Gamespot's review if it ever comes

[vee4473]

I was just wondering how much credence you guys give to gamespot's reviews.

Dopey poll I guess, but since the game is at the waterfront, so to speak, and reviews seem to be a hot topic lately, I figured it was as good a time as any to ask this.

I personally always like reading their reviews, but I have maybe a 70/30 history of agreement/disagreement respectively.

I include the civ3 voting option because of tom's recent moo3 review and the reaction.

[Harry Seldon]

Gamespot's usually so far off base for me I only read their reviews to get an idea of what the game's about.

[sfsuphysics]

Re: Gamespot's review if it ever comes

Originally posted by vee4473
I was just wondering how much credence you guys give to gamespot's reviews.

Personally since gamespot thinks they are offering "premium" quality and started charging for anything more than a couple weeks old and smaller than a jpg.. I think that gamespot can suck my big fat... toe.

[Spectrex]

GS tends to be inconsistent and there are some oddball reviews up there. See CivIII by our friend Tom Chick - he gave the thing a 9.2/10, even though it didn't even ship with multiplayer support!

Anyway, if you're really going to base your purchasing decision off these reviews you need to look at ALL of them, not just from one site. The best thing might be to wait and see the reaction on these forums.

[rhofman]

Gamespot became useless for casual gamers since it started locking reviews. Of the sights I look at now gamespot doesn't even register.

[Kc7mxo]

premium quality. hah.

its about as premium as most MMORPGs. What gets me about those things is that they charge you per month, but you get didly squat. When an "expansion" pack finnally comes out, they just make you pay for that too.

AC2 si the first one I've played that actually had good updates, but that's because it didn't ship with hardly anything.

[Arnelos]

I'm a fan of the game, but does anyone honestly expect Gamespy to offer a fully balanced review of a game for which they're supporting the multiplayer format?

The review I'm waiting on is Gamers and Computer Gaming World... in my experience, those guys have absolutely no qualms about bashing games they don't like. It's too bad that Alan Emrich is no longer the editor of the strategy games section there like back in the good old days, though

[vee4473]

Originally posted by Arnelos
I'm a fan of the game, but does anyone honestly expect Gamespy to offer a fully balanced review of a game for which they're supporting the multiplayer format?

The review I'm waiting on is Gamers and Computer Gaming World... in my experience, those guys have absolutely no qualms about bashing games they don't like. It's too bad that Alan Emrich is no longer the editor of the strategy games section there like back in the good old days, though

no no, i meant gamespot, not gamespy.

I also am annoyed at the fairly recent switch to gamespot's premium membership or whatever it's called, but hey, everyone else makes money, why shouldn't they. (I don't subscribe, I just try to get to the info before it goes on their "subscribers only" list.)

[vee4473]

oh, and by the way, I don't know if this is still the case, but if you want a review for a game that is on gamespot's "subscribers only" list (an older review), then go to eb games' website and look at their reviews for a game.

Gamespot is usually a provider of a review for the game. Eb games lists the review as "courtesy of gamespot".

I wonder if they have caught on...

[JonahFalcon]

I'd have given Civ III a higher score than 9.2