Request for GS reviewers to make PROFESSIONAL reviews - repost
Listen up. When you lock threads like his/hers - which have been carefully worded not to arouse flaming and what not - why not allow replies?
He actually has a point. Some of the reviews - hardly a large percentage of them - are overly drawn down by the reviewers own personal preferences in gaming. When this happens the reviewer should pass on the game to a coullege and find another task to do instead.
Now, MxMs example was Zelda. I haven't read them, so I cannot comment.
My own examples would be the reviews for the Gothic games. Actually only Gothic 1 and Gothic 2.
While reading the reviews it became quite obvious to me that the reviewers were both quick to be annoyed with the controls. Later on in the games they were frustrated with the balancing. Both of these games require the player to pay plentyful attention to detail. And they are very time consuming. Normally it is not a problem to get deeply emotionally involved with them. The graphics isn't their strong poing anymore but the athmosphere and chatter, the plot and the tasks to do are from the top.
Both of them are - personally speaking - quite fantastic. I prefer'em over any other 3D game of the sort to this very date, including Gothic 3.
In a review written by somebody who'd rate the games just based on what they present to the player - and how - they would've clearly gotten better off. 9.0 anytime. Both games are superb, not just good. They're definitely greater than just great, too.
So yes, I write this in support for more professionalism. Simply meaning that reviews should be written by players who take the time needed to finish the games and explore what else they have to offer. The controls grow on you very quickly. If only they had kept playing.
Nobody is forcing you to read this. The only reason a thread like this would go the wrong way is because somebody like you insists on being impolite. Participate in the threads you actually find interesting.Chica01That goes both ways; if you don't like the way gamespot reviews their games, just read some other site's reviews. Nobody is forcing you to read Gamespot's reviews.
I'm a person - GameSpot is a service.
I have a personal interest in reading their reviewers reviews - you do not have any interest whatsoever in reading my post.
(In fact by now you're simply trolling. If this thread is going to be locked up soon it'll be soley because of you interfering here.)
I am paying the subscription to support the site - you're not paying me nor am I paying you anything. You go offtopic on this topic - while I'm trying to keep it ontopic.
If you are intent on coming back with another offtopic post, do not bother. I will not respond.
I used Zelda as a very clear example of reviewer bias. I have few other examples that are even more obvious for me (as a PC gamer), but more difficult for me to prove, because there are much less reviews of those games and much less people playing them. For example Glory of the Roman Empire has received only 5.6 with the average score of other websites around 7/10. Again, 5.6 is way off and GS never admits it or corrects it.
So here is my original post, named Request for GS reviewers to make PROFESSIONAL reviews:
_________________________________________________________
Professional review: unbiased and objective review. The reviewer has to
"detach" himself from the game and instead of understanding if the game
is good for him, he has to understand if the game is good for the
potential players. The personal bias should play very little role in
the review. (For example when a book reviewer reviews a book for 5 year
old children, he has to understand if it is good for the 5 year old
readers, and not for him himself!)
Unprofessional review or personal opinion: is just an opinion, which is personal,
biased, non-objective (subjective). The gamers review are typically of
this category.
What I am saying is that I expect GS reviewers to
be able to do professional reviews! GS is one of the most influential
gaming websites and incompetence should not be tolerated here.
Especially when so many people monetary support the site (me including).
In the past year, I have seen many reviews on PC side, especially in RTS
department (I am a PC gamer) done in extremely biased manner, giving
very low scores, just because the reviewer himself for whatever reason
did not like something in the game (say because he is a console fan).
This is just not a way to go!
But the last and the most clear example of biased and non-professional review is the Zelda review. Now,
I am a PC gamer, and I do not care for Zelda, but with so many sites
reviewing this game, it is just very clear example of GS
unprofessionalism. All sites that have fine enough gradation in their
marking system gave this game 95% and higher. (Few sites gave the game
4.5/5 but that's because their gradation system does not let them to
give something like 4.8/5). This is in sharp contrast to GS review of
8.8/10 (or 88%), which clearly shows that the GS review was biased and
thus unprofessional. (And I do not believe that it is possible that
every other website is wrong, and only GS is right).
I am requesting GS to recognize the goal of their reviews to be professionally done i.e. in unbiased and objective manner. GS review are not just another player personal opinion about the game.
I am requesting GS to start admiting their mistakes, as in case of Zelda, and start changing the reviews.
It is stupid to make a mistake, it is twice as much stupid to not
recognize the mistake, and it is trice as much stupid to not correct
the mistake! I also think that that particular Zelda reviewer should
not be allowed to post his reviews until he manage to demonstrate that
he can produce unprofessional reviews.
Please support (or criticize) my position.
If reviewing games by taking into consideration all that I mentioned is unprofessional, holy cow, everyone should look for another job, looks like. The past topic was probably locked because of its approach. If you want the staff to read something you write, be corteous. Being a paid subscriber doesn't give us right to speak to everyone anyway we want to. Be polite and uhm... professional... and you'll get your thoughts read.
And sincerely, if this is about Zelda, please, go play the thing. No review is gonna get in your way, the game is out, the system is out, just go out and play it. Since when has a review stood in the way of someone and their wanted game?
Good luck.
So... let me get this right... for you guys, a review should be a unpersonal view of the game in question, without taking into consideration other games similar to it, the reviewer's own experience with games or have any views other than a dry analasys? That's isn't a review. It's a overview. And that kind of stuff is found at videogame retailer websites and in the official Nintendo website, not a videogame website responsible for reviewing games.
edubuccaneer
Taking into consideration other games similar to it? Sure! Reviewer own experience is much more tricky thing for professional review though.
For example I just HATE (ok, may be not hate but at least strongly dislike) first person shooters on consoles because of controller. I prefer so much more mouse and keyboad. But if I were to review professionally, say, Metroid Prime would I give it 5.0? (this is how much I personally evaluate this game because of the controls, - it spoils all the fun for me) Of cause not! Because I understand that my dislike of controls is my personal tilt, which should absent from professional review. So, if reviewing professionally, I would give that game much higher mark despite of my personal general dissatisfaction of the game.
This is what I expect from GS reviewers as well. If a particular reviewer can not do it, then he should not be here writing reviews! He can post it as user review, but not as GS review.
I agree that it didn't make any sense for the original post to be locked in my opinion. We should be able to state our views about the services provided wether positive or negative. I can't imagine that they would have locked that thread if MxM was giving them accolades on a job well done. That being said. I pretty much totally disagree with MxM and the original poster of this new thread.
I think that the reviews on GS are as professional as I've seen anywhere. When a title, in the reviewers' opinion has short comings they detail those short comings and provide support and an explanation so that we understand why it's a short coming from their perspective. The same can be said when they notice aspects of a game that stand out. I do not believe that they have people who hate RPGs reviewing Zelda, or people who hate sports games reviewing Madden, etc. To do so would be counter-intuitive.
However, just because a review doesn't fall in line with a grouping of other reviews doesn't make it invalid. Historically reviewers of every industry from theatre to cars to food have had differing opinions. It is your job as a consumer to understand which reviewer is most in-line with your own personal criteria for a succesful title. Just because I very often disagree with Roger Ebert doesn't mean that he isn't an extremely professional movie reviewer, it just means that I don't necessarily use his reviews as a barometer for predicting if I will enjoy a movie or not.
Finally to the point of GS giving an 8.8 to Zelda. It is beyond ridiculous that a ratting of 8.8 (88%) is viewed as being totally out of lockstep with other game reviewers simply because it is the lower of the reviews. In MxM's own post he admitted that another site gave the same game a 4.5/5, and no matter how you word it, it boils down to 90% which is a 2% difference that we are talking about! On gamespot 8.8 = Great. So because a reviewer only thought a game was "Great" and not "Superb" that means we need to shut down GS until they hire new reviewers? I think not. A reviewer's job isn't to agree with me, you, or their peers. Their job is to provide their audience with the pros & cons of the game from their honest perspective as gaming professionals, not as fanboys of a certain system, genre, or publisher/developer. When we get honest reviews we should respect them, even if we don't agree with them.
I'm missing your points on what exactly was biased about the Gothic review. The staffer wrote of several different gameplay features that drug the game down. What's the bias in that? If a gamer doesn't agree with the scores given, then it is his or her right to come up with a review of their own. I enjoy the Gothic games as well, and nothing in the review is untrue, biased, or otherwise. Park's opinions are clearly stated, backed up with good reasoning, and there's no reason that his score is unmerited.
And remember, it's just one man's review. If you don't like it, no one is out to change your opinion.
Bottom line, reviews aren't intended for those who've already made up their minds about the game in question before they've even played it. Their primary purpose is to assist those trying to decide where they should be spending their hard-earned money. If you disagree so strongly, please feel free to craft your own reader review. It's what they're there for.
Reviews are assigned based largely on the reviewer's experience with both the series and the genre at large. Jeff Gerstmann has reviewed well more than a thousand games for GameSpot, and those who can appreciate the longview (...)RyanSpeaking of Jeff - so far he's reviewed almost every single Grand Theft Auto game. I was really wondering why he wasn't writing a review for Vice City Stories. His opinion on most games out there usually matches with my own. Is it possible that I can ask him personally what he thinks about the game? Or is he taking a break from the franchise? About reviews more in general: I don't think there are many flawed reviews. Normally I don't even bother to shrug whenever I stumble across one. That's different with games like Gothic because it is just is that much better than many of the higher rated games it could be fairly compared to when it was new - and (interestingly) even today. The review simply doesn't represent the game adequately in my opinion. Looking at the huge success that game has in Europe I would perhaps guess that it's "rough around the edges", medieval, sex, drugs and rock'n roll style perhaps isn't what people expect when they read the title. They probably just believe it's dark, gloomy and misty swords'n sorcery or something along those lines.
I enjoy the Gothic games as well, and nothing in the review is untrue, biased, or otherwise. TitusAndronicusHave you read my entire post? It is simply not a competent review, while it probably holds true that it is not biased. It holds several good points - but I specifically pointed out what's wrong with it. The reviewer obviously made mistakes. Otherwise he would not have written that there was no map in the game. Because you've played the game you should really know better than that.
The Gothic games are some of my favourite RPGs of the last couple of years. I think they are excellent.
However I think they are flawed. I, as what I consider to be a hardcore RPG gamer, can overlook these flaws, struggle through an obtuse control scheme and delight in an unforgiving combat system. Most other people simply will not. I think their rating reflects the games problems well. It will mercilessly punish new players. In fact, I will go so far as to say it actively attempts to chase them off (Except the third one, which you and I both agree is the weakest so far). Those games require a commitment and a little blindness in one eye to overlook their problems. For me, thats no problem. For people I know who are committed to the fundimentals of good RPG design, also not a problem. To most other people though, its a big problem. Gamespot has to take all potential players into account, not just the ones who will like it no matter what their review says.
As for success in Europe over the US. Well, games designed in Europe have almost always sold better there then in the US.
In conclusion, I personally would rate the Gothic games higher, but I think the Gamespot scores are easily justified, even if there are some errors in the reviews themselves.
Example - Star Wars. Some professional critics hated this movie when it was released, others loved it for it's escapist fun. Who was correct? Depends on how you like your movies doesn't it?
You can be professional and still be personal, and I have no objection to any review score on Gamespot even if I don't agree with it. The difference between official Gamespot reviews and every other review submitted by users ... is experience.
Unless you have experience in the industry, what Gamespot users think doesn't hold the same weight as the staff. If users think their reviews are more accurate then show me some credentials to show how long you've worked in the industry, what you know about game development, who you've talked to on the production team and I might treat your view more seriously. One thing's for sure if your review consists of "OMG, this rocks! 10.10!" and you haven't even played it, then don't expect your review to be taken seriously.
Everyone is a critic. The difference is in how much you know to back up your view.
All reviews by default are personal opinions.
Impossibilium
Of cause they are personal opinions, but they also should be unbiazed, otherwise it is not professional review!
Plus personal opinion on what? If it is "How good is the game for the reviewer?" then I am sorry, it is not professionals review. The professional review is the one that gives opinion on "How good is the game for the potential readers of the review". That's a very big difference!
For example in the mentioned before Zelda review the score was lowered because the reviewer did not like the control by wiimote. At the same time majority of other reviews and gamers LIKED the control, so if the reviewer were to think just a little bit about whether the average reader would like the control, then he would have understand that yes, they would, and he would not lowered the score for that. But he did not do it, thus the review is not professional.
Yes, it suck when the threads are locked, without any explanations, without even private message to explain why. As far as I can see the thread was withing 100% forum guidelines. Or is it forum guideline now that one can not criticize GS?
I used Zelda as a very clear example of reviewer bias. I have few other examples that are even more obvious for me (as a PC gamer), but more difficult for me to prove, because there are much less reviews of those games and much less people playing them. For example Glory of the Roman Empire has received only 5.6 with the average score of other websites around 7/10. Again, 5.6 is way off and GS never admits it or corrects it.
So here is my original post, named Request for GS reviewers to make PROFESSIONAL reviews:
_________________________________________________________
Professional review: unbiased and objective review. The reviewer has to
"detach" himself from the game and instead of understanding if the game
is good for him, he has to understand if the game is good for the
potential players. The personal bias should play very little role in
the review. (For example when a book reviewer reviews a book for 5 year
old children, he has to understand if it is good for the 5 year old
readers, and not for him himself!)
Unprofessional review or personal opinion: is just an opinion, which is personal,
biased, non-objective (subjective). The gamers review are typically of
this category.
What I am saying is that I expect GS reviewers to
be able to do professional reviews! GS is one of the most influential
gaming websites and incompetence should not be tolerated here.
Especially when so many people monetary support the site (me including).
In the past year, I have seen many reviews on PC side, especially in RTS
department (I am a PC gamer) done in extremely biased manner, giving
very low scores, just because the reviewer himself for whatever reason
did not like something in the game (say because he is a console fan).
This is just not a way to go!
But the last and the most clear example of biased and non-professional review is the Zelda review. Now,
I am a PC gamer, and I do not care for Zelda, but with so many sites
reviewing this game, it is just very clear example of GS
unprofessionalism. All sites that have fine enough gradation in their
marking system gave this game 95% and higher. (Few sites gave the game
4.5/5 but that's because their gradation system does not let them to
give something like 4.8/5). This is in sharp contrast to GS review of
8.8/10 (or 88%), which clearly shows that the GS review was biased and
thus unprofessional. (And I do not believe that it is possible that
every other website is wrong, and only GS is right).
I am requesting GS to recognize the goal of their reviews to be professionally done i.e. in unbiased and objective manner. GS review are not just another player personal opinion about the game.
I am requesting GS to start admiting their mistakes, as in case of Zelda, and start changing the reviews.
It is stupid to make a mistake, it is twice as much stupid to not
recognize the mistake, and it is trice as much stupid to not correct
the mistake! I also think that that particular Zelda reviewer should
not be allowed to post his reviews until he manage to demonstrate that
he can produce unprofessional reviews.
Please support (or criticize) my position.MxM
They are NOT bias, what the heck.. gamespot reviews are professional, and they contain informative information and not biased... and you people shouldn't compared games with zelda.. read the reviewguidelines.. they are being honest and facts.. the other sites like ign's zelda review, at the end, in the video review, the editor say to don't listen to him just play the game, he openly admitted that he is scared that fanboys will flame upon him, thats why they said that.. just like other sites.. they are a disgrace to critics because editor are critics.. thats why they hand out a 9 or up to this game, just to pleased fanboys.. thats why i like this site because they are honest and giving facts straight.. and when does 8.8 signifies as a bad score.. at the bottom, its saids GREAT! which implies as a A in a report card... those other sites aren't informative, like the legend of zelda review on ign, why did he said "heres a video clip" in his video review.. you know what IGN does, they tend to overscore.. if you said anything like they are unprofessional or bias, then you are way off... everytime i posted these annoying threads.. i tend to say read the reviewguidelines indicated in the top-right corner of the score board.. and you should click on it rather than ignore it and keep on complaining... in the reviewguide lines.opinion are not acceptable for their reviews.. if you said they are any matter of a fanboy... then thats just ridculous... they're NOT making a mistake, they are just giving a honest and detail review.. i hate people that assume things.. and don't say I'm not assuming things because you "people" are.. jeez this will never end... threads of threads of this matter..
for every game 1 person gives a 10, there is another that gives it a 1
everyone is just different, gamespot doesnt claim to be god and speaking for all people, cuz thats impossible
but if they give a certain game a low mark, there is probably a good reason for it, and if they give a game a high score there is probably a good reason for it, havent seen to many reviews sofar that is totally rediculous
[QUOTE="Chica01"]
GameSpot is a service.
alifont
The fire department is a service. GameSpot is a group of human beings offering their opinion.
Just as the fire department is a group of human beings going and putting out fires. Economically speaking, GameSpot is a private, commercial service, while a fire department is a public service. Both are services.
Just tired of hearing people whine about this sort of thing. Well thought out and well written, but just not entirely correct.
You are asking for a completely unbiased review for it to be completely professional. They are paid to do this, by definition that is already professional.
I find it very ironic that the only games being brought forward in these arguments are games the two posters actually like and seem to cherish. They complain that they want no personal bias in a review, yet they are personally biased towards these games expecting a higher review than it may or may not deserve.
I figured that the gaming populace had enough common sense to figure out for themselves whether they'd like a game or not, not just go entirely off of the gaming reviewers opinion. However that was a wrong assumption, as they have proven.
Dragonball Z: Tenkaichi Budokai received a review lower than I thought it would get. However I played the game and absolutely loved it. Though I still see why it received what it did for the review. I still love the game nonetheless since I love the franchise that much to enjoy the game thoroughly.
Realize that opinions differ, if you like the game, great. Play it all you want, you will anyway. I just advise against making continuous threads over opinions, since you will never have proof unless you talk the persons involved. Just enjoy your games, enjoy your life and don't sweat the small stuff. Its only going to raise your blood pressure if you do. Pick your battles wisely, and let it go man, just let it go.
I haven't seen any "personal bias" in Gamespot reviews that compromises the quality of the site. The reviews are informative and based in fact with most arguments and gripes being supported well.
 The "evidence" given that GS is biased because their score is lower than those of other websites is also ludicrous. You will always have differing reviews because games are seen differently through the eyes of different people. This doesn't make one review any less valid than the other, unless a review fails to back up its argument. Its just like watching a car crash, seen through the eyes of two people. Two people can see the same event very differently.Â
For the sake of not reading 10,000 words and sounding like an ass but wouldn't a GS Review be professional? It is their job after all... so in the true sense of the word they are doing exactly what your asking for.
Jazic
this is a good point. They have been playing many many games of all types, so im sure they would be considered professionals by now in what they do.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment