Those Wii scores on gamespot are very disapointing...

chodax

chodax

CAGiversary!
Feedback
22 (100%)
Yea im so suprised zelda didnt even get a 9... when super monkey ball is the 2nd highest rated game so far, makes me think twice about buying my wii..
 
Just go read a bunch of reviews on GS of games you already like.
You will see what I mean. They are particularly negative toward
Nintendo, probably being Sony/MS fanboys.
 
[quote name='porieux']Just go read a bunch of reviews on GS of games you already like.
You will see what I mean. They are particularly negative toward
Nintendo, probably being Sony/MS fanboys.[/quote]Yeah I never thought how negative they were until the Red Steel review, they didn't even give it a chance... If I ever need gane advice CAG will guide me now...
 
This is funny, because if you watched their "We got a Wii" marathon, they seemed to have a helluvalotta fun with the thing... allbeit grudgingly.

I just remembered, after watching that, my cousin said to me, "Wow... I'll never trust Gamespot's reviews ever again..." :lol:
 
THe thing with game reviews is there is no accountablity nor is a single reviewer looked at. Your looking at Gamespot where they have a huge staff and it maybe someone who is a hardcore FPS nut and just hates the controls. I mean no offense, most FPS fans are graphic whores and just like to shoot their guns and blow shit up. Thats not exactly what Red Steel looks like, its a different game.

That is why some people are looking at blogs and other personalities like the guys from Penny Arcade for what they like because they are honest but you get to know what games they like.
 
You know, gamespot is the toughest review company out there and i like them for it. Just because Wii games score low it doesn't mean they are bad. Remember they are scoring based on the overall standard, not just the Wii standard. Most of these Wii games are somewhat stripped down because of the controller and such, so the games are more mass marketable. This will hurt the score because the games will lack the depth. Doesn't mean the games won't be fun, just means the reviews won't be as good.
 
Rampage got a "5.5" too... Unless Red Steel is horrible, I don't see how both these games are on the same scale. I think also the point system is way overrated. 5.5 should be a mediocre game... alot of games in the same bracket get a 7. Alot of games don't even get a look at if they don't score at least a 8.
 
[quote name='thingsfallnapart']You know, gamespot is the toughest review company out there and i like them for it. Just because Wii games score low it doesn't mean they are bad. Remember they are scoring based on the overall standard, not just the Wii standard. Most of these Wii games are somewhat stripped down because of the controller and such, so the games are more mass marketable. This will hurt the score because the games will lack the depth. Doesn't mean the games won't be fun, just means the reviews won't be as good.[/QUOTE]


I don't think they are 'tough' I think they are biased and unprofessional.
 
Even though I don't always agree with their scores, I've always respected them. They're a whole hell lot more reliable than IGN's. And other than a the 10/10 for Zelda, most other Wii games scored far lower at 1up than at Gamespot.

Edit: Just read the GS Zelda review. It seems to me that he really liked the game. Where he probably docked it some points were the controls and that the game didn't evolve as much as he had hoped. Other than that the review is fairly positive.
 
i think the real problem is historically inflated scores. To me, a 9-10 should be pretty damn near perfect, a 7-8 would be pretty good, a 1-3 would be crap maybe worth a rental, and 4-6 would be mediocre/average, but offering something enjoyable. If virtually every game gets a 8-10, except for the few piles of crap on a disk, the scale needs revising. Like they say, everyone's above average in Lake Wobegon.
 
The Zelda review up on Gamespot harps on 2 things, Wii controls and graphics/sound.
IGN loved the controls and I feel that when IGN and Gamespot differ in opinion that they tend to cancel each other out. Chris Kohler over at Wired.com said that the Wii controls are the best, most comfortable he has ever played so I'd say that shifts things to a + on controls.
As for the graphics and sound being dated? Well, of course it's not even close to Xbox360 or PS3, and I understand that coming into it.

The numbers are often useless in these reviews. It's most important to read what they liked/didn't like and see how those things affect you.
 
All of the reviewers are still expecting there to be ps3 graphics coming out of the wii. They can't process that nintendo is going for fun instead of how many polys it can handle.
 
[quote name='Scrubsy']All of the reviewers are still expecting there to be ps3 graphics coming out of the wii. They can't process that nintendo is going for fun instead of how many polys it can handle.[/quote]
I don't think anybody has that expectation and there was nothing in the review that would indicate otherwise.
 
[quote name='javeryh']gamespot is trying so hard to be the pitchfork of gaming.[/QUOTE]

QFT

Seriously, their reviews tend to be pretty awful.
 
You know what... I think they see themselves as the pinnacle in the game critic industry, and that's their problem. They approach games Ebert style or something, trying to justify themselves as true journalists, and for the most part look for the negative in the products they review (for the most part). That's why I still read EGM to this day... they have three people review a product, giving the reader a more diversified perspective on it. I also check Metacritic and Gamerankings alot. Some of this is Gamespot egotism, don't forget that.

One thing about the Zelda review that bugged me is that they were also reviewing the hardware itself (check comments on the controller and the speaker). To review the game well, you've got to set things like that aside. Plus, I think they get a little bit of gratification out of the flames that arise from the user boards after their reviews. They basically overestimate their role in the journalist community.
 
[quote name='Tromack']The Zelda review up on Gamespot harps on 2 things, Wii controls and graphics/sound.
IGN loved the controls and I feel that when IGN and Gamespot differ in opinion that they tend to cancel each other out. Chris Kohler over at Wired.com said that the Wii controls are the best, most comfortable he has ever played so I'd say that shifts things to a + on controls.
As for the graphics and sound being dated? Well, of course it's not even close to Xbox360 or PS3, and I understand that coming into it.

The numbers are often useless in these reviews. It's most important to read what they liked/didn't like and see how those things affect you.[/quote]I remember reading somewheer that Zelda doesn't even look great for a GC game. They had RE4 and Wind Waker in mind and didn't get them.
 
GAmers are such sheep. I mean many of 'em seem to need to be told a game is good before they can play it.

There's a ton of great games that get crappy scores for one half-baked reason or another. MarioKart:DD got a 7.9 from IGN. Mario Sunshine got an 8.0 from a site or two. Chibi-Robo didn't get any love from the IGNs, Gamespots, ec.

Ok maybe you agreed with them. Others tho thought those games were closer to a 10. IT's ok.

Obviously some of these major sites have a checklist that doesn't agree with Wii games.

Hi-Def graphics? IF not then dock heavily.

Blood and gore? If no then dock heavily.

5.1 DD sound? If not then dock heavily.

Online multiplayer? If not then dock heavily.

That's the checklist every Wii game is run through so you can instantly see every Wii game is graded on a lesser scale to begin with.

What sucks about reviews nowadays is that they rely too much on what 'features' aren't there instead of just telling you how fun the game is. They grade games like Consumer Reports would grade a the newest line of stereo receivers from Sony. No mention of fun anywhere. Fun = features in the mind of these guys. While this is sometimes true, most of the time it's not.

If I want a multiplayer game I'll buy one. Just because a single player game doesn't have it doesn't make it less fun.
 
Let me start off by saying I am a big fan of Nintendo (not to be confused with a "fanboy"), and I will be purchasing my Wii tonight. But honestly, when I see all the whining going on here, it makes me think that all you Zelda freaks just got your feelings hurt by this review. I never got into the Zelda games, but I fully respect the clout they have, and the expectations therein. I really don't think the Gamespot review was that harsh. I do, however, think it's obvious that this is a leftover game from the GC...hence the text only dialogue and synthesized soundtrack. I think Zelda fans should be upset about this. In that sense, it's not even truly a Wii Zelda game.

I think Mario Galaxy would have been the same way had it not been delayed (Nintendo promised there would never be another launch without Mario after the GC remember?) Galaxy was completely redeveloped, as TP should have been, but it really would have hurt Nintendo to not have BOTH of their most famous franchises for the launch.

Some people are complaining about Zelda not getting much better of a review than SMB. Well, I personally think SMB looks fantastic, and as the reviewer said, it's a perfect example of why the Wii will be fun. Anyone who's ever played a SMB game knows how intense and frustrating they can be, but to throw in a completely new motion sensing control scheme and make the game MORE intuitive and fun is amazing. These are the kind of games I"ll be buying for my Wii. Games that truly revolutionize the way we play games.
 
Gamespot is Nintendo hating shithole so it will get worse ratings.

A Nintendo site will give fanboy love to games, which is probably what you agree with, and will give it 9.0-10.0.
 
I might be in the minority on this but I tried multiple times to like Far Cry and its console iterations. I really didn't enjoy the game, especially as much as I should for a 9.0+ rated game at gamespot.

They gave THPS3 a perfect 10...uhh yeah, their reviews are very rollercoasty


also, They couldn't hit the backside of a barn!
 
gamespot is trying so hard to be the pitchfork of gaming.
Click to expand...
Hahah...that is a spot-on observation. Too bad that Pitchfork has some very knowledgeable folks who write some pretty great reviews, and Gamespot has a bunch of geeks who seem to enjoy "being a game journalist" and pimping their favorite genres more than gaming. The thing I like about Pitchfork is they cover all genres without judging and are willing to give everything a chance and are passionate about music. I sure as hell don't get that vibe from Gamespot.
 
[quote name='theinfamous']You think a website called nintendowiifanboy.com will be objected? :lol:[/quote]
Hey now! I write for PSP Fanboy, and all us WIN guys and gals very objective! :cry:
 
I agree with everyone else here. I don't know if it's egotism or what, but Gamespot sure seems to get off on scoring low for no apparent reason.
 
You have to take all these review scores with a grain of salt. I try to look for things pointed out in the review that might bother me enough not to want to buy the game, not so much the number score itself. i.e. the close quarter control in COD3 for Wii seems wonky based on multiple reviews I've read. That might bother me enough not to purchase the game, but I would still want to try it first before making a final judgement. Reviews are always subjective to a degree, and ultimately, you shouldn't need someone else to validate how much to like something. Your 10 maybe someone else's 7, your 6 might be someone else's 8.
 
If I closed the door on every site that gave a low score to a game I enjoyed (and 8.8 is hardly low), I'd never read another review. The fact is, Gamespot usually hits the mark as far as I'm concerned, just like IGN usually hits the mark, and Gamespy, and Eurogamer, and etc. Taken as a whole, all these sites paint a pretty clear picture of what to expect from a game, positive and negative.

The only site I seem to consistently disagree with is Game Revolution, but that doesn't mean their reviews don't have merit. They might point out flaws that others gloss over (or are willing to forgive) because certain things bother some gamers more than others.
 
[quote name='Allnatural']If I closed the door on every site that gave a low score to a game I enjoyed (and 8.8 is hardly low), I'd never read another review. The fact is, Gamespot usually hits the mark as far as I'm concerned, just like IGN usually hits the mark, and Gamespy, and Eurogamer, and etc. Taken as a whole, all these sites paint a pretty clear picture of what to expect from a game, positive and negative.

The only site I seem to consistently disagree with is Game Revolution, but that doesn't mean their reviews don't have merit. They might point out flaws that others gloss over (or are willing to forgive) because certain things bother some gamers more than others.[/QUOTE]

That's a very smart way of looking at it.
 
[quote name='evanft']QFT

Seriously, their reviews tend to be pretty awful.[/quote]

i agree...i very much dislike gamespots reviews...pretty awful...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top