Personally I think user reviews tell it best. That's why I come on GB since it has the most user reviews, not to mention how descriptive they are with pictures and all.
" Normally, I go on Giantbomb daily to check up the small cache of games they review, ER and the BombCast. But I normally go on Gamespot to get a general feel on how good a game is. Now, it seems to me that Gamespot are making reviews more harsh. hey gave Trine-which they gave an extremely positive review-a 7.5. Considering the fact that normally most people didnt go for ANYTHING unless they were 8.0s or above, it just seems to me that Gamespot are slowly becoming more harsh. Is what Im saying right, or am I just losing my mind?Mind you, my mind was blown from the Harry Potter QL, so... "
Maybe they are trying to use more of the scale?On a 1 to 10 scale 7 is a great score. People have just lost sight of this because a 70 in the american school system is passing. So people see a 7 as average when they should see a 5 as average. This is just another reason why the 5 star scale(with no half stars) that giantbomb uses is perfect. With two good ratings two bad ratings and one average rating it is hard to get confused. There is just too much room for granularity on a 1 to 10 scale. "
You see, this is what I think, but then, why didnt they do it beforehand? It just makes other games look much better. Now Trine is in the same group as game which it shouldnt be in on GS.
@Jimbo: I dont mind the bad points; however, there are some games which have 3 or more bad points in the 8.5s or the 9.0s, and these points are more minor.
Take for example Mortal Kombat II. It had less good points, and more bad points. Now I think the Mortal Kombat II review is fair play (all of it makes sense, and those points are points I have come across even though I am a die-hard MK fan) and it was given a 7.9. Trine, which, by critics, is clearly the better game, had less bad points, more good points, and was yet given a 7.5. I have no problem if they made the points system like this beforehand, but they should have done it sooner (like, when Jeff Gerstmann was still in Gamespot). Now it just seems too late.
If the rumors are true and they wanted a more favorable review for Kane and Lynch, then the result is twofold:
If you get a game that's from the sponsor's own game list, there's apparently pressure from the leadership to increase the review. If it's NOT from a sponsor, there is outside pressure to make the review lower, because they want to appear reasonable. Good games might get dinged because of this.
I guess the big question is, based on a lot of reviews have they taken a drop in review scores, or are we basing this on their review of Trine? I don't go there very often anymore.
" Since the Kane & lynch fiasco, I don't know why anyone would even think about trusting a GS review again. "
Some bad things might have gone down there at Gamespot, but that's not fair to say dude. Give their reviewers and the people behind the scenes at Gamespot some credit, even if you don't like the site.This topic is going to get locked. "
I've got nothing against the reviewers and people behind the scenes, but K&L proved that the corporate side of the company is far more concerned with pleasing advertisers than providing accurate, reliable reviews. "
I agree with you, as soon as the K&L fiasco happened, I lost all trust in gamespot forever, how can you trust anything they say when they are willing to be bribed to write good reviews. Although in gamespots defense, I did read an interview from an anonymous employee that explained how the whole situation happened, I don't remember all the specifics but something like the head of marketing was given control of the reviews because the old person left or something, so he was in a position where he could make a ton of money. Something like that, it was a dumb bad situation. But hey, look what came of it: GIANTBOMB! :) So its all good.
My other big issue with gamespot is that they have a very narrow perspective of what a good game is, and its shared by all their reviewers. So unless its some giant mainstream game its going to get a 6 or less. For example the monster hunter series continues to get 3s and 4s out of 10 from gamespot because "The game has no lock-on system" Each review says that, "Still no lock-on system" and hands it a 4. Perhaps the game shouldn't have a lock-on system? If they actually played the games they would realize it would be God-awful with one.
So yeah, Thats why I like 1up and Giantbomb, they give fair reviews to things even if it isn't the type of game they are into, because they understand the demographic the game is aimed at.
Log in to comment