(Un)official (maybe sorta) Revote of Using GS Scores in SW (Sticky?)

Gamerankings. Don't use metacritic it's a cnet website. btw jeff rules and Cnet/Eidos are evil.heydanbud927

Wow why create a new account to post this? and isn't gamerankings run by CNET too?

[QUOTE="Dr_DudeMan"]

Clearly, you do not understand reason like the typical gs fanboy, and you should run off because you are not gonna change the minds of the overwhelming majority that understands the benefit of a site like gamerankings. Argue all you want, but your wrong....

I am also going to take a wild guess, and say that you are a republican, rofl...

Vyse_The_Daring

Here's some reason for you:

1) You can't prove that the other sites aren't biased. He's right, you can't show that advertising money doesn't have an impact on the reviews at other sites.

2) OPM, OXM, etc are all used at Gamerankings. Why should magazines who only review games from one console have the same weight as other reviewers?

3) Not all websites/magazines use the same system. If a single point is taken off at Gamespy, it's equal to twice as much deducted from IGN.

4) Outliers greatly change the scores on gamerankings. So for a game like Halo 3 where everyone and their dog reviews it, some Christian website might give it a 2.0 because of the violence and BAM, Halo 3 would then be rated lower than a lot of other games who weren't reviewed by that source.

5) Drawing from #4, not all games have the same number of reviews. So if two games receive a review of 2.0, but one has 19 others and one has 99 others, the 2.0 won't impact the 99 review game as much.

There are probably other points I missed, go back through the thread and read them if you need more proof. Gamerankings isn't a real alternative, it's just the one that everyone thinks of first.

1) Some sites are biased positively and others negatively toward certain games. So it makes an average between them.

2) I remember OPM, for example, giving bad or average scores to many big PS3 titles, and read point1)

3) Websites rate games like they want. They'll give them the score that seems the most appropriate for them, and read point1)

4) These minor reviewers don't count for much at GR, and read point1)

5) Every hyped titles will get alot of reviews.

Sorry but you can't win this. Logic tells us to use GR. And HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT GS ISN'T BIASED? It's alot safer with GR where bisaed reviews will have a minimal impact on the final score.

[QUOTE="heydanbud927"]Gamerankings. Don't use metacritic it's a cnet website. btw jeff rules and Cnet/Eidos are evil.blue_hazy_basic

Wow why create a new account to post this? and isn't gamerankings run by CNET too?

no it's not. they are affiliates though, that is better than being owned by cnet i guess. and i came here to do something... you'lle see.

i'll do it on the eidos board too when it's unlocked. i'll make sure it goes into the kiddy games forums too so all the kiddies get to see it.

[QUOTE="SgtWhiskeyjack"]

I'm glad this is unofficial. I'd leave here if we changed to Gamerankings.

By all means use them to base your puchases on, if you are pleased with the scores that fanboy mags and mags that have no right reviewing games, give a certain game, but do not base whether a game is AAA of AA on gameranking scores, we'll be at it on one game for weeks.

"it's AAA, ha ha, in your face"

"Oh no, it's AA, it's now a flop"

"Yes, but it was AAA for 2 weeks and look who scored it low, they don't count"

etc etc

Gamespot only folks, don't change it.

heydanbud927

please explain to me how averaging 50 - 60 reviews is less accurate than 1 single persons opinion. sure there are fanboy mags who score games too high, but there are also reviews that are too low. they cancel eachother out numbnuts.

anyone who says gamespot is a supporter of evil corporations like eidos and Cnet.

Its okay, people like SgtWhiskeyjack and blue hazy basic just wont understand...

[QUOTE="SgtWhiskeyjack"]

I'm glad this is unofficial. I'd leave here if we changed to Gamerankings.

By all means use them to base your puchases on, if you are pleased with the scores that fanboy mags and mags that have no right reviewing games, give a certain game, but do not base whether a game is AAA of AA on gameranking scores, we'll be at it on one game for weeks.

"it's AAA, ha ha, in your face"

"Oh no, it's AA, it's now a flop"

"Yes, but it was AAA for 2 weeks and look who scored it low, they don't count"

etc etc

Gamespot only folks, don't change it.

heydanbud927

please explain to me how averaging 50 - 60 reviews is less accurate than 1 single persons opinion. sure there are fanboy mags who score games too high, but there are also reviews that are too low. they cancel eachother out numbnuts.

anyone who says gamespot is a supporter of evil corporations like eidos and Cnet.

1. Zelda OOT 31 reviews - 3. Metroid Prime 3, 92 reviews. Which is the better game?

[QUOTE="Vyse_The_Daring"][QUOTE="Dr_DudeMan"]

Clearly, you do not understand reason like the typical gs fanboy, and you should run off because you are not gonna change the minds of the overwhelming majority that understands the benefit of a site like gamerankings. Argue all you want, but your wrong....

I am also going to take a wild guess, and say that you are a republican, rofl...

Timesplitter14

Here's some reason for you:

1) You can't prove that the other sites aren't biased. He's right, you can't show that advertising money doesn't have an impact on the reviews at other sites.

2) OPM, OXM, etc are all used at Gamerankings. Why should magazines who only review games from one console have the same weight as other reviewers?

3) Not all websites/magazines use the same system. If a single point is taken off at Gamespy, it's equal to twice as much deducted from IGN.

4) Outliers greatly change the scores on gamerankings. So for a game like Halo 3 where everyone and their dog reviews it, some Christian website might give it a 2.0 because of the violence and BAM, Halo 3 would then be rated lower than a lot of other games who weren't reviewed by that source.

5) Drawing from #4, not all games have the same number of reviews. So if two games receive a review of 2.0, but one has 19 others and one has 99 others, the 2.0 won't impact the 99 review game as much.

There are probably other points I missed, go back through the thread and read them if you need more proof. Gamerankings isn't a real alternative, it's just the one that everyone thinks of first.

1) Some sites are biased positively and others negatively toward certain games. So it makes an average between them.

2) I remember OPM, for example, giving bad or average scores to many big PS3 titles, and read point1)

3) Websites rate games like they want. They'll give them the score that seems the most appropriate for them, and read point1)

4) These minor reviewers don't count for much at GR, and read point1)

5) Every hyped titles will get alot of reviews.

Sorry but you can't win this. Logic tells us to use GR. And HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT GS ISN'T BIASED? It's alot safer with GR where bisaed reviews will have a minimal impact on the final score.

I am glad that the number of people with reason outnumber the unreasonable for a change. And awesome sig btw.

[QUOTE="heydanbud927"][QUOTE="SgtWhiskeyjack"]

I'm glad this is unofficial. I'd leave here if we changed to Gamerankings.

By all means use them to base your puchases on, if you are pleased with the scores that fanboy mags and mags that have no right reviewing games, give a certain game, but do not base whether a game is AAA of AA on gameranking scores, we'll be at it on one game for weeks.

"it's AAA, ha ha, in your face"

"Oh no, it's AA, it's now a flop"

"Yes, but it was AAA for 2 weeks and look who scored it low, they don't count"

etc etc

Gamespot only folks, don't change it.

SgtWhiskeyjack

please explain to me how averaging 50 - 60 reviews is less accurate than 1 single persons opinion. sure there are fanboy mags who score games too high, but there are also reviews that are too low. they cancel eachother out numbnuts.

anyone who says gamespot is a supporter of evil corporations like eidos and Cnet.

1. Zelda OOT 31 reviews - 3. Metroid Prime, 92 reviews. Which is the better game?

Additionally Metroid Prime has 34 reviews at 100%

System Wars is brokengreenwallly

It can be fixed

[QUOTE="heydanbud927"][QUOTE="SgtWhiskeyjack"]

I'm glad this is unofficial. I'd leave here if we changed to Gamerankings.

By all means use them to base your puchases on, if you are pleased with the scores that fanboy mags and mags that have no right reviewing games, give a certain game, but do not base whether a game is AAA of AA on gameranking scores, we'll be at it on one game for weeks.

"it's AAA, ha ha, in your face"

"Oh no, it's AA, it's now a flop"

"Yes, but it was AAA for 2 weeks and look who scored it low, they don't count"

etc etc

Gamespot only folks, don't change it.

Dr_DudeMan

please explain to me how averaging 50 - 60 reviews is less accurate than 1 single persons opinion. sure there are fanboy mags who score games too high, but there are also reviews that are too low. they cancel eachother out numbnuts.

anyone who says gamespot is a supporter of evil corporations like eidos and Cnet.

Its okay, people like SgtWhiskeyjack and blue hazy basic just wont understand...

I understand fine. And as I quite clearly stated, base your purchases on more than one review sites opinion.

SW's however would just be an absolute nightmare if we based if a game flopped or not, was AAA or not, on what the average is on Gamerankings.

Just think about it for a minute before you judge me. First score in, AAAA, second score in A, third in AA, what would the posts and new thread upon new thread be like?

I'm still with GS scores on this one.DaysAirlines

Same, I'm still with GS

[QUOTE="Dr_DudeMan"][QUOTE="heydanbud927"][QUOTE="SgtWhiskeyjack"]

I'm glad this is unofficial. I'd leave here if we changed to Gamerankings.

By all means use them to base your puchases on, if you are pleased with the scores that fanboy mags and mags that have no right reviewing games, give a certain game, but do not base whether a game is AAA of AA on gameranking scores, we'll be at it on one game for weeks.

"it's AAA, ha ha, in your face"

"Oh no, it's AA, it's now a flop"

"Yes, but it was AAA for 2 weeks and look who scored it low, they don't count"

etc etc

Gamespot only folks, don't change it.

SgtWhiskeyjack

please explain to me how averaging 50 - 60 reviews is less accurate than 1 single persons opinion. sure there are fanboy mags who score games too high, but there are also reviews that are too low. they cancel eachother out numbnuts.

anyone who says gamespot is a supporter of evil corporations like eidos and Cnet.

Its okay, people like SgtWhiskeyjack and blue hazy basic just wont understand...

I understand fine. And as I quite clearly stated, base your purchases on more than one review sites opinion.

SW's however would just be an absolute nightmare if we based if a game flopped or not, was AAA or not, on what the average is on Gamerankings.

Just think about it for a minute before you judge me. First score in, AAAA, second score in A, third in AA, what would the posts and new thread upon new thread be like?

Well the gamerankings standard before ranking a game is 20 reviews, and then once the 20 review mark hits, there isnt much more score variation after that.

1)biased positively and others negatively toward certain games. So it makes an average between them.

2) I remember OPM, for example, giving bad or average scores to many big PS3 titles, and read point1)

3) Websites rate games like they want. They'll give them the score that seems the most appropriate for them, and read point1)

4) These minor reviewers don't count for much at GR, and read point1)

5) Every hyped titles will get alot of reviews.

Sorry but you can't win this. Logic tells us to use GR. And HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT GS ISN'T BIASED? It's alot safer with GR where bisaed reviews will have a minimal impact on the final score.

Timesplitter14

To give an example, neither of the two reviewers who scored Halo 3 in the 70s have reviewed Mario Galaxy, how is that fair? How do you know those sites aren't a bunch of hard asses looking to make a name for their site by rating Halo 3 low?

There are 11 sources with the word "xbox" on Halo 3's review list, but only 2 with the word "playstation" on Uncharted's list, hardly seems fair. Where is the balance you talked about? Where are the biased PS magazines coming in to balance out the score?

If it takes a lot of reviews to balance out the scores, thenonly hype titles will receive very high scores, and some great hypeless games will be shafted by a single review.

I don't know GS isn't biased, sowhy throw it in with the GR score? I don't know that IGN, Gamespy andplenty of other reviewers aren't biased, a whole bunch of wrongs won't make itright. Logic tells you to come up with a new system, but nobody here is thinking logically. You are looking for a quick fix to this problem. Don't believe me? Why didn't GR win in the other polls? Because it's not the right system, and people are only voting for it now because they haven't considered other possibilities.

GS in pandemonium. It's like the whole world is imploding. I feel so confused (not that anyone isn't)

I guess I'll have to use my gut and say GR. Personally, I like GS as a friend, but not that much.

We should just vote on the top 4 or 5 sites and use an average of them to determine the score

We should just vote on the top 4 or 5 sites and use an average of them to determine the score

darkodonnie

GameRankings is not the answer, replacing one corrupt score with another will get us no where.

A lot of votes in this poll. I guess there must be a lot of people who read this site but never post. Crying shame folks come on and post!

My fantastic idea of averaging IGN, Gamespot, and Eurogamer scores has yet to be equalled. They all use the 10 scale and they are all reputable sites with the occasional controversy which can be mitigated by taking the average.

if your on GS than use GS scores

if you want to use GR than go to that web site

GS in pandemonium. It's like the whole world is imploding. I feel so confused (not that anyone isn't)

I guess I'll have to use my gut and say GR. Personally, I like GS as a friend, but not that much.

TalesofRaGnArOk

Nope. Just the Gamespot world.

A lot of votes in this poll. I guess there must be a lot of people who read this site but never post. Crying shame folks come on and post!

My fantastic idea of averaging IGN, Gamespot, and Eurogamer scores has yet to be equalled. They all use the 10 scale and they are all reputable sites with the occasional controversy which can be mitigated by taking the average.

JiveT

i like that idea but there are some flaws... Like, who is seriously going to compile that for EVERY game? also, both IGN and Eurogamer have different review teams for each platform with different review standards. causes some skewing of scores but not a lot... It is viable if you can overcome the obvious hurdles.

Okay, after thinking about it, Gamespot scores should still be used since this is Gamespot and just because Jeff is gone doesn't mean the otherreviewers aregoing to be biased and payed off. Everyone is assuming when they should wait for GS's reviews and compare to other reviews, trying to find any bias.

Unless we seebias in any reviewer's review,GS's scores should still be used.

u do realize that GameSpot, MetaCritic and GAMERANKINGS are all OWNED by CNET?-D3MO-

[QUOTE="-D3MO-"]u do realize that GameSpot, MetaCritic and GAMERANKINGS are all OWNED by CNET?BreakingPoint8

Still... it just averages all the review sites together. The only way to be biased is if they purposefully left some sites out, which I doubt they would do. And, my reasoning choosing Metacritic over Game Rankings is that A) Metacritic is usually much faster at adding reviews than GameRankings, and B) Metacritic offers summaries of the reviews, something that is very helpful if you don't want to click on every single review site to get their general opinion of the game.

We can't use any site but Gamespot for determaning AAA, AA, A, and flop status.

If we were on a neutral website we could, but we are on Gamespot. Therefore we use Gamespots reviews.

[QUOTE="BreakingPoint8"][QUOTE="-D3MO-"]u do realize that GameSpot, MetaCritic and GAMERANKINGS are all OWNED by CNET?ParkCarsHere

Still... it just averages all the review sites together. The only way to be biased is if they purposefully left some sites out, which I doubt they would do. And, my reasoning choosing Metacritic over Game Rankings is that A) Metacritic is usually much faster at adding reviews than GameRankings, and B) Metacritic offers summaries of the reviews, something that is very helpful if you don't want to click on every single review site to get their general opinion of the game.

Exactly. Review sites may be biased but when you take 20-30 reviews it becomes a wash.

GS is going down......the few minority of you who are still on board with GS reviews, get used to a new climate here in SW...the numbers are speaking for themselves at the top of the page.

And guess what....this time I can say...if you don't like it you can go :P

This is GameSpot's System Wars. Use gamespot scores and STOP COMPLAINING.Spartan8907

Even though gamespot takes money for reviews.. riiiiiight

The Public has spoken.. almost 60% are for gamerankings being the new system wars rankingskozzy1234

Metacritic and Gamerankings are almost the same thing so it's more like 70%.

I say either Gametrailers or Ign. They have the best reviews IMO.

Can we officially say we'll be using Gamerankings from now on?hamidious

i guess it is official alot of ppl voted and more than half selected game rankings i dont think GS can come back and take overcoltss

[QUOTE="hamidious"]Can we officially say we'll be using Gamerankings from now on?Tiefster

It's getting up there (for SW) - 668 votes

Gamespot is dead

I here by say we should use Gamerankings now

and yall all seem to agree looking at the poll