Gamespot just handed out another 10/10 - Rainbow Six: Siege, okay?

Humm, 3 different 10/10 in 5 months. Gamespot going crazy this year.

https://www.gamespot.com/reviews/rainbow-six-siege-review-2020-smooth-operator/1900-6417459/

Eh.

Rainbow six is now counter strike instead of SP tactical shooter where you give commands to your teammate.

it was ruined long ago 15 years ago.

Live Service done right I'd say.

Game isn't for me, but I can see how Ubisoft kept updating and kept improving it.

Compared to the other games getting a 10, r6 is closest to actually deserving one.

I highly doubt you actually play Rainbow Six Siege, especially at the competitive level.

need to give this another go. haven't really played it since launch.

it was fun but I had a lot of network type issues connecting to friends, that ended up being the main reason we didn't play more

Got to keep the sponsors happy.

I played for a while a long time ago, and stopped playing for a few years, and going back just wasn't viable due to a lot of toxic players bagging on you if trying to get used to the game again. All-in-all, it was really good when I played the game, but I can't comment on the game nowadays.

You get a 10, you get a 10. Everybody gets a 10.😂

So can we all bet, Ghost or The Last of Us 2 will score 10/10?

you think snipes would play a multiplayer game? It's his kryptonite, prob got floored hard growing up

Just another shit multiplayer game.

I actually love the game now, but 10/10 is stretching it. I do agree, since 10/10's meaning not a lot on Gamespot, this would place in the top 3 recently - with Persona 5 and Divinity 2 being the only ones I guess deserve it (even though I would never rate a game a 10/10).

10 is the new 7

Yea was kinda thinking that.

In the old days if a game got a 10 people would go ape-shit.

Now it's eh, ok, next.

Gamespots 10 doesn't mean much anymore... but gamespot also gave chrono cross and gta 4 a 10/10. No credibility at all.

Meh, I preferred the RS3 days. I still remember when Black Arrow dropped and was probably the best add-on/DLC ever made.

So another 10/10 pc exclusive??

Man this is a hard blow to ms fans ,Because of the Xb1 not receiving a perfect 10 score wise when it comes to exclusives.

10-spot strikes again. 10s are worthless now.(Like scores matter, though)

GameSpot is the new IGN? It used to be IGN giving high scores and GS being more critical, but now the roles have reversed.

So playstation anime or movie games can get a 10 but if a multiplayer shooter gets a 10 it's bogus.

The game looks really good and improves a lot on certain mechanics. I also takes classes to more realistic levels

I can understand this game has gotten a 10, I don't like rainbow six either, but if I was into multiplayer tactical shooters I would certainly play this game a lot.

This place has doled out more 10/10's in the last 2 years than the previous 15 years.

The new staff here are terrible, they don't care about games or really even have valuable knowledge of anything. These people are merely trying to develop general 'journalism' skills using this place as a safe intermediary stepping stone while they try to get hired on at a more prestigious non-gaming syndicate.

GameSpot used to have gamers reviewing games, now it's just regular people filling a void until they can leave.

@commander: Woah, let me put my tinfoil hat on first before reading your post...

what's your problem

After gta4 the 10s stopped carrying too much weight. I think uncharted 4 got a 10 top, god... That's some bad reviewing right there!

As a multiplayer game, it does its job really well. No issues with the score but damn this is like the 7th game this gen to get a 10/10 on gamespot? I but I still think its much better than back then.

Yeah, heard lots of great stuff about the game, even though I'm never gonna play it. I'm card-carrying member of the Single Player Party.

But personally, I hold a bit of a grudge against this game, alongside No Man's Sky and Destiny 1. These three games are the chief exponents of the "fix it later" culture that plagues today's gaming. It's because of these games that publishers have the giant Osmium balls to launch broken, barebones garbage like Anthem, Fallout 76 and and Ghost Recon Breakpoint, all with assumption that all they have to do is roll out the "we'll fix it later" spiel and we'll just take it up the arse.

I'm convince GS doesn't hire professional reviewers anymore. I guess this explains why the old GS Staff left.

Seems like when a game gets a 10 there are people who question Gamespot’s journalistic integrity.

It’s an opinion!

I was thinking about picking up R6 a couple of years ago but something stopped me for some reason or another,but is it really that good nowadays? Is it as good as to get a perfect score?

LOL GS. :P

I said before and I'll say it again. Gamespot is giving out too many 10s these days. I know that their review scores has changed a lot back then since they use to do 0.1 and then 0.5 and now it's 1 but they are making 10s look like a joke now. Before it was a big deal when a game got a 10 but now it's a meh.

I miss the old crew so much ...

Remember when Gamespot fired one of their most credible reviewers for giving an honest review? I remember those times. Gamespot had to satisfy their sponsors somehow.

Timing is a bit odd since it has been out so long, but it's a good game.

Yup.

Still not sure how I feel about "live service" or "games as a service" but if there is a right way to do it, I think R6: Siege is it.

I sure wish they'd have series that did R6 the old school way, with realism and tactical planning. I miss that.

It is and it isn't.

There are objective metrics to rating games, standards...things like that. It's why you can play a game that's rated a 10 and still dislike it subjectively, but objectively you have to admire and respect it.

You? Me? We have opinions.

Critics? Critics have standards. How good are the visuals? Is the sound design top-notch or amateur? Is the game full of bugs or well-polished? Is the game long, short, or somewhere in between?

In the end it's a combination of knowing how professional the critics are, and how those critics' preferences align with your own. Mat Paget reviewed R6: Siege, and at the bottom it says he has 850 (!!!) hours in the game. On one hand, he clearly has a good idea of what the game is about. On the other hand, he is also a fan so I think positive mentions he makes need to be taken with a grain of salt. He also mention how he spent credits/money on DLC so that aspect clearly does not bug him when it might bug others.

Ultimately I judge a game I have not played by the source of the reviews, the reviews themselves, and player opinions.

Lucky for me I've never valued Gamespot's opinion lol.

No there aren't. Game critics have opinions too. Otherwise, they'd be worthless.

10spot.com

I'm not saying they are 100% objective, but yes....there are objective measurements.

Let's look at music, for example. If a musician is playing flat or out of tune, that is an objective measurement of quality (or lack of).

Or how about cars? If sedan B is trying to compete with sedan A in terms of ride quality and has a superior ride quality based on how it handles bumps in the road, you can objectively say that sedan B rides better than sedan A.

It's why they're professional reviewers, and we consumers are not. Let's see how a critic and a consumer would talk about a game with high quality standards but they still did not like:

Critic: while I personally did not enjoy this game, it does excel in the areas of A, B, and C and blah blah blah.

Consumer: this game sucks.

See? One is objective and subjective, the other is just subjective.

Why do you say they would be worthless?

Well, consider this. How do you decide how much something excels? A reviewer that finds a turn-based battle system to be boring will probably not say that the game excelled in its combat, even though a fan of turn-based battle systems would probably consider it a prime example of the genre.

Which is why I said critics are objective and subjective.

It's also why earlier I said what I said, because reviewers do have opinions, and that might lead you astray; you need to know your reviewer, make sure their tastes align with yours, because you probably share the same opinions. If you don't like turn-based combat and the critic doesn't, that is probably a good critic for you to listen to.

Even if the critic doesn't like the game, you can still look at the objective bits of the review and see if you might like it. If the critic marks a game a six out of 10, but cites "short length, sub-par visuals, and sticky cover" as negatives and none of those things bug you, then you might want to consider the game.

A critics job is ultimately to educate people, and you don't do that by providing only your opinion.

It's also why I hate numerical scoring systems for the most part. There should be a review followed by "tl:dr" bullet points at the end summarizing the review.

Hm, a grinding multiplayer shooter by Ubisoft... blasted with microtransactions... is hardly what I consider essential.

It is subjective and what you are describing is what's known as a methodology.