Support NeoGAF

[Amir0x]

SHOCK AND AWE SOME OF THESE PEOPLE ARE IN THIS THREAD!!111!

HOLY SHIT. CALL THE PO-LICE.

 

[Ranger X]

There is games that some want to force everybody to love like Konga here.
And then there's the games everybody tries to find a reason not to love, like GTASA.
Gamers are pathetic and can't even handle their own tastes.

 

[Musashi Wins!]

Probably a victim of the Nintendo curve.

LOLLERZ.

I thought all world beating GAF games were due to be ripped apart for getting meh scores at Gamespot? This game is getting a pleasant nudge to the shoulder and cheer up charlie.

Greatest platformer of a generation, eh?

 

[Red Scarlet]

Jesus dude, what kind of reaction do you expect? "Gamespot in my humble opinion have misjudged the score of this game but that OK as it's all subjective innit?"

Don't even bother with reviews/scores. Problem solved.

 

[sammy]

Gamers are pathetic and can't even handle their own tastes.

LOL! so true


the medium has grown so much and dables in so many new genres .... but gamers (majority - you know the ones) are still selfish and consider every game that comes along is directed personaly towards themselves...

I just wish reviewers took target demographics into play -- this review (and most of Gamespots revies) read as if they're directed towards a Halo 2 gamer.

 

[UltraMagnanimous]

HOLY SHIT. CALL THE PO-LICE.

Nah.

 

[Amir0x]

I just wish reviewers took target demographics into play -- this review (and most of Gamespots revies) read as if they're directed towards a Halo 2 gamer.

Shit no, that is the worst possible way to judge a game. "Well, it's for four year olds... SO I GUESS IT SUCCEEDS ON THAT LEVEL."

If you rate games based on such criteria, you are a horrible reviewer and need to never again write in your life.

 

[JJConrad]

Gamespot's written reviews are usually good, but their scores are almost random. The site's median average is a 7.1. He must have scored the game based on playing it without bongos.

A 7 in EGM is far better than a 7 from Gamespot.

Gertsmann is the sites worst reviewer.

 

[Stinkles]

If a review comes within ten decimal points of three other reviews of the same game, chosen at random from a pool of likely media outlets, complaint threads should be locked down.

 

[UltraMagnanimous]

Well thats a whole diffrent discussion (and one worth having). But surely some distance is needed in a review? Afterall, and I don't how magazines or websites do it, but I expect many reviewers just get given games to review regardless of their own personal predilections or taste. Thats bound to colour a review and in many cases do a diservice to it AND the consumer.

 

[ara]

Jesus dude, what kind of reaction do you expect? "Gamespot in my humble opinion have misjudged the score of this game but that OK as it's all subjective innit?"

I don't expect any better than what we see already. But I do want to point out that video game criticism can be discussed on a much more purposeful level.

I'm not suggesting that all you can do is say "oh, they disagree and the world is beautiful so let's agree to disagree because its subjective." Unless you are talking about just the numbers, because that type of discussion is pointless.

There is such a thing as valid criticism. It's worth at least finding out where the other person is coming from before you launch your attack.

 

[sammy]

If you rate games based on such criteria, you are a horrible reviewer and need to never again write in your life.

As a consumer, it's just getting very very hard to judge what to buy --- but there's so much that goes into interactive media, I can't say I've ever read a review that speaks to me through the shoes of a games respective demographic.

I'm always confused by "Play Magazines" scores --- But reading their reviews is so positive, they tell you everything that made them happy about the game.
If reviewers throw out games that only last so few hours - Then we're throwing out our Panzer Dragoons, Ikarugas, Gunstar Heroes, etc.

 

[etiolate]

I think the reason this is an issue with differing opinions is because game media outlets want to hold on to their "7 is good" mantra, when in reality the majority of games get scored in the 7 range. Those 7 games, the ones I've played fall anywhere form bad to really good to just plain mediocre. So to the reader and audience and about everyone else in the world, a 7 is average.

 

[_Angelus_]

HOLY SHIT,RUUUUUUN!!!!

 

[ara]

Well thats a whole diffrent discussion (and one worth having). But surely some distance is needed in a review? Afterall, and I don't how magazines or websites do it, but I expect many reviewers just get given games to review regardless of their own personal predilections or taste. Thats bound to colour a review and in many cases do a diservice to it AND the consumer.

For better or worse, the review is going to be colored either way. Unless it's solely comprised of factual statements.

 

[Amir0x]

As a consumer, it's just getting very very hard to judge what to buy --- but there's so much that goes into interactive media, I can't say I've ever read a review that speaks to me through the shoes of a games respective demographic.

I'm always confused by "Play Magazines" scores --- But reading their reviews is so positive, they tell you everything that made them happy about the game.
If reviewers throw out games that only last so few hours - Then we're throwing out our Panzer Dragoons, Ikarugas, Gunstar Heroes, etc.

Perceived value is one hundred billion times more important than demographics.

Anyway, this is a ridiculous conversation. If those are the type of reviews you as the consumer like to read, let me just express how elated I am that you are not making decisions on what the direction of any given game magazine/website should be.

 

[Bristow]

It's my understanding they try to assign games to reviewers who are interested in the source material/genre, but it doesn't always work out that way due to time constraints and/or a heavy load of games to review.

I know that Kasavin tends to review most of the big releases regardless of genre and he is all over the map at times.

I really don't know what to think of game reviewers or critics of art in general. I mean opinions are subjective. We've all enjoyed music, movies, or games other people have hated at some point. Usually, I just look at the general consenus on gamerankings and go from there. If it has an average score of 65% or something, chances are it's probably not worth a purchase atleast. But then again, I've enjoyed games that were universally scathed.

*shrug* Screw reviews and play what looks appealing.

 

[Ranger X]

As a consumer, it's just getting very very hard to judge what to buy --- but there's so much that goes into interactive media, I can't say I've ever read a review that speaks to me through the shoes of a games respective demographic.

I'm always confused by "Play Magazines" scores --- But reading their reviews is so positive, they tell you everything that made them happy about the game.
If reviewers throw out games that only last so few hours - Then we're throwing out our Panzer Dragoons, Ikarugas, Gunstar Heroes, etc.

You know what could be cool? To have shorter reviews that are more straight to the point but having 3 guys reviewing the game. And the review should be like a real review --> by their personal tastes.
This would gives people more points of views to see if they would like the game or not. It's better to have more points of view than one long review written by a fan of the genre.

 

[Red Scarlet]

*shrug* Screw reviews and play what looks appealing.

Exactly. 10/10

 

[ara]

You know what could be cool? To have shorter reviews that are more straight to the point but having 3 guys reviewing the game. And the review should be like a real review --> by their personal tastes.
This would gives people more points of views to see if they would like the game or not. It's better to have more points of view than one long review written by a fan of the genre.

That was one of the good things about the old EGM/famitsu review style. However, it only really works if the same exact group of people review the same games over time (and if you read all those reviews). That way, you learn to understand and take into account each reviewer's bias much more easily, and you are left with a much clearer idea of what the game is like.

 

[etiolate]

You know what could be cool? To have shorter reviews that are more straight to the point but having 3 guys reviewing the game. And the review should be like a real review --> by their personal tastes.
This would gives people more points of views to see if they would like the game or not. It's better to have more points of view than one long review written by a fan of the genre.

EGM did this and it was a mess quite often. The reviews would come out like someone was just throwing darts at a board.

I would have one review score, done by people who treat each game equally and if everything was right I would have lots of reviewers. I don't want burnt out reviewers, or people who can't understand a genre reviewing a game for it or just plain old fanboys in denial. I want people who truly enjoy videogames and what games are about doing reviews. I would also like another reviewer to replay the game a few months later and critique the previous review and the game itself again. This would deal with inflated hype scores.

 

[pilonv1]

This is fantastic, we haven't had one of these threads in months.

 

[WrathOfOtaibah]

For reviews, GameSpot is pretty much the only review site I trust. Like I said in the Yoshi thread, their reviews always withstand the test of time. A lot of review sites succumb to hype. Then you read the same review six months later and wonder how the hell was that worthy of a 9.3 (Mario Sunshine - IGN). I'll still read their reviews. Pretty much everything over 7 is worth a buy when all things are considered.

 

[Catchpenny]

Gertsmann is the sites worst reviewer.

I can't comment on Jungle Beat since I haven't played it yet. But this is dead-on. He was an annoyance on the Kibology groups back in the day, too.

 

[Socreges]

Then you read the same review six months later and wonder how the hell was that worthy of a 9.3 (Mario Sunshine - IGN).

Unless, of course, you're one of the many that loved SMS and felt it was Mr Gerstmann who got it 'wrong'. What about the 8.5 that he gave State of Emergency? Has that stood the "test of time"?

 

[Ronok]

My only problem with most of the Jungle Beat reviews is that they take length of the game into account way to much....... I mean is it just me or can I complete Mario 1 one of my favourate games of ALL TIME in 10 minutes? I mean damn I really hate reviewers these days... Don't rate games on fun as much as they used to. Oh well, if the length of the game is really that important to so many people today they can just miss out. :-/

 

[bill0527]

Anybody else get that perverted email from Nintendo asking you if you wanted to '"beat it with Donkey Kong" ?

 

[JayFro]

This thread is stupid.

 

[drohne]

gamespot is my new friend.

 

[border]

gamespot is my new friend.

Heh - just because of this review?

 

[Guy LeDouche]

There is games that some want to force everybody to love like Konga here.
And then there's the games everybody tries to find a reason not to love, like GTASA.
Gamers are pathetic and can't even handle their own tastes.

since no one else has bothered to quote this, I will.

Well said, Wyz.

 

[Speevy]

gamespot is my new friend.

You and Drinky are interchangeable.

 

[Ferrarisimo]

For reviews, GameSpot is pretty much the only review site I trust. Like I said in the Yoshi thread, their reviews always withstand the test of time. A lot of review sites succumb to hype. Then you read the same review six months later and wonder how the hell was that worthy of a 9.3 (Mario Sunshine - IGN). I'll still read their reviews. Pretty much everything over 7 is worth a buy when all things are considered.

Junior speaks the truth.

 

[Hollywood]

God, give it up. Nintendo's switching to a 3-4 simple playtime game philosophy lately and I agree with Gamespot. There's rarely any 4 hour games I will pick up and buy.

 

[Speevy]

And Gamespot holds the best standard for graphics in all the online world.

Where this:

is an 8.

This:

is a 10.

And this

is a 7.


Their reviews always stand the test of time.

 

[Red Scarlet]

Looking at old reviews for graphics is pretty stupid..in 1997 probably every site drooled over FF7, and now people say they can't even play it anymore because it looks bad. Very moot point in trying to say a review/review site sucks, and yet another point to ignore reviews in the first place.

 

[Speevy]

Looking at old reviews for graphics is pretty stupid..in 1997 probably every site drooled over FF7, and now people say they can't even play it anymore because it looks bad. Very moot point in trying to say a review sucks, and yet another point to ignore reviews in the first place.

Those were reviews for current generation systems, conducted within a year of each other. Two were for 2002, one was 2003.

 

[Red Scarlet]

So? Graphics outdate themselves quickly, and have for the last ~10 years. Even back to the SNES era.

 

[Hollywood]

Those were reviews for current generation systems, conducted within a year of each other. Two were for 2002, one was 2003.

Yeah and I bet everyone of those reviews were by different people. I'm sure they don't have a log of every review they ever did and go back and say 'Hey, this is a little better than NCAA Football 2003, about as good as Tony Hawk 3, but maybe not as good as Wild Arms. My score for these graphics are 7.8939295842'

 

[Speevy]

So? Graphics outdate themselves quickly, and have for the last ~10 years. Even back to the SNES era.

That still doesn't make State of Emergency a 10 out of 10 in 2002 (by the PS2's standards, with games like ICO and Metal Gear Solid 2 already released), Cubivore an 8 by Gamecube standards (with Rogue Leader, REMake, and Starfox Adventures released), and Amped 2 a 7. (since it's pretty much the genre leader in graphics IMO)

 

[Red Scarlet]

Hence my stand that reviews are stupid, and shouldn't be taken for a grain of salt.

Honestly, just go rent the game or watch videos and *shock* make up your own mind.

Bold works, rox!

 

[Ironclad]

Hence my stand that reviews are stupid, and shouldn't be taken for a grain of salt.

Honestly, just go rent the game or watch videos and *shock* make up your own mind.

I agree. The reviews shouldn't really be taken seriously at all. I would prefer it if they left the score out and then just gave us a page or two write-up about what they liked about it or not. It should not be so hard for people to make up their own minds.

 

[Red Scarlet]

Previews > Reviews. Except when a game is totally overhauled in comparison to what was previewed.

 

[Ironclad]

Previews > Reviews. Except when a game is totally overhauled in comparison to what was previewed.

Yeah. A review should be more like a final preview. There really doesn't need to be a score.

 

[border]

If they want to review it for value, that seems fine to me.

It's a little disingenuous to go back in time and retroactively find inconsistencies. Most game magazines try to impress upon readers the idea that the scores given to one game are not meant to be directly comparable to the scores given to another.

It's a little funny how the hardcore message board communities claim that they want "more" from reviews at the same time as they go nuts over numerical score.

 

[kasavin]

Most game magazines try to impress upon readers the idea that the scores given to one game are not meant to be directly comparable to the scores given to another.

We make no such claims, though we do state that technical standards differ from platform to platform. Those who wish to try to poke holes in our rating system standards or our application of those standards are more than welcome to try. I'm always interested in constructive criticism--the entire rating system we use essentially is built on it, as evidenced by the long-winded review guidelines and FAQ we point to from the "About Our Rating System" link on every review. But most complaining about review scores comes from an emotional level rather than a rational one. For example, many people who complain about review scores don't even have a personal experience of the game to draw upon. They've preordered it, and therefore have a vested interest in it, but they've never actually played it. It's understandable if they'd be disappointed if the game gets a "bad" review, but it's ironic that they can be so quick to suggest that the review must be biased or flat-out incorrect.

Anyway, if Speevy wants to spend his Friday night trying to dig up inconsistencies in our ratings by posting screenshots of three completely different 2- or 3-year-old games, more power to him. He spends his time doing that, and I spend my time posting about it. You see, we're not so different, Speevy and I.

 

[Ferrarisimo]

You see, we're not so different, Speevy and I.

Oh Greg, you're so modest!

 

[Guy LeDouche]

We make no such claims, though we do state that technical standards differ from platform to platform. Those who wish to try to poke holes in our rating system standards or our application of those standards are more than welcome to try. I'm always interested in constructive criticism--the entire rating system we use essentially is built on it, as evidenced by the long-winded review guidelines and FAQ we point to from the "About Our Rating System" link on every review. But most complaining about review scores comes from an emotional level rather than a rational one. For example, many people who complain about review scores don't even have a personal experience of the game to draw upon. They've preordered it, and therefore have a vested interest in it, but they've never actually played it. It's understandable if they'd be disappointed if the game gets a "bad" review, but it's ironic that they can be so quick to suggest that the review must be biased or flat-out incorrect.

Anyway, if Speevy wants to spend his Friday night trying to dig up inconsistencies in our ratings by posting screenshots of three completely different 2- or 3-year-old games, more power to him. He spends his time doing that, and I spend my time posting about it. You see, we're not so different, Speevy and I.

why do you assign scores? It seems like most people just skip to the score. I'd much rather have a review that highlights the good/bad/ugly and closes with a recommendation based on what types of games the reviewer likes. Recommended (based on x games) or Not Recommended.

Are you encouraged (forced) by the top brass/advertisers/etc to assign a numerical value? I understand sites like gamerankings would have a hard time, but too fucking bad for them.

 

[Speevy]

Oh no! He's after me.

:lol

We make no such claims, though we do state that technical standards differ from platform to platform. Those who wish to try to poke holes in our rating system standards or our application of those standards are more than welcome to try. I'm always interested in constructive criticism--the entire rating system we use essentially is built on it, as evidenced by the long-winded review guidelines and FAQ we point to from the "About Our Rating System" link on every review. But most complaining about review scores comes from an emotional level rather than a rational one. For example, many people who complain about review scores don't even have a personal experience of the game to draw upon. They've preordered it, and therefore have a vested interest in it, but they've never actually played it. It's understandable if they'd be disappointed if the game gets a "bad" review, but it's ironic that they can be so quick to suggest that the review must be biased or flat-out incorrect.

Anyway, if Speevy wants to spend his Friday night trying to dig up inconsistencies in our ratings by posting screenshots of three completely different 2- or 3-year-old games, more power to him. He spends his time doing that, and I spend my time posting about it. You see, we're not so different, Speevy and I.
Today 05:27 AM

I've played Donkey Kong Jungle Beat. Your site's review is 12 points below the average review on Gamerankings. I didn't start this thread to bash Gamespot, only to express how much I disagree with the review. Because...I played the game. And I don't think it deserves a 7, even if a 7 is good to you, and Super Mario Sunshine is a "Great" 8. (which is too high IMO)

My other comment relates specifically to how incredibly stupid the whole State of Emergency review was, how artistically and technically HORRIBLE Cubivore was, and how you guys just seemed to dislike Amped.

It was just funny to me, that's all. You have to understand that Gamespot's reviews are not the only ones that are read, and as such people aren't going to take the time to balance your words with your scale and your specific reviewer standards to come up with just what you meant by giving Donkey Kong Jungle Beat, one of the most unique titles of this year, a 7.0.

Yeah, you've rated worse games better, and you've rated better games worse, but that's only an afterthought to why I started the thread. I played the game. I've read several of the game's reviews. And I disagree. "Screw Gamespot." still stands. I don't like the review.

 

[evilromero]

Wait? Where's the Wario64 trolling action? Does it need new batteries?