Proof that game reviews are balls

[DrSpike]

I'd imagine so as well, but in any case the company will claim that wasn't the reason.

[Wiglaf]

Originally posted by Asher
All evidence right now seems to point to him being fired for something more complex than panning the game, is all I'm saying.

So, enlighten us Asher. How can we expect objectivity from a site that whores itself out to the developers that it's supposed to review?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
So, enlighten us Asher. How can we expect objectivity from a site that whores itself out to the developers that it's supposed to review?

There's always the potential for bias, but I think Gamespot's track record speaks for itself.

[Solver]

GameSpot surely isn't shy about giving games horrible scores. But I can't think, off the top of my head, of well-hyped, awaited games that they gave a poor review.

[Asher]

I turned off my adblocker to check out www.gamespot.com.

I'm not sure how much of their ads actually come from games.

Ad 1: Coke
Ad 2: Futureshop
Ad 3: Wasabi (website)
Ad 4: Playstation 3
Ad 5: Toronto.com
Ad 6: Intel Centrino
Ad 7: Resistance: Fall of Man (game)
Ad 8: Gamestop
Ad 9: Gamestop (again)
Ad 10: Ace Combat Six

Of the 10 ads, 2 were for games.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Solver
GameSpot surely isn't shy about giving games horrible scores. But I can't think, off the top of my head, of well-hyped, awaited games that they gave a poor review.

Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess
http://www.gamespot.com/wii/action/t...tml?tag=result;title;3

8.8/10. You may not think this a "poor review", but relative to virtually everything else out there it was blasphemously low. Jeff Gertsmann reviewed it, BTW.

[DrSpike]

They only gave Mass Effect 8.5 compared to 9-10 pretty much everywhere else.

[Solver]

Yeah, but those are cases of giving a lower score than other sites. 8.5 or 8.8 is still a very good score. I wonder if they ever gave such games a score actually reserved for poor games, say, below 7.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Solver
Yeah, but those are cases of giving a lower score than other sites. 8.5 or 8.8 is still a very good score. I wonder if they ever gave such games a score actually reserved for poor games, say, below 7.

Well, instead of wasting our time with pointless meandering, why don't you give us an example of a mostly 8/9 rated hyped game that deserves a "poor" score?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Asher

Well, instead of wasting our time with pointless meandering,

Enough already, Asher.

[Asher]

The noise is deafening, LOTM.

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by lord of the mark



Enough already, Asher.

Actually I think he's right this time - despite what certain deluded folks would have you believe the vast majority of games that score 9+ across a wide range of sites are actually good games, so asking for an example of such a game that scored 7 on Gamespot isn't that fair.

[Asher]

I've got a really short fuse these days for people who don't take the initiative to do their own work.

I really don't like LOTM's shotgun tactic of "invent random theories, throw them out there, and let people tell me which ones are feasible" in these threads; similarly, pondering things like "I wonder if they ever gave such games a score actually reserved for poor games, say, below 7" is up there too -- take the initiative and look yourself, stop making others do the work for you.

[Wiglaf]

Originally posted by Asher
I turned off my adblocker to check out www.gamespot.com.

I'm not sure how much of their ads actually come from games.

Ad 1: Coke
Ad 2: Futureshop
Ad 3: Wasabi (website)
Ad 4: Playstation 3
Ad 5: Toronto.com
Ad 6: Intel Centrino
Ad 7: Resistance: Fall of Man (game)
Ad 8: Gamestop
Ad 9: Gamestop (again)
Ad 10: Ace Combat Six

Of the 10 ads, 2 were for games.

I love how you ignore the fact that Kane and Lynch and Asasssin's creed and just about every other hyped game dominates Gamespot's page with ads on release. Just because you went to the site once and saw a lot of Coke ads in the midst of this scandal. Nice.

I've got a really short fuse these days for people who don't take the initiative to do their own work.

Get over yourself.

There's always the potential for bias, but I think Gamespot's track record speaks for itself.

No, it really doesn't. They just fired the editor of the site for giving a bad review to a game that gives his boss hundreds of thousands of dollars.

It isn't my job to have played games that were hyped that gamespot scored highly but I think should have scored lower. That completely misses the point. Once I can show that the site makes massive money from selling ads to publishers, whose games it is supposed to turn around and review, I call bull****, and anyone who has half a working mind would as well.

You just cannot expect objectivity when you're paid by the people you are supposed to review. Simple fact. And I refuse to get into an argument over whether them scoring Mass Effect an 8.5 somehow counteracts this basic logic.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by DrSpike


Actually I think he's right this time - despite what certain deluded folks would have you believe the vast majority of games that score 9+ across a wide range of sites are actually good games, so asking for an example of such a game that scored 7 on Gamespot isn't that fair.

Theres always a more polite way, and a less polite way, to make any point, IMHO.

Doc, this used to be a forum where we were all friends, in a kinda intrawebbish way. Folks chat about games. Which was open to the kind of casual think alouds like Solver just made. Now its just insult after insult. And its not like ANY of us dont make mistakes from time to time (even those of us with the most industy tech knowledge), just some of us wont EVER admit to them, it seems.

Its really getting kinda sour in here.