About GameSpot Reviews

GameSpot used to be reputable review site. That was a long time ago in a far away place. The reviews now are trash and almost invariably differ from regular gamer’s views and experiences. The latest one of Hogwarts Legacy is exhibit A.

Hogwarts Legacy review is dog 💩..

Gamespot reviews are nothing like they were pre 2012, and we all know it. I take a gamespot review with as much heft as a New York Post review - something someone heard, shouted across a busy street, and then repeated to you by your biased racist Uncle. A gamespot review is like a yahoo product review ... a starting point to a review less influenced by ads bought, and who happens to own gamespot at the time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GameSpot#Gerstmann_dismissal

Internet doesn't forget.

Okay, so what is the meaningful difference between Essential, Superb, and Great? Or between Good and Fair? Or between Mediocre, Poor, and Bad? Or between Terrible and Abysmal? Why have a 10 point scale but then use descriptors that are synonyms? Why not a 4 point scale comprised simply of Great, Fair, Poor, and Terrible?

Crash was never the official PlayStation mascot Gamespot! Get your facts straight.

you guys are pretty much the only site i access outside of youtube reviews.

So what you're saying is.... reviews are similar to the discipline of economic or political science.

I always check Gamespot reviews before purchasing a new game.

Well, not to poop on your parade, but I really only consult your reviews for a second opinion.

My main concern is always what ACG has to say about a new game.

All my favorites are gone...VanOrd, O'dwyer*, Kish. Down with Lucy though!

Good shout out for if people don't like the GameSpot review they can easily writer and post a review of their own on what they think of it

I'm still a little hurt over the DK: Tropical Freeze review

Just implement binary scoring: 0 or 1

You guys should probably use a 5 scale. People would complain a bit less.

Who remembers GameSpot's review of Alien Isolation? A 6/10 for a true masterpiece, while nearly all of the major medias/websites praised the game back in 2014.

One of the worst reviews in GameSpot history.

Reviews are opinions...your scores may affect viewers' willingness to purchase a certain game, but only a complete idiot with no mind of his own would take your score to heart. I believe most of us here reading your articles are strong-willed enough to understand that.

It is the question of whether your score can be influenced by monetary means.

Take Destiny 2 for instance, it's too obvious how much influence Activision had on Gamespot during the first 2 weeks of the game's release. I personally don't mind the overwhelming amount of articles about the game, I'd just scroll through to find the ones that interested me to read. Then you gave it an 8/10, I've played both Destiny 1 and 2 enough to know that simply can't be right. The sequel is a DLC to the first game at best, it has nothing new and even more of the repetitive chores you called "quests". Giving it an 8/10 and calling it "Great" botches Gamespot's reputation and its standards towards games, you guys went from a respectable source to some leisure read. It shows that your opinion can be bought, and your reviews are no longer objective.

I'm not asking Gamespot to go non-profit, but it'd be better if you guys can mark the sponsored reviews so that we know what to expect.

With gaming sites relying on advertising payments from the people whose games they're reviewing, it's all **** now anyway.

Soon GS will switch to a "Should I buy it?" review score with "yes", "no" and "maybe" as the only options.

Bad, innit. The 0.5 scale was the best imo; Yes a review is subjective, that's the ****ing point of it, so get more than 1 reviewer to review stuff - someone who loves the genre and someone who doesn't. Aint like a tonne of games get released any more, not AAA anyway, so the effort could at least be made for those.

But then most people can look at a few gameplay vids and tell if a game is worth playing or not anyway so what's even the point any more except for people to argue the toss, or insecure people to know the game they enjoy is the "right one" to be playing at the time.

Simply, when there is an extreme fan boyism within the GameSpot review team, such as it was the case with Sonic Mania, The game gets a good review.

There was someone in the review team claiming to be the first sonic fan EVER... Guys don't let fan boys and teenagers review games. And sometimes reviews are heavy on unnecessary metaphors..

I think re-reviewing titles after release sets a bad precedent for game companies to be honest, it tells them that its ok to release buggy unfinished games because they can collect the cash fix the game later and get a new score. Developers need to earn our money by creating a game that works from day one, even online titles.

I like reviews but I can't say I really listen to them, if I'm going to buy a game a rubbish review isn't going to change my mind, if I'm not going to buy a game a great review won't change that either.

I know myself the series' I'm invested in, the genres I'm not and the games I like. I've bought and enjoyed games with scores of 5, I've been disappointed by games of scores 9. Reviews are handy when you're on the fence, something new you just not sure if you will like. At their best they describe some of the systems and gameplay and I can make my mind up on that, but when they stray (as they often do) into opinion I take it with a pinch of salt.

@nibbin1191: PSSST. . . this article is over 3 years old (recently updated). Too late to complain now.

I honestly don't take the review scores that seriously anyway but I do find the information provided in a review, usually quite interesting.

What bothers me the most I think and Destiny 2 is a classic example of this, is how the review score didn't really match the carpet bombing of articles on this site for the game. It's pretty clear that there is something else going on with how a game is advertised as opposed to how it's eventually reviewed. That part of the business I hope, is not tarnished by these things but I do remember the now infamous Kane & Lynch saga with Jeff, so it does go on. I'd like to think that's how things were in the past - not now but as a gamespot consumer, I'd never get to know about this kind of behaviour until after the event anyway.

The game advertising revenue aspect is pretty clear to see but I do wonder if a review is influenced in any way by the big corporations. The review of Destiny 2 would suggest otherwise. It only got an 8. A decent score but not a great one. We will never really know what goes on behind the scenes at Gamespot.

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.

You say you re-review games when they see significant changes or improvements etc. but, it doesn't happen nearly enough. Plenty of games have received terrible scores due to launch issues and the reviews were never revised once those issues were fixed. I think that hurts the site and also hurts the reader because they read that review and see the score and either choose not to get the game based on irrelevant information or they do get the game and think the reviewer and site are clueless because the game has improved since it was reviewed but was never updated. Halo MCC was a good example of this. It had major issues and received a 6/10 because of it despite the fact that the developers achieved something that had, until then, never been done before and thus, issues should have been expected. And even when they fixed the issues and gave away a free game as an apology, that 6 still remains and one of the negatives says that multiplayer barely works. Multiplayer works fine now. Where's its update? There are a number of games that this has happened to. I realize it's hard to find the time to update reviews but saying you do so regularly when you only do so very rarely is a little disingenuous to those games with reviews that remain unchanged despite being fixed and improved. It seems the only games that get this treatment are games that are still very current and have a huge player base and just got a major piece of dlc or some such thing. Games that don't still enjoy a huge player base are stuck with that negative and now irrelevant review forever.