I love the Multiple Reviews for games on Gamespot now!

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!

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.

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.

Yeah, I don't mind.

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

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

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?

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

Again. Only one review is the official review.

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.

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.

not gonna cause its death. :)

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

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

@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

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

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

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.

I miss that EGM so much. :(

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.

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

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.

This

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

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

Or lie about numbers. lol giovela.

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.

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!!!

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

Multiple perspectives?

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

It kind of defeats the purpose of the metagame.

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

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

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