Gamespot reviews are meaningless to me now...

I'm not saying that they are wrong, but simply that the reviews are too incosistent with most of the media and my own tastes for me to fully consider them. It seems that gamespot reviewers all have different tastes and different standards which makes the meaning of their scores hard to really asses. Maybe gamespot has to swith to an EGM system and have different reviewers give their opinions. Scores are not the only thing that matter, but the actual writing of the reviews that seems extremely incosistent at times. Recent reviews that have led me to this conclusion:

Ratchet and Clank

Metroid Prime 3

Assassin's Creed

Fire Emblem

------------------------------------------------ Examples:

Rachet and Clank gets 7.5 when it has a review average of about 9.4... the score itself is not the problem because it is in the good category. The problem comes when we compare it to other games that hae gotten 7.5 and 8.0.

Metroid Prime 3: by far the worst review of the bunch. The review is full of praise and yet the game only gets 8.5. it seems that the score was just a random decision by the reviewer. the written review is full of contradictions and complains such as lack of multiplayer cant really be taken seriously. If you believe that the game lacks replay value say something, but saying that metroid needs multiplayer is amateurish at best. I heard no complaints int he bioshock review and yet the games are both of similar lenght and have similar incentives for replayability. ( metroid prime having both more lenght and a better incentive structure IMO) again, different reviewers with different standards and different experience with games.

Assassins Creed: ign, 1up, edge, etc. all in the 7's. gamespot the harsh reviewer 9.0:| Hype overcomes repetitive gameplay? The review is full of flaws yet the game gets a high score... what about all those gushing reviews that ended up in 8.5? Different reviewers.... different standards.... different levels of honesty and bravery to flop highly hyped games. We know Jeff and Greg are not afraid to do so....but is everyone? different reviewers...

Fire Emblem: again, the 6.0 score doesnt matte. because the game is not for everyone.... but complaining about lack of mii integration? wow.. complaining about lack of online multiplayer in a slow tactitcal turn based strategy RPG? hmmm.... all other website EGM: 8s and 9s, ign 8, iup 9, np 9.5 gamespot 6.0..... I guess gamespot is not hardcore enough.... it is also not casual enough either it seems...

Gamespot reviewers seem to be a very specific group of gamers who like certain games and not others, and thus their recommendations are no longer meaninful to me.

Still enjoy what seems to be one of the best years in gaming!

End of rant

I gave up on them two years ago. Good choice.

Even though Fire Emblem is my favourite series...I can see why someone may score it low on a scale of 10. The review itself was terrible though.

When I saw the 9 on Assassin's Creed though...and seeing GameSpot say the PS3 version is fine...

Well I just knew this wasn't the same site I started reading more than five years ago.

so in other words...i dont not agree with them because its the scores i wanna see or hear :lol: Dante2710

its not the scores.... its what the review themselves say that is most confusing to me.... when I read the reviews instead of saying: good thing that I have these experts to help me decide where my gaming dollar goes, Im thinking: I could have written a better review than this guy and I seem to know a lot more about games than he does. Im not talking Jeff here, he gives controversial scores but backs his claims. (TP and bioshock) and in the end, sometimes I cant help but agree with him. For most new reviewers though, it seems tthat they just give the score that they feel like giving or that they think this type of game deserves due to hype and popularity instead of the merits of the actual game.

A lot of the time it also seems some reviewers are stuck reviewing types of genres that they dont like or are not really used to.... which is terrible for a professional site.

Selective review choosing by the TC to try to make his point seem valid.

Assasin's Creed Meta Critic: 84% Gamespot score: 9.0

Metroid Prime 3: Metacritic 90% Gamespot score: 8.5

Do you expect their scores to match 100%?

Yes Gamespot reviewed R & C lower than average. They do that to sequels that don't add much to the formula. Spliter Cell CT anyone? Fire Emblem Wii is essentially the same game it was on Gamecube. The 6.0 stings a little but is far from surprising. I think you are the first to take issue with it here.

[QUOTE="Dante2710"]so in other words...i dont not agree with them because its the scores i wanna see or hear :lol: amtentori

...it seems tthat they just give the score that they feel like giving...

I think you are on to them.

The Fire Emblem review is spot on. Read the review and you understand the score.

• Laughable plot
• Frustrating difficulty will alienate newcomers
• Doesn't even try to adapt and make use of the Wii
• Little to no improvement graphically over its GameCube predecessor.

Link

He also suggests an awesome idea. Mii integration in a fire Emblem game. It is a perfect idea. It would get you to care about the characters if they were one of your miis. The graphics are very simplistic in the gamecube fire emblem games so the Miis wouldn't be totally out of place. (I'm counting the Wii version as a gamecube game because well, it is)

Or maybe they could make a simple game around it and have stylized graphics that make the miis fit in. (Ok, so the game would look crappy, but hey that is just how the Miis are.)

LMAO R&c has a 89.5 average now, not even AAA. You Phail!Frostbite24

being .5 away from aaa is alot closer then being 2.5 points away from 7.5, you fail horribly

Selective review choosing by the TC to try to make his point seem valid.

Assasin's Creed Meta Critic: 84% Gamespot score: 9.0

Metroid Prime 3: Metacritic 90% Gamespot score: 8.5

Do you expect their scores to match 100%?

Yes Gamespot reviewed R & C lower than average. They do that to sequels that don't add much to the formula. Spliter Cell CT anyone? Fire Emblem Wii is essentially the same game it was on Gamecube. The 6.0 stings a little but is far from surprising. I think you are the first to take issue with it here.

Thread floppage. flintgijoe

again not the scores... what is written in the reviews.....

You spelled "assess" wrong.

It took you this long? Its not just the scores but the actual quality of the reviews that have been bad as of late.

[QUOTE="Frostbite24"]LMAO R&c has a 89.5 average now, not even AAA. You Phail!zeonne

being .5 away from aaa is alot closer then being 2.5 points away from 7.5, you fail horribly

Ownage DENIED.

Cows harped on how this game was locked AAA everywhere else. Then the metacritic score fell to 89% and the cows went silent.

Yes GS scored R & C comparitively low (they do that to a lot of games), but 8.9 is not AAA. Sorry.

Well with assasins creed and MP3 there not that far off the average. Ratchet and clank and Fire emblems reviews however are another matter. Fire emblems review was retarded. Its too hard, wait I thought you wanted more hardcore games on the wii? Online, it is definitely not suited for online play, mii intergration, your just looking for excuses, bad plot, ok seriously why aren't games like mario galaxy marked down for having a bad plot? Graphics, fair enough, lack of wii features, fair enough. This should of been a solid AA score.

The worse part about these scores is that people are just going to judge the game and call it flop without even giving it a chance.

The Fire Emblem review is spot on. Read the review and you understand the score.

• Laughable plot
• Frustrating difficulty will alienate newcomers
• Doesn't even try to adapt and make use of the Wii
• Little to no improvement graphically over its GameCube predecessor.

Link

He also suggests an awesome idea. Mii integration in a fire Emblem game. It is a perfect idea. It would get you to care about the characters if they were one of your miis. The graphics are very simplistic in the gamecube fire emblem games so the Miis wouldn't be totally out of place. (I'm counting the Wii version as a gamecube game because well, it is)

Or maybe they could make a simple game around it and have stylized graphics that make the miis fit in. (Ok, so the game would look crappy, but hey that is just how the Miis are.)

flintgijoe

This is a joke post, right? If its not you know absolutly nothing about FE games. The story lines are good. The games arent nearly as hard as he makes them out to be. Strategy RPGs have never been known for good graphics. Each character has its own unique traits and characteristics so adding something as random as a mii is just plain stupid.

[QUOTE="zeonne"]

[QUOTE="Frostbite24"]LMAO R&c has a 89.5 average now, not even AAA. You Phail!flintgijoe

being .5 away from aaa is alot closer then being 2.5 points away from 7.5, you fail horribly

Ownage DENIED.

Cows harped on how this game was locked AAA everywhere else. Then the metacritic score fell to 89% and the cows went silent.

Yes GS scored R & C comparitively low (they do that to a lot of games), but 8.9 is not AAA. Sorry.

did i say 89% was aaa?

please learn to read BEFORE you post

so in other words...i dont not agree with them because its the scores i wanna see or hear :lol: Dante2710

[QUOTE="flintgijoe"]

Selective review choosing by the TC to try to make his point seem valid.

Assasin's Creed Meta Critic: 84% Gamespot score: 9.0

Metroid Prime 3: Metacritic 90% Gamespot score: 8.5

Do you expect their scores to match 100%?

Yes Gamespot reviewed R & C lower than average. They do that to sequels that don't add much to the formula. Spliter Cell CT anyone? Fire Emblem Wii is essentially the same game it was on Gamecube. The 6.0 stings a little but is far from surprising. I think you are the first to take issue with it here.

Thread floppage. amtentori

again not the scores... what is written in the reviews.....

Well I count 15 specific refrences to scores in your original post. Do I need to highlight them for you?

Of course, we all know that it is really the text of the R & C review that has caused all the stir. :roll:

[QUOTE="flintgijoe"][QUOTE="zeonne"]

[QUOTE="Frostbite24"]LMAO R&c has a 89.5 average now, not even AAA. You Phail!zeonne

being .5 away from aaa is alot closer then being 2.5 points away from 7.5, you fail horribly

Ownage DENIED.

Cows harped on how this game was locked AAA everywhere else. Then the metacritic score fell to 89% and the cows went silent.

Yes GS scored R & C comparitively low (they do that to a lot of games), but 8.9 is not AAA. Sorry.

did i say 89% was aaa?

please learn to read BEFORE you post

They really need some quality control people reading over their reviews before they post them. Like stated before, sometimes they just don't make sense.

did i say 89% was aaa?

please learn to read BEFORE you post

flintgijoe

opinions are worthless...

My respect went out the window when they reviewed Final Fantasy Tactics for PS1.

I just like their forums...

[QUOTE="zeonne"][QUOTE="flintgijoe"][QUOTE="zeonne"]

[QUOTE="Frostbite24"]LMAO R&c has a 89.5 average now, not even AAA. You Phail!flintgijoe

being .5 away from aaa is alot closer then being 2.5 points away from 7.5, you fail horribly

Ownage DENIED.

Cows harped on how this game was locked AAA everywhere else. Then the metacritic score fell to 89% and the cows went silent.

Yes GS scored R & C comparitively low (they do that to a lot of games), but 8.9 is not AAA. Sorry.

did i say 89% was aaa?

please learn to read BEFORE you post

wow you fail really hard

and for the record i dont really care, ign's reviews are the ones i agree with the most usually . they gave SOTC its props

[QUOTE="Dante2710"]so in other words...i dont not agree with them because its the scores i wanna see or hear :lol: amtentori

its not the scores.... its what the review themselves say that is most confusing to me.... when I read the reviews instead of saying: good thing that I have these experts to help me decide where my gaming dollar goes, Im thinking: I could have written a better review than this guy and I seem to know a lot more about games than he does. Im not talking Jeff here, he gives controversial scores but backs his claims. (TP and bioshock) and in the end, sometimes I cant help but agree with him. For most new reviewers though, it seems tthat they just give the score that they feel like giving or that they think this type of game deserves due to hype and popularity instead of the merits of the actual game.

A lot of the time it also seems some reviewers are stuck reviewing types of genres that they dont like or are not really used to.... which is terrible for a professional site.

Then rent it, play it, and make your own damn decision. I hate this GS is biased/ignorant/ineffective/impotent/hasn't-called-me-back-after-that-amazing-night nonsense. You can do this with every review site.

[QUOTE="zeonne"][QUOTE="flintgijoe"][QUOTE="zeonne"]

[QUOTE="Frostbite24"]LMAO R&c has a 89.5 average now, not even AAA. You Phail!flintgijoe

being .5 away from aaa is alot closer then being 2.5 points away from 7.5, you fail horribly

Ownage DENIED.

Cows harped on how this game was locked AAA everywhere else. Then the metacritic score fell to 89% and the cows went silent.

Yes GS scored R & C comparitively low (they do that to a lot of games), but 8.9 is not AAA. Sorry.

did i say 89% was aaa?

please learn to read BEFORE you post

[QUOTE="zeonne"]

[QUOTE="Frostbite24"]LMAO R&c has a 89.5 average now, not even AAA. You Phail!flintgijoe

being .5 away from aaa is alot closer then being 2.5 points away from 7.5, you fail horribly

Ownage DENIED.

Cows harped on how this game was locked AAA everywhere else. Then the metacritic score fell to 89% and the cows went silent.

Yes GS scored R & C comparitively low (they do that to a lot of games), but 8.9 is not AAA. Sorry.

oh and the 7.5 gs gave it had nothing to do with it dropping below AAA?? :roll: im sure if gs scored it a little more reasonable it would be AAA gamerankings. how do lemmings not get this?

hmm, so you think gamespots reviews are "meaningless" just because they don't give a game the number you expect to see? i think you should find a dictionary and look up the word "opinion".

Fascinating. Use another site then.dracula_16

Metroid Prime 3 has 89% aswell, 8.5 is not that far off.

Assasins Creed has had mixed reviews, but its at 89% at gamerankings also. Very close to 9.0 isnt it? Other sites like Gametrailers gave it a 9.1.

Fire Emblem seems to be pretty low, but if you read the review, you can actually understand why the reviewer gave it a 6.0.

Yeah they've been meaningless to me for a long ass time. It's just one guys biased opinion and they rarely even try to be objective about it.

I'm not saying that they are wrong, but simply that the reviews are too incosistent with most of the media and my own tastes for me to fully consider them. It seems that gamespot reviewers all have different tastes and different standards which makes the meaning of their scores hard to really asses. Maybe gamespot has to swith to an EGM system and have different reviewers give their opinions. Scores are not the only thing that matter, but the actual writing of the reviews that seems extremely incosistent at times. Recent reviews that have led me to this conclusion:

Ratchet and Clank

Metroid Prime 3

Assassin's Creed

Fire Emblem

------------------------------------------------ Examples:

Rachet and Clank gets 7.5 when it has a review average of about 9.4... the score itself is not the problem because it is in the good category. The problem comes when we compare it to other games that hae gotten 7.5 and 8.0.

Metroid Prime 3: by far the worst review of the bunch. The review is full of praise and yet the game only gets 8.5. it seems that the score was just a random decision by the reviewer. the written review is full of contradictions and complains such as lack of multiplayer cant really be taken seriously. If you believe that the game lacks replay value say something, but saying that metroid needs multiplayer is amateurish at best. I heard no complaints int he bioshock review and yet the games are both of similar lenght and have similar incentives for replayability. ( metroid prime having both more lenght and a better incentive structure IMO) again, different reviewers with different standards and different experience with games.

Assassins Creed: ign, 1up, edge, etc. all in the 7's. gamespot the harsh reviewer 9.0:| Hype overcomes repetitive gameplay? The review is full of flaws yet the game gets a high score... what about all those gushing reviews that ended up in 8.5? Different reviewers.... different standards.... different levels of honesty and bravery to flop highly hyped games. We know Jeff and Greg are not afraid to do so....but is everyone? different reviewers...

Fire Emblem: again, the 6.0 score doesnt matte. because the game is not for everyone.... but complaining about lack of mii integration? wow.. complaining about lack of online multiplayer in a slow tactitcal turn based strategy RPG? hmmm.... all other website EGM: 8s and 9s, ign 8, iup 9, np 9.5 gamespot 6.0..... I guess gamespot is not hardcore enough.... it is also not casual enough either it seems...

Gamespot reviewers seem to be a very specific group of gamers who like certain games and not others, and thus their recommendations are no longer meaninful to me.

Still enjoy what seems to be one of the best years in gaming!

End of rant

amtentori

Agreed. You forgot to mention Perfect Dark Zero. With review alone GS lost all its credibility IMO.

hmm, so you think gamespots reviews are "meaningless" just because they don't give a game the number you expect to see? i think you should find a dictionary and look up the word "opinion".

Cyberfairy

They are meaningless to me. they serve me no purpose whatsoever. they are rarely more than a page in lenght and the issues they complain about rarely cross my mind...

Ratchet has around 89% at Gamerankings, not 94.

Metroid Prime 3 has 89% aswell, 8.5 is not that far off.

Assasins Creed has had mixed reviews, but its at 89% at gamerankings also. Very close to 9.0 isnt it? Other sites like Gametrailers gave it a 9.1.

Fire Emblem seems to be pretty low, but if you read the review, you can actually understand why the reviewer gave it a 6.0.

Samurai_Xavier

the thing is you will start noticing a trend.... which games are slightly overrated and which games are given the low end of the possible scores. its not like they can just give mp3 a 6... they just lowball some games and highball some... the problem is that their tendencies are extremely obvious and their preferences are starting to really diverge from my own.... so why should I consider their reviews?

I just hate the inconsistency and the poorly written reviews.

First of all FE is known for its extreme difficulty and thats why people love it. Also Mii integration is silly and withall the 2d Cartoon dialoge it's almost impossible where a 3D dialoge engine.