what's gamespot's problem ?

[Szentgyörgyi]

Gamespot.com is a very popular site when it comes to game reviews. But it's very misleading when it comes to M&B. When I first saw the 6.0 score, I took their word, and didn't touch this awesome game. But ever since a friend recommended it like a million times and I got tired of his nagging, I started playing M&B and I'm hooked ever since. So Guck Famespot, they owe M&B an apology.

@mdk31: sry, I accidentally pressed enter while typing

 

[mdk31]

Gamespot.com is a very popular site when it comes to game reviews.

... And?

 

[Lost-Lamb]

So's IGN, doesn't mean they're not full of ****.

Then again, there's also been a good deal of controversy surrounding their policies1)

1)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamespot#Gerstmann_dismissal

 

[Austupaio]

I use Gamespot to see what's been released, maybe get some news, and to figure out what games are about. As for scores, they're pricks. They're biased, have odd opinions and most definitely favour games that hand them money.

Mostly just because I made an account like 8 years ago though, something of an old habit.

 

[Evilknightz]

Well, it WAS reviewed when it first came out and based on native, which gets old quick

 

[Bushka]

I use Gamespot to see what's been released, maybe get some news, and to figure out what games are about. As for scores, they're pricks. They're biased, have odd opinions and most definitely favour games that hand them money.

I completely agree, but they were actually fairly honest on this one... I love MaB to death, but you've gotta take the good with the bad.  The original quest system is pretty bad, and theres not much else to do other than fight. While I think the unique combat system (something they did acknowledge) is enough to carry the game, others may disagree.

 

[Highelfwarrior]

Gamespot & IGN are 100% corrupted. Just look at GTA IV; it got a full 10.0 score as soon as the game was out.

They get paid for good ratings; can't blame 'em, I doubt we're talking about 10 bucks here.

 

[Archonsod]

Most Gamespot reviewers can't even manage to turn in a decent review in terms of basic use of English, let alone an accurate one of the game. Pretty much anyone with any talent started to leave when ZDNet took over. And that's before you figure in the basic errors they make in reviews, their inability to use a wiimote for example is legendary.

 

[Limbless]

This isn't Gamespot, but they and IGN go basically hand in hand.

 

[Kithas]

I think most of the time you'd be better served reading the user's reviews off to the side of the main review.  I usually read the main review after I've already played a game just to see what they have to say.  And I generally disagree with a lot of their points.  Personally, I love the hell out of M&B.  And that's good enough for me.

 

[Archonsod]

Nah, Reader Reviews inevitably end up in one of three flavours; the Fanboy who is protesting the game didn't get declared the greatest game of all time; the muppet who has taken a dislike to the DRM, game, Dev or life in general and just wants to ***** (and usually the whole thing becomes a fight between the two), and the ****wits who write a single line and then either don't understand the concept of marks out of ten, or else simply randomly generate the number for reasons best known to themselves, eg "Worst game ever! 7/10".

Generally, you're better off finding a reviewer who is capable of being informative enough about the game that you can decide for yourself whether it sounds interesting or not. They're few and far between these days, but there's still some out there.

 

[Radalan]

1)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamespot#Gerstmann_dismissal

That's exactly why I use:
http://www.giantbomb.com/

Also this was a pretty cool review, considering that I had anticipated the game and at the time trusted in Gamespot.
I did go and buy the game later on, sure buggy, but it was still fun as hell.
I love that Good - Bad part.
http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/darkmessiahofmightmagic/review.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=gssummary&tag=summary;read-review

And this is Gamespot's rating policy which I found laughable.

10.0: Prime
    This exceedingly rare score refers to a game that is as perfect as a game can aspire to be at its time of release. Obviously, the constantly changing standards for technology and gameplay will probably make this game obsolete some day, but at its time of release, a game earning this score could not have been improved upon in any meaningful way.

9.0-9.5: Superb
    We absolutely recommend any game in this range, especially to fans of that particular genre. However, games that score in the 9 range are also typically well suited to new players. Games that earn 9s are naturally uncommon, and earn GameSpot's Editors' Choice Award for their outstanding quality.

 

[Elisianthus]

Nah, Reader Reviews inevitably end up in one of three flavours

What's this one then?

隐藏

Great concept, somewhat marred by the execution. If you can ignore the dated graphics, awkward camera and an AI which can at times be it's own worst enemy then what you have is a highly replayable, fun little gem. Essentially, what we have is a true survival horror game. You play a survivor of a zombie holocaust, and must choose a base to hole up in against an approaching horde. Each day you receive a choice of missions which can be anything from rescuing fellow survivors to replenishing your food supplies. Different survivors have different talents which run from the obvious, such as a doctor or nurse improving the medical care you receive back at base, to the rather more arcane such as decreasing the odds of being caught on the way to or from a mission. This is balanced however by a need to look after their morale and physical needs such as food and medical supplies. Survivors not taken out on a mission can work on fortifying your main base against the oncoming assault by building barricades or traps, and it can be as much fun trying to design a real fortress against the horde as it is searching the city for ammo and weapons. Unfortunately the bugs can at times get frustrating. While on missions the AI for the survivors can see them get stuck on various fences, cars and doorways. Sometimes they will attack zombies, other times they will simply stand around while getting munched on without attempting to defend themselves. The zombie AI itself is little better; sometimes they will come running at you from across the map, other times you can be standing right next to one and it won't react, despite them supposedly being attracted by gunfire. Where this can really bite is the final mission itself. When all goes well you are given a climactic last stand battle against an almost unstoppable horde as you put your defence plan into action. Equally however you can end up simply slaughtering the zombies one by one as they try and fail to navigate a stairwell, or watching a fellow survivor blast apart your carefully placed barricades for no discernable reason. Nonetheless, this remains a highly replayable and fun game provided you don't mind the occasional snafu.

 

[AWdeV]

That's the exception that proves the rule ofcourse. In form of text-brick.

 

[Taimat396]

I llike Yahtzee myself. Sure he's a bit of an asshat, and *****es about almost anything, but he still gives a decent enough impression of how the game plays. Also he's funny as **** at times. Notably the prototype review.

 

[Nahkuri]

Yahtzee's reviews are primaly supposed to entertain anyhoo. They tend to get a bit repetitive, though. Usually it's "x is like y" where x is some part of the game and y is something bizarre/perverted/unexpected.

EDIT:

I'm not a huge friend of Gamespot. I stopped trusting them when they gave Far Cry: Instincts good reviews, and I bought it for 60 euros only to find it a mediocre, although pretty tube FPS. I can understand M&B receiving mediocre scores though, the campaign is quite underwhelming and there isn't much to the game apart from the excellent battles.

 

[Archonsod]

What's this one then?

That's quite obviously someone of superior intelligence holding forth on a game in such a manner that we could almost call it art.

Or a desperate bid to get enough blue coins to get free ****. I'll let you decide

 

[Elisianthus]

A little from column A, a little from column B. 

 

[Kazzan]

Bah don't trust reviews, they are just one persons opinion, and sometimes not even a persons opinion. Anyways, you got to judge for yourself wha games are worth buying and wich ones are not.

 

[gamerwiz09]

Bah don't trust reviews, they are just one persons opinion, and sometimes not even a persons opinion. Anyways, you got to judge for yourself wha games are worth buying and wich ones are not.

But in most cases that requires buying the game yourself. Which brings us back to why critics and reviews exist in the first place: So we can find out before we spend our money whether or not a game is worth playing, a movie is worth watching, a book is worth reading, etc.