Feature Article

About GameSpot Reviews

GameSpot may receive revenue from affiliate and advertising partnerships for sharing this content and from purchases through links.

Remember to read the text, not just the score!

GameSpot reviews come in all shapes and sizes. There are the standard game reviews you're used to seeing; there are reviews in progress; there are updated reviews of ongoing games; and now, there are scored reviews of other kinds of entertainment, like movies and TV.

All that sounds complicated, but it's really quite simple. While our approach to reviews can and will grow and change over time, the purpose of any GameSpot review remains the same: to provide a well-argued, honest, and thorough opinion about a game, movie, or TV show. But what's an "updated" review, exactly? And what do those numbers mean? This guide is here to help.

GameSpot Review Scale

Reviews don't boil down to just "I like it" or "I don't like it." GameSpot reviewers--which includes editors, video producers, and talented freelancers who fill in the gaps--are dedicated to thoughtful, robust criticism that takes a number of factors into account. The score is a point of reference, but if you want to really understand whether a game (or movie or TV show) is for you or not, you'll find what you need in the content of the review itself.

GameSpot uses a 10-point review scale with no increments--so there are no .5s. Here's a quick breakdown of what our scores represent:

10 - Essential

9 - Superb

8 - Great

7 - Good

6 - Fair

5 - Mediocre

4 - Poor

3 - Bad

2 - Terrible

1 - Abysmal

Reviews In Progress and Early Review Impressions

If you've been on GameSpot in the last few years, you've likely seen a review in progress or two before. Game reviews are published "in progress" if we've played a significant amount of the game but haven't been able to see some aspect of it fully--in many cases, it's the online component, which we of course can't experience properly until after the game has officially released. This way, you can get a good idea of what the game is like and what we think of it around the time of launch, keeping in mind that a few aspects might still be question marks.

You'll know it's a review in progress because of the headline, but just in case you miss that, the score is also blue instead of orange. We also make sure to include in the text of the review what we still have left to do before we can finalize the review--and keep in mind that details, including the score, are subject to change before we flip the switch.

In rare cases, we won't have access to a game until right before or even at launch. In these situations (which mostly consist of online-only games), we may publish "early review impressions" based on our first day or so with the game. These early impressions are unscored and a little less formal, and you'll know exactly what we've done and what we still have to do before we're comfortable moving on to the review in progress or even the final review.

Updated Reviews

We've been saying a lot about "finalizing" reviews, but in reality, a lot of games are not final at launch or even two weeks after launch, once servers are stable and bugs are patched out. More and more games change over months and even years, and so while a final GameSpot review is mostly final, there are some cases where we will want to revisit a game down the line and then write a new, updated review to reflect the times.

In these cases, a game will have to have changed significantly from the version we critiqued in our original review. But not every game that has changed gets this treatment--there are only so many hours in a day and so many GameSpot reviewers, so the decision to write a new review of a game comes down to the interests of both our staff and our readers. We use our best judgment based on our own experiences with a game and what people in general are playing, plus what needs fresh criticism as opposed to news about live events and updates.

Finally, an updated review is not a chance to "undo" a previous score or opinion. The original review still lives on GameSpot, and you'll be able to read both to get a picture of where the game was and what it is now.

If you have any questions about reviews on GameSpot, feel free to contact managing editor Tamoor Hussain.

Got a news tip or want to contact us directly? Email news@gamespot.com


gamespot

GameSpot Staff

GameSpot.com

Back To Top
415 Comments  RefreshSorted By 
GameSpot has a zero tolerance policy when it comes to toxic conduct in comments. Any abusive, racist, sexist, threatening, bullying, vulgar, and otherwise objectionable behavior will result in moderation and/or account termination. Please keep your discussion civil.

Avatar image for grbolivar
grbolivar

82

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

Bioshock Infinite with a 4.0 is just unnaceptable. I used to love GS reviews until that day...

Upvote • 
Avatar image for deactivated-604557f4b78e0
deactivated-604557f4b78e0

43

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@grbolivar Im not sure why because Kevin VanOrd gave it a 9.0 a few months ago.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for kenundrum7
kenundrum7

380

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 49

User Lists: 0

@C0v3rtUnis0l @grbolivar I know, because obviously it is a 10.

...

Not where you were going? It was in no way a "poor" game. Tom was off base.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Brakkyn
Brakkyn

615

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 27

User Lists: 0

Edited By Brakkyn

@kenundrum7 @C0v3rtUnis0l @grbolivar I consider the original 9 and the recent 4 to be the extremes. I gave it a 7.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for undeadgoon
undeadgoon

706

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By undeadgoon

@grbolivar Its only a number and an opinion, use the rest of the review to make your own opinion

2 • 
Avatar image for Smosh150
Smosh150

3050

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

Edited By Smosh150

@undeadgoon @grbolivar Indeed, the review is in the video or the description, not the number. The description tells why they don't like it themselves and in most cases they are correct for who those problems apply to, if they don't apply to you then it is better than what that number says to the reader.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for deactivated-5c79c3cfce222
deactivated-5c79c3cfce222

4715

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

Poor, bad, terrible or abysmal. Does it matter? What's the difference between mediocre and fair?
Could've made it a 5 or 6 point scale while you were at it.

2 • 
Avatar image for Qixote
Qixote

10843

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

10 is "masterpiece" not "perfect" or "flawless" or "impervious to everyone's scrutiny.". So why does Gamespot always refuse to give a 10? The number 10 at Gamespot is like a joker in a deck of playing cards; nobody knows why it's there or what to do with it.

The fact is, Gamespot reaps what they sow with their scoring system. The more "simple" they try to make it, the more complicated it actually becomes, opening them up to more controversy from their readers. It's really not much different then a stupid thumbs up or down system.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for MooncalfReviews
MooncalfReviews

1979

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 33

User Lists: 0

@Qixote

I actually agree with Gamespot on this. There hasn't been a "masterpiece" game in many years, when we're comparing it to contemporary games.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Harbinger_CR
Harbinger_CR

146

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 18

User Lists: 2

@Qixote A game getting a 10 should be rare, not every game is worthy of a 10.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for jamesosgd
jamesosgd

45

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By jamesosgd

@Qixote 10 used to be "perfect". Now it is "masterpiece", most likely to encourage reviewers to give 10s slightly more often, since no game can really be absolutely perfect. What does perfect even mean in the context of a videogame?

Upvote • 
Avatar image for MooncalfReviews
MooncalfReviews

1979

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 33

User Lists: 0

@jamesosgd I don't remember it ever being "perfect". You all just assumed that.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for jamesosgd
jamesosgd

45

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By jamesosgd

@MooncalfReviews @jamesosgd 10 originally meant "Perfect", but in mid 2007 they changed it to mean "Prime", which also doesn't make much sense; "Masterpiece" seems like a much better term.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for deactivated-604557f4b78e0
deactivated-604557f4b78e0

43

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@Qixote Crysis 1 got a 10 for exactly the right reasons. You're point is?

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Sumpskildpadde
Sumpskildpadde

26

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Sumpskildpadde

@Qixote Gamespot doesn't refuse to give games a 10. The reviewer in question refuses to give the game a 10. And why is that you ask? Because the reviewer in question does not feel that the game deserves a 10!!! Is it really that hard to understand that a review is based on an individual person's opinion? For instance I would never give GTA V a 10 because it genuinely didn't do it for me. However I would easily give Bioshock Infinite a 10 because to me it got everything right and gave ME an experience that I haven't had in years... See how simple it is?

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Moogle07
Moogle07

30

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

@Qixote Zelda Ocarina of time got a 10.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for DeadlyMaster
DeadlyMaster

59

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

@Moogle07 @Qixote That was in the old days now only few games got a 10 like Super Mario Galaxy, GTA4 (Seriously?)

Upvote • 
Avatar image for keech
keech

1451

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

This would all make sense, except for the fact that it doesn't explain why games that haven't changed in any meaningful way since launch are getting these "Other Take" reviews.

These additional reviews are also lacking in context as to the purpose of the additional reviews. If the second review is from someone who isn't familiar with with a long running series, that needs to be made perfectly clear. Otherwise these reviews just cause confusion and schism at best, or come across as sensationalism at worst.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for GreenvaleXYZ
GreenvaleXYZ

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

If you want to really improve your reviews, you should remove the scores entirely. It might force you to describe the games a little better.

3 • 
Avatar image for MooncalfReviews
MooncalfReviews

1979

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 33

User Lists: 0

@GreenvaleXYZ Nah I like to not have to read to find out if a game is good or not >.>

Upvote • 
Avatar image for DeadlyMaster
DeadlyMaster

59

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

@GreenvaleXYZ Are you that guy from Kotaku in-disguise?

Upvote • 
Avatar image for mikeyvp87
mikeyvp87

408

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

I'll give a perfect example. Read a review of Gran Turismo 5. A lot of the criticisms are completely valid about the game in that state. Then patch 2.0 came out and it addressed a lot of the problems. I would not suggest someone be forced to go back and play the game but if someone among you, or among us, felt strongly enough about it to add their own 2 sense in a well articulated way then why not feature it more prominently.

Hell even better MMOs. Is the WOW review on gamespot still valid? The game they reviewed doesn't really exist anymore. An updated or brand new one should be front and center if someone were to look a review of the game. I like it. Props even if I disagree with some of the other perspectives.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for undo
undo

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

Edited By undo

I see nothing wrong about multiple reviews - on the contrary, I see them as something natural and I am actually somewhat surprised they haven't been implemented earlier. Many cinema magazines or newspapers publish different reviews for the same film, allowing each critic to offer his/her own unique point of view on it. And it's only fair, because the audience too have different opinions.

In the same way, a truly comprehensive gaming site - which Gamespot undoubtedly aims to be - should mirror its public's diversity, giving it the opportunity to contact with several perspectives. This allows each user not only to relate more to a certain reviewer (thus increasing the trustworthiness of the reviews), but also to open his/her mind to other ways to look at the game and to enjoy it.

I'd say Gamespot only errs on the side of tardiness.

3 • 
Avatar image for Kunasha
Kunasha

31

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Gamespot, these people who have a problem with somebody else's opinion are called trolls.

Stop constantly feeding the trolls.

Journalism rule #1

2 • 
Avatar image for MooncalfReviews
MooncalfReviews

1979

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 33

User Lists: 0

@Kunasha

I don't think they are trolls. They are whiney little entitled gamer bitches.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for lurkero
Lurkero

807

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@Kunasha

Trolls contribute a great deal a revenue to Gamespot due to all the website traffic and advertisements viewed. Seems like Gamespot might be doing the right thing if they are chasing after increased revenue.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Kunasha
Kunasha

31

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@robfield @Kunasha Clueless. Trolls don't bring revenue - viewers do. It is a folly to assume the vast majority of viewers are trolls. If you let your entire site fill up with trolling because you're feeding them, the community falters and people stop visiting.

Feeding the trolls = bad for revenue

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Kunasha
Kunasha

31

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Kunasha

@robfield @Kunasha People who comment are a tiny, tiny fraction of those who read it, and even a tiny fraction of who reads the comment.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for lurkero
Lurkero

807

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@Kunasha @robfield

Look for the articles with the most comments and you will most likely end up calling 25-50% of the comments trolls or responses to trolls.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for PrpleTrtleBuBum
PrpleTrtleBuBum

3845

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 16

User Lists: 0

@Kunasha An excellent way of shooting down other people's opinions and never have any real discussion about anything.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Kunasha
Kunasha

31

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@PrpleTrtleBuBum @Kunasha Nobody is shooting down anybody opinion's except the people fuming at the mouth in the comments section of reviews. If you have your own opinion, this site has the ability to write your bloody own.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Zevvion
Zevvion

454

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@Kunasha You should've actually read the article first. It's not about agreeing with someone's opinion. It's about whether that person's perspective is similar to your own.

Like the example they gave: usually someone who is very experienced with a certain series gets to review the new game in that franchise. Now, someone who hasn't played a single of those games before can do a second review of it. That way, if you're never played any of the games in that series, the second review may be more useful to you.

For instance, Tom reviewed Infinite after VanOrd. Where VanOrd played the game by looking at the big picture and paid close attention to what the game was trying to say while using the game's arsenal to his advantage, Tom played it more to the fashion of muting out the narrative and not trying to use combo's as much.

It's two different types of reviews for two different types of people and play styles.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for keech
keech

1451

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

@Zevvion @Kunasha

Hopefully this doesn't come across as too "trollish", as It's not my intent:

You are right it is two different types of reviews. One considers the entire game as a whole, every aspect taken into account. The other one ignores entire swathes of the game to spin it into something that matches preconceptions of what the reviewer wanted (or didn't want) to see.

You can be the judge of which is which.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for KBABZ
KBABZ

1339

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Edited By KBABZ

To me, the text of a review is more important than the number. The number is the starting point. You see a game you want and that it got a 9. You read on to find out why the author of the review gave it that. You are free to disagree with it as you please. If bugs don't concern you then your personal feelings on the game are certainly not overwritten or rendered irrelevant by the review. At the end of the day, a reviewer's opinion, whether or not it is backed up by outside monetary influences, will always be a part of the review system. The only way to get rid of it is to assign robots to review games. But they don't review games. Humans review games. They make mistakes, have opinions, objections and bias, and in my opinion it is futile to try and completely remove them from a review.

At the end of the day, if you read a review's text and think it's a fantastic game, but disagree with the number or the author's opinions, then the number shouldn't matter to you. In fact, if you're parading around saying "GTA deserved a ten and you know it!!" or "MW3 is easily a 4/10", then the review was ultimately useless for you in the first place, since you already had an opinion of the game and didn't need a review to pass judgement on it. I wasn't as upset as others over Tools of Destruction getting a 7 for example, because I knew that I would like the game and thus the review didn't matter to me. The number represents what the author felt about the game, not what you should think about it.

And as much as gaming media sites act like the competition doesn't exist, people do and should shop around sites for reviews (I visit Gamespot, IGN and Kotaku, for example). They gather multiple opinions from multiple sources, and consider them all before buying a game (if it's not for buying a game then it's probably for self-gratification). I don't like the idea of reviews having to be completely free of opinion and subjectivity, it sucks the soul out of them whether the review is for a poor game or a great one. And no review should ever try and be the "definitive" review that people should read over every other review out there in the media.

2 • 
Avatar image for parrot_of_adun
parrot_of_adun

7177

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

@KBABZ That's partly why love RPS. Their reviews are labeled rather accurately just, "Wot I think". No numbers, no pretense of authority, just a take on the game.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for athrun07
athrun07

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 16

User Lists: 0

@KBABZ but still some people don't accept that fact. People are different. It's hard to satisfy everyone though.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for KBABZ
KBABZ

1339

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

@athrun07 Yeah, that's one of the big misconceptions about reviews; they are written by people with opinions and are opinion pieces because humans have opinions. And it's okay to disagree with a review. People take them far too seriously. Most people who complain about reviews, as I mentioned, probably already formed their opinion on the game before the review was written, rendering the review itself pointless.

For me, the most useful a review can be is informing me if a game I'm looking forward to is truly a letdown, and all reviews agree with each other on that part. Aliens: Colonial Marines, for example, was looking fantastic, but the reviews (plural!) revealed the horrible truth. If reviews from multiple sources contradict each other, look them up. IGN's ranking of Beyond: Two Souls as a 6 is justified and gives very solid points. But at the same time, Gamespot's 9 is also valid. Each give you different reasons as to why you should like it or dislike it, and it's up to the reader to consider which of these points apply to them, and that will determine whether the game is for you or not.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for KBABZ
KBABZ

1339

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Edited By KBABZ

@SIDEFX1 The tl;dr version I guess is that reviews are subjective, and even if you don't agree with what a review says about a game you can still decide whether or not you want to buy it. I like Kotaku for not using numbers or a scale because it makes the reviews feel more like opinion pieces.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for KBABZ
KBABZ

1339

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

@SIDEFX1 Oh right! Well I guess a tl;dr version was helpful. I tend to ramble on and develop my opinion as I'm typing it, adding more and more and editing until a small comment becomes a three-paragraph McWhopper with a Large Coke and chips.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for athrun07
athrun07

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 16

User Lists: 0

I'm surprised this article come out.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for J_Dangerously
J_Dangerously

602

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By J_Dangerously

So now, when Gamespot gives some crap game a 7 because the publisher is one of the heaviest advertisers on the site, they can cover their ass 3 months later and give it the 3 it deserved. Fantastic.

Also, in the article it's stated the multiple reviews are for games that evolve and change over time. "It's absolutely impossible to write a review that remains accurate when the game in question evolves over time. Our solution? Two words: multiple reviews."

Riddle me this, then geniuses: How has Bioshock Infinite evolved so drastically over time as to warrant a 4 from a 9?!?! And no, I'm not a Bioshock fanboy, never even played them.

You're undermining the trust players can put into your reviews, Gamespot.

5 • 
Avatar image for MrTrick
MrTrick

29

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@J_Dangerously that's so nicely said, please be a woman, because i think i'm in love <3

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Rashgod
Rashgod

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@J_Dangerously "There were a couple of key issues that we wanted to address, namely that it's near impossible to write a single review that caters to everyone"

Here's the first part of the sentence, which you apparently didn't read. Multiple reviews exist to showcase multiple opinions and to deal with the fact that some games change over time. It's not just for the second.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Ultramarinus
Ultramarinus

1147

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 0

Worst review style ever done by GS. 100-point scores to 20-point scores to 10-point scores. Way too ambiguous, you'll keep stamping pretty much everything big-budget with 8 and 9. Those emblems were rather useful, very bad idea to get rid of them.

Also double reviews are a bad idea, especially when you're skipping so many games out there. If I want a second opinion, Metacritic is for that. I don't need another GS reviewer to badmouth/praise the game just for the sake of making fans and haters both happy.

22 • 
Avatar image for elunesgraces
elunesgraces

26

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By elunesgraces

...

Upvote • 
Avatar image for J_Dangerously
J_Dangerously

602

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@SIDEFX1 @Ultramarinus It's not about being easy to please, it's about knowing who to put your trust in when deciding what to spend your gaming dollars on. Gamespot isn't helping, they're only confusing.

'Should I buy Bioshock: Infinite?' According to this website, as of last week, no. You shouldn't. Even though the few I know who played it said it's a mindblowing, must-play game.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Seerix
Seerix

121

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 74

User Lists: 0

I'm going to miss the emblems. Some of them were quite helpful in my decisions. For example: I like games with good stories. So when I saw a "great story" emblem, that attracted my interest.

9 • 
Avatar image for KBABZ
KBABZ

1339

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

@Seerix I liked the emblems too, they were able to give info that the review text would then expand upon. You'd see the emblem for Busted, Buggy and Broken and then read the view to find out how and why it earned that emblem, you know? They werent strictly essential, but they were helpful nonetheless.

Upvote •