Hey, don't jump on me! I'm just telling you what that acronym means. :P789shadow

Sorry, that was directed at Game-Fu. I've never seen or used that acryonym before.

Umm, it's War for Cybertron.789shadow

Now I'm even more confused. Can you tell me where I slammed it for being 15 hours? I said it felt too long because it's so repetitive, not short.

Thanks for proving my point.Game-fu

How does that prove your point? I've only reviewed 3 games that have started with a W (White Knight Chronicles, Wall-E, and Wacky Racers) so, even though you said "you reviewed WFC" you weren't actually talking about me. I don't know the acronym of every game out there.

The GameSpot reviews over the years have contradicted themselves so often its impossible to know what to expect. You slam WFC for its 15-hour single-player campaign, yet SC:C gets an 8.0 with its whopping 5 hour Bourne-fest. You degrade WFC's 3-player co-op to merely an alternative to bad AI, yet you give Resident Evil 5 an 8.5 with its utterly game-breaking AI partner. You gave Shadowrun a 6.9 and it didn't even have a single-player campaignGame-fu

I don't know what WFC is...

But you're focusing on just one element of a review instead of the experience as a whole. Kevin thought SC:C was pure entertainment, which is better than a longer campaign with bad stretches. It also has fantastic co-op and innovative storytelling. So Kevin believed the entire package was worthy of a Great score even if one element (the stort campaign) was disappointing.

Maybe Chris should have reviewed it regardless if there was a delay then. I say this as he has given great scores (editor choices) on games with lackluster single player and good online. Bad company 2 and even modern warfare 2 comes to mind on that one. Though this is a 3rd person, this seems a bit of dejavu. A bland single player but good multiplayer but unlike some others, this game was pentalized highly. I'm making this observation base on Toms statements the last few pages and how other games in the shooter genre have been reviewed latelyjedikevin2

It's not even a sequel to the last game, though. It's just another Transformers game made by a different developer. Chris, Justin, and I are more than qualified to review a third-person shooter. There was no reason to sit on the review for another week so Chris could review it, especially since he has something else he needs to work on as soon as he gets back in the office. I don't believe there is anyone in our office who loves Transformers, and even if there was, we don't artificially bump scores because we like the license. Justin and Kevin have played tons of shooters and agreed with my assessment.

Unless my memory is off, I believe Chris really enjoyed the single-player portions of BF2 and MW2. I would have to double check the reviews, but I remember him thinking they were excting. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't remember our review team giving a high score to a shooter with a tedious campaign but good multiplayer, like Transformers has.

Again, I wish gamespot had some policy of atleast 2 members reviewing all games and throwing a consensus score up. You stated, other editors felt the same but the "proof is in the pudding" here as it is just your name on this review.jedikevin2

We only have four full-time reviewers on staff: Justin, Kevin, Chris and I. It's not feasible for more than one person to play through a game. Justin and I did play cooperatively, though. All of our reviews and scores have to be approved by the entire team. When we think the other person is crazy, we have a discussion, but everyone who played and saw this game agreed with my assessment.

Wow, sounds like you hated it, suprised it even got a 6.5 from you after reading this. Seems lots of people besides you are having fun with it, also why is it rated lower then the Transformers movie game? Do you really think it was better then this one.Advid-Gamer

I did not enjoy the campaign, that's right. It got a 6.5 because Escalation and Competitive Multiplayer are quite good. In regards to the other Transformers game (Rise of the Fallen?), I've never played it. Chris Watters reviewed that last year, but he was not available to review this one. Bad time to take a vacation.

Yes maybe people who love the license may be biased but why is there such a huge difference b/w the gamespot score and the user score as well as the average critic score? Even if you love the licence the difference between a 6.5 and a 8.9 is enough that the gamers should not enjoy the game as much as they are. A 6.5 means that the game is boring, has bad graphics and gameplay, repetitive etc etc. Taking a look at other games such as spiderman 3 that is a game that almost everybody grew up with, you can see that the rating was 6.6 here on gamespot, the average critic score was ALSO 6.6 and the average user score based on 4500 people was 7.5. So if the user is giving a rating of a 9.0 for transformers and gamespot is giving a score of 6.5 then I think there is something else going on there.blaznwiipspman1

First of all, user scores are usually higher than critics scores.

Second, this is the description for a Fair game:

"Games that earn 6-range ratings have certain good qualities but significant problems as well. These games may well be worth playing, but you should approach them with caution."

Notice how it doesn't say anything about bad graphics or gameplay. It doesn't mention reptitive either, but Transformers certainly fits that description. I have no idea why you're bringing up Spiderman 3. That was, what, four years ago? Standards change. Heck, our review scale has changed since then.

What else do you think is going on here? And, as you may have noticed, the critic average has gone down as the week has gone on. Every critic score was 8s and 9s before, but now there are 6s and 7s from sites like Giant Bomb, Wired, and Eurogamer. Just because the rating is at 8.1 now doesn't mean it will stay there forever. And just becuase some people think this game is great doesn't mean my fair rating isn't valid.

how about this? if you dont like transformers, why didnt you give the review to someone who did? if you dont love the source material, then youre automatically going into it with a negative attitude. thats the difference between these reviews this game has been getting. the high scores are from people who love transformers, and the low scores are from people who dont. i have a feeling the Failspot reviewer just wanted to get it over with cause he didnt care. its a shame, cause it s a good game. not a 9, but not a 6.5. thats insulting to high moon studios. its a 7.5 or 8todd2r

Why would I go into a game with a negative attitude because I don't love the source material? I like Transformers, and used to own a few, I just don't love them. Licensed games are judged just like every other game. They have to meet the same standards in the genre. Transformers is fun but has issues compared to other shooters.

Do you really think it's better for someone to review the license rather than the game?

This is why I wish gamespot did consensus reviews. No hark on you Tom. I have no ill will on your review but I always believed a game should be reviewed by atleast 2-3 editors and form a consensus score for it for a website (though no one does it). One editors view on a game holds to much weight these days to the brand (such as the gamespot website).jedikevin2

I wasn't the only one in the office to play this game. Everyone agreed that I was spot on.

Let me go ahead and ask this... Why has the Pc version of this game not been reviewed? I notice many of the multiplatformers lately do not have PC reviews here. Do you plan on reviewing the Pc version Tom or another editor like Kevin-V?jedikevin2

No time. I was in the office until 8pm getting these two up. Sorry about that.