-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Why did Greg K include spoilers in his Halo 2 review? *Gamespot scandal?*
- Thread starter Renegade
- Start date
Razoric said::O But I wasn't questioning the review, but questioning the people nitpicking the review. The same as I am here.
Look on the bright side, the evil anti-xbox site known as GS gave Halo 2 a score that was 6% away from perfection. If that is as bad as it gets it's very good news for Halo 2 fans.
Yeah but you questioned me in the GTA thread when i mentioned the stutter. But I guess the finger only counts when you are pointing it at others huh?
GTA fans got pretty reactionary about my frame rate statements in the GTA thread. Mrbob said:Yeah but you questioned me in the GTA thread when i mentioned the stutter. But I guess the finger only counts when you are pointing it at others huh?
I think I got a little reactionary when you said it got so bad you had to shut off the game... that was a bit much. :O
Pedigree Chum
Banned
Ghost said:
I agree with this, considering how many threads we've had about it. And even THEN has it been tricky...
These are my comments on this issue; you'll understand why I don't intend to publicly debate it after you read them, but if you believe further action or explanation is required, then you can email me at greg@gamespot.com.
Pedigree Chum
Banned
kasavin said:
I don't have an issue with your review. But man, no offence, but you're not good at doing the video reviews...acutually, every person on GS sucks at them. You guys should consider hiring someone to do them.
kasavin said:
Haha... i clicked on the link, saw the big space before the spoiler, and just had to close the window. I am not risking getting a spoiler i might have missed because i didn't read the text review. That's HOW MUCH you betrayed your customer's trust.
Man, I laugh about it now, but it was really upsetting. I have been awaiting Halo 2 since I was a huge fan of the first, and had kept away from threads that would spoil the game during all this time. It didn't take an imbecile with a leaked copy, it took a reviewer.
Fixed2BeBroken
Member
lol, kasavin replys in the thread.....
good stuff
good stuff
Greg is right people. All he said in the review was that the story is more focused on the Covenant than he would like. If you know what the spoiler is then you can read between the lines and think it's a spoiler but if you don't know what the spoiler is then he's just saying the story is more focused on the Covenant. It's as simple as that.
I say you misunderstood the issue then. Most of the people who have already played the game to the point you have, for the most part, have their own opinions about the game and would have little need to read your review. It's largely people who have read and/or viewed your review and identified it as a part of the game's storyline. It's really that simple.
Honestly the poor man spoiled no more about the games storyline then you should allready assume based on the existing commercials , previews and other reviews available. He doesnt' go into enough detail to really wreck anything unless you happen to have played alot of the game allready somehow. It's merely a viral idiot effect, one person said spoilers ahoy and then suddenly 3 people are all OMG ItS TRuE !132141!! . When in fact it isn't at all.
Call me a brown nosing GSC member but they earn my money each year , especially kasavins well written and detailed reviews.
Call me a brown nosing GSC member but they earn my money each year , especially kasavins well written and detailed reviews.
siamesedreamer
Banned
Who needs to read Kasavin's review for spoilers when you've got mods right here that blurt stuff out?
Well, if you have people claiming they were spoiled, who the hell are you to tell them otherwise? Maybe you knew about that from somewhere else, but so what. I've seen the non-leaked videos and read pretty much every preview for the game and had no clue about what was spoiled for me.
Do the people mentioning MGS2 remember that was developed in three years on a brand new hardware design?
I'd say that's different than making a sequel on the same hardware that the first game in the series came out on. MGS3 would be a more logical comparison in that regard, but you'll have to wait until next week to see the online review scores.
I'd say that's different than making a sequel on the same hardware that the first game in the series came out on. MGS3 would be a more logical comparison in that regard, but you'll have to wait until next week to see the online review scores.
I don't have a problem with the final score, though I think the Value rating should pretty obviously be a ten (he says it's the best online console game around). The more annoying thing is that he bitches about the game's brevity....despite the fact that the co-op and Legendary difficulty modes add to its length....despite the fact that he believes 10 hours is standard length for an action game....despite the fact he has bumped up the "Value" rating for other games that offered increased difficulty levels.
I just watched the video review, and I honestly find it funny that someone who loves the MGS games so much whines about a game that spends a relatively small amount of time trying to add some depth to the game's enemies. Every boss that dies in MGS goes on and on about their shitty childhood, their opinion of war, the things in life they regret, the things they need to buy at the grocery store this week, the dangerous proliferation of information/nuclear weapons, blah blah blah....I guess another 5 hours of cutscenes and tedious dialogues would have given the game a more acceptable length, but then there would have been even more complaining about the Covenant story elements.
I just watched the video review, and I honestly find it funny that someone who loves the MGS games so much whines about a game that spends a relatively small amount of time trying to add some depth to the game's enemies. Every boss that dies in MGS goes on and on about their shitty childhood, their opinion of war, the things in life they regret, the things they need to buy at the grocery store this week, the dangerous proliferation of information/nuclear weapons, blah blah blah....I guess another 5 hours of cutscenes and tedious dialogues would have given the game a more acceptable length, but then there would have been even more complaining about the Covenant story elements.
kasavin said:
For what it's worth, I agree with you. Everyone forgets that 9.6 is a 'superb' score on your scale. They're essentially freaking out because you said Halo 2 was almost perfect. Reading threads like this makes me wonder what the hell is wrong with the world.
As for the score I have to wonder, what in the heavens would a game have to do to get a 10 in Value?
-Single Player Campaign with 4 different game modes
-System Link 1-16 players
-2 Player Co-op
-Xbox Live support with stat tracking and clan support
-Downloadable content
I mean, seriously, WTF?
The score, overall, is quite good, but I still don't get a 9 in Value. You just get a hell of a package in 1 game that will provide you with countless hours of entertainment. If that doesn't equal a 10 in value, I don't know what can.
-Single Player Campaign with 4 different game modes
-System Link 1-16 players
-2 Player Co-op
-Xbox Live support with stat tracking and clan support
-Downloadable content
I mean, seriously, WTF?
The score, overall, is quite good, but I still don't get a 9 in Value. You just get a hell of a package in 1 game that will provide you with countless hours of entertainment. If that doesn't equal a 10 in value, I don't know what can.
Drinky Crow
Banned
If you're playing a game -- especially an FPS -- for the story, YOU DESERVE THE PAIN.
I have completely lost all respect for Gamespot. Seriously. This whole "shock and awe" tactic with reviews on big name games to get more traffic is ridiculous. They purposely rate hyped games below the average just to seem like they are the more "credible" review site. And then they give assanine reasons as to why they rated it the way they did.
Better graphics.
Better gameplay.
Better multiplayer.
Better story.
Better sound.
Better replay value.
All adds up to being a game that is better or "atleast" the same score as the first game. No longer will I put my trust in their reviews. Even Teamxbox seems more consistent and fair with reviews.
* I posted this in the other thread, but I felt this needed to be in here aswell**Kasavin I no longer have any respect for you or your website, and you have lost a faithful customer with your shady tactics. I'm out.*
Better graphics.
Better gameplay.
Better multiplayer.
Better story.
Better sound.
Better replay value.
All adds up to being a game that is better or "atleast" the same score as the first game. No longer will I put my trust in their reviews. Even Teamxbox seems more consistent and fair with reviews.
* I posted this in the other thread, but I felt this needed to be in here aswell**Kasavin I no longer have any respect for you or your website, and you have lost a faithful customer with your shady tactics. I'm out.*
^^
I can't believe how many fucking whiners are out there. Yikes. In Kasavin's review, I got a sense that things weren't nearly as fresh or new as they could have been. Value aside, that alone might be good enough reason to rate a game not quite as high as its predecessor. Seriously. All you people complaining that Kasavin ripped Bungie off for a couple of fucking percents need to get some perspective in life.
Because, in his opinion, you have a very complete multiplayer package, and a not so hot single player one. If you give this a value of 10, what do you give the game that spoils everyone with an awesome single and multi?
I can't believe how many fucking whiners are out there. Yikes. In Kasavin's review, I got a sense that things weren't nearly as fresh or new as they could have been. Value aside, that alone might be good enough reason to rate a game not quite as high as its predecessor. Seriously. All you people complaining that Kasavin ripped Bungie off for a couple of fucking percents need to get some perspective in life.
IJoel said:
Because, in his opinion, you have a very complete multiplayer package, and a not so hot single player one. If you give this a value of 10, what do you give the game that spoils everyone with an awesome single and multi?
MrparisSM said:
He didn't love the story. He didn't like a major part of the focus of the single player campaign. Those are real complaints even if you disagree. Isn't it at least even remotely possible that Kasavin scored Halo 2 according to how he truly felt about the game deep down inside?
johnjohnson
Member
So, please. Can anyone explain to me (as if I was five years old) what the f*** is wrong with a 9.4 score? I simply don't get it. It's 0.6 off the perfect 10.
MrAngryFace
Banned
Who wrote the review for the first one? If its greg, shame on him, seriously.
I understand a site is made up of different contributers, and there's no such thing as a completely objective opinion, but I do ask for something I can count on. Halo gets a higher score than a title that improves in every way on the original. Oh dont like the story, thats tough, cause its nice we're getting any real story at all. The originals was laughable, but hey, guess thats not an improvement. Multiplayer? Not that big a factor, but if it was on ps2 I spose it'd be rare enough to piss my pants over.
Tilt I dont care about, thats their thing, as long as this completely nonsensical score doesnt affect anything in the negative and only serves as an indicator of irrational spurts to the positive.
I don't read reviews any longer. They dont matter, they never have. You know what, I dont know greg or his gaming habits, and for that reason, I dont trust him or his odd scoring structure.
I trust my friends, and to some degree that includes this forum. Who knows, greg on the take, who cares. Halo 2 is a monster that cannot be stopped. If there was a conspiracy id hope they'd be smart enough to realize that.
In short, gamesites are dumb. These days they largely serve as portals for screen shots and videos. Rarely are even the features anything beyond the standard hype/anti-hype the writers have been farmed to create from their pre-teen years or simply soap boxes for preaching to the choir or angering the masses to drum up traffic.
I can produce content like a factory, but is any of it interesting? Most of us have nothing useful to say, yet we can still say it. There is the option to just ignore what we say, and that is why simply not reading gamespot reviews is SUCH a better choice than bitching about it or sending a letter to an editor that has as much a chance of budging as you do.
Additionally I would like to remind reviewers that they aren't simply reviewing games, they are comparing them in terms of quality to some degree. While it would be a lot of work, I would hope in the future they take care to remember that when considering scores between the biggest ps2 game and the biggest xdude game. I dont expect pandering, but I do expect some care taken in the issue.
I understand a site is made up of different contributers, and there's no such thing as a completely objective opinion, but I do ask for something I can count on. Halo gets a higher score than a title that improves in every way on the original. Oh dont like the story, thats tough, cause its nice we're getting any real story at all. The originals was laughable, but hey, guess thats not an improvement. Multiplayer? Not that big a factor, but if it was on ps2 I spose it'd be rare enough to piss my pants over.
Tilt I dont care about, thats their thing, as long as this completely nonsensical score doesnt affect anything in the negative and only serves as an indicator of irrational spurts to the positive.
I don't read reviews any longer. They dont matter, they never have. You know what, I dont know greg or his gaming habits, and for that reason, I dont trust him or his odd scoring structure.
I trust my friends, and to some degree that includes this forum. Who knows, greg on the take, who cares. Halo 2 is a monster that cannot be stopped. If there was a conspiracy id hope they'd be smart enough to realize that.
In short, gamesites are dumb. These days they largely serve as portals for screen shots and videos. Rarely are even the features anything beyond the standard hype/anti-hype the writers have been farmed to create from their pre-teen years or simply soap boxes for preaching to the choir or angering the masses to drum up traffic.
I can produce content like a factory, but is any of it interesting? Most of us have nothing useful to say, yet we can still say it. There is the option to just ignore what we say, and that is why simply not reading gamespot reviews is SUCH a better choice than bitching about it or sending a letter to an editor that has as much a chance of budging as you do.
Additionally I would like to remind reviewers that they aren't simply reviewing games, they are comparing them in terms of quality to some degree. While it would be a lot of work, I would hope in the future they take care to remember that when considering scores between the biggest ps2 game and the biggest xdude game. I dont expect pandering, but I do expect some care taken in the issue.
johnjohnson
Member
MrAngryFace said:
Joe Fielder did the halo review. http://www.gamespot.com/xbox/action/halo/index.html
MrAngryFace
Banned
Then I dont see how its really greg's fault, Its not his responsibility to like the game series as much as the previous reviewer.
tho my comments above still stand to a large degree.
tho my comments above still stand to a large degree.
MrparisSM said:
That might be true, sure... if the industry had remained at a standstill since the first Halo was released. But other titles have come along since then to raise the bar in different areas, and what would have been considered light-years ahead of anything we've ever seen if it had been released a couple of years ago isn't quite as mindblowing now.
Ratings don't exist in a vacuum. Imagine if somebody released 'Ms. Pac-Man Ultimate' tomorrow--a game with the same style of bitmapped graphics as the original but slightly improved animation and a couple of gameplay tweaks. Should the sequel automatically rate 'at least a 10' because the original was scored that highly way back when it was released, and the sequel is even better? Hell no! The passage of time has to be taken into account, too. Sure, I deliberately picked an extreme example, but hopefully you see my point. For someone to say that the original Halo was a few tenths of a point more impressive in certain respects than the sequel compared to the other games available on the market at the time each was released hardly strikes me as criminal. It's not like the man's giving the game 7's or something, and telling people 'Sell your Xboxes, it's all over!' Maybe some people here will read it that way, but that's a problem with the way they interpret review scores, and one that the vast majority of gamers out there (thankfully) don't seem to share.
Seriously, people were probably pissed when Halo didn't get a perfect 10. Then later on people went on to bitch about the level design and how the game wasn't online. Greg didn't review Halo 1 anyway. This is worse than most Nintendo fanboy babble. I can't believe people are going nuts over a 9.4 score.
johnjohnson said:
Holy shit it wasn't even Greg that reviewed Halo 1?!? Jesus Christ I assumed from everyone's bitching that it has to have been.
God damn, knowing this, you all need to shut the fuck up. It was TWO DIFFERENT PEOPLE. It's not reviewer's responsibility to ensure that his or her review stacks up to what someone else's opinion is.
GDJustin said:
Then they should have gotten the same person to do it then. There is no way in hell that Halo 2 should have gotten the same score as Riddick. Halo 2 has just a good a single player as riddick, PLUS A UNFUCKING BELIEVABLE XBOX LIVE GAME TACKED ON. It just doesn't make sense.
MrparisSM said:
It's a 9.4. A 9.4!!
Not a 7.
Not an 8.
Not a 9 even.
You're complaining about a score that is .6 away from a 10. I take that back, you're not even complaining, you're DENOUNCING a gaming site because your favorite game did not get a 10. You don't see any overreacting here? Jesus, it's not the end of the world, Gamespot has always been tougher then all of the other gaming sites with review scores, and i wish others would follow suit.