GS used to my favorite review site. But starting about a year ago, I started to see them in a different light. This Ratchet review is just the straw that broke the camel's back. Let me show you a list of games with their GS and Gamerankings scores:
Metroid Prime 3 - 91%(GR) 85%(GS)
Bioshock - 95.3%(GR) 85%(GS)
Blue Dragon - 77%(GR) 60%(GS)
Lair - 57%(GR) 45%(GS)
Legend of Zelda Twilight Princess - 94%(GR) 88%(GS)
Folklore - 77%(GR) 70%(GS)
Ratchet and Clank - 92%(GR) 75%(GS)
All of these games had a good bit of hype and were severely underrated(from 17 percent off to 6 percent off with an average of about 10.7 percent off for these games). Why is this? Is Gamespot just really tough? No as seen by their Gears of War (93% at GR, 96% here), Halo 3 (94% at GR and 95% here), Ace Combat 6 (85% at GR and 85% here), Zack and Wiki (85% at GR and 85% here) reviews.
This seems to be a pattern: GS flops hyped games for very minor and possibly contradictory issues(read the Metroid Prime 3 review, it complains about and praises the more fps-ish controls). But if a game isn't hyped (like AC6) then they review the game fine. Or if a game is hyped to infinity(like Halo 3 and GeoW) and published my Microsoft, then GS gives a glowing review and ignores legitimate problems. I believe that GS flops moderatly hyped games to increase their traffic and they don't flop extremely hyped games to keep their credibility.
I no longer trust GS. I'll probably still hang out on the forums, but GS's reviews aretotally unreliable. IGN, GameRanking, and Gametrailers all the way!
Log in to comment