What has happened to the Gamespot Reviews???

All right already GameSpot!

You give 2 games 10/10 in 1 year, completely ignore GTA 4 (10/10) in the awards, fire Jeff Gerstsmann, Jason Ocampo, Alex Navarro, need I go on?

Listen up GameSpot, this is rediculous. Who the hell (pardon my language) rated HaloWars 6.5??? What's with Luke Anderson's wierd ******** voice???????? Who the **** are you hiring to conduct all these reviews???????? Sure Kevin van Ord is a competent reviewer, but how does he match up with Jeff Gertsmann!

I want the old GameSpot back. The GameSport with fair reviews, good reviewers, and meaningful reviews. Jeez. 

Does anyone agree with me here? Or am I the only delusional person? 

6.5, Halowars. Sure it's an RTS for a console, but the reviewer failed to tell me any critical flaws.

8.5, DoW II, if Halo III and Crysis qualify for 9.5, so does DoW II. The market hasn't seen ANY good NEW FRESH ideas in RTSs.

Well, this is a bit of a rant, but c'mon! 

I'm fed up. Are you? 

This is a ground you may need to be careful on as it can lead to moderations.

I think the reviews seem fair, people forget its a persons opinion and 8.5 is not a bad score, it seems they have given it that as although it trys new things, they dont allways make it substancially better. I mean the saying "if it aint broke, dont fix it" as I feel the new multiplayer sounds like it has ripped out what Dawn of War was for me, making armys to capture points then take on the enemy base. I liked to be able to use units to move around quickly and Eldar had that for me with their warp portals.

I do think the review could have given more critical things about Halo Wars but the simplistic gameplay, few campaign missions and focus on one side only in campaign and 2 factions of choice only in multiplayer/skirmish is quite bad for a recent game.

I dont want to get into bashing reviews, I think the scores arent important, more the content in them that makes me want or not want a game.

This is a ground you may need to be careful on as it can lead to moderations.

I think the reviews seem fair, people forget its a persons opinion and 8.5 is not a bad score, it seems they have given it that as although it trys new things, they dont allways make it substancially better. I mean the saying "if it aint broke, dont fix it" as I feel the new multiplayer sounds like it has ripped out what Dawn of War was for me, making armys to capture points then take on the enemy base. I liked to be able to use units to move around quickly and Eldar had that for me with their warp portals.

I do think the review could have given more critical things about Halo Wars but the simplistic gameplay, few campaign missions and focus on one side only in campaign and 2 factions of choice only in multiplayer/skirmish is quite bad for a recent game.

I dont want to get into bashing reviews, I think the scores arent important, more the content in them that makes me want or not want a game.

Garfield360UK

Sorry showing my discontent.

However, my what I say is not just about the recent reviews, a lot of reviews. And what about the reviewers?

No, I dont mind personally but I am just letting you know you need to be careful as sometimes people get modded if they go a bit far if you get me.

I dont really watch lots of reviews but the ones I have seem fair, its just hard as people will allways get annoyed, if they had given the game 9.0 I would have been supprised and possibly thinking they went the oposite and just bowed to hype pressure for Halo Wars.

I must unfortunately agree... The only stand-out reviewer Gamespot has right now is Kevin... Everyone else is obviously new and inexperienced unfortunately.

As such, the quality of Gamespot's reviews has definitely deteriorated- big time.

The 6.5 for Halo Wars is a big example, he seemed to score it that low since he compared it to PC RTS GAMES... Yes, it's an opinion, but Gamespot should know better than to compare console RTS games with PC RTS games- they can't compete effectively just yet. IGN's Halo Wars review was much more legitimate I'd say.

I've had no problems with their DoW 2 review though... yet... We'll see what I think when I actually buy DoW 2...

O good to know. I'm not the only one who thinks GS is a mess right now. 

You are not the only one. However, I do feel perhaps that one of the reasons halowars got 6.5 was that its campaign mode can be finished inside 5 hours. That's pretty tiny and certainly not worth the launchprice. I'll generally consider purchasing a gmae if it averages out above 7. But then I do use gamespot to look at the other industry reviews to see if Gamespots score is fair.

As for being silenced by a mod - far as I'm aware we still live in a society where freedom of speech is a valued and important function. If I was ever moderated for making my opinion known in an adult fashion as Kevinjia did then I'd leave and go IGN or something.

Some of the reviews I've read in recent times sounded really immature, especially PC game reviews. Apparently the PC game reviewers are not even avid PC gamers--at least that's how they sound like in the reviews. You are giving a game 9, and you sound like you've been forced to swallow the game. I am talking about the GTA4 review for PC. I think that's the worst written review of a game that got 9. 

It is an odd ground for me really as I never liked most of the old Gamespot staff. Jeff was a meanie when it came down to game scores and he never argued his points across well which irritated me often. However, the old staff contributed to the site far more significantly than the new staff and we saw far more features, reviews, previews, etc from Jeff and his gang than out of Kevin and his new gang. Although I've never liked their reviews to begin with anyway, I stick to what I and other gamers think rather than what critics have to say. 

6.5, yes it does sound reasonable. RTS for console? What bothers me is that Luke Anderson FAILED TO TELL ME WHAT THE CRITICAL ERRORS WERE. He said that the Campaign was too short. So was CoD 4's.

Where is he getting this score from? 

It's good that the critics/reviewers like the game because it helps sway buyers, but it's just thier opinion and in the end I play games that I want to not the games that the reviews say is great.

If you look at some of gamespot's reviews compared the the critic scores, gamespot does seem to rate games lower than the others.

Out of interest, do gamespot publish a breakdown of their socres, ie why they give games x or are we left in the dark as to why games are given scores?pai-may

I think they used to with graphics, gameplay, sound etc being given individual scores. However, this is why I dont focus on the score as how can somebody justify between 6 and 6.5 or 7.5 and 8? Even worse are the old ratings where its 8.6, 8.7 etc what made .1 of a difference?

Out of interest, do gamespot publish a breakdown of their socres, ie why they give games x or are we left in the dark as to why games are given scores?pai-may

They used to have a bit of a bases, but not any more. And on Neals point, yes, sometimes yes, and sometimes no. 

True true true. But it isn't always the case. I liked Greg Kasavin. He really did well with reviews. 

We are talking about taste, though. Everyone has a different view on what works and what don't, and there's nothing wrong with the reviewer being personal as long as he points out what he finds good and bad. Sometimes GameSpot reviewers baffle me with their criticisms, but I respect that people think differently. I haven't read the Halo Wars review before (I go to Metacritic or something instead of individual reviews to get an assessment of quality and then see if it looks promising and like something I would enjoy when choosing games), but I just read it for the sake of argument.

I think the reviewer did a decent job of telling why he didn't like it. I know many games where I've felt the game was unfinished, and if that's the reviewers opinion then I can accept that. I don't think this review necessarily applies to everyone, but I think reviewers should be honest and not assume what the masses will think.

Kevinjia32 brings up CoD4 as a great short game, but that doesn't mean other short games shouldn't be criticized for its short length! The reviewer had many complaints about the campaign and multiplayer, while few had any serious complaints about CoD4's campaign and especially multiplayer. CoD4's campaign isn't great because it's short, it's great because it manages to be of high enough quality within its length. It's very clear that the reviewer didn't think the campaign of Halo Wars was of any significant quality.

I also want to point out that Gerstmann did complain about CoD4's length in the review, but still gave it 9.0 because it was excellent while it lasted and because the multiplayer was excellent. This is very different from what is spoken about in the Halo Wars review, where the multiplayer is called unvaried and the campaign (albeit having an interesting story) being limited in terms of units, advanced controls and length.

We are talking about taste, though. Everyone has a different view on what works and what don't, and there's nothing wrong with the reviewer being personal as long as he points out what he finds good and bad. Sometimes GameSpot reviewers baffle me with their criticisms, but I respect that people think differently. I haven't read the Halo Wars review before (I go to Metacritic or something instead of individual reviews to get an assessment of quality and then see if it looks promising and like something I would enjoy when choosing games), but I just read it for the sake of argument.

I think the reviewer did a decent job of telling why he didn't like it. I know many games where I've felt the game was unfinished, and if that's the reviewers opinion then I can accept that. I don't think this review necessarily applies to everyone, but I think reviewers should be honest and not assume what the masses will think.

Kevinjia32 brings up CoD4 as a great short game, but that doesn't mean other short games shouldn't be criticized for its short length! The reviewer had many complaints about the campaign and multiplayer, while few had any serious complaints about CoD4's campaign and especially multiplayer. CoD4's campaign isn't great because it's short, it's great because it manages to be of high enough quality within its length. It's very clear that the reviewer didn't think the campaign of Halo Wars was of any significant quality.

I also want to point out that Gerstmann did complain about CoD4's length in the review, but still gave it 9.0 because it was excellent while it lasted and because the multiplayer was excellent. This is very different from what is spoken about in the Halo Wars review, where the multiplayer is called unvaried and the campaign (albeit having an interesting story) being limited in terms of units, advanced controls and length.

Benny_is_here

I agree wit this, I heard a comment on the podcast as Halo Wars being a "stripped down PC RTS", a game having parts cut out to make it work on a games console but nothing added to balance that out like Advance Wars series and EndWar have done. I may get Halo Wars but I honestly dont think its the best game ever from what I played, I am getting it more for the Halo side than the RTS side as I like Halo so the story would be interesting to me.

We are talking about taste, though. Everyone has a different view on what works and what don't, and there's nothing wrong with the reviewer being personal as long as he points out what he finds good and bad. Sometimes GameSpot reviewers baffle me with their criticisms, but I respect that people think differently. I haven't read the Halo Wars review before (I go to Metacritic or something instead of individual reviews to get an assessment of quality and then see if it looks promising and like something I would enjoy when choosing games), but I just read it for the sake of argument.

I think the reviewer did a decent job of telling why he didn't like it. I know many games where I've felt the game was unfinished, and if that's the reviewers opinion then I can accept that. I don't think this review necessarily applies to everyone, but I think reviewers should be honest and not assume what the masses will think.

Kevinjia32 brings up CoD4 as a great short game, but that doesn't mean other short games shouldn't be criticized for its short length! The reviewer had many complaints about the campaign and multiplayer, while few had any serious complaints about CoD4's campaign and especially multiplayer. CoD4's campaign isn't great because it's short, it's great because it manages to be of high enough quality within its length. It's very clear that the reviewer didn't think the campaign of Halo Wars was of any significant quality.

I also want to point out that Gerstmann did complain about CoD4's length in the review, but still gave it 9.0 because it was excellent while it lasted and because the multiplayer was excellent. This is very different from what is spoken about in the Halo Wars review, where the multiplayer is called unvaried and the campaign (albeit having an interesting story) being limited in terms of units, advanced controls and length.

Benny_is_here

Those are all good points, while short, it was still a bang to play and a great multiplayer.

Having said that, as Luke Anderson said, "Sound is Top Notch", "...is a FUN game to try" "Fantastic Cutscenes". I do not get what he is trying to get at. "Fantastic Lighting effects." He then says, "..At times it looks DRAB" he just argued himself. I'm trying to get at why he scored it so low. If he scored, say 7, I'd agree with it. Lets take Motorstorm, 8.0. It was rediculously short, but had a pretty good multiplayer. No story. No cut scenes, just a bunch of races on 7 maps. I do not understand why it deserves so much better than HaloWars (not to say MS is a bad game). 

Luke Anderson, again, failed to show me critical flaws. It's a bit unfinished. I get it. A lot of games are like that, just like MS. Why so low? I have a feeling Luke Anderson is being biased about RTS for consoles.  What hope does RTS have for consoles in the future if fresh ideas are discouraged so easily? 

Gamespot always looks for quality and innvation... I'm unable to challenge them there, they do make some good points... I'm unsure if they were planning to be conventional. They just plan to open up people's minds. They gave some credit to 50 Cents latest game at least. I'm not a fan of 50 Cent, however I've taken they're opinions into account and sometimes do believe they do make goods points.

I'm happy that they fired Jeff Gerstsmann to be honested, rating Tony Hawk 3 a 10/10 was a crime. I hardly care when it comes to reviews sometimes, I still end up buying games for my liking. Keep in mind that Metacritic is around.

[QUOTE="Benny_is_here"]

We are talking about taste, though. Everyone has a different view on what works and what don't, and there's nothing wrong with the reviewer being personal as long as he points out what he finds good and bad. Sometimes GameSpot reviewers baffle me with their criticisms, but I respect that people think differently. I haven't read the Halo Wars review before (I go to Metacritic or something instead of individual reviews to get an assessment of quality and then see if it looks promising and like something I would enjoy when choosing games), but I just read it for the sake of argument.

I think the reviewer did a decent job of telling why he didn't like it. I know many games where I've felt the game was unfinished, and if that's the reviewers opinion then I can accept that. I don't think this review necessarily applies to everyone, but I think reviewers should be honest and not assume what the masses will think.

Kevinjia32 brings up CoD4 as a great short game, but that doesn't mean other short games shouldn't be criticized for its short length! The reviewer had many complaints about the campaign and multiplayer, while few had any serious complaints about CoD4's campaign and especially multiplayer. CoD4's campaign isn't great because it's short, it's great because it manages to be of high enough quality within its length. It's very clear that the reviewer didn't think the campaign of Halo Wars was of any significant quality.

I also want to point out that Gerstmann did complain about CoD4's length in the review, but still gave it 9.0 because it was excellent while it lasted and because the multiplayer was excellent. This is very different from what is spoken about in the Halo Wars review, where the multiplayer is called unvaried and the campaign (albeit having an interesting story) being limited in terms of units, advanced controls and length.

kevinjia32

Those are all good points, while short, it was still a bang to play and a great multiplayer.

Having said that, as Luke Anderson said, "Sound is Top Notch", "...is a FUN game to try" "Fantastic Cutscenes". I do not get what he is trying to get at. "Fantastic Lighting effects." He then says, "..At times it looks DRAB" he just argued himself. I'm trying to get at why he scored it so low. If he scored, say 7, I'd agree with it. Lets take Motorstorm, 8.0. It was rediculously short, but had a pretty good multiplayer. No story. No cut scenes, just a bunch of races on 7 maps. I do not understand why it deserves so much better than HaloWars (not to say MS is a bad game). 

Luke Anderson, again, failed to show me critical flaws. It's a bit unfinished. I get it. A lot of games are like that, just like MS. Why so low? I have a feeling Luke Anderson is being biased about RTS for consoles.  What hope does RTS have for consoles in the future if fresh ideas are discouraged so easily? 

Thats the thing, its not a terrible game as he says, its simplistic and has features cut and nothing special thus gets the total it gets.

I have only played the demo and it was good but I think the score probably is about right, the review says its for fans of the series or somebody looking for a simplistic RTS but people who are used to RTS games will be disapointed by its features so it seems a fair score.

Gamespot always looks for quality and innvation... I'm unable to challenge them there, they do make some good points... I'm unsure if they were planning to be conventional. They just plan to open up people's minds. They gave some credit to 50 Cents latest game at least. I'm not a fan of 50 Cent, however I've taken they're opinions into account and sometimes do believe they do make goods points.

I'm happy that they fired Jeff Gerstsmann to be honested, rating Tony Hawk 3 a 10/10 was a crime. I hardly care when it comes to reviews sometimes, I still end up buying games for my liking. Keep in mind that Metacritic is around.

rikhan_z

I don't think it is fair that you say Jeff shouldve been fired. He was a competent and a good reviewer. Sure he has made a mistake, but all the other things he has done? 

Garfield, when I see 6.5, you can count that as a "C" score. A C? Thats pretty low. 6.5 is not high at all. And it isn't decent to a game that is a bit "unfinished" and like I said, it is a new innovation. I want to see a RTS for PS3 someday. 

I dont understand, to me 5 is an average game which fans of the series/license will enjoy, 10 is the best game and 0 is a terrible game that should be avoided by all. No games I have played would be a 0 but none are a 10 either, to me most games range from the 5 to 8/9 range, Bioshock I would say is about 8.5 for example.Garfield360UK

Huh. Interesting. I guess my standards are lower. 

I dont understand, are you saying that 5/10 is good or not good?

This is why scores are an issue as people view them differently, some will not buy a game that gets under 8.5, others will not even look at the review. In honesty, most games I get I try the demo or at a friends or listen to their thoughts on a game then will try and get it if I am interested. I take a few risks with some games when they are very cheap like Crackdown I got based on the review for a fiver and it is good but if I was spending 40 pounds or 60 bucks then I probably would read more reviews. Some put me off like Street Fighter as it sounds like its a game that would be only hardcore fans would get into it. 

I dont understand, are you saying that 5/10 is good or not good?

This is why scores are an issue as people view them differently, some will not buy a game that gets under 8.5, others will not even look at the review. In honesty, most games I get I try the demo or at a friends or listen to their thoughts on a game then will try and get it if I am interested. I take a few risks with some games when they are very cheap like Crackdown I got based on the review for a fiver and it is good but if I was spending 40 pounds or 60 bucks then I probably would read more reviews. Some put me off like Street Fighter as it sounds like its a game that would be only hardcore fans would get into it. 

Garfield360UK

Like i said, I treat scores as grades. So 5/10, D. Not good, if you know what i mean. 

Well, one thing's for sure, I will not buy a game if it gets anything below 7, unless I am a big fan of the franchise or the subject matter of games interest me way too much. Also, people make score to score comparisons; i.e. NFS pro street got 6.5, but the I still got the game. But after playing it, I wanted to give it 4, and thus from then onwards, I have decided not to buy any games in that scoring range. I am sure many others think in the similar manner. DeadManRollin

I guess it is up to the reviews, and how much you expect from the Franchise when you pick it up. 

Bah. Thats why we've got Metacritic, people!

Fighting Gamespot's corner for a moment. At least they had the balls to rate Halo Wars at 6.5 for whatever reasons they give. Most other reviews of that game are the expected 9/9.5 or 98% almost perfect kind of rubbish you expect from reviewers when big named titles are released. Did'nt Gamespot fire a reviewer the other year for refusing to remove his review after a publisher threatened to withdraw funding? Sounds like they may have actually grown a pair in the meantime.pai-may

Huh. Well. You never fail to surprise me Pai. Interesting takes as usual. I guess you ar ecorrect, in the sense that GameSpot had the guts to post 6.5, but...they had no beef to back it up. Just a lot of gravy. Hmm, I'm hungry. 

[QUOTE="pai-may"]Fighting Gamespot's corner for a moment. At least they had the balls to rate Halo Wars at 6.5 for whatever reasons they give. Most other reviews of that game are the expected 9/9.5 or 98% almost perfect kind of rubbish you expect from reviewers when big named titles are released. Did'nt Gamespot fire a reviewer the other year for refusing to remove his review after a publisher threatened to withdraw funding? Sounds like they may have actually grown a pair in the meantime.kevinjia32

Huh. Well. You never fail to surprise me Pai. Interesting takes as usual. I guess you ar ecorrect, in the sense that GameSpot had the guts to post 6.5, but...they had no beef to back it up. Just a lot of gravy. Hmm, I'm hungry. 

I'm not saying I agree with the review, just as you say, they got gravy. Having looked at the remainder of industry review scores is does seem a little low, but this is where I would agree with the poster above me and check the demo myself If I was actually interested in a game that got a low score. 

For example, I'm really into Norse mythology and so Too Human has interested me for ages. Reviewers gave the game 5.5 on Gamespot and yet despite some minor issues I would personally say that the game is the best 5.5 I've ever played. I really enjoy the game but others may not.

Still, in general I agree that the quality of Gamespot reviews is hit and miss at the moment.

Don't you guys value your own taste more than other peoples taste (i.e gamespot reviewers). i never buy game based on reviewers because they tend to be biased as they rate the game based on their taste. There are even times when they give a game a bad score because they are not good at playing video games. For me i always get demo , to see whether i like the game or not and if i like the demo i will get the game regardless the scores even gamespot scores. For example last remnant got a 6.5 and i still got the game because i like asian rpgs. I agree with what kevinjia32 said about the quality of gamespot reviews dropping. Last remnant is a good example. the game got a 6.5 because of supposedly technical flaws. They didn't try installing the game into the hard drive because by doing that the technical flaws are removed. Thats because they never mentioned it in their reviews. Another example is star ocean 4. Somewhere in the reviews they mentioned that the talk scenes are long as i remembered right mgs4 is the king when it comes to long cut scenes especially with the boring one and a half hour long ending movie . even with that it got a 10 which is a overrated score in my opinion. A third example is mercenaries2. they complain about the game having lots of bugs that makes you fail the mission and repetitve missions and Awful AI and unsatisfying weapons and lousy story. the bug stopped time and the cars were flying all the place and half my body was stuck to the road. Not only that Gtaiv missions is basically kill this , get that or drive and shoot therefore being very repetitve but gamespot gave GTAIV a 10 and mercenaries a 5 and GTAiv had also awful AI and lousy story and unsatisfying waepons.10679

I tend to always get a second opinion before I get a game.

I always believe that a good opinion and some great insight to a game before I buy it.
Dont some of you?  

I usually get at least a couple of reviews read before I consider a game, unless it is a no brainer for me i.e. a game I would buy regardless of review. This is one of the reasons I've joined unions like this, so we can discuss games and I can get other opinions before I make up my mind.

My friend is able to buy lots of games because he is rich and so he generally buys a lot of new releases. If I want an opinion on a game I usually ask him first because he's bound to have played it.

I dont even read Gamespots reviews anymore. Ever since Jeff Gerstmann and others left, the site just isnt worth it anymore for Me. Hell, people like that Lark guy just piss Me off. What are the game histories of these new guys anyway, some were responsible for editing videos before.....seriously, its not because a mailman delivers mail to some legal offices for a few years, that suddenly he's a lawyer......Granted, an over the top Way of putting it....but thats basicly what it is.Faller88

Thats absolutely true about Jeff Gerstmann. 

Still, GameSpot is stil la competent review site...just not as good as they used to be.