I agree with you Rikhan, there is too much score centric ideas. I read reviews of games I am undecided about and have a glance at the plus and minus points sometimes to get a general jist of a game. However, now I am more inclined to listen to friends about games they like and take their suggestions on board as they tend to know more what I like and do not like.

The reviews in general I tend to agree with their points like on here and Giantbomb even if their score criteria seems to range a bit. Just be glad its not Teletext Gamecentral reviewing the games. They gave Fuel a 4/10, Banjo Kazooie Nuts and Bolts 5/10 and other questionable scores. They seem to do it for the contraversy I sometimes feel as they will moan about a game all the review then say 8/10 or they will be mixed in the review or positive and give it a really low score, it doesnt make sense to me.

Garfield360UK

Yea, it's to attract attention, that's what the media does I'm afriad... you remember the Newspaper Editor in the Spiderman movies? Takes Peter Parkers photos and puts a 'catchy' headline in hopes to sell newspapers... that's what the media does... the world wants money to survive and to do so, they need to attract the attention. In this case, Gamespot is 'earning'money by website views and subscription, also it's owned by CNET, so it means that they're getting alot of clicks to survive in cyberspace.

That's alot of money for users to click their way onto the website for website views... hahaha I remember users having a website counter on the bottom of their geocities webpage.

However when it comes to Gamespot, the concept of business and making money is sitting along the side on this website... however we're only supporting the website by continuing going on and reading their reviews, which can be facts or opinions. If the user wants to buy video games and review the reviews for support, then it's a plus.

Yeah, I would agree, I would say from reading that it is the experiences, the game needs to be less generic and have a standout feature, possibly the story or get the game right.

I mean Wanted Wepons of fate I hear is a good film and the game had the right idea but it just lacked polish in the actual gameplay. There were great ideas in the game like curving bullets around corners (from the film of course) but the usuall "lets chuck quick time button presses in" ruinined it just like the Bourne game which could have been so great if they didnt make it depend on quick time events all the time.

Garfield360UK

The poor execution of the gameplay ideas lead it to be a poor experience... reading from what Garfield said, curving bullets sounds awesome, however if I wanted to play the game and read what Garfield just wrote, then I'll step back abit, I would think I'll waste my time if I bought Wanted Weapons of Fate.

The Bourne game, I'm a huge fan of the movie... quick time events is becoming common in video games, I think it's used to break down the pace of the combat alittle bit. Yakuza series does it the worse, there quick time events are weak and they're hardly used in the game, considering it's a Sega game and it was born from Shenmue, it does blow my mind.

Indigo Prophecy punks them up alittle bit, using 2 analog controllers and an user interface like the one in that game where the 4 lights lit up, on the colour interface... the 'quick' time last for around 2 mins at the most... giving the player a move cinamitic experience. 

Back on topic. if companies uses all these gameplay ideas and execute them well enough along with movie ideas... which many are doing well, then they're in business. The poor games relay too much techiques from the movie industry to produce thier video games.

Enter the Matrix did that... different experience, different techniques, they spent alot of time putting actors in a 'phonebooth' wired up their faces with switches or sensors and put that into the game content as I recall... what a waste of time.

A shame I'm not interested in the Punch-Out! games, I bet it is a blast for any of the fans of the original NES version.loopy_101

If you were lucky... you would of see Tyson bite the head off the player.

The camera has been around for over a century and we were able to make movies for a while within our culture to get the best out of the technology. It's the same with video games and as it's been around for 50 years and the technology is getting much better, being able to handle more content and with alot more interest to the customer and players, it gives an oppotinuty for the organization in the movie industry to license video games to make them profitable.

Does it work or doesn't it? Well the problem I think some companies relay too much on the previous experience in movies which makes the gameplay, or so they think. For example, may companies back in the 90s taken the gameplay from Mario or Street fighter and replaced the characters, story, setting to DC characters, making it into a clone of one game and marketing it as a tie in. This will never works... it's just a waste of time in my opinion.

It would work when there two experiences, the one being the movie meanwhile the other being the game, both using the technology well enough to be a stand alone experience. I could sit down and watch the movie, meanwhile if I'm satified, I can see down and playing the video game. 

I think this is a good question... I say that because Square Enix business model has already attracted attention and they were always forerunners. I have to say they may build a new IP, experiment on the PS3 on a new game... anyone remember the Bouncer? something like that maybe in terms of making an IP.

Merge XBOX 360 with PS3 players or maybe make a new arcade place like Club Sega... or a venue along with Disney. 

I kinda disagree with slapping a score onto a game, that's an opinion... The game industry has came a long way to know what makes a good game and Gamespot has been improving upon reviews and the criteria for them. Slapping a score on doesn't work and people that do are spineless... gamespot isn't like that. I think the Tony Hawk review was spineless... the review was good, however that review really was out of control.

In the west, they alway aim to deliver something new and I solely back Gamespot idea of we should play games that are poor, because at the end of the day, we'll just end up playing the games that are crap. However if the person wants to play games and injore the reviews, it's up to them... no one is stopping them... I start down and attempted to play Sonic Riders and Shadow the Hedgehog, only to find that the opinions were the same as the one's on Gamespot. 

Jeff time was up, not in a bad way, however I think he needed to take a break from reviewing or working at Gamespot.