I love the Multiple Reviews for games on Gamespot now!

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by Netherscourge (16271 posts) -

I absolutely love that fact that ONE SINGLE REVIEWER is no longer representing the entire Gamespot staff's opinions on a game.

I like that Kevin VanOrd gave Bioshock Infinite a 9 and Tom McShea gave it a 4.

This is what I've been waiting for with game site reviews - MULTIPLE OPINIONS with REASONS for their scores. After reading both reviews, I find that I agree with BOTH guys on most of their points. In fact, I think putting a number score on the review is pointless.

It shows that no ONE person's opinion is the be-all, end-all of how good or bad or mediocre a game is. I also like that they went back MONTHS later to review games again.

Kudos from me!

#2 Posted by toast_burner (20662 posts) -

I'm not sure if this is sarcasm or not.

Either way it's just a way for other staff to show their opinions on the game. The official score is unaffected by these so I have no idea why anyone would have anything negative to say about this.

#3 Edited by iambatman7986 (333 posts) -

I like the 3 person review scores personally. Like EGM and Gamepro used to do in the magazines. It gave more opinions than just the one single opinion. I think Gamepot should do the second and third opinions myself.

#4 Edited by LordOfPoms (1086 posts) -

I like the 3 person review scores personally. Like EGM and Gamepro used to do in the magazines. It gave more opinions than just the one single opinion. I think Gamepot should do the second and third opinions myself.

EGM back in the day was awesome. 3 score reviews were so good.

#5 Edited by freedomfreak (36420 posts) -

Yeah, I don't mind.

#6 Edited by CaseyWegner (70104 posts) -

gonna have to figure out how to integrate this into the metagame.

#7 Posted by toast_burner (20662 posts) -

gonna have to figure out how to integrate this into the metagame.

Why? the meta game is stupid enough as it is.

#8 Edited by drekula2 (1653 posts) -

I entirely agree. The only issue I guess is logistics (there might not always be 2 reviewers available for the same game).

But what would Metacritic do if Gamespot released 2 reviews at the same time?

#9 Posted by LordOfPoms (1086 posts) -

@CaseyWegner said:

gonna have to figure out how to integrate this into the metagame.

Why? the meta game is stupid enough as it is.

System Wars is stupid enough as it is. Anything that breaks it and makes it "smarter" would be welcome.

#10 Posted by toast_burner (20662 posts) -

@drekula2 said:

I entirely agree. The only issue I guess is logistics (there might not always be 2 reviewers available for the same game).

But what would Metacritic do if Gamespot released 2 reviews at the same time?

Again. Only one review is the official review.

#11 Edited by CaseyWegner (70104 posts) -

@CaseyWegner said:

gonna have to figure out how to integrate this into the metagame.

Why? the meta game is stupid enough as it is.

because it's popular.

#12 Posted by toast_burner (20662 posts) -

@toast_burner said:

@CaseyWegner said:

gonna have to figure out how to integrate this into the metagame.

Why? the meta game is stupid enough as it is.

because it's popular.

Doesn't change the fact that it's incredibly stupid. But if this addition will cause it's death then I'd be happy to implement it.

#13 Posted by princeofshapeir (13334 posts) -

It was an interesting concept. But now that it's in effect, it will be little more than a pandering click-bait attempt. 4/10 for Bioshock Infinite implies the game was as bad as Final Fantasy XIV 1.0 or Resident Evil 6 which is most certainly not the case.

#14 Edited by CaseyWegner (70104 posts) -

@CaseyWegner said:

@toast_burner said:

@CaseyWegner said:

gonna have to figure out how to integrate this into the metagame.

Why? the meta game is stupid enough as it is.

because it's popular.

Doesn't change the fact that it's incredibly stupid. But if this addition will cause it's death then I'd be happy to implement it.

not gonna cause its death. :)

it's just an optional side game that a lot of people seem to like.

#15 Posted by lostrib (26254 posts) -

it would probably have made more sense if they had done it with a more recent release like Beyond, rather than Bioshock Infinite

#16 Edited by Netherscourge (16271 posts) -

@toast_burner said:

@drekula2 said:

I entirely agree. The only issue I guess is logistics (there might not always be 2 reviewers available for the same game).

But what would Metacritic do if Gamespot released 2 reviews at the same time?

Again. Only one review is the official review.

Not in my opinion. I look at it as a collaborative.

Evenmoreso, I prefer the opinion of certain reviewers over others because I find I agree with certain critics more often than others (like on Rotten Tomatoes, certain critics I take more seriously than others.) But I like to read both opinions to get the full picture.

I also like how it now will neutralize System Wars fanboys if a game gets both high and low scores. It literally forces you to READ the review and maybe actually PLAY the game before hyping it or trashing it.

#17 Posted by dobzilian (2334 posts) -

So on SW's if a exclusive is rated a 10 by one reviewer then another reviewer rates the same game a 7 which review carries the most weight?

#18 Posted by Nude_Dude (5371 posts) -

I hope they go back and post second reviews about other games too, say PS Allstars or the Mario Galaxies. Though they're probably gonna do it only if there are greatly differing opinions.

#19 Edited by toast_burner (20662 posts) -

So on SW's if a exclusive is rated a 10 by one reviewer then another reviewer rates the same game a 7 which review carries the most weight?

The one that was chosen to be the main review. This literally changes nothing about the old reviewing method. It's a different feature that has very little connection, it's basically user reviews written by staff.

#20 Edited by lostrib (26254 posts) -

@Netherscourge: they'll probably just go with the score that shows up on the game profile page, which is a 9 in the case of Bioshock Infinite and is listed as the primary review

#21 Posted by The-Apostle (11914 posts) -

Wait... They're doing that no? Awesome! :D

#22 Posted by uninspiredcup (4718 posts) -

Having multiple reviews on a source is a great way to make people less sheep like latching on to 9.5 amazings.

#23 Edited by dobzilian (2334 posts) -

@dobzilian said:

So on SW's if a exclusive is rated a 10 by one reviewer then another reviewer rates the same game a 7 which review carries the most weight?

The one that was chosen to be the main review. This literally changes nothing about the old reviewing method. It's a different feature that has very little connection, it's basically user reviews written by staff.

So quite literally to stop cry babies moaning about their game getting rated low? Hmmm.. Waste of time then if you ask me but i don't read reviews i just buy a game then play it.

#24 Posted by Xaero_Gravity (8513 posts) -

@iambatman7986 said:

I like the 3 person review scores personally. Like EGM and Gamepro used to do in the magazines. It gave more opinions than just the one single opinion. I think Gamepot should do the second and third opinions myself.

EGM back in the day was awesome. 3 score reviews were so good.

I miss that EGM so much. :(

#25 Posted by moistsandwich (0 posts) -

Wait... so the 4.0 is a real review score from a GS editor? I thought it was some fanboy troll review. Wow... T. McShea continues to be an idiot.

#26 Posted by Giancar (19002 posts) -

The system is very good, multiple opinions are always a welcomed thing.

#27 Posted by funkymonkey4710 (1835 posts) -

I love the multiple review idea that Gamespot is doing as long as the two reviewers can say their biases and their backgrounds before a review (which is what Gamespot is doing which is the best idea).

Maybe have someone that is a fan of the franchise review it and then someone who is playing a game for the first time. Different opinions is always a plus.

#28 Posted by dzaric (1056 posts) -

Wait... so the 4.0 is a real review score from a GS editor? I thought it was some fanboy troll review. Wow... T. McShea continues to be an idiot.

This

#29 Posted by Daious (432 posts) -

There is still one main review but now new reviews can be added down the line. I really dig the new concept.

#30 Posted by Bigboi500 (27902 posts) -

I'm glad that clowns can't mindlessly spam numbers anymore.

#31 Posted by Jankarcop (7990 posts) -

I'm glad that clowns can't mindlessly spam numbers anymore.

Or lie about numbers. lol giovela.

#32 Posted by Jag85 (3983 posts) -

@iambatman7986 said:

I like the 3 person review scores personally. Like EGM and Gamepro used to do in the magazines. It gave more opinions than just the one single opinion. I think Gamepot should do the second and third opinions myself.

EGM back in the day was awesome. 3 score reviews were so good.

EGM and GamePro used to do Famitsu-style reviews, with 3-4 people giving short reviews. It would be nice if that was revived, but with 3-4 longer reviews this time.

#33 Edited by cfisher2833 (1190 posts) -

I personally don't like it. It's one thing for McShea to put his own review of the game up on his blog or something, but to pass it off as a second Gamespot review is asinine and incoherent. It might not be so confusing to people familiar with Gamespot and its review staff, but to people casually browsing for reviews, it comes off as messy. When Gamespot puts out a review, it represents the site as much as the person. When you get each staff member putting out their own review, it just creates a sense of incoherence.

And now they've done it with LoL. HOW DO I DO MY ROLLY EYES!!!? I HATE THIS NEW FORMAT!! I HATE CHANGE!!!

#34 Posted by Lucianu (9214 posts) -

Kind of screws up the score humping some people love to do, so i guess it's a nice change.

#35 Posted by cainetao11 (14376 posts) -

I absolutely love that fact that ONE SINGLE REVIEWER is no longer representing the entire Gamespot staff's opinions on a game.

I like that Kevin VanOrd gave Bioshock Infinite a 9 and Tom McShea gave it a 4.

This is what I've been waiting for with game site reviews - MULTIPLE OPINIONS with REASONS for their scores. After reading both reviews, I find that I agree with BOTH guys on most of their points. In fact, I think putting a number score on the review is pointless.

It shows that no ONE person's opinion is the be-all, end-all of how good or bad or mediocre a game is. I also like that they went back MONTHS later to review games again.

Kudos from me!

It also validates the view that reviews are just opinions. I remember a while back some one posting a thread where GS stated reviews aren't opinions. Well if 2 GS staff members give a game a different review, then they most certainly are opinions. And therefore mean little to a gamer who spends his own money based on his own values.

#36 Edited by toast_burner (20662 posts) -

I personally don't like it. It's one thing for McShea to put his own review of the game up on his blog or something, but to pass it off as a second Gamespot review is asinine and incoherent. It might not be so confusing to people familiar with Gamespot and its review staff, but to people casually browsing for reviews, it comes off as messy. When Gamespot puts out a review, it represents the site as much as the person. When you get each staff member putting out their own review, it just creates a sense of incoherence.

And now they've done it with LoL. HOW DO I DO MY ROLLY EYES!!!? I HATE THIS NEW FORMAT!! I HATE CHANGE!!!

Thats why the official review comes up first in much larger text and the second opinion is clearly labeled as such.

#37 Edited by Willy105 (24443 posts) -

I love that there can be more than one review per game. It makes so much sense.

#38 Posted by cfisher2833 (1190 posts) -

@cfisher2833 said:

I personally don't like it. It's one thing for McShea to put his own review of the game up on his blog or something, but to pass it off as a second Gamespot review is asinine and incoherent. It might not be so confusing to people familiar with Gamespot and its review staff, but to people casually browsing for reviews, it comes off as messy. When Gamespot puts out a review, it represents the site as much as the person. When you get each staff member putting out their own review, it just creates a sense of incoherence.

And now they've done it with LoL. HOW DO I DO MY ROLLY EYES!!!? I HATE THIS NEW FORMAT!! I HATE CHANGE!!!

Thats why the official review comes up first in much larger text and the second opinion is clearly labeled as such.

I still think he should have just blogged it and not passed it off as an official review.

#39 Posted by ReadingRainbow4 (11040 posts) -

I wasn't the biggest fan of bioshock infinite, I felt it was a very weak shooter that let it's narrative run wild to the point that the game became overly linear because you were following a predetermined route.

But a 4.0? Yeah maybe too low the games not broken or anything it's just not all that great. My score for that still sits at a 6.5

#40 Posted by mrintro (1354 posts) -

If only 1 review is official - then why would I care about the second review? And if the second reviewer knows his review doesn't count, then why would s/he really care about the score?

#41 Posted by Bigboi500 (27902 posts) -

@mrintro said:

If only 1 review is official - then why would I care about the second review? And if the second reviewer knows his review doesn't count, then why would s/he really care about the score?

They're both official.

#42 Posted by glez13 (8350 posts) -

Meh. That's why other sites exist and why Metacritic is so good, it makes it so easy to look at various reviews from a single page.

#43 Posted by PannicAtack (20628 posts) -

@mrintro said:

If only 1 review is official - then why would I care about the second review? And if the second reviewer knows his review doesn't count, then why would s/he really care about the score?

Multiple perspectives?

#44 Edited by VendettaRed07 (13927 posts) -

Reminds me of video game magazines. Many of those had multiple reviewers and different reviewers talking about the game.

This is going to create a lot more butthurt though if a flop like the TLOU happens again, but then the second opinion meets the hype. Thats going to be a fun thread to read through, whenever that inevitably happens

#45 Posted by foxhound_fox (85279 posts) -

It kind of defeats the purpose of the metagame.

#46 Posted by Armoured_Mage (766 posts) -

they re-reviewed league of legends as well which i think is weird.

#47 Posted by MrPunkFever (16 posts) -

Yeah, I 100% agree. Really like this new feature. +1

#48 Posted by Senor_Kami (8075 posts) -

I love the change. EGM had it right like 20 years ago.