Gamespot's review - another opinion

S

samfox

Guest
Ok I'm rereading Gamespot's review and for the god of me dont understand why it only managed 9.2 when almost every other site, over 30 sites - check gamerankings - gave its 9.5 and up. In fact the only other site is Christian Gaming which gave it a 9.2. You just dont average 96.9% over 30 reviews that easily!!!

Methinks GS are kicking themselves to rely on "one" reviewer - Jason Ocampo (spelling?) - to reflect "their collective" opinion - which is fine in other games but this is no ordinary game - afterall they are supposedly THE site; and of course it would seem silly now if their "best" reviewer Greg Zeipeg (again spelling?) came out to do "Greg's Opinion" which no doubt has to give it a higher score and ultimately undermine the initial review. This is why there is no "other" opinion on GS.

There is no point to this topic other than I, and probably many others, think its one of the best gaming experiences for a long long time.
 
samfox said:
There is no point to this topic other than I, and probably many others, think its one of the best gaming experiences for a long long time.
Click to expand...

Gamespot also thought that. They just thought the story and AI were dissapointing. Is it really that hard to understand? 9.2 is still a superb score, meaning the best of the best. Editor's choice, a good review, "a worthwhile sequel to one of the greatest games of all time"...this means good review, good game. I honestly don't see the problem. Would you be happier if they rewarded it .2 more? Each site uses a different reviews policy, and Gamespot just happen to be a tiny bit harsher sometimes when it comes to awarding a score. They still said it was a brilliant fps, and one of the best.
 
y, just an opinion. The point is quite simple. Gamespot were and still is a great site for games review. Its content is up-to-date and the free streaming videos are a blast. That's why I and many readers visit frequently; and I am betting that their pageviews are stella. This affects advertising as content is "king", good content = good pageviews = good advertising. Now, to not necessarily go with the vast majority of professional opinion (namely IGN, Gamespy and the 30 other sites as mentioned) in reviewing one of the most hyped and anticiapted games HL2; will undermine its "position" as top dog - THE site by which games are reviewed, like PC Gamer in print. For me it has lost some of its prestige, its shine. That is what advertisers pay for....imo
 
When you let other people make your opinions and decisions for you, of course there are going to be times when you disagree with them.

Personally, I don't trust any game reviewer further than I can throw them. Apparently Halo 2 is the best game ever. Fancy that.
 
samfox said:
y, just an opinion. The point is quite simple. Gamespot were and still is a great site for games review. Its content is up-to-date and the free streaming videos are a blast. That's why I and many readers visit frequently; and I am betting that their pageviews are stella. This affects advertising as content is "king", good content = good pageviews = good advertising. Now, to not necessarily go with the vast majority of professional opinion (namely IGN, Gamespy and the 30 other sites as mentioned) in reviewing one of the most hyped and anticiapted games HL2; will undermine its "position" as top dog - THE site by which games are reviewed, like PC Gamer in print. For me it has lost some of its prestige, its shine. That is what advertisers pay for....imo
Click to expand...

Surely, they're 'top dog" because their reviews are honest? if they stop being honest and go with the crowd, by giving HL2 a higher score, wouldn't that damage their credibility moreso than simply writing what they think? Besides, a 9.2 score is a fantastic score to everyone except people who think that anything below 10 is a bad review, i.e. arrogant fanboys who can't see past their own fanaticism. So in a sense, they DID agree with the crowd and thought it was a fantastic game.They just scored it ever so slightly lower than everyone else. What's the difference between 9.2 and 10? .8. That will hardly damage their pageviews, never mind their credibility.
 
kage - I am not saying it a bad score.

9.2 is a great score compared to 0.
However 9.2 is a bad score compared to 10.
But my point is that 9.2 is not an "accurate" score when 90 professional reviewing websites give it an average of 96.9%. In fact 9.2 is the lowest mark. Is it a bad review? No. Should one of the main reviewing websites (Gamespot) give it a more accurate score, most probably, but instead it gave it its lowest score. How do you base how good a publication or website is? by how accurate its opinions are and certainly not be giving "honest" opinions, which we all have.

What's a fanny? A fanboy of a fanboy.
 
The reviewer is obviously a tool, a quick look at recent games he has reviewed reveals
Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines - 77%
Average 86%
Half-Life 2 - 92%
Average 96.8%

He clearly doesn't know how to score properly.
 
gamespot are idiots to me now,after their doom3 i started to like them again even though i thought 8.6 was still too high,yet with their latest mgs3 review they gave it 8.7,mgs3 is clearly a better game than doom ffs,tthey said the graphics r the best on ps2 and couldnt find any faults yet gave it 9 and OMFG 8 for gameplay,DOOM ****IN GOT 8!!for gp and we know how repetitve that was
 
samfox said:
kage - I am not saying it a bad score.

9.2 is a great score compared to 0.
However 9.2 is a bad score compared to 10.
But my point is that 9.2 is not an "accurate" score when 90 professional reviewing websites give it an average of 96.9%. In fact 9.2 is the lowest mark. Is it a bad review? No. Should one of the main reviewing websites (Gamespot) give it a more accurate score, most probably, but instead it gave it its lowest score. How do you base how good a publication or website is? by how accurate its opinions are and certainly not be giving "honest" opinions, which we all have.

What's a fanny? A fanboy of a fanboy.
Click to expand...

The score is just meant to reflect the reveiwer's individual, honest opinion of the game, not the general consensus. You're missing the point of a review entirely. Not EVERYONE will like HL2 the same amount, or for the same reasons. Some people can look over imperfections, some can't. And as I've said before, different reviewing bodies use different review policies. Just because Gamespot's score is a tiny bit lower than everyone elses, doesn't mean that suddenly it's inaccurate and Gamespot are wrong. There are two reasons why the final score differs from everyone else:

1. Opinions differ from person to person; people like different things for different reasons, not everyone will like the same things.

2. Review policies differ from review body to review body. Gamespot's review policy ended up with HL2 getting a score that is only a tiny bit lower than everyone else.

This is no basis to accuse Gamespot of being "inaccurate"; the reviewer gave an opinion and, funnily enough it was an opinion that quite a few of the reviewers shared (i.e. that HL2 is a bloody brilliant game, with one or two noticeable flaws that don't really detract from the game experience). It is just the review policies that are different, and that was what resulted in a slightly lower score.
 
My problem with GS are thus:

1) The review games and dock for things they wanted/were cut. They need to look at the game for what it is and how it compares to other games available.

2) They seem to review the game less and tend to spend more time trying to spread "anti-hype".

Good example: Go watch the MP2 (9.1), HL2 (9.2), and Halo 2 (9.4) reviews.

The basically say NOTHING bad about MP2, the entire tons of HL2 is whiny and they really do NOT emphasize the great stuff in HL2, and the Halo 2 review does emphasize how "cool" things are they drone on and on about a couple little things (and I think they complain about the wrong things at that).

I see a real imbalance in their reviews. I seem them trying to get more attention by contradicting others and trying to show "This is why we are right for being different" instead of lettings gamers know more about the game. It is like they are being a review critic instead of a game critic.

GS is welcome to their own opinion, BUT I do not trust their reviews as a good reference for the totality of the game. Informative? Yes, they will usually tell you if something is wrong. But they seem to have totally different tastes (I am not sure they are big FPS fans for example), they really do show a Console bias. They also tend to give higher scores to revolutionary games instead of evolutionary. I tend to like games that are VERY refined, not gimmiky games. These are generalities and each of their reviewers are different, but overall I find GS critiqueing hype and not the game.

I can judge the hype for myself, thank you.
 
Why does it make such a big difference?

Gamespot's only complaints were the A.I., which was simplisitic earlier on in the game (horrible metrocops) but improved later on and a story that isn't bad, but only raises a hell lot of question and is confusing.

In any case, they do acknowledge it as a superb shooter (giving it a 9.2) but stating that it does not outdo it's predecessor (which is also what I and many others belief).
 
I must say, GS's review of HL² was the only one I found fairly accurate, and I agree with it completely.
 
KagePrototype said:
Gamespot also thought that. They just thought the story and AI were dissapointing. Is it really that hard to understand? 9.2 is still a superb score, meaning the best of the best. Editor's choice, a good review, "a worthwhile sequel to one of the greatest games of all time"...this means good review, good game. I honestly don't see the problem. Would you be happier if they rewarded it .2 more? Each site uses a different reviews policy, and Gamespot just happen to be a tiny bit harsher sometimes when it comes to awarding a score. They still said it was a brilliant fps, and one of the best.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't object to this score as it is, as you said, very good. The thing that bugs me is not only that Far Cry got the same score, but that it was from the exact same reviewer! I know this is an opinion and that most people think that no opinion can be wrong, but you have to start suspecting something when presented with these facts. Far Cry was simply an okay game, but no where near the level of Half-Life 2. HL2 has better graphics, sound, gameplay, length, acting, story, and multiplayer, the superiority of which I can demonstrate for each aspect if you wish. Normally I wouldn't compare scores, but seeing as these were from the same reviewer of games in the same genre I can't help it. Maybe Far Cry didn't deserve as high a score, but because he gave that score it was his responsibility as a reviewer to gauge the relative quality of this game, and he obviously didn't.
 
the story isnt bad, its just that its not presented in your face, a reviewer trying to finish the game in about 10 hrs wont get anything. read laidlaws mail in the info from valve thread.
also in their efforts to not geta half-life fan to review the game, they seem to have got someone who's never played hl. he seems to be making a big effort to be 'different'.
 
lans said:
Why does it make such a big difference?

Gamespot's only complaints were the A.I., which was simplisitic earlier on in the game (horrible metrocops) but improved later on and a story that isn't bad, but only raises a hell lot of question and is confusing.

In any case, they do acknowledge it as a superb shooter (giving it a 9.2) but stating that it does not outdo it's predecessor (which is also what I and many others belief).
Click to expand...

Yeah the metrocops were dumb weren't they. And whilst i don't totally agree with their review, it is more accurate then some of the others out there giving it 10/10 and what not.

And about the story, what egon said pretty much sums it up. I'm finding that the more i play through the game again the more i learn about the story, which keeps me coming back. I'd prefer if it was also more straight-forward though, like other games, as well as having these little hidden bits of info throughout the game, such as
when your in Nova Prospekt and Dr Breen comes on and starts belating the overwatch soldiers for failing to capture freeman, and you learn that the overwatch soldiers are the only reason humanity hasn't been wiped out
or when
you run into Dr Breen at the end of the game talking to the Combine Advisor and he's saying something about how a host body cannot survive in the harsh conditions of the world he's going to teleport to

The game really does raises more questions then it gives answers, but its the middle chapter of a story, its supposed to, you can't tie up all loose ends before the story is finished. Personally i thought the story was/is fantastic, i'd like to know more about things like the "7 hour Portal War" and why everyone from Black Mesa is in City-17. Thats pretty much my only complaint about the story.

And i agree with what some of the reviewers have said about the A.I. At times it can be fantastic, but it can also be pretty dumb. And i didn't feel that there were enough big fire-fights. It was usually just you on to 2-8 other combine soldiers, were in games like Halo 2 or CoD it was always you onto 8 or more bad guys/aliens.

I really wanna make a mod called Half-Life 2 Plus were i can go back through certain levels and add more combine to this firefight, and more cover to this area, and maybe a machine-gunner here and there, another Strider here. Just to make the game more intense and harder. And maybe even chuck in a few levels from the beta that were cut out of the final game.

I really really wanna do that.

Anyway, back on topic. yeah Gamespot reviews can either be too generous or too harsh.
 
I dont mind them giving hl2 9.2 and saying the story was a bit weak (which it wasn't) but danm, for it to give halo 2 a 9.4 and them saying it has alot of flaws but to still give it a 9.4 pisses me off.
 
Like all reviews, really.

I don't doubt that 9.2 is a fair score, slightly odd textual techniques aside (seemed to linger a bit too much on the negatives, then suddenly profer an impressive score- it's as if Ocampo cut his work in half due to space constraints).

Besides, it's just one guys opinion- and he didn't review Halo 2 himself. For all we know, the Halo 2 reviewer might have given Half-Life 2 99%, or Ocampo might've given Halo 2 90%. GS isn't a hive-mind, they're a syndicate made out of individuals with highly differing opinions- although, of course, you could argue that they should try and stick to the same standards throughout...
 
u can't really compare scores in in the same 9.X range. anything after the decimal point doesn't make a big difference. u can't really say that a game scored 9.8 is better than a 9.2. the reviewers have to score a game based on the website's system. for example, both games might score 10 in gameplay, but one may be far better than the other in gameplay.... the other one is just good enough to be called "perfect" but the other has exceeded gamers's expcetations. So a 9.2 game CAN be better than a 9.8. cause it can get all perfect scores except an 8 in sound, but everything else is better than the 9.9 game.
 
The thing that really ticks me off lately are Gamespot's poor reviews. Look at Halo 2, it got a 94%. Half-life 2 gets a measly 92%. Wow, there's definitely something wrong there, don't you think? Halo 2, the most OVER-RATED, mediocre game of all time gets a 94%, mostly due to its over-hyped PR period. It has a junk story line, crappy animations, shotty physics, and repetitive/bland gameplay.

That's when I switched over to IGN, which gave Halo a much more suitable score in the 80s, and a well deserved, un-hyped score of 97% to Half-life 2.
 
Would it make you feel better if you saw that the avg. reader review gave the game a 9.4 and Halo 2 a 9.0 (lower than the score GS gave it). Happy?
 
The point that I'm trying to make is that GS should fire some reviewers, or stop following the mainstream crowd.
 
Urgh, you shouldn't have pointed that out- now people will feel exactly the same, with the added bonus that their views feel more justified :p
 
samfox said:
Ok I'm rereading Gamespot's review and for the god of me dont understand why it only managed 9.2 when almost every other site, over 30 sites - check gamerankings - gave its 9.5 and up. In fact the only other site is Christian Gaming which gave it a 9.2. You just dont average 96.9% over 30 reviews that easily!!!

Methinks GS are kicking themselves to rely on "one" reviewer - Jason Ocampo (spelling?) - to reflect "their collective" opinion - which is fine in other games but this is no ordinary game - afterall they are supposedly THE site; and of course it would seem silly now if their "best" reviewer Greg Zeipeg (again spelling?) came out to do "Greg's Opinion" which no doubt has to give it a higher score and ultimately undermine the initial review. This is why there is no "other" opinion on GS.

There is no point to this topic other than I, and probably many others, think its one of the best gaming experiences for a long long time.
Click to expand...


I agree the guy who reviewed hl2 was clearly out of it. I mean he didnt know what he was talking about. They need more people to review the big games.
 
grimey, if you give hl2 8 out of 10, then what other games would you give which is above this score?
 
Personally, I had more fun with Call of Duty, and the United Offensive expansion was fantastic. 9.5/10

I know these arent FPS 's, but Splinter Cell: Pandora Tomorrow was also fantastic, and its MP couldn't be more addictive. 9.5/10

Just finished NFSU2. 9/10

HalfLife 2 is great, but it's not a game I feel like playing again. It has no MP, and i'm not interested in CS:S.
 
which is the best online modern day fps? I am thinkin of getting Joint Operations - this game got a fair 8.4 ish across the board on gamerankings but it was also reviewed by Jason Campo so I am not sure what to think.

Sure the mods will come for HL2 - just a matter of time.
 
On reflection,in hindsight etc...gamespot were on the money.In a way i respect them for being in the very small minority of reviewers that actually looked beyond the hype and actually noticed that hl2 has a few flaws.Not enough to be major,as 9.2 is a damn fine score,but i think anything over 9.5 would be ott,i feel that this game has busted open the standard of gaming and future games will try and top it each time.Maybe we will see some 10 scoring games made with this great engine.
 
The GS review is just silly. If you solely read the text of the review, you'd expect a 7-8 score to be given because of the negativity. The problem with lots of game critics is that they're very possibly the most pretentious people on the face of the planet. Sometimes you can just tell when a critic had got himself in the "it's ok, but nothing special" mindset that they love to have before even playing a game and writing the review for it. They think that by refusing to be seriously impressed by anything that they're automatically on some intellectual plateau that gives their opinion far more credibility than all of those lesser beings that "give into the hype".
 
You should not rely on any single reveiw. The problem with some reveiws is that they show a bias. Some are even corrupt. It has been known that some game companies have stopped suppling early copies of BIG games for the Exclusive reviews (the ones that sell magazines/webspace etc) when the score is not favourable. I have a copy of ROME TW. I's a good game but it is not worth 95% (1% lower the HL2 in same PCGamer (UK) mag). The game is good but so full of flaws, inaccuracies and tactical mistakes it should have been marked down. The fact that it was clearly reveiwed by a fan of the genre, who knew nothing about history or military tactics was secondary to the fact that PCGamer were always going to give it a good reveiw for financial reasons. Also some people just go with the flow and mark accordingly. I think it is good that we see different veiw points. HL2 is wonderful but FAR from perfect. I personally think some levels (Ravensholm) totally detract from the game and in effect spoil it.
I would have given HL2 9/10, but I would also give all those other games less. Halo2 is NOT that great.
 
silvercue said:
You should not rely on any single reveiw. The problem with some reveiws is that they show a bias. Some are even corrupt. It has been known that some game companies have stopped suppling early copies of BIG games for the Exclusive reviews (the ones that sell magazines/webspace etc) when the score is not favourable. I have a copy of ROME TW. I's a good game but it is not worth 95% (1% lower the HL2 in same PCGamer (UK) mag). The game is good but so full of flaws, inaccuracies and tactical mistakes it should have been marked down. The fact that it was clearly reveiwed by a fan of the genre, who knew nothing about history or military tactics was secondary to the fact that PCGamer were always going to give it a good reveiw for financial reasons. Also some people just go with the flow and mark accordingly. I think it is good that we see different veiw points. HL2 is wonderful but FAR from perfect. I personally think some levels (Ravensholm) totally detract from the game and in effect spoil it.
I would have given HL2 9/10, but I would also give all those other games less. Halo2 is NOT that great.
Click to expand...

In the end, a review is only an opinion. And nobody can really be wrong about their opinion
 
Hitler's opinion was that Jewish people weren't his favourite guys in the world.
To me, that's a bit of a WRONG opinion......

Anyway, I like a review that focuses on the problems with the game. Let's face it, the context to any Half Life 2 review is that the person reading it has either:
A) A pre-order for the game
B) the intention to buy it anyway.

Also, a lot of the best bits are really spoiler material. It makes sense to review huge games with a compensation for hype.
 
samfox said:
Methinks GS are kicking themselves to rely on "one" reviewer - Jason Ocampo (spelling?) - to reflect "their collective" opinion - which is fine in other games but this is no ordinary game
Click to expand...

I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but Half-Life 2 is just another game, just like any other.
 
NO Spartan. Half-Life 2 is going to solve world hunger, global warming, and also find time to bake cookies; for the homeless.

Halo 2 isn't better than HL2, that's all I'll say.
 
Funny thing is... if you read GS's review without knowing the score and had to guess it at the end you would think it would be a whole lot lower than 9.2.
 
We don't read reviews to find out whether or not they liked the game. We read them to find out whether or not they think WE will like them. I think Jason Ocampo needs to get off his high horse and back in the short bus. Look at his reviews, they are consistently lower than other critics and user reviews. He is not doing his job. His job is to try and represent Mr. John Q. Public as a whole. The guy comes across like some snobby wine taster.
 
We don't read reviews to find out whether or not they liked the game. We read them to find out whether or not they think WE will like them. I think Jason Ocampo needs to get off his high horse and back in the short bus. Look at his reviews, they are consistently lower than other critics and user reviews.
Click to expand...

correction, a review is only a person's own opinion. you cannot say hius opinion is wrong. the problem is he cannot justify his opinion for the much discussed reasons - the story doesnt suck and he gave far cry a 92%, etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

bbson john
Hi everyone. I am new to this forum!
Replies
11
Views
6K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
MFL
Fascinating look at the ongoing psychological evolution of flat hieirarchies.
Replies
2
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
EvolvedPie
Sins of a Solar Empire: Rebellion Review
Replies
0
Views
3K
EvolvedPie
EvolvedPie
Pi Mu Rho
Zombie Master Postmortem
Replies
7
Views
7K
Insano
Insano
Pi Mu Rho
Portal 2 Review
Replies
8
Views
3K
Glenn the Great
G
Back
Top