That a lot of people were wrong? I'm just kidding. Does it really matter? I mean seriously... Games are about having fun not having fun.
A little insight on the Ratchet and Clank review from Jeff G. himself.
This topic is locked from further discussion.
If that garbage was true then they would have gave Halo a 7.5...it was nether groundbreaking nor special. Non-Seq
I was going to say that.
If mario galaxy gets a 7.5, the hellmouth will open below gamespot and swallow them whole. rashonmon
I was going to say that, too.
too bad on a lot of school scales, a 7.5 would be a C-, and even on the 90/80 scale, it will still be a normal C. Poor old Jeff must not have been too bright in his younger days.mtradr43
Agreed. The idiots here at Gamespot are the only ones that can go on about how good a game is and then give it a low numerical score. A 7 is bad, pure and plain.... on a scale of 1 to 10 you wouldn't tell your girl to her face that she was only a 7.5... it's simply nothing to brag about. And for them to rate games that ARE something to brag about with such low scores just reeks of bias. Especially when they carry SUCH a minority opinion when compared to the abundance of reviews available elsewhere.
Furthermore, R&C:TOD is doubtful to carry its appeal outside of its loyal fanbase and that is the reason for the score??? Then what the hell is the explanation behind Halo's high score??? A great game is a great game, period. The system here has been busted for a while but now it's really starting to look pretty ridiculous.
[QUOTE="Jynxzor"][QUOTE="Bgrngod"][QUOTE="Jynxzor"]I get what Jeff is saying, but 7.5? just because it tries out a few new things come on!Bgrngod
You really do need to read the review. They said a lot more negative about it then just trying a few new things.
I really did read the review and all I see is it has a "Identity crises because it tries too many new things" and it's too easy...when the hell have games like that been hard anyways.
Well try reading the review again because on top of what you already pointed out, whichknocks down the score enough as it is,thereare plenty of other points:
1) There's some good humor in it, but the story isn't very interesting
2) and the ending is a letdown
3) Ratchet & Clank's audio is solid but mostly unremarkable.
4) (weapons) ..you'll find that there are a handful that work extremely well (and some that are useless)
Just because you choose to ignore them does not mean they are not there.
All of which is BS. Have you played the game for yourself??? The only thing that was stated which is true is that the game is easy... but that in no way detracts from the fun. The game is a blast to play from beginning to end. The story is entertaining as always and the production values are all top notch. I didn't buy until the GS bias thing UNTIL this review... it's just strange. They just seem to be losing credibility to me.
I don't have too much of an issue with scores anyway. My complaint is the actual review itself. It's got to be one of the blandest, least justified and most derivative pieces of work I've seen from GameSpot. I normally expect reviews, and for that matter, writing of higher quality from this site.
And no, I don't endorse the 10/10 reviews from other sites as well. I know that ToD lies snugly within a the comfort of familiar, yet perfectly enjoyable mechanics, *welcome* variety and luscious visuals. And yes, it's more of the same. But aren't most sequels? That includes Halo 3 - and yes, I went there. You want a score for Ratchet PS3? Try Fun/10. Happy?
It's sad, I don't really like IGN for content, but I no longer feel like the reviews at gamespot represent my own feelings on a game. I think in alot of ways the "Game Review" is a dead concept in the high hype and profile gaming world of today, especially with demos being available for many big hits titles.
So, to sum up, no thanks gamespot, I'll just play the demo instead and not listen to the site that thinks my life is not complete without Tony Hawks Pro Skater and Halo 3.
After 33 reviews only 8 have been under a 9.0 score, and only 1 has been under a 8.0 score ;)
It makes no sense that Jeff would say that scores are highly important because people often don't read the review and just look at the score, and then try to rationalize R&C getting a 7.5 by saying that it might only appeal to a certain audience.
To use the Review of the Moment as an example, when we give Ratchet & Clank Future: Tools of Destruction a 7.5, we're not saying it's "average" or something. This isn't school, and a 7.5 doesn't translate to a C+. We're effectively saying that fans of these sorts of action platformers, and to an even greater extent, fans of the Ratchet series, will probably have a blast. But we're also saying that its appeal might not extendso far beyond that group due to issues mentioned in the review text.
Some people have all the time in the world to research a game and devour every single piece of content we produce. Others don't. Some people need that shortcut, and a score provides that quick check for some people that should either let them know that they probably don't need to know much more about a game or that they need to read more before making a purchasing decision.
By giving it a 7.5/10, a score most people would inherently attach to the word "average", you are automatically driving away most of those people you just talked about who "just look at the score". Yes, Jeff, this isn't school and a 7.5 may not be a C+ by Gamespot standards, but those people you talked about who need the "quick check" probably also didn't bother to read your review guidelines. The very people he's talking about here, that "need that shortcut" and don't have "all the time in the world to research a game", will simply look at the score of 7.5 and say "forget it" and move on. Completely defeats the purpose.
[QUOTE="sonicmj1"]You're looking at it the wrong way.
The score isn't a simple indicator of how wide the appeal of the game is. It's really an indicator of quality.
Take Ratchet and Clank's 7.5. If you are a Ratchet and Clank fan, you should definitely pick up the game. But if you only kind of like Ratchet and Clank, it might not be worth your time. It isn't so good that it's an unmissable experience. It's great for big fans of the genre who need their platforming fix, but not quite as good for people who don't love platformers, but only like them. And if you don't like platformers at all, this game certainly won't change your mind.
A game like Wii Sports has a wide appeal, but is it a really great game? Is it an experience that cannot be missed, a game that will provide an unparalleled amount of fun for you? No, it isn't. It's alright, and anyone can play it, but it's pretty shallow, and gets boring fast unless you have other people over.
What Jeff is saying about that score is that people who loved earlier Ratchet and Clank games will like this one, but those who aren't automatically compelled to pick up Tools of Destruction by virtue of its name alone might not like it quite as much. While something like Halo 3 is good enough (according to the review) that anyone who doesn't despise FPS games should get the game, because it provides an experience of a higher quality than you can find in most games.
Datheron
Nope, then you're putting too much value into production values and ensuring "big name" games are the only ones who deserve high scores. Plus, what makes a game an "unmissable experience" if not for all the other factors - replayability, innovation, gameplay refinement, etc.?
Doesn't explain why they gave something like Katamari Damacy an 8.7 (!).
When did I say anything about production values? I'm talking about overall quality.
Katamari Damacy doesn't have the fanciest graphics, but it delivers a fun, accessible, and wholly unique game that is very enjoyable, though not perfect. The Gamespot score reflects that. The game has some shortcomings, but it is a worthwhile purchase for most people.
As you said, an unmissable experience includes all the factors, not just graphics or sound design. I don't disagree with you.
i haven't met a single person in real life who was remotely as excited about it as they were the previous 2 halo games, but most of the time they weren't big into the multiplayer anyhow (or just simply, had other priorities in life), so a lot of people didn't like the single player, it was a let-down, etc. so here comes the subjective part, that is: given the current view of what makes a FPS great, and given that Halo 3 was both a strong-man franchise entry and improved upon and aimed at the current core audience of FPS games: online multiplayer, it still scored high because they felt a lot of people would like it given what it is
if Bioshock hadn't been a system shock entry and with such great production value, it would've flopped big time, simply because there's a lot of FPS games out now and you have to stick out, especially if you don't have multiplayer
with this in mind, i can see the R&C score, tho it should've maybe gotten an 8.0 (at the least) because despite whatever problems it has i haven't had a single "meh" moment in the game thus far, and i'm already almost done beating challenge mode, haven't touched any of my other games, if you like platformers this game is a MUST
it's the reason why an RPG might have 100x more gametime hours than an FPS, but score 2x lower, or why a platformer may have much more interesting levels than a racing game, but score 2x lower, or etc. because they're all different games
now wait until SMG or Uncharted to come out and THEN you've got a real comparison as to whether R&C got ripped off (of course, then you've got Aaron to deal with, he may never review another platform game again, and then the R&C score will be like the grassy knoll of scores)
[QUOTE="Jynxzor"][QUOTE="Bgrngod"][QUOTE="Jynxzor"]I get what Jeff is saying, but 7.5? just because it tries out a few new things come on!Bgrngod
You really do need to read the review. They said a lot more negative about it then just trying a few new things.
I really did read the review and all I see is it has a "Identity crises because it tries too many new things" and it's too easy...when the hell have games like that been hard anyways.
Well try reading the review again because on top of what you already pointed out, whichknocks down the score enough as it is,thereare plenty of other points:
1) There's some good humor in it, but the story isn't very interesting
2) and the ending is a letdown
3) Ratchet & Clank's audio is solid but mostly unremarkable.
4) (weapons) ..you'll find that there are a handful that work extremely well (and some that are useless)
Just because you choose to ignore them does not mean they are not there.
They probably are using optical out for the audio :lol:
When did I say anything about production values? I'm talking about overall quality.Katamari Damacy doesn't have the fanciest graphics, but it delivers a fun, accessible, and wholly unique game that is very enjoyable, though not perfect. The Gamespot score reflects that. The game has some shortcomings, but it is a worthwhile purchase for most people.
As you said, an unmissable experience includes all the factors, not just graphics or sound design. I don't disagree with you.sonicmj1
It sounded very much like you were concerned about the production values of the games - the bashing of Wii Sports being "simple" and "shallow" while Halo 3 is "deep" and "has wide appeal". Look at what you wrote above:
______ doesn't have the fanciest graphics, but it delivers a fun, accessible, and wholly unique game that is very enjoyable, though not perfect. The Gamespot score reflects that. The game has some shortcomings, but it is a worthwhile purchase for most people.
That describes Wii Sports and without the "fanciest graphics" part would also describe R&C; all you did was replace one subjective unsubstantiated opinion with more subjective unsubstantiated opinions, and along the way arbitarily determined that uniqueness + accessibility + "fun" (whatever that means) is worthy of a high score.
Well try reading the review again because on top of what you already pointed out, whichknocks down the score enough as it is,thereare plenty of other points:
1) There's some good humor in it, but the story isn't very interesting
2) and the ending is a letdown
3) Ratchet & Clank's audio is solid but mostly unremarkable.
4) (weapons) ..you'll find that there are a handful that work extremely well (and some that are useless)
Just because you choose to ignore them does not mean they are not there.
Bgrngod
for a second there i thought u were talking about Halo 2.
[QUOTE="sonicmj1"]When did I say anything about production values? I'm talking about overall quality.Katamari Damacy doesn't have the fanciest graphics, but it delivers a fun, accessible, and wholly unique game that is very enjoyable, though not perfect. The Gamespot score reflects that. The game has some shortcomings, but it is a worthwhile purchase for most people.
As you said, an unmissable experience includes all the factors, not just graphics or sound design. I don't disagree with you.Datheron
It sounded very much like you were concerned about the production values of the games - the bashing of Wii Sports being "simple" and "shallow" while Halo 3 is "deep" and "has wide appeal". Look at what you wrote above:
______ doesn't have the fanciest graphics, but it delivers a fun, accessible, and wholly unique game that is very enjoyable, though not perfect. The Gamespot score reflects that. The game has some shortcomings, but it is a worthwhile purchase for most people.
That describes Wii Sports and without the "fanciest graphics" part would also describe R&C; all you did was replace one subjective unsubstantiated opinion with more subjective unsubstantiated opinions, and along the way arbitarily determined that uniqueness + accessibility + "fun" (whatever that means) is worthy of a high score.
Unsubstantiated? What do you want me to do, write my own review of why Katamari Damacy deserves an 8.7?
Seriously, what do you expect? I'm kinda confused here. All I can do is give a basic summary of a game, and I can't spend time citing specific examples from the game to prove my point, because that isn't the purpose of my post. I'm just throwing out a summation that hopefully explains the differences between certain scores. If you want to look at a review, you're on a site that's chock-full of them.
I spoke in generalities, but that doesn't mean that you should take them out of context. I'm only attempting to give a general sense of what each score means. If Wii Sports did not score as high as Katamari Damacy, that could mean that the summary I gave of Katamari actually doesn't fit Wii Sports. Perhaps Wii sports has more flaws that it cannot be written off as 'some shortcomings'.
If you want more information on how the review system works, why don't you look at the Gamespot Review Guidelines, which sum up each score? Their generalities are more accurate than my hastily-crafted ones.
i don't know who the hell jeff is trying to fool with all the **** he's talking about 7.5 not being average. if R&C was on the 360 i bet he would give it at least a 9.5, what a biased idiot.jmd749
I guess I have to say this again: a 7,5 is not a C/C-/C+ in my book. A 7,5 is solid...period. Especially in higher education. Maybe the score will be indeed more average if the school or in this case reviewer only gives high marks or the standards are really low, but with Mario Kart 64 getting a 6,5 back in its days and a bunch of other great games getting between the 7.0 and 8.0 I wouldn't call it average...
Maybe I would give it a much higher score (but I haven't played it), just like you guys seem to do.. But nonetheless a score between 7.0 and 8.0 wouldn't stop any person from buying that game if they were interested. Maybe it would only make someone who's looking for PS3 games and who doesn't know R&C read the review, scratch his head and then decide if he's gonna make the purchase.. (But then there aren't that many similar games on PS3... so in combination with the score I think a lot would just buy it rightaway) And that's just his point. You could always go for a 2nd opinion to IGN..
I find it amusing that people are still complaining about this. It's been what now? 2 weeks? Get over it just like the sheep got over the TP review. Ifthe gamewas average then they would've given it a 5.0-6.0 score, but they didn't they gave it 7.5 which translates to 75% which is by no means a bad score. Infact if you read the little comment underneath the offending yellow decimal number you'll see that it indeed states "Good".
But feel free to carry on with your eternal whinging. It's giving me a good laugh while I wait for my copy of Hellgate to be delivered.
"To use the Review of the Moment as an example, when we give Ratchet & Clank Future: Tools of Destruction a 7.5, we're not saying it's "average" or something. This isn't school, and a 7.5 doesn't translate to a C+. We're effectively saying that fans of these sorts of action platformers, and to an even greater extent, fans of the Ratchet series, will probably have a blast. But we're also saying that its appeal might not extendso far beyond that group due to issues mentioned in the review text."
if he honestly believed that Halo 3 would not have got a 9.5
alot of people hate FPS
and saying the people that review the games are into that type of game is crock
the guy was always reviewing sports games if he said pro evo or fifa sucked fair enough, but i think he was out of his depth with R&C
[QUOTE="Firelore29"][QUOTE="ZIMdoom"]So if I understand his explanation correctly...R&C got a 7.5 because it won't appeal to people who already don't like R&C? Because people who only play FPS may not like it?
That's just stupid. I'm sorry.
ZIMdoom
And yet Mario Party 8 got a 6.5. I think my dog can even have fun with that game.
BUt according to the explanation, fun has nothing to do with it. Unless a game is able to bring in people who would normally not like that game, it gets a low score.
So it makes no difference how much fun Mario Party 8 may be...it won't appeal to people who play FPS so it gets a low score.
Basically, you don't even need to play ANY game according to this new review policy. Just ask yourself, would this game appeal to FPS addicts and/or lemmings? If no...give the game a low score.Controls, fun factor, game length, graphics, etc...all those are pretty much irrelevant according to this explanation.
So why doesn't the Wii get more love?
IDC care about GS as a review site, but 7.5 is too low for R&C.
Eventhough the game wouldn't bring that much new to the genre or the series, but excutes everything that the genre or the series stand for perfectly should give at high-end scores. Not only the score, but also the review consentrates on finding faults that aren't really faults just to put the score down.It just gives the feeling that the review is biased just in mind to get more viewers for the site.
And talking about a game that got a good score without bringing anything new to the genre or the series and just excuted everything well and got a praising preview without noting the easy to spot faults like low lenght and so, The game was of course one notable Xbox360 FPS...
I'm not saying that GS would be biased towards one console or that there were moneyhats involved in the score, but it seems bit like it.The reviews are of course the reviewers own opinion and shouldn't be trusted blindly. But it's certainly strange that one hyped game gets so clearly lower score than the avarage. This has happened through the years in GS starting from Metal Gear Solid and Shenmue and to Metroid Prime 3 and TP.
Especially the last names two games, have had the same "problems" in the reviews. Really good game but doesn't bring new stuff to the series, just uses what is known of the series in perfect fashion, and being the (arguably) best part in the series. It is like the reviewer just looks the small negative sides and concentrates on them with out looking at the big picture. Especially if this is just so that few games gets reviewed differently because the large hype/moneyhats is unfair.
My two cents.
Sounds like Gamespot is in damage control mode. Why else would they fell it was necessary to justify the review? They've angered many with their Ratchet & Clank review and must have lost quite a few premium account subscribers. razzy1
Don't be an idiot, i'll be perfectly honest and say that i havn't played R&C, but that kind of reasoning is **** I'm sure evil gamespot angered many Lair or Big Rigs fans too, so what? Should they give those games a more deserving 10/10 to please the braindead/useless fanboys, while leading "casual" GS readers into throwing money down the sink? Just. Stop. Posting. Now.
Game scoring also freaking depends on how the other games of a particular genre fare, and the context of the review.
What FPS outclasses "9.5" halo 3 this console generation? well? Bioshock perhaps, but the rpg/survival horror/ heavy focus on singleplayer makes it quite different.
What console multiplayer game outclasses halo 3? None. Thank you.
How do you justify 6 hour long 60$ games after the orange box? Hello are you still reading?
"And talking about a game that got a good score without bringing anything new to the genre or the series(1) and just excuted everything well(2) and got a praising preview without noting the easy to spot faults like low lenght(3) and so, The game was of course one notable Xbox360 FPS..."
(1) Forge, Theater, Online coop. R&C has maybe a few new minigames? Will they last you months? will you play them again and again? Have they raised the bar and expectations for all action platformers to come?
(2)Games should lose points for executing everything well now?
(3) People have been playing halo 2 for years... And they most likely will play halo 3 for years aswell... what do you mean by low length?
I could go on and on with petty comments like this too, such as why didnt halo 3 get a 10/10 when Zelda OOT got one? Why isn't halo 3 the best FPS of all time when Half life (~10 years later?) is really ugly now? The answers to these are pretty freaking obvious to me but you guys are just failing to see it. Give it a rest already.
after a month you guys will see it got the score it deservedMagical_Donuts
By your standards, it means that after a month i should have seen that Halo 3 deserved it's score. I do not think that at all. In fact, i think that it was still highly overrated, as was Halo 2.
[QUOTE="yodariquo"]"We're effectively saying that fans of these sorts of action platformers, and to an even greater extent, fans of the Ratchet series, will probably have a blast. But we're also saying that its appeal might not extendso far beyond that group due to issues mentioned in the review text." He makes it sounds as if the review score is a measure of how mass market a game is and that any niche title cannot possibly garner a particularly high score.iunderstand
Or he's saying that people generally not into the R&C games probably wouldn't find much value in the game.
sigh... i was right after-all with my prediction: "GS, open mouth, insert foot"
way to beat around the bush? why address all of these irrelevant issues and other BS regarding Internet society? **** all that and get to the point that your review guy messed up. All Jeff had to do was either say, i agree with the review, or man up and say that the review was inadequate, which in factwas.
and also what the **** is up with this: "But we're also saying that its appeal might not extends far beyond that group due to issues mentioned in the review text." oh and games like Gears of War, FF, halo...do they appeal to everyone. What the hell did they expect R&C to be... that BS, narrow minded comment applies to ALL games, so thisin no shape or form is a plausible defense. Just becuse it doesn't "appeal" to everyone doen't mean thatthat it should be penalized for that. that comment within itself is proofof hypocricy.
this damage control is even more pathetic than the review, because it talks about all kinds of **** except for the real issue on hand. The issue that a a sports guy screwed an action games' review, which should have either been firmly defended orpublically scrutinized. and wasn't Jeff a big fan of R&C too?... must have been my imagination.
If you lay something like this out in the open, instead of trying to sound like you have the cure for AIDS (notice the metaphor)and act all smug, howabout talking about something that isn't just a whloe lot of nothing.
i give this a thread a 7.5:)
So if that is the case, are we to assume that Halo 3 is a game that almost anyone will love? even people that don't like shooters particularly?
Is that to say that only people that like shooters will like timeshift or jericho? I think Jeff is just speaking in defence of the place he works. I'm not calling Jeff biased or whatever, but i think his view is flawed. if ratchet is 7.5 and only really appeals to fans of that genre, then technically, by scale, shouldn't Halo 3 or any of the many AAA titles out there appeal to a wider audience? I personally don't think Halo 3 appeals to many people outside the FPS fanclub.
Bah, whatever, this is a dead issue. Apparently gamespot condones their horrible writers, and defends them as "professionals".
Anyway, long story short, I disagree with Jeffs views on this, and it sounds more like "damage control" than "correcting a mistake".
0rin
Ahh, but there is where you are wrong.
I didn't like FPS before Halo came out. Halo 1 was so good that me and my best friend BOTh (neither of us like fps) started playiing them. He bought an xbox himself after playing that game with me.
So i think Jeff is right. Timeshift or Jericho are not gonna make non-fans change their minds like Halo did. R & C is not so great at what it does that I (who also does not like platformers) will start buying them.
I can't believe how much the R & C fans here don't seem to get that.
Did Jeff just say part of the reason R&C scored 7.5 because it wouldn't appeal past the usual fanbase?
NEWSFLASH: People don't make Adventure games to appeal to non-adventure game fans.
That would just be stupid, thats like trying to make Wii sports appeal to the hardcore demographic, then it would just be all over the map and no one would like it. If you guys didn't like the game and thats why you scored it rubbish most people can understand that. Coming with lame excuses like this just make the already inconsistent reviews seem even more worthless.
Honestly, this excuse is still weak. If I were to see this score I would think twice about my purchase. You see, once you afix a label on a game like "shooter" or "platformer" than that is a target. If I like platformer games I will pay attention to a game that is labeled platformer more than anything else. As a gamer that plays alot of games and read many reviews from many sources, I know better but for those that don't have much time and may use only this review to guide their purchase it just seems baited.
This is similar to what I have noticed about marking down games that do not have multiplatform elements in it (not just direct at the GS reviewers) If a game is marked single player then...... we understand that it has no multiplayer. If a game designer decides that they may not want multiplayer, ( goes against intended vision or just doesn't work in implementation) I do not see how the game reviewers decide to mark it down because they feel it should arbitrairily have MP or just because "another" game in the same genre does.
Game reviews should be based on the content presented not on the content a reviewer or critic believes the game should have. Let it be known to readers that the game is single player or a platformer and we will fill in the holes ourselves.
I LOL'd at the blue ray VS HD-DVD discussion
MICRO$OFT!!!!???? You see what i did there !!?? :lol:
I always look at scores before i buy a game and im glad there are sites and magazines were u can read about a game to see if its worth paying 60 dollars for.Remember back in the days when the nes would put out games daily with no one reviewing them and just because they had a cool looking box or was based on a movie you thought that they had to be good.Those games always turned out to be very bad.I remember paying 50 dollars for back to the future only to find out that the game was crap and had very little to do with the source material.Also top gun was an awful game i wish i could of seen a review on before purchasing.I dont really understand why people get so angry over game scores.I always check several sources to get a good idea if a game is worth buying or not.Like the guy said if your a fan of ratchet and clank youll probably enjoy it but for the rest of us who dont care a whole lot for the series ,or genre theres little there to attract us.Personally ive never played a ratchet and clank game and i have no idea if its a good game or not,all i know is that it doesnt look like something id enjoy.Im more into sports games and shooters so its gonna have to take something special to make me wanna play a platformer.There have been a few games in the past that gamespot has scored lower than i agree with but i dont bash them for it ,its just that persons opinion and if they have some sort of bias towards a certain product than thats there problem.Personally i dont think these guys score games lower because they hate a particular system but who knows.Just check the majority of scores across the board before buying something u think will be good,or just rent the damn thing if your on the fence about it.These games are fun but there not that big of a damn deal people,stop getting so offended over this stuff.
Hooray for Jeff!
Debate Club Amateur Hour LOL. Too true.
sigh... i was right after-all with my prediction: "GS, open mouth, insert foot"
way to beat around the bush? why address all of these irrelevant issues and other BS regarding Internet society? **** all that and get to the point that your review guy messed up. All Jeff had to do was either say, i agree with the review, or man up and say that the review was inadequate, which in factwas.
and also what the **** is up with this: "But we're also saying that its appeal might not extends far beyond that group due to issues mentioned in the review text." oh and games like Gears of War, FF, halo...do they appeal to everyone. What the hell did they expect R&C to be... that BS, narrow minded comment applies to ALL games, so thisin no shape or form is a plausible defense. Just becuse it doesn't "appeal" to everyone doen't mean thatthat it should be penalized for that. that comment within itself is proofof hypocricy.
this damage control is even more pathetic than the review, because it talks about all kinds of **** except for the real issue on hand. The issue that a a sports guy screwed an action games' review, which should have either been firmly defended orpublically scrutinized. and wasn't Jeff a big fan of R&C too?... must have been my imagination.
If you lay something like this out in the open, instead of trying to sound like you have the cure for AIDS (notice the metaphor)and act all smug, howabout talking about something that isn't just a whloe lot of nothing.
i give this a thread a 7.5:)
Rakuho
Plausible.
Did Jeff just say part of the reason R&C scored 7.5 because it wouldn't appeal past the usual fanbase?
NEWSFLASH: People don't make Adventure games to appeal to non-adventure game fans.
That would just be stupid, thats like trying to make Wii sports appeal to the hardcore demographic, then it would just be all over the map and no one would like it. If you guys didn't like the game and thats why you scored it rubbish most people can understand that. Coming with lame excuses like this just make the already inconsistent reviews seem even more worthless.
Majatt
Plausible.
Honestly, this excuse is still weak. If I were to see this score I would think twice about my purchase. You see, once you afix a label on a game like "shooter" or "platformer" than that is a target. If I like platformer games I will pay attention to a game that is labeled platformer more than anything else. As a gamer that plays alot of games and read many reviews from many sources, I know better but for those that don't have much time and may use only this review to guide their purchase it just seems baited.
This is similar to what I have noticed about marking down games that do not have multiplatform elements in it (not just direct at the GS reviewers) If a game is marked single player then...... we understand that it has no multiplayer. If a game designer decides that they may not want multiplayer, ( goes against intended vision or just doesn't work in implementation) I do not see how the game reviewers decide to mark it down because they feel it should arbitrairily have MP or just because "another" game in the same genre does.
Game reviews should be based on the content presented not on the content a reviewer or critic believes the game should have. Let it be known to readers that the game is single player or a platformer and we will fill in the holes ourselves.
Staticneuron
Plausible.
I do play. I'd like to play more games like it.
For that to happen, Insomniac has to make more. For Insomniac to make more, the game would have to be a success. For the game to be a success, people have to buy it. To encourage sales, the game must do well in the reveiws and be honestly analyzed. If no such honesty is conveyed within the review, than the game will not get the kind of notoriety or sales it deserves, and that puts Insomniac's ability to make more of my preferred games at risk.
So please, stop telling me that my complaints hold no importance when it involves a very serious matter that actually effects the livelihood of the developers.
All Jeff's post did was outline his idea of the ideal reviewing techniques and say that GS employed said techniques. It didn't actually address the issue of whether or not the R&C review actually made sense. It was a cop-out.
I think people are still missing the point.
Jeff is not saying the game scored low because it doesn't appeal to fan's outside of the series, he is saying the game doesn't appeal outside of the series due to the faults that caused the low score. If you read his explanation with an open mind instead of getting ready to flame the man even more it wouldn't be such a hard paragraph to understand.
It's kind of ridiculous the way people react to the staff here, I mean would you flame Ebert because he gave a thumbs down to a movie you like? You know what, don't answer that.
haunt9
He deserves to be rebuked. Just look at the score he gave to Wu-Tang:Shaolin Style
http://www.gamespot.com/ps/action/wutangshaolinstyle/index.html?tag=result;title;0
[QUOTE="0rin"]So if that is the case, are we to assume that Halo 3 is a game that almost anyone will love? even people that don't like shooters particularly?
Is that to say that only people that like shooters will like timeshift or jericho? I think Jeff is just speaking in defence of the place he works. I'm not calling Jeff biased or whatever, but i think his view is flawed. if ratchet is 7.5 and only really appeals to fans of that genre, then technically, by scale, shouldn't Halo 3 or any of the many AAA titles out there appeal to a wider audience? I personally don't think Halo 3 appeals to many people outside the FPS fanclub.
Bah, whatever, this is a dead issue. Apparently gamespot condones their horrible writers, and defends them as "professionals".
Anyway, long story short, I disagree with Jeffs views on this, and it sounds more like "damage control" than "correcting a mistake".
TBoogy
Ahh, but there is where you are wrong.
I didn't like FPS before Halo came out. Halo 1 was so good that me and my best friend BOTh (neither of us like fps) started playiing them. He bought an xbox himself after playing that game with me.
So i think Jeff is right. Timeshift or Jericho are not gonna make non-fans change their minds like Halo did. R & C is not so great at what it does that I (who also does not like platformers) will start buying them.
I can't believe how much the R & C fans here don't seem to get that.
That works both ways I am not a fan of platform games and had never played a R&C until i got it for the ps3, HOWEVER becuae i enjoyed tools of distruction so much i am willing to play more of what that genrehas to offer.
[QUOTE="0rin"]So if that is the case, are we to assume that Halo 3 is a game that almost anyone will love? even people that don't like shooters particularly?
Is that to say that only people that like shooters will like timeshift or jericho? I think Jeff is just speaking in defence of the place he works. I'm not calling Jeff biased or whatever, but i think his view is flawed. if ratchet is 7.5 and only really appeals to fans of that genre, then technically, by scale, shouldn't Halo 3 or any of the many AAA titles out there appeal to a wider audience? I personally don't think Halo 3 appeals to many people outside the FPS fanclub.
Bah, whatever, this is a dead issue. Apparently gamespot condones their horrible writers, and defends them as "professionals".
Anyway, long story short, I disagree with Jeffs views on this, and it sounds more like "damage control" than "correcting a mistake".
TBoogy
Ahh, but there is where you are wrong.
I didn't like FPS before Halo came out. Halo 1 was so good that me and my best friend BOTh (neither of us like fps) started playiing them. He bought an xbox himself after playing that game with me.
So i think Jeff is right. Timeshift or Jericho are not gonna make non-fans change their minds like Halo did. R & C is not so great at what it does that I (who also does not like platformers) will start buying them.
I can't believe how much the R & C fans here don't seem to get that.
If you do not know what R&C does than you do not need to speek. You and your friend are but a small majority who like FPS.
Honestly, this excuse is still weak. If I were to see this score I would think twice about my purchase. You see, once you afix a label on a game like "shooter" or "platformer" than that is a target. If I like platformer games I will pay attention to a game that is labeled platformer more than anything else. As a gamer that plays alot of games and read many reviews from many sources, I know better but for those that don't have much time and may use only this review to guide their purchase it just seems baited.
This is similar to what I have noticed about marking down games that do not have multiplatform elements in it (not just direct at the GS reviewers) If a game is marked single player then...... we understand that it has no multiplayer. If a game designer decides that they may not want multiplayer, ( goes against intended vision or just doesn't work in implementation) I do not see how the game reviewers decide to mark it down because they feel it should arbitrairily have MP or just because "another" game in the same genre does.
Game reviews should be based on the content presented not on the content a reviewer or critic believes the game should have. Let it be known to readers that the game is single player or a platformer and we will fill in the holes ourselves.
Staticneuron
Sir consider yourself to EPIC because this quote "Game reviews should be based on the content presented not on the content a reviewer or critic believes the game should have" Shall be Sig'd
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment