• 62 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Posted by Snail (8594 posts) -

All I want to discuss in this thread is their latest reviews... First of before arguing in any of the reviews I am about to mention (or any other) read the review first and don't just simply look at the score!

I remember when I was seeing the best of E3 2007 games and seeing LittleBIGPlanet as the single best. Yes, better than MGS4 or any other game. Yet LBP came out and it had a 9.0 out of 10, and by reading the review I have to say it doesn't pair with their reviews and it complains about stuff that makes the reviewer sound a little peeky (such as the bad camera). But reading the review, they pretty much summed up the game pretty well.
Well, whatever it's just a review, right? But then I saw the Fable 2 review. Remember that this game was, according to Gamespot this game was the best of E3 2008. And this was said months before the game was released, which means they played and previewed a nearly final version. Then the game came out and scored an 8.5. Complaining about a bad story.... Even if they don't think the story is superb it is not, by all means, bad. And the review in its core didn't seem to make much sense to me.. Maybe because I expected something better out of them,
I think Gamespot is afraid of giving out 10/10's since they gave 10's to GTA IV and MGS4 and giving out more would make them sound hysterically and euphorically hyped. Or maybe they only give perfect 10's to games that have a 4 in their titles, or maybe they just don't get payed enough (ever noticed that if you press shift then 4 it types the $ symbol? On my keyboard that is...).

One more thing: I just checked out the Farcry 2 review and i still didn't read it. But i noticed that it has the bad story badge.. Oh for the love of God..
#2 Posted by Milkman (16637 posts) -

How about you post this on the GameSpot forums or better yet, realize that just because someone has a different opinion doesn't mean they are "messed up"?

#3 Posted by Endogene (4741 posts) -

The best of E3 thing is that not only about the game that impressed the most?

#4 Posted by LordAndrew (14426 posts) -

"Best of E3" awards have little bearing on the actual quality of a game. Some games have been given "Best of E3" awards only to end up sucking or being quite mediocre.
My advice is to not look at E3 awards as being representative of the actual quality or enjoyability of the final game, because that's not what they're for. If they were, there wouldn't be a need for reviews.

#5 Posted by Pibo47 (3166 posts) -

Wow, maybe the game just isnt a 9.5 or a 10.0/10 guys? Did you ever think about that?

#6 Edited by Snail (8594 posts) -
Milkman said:
"How about you post this on the GameSpot forums or better yet, realize that just because someone has a different opinion doesn't mean they are "messed up"?"
Not because someone has a different opinion, but because, lately,  their reviews don't make any sense. and if I were to post this on GS forums people would just say: "NO WAYS! U SUCK".
Edited for typos.
#7 Posted by RHCPfan24 (8609 posts) -

Well, I posted a thread about the LBP review and was immediately flamed for having an opinion.  Glad to see someone agrees with me.  But, still, best of E3 doesn't mean everything, even if the Fable 2 was a bit strange because they gave that BEST OF SHOW, and still gave it an 8.5.  Frankly, I have learned to just ignore Gamespot in total.

#8 Posted by Milkman (16637 posts) -
Snail said:
"Milkman said:
"How about you post this on the GameSpot forums or better yet, realize that just because someone has a different opinion doesn't mean they are "messed up"?"
Not because someone has a different opinion, but because, lately  their reviews don't make any sense. and if I were to pst this on GS forums people would just say: "NO WAYS! U SUCK"."
It doesn't make sense to compare a best of E3 awards to a final review, as others have said. They probably only played those games for an hour or two at E3 but once you sit down and play a game for 10 hours, you're opinion can very well change.
#9 Edited by Snail (8594 posts) -
Milkman said:
"Snail said:
"Milkman said:
"How about you post this on the GameSpot forums or better yet, realize that just because someone has a different opinion doesn't mean they are "messed up"?"
Not because someone has a different opinion, but because, lately  their reviews don't make any sense. and if I were to pst this on GS forums people would just say: "NO WAYS! U SUCK"."
It doesn't make sense to compare a best of E3 awards to a final review, as others have said. They probably only played those games for an hour or two at E3 but once you sit down and play a game for 10 hours, you're opinion can very well change."
Indeed. but an 8.5? In a nearly final version? I can understand LBP it was like one year ago they got their hands on it. 
And bad story on fable?

Pibo47
said:
"Wow, maybe the game just isnt a 9.5 or a 10.0/10 guys? Did you ever think about that?"
That is not my point right now...
#10 Posted by Milkman (16637 posts) -
Snail said:
"Milkman said:
"Snail said:
"Milkman said:
"How about you post this on the GameSpot forums or better yet, realize that just because someone has a different opinion doesn't mean they are "messed up"?"
Not because someone has a different opinion, but because, lately  their reviews don't make any sense. and if I were to pst this on GS forums people would just say: "NO WAYS! U SUCK"."
It doesn't make sense to compare a best of E3 awards to a final review, as others have said. They probably only played those games for an hour or two at E3 but once you sit down and play a game for 10 hours, you're opinion can very well change."
Indeed. but an 8.5? In a nearly final version? I can understand LBP it was like one year ago they got their hands on it. 
And bad story on fable?

8.5 = great. Nothing wrong with that. Honestly, while I have had high hopes for Far Cry 2, I wasn't really expecting a 9 -10 game, especially after Brad (I think it was Brad, might have been Jeff) was talking about some of the gripes he had with the game on the Bombcast yesterday. As for Fable II having a bad story, I have not played the game yet but that seems to be something a lot of critics are saying and something that I definitely felt was wrong with the first Fable. The story was made to seem prominent in the beginning of the game but the game just seemed to get very side-tracked from the original story. It just seems like Fable II is the same way.
#11 Posted by LordAndrew (14426 posts) -

So basically your complaints have nothing to do with awards from E3 at all. Instead, it's a matter of differing opinions. Suprise! It happens.

#12 Posted by BoG (5187 posts) -

Personally, while I don't see what the best of E3 has to do with anything (I think EGM actually gave Castlevania: Lament of Innocence best of show one year), I do think Gamespot has been getting tougher on games in the past few months. I've been thinking about it, and I'd bet they will be getting tougher to try and rebuild their credibility. After Kane & Lynch, and then two 10 scores in two months, things were going downhill. Now, they're trying to fix that.

#13 Posted by Milkman (16637 posts) -
BoG said:
"Personally, while I don't see what the best of E3 has to do with anything (I think EGM actually gave Castlevania: Lament of Innocence best of show one year), I do think Gamespot has been getting tougher on games in the past few months. I've been thinking about it, and I'd bet they will be getting tougher to try and rebuild their credibility. After Kane & Lynch, and then two 10 scores in two months, things were going downhill. Now, they're trying to fix that."
I really fail to see how 8.5 and 9.0 is harsh.
#14 Posted by MattyFTM (14367 posts) -

Just because a game gets an E3 award doesn't mean it's going to score better than other games there at E3. When you only get a short preview of a game it generally feels better than the full game. I've played games for 30 mins at a friends house, thought the game seems amazing and bought it or borrowed it off them, only to find it's not as fun as it was. I've played games at friend's houses and didn't find them particularly great, but borrowed them anyway and they ended up being really fun.

Either way, Gamespot is pretty messed up, just not for it's E3 awards.

Moderator Online
#15 Posted by clubsandwich (3795 posts) -

Yeah I've noticed this, and the LBP review was just god-awful, "the bad section: Building a compelling level can be time-consuming." that was just such a stupid thing to say.

#16 Edited by Milkman (16637 posts) -
clubsandwich said:
"Yeah I've noticed this, and the LBP review was just god-awful, "the bad section: Building a compelling level can be time-consuming." that was just such a stupid thing to say."
Just for shits and giggles, could you actually point a spot in the actual text of the review where it is "god-awful"?
#17 Posted by Shawn (3825 posts) -

Well remember, when they got their hands on Fable II in E3 08 their reviewing crew was completely different. So the same guys that said Fable II looked great in E3 could've been a different guy that actually reviewed it, hence the contrasting reviews.

#18 Posted by LuckyWanderDude (929 posts) -

Actually not many games have an even passable story compared to real literature so I can see where a bad story could be mentioned with Fable 2.

#19 Posted by DirrtyNinja (715 posts) -
Gamespot smells like an abortion. I gave up on that site along time ago.
#20 Posted by Arkthemaniac (6535 posts) -
Snail said:
Or maybe they only give perfect 10's to games that have a 4 in their titles,
"
Huh. Ocarina of Time was the fourth Zelda game to be released for a Nintendo console, right?
Jeff needs to explayn himslef.
#21 Posted by Video_Tycoon (313 posts) -

The thing is, when you play an unfinished version you are like,  "oh, this will be fixed, that too!"  And it makes it seem perfect, but developers don't actually fix every problem when it is released.

#22 Posted by Bellum (2944 posts) -

Just about any professional review site is full of simple minded graphics whores. No game should ever get a 9/10, let alone a 10. Especially not the bland regurgitated shit we get every year. People who use a 10 point scale do so because it allows for in-depth rating (though any number rating is bound to be a little arbitrary). If you want impressionable bullshit, use a five point review (no offense to GiantBomb).

My point: Professional reviews are typically bullshit.Particularly anything from GameSpot or GameStop or anything like that. Selling ads are the important thing.

#23 Posted by Arkthemaniac (6535 posts) -
Bellum said:
"Just about any professional review site is full of simple minded graphics whores. No game should ever get a 9/10, let alone a 10. Especially not the bland regurgitated shit we get every year. People who use a 10 point scale do so because it allows for in-depth rating (though any number rating is bound to be a little arbitrary). If you want impressionable bullshit, use a five point review (no offense to GiantBomb).

My point: Professional reviews are typically bullshit.Particularly anything from GameSpot or GameStop or anything like that. Selling ads are the important thing."
The ten point rating score is killing games, dude. What do you mean by impressionable bullshit anyway?
#24 Posted by Bellum (2944 posts) -

"Hey, this game is really cool. Look at the bloom! And the brown! 5star!"

No game is perfect. Typically, they are far from perfect with glaring technical issues or issues involving poor design. Even "great" games have these issues, and no game is deserving of a perfect score. Generally, I think games are overrated by the "press" (might as well call the promotional companies) which only serves to raise the all important hype meter. Often times, "good" points are based on superficial features and "bad" points are largely ignored.

#25 Posted by Arkthemaniac (6535 posts) -
Bellum said:
""Hey, this game is really cool. Look at the bloom! And the brown! 5star!"

No game is perfect. Typically, they are far from perfect with glaring technical issues or issues involving poor design. Even "great" games have these issues, and no game is deserving of a perfect score. Generally, I think games are overrated by the "press" (might as well call the promotional companies) which only serves to raise the all important hype meter. Often times, "good" points are based on superficial features and "bad" points are largely ignored."
5 stars isn't a perfect score. It means, "Hey, you gotta try this one."
#26 Posted by Bellum (2944 posts) -

It is a perfect score. If it weren't, there would be more points. But yeah, don't want to be contrary, that's more or less true. That's why it's a five point system.

#27 Posted by serbsta (1867 posts) -

Why on Earth would it matter? If you feel the game is worth buying and someone rates it a meer 5/10, does that mean you dont go and buy it? Thats not what i do, at least.

#28 Edited by LordAndrew (14426 posts) -
Bellum said:
"It is a perfect score. If it weren't, there would be more points. But yeah, don't want to be contrary, that's more or less true. That's why it's a five point system."
No game is perfect. Even if someone says a game is perfect, it's not. Therefore a 10 would be impossible, and completely pointless. Why have a number on the scale that will never be attained? Would you prefer that they make 9.5 the highest score?
#29 Posted by Snail (8594 posts) -
BoG said:
"Personally, while I don't see what the best of E3 has to do with anything (I think EGM actually gave Castlevania: Lament of Innocence best of show one year), I do think Gamespot has been getting tougher on games in the past few months. I've been thinking about it, and I'd bet they will be getting tougher to try and rebuild their credibility. After Kane & Lynch, and then two 10 scores in two months, things were going downhill. Now, they're trying to fix that."
This is  exactly my point. 8.5 is not a harsh score but it definitively is a harsh score for a game like Fable II.

serbsta said:
"Why on Earth would it matter? If you feel the game is worth buying and someone rates it a meer 5/10, does that mean you dont go and buy it? Thats not what i do, at least."
That is not my point. I will start ignoring comments like this in this thread.
#30 Posted by LordAndrew (14426 posts) -

I will start ignoring comments that state that an 8.5 is "harsh". For any game.

#31 Posted by Bellum (2944 posts) -
LordAndrew said:
"Bellum said:
"It is a perfect score. If it weren't, there would be more points. But yeah, don't want to be contrary, that's more or less true. That's why it's a five point system."
No game is perfect. Even if someone says a game is perfect, it's not. Therefore a 10 would be impossible, and completely pointless. Why have a number on the scale that will never be attained? Would you prefer that they make 9.5 the highest score?"

Because it is a more accurate representation of quality, if used properly.
#32 Posted by jakob187 (21663 posts) -

I trust Famitsu and Giant Bomb.  That's pretty much it.

#33 Posted by MB (12247 posts) -

Forget the score, read the review.  Stuff like this is exactly why Giant Bomb went with the five star scale.

Moderator
#34 Posted by Snail (8594 posts) -
MB said:
"Forget the score, read the review.  Stuff like this is exactly why Giant Bomb went with the five star scale."
That is what I said... wrote.
#35 Posted by Arkthemaniac (6535 posts) -
Bellum said:
"LordAndrew said:
"Bellum said:
"It is a perfect score. If it weren't, there would be more points. But yeah, don't want to be contrary, that's more or less true. That's why it's a five point system."
No game is perfect. Even if someone says a game is perfect, it's not. Therefore a 10 would be impossible, and completely pointless. Why have a number on the scale that will never be attained? Would you prefer that they make 9.5 the highest score?"

Because it is a more accurate representation of quality, if used properly."
The quality of a game is based on the amount of fun you can have with it, which is entirely dependent on the player. Therefore, quality is subjective. Giant Bomb's 5 star scale simply says the odds that you will have fun with a game, not how much fun you have.
#36 Posted by Kratos81 (411 posts) -

Seems everything about Gamespot sucks these days. I hate that site. *Hopes Casey wagner Rotts in HELL*

#37 Posted by Snail (8594 posts) -
Arkthemaniac said:
The quality of a game is based on the amount of fun you can have with it, which is entirely dependent on the player. Therefore, quality is subjective. Giant Bomb's 5 star scale simply says the odds that you will have fun with a game, not how much fun you have."
Probably the best definition on this subject I have ever read. Hats off sir.
#38 Posted by Bellum (2944 posts) -
Arkthemaniac said:
"The quality of a game is based on the amount of fun you can have with it, which is entirely dependent on the player. Therefore, quality is subjective. Giant Bomb's 5 star scale simply says the odds that you will have fun with a game, not how much fun you have."


That's a little too simplistic, I think. I recently reviewed a game called "Beyond Good and Evil", for instance, which was an extremely fun adventure game with a great story. It also had game breaking bugs. It also only cost $10. How do you rate that? Simply "How much fun is this game" isn't enough. You also have other factors. "How long is this game fun". "Does this game, which impresses me in the beginning start to feel shallow and gimmicky after x number of hours", etc.
#39 Posted by Snail (8594 posts) -
Bellum said:
"Arkthemaniac said:
"The quality of a game is based on the amount of fun you can have with it, which is entirely dependent on the player. Therefore, quality is subjective. Giant Bomb's 5 star scale simply says the odds that you will have fun with a game, not how much fun you have."


That's a little too simplistic, I think. I recently reviewed a game called "Beyond Good and Evil", for instance, which was an extremely fun adventure game with a great story. It also had game breaking bugs. It also only cost $10. How do you rate that? Simply "How much fun is this game" isn't enough. You also have other factors. "How long is this game fun". "Does this game, which impresses me in the beginning start to feel shallow and gimmicky after x number of hours", etc.
"
That game is 4 stars. The money should not matter (a lot) in a review and if you think bugs ruin the experience then don't give it 5 stars.
#40 Posted by Arkthemaniac (6535 posts) -
Bellum said:
"Arkthemaniac said:
"The quality of a game is based on the amount of fun you can have with it, which is entirely dependent on the player. Therefore, quality is subjective. Giant Bomb's 5 star scale simply says the odds that you will have fun with a game, not how much fun you have."


That's a little too simplistic, I think. I recently reviewed a game called "Beyond Good and Evil", for instance, which was an extremely fun adventure game with a great story. It also had game breaking bugs. It also only cost $10. How do you rate that? Simply "How much fun is this game" isn't enough. You also have other factors. "How long is this game fun". "Does this game, which impresses me in the beginning start to feel shallow and gimmicky after x number of hours", etc.
"
A game review should be simplistic. If anyone talks about the anti-aliasing quality in a game just for the hell of it, they have issues. It should all be about what works, what doesn't, get it or not. I haven't played Beyond Good and Evil so I can't tell you how to review it, but I've never come across a game that I've had trouble scoring, especially with the 5 star rating system.
#41 Posted by ZeroCast (1869 posts) -

I guess what's happening to GS is basically a completely new atmosphere ,new people,new orders,i even sensed that in there way of writing news,everything has chagned in that site from top to bottom, also,i think the last thing GS worries about is the score,i mean they can't just hand out Nines to every single game coming out this week specially if they all turned out to be good.

#42 Edited by Snail (8594 posts) -
ZeroCast said:
"I guess what's happening to GS is basically a completely new atmosphere ,new people,new orders,i even sensed that in there way of writing news,everything has chagned in that site from top to bottom, also,i think the last thing GS worries about is the score,i mean they can't just hand out Nines to every single game coming out this week specially if they all turned out to be good."
Oh my God... So many typos...
Anyway.. They can't give 9's to good games? What?! If the game deserves a 9 they should give the 9 no matter what...
#43 Posted by Bellum (2944 posts) -
Snail said:
"That game is 4 stars. The money should not matter (a lot) in a review and if you think bugs ruin the experience then don't give it 5 stars."
I'd disagree with you about the money, but yeah, I gave it 4 stars.

To Ark, it's not so much that the game was hard to review. That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying it's not simply a matter of "hey, this game is fun." Your Anti-Aliasing example is something I'd expect from a "professional" reviewer because it is a superficial detail. They'd latch onto the 'next-gen graphics' because there really isn't any substance to back it up. When writing a review it's important to sit back for a minute and think "What does this game offer to the audience, really?".

On a 10 point scale I'd give BG&E a 7.5. I'd give Oblivion a 7 (based on its current 30 dollar price tag) and I'd give TF2 (with its 20 dollar price tag) an 8. All of these games were fun. But fun isn't the only issue. At least, not for me when I write a review. And giving any of these games a 9 or a 10 is disingenuous.
#44 Posted by KingOfIceland (654 posts) -

I haven't had too much trouble with their reviews, but the video review for Lego Batman is absolutely appalling

  

Make sure you watch it all the way through
#45 Posted by ZeroCast (1869 posts) -
Snail said:
"ZeroCast said:
"I guess what's happening to GS is basically a completely new atmosphere ,new people,new orders,i even sensed that in there way of writing news,everything has changed in that site from top to bottom, also,i think the last thing GS worries about is the score,i mean they can't just hand out Nines to every single game coming out this week specially if they all turned out to be good."
Oh my God... So many typos...
Anyway.. They can't give 9's to good games? What?! If the game deserves a 9 they should give the 9 no matter what...
"
GS wouldn't give a game a nine unless they thought its worthy of the "Editors Choice Award",for example,Fable 2 is a great game in there opinion but not a 9.0, same goes for Far Cry 2.
#46 Posted by Dolphin_Butter (1915 posts) -

I've this many times before, and I'll say it again: "Opinions, every single person has them."

#47 Posted by Arkthemaniac (6535 posts) -
KingOfIceland said:
"I haven't had too much trouble with their reviews, but the video review for Lego Batman is absolutely appalling

  

Make sure you watch it all the way through"
. . . what the eff?
#48 Posted by AaronBelfast (1491 posts) -
KingOfIceland said:
"I haven't had too much trouble with their reviews, but the video review for Lego Batman is absolutely appalling

  

Make sure you watch it all the way through"
I thought his review for SR2 was just as bad, the review itself had no substance and didn't justify the score.
#49 Posted by CactusWolf (539 posts) -
KingOfIceland said:
"I haven't had too much trouble with their reviews, but the video review for Lego Batman is absolutely appalling

  

Make sure you watch it all the way through"
Wow.  So basically, "This game is really bad, with a lot of unpleasant parts and the AI is very stupid. Also, this is a game that's certainly worth picking up."
#50 Posted by MattBodega (1904 posts) -

The Best of E3 awards are given to games that impress the editor's of Gamespot the most of any game at E3. They make it perfectly clear that the awards have no bearing, and are not representative of the quality of the product...the same way that a demo is not always representative of the quality of a product.
The 5 star system solves all this score infighting. Buy 5 and 4 star games. Heck, grab a 3 star game! Explore! Live a little! Go out of your way to play GAMES, and don't get hung up on review scores.