Do you trust Gamespot's Scoring?

Do you get a first(or second)good\bad impression from a game based on Gamespot's scoring and review?

Over the years I saw Gamespot's scoring is very strict, and not many games get a high score, even the good ones(although 2-3 games got 10.0 form GS you must agree that there is not such thing as a perfect game).

As i tried to rely on their judgment i wasn't disappointed in most of the times so i play and buy gamesmostly based on what Gamespot thinks.

Do you act like me?

Wht do you think is good\bad at GC's scoring?

Usually I'll use their score as reassurance when someone tells me a game is awesome or something. Their reviews also might get me interested in a game and then I might go looking through forums and seeing what other people think about.

As with any large reviewing site of any matter, there are always chances for bribery, but we do not knw that.

I tend to rely on the user reviews the most, because at least those are truthful.

I nearly always trusted in gamespots scorings. BUT sometimes, they really didn't score correct...

for example C&C3, got a way to high score.

Must times you really can rally on gamespot !!! :)

Max

Thisis the first and main site I check for scores (and reviews). For the most part I'd say they are pretty accurate, although I also feel like they screw up sometimes. For the most part on games that are way hyped up before they come out, gamespot has a tendency to rate those ones higher than maybe they should be IMO.

I pretty much agree with serieus on the fact that there is a big possibilty gamespot gets paid to do the things they do, and also abou tsome games are hit and miss.. Absolutely NO game is for EVERYONE and thats for sure. So, ultimately it comes down to know what you like and what you dont like. Read the reviews and if it sounds cool you should at least try it.

If i didnt trust their scoring then I wouldnt come here.VinnoT

Same here. It's still the first place I check for any game I'm considering to buy, but I must say I'm not a big fan of the new rating system and the actual review holds more value for me then the score itself. Other then that, user opinions and other reviews will ultimately determine what games I buy.

btw ign reviews suck and should not be trustedgamergeek

Agreed.

I think they're corrupted

For some games (C&C3, Gears of War, etc) they're way to generous

For other games (especially Nintendo's) they always demolish theses games in their critics

But usually they review quite well their games

Gamespot reviews are terrible...I stopped reading them years ago.

PC Gamer is the only reviewer I trust.

I think that the scoring for the most part is fine, still don't like the new scoring method but apparantly I'm in the minority so I'll live with it.lim_ak

I also hate the new rating system

In the end it comes down to YOU playing the game and judging it for yourself.mouthforbathory

My thoughts exactly. Everything comes down to your personal taste and sometimes its difficult to be "objective" if you are analizing something that you dont like. For instance, UFO Extraterrestrials received a 5.5 or something like that, while I found the game to be great and there were a lot of players that found it great too.

Now, I only read the reviews to have a "deeper" look at the features of the game, but I dont pay much atention to the score.

No one is going to judge an air traffic controller simulater the same way I would. I have agreed with PC Gamer more than any other source, but I have subscribed to them longer than any other source too. Haven't been here long enough to judge. Eyes are on you Gamespot!

they gave bioshock 9.0 ridiculous.couly

what is so rediculous about that??? I beat the game today and thought gamespot was a little to generous imo bioshock should have got an 8.8 there's nothing revelatory about the game what so ever just a great story with great graphics and lacking value.

i dont really pay much attention to the scores. when i look at the list of 'most popular' and 'coming soon' i just shake my head and laugh really. when you have a game thats 'coming soon' and you see TBA next to it you have to know that its only on there because someone got a check to put it there (mafia 2 , and starcraft II as of this posting time).

now dont get me wrong, everyone has to make a buck and i have no problem with it, its not like there arent other sources for information about gaming, but like so many of us here, i too, mostly use the forums and user reviews too help me make up my mind. but over all i would say that GS isnt too far off the mark on most reviews, though id like to see them take a more pro-actiave stance on some gamer 'issues' especialy things like companys making half a game just so they can milk hundereds more out of buyers in the form of 'expantions' just too get the finished product. (galatic civ comes to mind right off simply because of the rate of their expantions and what content got left out of the base gameis so obvious). they have no trouble slaming games without a huge user base for various things they have done wrong, but if a game is popular you seldom hear a peep about it (Civ IV comes to mind, none of the major user flaws were even touched on judging by the forum posts).

i dont trust their motivations is all. im more comfortable with my fellow gamers opinions since its pretty easy to spot the plant/fan boy and just as easy to spot the ones with a grudge against a given game/company. i will say that GS has saved me from making some horrible game buying choices as well as sneaking in a unnoticed gem or three over the years though. im happy with them for the most part as long as i dont have to depend on JUST them and take everything they say , especialy about big games and big named companys with a grain of salt

(BTW i refer only to the PC based aspects of this sight. i dont use consol's at all)

I don't know. I know that GS tries to be objective in its reviews, (Greg Kasavin confirmed this a few years back) but I think the very nature of game reviews makes this impossible.

For example, Yoshi's Island DS. It's a terrible game; redundant, easy levels, absolutely atrocious music, and lackluster graphics. But GS game it a 9.4... Now, that's fine, people can disagree with me. But the problem is that GS says that a 9.4 game is better than a 9.0 game. Yet we all know (i.e. most of us will agree) that Bioshock is not an inferior game to Yoshi's Island DS.

So what's going on here? Simple. GS is rating different genres of games on different criteria. They thought Yoshi's Island did what 2D platform games are supposed to do, and did it really, really well. OK, but how does that mean that it's a better game than Bioshock? Because it does what "it's supposed to do" better than Bioshock does what it's "supposed to do"? How can you be objective about something like that? You can't (at least not that precisely); it's a subjective opinion.

I think reviews are fundamentally subjective, and that the best review will typically relate a personal experience had while playing the reviewed game. This makes reviews more reliable, also, because when someone reads the subjective account of a reviewer's gaming experience, they will know right away if they agree or disagree with the reviewer. For example, when someone gives a good review of a rollercoaster, and says it's awesome because it has some really intense drops, a listener will know that those intense drops are things that he wouldn't enjoy. So even though the ride was getting a good review, he'd know it wasn't for him. It's all about relating to the reviewer.

Gamespot tries to standardize its ratings into one system whereby all games can be compared to one another, but I think games are a subjective thing which can't be measured objectively.

They've incorrectly scored too many games (imo) for me to trust them. Reviews are a very small factor in my buying decision as well, so it's not all that important to me.

"Do you trust rely on Gamespot's scoring?" lol is that a joke? they gave Hard Truck: Apocalypse and Age of Pirates: Caribbean Tales score of like 4 and 5 - it's like giving HL2 the same score - it's just CRAZY!!

after those 2 scores i'm not trusting their scores anymore

Well, are we talking about the scoring or the actual reviews? In regards to reviews, there are certain editors I trust while others I don't. Alex does good reviews most of the time, while Bethany giving Nintendogs a 9.1 on a serious gamer's site tells me to just ignore anything she has to say about games. (yes, if you go to GS's page about how they review, they say they rate games for the serious gamer...).

However, in terms of scores, my faith in GS has been sliding over the past few years. With the introduction of the new "pull the score straight out of my ***" rating system, it's to the point where I can't even take the scores seriously. I mean, before that, I had my own system of interpreting Gamespot's scores. I won't list everything, but if it's a mega-franchise, I'd instantly subtract an entire point off the score. Madden scores too high; Mario scores too high (god I dread the thought that SMG will get a 9+), Zelda scores too high.....it just seems to be the case with big franchises that date back for quite a while. In those games, they seem to look past outdated game design because "that's how the old games played," while a no-name franchise game would get absolutely panned for using the same design.

Again, there was more to my system, but it's just an example of how I had "interpret" GS's scores. But with the new system, I have no idea as to what any of it means now. Sure, with time, I'll get a feel for what their scores should mean to me, but with such a baseless scoring system, I don't see the point in learning how to interpret their scores again. At this point, the scoring seems erratic more than anything else.