rather than just a number with that scores justification in text underneath, but that is what we have.

The last think the gaming world need is more people running about trying to hold game as art.

Games are art mate

After looking at a number of "art games," I find most are not that good when it comes to game play.

What about the staging in a single player and co-op FPS? What about the flow control in a deathmatch map? What about how a player affect the game play by level up their characters in a RPG?

These are some of the factors that can make a good game, but they are parts that those that look at game as art seem to not care about.

Games should be entertainment more than art.

Games that range from Journey to Mass Effect are all art in my book

#29 Posted by wiouds (4994 posts) -

@wiouds said:

@The_Last_Ride said:

@wiouds said:

@ZZoMBiE13 said:

Now, I'm the first to say we should be leaning more towards an artistic critique rather than just a number with that scores justification in text underneath, but that is what we have.

The last think the gaming world need is more people running about trying to hold game as art.

Games are art mate

After looking at a number of "art games," I find most are not that good when it comes to game play.

What about the staging in a single player and co-op FPS? What about the flow control in a deathmatch map? What about how a player affect the game play by level up their characters in a RPG?

These are some of the factors that can make a good game, but they are parts that those that look at game as art seem to not care about.

Games should be entertainment more than art.

Games that range from Journey to Mass Effect are all art in my book

Would you add CoD to it?

For me, it seem that only time I hear about game as art is as a counter to reason critique. Even if games are art, it mean very little.

#30 Edited by Jacanuk (3702 posts) -

@Rikomi said:

This is not a whining emo thread, but I want to discuss something important before I leave.

Twice now Gamespot has ruined two games that I have been looking forward too, MGS & FF13-3. Your news feeds on your homepage is depressing. I don't want to see a big 5 for FF13-3 on opening day. I understand this is a review website, but you don't have to put the rating right on the homepage. I don't want to know how long a game is before I even play it. This is why you should hide information or keep it vague on your homepage. If people want to know these things, they can browse the website. It's called spoilers for a reason.

See, I've come to realized that review shows and websites create such a toxic environment. Ignorance is bliss, it really is. Back in the 90's, I would always be surprised when playing games. Suikoden 2 for the PS1 is my all time favorite RPG. I can only imagine seeing its review if I visited this site when it came out. I try not to let reviews impact my opinion on a game, but man is it depressing when you see a terrible rating for a game you preordered, excited for, and about to play. It shouldn't be thrown in your face on the homepage, it's almost impossible to avoid seeing t.

Anyways, it's back to the old school ways for me. Gamefaqs is still good for when I need it, because there aren't spoilers unless you look at the specific board. If you have any intention of enjoying Titanfall, avoid this site when it's about to come out. Peace.

Hmm, dont know if its a bug or not but with 10posts since 2003 you haven't been spending a whole lot of time here anyways. And isent it kinda dramaqueen to post about your exit? if it were me i would just vanish.

But i must say i do kinda understand you, if you watch Rev3games´s review of FF its almost like they were reviewing two different games, but it just shows you should never if you are one of those people who care about the reviews trust Gamespot, Polygon of some of Sterlings reviews , and always look more than one place.

#31 Posted by ZZoMBiE13 (22911 posts) -

@wiouds said:

@The_Last_Ride said:

@wiouds said:

@The_Last_Ride said:

@wiouds said:

@ZZoMBiE13 said:

Now, I'm the first to say we should be leaning more towards an artistic critique rather than just a number with that scores justification in text underneath, but that is what we have.

The last think the gaming world need is more people running about trying to hold game as art.

Games are art mate

After looking at a number of "art games," I find most are not that good when it comes to game play.

What about the staging in a single player and co-op FPS? What about the flow control in a deathmatch map? What about how a player affect the game play by level up their characters in a RPG?

These are some of the factors that can make a good game, but they are parts that those that look at game as art seem to not care about.

Games should be entertainment more than art.

Games that range from Journey to Mass Effect are all art in my book

Would you add CoD to it?

For me, it seem that only time I hear about game as art is as a counter to reason critique. Even if games are art, it mean very little.

Just like film, games have their mindless comedies, reiterative buddy cop stories, etc. Call of Duty IS art. It may not be "high art", but just as much as Gone Home or Braid or any of the ones that genuinely are a bit pretentious, CoD and Halo and even Madden to a degree all fit the bill. That's what I'm talking about.

Artistic discussion or critique doesn't mean a big box we check to decide whether one game is or isn't art, they already are art. Built worlds crafted by a team working towards a common goal, just like a movie is a production made by a cadre of people all working in concert to make something. It's not always going to be Citizen Kane, sometimes it's just Die Hard 6. And that's art too. When I say we need more artistic critique it isn't an exclusionary suggestion, it means discussing the aesthetics of the world and the aesthetics of play as well. It means critiquing, for good or ill, the elements that not only make a game look a certain way but play a certain way and in an ideal world; games that make us feel a certain way.

Criticism and critique, as an exercise, is supposed to be a constructive device. Although most everyone on the internet seems to think it's just a shield they can hide behind while being an ass hat. But that's never what I meant in any way. I'm just talking about artistic discussion under the assumption that all games are art. From the most pretentious indie piece to the most insipid iPhone game and all points in between.

#32 Edited by VintAge68 (387 posts) -

@Rikomi: @SaintsRowLA:

@SaintsRowLA said:

You're giving GameSpot and the outside world too much power, or just power period, over your thinking.

I don't care what GameSpot's rating is or what anyone else thinks of Lightning Returns or any other game I enjoy, I've bought, or I want to buy. They aren't always right. That's just one person's opinion. The reviewer, you and I don't always have the same tastes. So, who cares if GameSpot or the rest of the word doesn't enjoy what I enjoy. As long as I enjoy it, then that's all that matters.

I love Lightning and Ali Hillis. Does it matter if Kevin Van Ord or anyone else doesn't. No! I'm going to love Lightning and Lightning Returns anyway.

Remember your experience. There are plenty of games that got low or mediocre ratings that you have enjoyed or just loved. There are many games that have received great reviews which are turkeys. The reviewer cherry picked the best parts of the game and didn't tell you how boring and full of drudgery and tedium it was the rest of the time. Or they just didn't play the game at least half way through.

I wouldn't leave GameSpot for them spoiling my favorite games, either, rather for them not letting me access my own profile properly anymore...

What I have a problem with as regards the Lightning Returns review, though, is not that KVO was an incompetent reviewer or that his negative arguments regarding the gameplay would be implausible, but rather that I don't like his Lightning antipathy sounding almost personal (empty vessel, uninteresting heroine, etc.). However, I too liked Lightning and this would be a reason to getting & playing her return, as probably for thousands of other people also.

#33 Posted by drekula2 (1880 posts) -

actually, the OP is very smart.

i think gaming was a lot different for all of us before we saw scores.

#34 Edited by wiouds (4994 posts) -

@ZZoMBiE13 said:

@wiouds said:

@The_Last_Ride said:

@wiouds said:

@The_Last_Ride said:

@wiouds said:

@ZZoMBiE13 said:

Now, I'm the first to say we should be leaning more towards an artistic critique rather than just a number with that scores justification in text underneath, but that is what we have.

The last think the gaming world need is more people running about trying to hold game as art.

Games are art mate

After looking at a number of "art games," I find most are not that good when it comes to game play.

What about the staging in a single player and co-op FPS? What about the flow control in a deathmatch map? What about how a player affect the game play by level up their characters in a RPG?

These are some of the factors that can make a good game, but they are parts that those that look at game as art seem to not care about.

Games should be entertainment more than art.

Games that range from Journey to Mass Effect are all art in my book

Would you add CoD to it?

For me, it seem that only time I hear about game as art is as a counter to reason critique. Even if games are art, it mean very little.

Just like film, games have their mindless comedies, reiterative buddy cop stories, etc. Call of Duty IS art. It may not be "high art", but just as much as Gone Home or Braid or any of the ones that genuinely are a bit pretentious, CoD and Halo and even Madden to a degree all fit the bill. That's what I'm talking about.

Artistic discussion or critique doesn't mean a big box we check to decide whether one game is or isn't art, they already are art. Built worlds crafted by a team working towards a common goal, just like a movie is a production made by a cadre of people all working in concert to make something. It's not always going to be Citizen Kane, sometimes it's just Die Hard 6. And that's art too. When I say we need more artistic critique it isn't an exclusionary suggestion, it means discussing the aesthetics of the world and the aesthetics of play as well. It means critiquing, for good or ill, the elements that not only make a game look a certain way but play a certain way and in an ideal world; games that make us feel a certain way.

Criticism and critique, as an exercise, is supposed to be a constructive device. Although most everyone on the internet seems to think it's just a shield they can hide behind while being an ass hat. But that's never what I meant in any way. I'm just talking about artistic discussion under the assumption that all games are art. From the most pretentious indie piece to the most insipid iPhone game and all points in between.

I think you like the pageantry of the gear. I say games should be judge first as entertainment. There is nothing wrong with being entertainment. I believe that what artist look for can not be done through game play. Many over estimate what games can do with interactive stories.

All I am saying is that we should not allow because it is art as a good answer for games.

#35 Posted by Jacanuk (3702 posts) -

@drekula2 said:

actually, the OP is very smart.

i think gaming was a lot different for all of us before we saw scores.

hehe nice sarcasme there :)

but honestly how hard is it if you are one of those who care what critics say. Not to go read reviews, after all its just some random person´s opinion which is as correct as anyone on this boards, only difference is that Kevin is getting paid and work on a gaming site.

#36 Edited by The_Last_Ride (69112 posts) -

@wiouds said:

@The_Last_Ride said:

@wiouds said:

@The_Last_Ride said:

@wiouds said:

@ZZoMBiE13 said:

Now, I'm the first to say we should be leaning more towards an artistic critique rather than just a number with that scores justification in text underneath, but that is what we have.

The last think the gaming world need is more people running about trying to hold game as art.

Games are art mate

After looking at a number of "art games," I find most are not that good when it comes to game play.

What about the staging in a single player and co-op FPS? What about the flow control in a deathmatch map? What about how a player affect the game play by level up their characters in a RPG?

These are some of the factors that can make a good game, but they are parts that those that look at game as art seem to not care about.

Games should be entertainment more than art.

Games that range from Journey to Mass Effect are all art in my book

Would you add CoD to it?

For me, it seem that only time I hear about game as art is as a counter to reason critique. Even if games are art, it mean very little.

Just like film, games have their mindless comedies, reiterative buddy cop stories, etc. Call of Duty IS art. It may not be "high art", but just as much as Gone Home or Braid or any of the ones that genuinely are a bit pretentious, CoD and Halo and even Madden to a degree all fit the bill. That's what I'm talking about.

Artistic discussion or critique doesn't mean a big box we check to decide whether one game is or isn't art, they already are art. Built worlds crafted by a team working towards a common goal, just like a movie is a production made by a cadre of people all working in concert to make something. It's not always going to be Citizen Kane, sometimes it's just Die Hard 6. And that's art too. When I say we need more artistic critique it isn't an exclusionary suggestion, it means discussing the aesthetics of the world and the aesthetics of play as well. It means critiquing, for good or ill, the elements that not only make a game look a certain way but play a certain way and in an ideal world; games that make us feel a certain way.

Criticism and critique, as an exercise, is supposed to be a constructive device. Although most everyone on the internet seems to think it's just a shield they can hide behind while being an ass hat. But that's never what I meant in any way. I'm just talking about artistic discussion under the assumption that all games are art. From the most pretentious indie piece to the most insipid iPhone game and all points in between.

Exactly my point

#37 Posted by Boddicker (2283 posts) -

Meh. You'll be back.

TBH if you're relying on one site's reviews to make your game buying decisions you're doing it wrong. I compare good and bad reviews before making a decision.

#38 Posted by drekula2 (1880 posts) -

not really sarcasm. to be honest, no matter how fair we try to be, i think game reviews change all of our perceptions.

#39 Posted by SkyeCupid (3970 posts) -

I couldn't agree more. For some reason Americans like to have spoilers for all of their entertainment before they experience it. This completely ruins the story and any excitement one would get from a plot twist, a wtf moment, or just experiencing the story the way it was intended. This is why I avoid movie trailers too. This trend has clearly worked its way into video game reviews as well. Imagine reading a book when you know what will happen at the end. You'll probably want to put the book down and never finish it. Gameplay mechanics should be the primary focus in video game reviews, perhaps comparing how the game feels to similar games in the genre; we should never be given the synopsis of any form of entertainment before experiencing it. We might as well just watch some movie we already saw, or played some game we used to like, or watch some episode of Sunny that once made us laugh. Not very fun. You'll most likely never find a new game that will be remembered in your mind as a classic if you've seen spoilers before playing it. The game will just turn out average at best :/

#40 Posted by yearssomuch (54 posts) -

All I read is 'STOP TELLING ME WHAT TO THINK, GUYS!!', when you are fully capable of not allowing reviews to influence your opinion on a game, all on your own. Reviewers are obligated to be honest in their reviews by pointing out what mechanics are viable, and what mechanics are not.