[QUOTE="Dissipate"]Indigo Prophecy didnt have any action? Really? Cause I'm 100% sure it did. Anyway back to your point, yes I do enjoy games with no action but I also enjoy games with action. Action or no action, as long as a game keeps me interested I'll play it._MURS_

The most action that game has is when you try to match the lights....

I was referring to action in the game such as the fight scene. Yes you only match sequences of lights but there still is action in the game.

Both the Mass Effect (Bioware) and Bioshock (Irrational) have gone on record of saying they are using heavily modified versions of the UE3, where they basically used the engine as a template and changed it upside down and inside out to suit their franchises. The only reason im bringing this up is because someone said that outside Unreal Tournament 3 and Gears that the UE3 was a farce. They are right. Epic is gonna get bagtagged hard here for there shenanigans.GodModeEnabled

While both developers did indeed modify the UE3 engine I would imagine that the engine served more than just a template. I don't see why they would gut the engine and rewritelarge portionswhy paying a large amount to Epic for a license when they could have made their own.

I don't like it. I definitely don't like it. If I were to compare 2 games and one of them is just stlightly better than the other one, I would have to games rated 8.5? Am I right? I know many of you will say things about "having to read the review" or goint for the one with the most medals. I still don't like it

teufelherz

Just because one scores two points higher doesnt necessarily mean one is better than the other (could be two different reviewers) or that you personally would like the one that scored higher more. So either you might have to do more research to determine which game suits you more.

[QUOTE="Dissipate"]

Im still somewhat perplexed why people dislike the new system simply because the ratings are "like every other site" as well as some of the other reasons people dislike the new system. GS might now have a rating system similar to countless other sites but that shouldnt matter, the actual review should. If you dont like the actual review you probably wouldnt like the score and if you cant find the time to read a 3 minute review how can you even find time to play a game. Some believe that the new scores are less precious and can actually be more arbitary but I still cant agree with that. If a movie is great then I'll give it that score, if its not then I wont. Doesnt seem that arbitrary to me.

Movie reviews have all the elements people are complaining about

• no quick reviews
• no subcategories
• some elements are more important than others depending on the genre
• huge percentage of siteshave the same rating system
• smaller overall scale. 9 for the 4 stars and 11 for 5 stars

yet somehow people still read them and decides whether it warrants a viewing. Despite all of these so called problems countless people still look to Ebert for reviews and he didnt need a special rating scheme. It was his high quality reviews that drew people to his website and tv show. I thought GS was respected amongst the video game community because of their reviews and opinions and not somesilly scoring system but I guess I was wrong. If you leave because of the rating change why were you even checking reviews in the first place because it would appear that you dislike the actual review, and isnt the score just an extention of the review? In the end you have to read reviews that share opinions similar to yours.

HiResDes

so because everyone else does something, it automatically means we should just learn to like it, that is a horrible way of thinking. IMO Ebert sucks at reviewing, I'd rather go to metacritic or IMDB to get a feel for whether or not I'll like a movie.

no you completely missed my point. My point was that just because something is similar doesnt inherently make it bad and you dont always need a new way of doing something to stand out or make your point.As well as the fact it is the review that matter and not the score. Oh and yes Ebert is horrible at reviews he is just the only film critic to be awarded the Pulitzer for criticism but you are right he doesnt know anything and the users at IMDB are all so knowledgable. But back on point, Ebert was just to illustrate an example that you go to the site you agree with whether that is Metacritic or someplace else.