Worst Gamespot Review?

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]Oblivion.. a 9.5 for a completely subpar rpg if you can even call it that.franklinBluth

Agreed.

Also:

Half-Life 2 ... 9.2 (deserved a 7)

Max Payne 2 ... 9.0 (deserved a 10)

Crysis ... 9.5 (deserved an 8 )

STALKER ... 8.5 (deserved a 6 for bugs)

Very funny

All the Star Wars game except Republic Commando that was worth it.

KOTR 2 was really overrated being a game released incomplete and bugged.

All the Star Wars game except Republic Commando that was worth it.

KOTR 2 was really overrated being a game released incomplete and bugged.

nightwraith40k

when i read the title, i thought people would be talking about what was being said IN the review, not the score, because that's debatable..... disappointed =/.

anyway, i didn't like the review for company of heroes. too much repetition of words like "impressive" :P

No one mentioned Fable yet. 8.6? That was the only game in recent memory which I purchased and could not make myself finish. What a borefest. WAY overrated.

Other than that, from what I've played I only significantly disagree with reviews of Vampire:Bloodlines (too low) and Pirates! (too high),

lol where do you live? North Korea? Here we like to think that we have something called freedom of press.

_Pedro_

umm, not it isn't kane and lynch is not a good game, only crap like that sells well on console.

Any COD4 or Halo 3 reviews, not just gamespot. Those games are so overrated, there is a picture of them next to overrated in the dictionary. Actually, add Gears of War to the list, amazing how such an arcadey, repetitive game is classed as a Killer app, lol.

The witcher, deserved much higher, easily the best RPG in years, in the top 5 of all time.

repercometh

Jeff was one of the most experienced reviewers in the industry, all he did was put his opinion on the game. He seemed to know he was going to get fired anyway, so he might have shaved off a point or so just for kicks, but reading the review itself all the points are valid

Termite551

I did not mean to lead you astray. I wasn't being serious. I have never played the game nor do I have any desire to play it.

Hitman: Codename 47 - 5.2: it wasn't a perfect game but I think it deserved higher.

Who agrees with me? Raise your hand!

biggest_loser

me me . it had some cool levels. the hotel level in budapest was cool. but i had to use a cheat to complete plutonium rising.who designed that level!! you had to like kill every one!

Well after reading the first page I haven't seen anyone mention Deus Ex yet, that game deserved atleast a 9 (and thats my opinion after playing this game for the first time not too long ago).General_X

gameplay wise the whole rpg upgrades and weapon improvements rocked.i loved the number of paths to finish each stage.story was great too. the biggest problem was the guns though. i know you could upgrade them, but even on max the machine gun felt (and looked)like a plastic toy or water gun. i liked the other weapns though like the baton and eletcric charger.

another problem was the last couple of levels ,including area 51 were kinda subpar.seemed like they rushed the game towards the end. i thought they would have made area 51 a bit more interesting. the game never really got any better than the first 2/3rds of the game.i really liked the whole mole people levels,honk kong, france and the underground place. even when you get captured in that prison cell,that level was really awesome. seeing those huge mechs for the first time rrally scared me.the game never really impressed me after that(except towards the end when you launch 2 chinese mechs versus the other 2 enemy mechs. that was so cool. i recorded that whole sequence.)

Age of Empires II (9.1): 9.1 my foot. That game deserves a VERY low 8 or even a 7.

Age of Empires III (8.2): If AO2 deserves a 9.1, then AOE3 deserves a 10.

sc_ajk29

whoa. what was so bad about aoe2? it had drastic gameplay and graphical improvement over the original.the expansion was even better. never played aoe 3 though

btw what did you dislaike so much about aoe 2? did you like aoe1 more or somthing?

I just don't see how a game like San Andreas with no story, primitive graphics and controls, terrible AI and very familiar game play can get a score of 90, editors choice etc. Its perposterous!biggest_loser

let me guess,you disliked the previous 2 gta games as well,yes??

[QUOTE="sc_ajk29"]

Age of Empires II (9.1): 9.1 my foot. That game deserves a VERY low 8 or even a 7.

Age of Empires III (8.2): If AO2 deserves a 9.1, then AOE3 deserves a 10.

bawathegamer

whoa. what was so bad about aoe2? it had drastic gameplay and graphical improvement over the original.the expansion was even better. never played aoe 3 though

btw what did you dislaike so much about aoe 2? did you like aoe1 more or somthing?

AOE2 was SO generic, it bored me half to death. And when I say an RTS is boring, you know something's wrong. Everything was exactly the same: the units, civilizations, etc. Now AOE3 - THAT's an original game.

BF 2142 is really the only PC game that seems to be unaccurate. It wasn't nearly good enough to get an 8.2DeathStar17

I think bf2142 should have gotten a little higher score. Personally i think each new battlefield game so far has been better then the last.

Hi

A no brainer.for me..It's Sherlock Holmes:The awakened 8.3..I bought..Played then Uninstalled..The game reviews on other sites give this average to just plain bad scores..I'd go with mediochre at best...!

Jericho, very underrated.

Vampire The Masquerade Bloodlines, extremely underrated.

Doom3, i thought it deserved a bigger score.

mimic-Denmark

Ugh, worst game I've played in years.

[QUOTE="biggest_loser"]I just don't see how a game like San Andreas with no story, primitive graphics and controls, terrible AI and very familiar game play can get a score of 90, editors choice etc. Its perposterous!bawathegamer

let me guess,you disliked the previous 2 gta games as well,yes??

You realise there's more than 2 before that one don't you? I have GTA 2 the isometric 2D one and it was more fun than San Andreas which to me is perhaps the most overrated game of all time.

I just can't believe how all the reviews have just ignored the issues of that game. Really unfair considering games like Thief 2 & 3 only makes the low 80's.

There are three really horrible reviews that I can think of off the top of my head:

1. Deus Ex: Invisible War - 8.0 Consider that the original Deus Ex got an 8.2. Greg Kasavin gave the two games essentially the same score, which is utterly ridiculous. Invisible War was so vastly inferior to the first game that it's not even funny. I can live with the first game getting only an 8.2, but if the original was only an 8.2, then the sequel should have been a 5.0.

2. Neverwinter Nights -- 9.2 I can't believe that nobody has mentioned this pile of crap yet. The single player campaign espeically was horrible. This part of the review text is downright hilarious...

The first of these is the brunt of the game, and it's by all means a lengthy, highly entertaining D&D campaign. It's comparable with and in many ways superior to BioWare's previous RPGs--or any other top-notch RPG to date for that matter. If Neverwinter Nights offered nothing other than this campaign, it would still be one of the best RPGs to come out in years.

3. Perfect Dark Zero -- 9.0

:lol: Need I say more? Eidos must be really pissed that their crap game gets a 6.0 but all of Microsoft crap games get 9+ scores. They need to give out $800 goodie bags like Microsoft did when Halo 3 came out.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]Oblivion.. a 9.5 for a completely subpar rpg if you can even call it that.franklinBluth

Agreed.

Also:

Half-Life 2 ... 9.2 (deserved a 7)

Max Payne 2 ... 9.0 (deserved a 10)

Crysis ... 9.5 (deserved an 8 )

STALKER ... 8.5 (deserved a 6 for bugs)

Gee...I thought you gave Half-Life 2 a rating of 1? Or am I just mistaken and I have mis-read the number you have for your rating on that game in your profile?

I know you have a topic you started about "No demo, no sale" and you clearly state that you felt HL2 was a waste of time/money on your part. Yet you come around posting an average score of 7 for HL2 here, where in your profile you have a 1 for it....well, what is it? How do you really feel about it?

I'm tempted to say stalker and witcher, but both received 8.5 which is fine score really.

chronicles of riddick (9.3) - too high

Painkiller BOOH (7.5) - too low

CnC 3 (9) - too high

Prey (7.5) - too low

mechcommander 2 (7.7) - too low

nutcrackr

nononononono sir. Riddick was one of the finest FPSs of all time. And Prey was not. If anything, Riddick should have been higher and Prey lower.

Riddick: Original game with a BA character, stunning visuals, great bonus content

Prey: Generic FPS with some kinda "oh that's neat" gravity stunts, following a who-cares character with trite, been there, done that visuals.

[QUOTE="mimic-Denmark"]

Jericho, very underrated.

Johnny_Rock

Ugh, worst game I've played in years.

Jericho is a good game. Not great, good. I'd say an 8.5

SPEAKING OF UNDERRATED: Timeshift. That game deserves a 9.0 EASILY. It takes FEAR, which was so lauded, and makes it BETTER.

Too high: Halo 1 - 3, THPS2, THPS3, PDZ, Oblivion, Gears of War, BioShock, San Andreas.

Too low: Fallout, Fallout 2, Deus Ex, System Shock 2.

Oh and I forgot StarCraft - EXTREMELY overrated.sc_ajk29

You and the people saying Halo is overrated, please at least explain why the game is overrated.

Biggest loser will you stop with your 1 man crusade against GTA SA? Ok you don't like it thats fine, but a lot of us did like it so I don't consider it a bad review. There was plenty to like about the game and there were plenty of problems but I thought they were very easy to overlook. You also never completed the entire game, so you never got to the good parts so I consider your view point biased at best.

The only 2 I think were vastly under rated were Deus Ex and VTMB

[QUOTE="sc_ajk29"]Oh and I forgot StarCraft - EXTREMELY overrated.Vax45

You and the people saying Halo is overrated, please at least explain why the game is overrated.

Personally, I thought the first Halo was pretty good. It was put together decent and it had fun gameplay, even though some of the levels constantly looked like the previous one, but that was a problem I could look past. The overall gameplay and performance of Halo was fun; new.

Halo 2 came along and the series started falling apart from here....

• A step in the wrong direction - The split missions between the alien creature (I can't recall what the name of these creatures are) and Master Chief was awful.
• A step in the right direction - introducing the ability to wield two weapons at once.
• Step in the wrong direction - serious downtweaking of the Needle gun and pistol (granted they were a bit overpowered, but they were downtweaked too much, making them not very useful) - it became more of a hassle to use them then it was worth.
• Step in the right direction - improved graphics and the multi-player was just as good, if not better then Halo. But I'm not a Halo Multi-player fan....I didn't play ver much.
• Step in the wrong direction - the story lacked. It feel apart during this sequal and it never recovered.
• Step in the wrong direction - The game play did not improve over the first Halo, in my opinion. The only new differences was the dual wield weapon ability and the ability to intercept enemy vehicles. Other then that, it played exactly the same as Halo.

I didn't play all the way through Halo 3. I made it about 2/3 of the way and I couldn't bring myself to finish it. The story was not interesting and the hype behind the Halo series pretty much died with me after my less then stellar welcome into Halo 2. I felt Halo 3 only mirrored Halo 2, aside from not having to play missions as the alien creature. Nothing new was introduced.

I sure am glad that I didn't spend my money on the Halo games (except for Halo on PC; I refuse to purchase Halo 2 on PC). My little brother owns all the Halo games and he feels the same as I do with Halo 3. He's more of a fan of Halo 2 and he and I both really like the original.

Those are the reasons why Halo 2 and 3 are overrated. Halo 1 deserves the good score it got...the other two are rated too high.

[QUOTE="sc_ajk29"]Oh and I forgot StarCraft - EXTREMELY overrated.Vax45

You and the people saying Halo is overrated, please at least explain why the game is overrated.

The first Halo on PC was great, I'd give it a 8.0 because the PC version performed terribly, but as far as the game itself went, it was definitely an accomplished shooter.

Halo 2 and 3 on the other hand, are also good, fun games, but the feeling of deja vu is a bit too much, but still fun games in their own right.

And yes, that guy who said StarCraft is overrated doesn't know what he's talking about.

I just think Halo is overrated because it's exactly what a shooter should have at it's core but there's no extras. It's just a solid shooter with no big "OMG that's cool". I'm not saying bad just...overrated a couple guns and vehicles when games like Half-Life and Far Cry were varied and amazingly well done...It just did so well cause Xbox was crap till it got Halo series.

P.S. (Mechwarrior 2 deserved way higher)

I just think Halo is overrated because it's exactly what a shooter should have at it's core but there's no extras. It's just a solid shooter with no big "OMG that's cool". I'm not saying bad just...overrated a couple guns and vehicles when games like Half-Life and Far Cry were varied and amazingly well done...It just did so well cause Xbox was crap till it got Halo series.

P.S. (Mechwarrior 2 deserved way higher)

mechwarrior_bob

Halo was a launch title, it came out the same day as the Xbox. And vehicle control (part of what makes that game so great imo) is still great, better than FarCry and Crysis imo.

I kinda waited for this "I think Halo is overrated"/"Na ha!"-discussion ever since it was mentioned in this thread...

Okay sorry it was a launch title I retract some of my earlier statements but it's what SOLD the xbox what kept it alive when it could of floundered with crappy games it was a (small but valuable) gem in a sea of sand.

Okay sorry it was a launch title I retract some of my earlier statements but it's what SOLD the xbox what kept it alive when it could of floundered with crappy games it was a (small but valuable) gem in a sea of sand.

mechwarrior_bob

Can't argue with that. Although Xbox did have some of my favourite games of all time. Kotor 1 & 2, Oddworld games, Halo-series, eventually GTA pack, Morrowind, Mafia and so on. I did not have a PC at that time (poor student), so I got an Xbox instead. Sigh, good times. Even better now though.

Biggest loser will you stop with your 1 man crusade against GTA SA? Ok you don't like it thats fine, but a lot of us did like it so I don't consider it a bad review. There was plenty to like about the game and there were plenty of problems but I thought they were very easy to overlook. You also never completed the entire game, so you never got to the good parts so I consider your view point biased at best.

The only 2 I think were vastly under rated were Deus Ex and VTMB

Rotinaj32

My view is my own...that does not make it biased. And FYI i only missed the last level which I have watched.

Sure it wasn't without some merits but I found it difficult to overlook problems like umm the lack of story, save system, controls, graphics...very basic elements of games. I am entitled to say what i like as you are...

So which Gamespot review of a game do you think missed the mark the most?

I can think of two...

Ultima Online...4.9

Hammer & Sickle...3.6

Before I get banned, I do think Gamespot does a good job reviewing games OVERALL. I just thought these two were unnecessarily harsh. ALSO, it's more of an art than a science reviewing games...there is a lot of subjective opinion involved...

Just curious

Stowik

"Before I get banned," Don't be so paranoid, you said nothing wrong and are simply stating what you think about these reviews. To be honest, no one should ever buy a game based on a review by some employee. The one and only thing you should be doing is getting a basic understanding of the game's pros, and cons. Simple.

EDIT: About the GTA SA, it was a letdown. The games before it, for example: Vice City were just that much better. San Andreas felt like a re-run with some minor extras.

WiCDieselCat18

Comes out last year, it's a Game of the Year contender. Comes out this year, it IS game of the year.

[QUOTE="DeathStar17"]BF 2142 is really the only PC game that seems to be unaccurate. It wasn't nearly good enough to get an 8.2mimic-Denmark

I think bf2142 should have gotten a little higher score. Personally i think each new battlefield game so far has been better then the last.

I disagree. BF2142 is the worst of the series. Gamespot was generous in it's rating. It's just a BF2 mod sold as a seperate game.