@megagood2345: You're right. The same problem exists with movie and TV awards, music awards, and Rotten Tomatoes, to name a few. But it truly becomes a problem when we stop using our own discernment and blindly rely on someone else's score or opinion. I know of people who will not go to a movie unless it has a RT score of 60% or better. But yours or my particular interests could very well be different than the reviewer's. Let's not turn our brains off. And yes, also make use of what opinions others provide, but make our own informed choice/decision. My most important comments were at the end of my post -"take a game reviewers score with a gain of salt" and "Never depend on any one single score" and "Be wise and informed". NO rating system is perfect, so my statement that GameSpot's rating system is broken should be no surprise. Has their rating system been helpful to many gamers anyhow? Of course, and all the more when you read the review and find what you identify with and don't.
Finally, there is no such thing as an essential or "must have" game. It is all subjective. Just as there is no such thing as a must own movie or music CD. People around the world live full and productive lives without these things. Clean water, food, shelter, good relationships (love) and health are "essential" - not a game, movie, or particular piece of music. These other things can however provide beauty, art, and fun to our lives, but again it's all subjective. Thus we must acknowledge that the games GameSpot gave a 10/10 is also subjective. Some will identify and agree and others will not. I am one of those who disagree and see their flaws. I could say that Bach and Mozart composed exceptional music, but you may not like classical music at all. No score applies the same for EVERYONE. Nonetheless, you have every right to your opinion.
@streamline: I agree that there would be problems changing things (and not align with other sites), but that doesn't diminish the fact that the rating system (for GameSpot and most other sites) is BROKEN or BIASED. Therefore, I suggest people don't put too much weight in the score and actually read what the reviewer has written, because portions may or may not apply to you and your game-play preferences. Use the score as a general sense, and the article for the details, but realize the games you like and the way you play could very well be different than the reviewers. Too many take the score way too literally - a mistake when the system is broken.
@nurnberg: Activision is EVIL. We have know it for quite some time. Why do we forget it so easily and keep letting them in the door with their empty promises, when they only care about the next cash grab.
Time to hold a memorial service and begin the long mourning process, for the golden days of gaming are now truly behind us. With a focus primarily on multiplayer games (mostly for monetary reasons) we can say goodbye to the leaps and bounds we've seen in creativity, innovation, story, and character. These won't be gone altogether, but since the emphasis is not there, it will happen a lot slower and in pockets as certain companies do something different. I an ALREADY tired of MMO and 4v4, 5v5 or 6v6 focused games. It's way too narrow of scope and gets boring much too soon. I want diversity. I want true innovation and creativity. I want a story and heroic characters I get to know and care about. Overwatch (as good of a game as it may be) and other similar games may have killed the exponential progress of the gaming industry. A very sad development in the industry, indeed I think a step backwards (or down a rabbit hole), where the whole gaming industry gets stalled and won't be seen as credible by the rest of the entertainment industry. Thank goodness for CD Projekt RED, Bethesda Studios and a few others.
There are serious flaws in your system (and I am sure there are others beyond what I mention)... Basically a game has to receive a score of at least 7.0 to be truly considered any good (ok, 6.5 may be acceptable). 5.0 (right in the middle) is not "average" on your scale. This means you have a range of 1 to 6 for different degrees of being bad and only a range of 7 to 10 to distinguish between the subtleties of how good a game is. I am more interested in the variety of ways a game may be good, as opposed to the numerous ways a game can be bad. Let's face it, if a game gets a score of 5.0 or lower it's basically a death sentence, so why do you need a range of so many numbers to indicate the game is bad? - it's a waste and not particularly helpful. Like I said I am more interested in the shades of goodness, such as "this game is only for those who like this particular genre or franchise" or "the game mechanics are good and makes for a lot of fun, but the story is thin or the menu navigation and options are flawed" or "this game isn't perfect, but it's a truly outstanding achievement and totally addicting". There are so many ways a game could comprise a variety of good elements and you have restricted yourself to a range of 7 to 10. To top it off you rarely give out a score of 10 (which is fine generally), but means you really have less of a range to work with AND you have gotten games you've scored with a 10 completely wrong (often in retrospect) or missed games that should have been scored a 10 because of minor issues or reviewer bias. So your range is skewed. In the end. the only scores in your system that matter is 1, and 5 to 10. You may as well have just used a scoring system of 0 to 5.
Also, you overvalue innovation too much and undervalue just plain good fun. Often in your reviews if a new game is too reminiscent of an old game, you rate the new game lower as a result, even if it has great game-play (and may look much better than that older game). You forget that (similar to those who review movies) you play more games than most people - not everyone has played that game from 15 or 20 years ago that you think so highly of (but is in fact dated now). [Side Note: I'm not sure how 8 bit graphics became all the rage in recent years, when those of us who lived through that era decades ago were so glad when we began to get good graphics in a game.] Anyway, review a game on it's own merits. The old game may be a classic to you, but it isn't to a large part of younger gamers. I am an older guy, but there are many games and game systems I have never played and I don't own multiple systems, so I don't have the same nostalgia as you or some others may have. Remove nostalgia from your bias. If this new game seems to replicate many of the features from an older game don't penalize the new game, particularly if it's done well, has superior graphics and is "fun to play" - give it an appropriate score (especially when very few may ever play that older game that you're comparing it to). You can mention this game is similar to X, but score it on it's own merits.
[One good thing: Multiple reviews on games that evolve over time is a good thing.]
On another note, I hate the label of "Essential" for a game that you've given a score of 10. Essential to whom? For example, I detest Grand Theft Auto. It may very well be a really well-made game that many truly enjoy (I get that), but it's not for me. Essential is subjective. I would replace Essential with "Outstanding". Remember, most gamers aren't wealthy, so most of us are NOT buying or playing several dozens of games a year. Most of us get a handful of games each year that fit the style, genre, or our particular game preferences. And what you consider "essential" may not cut it for for a number of us for a wide range of reasons.
FINALLY, stop giving away the story in game reviews. Many reviewers give the whole story arc away in a summary of sorts. Stop doing that. We don't need or want that. Just briefly tell us the nature of the story (with no spoilers) and focus on what you thought was well done or not as it affects game-play.
And please don't let corporate interests diminish your love of games and providing good (not poor or speculative or hype) content to the gamer community. We just want to know if this new game is worth our money and fits our interests to be added to those handful we will buy/play. We need good timely reviews to make that call.
The article gets it WRONG and Activision is deluded. The original release of Destiny had little to do with enough new content. It was about a game that had great shooting mechanics, an interesting story, but no WOW factor and not enough diversity and depth. Also, unless you had friends to play with or made new ones in the process, playing the game could be a rather lonely experience. And the layout of the citadel was too convoluted, not to mention leveling up weapons suddenly changed to a new system (light) at higher levels (making it harder to do so if you didn't like playing multiplayer). I enjoyed playing the game, but had enough and didn't want to re-visit the world when I completed the original game. It felt like a game that either wasn't really finished or wasn't fully fleshed out at release (a reoccurring theme with Activision), and it didn't live up to the hype. I understand that they added and patched the game and provided more diverse content as time went by - making it a much better game a couple of years later. My feeling is that this is what the game should have been at release, not later after fixes and new content. Finish the game. Provide what you promise. And don't charge gamers to complete the finished product. Deliver a great finished product out of the gate, like CD Projekt Red did with The Witcher: Wild Hunt. Stop cutting corners to release a game earlier than it should be. That is Bungie and Activision's real failure on Destiny. Can somebody please tell them, or they may very well repeat the same mistakes. O right, they're delusional and think they can release unfinished games that don't meet the high standards of other games. I think I'll pass on Destiny 2.
This list is missing a couple of critical pieces of information. Each game ought to indicate on which platforms it is releasing on and what it's release date is (if known). Without this, the list is not very useful. Also I am NOT a big fan of having to scroll through 37 screens. I remember a time that an actual list was so very informative and you could see so much more so very quickly. I grieve the demise of proper lists.
Interesting how some are now responding to a post I made 2 months ago. A few points (some people might be aware of if they actually read my entire post) and a few responses.
1. I acknowledge that this service "could" have use for certain gamers who want to try many games, but don't care to own anything down the road (third paragraph). But right now the offering is much too thin (not just according to me, but according to many others). And @sodapoppimpski, some may play 150+ games per year. Most won't. I know I won't. So the value isn't there for me. Game Pass provides no value to me - limited game library, I'll never play most of the games, if I find a game I like I would probably buy it so I have wasted money on the subscription. I know this isn't true for everyone, but it is for me.
2. Also see my reply to bosay831 regarding how Game Pass is a rental service.
3. I truly have NO debt - none of the things you've mentioned. I only have daily or monthly living expenses for the most part. But now I live off a low income and have to manage everything tightly (personal/health reasons). Don't want to pay for a subscription service that to me isn't good value. And yet I do have a Gold membership, otherwise I can't play online and don't get the other many benefits.
4. Mostly I like the Steam model better (because you keep the games you play/buy). Although I present it as a novel idea, you probably can't turn Game Pass into something similar. But I do think the subscription trend is not good.
5. And Digital pricing directly from Microsoft (as set by publishers - as per @tjkraz) doesn't yet match the deals you can buy a used game for, though I have bought some digital games when they were on sale. But Game Pass provides even less value if you can get the game outright at a great deal. I guess it is what it is.
6. Glad @tjkraz that you are getting value from EA Access. I never would. I also want to own a copy of the games that matter to me, for my library and to be able to play them 20 years from now for nostalgia sake. And yes, right pricing could make this more appealing for the right customers. I am not one of them.
7. This was my opinion with reasonably thought out points, but you are welcome to disagree. And it seems @sodapoppimpski you missed the points in my comments, which is fine by me. You are allowed to think differently, but I hope you understand my argument, because it is legitimate for many out there.
Be well everyone, and have fun gaming. And don't let anyone get away with a cash grab in any form - just don't fall for it for it hurts all gamers.
Riprock's comments