#1 Edited by Fluttercry (175 posts) -

So, apparently Gamespot is allowing multiple reviews for games with the new site, and McShea's review is certainly causing a lot of controversy, what do you all think of this?

Here's the review

#2 Posted by Manhattan_Project (2114 posts) -

This is really dumb.

#3 Edited by TheHT (10786 posts) -

well la dee da.

#4 Edited by Video_Game_King (35780 posts) -

Is he trying to steal my thunder?

#5 Edited by csl316 (7949 posts) -

He likes the attention, I guess.

Opinions are opinions, and although I'm not a huge Bioshock fan I can recognize that it's a well made game. I'd say it doesn't deserve a 4 but then I'd be arguing about review scores and funk that.

With that being said, I'd say this review had merit if Tom didn't have a history of just being a contrarian over and over again.

#6 Posted by Counterclockwork87 (570 posts) -

This looks idiotic. I know opinions and all, but no rational person whose ever played a video game could possibly think that game is a "4" and a "poor" game. Rouge Warrior and Fugitive Hunter are objectively poor games...they have deep technical issues. C'mon, this is just to get page views.

#7 Posted by jdh5153 (1034 posts) -

It was never a great game.

#8 Posted by Fluttercry (175 posts) -

@counterclockwork87: I actually know a lot of people that are agreeing with this review. Personally, I felt the game was closer to a 7 or 8. 4 is just way too low. But apparently a lot of people felt this way.

#9 Edited by groin (833 posts) -

This might be the new 8.8.

#10 Edited by Venatio (4483 posts) -

Well I disagree

Moving on...

#11 Posted by CircleNine (381 posts) -

Haven't and probably won't read it but yeah, a 2/5 seems like what the game should have gotten instead.

#12 Posted by joshwent (2041 posts) -

I think it's a longer essay that might have been able to back up its valid points, if only it wasn't pretending to be a review. I also think that McShea is being overly subjective, which is fine, but attaching a score related primarily to his taste rather than the qualities of the game is disingenuous.

I also (also) think it's fundamentally pointless to generally discuss a specific review written on another site. I read Giant Bomb almost exclusively for a reason.

#13 Edited by Animasta (14632 posts) -

@joshwent said:

I think it's a longer essay that might have been able to back up its valid points, if only it wasn't pretending to be a review. I also think that McShea is being overly subjective, which is fine, but attaching a score related primarily to his taste rather than the qualities of the game is disingenuous.

I also (also) think it's fundamentally pointless to generally discuss a specific review written on another site. I read Giant Bomb almost exclusively for a reason.

this isn't going up on metacritic or anything, so why shouldn't he be as subjective as he wants?

this is a good idea... though hopefully they'd come out a week after rather than months after.

#14 Posted by notdavid (815 posts) -

Like, out of 10? I get the appeal of taking a devil's advocate approach to a critically acclaimed game from a journalistic standpoint, but why present it as a review? Giving it a 4 is clearly click-bate.

#15 Posted by Pr1mus (3771 posts) -

Misleading title is misleading. He didn't review it the first time. Kevin VanOrd did.

If the same reviewer reviewed a game twice with wildly different take each time that would be pretty idiotic indeed but i don't see a problem here.

#16 Posted by Counterclockwork87 (570 posts) -

@counterclockwork87: I actually know a lot of people that are agreeing with this review. Personally, I felt the game was closer to a 7 or 8. 4 is just way too low. But apparently a lot of people felt this way.

I just don't see that as rational. I could hate Schindler's List (which I love but just using as an example) but if I were to review it I would never give it a 4 out of 10 just because I could see how much craft went into the work. I don't see any way you could look at Bioshock Infinite and think its a below mediocre overall work.

#17 Edited by Chaser324 (6245 posts) -

To be honest, my first exposure to Tom McShea was that podcast he did with Ryan, and after that, it's hard for me to take anything he says all that seriously. I mean Ryan absolutely dismantled the dude.

I agree with some of the points he makes in the review, but I really didn't feel like they had such a massive detrimental effect that it put the game into the range of a 4/10. That's getting into bargain bin shovelware territory.

BioShock Infinite is one of the best games of the year, and I actually feel kinda bad for Tom that he was so consumed by his thoughts of what he thought BioShock Infinite should be that he couldn't derive any enjoyment from the great game it actually is.

Moderator
#18 Posted by Sin4profit (2903 posts) -

i think the idea of having a multiple staff review is ok if yer into that kinda thing. I think what the bombcast does to express differences in opinions on any one game is a far superior system

#19 Posted by JasonR86 (9577 posts) -

Hah! Great! What an absolutely pointless thing to do and a complete waste of company time and money! Fantastic.

Online
#20 Posted by Animasta (14632 posts) -

@fluttercry said:

@counterclockwork87: I actually know a lot of people that are agreeing with this review. Personally, I felt the game was closer to a 7 or 8. 4 is just way too low. But apparently a lot of people felt this way.

I just don't see that as rational. I could hate Schindler's List (which I love but just using as an example) but if I were to review it I would never give it a 4 out of 10 just because I could see how much craft went into the work. I don't see any way you could look at Bioshock Infinite and think its a below mediocre overall work.

some people have different rating systems?

if we were to rate things on how much craft went into the work than duke nukem forever should get a 9 at least.

#21 Edited by CornBREDX (4738 posts) -

It's just a second opinion. A second opinion months later by a different person.

I think it's silly but I tend to always disagree with Tom Mcshea.

Nothing wrong with a difference in opinion.

#22 Posted by michaelferrari (23 posts) -

I can't help but feel like this review exists only to hate on the game. It is written in a way that leads me to think that he at no point wanted to like the game or give it a chance, and gave it his all to hate it. I get that not everybody has to love the same games as each other, heck, I don't care for Mario 64 that much and it's one of the most beloved games of the past however many years, but this review does not sit well with me. I will respect his opinion, but it seems very similar to a type of review I'd expect from say, a Playstation fanboy reviewing a Halo game.

Also, I think it is very commendable of GameSpot to allow such a possibly divisive feature to exist on the site.

#23 Posted by erhard (377 posts) -

Bioshock Infinite is an objectively good game. If it isn't attention seeking contrarianism, which I'm willing to believe, it's a stupid opinion.

#24 Posted by Marokai (2785 posts) -

If there's one thing I actually find upsetting about this whole ordeal, it's that Giant Bomb didn't come up with the multiple-staff-reviews-for-a-single-game system years ago to begin with. Myself and a few others I've seen around this site have been suggesting some sort of Game Informer-esque "second opinion" kind of system for multiple staff reviews of a single game, and it's actually kind of depressing to see Gamespot innovate in that direction instead. The Gamespot redesign overall just kind of makes Giant Bomb look barebones.

#25 Posted by bellmont42 (317 posts) -

I agree with a lot of his points and I would probably give it a 6ish out of 10... but its HIS review and if that is how he truly feels then that's fine. Yeah the game is pretty but it doesn't really do anything for me. His biggest issue with every game is that he makes close comparisons to every other game and hates when they don't tickle his nostalgia bone.

#26 Posted by RonGalaxy (2826 posts) -

Game is definitely not a 4, but I like the idea of gamespot having multiple reviews to show different perspectives. I always thought giant bomb should do that, but I guess they figure they do that kind of stuff through the podcast

#27 Edited by Counterclockwork87 (570 posts) -

@animasta said:

@counterclockwork87 said:

@fluttercry said:

@counterclockwork87: I actually know a lot of people that are agreeing with this review. Personally, I felt the game was closer to a 7 or 8. 4 is just way too low. But apparently a lot of people felt this way.

I just don't see that as rational. I could hate Schindler's List (which I love but just using as an example) but if I were to review it I would never give it a 4 out of 10 just because I could see how much craft went into the work. I don't see any way you could look at Bioshock Infinite and think its a below mediocre overall work.

some people have different rating systems?

if we were to rate things on how much craft went into the work than duke nukem forever should get a 9 at least.

Duke Nukem forever had years of work, but very few would say there was any fine "craft" to that work. Look, I'm not saying he's not allowed to his different rating system, but by doing so he looks extremely foolish in my eyes, to the point where I doubt I'll ever regard anything editorial he says again with any respect. You animasta however I still respect!

#28 Posted by SuperWristBands (2266 posts) -

Further cements my dislike of Tom and I'm not even a fan of Infinite.

Just seems like he's trolling. Desperate to be contrarian or to have his opinion heard by the masses months after it would have been even slightly meaningful.

#29 Posted by RollingZeppelin (1908 posts) -

@jasonr86 said:

Hah! Great! What an absolutely pointless thing to do and a complete waste of company time and money! Fantastic.

It's not a waste of company time and money if it generates page views, which I assume is the point of the 4/10.

Anyway, I think Tom McShea is a whiney man-child so I don't really care what he thinks about anything. I think GS keeps him on staff as a lightning rod for internet drama regardless of the quality of his actual work, taking a page out of the cable news business model I suppose.

I guess what I'm saying is Tom McShea is the Glen Beck of Gamespot.

#30 Posted by Milkman (16479 posts) -

GOD I'M SO ANGRY ABOUT THESE OPINIONS THAT AREN'T THE SAME AS MINE

I think BioShock Infinite is one of the best games of the year. Tom McShea (someone I know almost nothing about) doesn't. The world keeps on spinning.

#31 Posted by Brodehouse (9515 posts) -

Tom McShea is a shitty person who oscillates between the ultimate in contrarianism to the ultimate in populism entirely dependent on what gets the most page views. If people are frothing mad about something Tom McShea is right there to stoke those fires. If most people seem to enjoy something, Tom McShea is there to tell them they're wrong because reasons. He's discovered that the most emotionally invested readers of games journalism are the angriest readers, so he does what he can to keep everyone in a lather.

Tom McShea is a douchey, self-aggrandizing 24 hour news network crammed into human form.

#32 Posted by evanbower (1210 posts) -

I would definitely be interested in reading someone with a thoughtful review on Infinite that describes why they think it fails as a game. Tom McShea will never be the person to write something like that. His criticism is generally made up of a collection of other thoughtful game critiques misused and reapplied in a context where it no longer really makes sense. No idea how his work gets through a publication's editorial process.

#33 Posted by JJWeatherman (14552 posts) -

This looks idiotic. I know opinions and all, but no rational person whose ever played a video game could possibly think that game is a "4" and a "poor" game. Rouge Warrior and Fugitive Hunter are objectively poor games...they have deep technical issues. C'mon, this is just to get page views.

From what I've seen of Tom McShea in the past, I'd wager this is less about page views and more about him being a moron. And yeah, opinions are opinions, and that's fine. But exhibit A:

#34 Posted by JasonR86 (9577 posts) -

@rollingzeppelin:

I think him trolling his audience over and over again is fantastic. I'll never take him seriously. But he's entertaining. You know, like a clown is entertaining.

Online
#35 Posted by Breadfan (6589 posts) -

@marokai said:

If there's one thing I actually find upsetting about this whole ordeal, it's that Giant Bomb didn't come up with the multiple-staff-reviews-for-a-single-game system years ago to begin with. Myself and a few others I've seen around this site have been suggesting some sort of Game Informer-esque "second opinion" kind of system for multiple staff reviews of a single game.

That's more or less what the Bombcast is for. Instead of just everyone reviewing any given game they all just go back and fourth on what they liked or disliked about a game.

#36 Edited by DonPixel (2585 posts) -

I think that gamespot dude goes into a extreme, but I do think it is over rated... Imagine this wasn't ken levin (irrational) games, now picture Reviews again, yeah this industry has its darlings.

The story is somewhat nonsensical and unnecessarily complex, some sort of tale inspired by fringe science, It is the videogame plot inspired by Godel Escher Bach, but ya know still a videogame with Gunzz and Nadezz...

I think the game does a strong impression because the art is outstanding, but seriously other than that, mheeee.

I remember back in release date, the only ones I hear being a bit more "maybe this is not really that good" were the Iddle Thumbs guys, the arguments were quite similar to McShea review. So is not like this was completely totally universally acclaimed, I can see people not failing into its charm.

#37 Posted by ImmortalSaiyan (4673 posts) -

I agree with that score.

#38 Posted by Brodehouse (9515 posts) -

@marokai: EGM used to do multiple reviews in the 90s, but things have kind of changed. We enter GOTY with only half of the staff having played half of the games. A scenario where every member of the staff has to play every game in order to create enough reviews to form a general opinion is... I dunno, isn't that what Metacritic exists for?

That said, Giant Bomb should hire Sushi-X. SOMEONE SHOULD!

#39 Posted by stryker1121 (1323 posts) -

Oh no, a four! A four! The reviewer man gave the game a four! He's worse than Hitler and must pay for his opinion! Whatever shall we do?!

(Now that's sarcasm)

#40 Posted by shinjin977 (743 posts) -

well opinions but its wrong!

#41 Edited by chiablo (889 posts) -

There's something very strange with this review... It almost sounds like he is looking at Bioshock Infinite, not as a video game, but as a movie or book. I thought the story was brilliant, although told in a strange way with the random audio logs... but considering they consistently keep the perspective from Dewitt's eyes and never deviate from that viewpoint, I don't see any other way they could tell the story and keep everything cohesive.

It's almost as if this game hit Tom's uncanny valley, where it's so close to going beyond the medium of a video game, that it has to be scrutinized to this degree. I see myself doing this from time to time. I can laugh along with a stupid side-scroller with pixel graphics and have a good time, but with a game like GTA5, I keep being reminded that it's supposed to be a parallel to reality have a movie-like story and look at it with a different mindset.

#42 Posted by Clonedzero (4036 posts) -

I didnt really like bioshock infinite all that much. Though the gunplay was lame and i HATED the ending, but eh, a 4 seems really harsh. But i really dont care.

#43 Posted by IrrelevantJohn (1014 posts) -

Hmm... Bioshock a 4 and Beyond Two Souls a 9... something is wrong here.

#44 Posted by Thedrbrian (61 posts) -

@donpixel said:

I think that gamespot dude goes into a extreme, but I do think it is over rated... Imagine this wasn't ken levin (irrational) games, now picture Reviews again, yeah this industry has its darlings.

The story is somewhat nonsensical and unnecessarily complex, some sort of tale inspired by fringe science, It is the videogame plot inspired by Godel Escher Bach, but ya know still a videogame with Gunzz and Nadezz...

I think the game does a strong impression because the art is outstanding, but seriously other than that, mheeee.

It's definitely not worth the GOTYs it will get. It was boring, way too much combat , too many bullet sponges on medium, bits of levels that don't make sense and a definintion of infinity which only extends to freight hooks, gun turrets and ammo. Oh and Elisabeth can find anything in the game except the one thing she consumes , lockpicks. But it looked really nice and the concept is interesting.

#45 Posted by HellknightLeon (446 posts) -

Fuck him?

#46 Edited by joshwent (2041 posts) -

@animasta said:

@joshwent said:

I think it's a longer essay that might have been able to back up its valid points, if only it wasn't pretending to be a review. I also think that McShea is being overly subjective, which is fine, but attaching a score related primarily to his taste rather than the qualities of the game is disingenuous.

I also (also) think it's fundamentally pointless to generally discuss a specific review written on another site. I read Giant Bomb almost exclusively for a reason.

this isn't going up on metacritic or anything, so why shouldn't he be as subjective as he wants?

this is a good idea... though hopefully they'd come out a week after rather than months after.

Which is precisely why this just shouldn't have had a score in the first place. He should be able to be as subjective as he wants, but not in a review. Which is cool, because this is just his comparison of how BI doesn't live up to his ideals of the original Bioshock, which he loves. That's an essay, but really not a summary of the quality of a game.

Not to mention that giving a less than 50% score to a game that he says has "Gorgeous visual design" and an "Amazing soundtrack" just seems, as I said above, disingenuous. No matter its failings (and note, I think BI failed more than it succeeded too), scoring a game of the basic high level of quality that infinite has, closer to games with horrible presentations and broken gameplay is just being shocking for shock's sake.

To be clear, although I enjoyed my time playing it, I, like McShea think Infinite failed more than it succeeded. This isn't coming from a fanboy, just someone who wishes the distinction between 'review' and 'criticism' were a bit more defined from these journalists.

(Edit: Also, this "review" might not be Gamespot's official one or being aggrigated to Metacritic, but their site layout really suggests that KVO gave the PS3 version a 9, and TMS gave the PC version a 4. Confusing, to say the least.)

Aside from this specific one though, I think multiple reviews/essays about a single game from one site is a fantastic idea.

#47 Edited by kishinfoulux (2250 posts) -

Obvious troll/click bait. Also Tom McShea. What more needs to be said? He has his reputation for a reason.

#48 Edited by jsnyder82 (725 posts) -

Come on, people. I know very little about Tom McShea, but I'm not gullible enough not to see that he's clearly trolling everybody.

#49 Edited by Veektarius (4530 posts) -

That bit where he criticizes the ending (which is what makes that game, if you liked it) by saying it suggests that there will always be an evil dictator in the world is a willful mis/overinterepretation of what happened and is complete baloney.

#50 Posted by Rafaelfc (1311 posts) -

Well, people are definitely talking about it, so I guess the dude accomplished his goal.