• Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/

Gamespot-Review

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
#21
Ugh, this is why I hate any system that rates games out of 100 (or 10 with a decimal, like Gamespot); people get so worked up over the completely insignificant matter of a few single points (or tenths of points). What really differentiates, say, an 85 game from an 86 game? Who knows? Who cares?

Personally, I'd honestly and truly enjoy seeing any and all ranking systems done away with, and the reviews standing on their own without meaningless quantification, but that'll never happen. Of the rating systems I've run across, I rather like Gamespy's five-star breakdown, even if I don't always like their reviews. One is flat-out bad. Two is kind of ehhhh. Three is average. Four is good. Five is awesome. That's really all the ratings you need.
 
Upvote 0
#23
Let me try and sume up some of this because I think you are still missing the point here...

The MAJORITY of the stuff out there is repeated crap covered up with new eye candy or spiffy sounds.

Some innovative games DO get noticed, but for the most part games that introduce something new get pushed under because many folks don't really want something new....they don't like to adapt to it.
Take a game like DoD. Once it was revamped to DoD:S and pushed out to the masses some of the innovation was stripped away to appeal to the average gamer, NOT the folks that had supported it for years. The game itself was dumbed down.

I said RedO did not get any bad reviews, BUT there are some realy crappy games that got better ones....Games that are the same old stuff just rehashed back to us.

Manual bolting is en example of something that is pretty slick and innovative that is not liked by many. It's part of the immersion that helps the game be what it is...when you start pulling out little things like that you inch it closer and closer to the other stuff out there.


So the old excuse; "Ro is innovative so all the people that don
Click to expand...
 
Upvote 0
#25
first off, don't get all worked up over a stupid review

the guy at gamespot is entitled to his opinion and if u disagree with that that's fine but don't expect everyone to share ur opinion of a certain game

second off, ignore the scores and read the review


read the features the reviewer talks about and perhaps he doens't like certain features so he gives hte game a lower score - for instance, games like far cry have no manual save system - they use checkpoints

or brothers in arms has no save during missions

ppl may like or dislike these features causing a game to get a higher or lower score

so perhaps u read an article and the guy rates the game as a 1 but u love all the features the game has - if u were to go buy it u'd probably consider it an 8.5 etc

i personally think gamespot has good reviews because they discuss the features thoroughly and u can make an educated guess whether to buy it or not

but more importantly than reviews are gameplay vids and demos
 
Upvote 0
#31
I acutally think the following review was more accurate and I've book marked this site for future reference.
Honest Gamers
Perhaps I'm biased as I've yet to play the game for more than an hour due to technical issues but the comment of
If first impressions are everything, Red Orchestra just wiped its nose and shook my hand.
Click to expand...
certainly rings true for me. :(
 
Upvote 0
#35
Amerikaner said:
Thank you. I still cant wrap my head around how these people are professional game reviewers. Really, its a joke. Its like these people spend 2 hours playing and then bust something out.
Click to expand...


That's what they do, they don't got enough time, and too many games, I'm waiting for the review from PC Gamer sweden :D:D
 
Upvote 0
#36
BoltActionJackson said:
Anyway, in the end they give DOD:S a "great" 8.1 while RO gets a "good" 7.9. I really hate seeing all the flame wars about DOD:S versus RO and that is not what I'm getting at. I love DOD and haven't stopped playing it all together. Still, as a fan of both games, it doesn't seem that RO got a completely fair shake from GS. To give them the same value score when one has 13 maps versus the others 4? Also for DOD to get a 9 for sound while RO gets an 8? Does anyone else who enjoys both games find this a little off? Then you add to the fact that RO takes a hit from Steam where as DOD doesn't. WTF? In the end I think most would agree RO is an 8 or above. Even reading the authors review would lead one to think he agrees. For me the sound and value scores seem purposely deflated. Just my honest opinion.
Click to expand...

I agree with you, and trust me...I'm not biased...I played CS, CS:S, DoD, and DoD:S for years now (collectively). I got DoD:S and was bored with it in a bout 2 weeks. Ya ok, they release a new map every once and awhile and that makes me play it for mabey 15 minutes and than I'm bored of it again. It takes little skill it seems. You run, shoot a couple enemies, and die...then start the process over again (or camp in a cap zone which is boring as well). I picked up RO and luved it. Aiming actually takes SKILL...wowzers. First game in awhile that it actually took me time to learn how to kill people. RO doesn't get the justice it deserves really, but luckily some of us that give it a chance see that it is one of the best games out right now and not just another carbon copy of CS or another generic WW2 game.

But I honestly don't listen to GS that much anymore. They give every GTA game the highest scores ever. That game was fun at first but really...its nothing too impressive imo. You get an objective...and go do it, its been in other games before... Then they seem to compare a lot of current games with it as if it is the top standard :/
 
Upvote 0
#37
i thought the word content of the review was very good considering what i expected it to be. It seems that lots of the reviewers seem to convey a very noob opinion though- like their at the stage where they have yet to really get into the game. the score was dog but its the reader score that matters and thats nicely above 8.
 
Upvote 0
#39
Adidas02 said:
The whole state of Video Games now days is laughable in terms of what passes as "good". Flashy graphics, good sound, and twitch mechanics sucker in the mindless masses and games that follow an original path get damn near the silent treatment from reviewers. Look at COD, and DoD:S and BF2 for example. The wonderous reviews flew around for those and they are about as mindless as you can get....Weapons that can't hit a damn thing, bunnyhopping galore, spead up movement, and overall nerfed play allow for a newbie player who won't stay into the game for longer than 2 months to compete against hardened veterans...and for what exactly? A few extra sales. Screw over all quality for mass quantity and you have a game that will be forgotten in a year if not a few months.
Put out a game that has solid to excellent graphics and damn good sound, but give it some originality like manual bolts, weapons that work, and realism and it overloads brain capacity for some of these reviewers. You get something that rewards you for time and learned skill and a huge portion of the population ingores it because they can immediatly pwn 20 players in a row or rack up a 10 to 1 KD ratio. Personally I have given up on most of the reviewers out there...especially the ones writing for the really big publications....I'm overly impressed that RedO is getting a portion of the recognition it deserves, but it still does in fact deserve more.
Click to expand...
You just summed up EXACTLY how I feel too. I stopped giving a f..k about big mag reviews/sites years ago. Big game co is there to "make the game" Big game mag is there to "review" *wink* (read-promote) the game. Conflict of interest to the extreme. However at least gamespot reviewed it favorably despite TW not having MEGA clout status of the big boys, that's something.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#40
BobCobb said:
Anyone that knows the gaming industry knows most reviews are absoulute garbage nowadays. The reviewer has to represent the majority of gamers, and uh... gamers are a little different today from the gamers of yesteryear.

Years ago it was a niche community, so games like RO and innovative designs always held firm amongst the gaming community. Today, everyone is gaming and most of these people aren't as into the games as we were, they want mindless entertainment. BF2, DOD, CS, and all the other twitchy shooters provide that for them. I like BF2 as well, but it did not deserve the reviews it recieved.

True innovation is dead, because the devs have to pander to the mindless masses. Games like RO will still exist though, because there will always be a niche community of hardcore folks. Theres nothing wrong with that, the only problem is reviews have basically become crap, and scores mean nothing.
Click to expand...
Pretty much sums it up. There seems to be a reversal of goals from the past. I remember playing console, arcade(coin) and then later PC games and most if not all of them were hard as f..k!! (excuse my expression). Nowadays most "mainstream" PC games (don't play console or arcade anymore) drop the extreme challenge and instead give you "somethin purty" to stare at while you effortlessly rack up the body count and call it a game.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Community News
Forums
Merch
Menu