Gamespots Mediocre Review

[Fiberawptic]

well, our favorite game site, gamespot (sarcasm), has released its left 4 dead review... And it seems to be a dissapointing review in my eyes... They gave it an 8.5. I've always looked at gamespot for reviews, knowing half the time they werent completely accurate, and it doesn't take a miracle to get over a 9.0 at that site seeing how practically every valve game has gotten it except Episode 1.

If you watch the review, what the guy says doesn't match up with the score at all... He just goes on and on and on about ways a zombie can kill you or how you can kill a zombie... he doesn't really review the game or bring up pros and cons... It actually sounds like he really enjoys it... The written review says the only cons are 'Not enough scenarios' and "the survivor bots aren't as fun as actual humans"... Which if thats the case, the game should have gotten AT LEAST a 9.0... And considering only poor souls that dont have internet should being using bots, and that valve will release more maps in updates, theres nothing truly wrong with the game....

Watch the review here, http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/action/left4dead/video/6201412/left-4-dead-video-review

what do you guys think of this mediocre review?

 

[DEATHMASTER]

meh, guy isn't a review pro to say the least.

 

[Kyorisu]

I won't believe a reviewer unless they present a well thought argument as to why they think they way they do about product x. Also does anyone else find console play throughs funny as hell?

"How does I aim?"

 

[Acepilotf14]

Gamespot sucks anyway.

 

[Duracell]

If you look at their written review, it says this, which is even better,

Bad Points:
Campaign is less fun when played alone
Only four campaigns

The reviewer actually gives a counter-argument for the second point in the review and says it has so much re-playability it isn't a problem, ok, so that narrows it down to..

Bad Points:
Campaign is less fun when played alone

Apparently, playing a co-op game in single player mode and having *less* fun, not no fun, less fun (than a self proclaimed extremely fun game) is enough to make the review to lose a whole 1.5 points, ok then.

 

[Emporius]

Well, I guess the only way to solve this is to sit around and circle jerk about how perfect L4D is

 

[Duracell]

Well, I guess the only way to solve this is to sit around and circle jerk about how perfect L4D is

You start

 

[Cornerstone]

Since when is 8.5 mediocre??? Oh yea since games started being judged on a scale of 8/10 to 10/10.

 

[Kyorisu]

Since when is 8.5 mediocre??? Oh yea since games started being judged on a scale of 8/10 to 10/10.

I love it when people answer their own questions. The whole review business is so broken it's just sad.

 

[Asuka]

"what the guy says doesn't match up with the score at all"

Every gamespot review. They are a joke.

 

[undertone]

You shouldn't really consider reviews, and even if you do never take into account the /10 score.

The 10 should represent the perfect game, which does not exist.

Yet games still are scored at a 10.

 

[jondy]

The review for PC and Xbox is the same - the PC review refers to split-screen.

 

[WacK]

Well, I guess the only way to solve this is to sit around and circle jerk about how perfect L4D is

Your avatar wins an internet!

OT: Review scores are more guidelines. Seriously read the written review if you want real insight as to wether or not this game is something for you.

 

[Duracell]

Your avatar wins an internet!

OT: Review scores are more guidelines. Seriously read the written review if you want real insight as to wether or not this game is something for you.

Oh god no, I've not read a single review in the last ten years that has given me an accurate portrayal of a game, they either review from a couple of hours play test, a demo or if you're a really super cool website/print magazine, you review from not playing the game and just reading articles about it.

Considering the current trend of getting reviews out weeks before the game has even shipped in an attempt to compete with websites and print magazines who get exclusive review copies just because they're sleeping with the publisher so they can review it really early, it's started to force people into doing half arsed, completely disconnected reviews that are laden with factual errors.

I'm not even going to get into the way hardly anyone reviews a game and gives it under 70% any more, Looking on meta critic now I see L4D has got three 10/10 (100%), It's a good game and I like it, but to call it THE BEST GAME EVER MADE (Which is what they are saying, it's completely flawless, nothing is wrong with it, 100%. PERFECT.) is quite frankly laughable.

The day I trust an online/print review is the day I die.

 

[Lobster]

I find it a little sad that a game specificly designed for cooperative play should lose score because of a lackluster singleplayer, I guess valve could have downplayed the SP component a little more, but it really shouldnt matter, I mean, you dont find SP specific titles like RPGs getting low scores because of a lack of multiplayer.

L4D is aimed a specific audience, people who play games for coop are gonna love it and think its the greatest gift anyones ever given them, but if people see the Valve name and think, "OMG I love their singleplayer games", then yeh they will feel let down, I guess it depends who you are. Personaly I love coop games, and I really appreciate what L4D does that other games dont bother with, so for ME personaly, it would be my GOTY, but tbh, I wouldnt call it one of valve Flagship titles anyway, so a less than perfect score is hardly gonna end the world.

 

[Eejit]

I think the score probably says more about the reviewers than the game.

 

[Zephos]

Since when is 8.5 mediocre??? Oh yea since games started being judged on a scale of 8/10 to 10/10.

Yeah basically.

Games journalism sucks dick.

Game critiquing, specifically.

 

[DEATHMASTER]

Gamespot gives out 7 and 6s left and right all the time.

 

[Fiberawptic]

Still, the fact that the only real main reason it was marked down was the 'single player isnt as good' and yet, its hardly a single player, its just the coop side with bots instead of humans. Ill bet valve added the bots 3/4 into production and said "ya know, this game is coop based, but for the poor souls who dont have any internet or friends to play with, we'll add bots so at least they can play it some way".

I would completely understand if Left 4 dead became this hugely anticipated title (which it did) and then when it finally came out, it sucked balls and was the opposite of what everyone hoped for. Thats simply not the case, and its not like valve promised us something awesome in the game and turned out it wasnt anything amazing, then id see a reason to subtract 15% or more off the score...

Shit, look at COD4 which got a 9.5 on gamespot. And yet, lets face it, the single player was nice and all, but generally very dry and generic, the multiplayer is what got it very far... And yet, Left 4 Dead dead loses 15% just because playing with AI isnt as fun as with a friend.... WELL NO SHIT!

 

[Duracell]

Gamespot gives out 7 and 6s left and right all the time.

Go them?

A 7 used to be pretty good and a six I'd still look at, but these days, a six means the game is shite and a 7 means you should only get it if you're really bored and trapped down a well.

 

[ShadowJustice]

well most professional reviewers suck. I don't care about their ratings, left 4 dead rocks and is quite an impressive accomplishment.

 

[xombine]

http://www.gamespot.com/users/MrCHU...=convert&om_clk=soapbox&tag=soapbox;subject;2