Why PC Exclusive NEVER got 10/10 on Gamespot.

First of all I DO NOT care about review scores. In fact, I love a lot of underrated games (Shadow Warrior comes to mind) but that's not the way how a lot of people judge a product. They, only see review scores and that's it. The thing, that I hear a lot on this website is, how console games are better because no PC exclusive scored 10 here, not even games from 90s or ground breaking (and GOTYs) like World of Warcraft.

On other hand games like Bayonetta 2 or MGS 4 easily score 10. I'm not saying those are bad games (not even close), what I'm saying is, those games are nowhere near as ground breaking as WOW , Half Life or Half Life 2 etc were and none of them scored 10 (and those games changed their genres forever). Hell, Half Life 2 changed PC gaming forever with the launch of Steam.

Is it safe to say that gamespot is biased or console focused website .? Or it is because lot of PC games are targeted towards a specific market instead of being mainstream .? Do you think it is the case because no one owns or backs PC .?

The best thing that we got from Gamespot was a statement from Kevin that PC gaming has higher standards , so scores are less than console games. Thanks Kevin, you are the best reviewer on Gamespot but that doesn't help much. If that's the case then can we consider games like World in Conflict , Crysis , Starcraft 2 , DOTA 2 etc 10/10 games because all of these games scored 9.5 .? If you look at "Cons" section of these games, then it seems reviewer tried way too hard to nitpick something to not give it a 10. For Example ; "Laughs at every video card you throw at it" , "Life consuming" , "Few Battle.net annoyances" etc.

So What you guys think .?

This isn't system wars.

This isn't PC vs Console debate . I just wanna know why .?

maybe it's because pc game reviewers at gamespot have higher standards too? i don't know to be honest. i didn't even know gamespot had never given a pc game a 10, despite a recent feature about every game that's gotten a 10 here, i didn't care enough to read.

you're right, though. keeping in mind the bigger picture, pc games have had the potential to not just change their genre or even pc gaming forever, but to change gaming forever.

doom, dota, league of legends, half life, counter-strike, starcraft, world of warcraft, minecraft... i could go on. these games have changed gaming forever, so in a way they trump anything over consoles in their respective genres. but would it really be fair to judge a game based on its (potential) impact on the larger gaming scene? i don't have a definite answer, but probably not.

First of all, wise decision that you didn't post it in SW. To answer the question, I'll just reiterate Kevin "PC gaming has higher standards". Although that's overly simplifying it. The true reason might really be 'teh money'. PC games are almost never backed up by a specific company or a dev. That is to say, they're independent, so all the reviews on PC exclusives are either too damn honest or just biased in case the reviewer is paid off (which is a less likely case). I don't see how games like TLOU, Bayonetta 2 and MGS 4 are better than WoW, Half-life 2 and Crysis. The only thing in my humble opinion, that makes them a 10/10 on GS is the mere guess that the reviewers were somewhat trying to please the dev.

Ok, I admit it, I tried too hard to not sound like one of those jerks on the comment sections (even though I am one of them).

PC is the birthplace of releasing unfinished products and then patch them a little by little in the following six months.

I wouldn't call Crysis, Half-life 2, Legend of Grimrock, Divinity Original Sin and a million more PC exclusives; Unfinished.

I agree with this. PC games aren't paying out the ass for advertising. Console games are. Anybody notice how the CoD devs continue to pump out identical games, yet Gamespot and a handful of other review sites review the games as if they're fresh and haven't been made a dozen times? Critics in other medium (music, film, TV) usually trash content for being too similar to content that already exists, but then again, critics in other mediums don't make the majority of their income from advertising what they review and aren't handed fat paychecks from the movie producers.

In b4 "people want to make money? teh conspiracy!", this isn't a conspiracy as much as it is factual public information floating over the internet., I refer you to Gerstmanngate, though there are numerous examples from many different review sites where stuff like this has happened. Obviously publishers care about money to the point of where they'll go after people's jobs if their games don't review well, in certain scenarios.

I mean, Battlefield 4 *barely worked* on PS4 during launch and it got reviewed as if it was working game and somehow got a great score from this site. Yet I've seen numerous PC games on this site get trashed for having issues that obviously will be patched. How come critics on this site assume all problems with console games will be fixed and then pretend PC titles will always only be playable "as-is"?

Honestly, I couldn't care less about game reviews at this point. It often feels like a hive-mind does the reviewing of games - they all collectively trash a game, praise it, or say the game's mediocre. I stick to user reviews because they seem to be the only reviews that have helpful information on a game these days. When it comes down to it, reviewers are just merely doing their job. This is an industry, it's about work and making money. Who gives a shit about integrity? Video games aren't important. It's not like anyone's life is on the line when a reviewer is overly generous when reviewing a game, the only difference is that their lives are a bit easier because publishers know who to go to if they want positive opinions to be spread on their games.

TLDR - user reviews are a lot more informative and trustworthy because user reviews are made out of passion, not profit.

And yet you started a thread just to rant about review scores??

Answer is pretty simple, because most PC gamers aren't good enough in most critics' eyes. other than that, PC gaming experience varies across different hardware install base and more often than not, have technical issues at launch which cause a significant amount players failed to enjoy, and which game you think is more innovative or more revolutionary than the other is entire your personal opinion(or ones from collective few who agrees with you) and you wish it to be taken more seriously by none PC only gamers. Sorry to say, like most people commenting on GS, you overestimate your personal opinion a little too much.

So would it make you feel better to gather more biased opinion by hearing what you want to hear?

"The best thing that we got from Gamespot was a statement from Kevin that PC gaming has higher standards "

This probably sum up your mentality, one journalist favor PC as his preferred platform so words form his mouth is equal to the holy testimony from god himself, so if one IGN editor tells you "console gaming has higher standard than PC", what make that statement less "truthful" than Kevin's?

Well... Basically, sites like this earn revenue through advertisement, which primarily means console gaming. Furthermore, they largely exist through click-baiting and appealing the the most gullible available market, which is non-enthusiast consolites ;)

in short: Noone owns "PC gaming" and GS does'nt employ any PC enthusiasts. Besides, most GS reviews read as much like colourfull stories as actual reviews.

Thats reasonable cause in order a game to reach a perfect 10 score, requires every part of it to be perfect.

One part that PC games lack is graphics. PC games rarely deliver next gen revolutionary 720p and 30FPS, so its obvious... :P

Not to mention the absence of excitement of trying to hit an enemy in an First/Third Person Shooter with a gamepad and not with mouse... xD

Sorry but you're wrong. Bayonetta 2 is way more groundbreaking than Half-Life 2 was. I love both games but Half-Life 2 is just another FPS with good production values. Bayonetta 2 is the pinnacle of action games and the better game over Half-Life 2. Bayonetta 2 is non-stop fun from the second it starts to the second it ends with not a moment of drag or bore. Half-Life 2 had plenty of parts that dragged on were repetitive, Bayonetta has nearly no repetition with insane enemy variety. Only two games come remotely close to Bayonetta 2 (Devil May Cry and Metal Gear Rising) and Bayonetta 2 blows both of them outta the water. The dodge mechanics of Bayonetta 2 is one the greatest innovations for action games in the past decade. Have you even played Bayonetta 2? Probably not.

If you skip to 4:15 and watch for a few minutes (the fight changes several times) you'll see why it's very highly regarded and rated. The game keeps up this relentlessness pace throughout the entire game. It's insanely impressive and not a second of the game feels lazy, in fact it's the exact opposite. Every moment of the game feels like they put blood sweat and tears into and I can't think of a recent game that feels like this. It's a damn shame it's Wii U only, I really think everyone needs to play this game. It truly deserves the 9s and 10s it's getting and I have a feeling it will sweep game of the year awards because I can't think of anything that comes close.

TURN HD ON!

Is this thread a response to one of the Bayonetta 2 threads in System Wars?

In which some speculation of Star Citizen being a potential candidate for a 10?

Regarding WoW.

• Several things were missing, or work in progress at launch. The PvP, particulary the honor system comes up in mind.
• Server Stability was not all that great
• A 10 back then meant Perfect. The 10 Bayonetta 2 got means Essential, as in a must have for any Wii U owner.
• Class imbalance was pretty high.

It was still a great game, and there are so many things it got right.

Also, nitpicks can happen for any game. Including console games, I can think of several nitpicks in the cons section for Wii and PS3 games.

If Star Citizen does all it sets out to do and does it well, it should have a shot at getting a 10. Afterall, it looks like an essential must have for any PC gamer ;)

@saintsatan Bayonetta 2 is a masterpiece all right. Codeveloped by Platinum games AND Nintendo, 2 AAA industry developers who still care about good gameplay. Game being good was a guarantee.

As good as the gameplay is, the game is an eyesore and that alone removes its eligibility for a 10 in most gamer's books. Games that are 10/10 are usually stellar in all departments. Bayonetta 2 is one ugly fucking game. Particularly in person - when you get to see how much clipping there is (insane amounts).

But alas, good gameplay brings endless hyperbole "but have you played it?! It's so much fun!". Everyone said the same thing about Bayonetta (1) and I put that game down in an hour. How fun a game is, is completely subjective. The graphical department not so much - there's a bit more objectivity when it comes to graphics. Art style can sway things, but in the end, you can't ignore the technical aspect of the game. And technically the graphics in the game are extremely unimpressive. Reviewers need to consider that there's more to reviewing than their own tastes - they need to consider the game from other points of view. Movie critics, for example, will often recognize when a movie wasn't enjoyable for them, but will state that the movie does well at appealing to the crowd it's made and marketed towards (and vice versa).

Game critics, on the other hand, just slap 10/10 on anything they like a lot and call it a day. I'm surprised no reviewers actually took a step back and thought "Woah! This game looks like it could've come out 10 years ago, surely some people aren't going to be too pleased by that.". Instead they just go "Oh well, I like the game and that's all the matters, 10/10". Sometimes I wonder if I'm living in a Mike Judge cartoon.

PC games are in general held to a higher standard. Actually, any game that isn't littered with cutscenes tend to be held to a higher standard, even if they are on consoles.

This isn't exactly a big secret.

Gears of War got a 9.5? GTA 4 got a 10? The Darkness got a 8.5? Console versions of games outscoring their PC counterparts? Really?

There's also the issue that depth can sometimes hurt a game's score.

I mean look at the review for X3: Reunion (7.2)

"Complex game to learn and pick up"

Complexity is a negative? This is a console site.

No pressure for console hyperbole.

Cuz consoles don't have Blue Screens of Death... oh wait, nevermind.

Are you serious? Bayonetta 2's bright, colorful, and flashy graphics are gorgeous. Also, Bayonetta 2 is a lot better than the first. Comparing the 1st to the 2nd is dumb. Also saying the game doesn't have technically good graphics is dumb. The game has so much special effects and shit going on on the screen it's a wonder they made it so smooth.

Bright, colorful, flashy, blurry textures, jaggies everywhere, Bayonetta's hair clipping on every object you walk by in the game...

Even the cutscenes like to show off how bad the graphics and clipping are...

Gross. Do you really not see how much clipping there is? I'm not sure how you can even be posting in the PC forum and think this game isn't ugly as ****. It's ugliness is so "in-your-face" it's downright offensive. All those special effects are low resolution and blurry and they don't do a great job at distracting from everything else that looks awful about the game.

Lol low quality gif. I love PC and it's by far my main but you guys are just being butthurt PC fanboys, nitpicking the most absurd nonsense you possibly can. Sorry you can't play the masterpiece that is Bayonetta 2, which will surely win a fuckton of GOTY awards.

:(

Even the review said it has gorgeous visuals. Do I trust butthurt troll or professional reviewer? Hmmm...

It is indeed a low quality .GIF, but .GIF compression and ingame texture compression are completely different things, that .GIF is perfectly adequate at spotting the blurry textures and hair clipping.

Theoretically, I could play Bayonetta 2, but I don't see any reason to buy a WiiU when I can just upgrade my PC further. I can live without Bayonetta 2's awful dialogue & VO, sexual exploitation, and dated graphics.

I'm sure honestly the game is great fun but I'm simply approaching this subject from a different angle. Of course, Gamespot and other review sites changed their "10" score ratings to reflect the necessity of playing the game, versus how close the game is to perfection - they can justify giving the game a 10, it just feels a bit small-minded. It's like saying "this game couldn't be improved much", when I see tons of stuff that could have been improved.

Honestly though, the only type of person I see this game being a necessity for are weeaboos. This game is a complete wet-dream for them - you know, those who like their skimpily clad big-breasted anime women. Any normal person would be turned away from the massive amounts of retarded ***-crap (huge anime influence) and cheap aesthetic.

:)

Or maybe people that just want to play an absolute masterpieces? No matter how much troll garbage spews out of your mouth it's not gonna make Bayonetta 2 anything less but one of the best action games ever made and an easy GOTY contender.

http://www.metacritic.com/game/wii-u/bayonetta-2

I see absolutely nothing wrong with these.

Not a single damn thing. Certainly beats the blandness that is the opposite seen in the likes of Gears of War. From a technical perspective, neither Bayonetta is all that great. However there is more to visuals than the game's technical graphics, and the artstyle is pretty well done.

He is looking for any dumb shit he can to bash the game, ignore. I think the really technical aspects of the graphics (lighting and shadows ect) were not focused in favor of having an insane amount of shit on screen at once, as shown in the video a few posts above around the 5:15 mark. If you tried that in the Metro engine your computer would mostly like catch fire and explode.

If you compare PC games like Metal Gear Rising there really isn't a lot of difference from the graphics of Bayonetta 2.

WTF DID I JUST READ???

If he doesnt like the artstyle he doesnt like the artstyle. But out of so many people, I have only seen two compalin about the overall visuals and arstyle. Most seem to be fine with it. It is a subjective thing.

Anyways, I would say that Half Life 2 is more groundbreaking than Bayonetta 2. The gravity gun was pretty innovative, and some of its level design concepts felt fresh as well. More groundbreaking does not mean better however. Half Life 2 is the first FPS I had to force myself to go through. As much as I loved Half Life 1 (though I do prefer my Dooms, Duke 3Ds and Quakes), I found myself using Half Life 2 as sleeping aid.

I love Bayonetta 2, and I would say it is the second best game on the Wii U and second best game of this year. But I disagree with a 10, though I can see why it got that score.

I didn't mean that those things are inherently bad, I just mean that the outcome of the visual style is still jagged and blurry. It does what it sets out to do well, but I can't commend it for having good graphics because as good as an art style is, it's still hindered by the dated technical aspect of things. Rayman Legends is technically not impressive, but it doesn't hinder the game's great art style in any way. In Bayonetta 2's case, I feel like the art style is hindered. It's great looking compared to other WiiU games perhaps, but in the grand scheme of things the WiiU is basically a souped up Xbox 360 and it's pretty limited in its graphical capability.

Yes, I'm a graphics whore, I care about graphics. I get off on picking out small details and paying attention the seams in the game - how it's all stitched together.

@FelipeInside said:

@saintsatan said:

@Cloud_imperium said:

Sorry but you're wrong. Bayonetta 2 is way more groundbreaking than Half-Life 2 was. I love both games but Half-Life 2 is just another FPS with good production values. Bayonetta 2 is the pinnacle of action games and the better game over Half-Life 2.

WTF DID I JUST READ???

Can't help but get the distinct impression he wasn't around when Half-Life 2 came out. It may be "just another FPS with good production values" now, but it was absolutely groundbreaking when it came out, and it left an unmistakable impression on the industry. Hell, it was so ground-breaking that its competition at the time (Doom 3) blatantly ripped off ideas from the game (expansion adding gravity gun).

I would call it a souped up PS3 if anything. But yes, you have to factor in the hardware limitations when designing games.

Which is one reason PC has higher standards than console games. Along with higher expectations for online play and customization (being able to fully cusomize your controls and assign each button manually is a seen as a huge boon for console games and when it does happen it is met with huge praise when they actually do, on PC this is taken for granted and when PC games don't allow this, people can get mad). It is also worth noting that some settings that work on consoles are awkward on PC, take field of view for instance.

You can't care about the review scores a game gets and then make a thread about why something doesn't get a 10. =\

I personally don't give a shit what score a game gets.

higher standards, that is the answer

10/10 on consoles is equivalent with around 6/10 on PC.

PC gamers like myself are very hard to please.

Console gamers on the other hand are easily impressed.

I don't care that much but in this situation...

Thing is, scores are determined by the overall experience the reviewer had playing the game.

Which is why it got all these 9s and 10s. Because the rest of the game made more than up for the lackluster technical graphics.

Groundbreaking? What did it do that was groundbreaking? And since when is telekineses in gun form groundbreaking for the FPS genre?

Half Life 2's usage of set pieces, sure Half Life did it before (and other games such as Duke Nukem 3D before even that). But Half Life 2 put it to another level.

Half-Life 2 is seriously the example you use?

FEAR and the Chronicles of Riddick were both released within a year of HL2 and both are a lot better.

@KHAndAnime: Yeah sure.

@KHAndAnime said:

@FelipeInside said:

@saintsatan said:

@Cloud_imperium said:

Sorry but you're wrong. Bayonetta 2 is way more groundbreaking than Half-Life 2 was. I love both games but Half-Life 2 is just another FPS with good production values. Bayonetta 2 is the pinnacle of action games and the better game over Half-Life 2.

WTF DID I JUST READ???

Can't help but get the distinct impression he wasn't around when Half-Life 2 came out. It may be "just another FPS with good production values" now, but it was absolutely groundbreaking when it came out, and it left an unmistakable impression on the industry. Hell, it was so ground-breaking that its competition at the time (Doom 3) blatantly ripped off ideas from the game (expansion adding gravity gun).

@FelipeInside Did you play Bayonetta 2? No? Exactly what I thought.

@KHAndAnime

I can't help get the impression that you're a troll. You find the dumbest possible shit to nitpick "OMG HAIR CLIPPED 0/10 SHIT GAME"...lol. Just stop dude. We get it, you're mad you can't play Bayonetta 2. It's just my opinion, you don't have to come up with retarded shit as to why Bayonetta is a bad game and have to post the most awful screenshots you possibly can. I can do the same with literally any game. Half-Life 2 is a 9/10 for me. There were parts that dragged on and were boring and there was a lot of repetitive sections. Bayonetta 2 is 10/10 and was a blast from start to finish with not a single section of boredom which is why I think Bayonetta 2 is the better and more groundbreaking game. It kept it's relentless pace from start to finish and was constantly throwing new enemies at you and having incredible boss fights every 30 minutes.

Using the gravity gun as an example of groundbreaking gameplay...I don't even know what to say to that. You can move boxes to solve dumb puzzles? Awesome.

Anyways I preordered Half-Life 2, beat it within a couple days of its release, and enjoyed it greatly.

I only played part 1 which was a good game, but just a typical slash and smash at the end of the day.

To compare Bayonetta to something like HL2 is just crazy.

Bayonetta hasn't done anything to the genre, Half Life 2 revolutionized it with gameplay other than shooting, storytelling, immersion, graphics, characters, the list is endless.

I get that you like Bayonetta, that's fine... but it's no comparison to something like HL2.

No one is comparing Bayonetta to HL2, we are comparing Bayonetta 2 to HL2. Bayonetta 2 is much different from the first in the same way HL is different from HL2. It's fine to compare games, it's not crazy at all. What IS crazy is all the people here forming opinions about something they've never ever played. Bayonetta 2 has done plenty to revolutionize the action genre. It's thee prime example that all games will look up to from this point on.

This is completely accurate...

Action games may never even come close to topping Bayonetta 2 in many years to come.

tl;dr: Stop trying to form opinions about something you've never played. It's incredibly dumb.

I'm thoroughly convinced Gamespot just has no idea how to review PC games. They didn't even like Half-Life 2 or the original Deus Ex all that much compared to other reviewers. And if Half-Life 2 and Deus Ex are not 10/10's, then I just don't know what is.

Here's how groundbreaking Half-Life 2 was: TitanFall, which is a AAA launch game for the Xbox One, is using its engine ten years later. That's because the source engine was both beautiful looking and beautifully optimized, which is a rare combination.

Do you think anyone will even remember Bayonetta 2 ten years from now? What other ten year old games were so good from a technical standpoint that their engines are still being used now? I can't think of any.

And aside from being a technical masterpiece, it had great storytelling, great use of physics, and a unique visual style so influential that Hollywood has been ripping it off ever since in all kinds of movies from War of the Worlds to Children of Men. I'm guessing the people saying Half-Life 2 is not a 10 are tweens and teens who were not old enough when Half-Life 2 came out to understand how groundbreaking it was.

If Half-Life 2 is not a 10, nothing is a 10. It is the greatest game of all time on any platform. End of discussion.

1. They gave Half Life 2 a 9.2, which is 0.4 points below the average, which is not that much lower and Deus Ex a 8.2 0.8 points lower than average. On average, gamespots scores are 0.54 lower than the average score.

2. Half Life 2's biggest impact is the Source Engine. However, Source Engine is nowhere near as popular as the Unreal Engine from other devleopers. Or even idTech (which Call of Duty uses even today).

3. Only time will tell. However, Devil May Cry 3 is very fondly remembered, even today.

I don't know man, even most of the console fanbois will tell you that they'd deposit their console in the nearest dumpster and go totally gay for PC if Gabe ever released Episode 3 or Half-Life 3. There aren't any other games I can say that about.

I have no idea of how any of what you said relates to any of the points I brought up.

Because 9.2 is simply not the correct score for it. It's a perfect game with universal appeal and massive influence even now ten years later. A website that can't even review the greatest game of all time correctly is hard to trust. It's like someone saying they don't like the Godfather. Their opinion on all other movies is kind of invalidated by that.

In fact, Half-Life 2 isn't even a 10. It's probably more like an 11 or 12 if we're being honest with ourselves here. It was so good in every way that it blew the top off the rating scale.

Gamespot should probably review it again, and do it right this time. The same way Ebert later admitted he was wrong about Star Wars.

Yeah. I'd go gay for a billionaire who ignores their fans in favor of more profitable games. Valve pretty much said they're not focusing on Half-Life 3 because the Half-Life series isn't even half as profitable as Left 4 Dead, Team Fortress, or DotA. What a slap in the face. Gabe is a billionaire and can't be fucked to fund something promised like 7 years ago. Valve makes excellent games no doubt but come on...

Great point my friend .

Absolutely no contribution and stupid comment .

Opps, my bad, I think you need more agreement from a dozen or more level minded airheads to satisfy you total idiocy, call me again when the real world give a flying damn.

Words from Gabe himself, even there's a half life 3, it won't be PC exclusive, nor will any games from valve. I personally liked half life 1,2 and portal and understand why they are appealing to certain kind of players, but calming these games are the greatest thing ever(a big LOL) happened in gaming history is nothing but few forum hipsters silly fantasy.