Gears 2 - Did MS pay reviewers or something?

I mean, seriously, even Gears Fanboys have accepted that Gears 2 has horrible multiplayer that, by some accounts, is borderline broken.

Any other game would get taken to bits in a review and would get a highly reduced score... but oh no, not gears 2. Gears 2 is allowed to be broken simply because it is gears 2. reviewers turned a blind eye to this games failings and, as a result, did us gamers a great dis-service

I mean, seriously, even Gears Fanboys have accepted that Gears 2 has horrible multiplayer that, by some accounts, is borderline broken.

Any other game would get taken to bits in a review and would get a highly reduced score... but oh no, not gears 2. Gears 2 is allowed to be broken simply because it is gears 2. reviewers turned a blind eye to this games failings and, as a result, did us gamers a great dis-service

thetruespin

You do yourself a disgrace if you give a review that much influence over what you buy.

perhaps not broken, but it has serious issues that reviewers IGNORED.

no other game would get awaywith this type of problem, except gears

perhaps not broken, but it has serious issues that reviewers IGNORED.

no other game would get awaywith this type of problem, except gears

thetruespin

I think other games of the same hype quality would also have it's flaws ignored. A Halo game, a Metal Gear Solid game, a Mario/Zelda game,  there areother titles thatmany reviewers are afraid to bash.

I doubt MS paid reviewers, what would be the point? People would buy it anyway.Floppy_Jim

Peace of mind and because they can.

perhaps not broken, but it has serious issues that reviewers IGNORED.

no other game would get awaywith this type of problem, except gears

thetruespin

Yes. MS paid 10 dollars more than Insominiac did for the Resistance 2 review. That's why it scored higher.

[QUOTE="Floppy_Jim"]I doubt MS paid reviewers, what would be the point? People would buy it anyway.Jade_Monkey

Peace of mind and because they can.

[QUOTE="Jade_Monkey"]

[QUOTE="Floppy_Jim"]I doubt MS paid reviewers, what would be the point? People would buy it anyway.SpruceCaboose

Peace of mind and because they can.

It's one of the constants of system wars

1. All PS3 games are crap

2. MS pays of everybody and hasn't earned anything

3. The Sheep don't count

Gears 2 MP is perfectly fine other than the match making issues which i'm sure will be fixed soon. But even still just get a couple of friends in your game and you'll be able to find games no problem.

It's one of the constants of system wars

1. All PS3 games are crap

2. MS pays of everybody and hasn't earned anything

3. The Sheep don't count

 

 

heretrix

Yes. MS paid 10 dollars more than Insominiac did for the Resistance 2 review. That's why it scored higher.

Yes. MS paid 10 dollars more than Insominiac did for the Resistance 2 review. That's why it scored higher.

[QUOTE="thetruespin"]

perhaps not broken, but it has serious issues that reviewers IGNORED.

no other game would get awaywith this type of problem, except gears

SpruceCaboose

well, Socom: Confrontation didnt get that luxury.. it was tore apart buy GS and other reviewers for having network issue during the launch.. check the reviews and find some serious issues with the actual gameplay.. you'll find next to nothing.. based upon the actual gameplay it's easily a AA title, yet the game received a 6.5 for network issues that you would agree are temporary in nature.. so why did Gears 2 get a "pass"?.. it still received a AAA score with such an obvious flaw?.. GS even mention Gears 2's multiplayer features in the "Good" section of their review.. which means that not only did Gamespot ignore those network issues, they gave praise to them and factored them into Gears of War 2's 9.0 score..

that doesnt sound like bias to you?..

Network issues during the launch window of Socom: Confrontation = TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE!!.. "6.5".

Network issues during the launch window of Gears of War 2 (and apparently on-going) = totally ignored and multplayer is still used as a selling point.. "9.0".

something is wrong with this double-standard.. i wont say that someone got paid-off, but there is obviously a problem with this logic..

The multiplayer is not broken. The matchmaking system sucks, but it works. The multiplayer itself has been great for me personally.SpruceCaboose

[QUOTE="SpruceCaboose"][QUOTE="thetruespin"]

perhaps not broken, but it has serious issues that reviewers IGNORED.

no other game would get awaywith this type of problem, except gears

Antwan3K

well, Socom: Confrontation didnt get that luxury.. it was tore apart buy GS and other reviewers for having network issue during the launch.. check the reviews and find some serious issues with the actual gameplay.. you'll find next to nothing.. based upon the actual gameplay it's easily a AA title, yet the game received a 6.5 for network issues that you would agree are temporary in nature.. so why did Gears 2 get a "pass"?.. it still received a AAA score with such an obvious flaw?.. GS even mention Gears 2's multiplayer features in the "Good" section of their review.. which means that not only did Gamespot ignore those network issues, they gave praise to them and factored them into Gears of War 2's 9.0 score..

that doesnt sound like bias to you?..

Network issues during the launch window of Socom: Confrontation = TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE!!.. "6.5".

Network issues during the launch window of Gears of War 2 (and apparently on-going) = totally ignored and multplayer is still used as a selling point.. "9.0".

something is wrong with this double-standard.. i wont say that someone got paid-off, but there is obviously a problem with this logic..

I mean, seriously, even Gears Fanboys have accepted that Gears 2 has horrible multiplayer that, by some accounts, is borderline broken.

Any other game would get taken to bits in a review and would get a highly reduced score... but oh no, not gears 2. Gears 2 is allowed to be broken simply because it is gears 2. reviewers turned a blind eye to this games failings and, as a result, did us gamers a great dis-service

thetruespin

Say what youi will against gears 2 it's still light years ahead of R2 and that's what reviewers base games around, is it better than whats currently about? The answer is yes.

Go cry.

[QUOTE="SpruceCaboose"][QUOTE="Jade_Monkey"]

 

Peace of mind and because they can.

Jade_Monkey

Yes because Microsoft is such an upstanding company who can do no wrong and would never do something slightly unethical to help their company. I in no way said they did, I said they could. You are a blind Microsoft fanboy who ought to wake up and see how the world works.

You won't get me to defend GameSpot's reviews. I don't like them either. That, and I have never played a SOCOM game, so I can't really talk about them either positively or negatively. SpruceCaboose

i can respect that.. my comments were more-so geared towards those 360 fanboys who blindly bashed Socom: C without realizing that there was nothing wrong with the game itself.. it just got bad reviews based on the natural and temporary network issues that occur with wildly popular online games during the launch window.. yet when people make Gears of War 2 threads talking about how much the multiplayer is dragged down by network issues, they all say "hey it natural during launch. give it time. the actual gameplay is solid though".. :roll:.. it's incredibly funny and sad at the same time...

they somehow dont see why (according to their own logic with Socom: C), that Gears 2 possibly should have been scored AA due to those same network issues..

[QUOTE="SpruceCaboose"]

No, there is no way MS bribed reviewers, and people claiming that they could or would are being very irrational.heretrix

It's one of the constants of system wars

1. All PS3 games are crap

2. MS pays of everybody and hasn't earned anything

3. The Sheep don't count

That's about right.

And TC, what about Jeff Gerstmann? He gave the game 5/5 over at Giant Bomb and we know he didn't accept any payments...he was fired for pretty much refusing to do that sort of thing.

I haven't played it yet (I'm planning to pick it up with my next paycheck), but I've heard it's much better than the first...if that's true, then you can bet it deserves every increment of the scores awarded to it.

I mean, seriously, even Gears Fanboys have accepted that Gears 2 has horrible multiplayer that, by some accounts, is borderline broken.

Any other game would get taken to bits in a review and would get a highly reduced score... but oh no, not gears 2. Gears 2 is allowed to be broken simply because it is gears 2. reviewers turned a blind eye to this games failings and, as a result, did us gamers a great dis-service

thetruespin

MGS4s online was a joke........10/10

I mean, seriously, even Gears Fanboys have accepted that Gears 2 has horrible multiplayer that, by some accounts, is borderline broken.

Any other game would get taken to bits in a review and would get a highly reduced score... but oh no, not gears 2. Gears 2 is allowed to be broken simply because it is gears 2. reviewers turned a blind eye to this games failings and, as a result, did us gamers a great dis-service

They definetly paid reviewers! SOCOM didn't pay and they got bashed for laggy servers. GeoW deserves that same punishement for crappy online!Master_SONY

[QUOTE="SpruceCaboose"][QUOTE="thetruespin"]

perhaps not broken, but it has serious issues that reviewers IGNORED.

no other game would get awaywith this type of problem, except gears

Antwan3K

well, Socom: Confrontation didnt get that luxury.. it was tore apart buy GS and other reviewers for having network issue during the launch.. check the reviews and find some serious issues with the actual gameplay.. you'll find next to nothing.. based upon the actual gameplay it's easily a AA title, yet the game received a 6.5 for network issues that you would agree are temporary in nature.. so why did Gears 2 get a "pass"?.. it still received a AAA score with such an obvious flaw?.. GS even mention Gears 2's multiplayer features in the "Good" section of their review.. which means that not only did Gamespot ignore those network issues, they gave praise to them and factored them into Gears of War 2's 9.0 score..

that doesnt sound like bias to you?..

Network issues during the launch window of Socom: Confrontation = TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE!!.. "6.5".

Network issues during the launch window of Gears of War 2 (and apparently on-going) = totally ignored and multplayer is still used as a selling point.. "9.0".

something is wrong with this double-standard.. i wont say that someone got paid-off, but there is obviously a problem with this logic..

WOAH! Hold on a second here. Have you ever heard of Partner Net? No? That's what game journalists use to play pre-release online games on Xbox Live, it's not the standard 'ol Live. Try reading the WHOLE review instead of just looking at the meaningless number, you might find that they mention that fact in most of their reviews. Sony just throws the game out there, warts and all. If you want to blame someone, try blaming all the gaming sites and the competition for page views and wanting to be the first with a review. Thanks and have a nice day!

[QUOTE="SpruceCaboose"][QUOTE="thetruespin"]

perhaps not broken, but it has serious issues that reviewers IGNORED.

no other game would get awaywith this type of problem, except gears

Antwan3K

well, Socom: Confrontation didnt get that luxury.. it was tore apart buy GS and other reviewers for having network issue during the launch.. check the reviews and find some serious issues with the actual gameplay.. you'll find next to nothing.. based upon the actual gameplay it's easily a AA title, yet the game received a 6.5 for network issues that you would agree are temporary in nature.. so why did Gears 2 get a "pass"?.. it still received a AAA score with such an obvious flaw?.. GS even mention Gears 2's multiplayer features in the "Good" section of their review.. which means that not only did Gamespot ignore those network issues, they gave praise to them and factored them into Gears of War 2's 9.0 score..

that doesnt sound like bias to you?..

Network issues during the launch window of Socom: Confrontation = TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE!!.. "6.5".

Network issues during the launch window of Gears of War 2 (and apparently on-going) = totally ignored and multplayer is still used as a selling point.. "9.0".

something is wrong with this double-standard.. i wont say that someone got paid-off, but there is obviously a problem with this logic..

Metal Gear Solid 4 - Did MS pay reviewers or something? I mean, seriously, even MGS4 fanboys have accepted that MGS4 has terrible multiplayer, by some accounts, is borderline broken.

Any other game would get taken to bits in a review and would get a highly reduced score... but oh no, not gears 2. Gears 2 is allowed to be broken simply because it is gears 2. reviewers turned a blind eye to this games failings and, as a result, did us gamers a great dis-service.

lol

I know that most people don't think Gears of War 2 has as good of a single player as MGS4. But MGS4 did not have a good multiplayer, and I'm pretty sure most would agree Gears 2's multi is better. Just pointing out how ridiculous it is for a game to be docked solely because of it's multiplayer. 

I mean, seriously, even Gears Fanboys have accepted that Gears 2 has horrible multiplayer that, by some accounts, is borderline broken.

Any other game would get taken to bits in a review and would get a highly reduced score... but oh no, not gears 2. Gears 2 is allowed to be broken simply because it is gears 2. reviewers turned a blind eye to this games failings and, as a result, did us gamers a great dis-service

[QUOTE="thetruespin"]

perhaps not broken, but it has serious issues that reviewers IGNORED.

no other game would get awaywith this type of problem, except gears

Jade_Monkey

I think other games of the same hype quality would also have it's flaws ignored. A Halo game, a Metal Gear Solid game, a Mario/Zelda game, there areother titles thatmany reviewers are afraid to bash.

I mean, seriously, even Gears Fanboys have accepted that Gears 2 has horrible multiplayer that, by some accounts, is borderline broken.

Any other game would get taken to bits in a review and would get a highly reduced score... but oh no, not gears 2. Gears 2 is allowed to be broken simply because it is gears 2. reviewers turned a blind eye to this games failings and, as a result, did us gamers a great dis-service

[QUOTE="SpruceCaboose"][QUOTE="thetruespin"]

perhaps not broken, but it has serious issues that reviewers IGNORED.

no other game would get awaywith this type of problem, except gears

Antwan3K

well, Socom: Confrontation didnt get that luxury.. it was tore apart buy GS and other reviewers for having network issue during the launch.. check the reviews and find some serious issues with the actual gameplay.. you'll find next to nothing.. based upon the actual gameplay it's easily a AA title, yet the game received a 6.5 for network issues that you would agree are temporary in nature.. so why did Gears 2 get a "pass"?.. it still received a AAA score with such an obvious flaw?.. GS even mention Gears 2's multiplayer features in the "Good" section of their review.. which means that not only did Gamespot ignore those network issues, they gave praise to them and factored them into Gears of War 2's 9.0 score..

that doesnt sound like bias to you?..

Network issues during the launch window of Socom: Confrontation = TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE!!.. "6.5".

Network issues during the launch window of Gears of War 2 (and apparently on-going) = totally ignored and multplayer is still used as a selling point.. "9.0".

something is wrong with this double-standard.. i wont say that someone got paid-off, but there is obviously a problem with this logic..

I mean, seriously, even Gears Fanboys have accepted that Gears 2 has horrible multiplayer that, by some accounts, is borderline broken.

thetruespin

stop making things up. gears 2 is a great game, stop whining