Who agrees that Gamespot sucks?

[SolidSnakeMGS]

I really hate the site.

A lot of their reviews are laughable, late, and sometimes very biased. For example, Halo 2 is very much so like Halo 1, and yet it gets a higher score than the truly original and groundbreaking Half Life 2. Hummm, wonder whose on the Microsoft payroll.

The site is clunky and broken constantly. Navigation can be difficult and they always have some kind of technical problem going on.

And worse off is the moderation system. Since they merged with the GameFAQs site, those mods can ban you without any reason, and they don't have to tell you why they banned you. I've gotten banned for the most ridiculous of reasons -- if they've even provided a reason because sometimes they don't -- but GameFAQers can get away with saying whatever they want.

Just today, I was commenting on some news about 360 and PS3 sales, and of course a bunch of people were starting stuff and provoking others and I responded to them and I get banned for 3 days!

 

[WhatsHisFace]

I really hate the site.

A lot of their reviews are laughable, late, and sometimes very biased. For example, Halo 2 is very much so like Halo 1, and yet it gets a higher score than the truly original and groundbreaking Half Life 2. Hummm, wonder whose on the Microsoft payroll.

Super Mario Galaxy got a 9.5. Microsoft obviously paid them off.

 

[XtromaniaK]

Half-Life before Episode 1 and Two was actually pretty boring and un-groundbreaking.

 

[DeaDheaD]

ign.com is becoming my favorite over Gamespot.

 

[XtromaniaK]

I tend to weigh IGN, Gamespot, and GI as the best reviewers, generally. I usually just average their scores for a game and figure that's the actual score for the game.

 

[GFreeman]

When Gamespot gives a good score to a game you've been hyping, you'll be back to sucking them off. Everyone always resorts to this mind numbing bull**** anytime an honest score is given to a hyped-yet-mediocre game.

 

[L.A.]

gametrailers makes the best video reviews!

 

[悪魔天]

gametrailers makes the best video reviews!

I could not agree more

 

[Figs]

ign.com is becoming my favorite over Gamespot.

I love IGN. I got into that site through a friend back when the site had a different name(which I can't seem to remember anymore). With everyone's opinions about IGN's reviews aside I love the layout and design waaay better than Gamespot's dark and messy format.

 

[Cito]

Gamespot is indeed slow. IGN and Gametrailers had their Call of Duty reviews up before them.

I like Gametrailer's video reviews the best too.

 

[DeaDheaD]

I remember when you had to give IGN blood to get on their site but now I find myself going there more than anywhere else.

 

[Fenrir]

IGN is waaay too forgiving in their reviews. They love to throw 9s at anything with a little hype and generally overrate games. And it's downright idiotic to think of a gaming website/magazine NOT having some kind of margin of error in their review scores. You bring me ANY goddamn website/magazine and I can easily show you just as "grave" f**k-ups of theirs as Gamespot's.

 

[Figs]

IGN is waaay too forgiving in their reviews. They love to throw 9s at anything with a little hype and generally overrate games. And it's downright idiotic to think of a gaming website/magazine NOT having some kind of margin of error in their review scores. You bring me ANY goddamn website/magazine and I can easily show you just as "grave" f**k-ups of theirs as Gamespot's.

That's why in my post I put "aside from opinions on reviews", since like all other mags/sites they have flaws in their review system/reviewers. I just think they have a waaaay better layout and it's also easier to find your way around then Gamespot's.

 

[DeaDheaD]

I like IGN b/c the reviews are more in depth, and they have more video content.

 

[Fenrir]

That's why in my post I put "aside from opinions on reviews", since like all other mags/sites they have flaws in their review system/reviewers. I just think they have a waaaay better layout and it's also easier to find your way around then Gamespot's.

Different strokes I guess. Even though they have poorly reviewed a handful of classics that I just LOVE to death, I have consistently found my opinion of games very much in agreement with their scores, precisely why I think Gamespot, in spite of their f**k ups, are still one of the best game reviewers out there.

 

[SolidSnakeMGS]

Super Mario Galaxy got a 9.5. Microsoft obviously paid them off.

Well, look at Halo 1, 2, and 3. And Gears of War. GoW is a great game, but it was buggy and too short. Halo 1 and 2 are far overrated. Halo 2 for example did very little for the genre. It did not deserve its score.

Half-Life before Episode 1 and Two was actually pretty boring and un-groundbreaking.

No, it was very groundbreaking. I've been playing FPSs forever and HL2 was a breath of fresh air. Great AI, physics, and graphics effects, and the level of emotion in NPCs faces was unmatched. And the game itself. Very scary, desolate, and exciting. The FPS genre was pretty stale, now we got FPSs like FEAR, Bioshock, etc. because HL2 showed how well a story could be told through that genre.

Unlike Halo 2, Half Life 2 completely changed the FPS scape. Yet it was still very faithful to the HL mythos while taking it in a whole new direction.

When Gamespot gives a good score to a game you've been hyping, you'll be back to sucking them off. Everyone always resorts to this mind numbing bull**** anytime an honest score is given to a hyped-yet-mediocre game.

Such a stupid comment doesn't deserve a reply. And it looks like you're the one sucking them off with your defensive attitude about the site.

 

[WhatsHisFace]

Well, look at Halo 1, 2, and 3. And Gears of War. GoW is a great game, but it was buggy and too short. Halo 1 and 2 are far overrated. Halo 2 for example did very little for the genre. It did not deserve its score.

Well then your issue is with more than just Gamespot, because virtually EVERY reviewer gave those games at least a 9/10.

 

[XtromaniaK]

No, it was very groundbreaking. I've been playing FPSs forever and HL2 was a breath of fresh air. Great AI, physics, and graphics effects, and the level of emotion in NPCs faces was unmatched. And the game itself. Very scary, desolate, and exciting. The FPS genre was pretty stale, now we got FPSs like FEAR, Bioshock, etc. because HL2 showed how well a story could be told through that genre.

Unlike Halo 2, Half Life 2 completely changed the FPS scape. Yet it was still very faithful to the HL mythos while taking it in a whole new direction.

Riiiight... Halo also had great AI, probably the best in the genre. And it did do several other things, like online play, the best that had ever been seen. Half-Life 2 really didn't bring anything wholly new to the table until the arrival of Episode 1 and then Episode 2. You don't have Bioshock because of HL2, you have Bioshock because Irrational is/was a genius developer.

HL2's influence on the "FPS-scape" was muted at best. Halo 2 pushed the boundaries of online play, and the original Halo set a high bar for FPSes even 3-4 years after it's release. HL2 wasn't that great of a game in it's basic form.

 

[WhatsHisFace]

Riiiight... Halo also had great AI, probably the best in the genre. And it did do several other things, like online play, the best that had ever been seen. Half-Life 2 really didn't bring anything wholly new to the table until the arrival of Episode 1 and then Episode 2. You don't have Bioshock because of HL2, you have Bioshock because Irrational is/was a genius developer.

That's very true. Half-Life 2 had zero influence on Bioshock. Half-Life 1's tram admittedly was the inspiration for the submarine ride, but that's it.

Bioshock's influence was System Shock 2. That's really all there is to it.

 

[Fenrir]

Bioshock's influence was System Shock 2. That's really all there is to it.

In hindsight, it's a shocking realization that System Shock 2, even after nearly a decade, is still the superior of the two.

 

[WhatsHisFace]

In hindsight, it's a shocking realization that System Shock 2, even after nearly a decade, is still the superior of the two.

Sci Fi is able to accomplish much more than Steampunk though. The projections of Andrew Ryan were obviously trying to be SHODAN.

But yeah. Bioshock is better than System Shock 2 in some ways, but System Shock 2 just had that "it factor". And very flimsy wrenches.

You know, the one thing about SS that sucked were weapons breaking all the time.

 

[Fenrir]

Sci Fi is able to accomplish much more than Steampunk though. The projections of Andrew Ryan were obviously trying to be SHODAN.

But yeah. Bioshock is better than System Shock 2 in some ways, but System Shock 2 just had that "it factor". And very flimsy wrenches.

You know, the one thing about SS that sucked were weapons breaking all the time.

Didn't they release a patch soon after that addressed the frequent weapon breaking?

 

[D4rkShaDoWz]

The only site I look at is GameTrailers. They show footage to clarify the stupid parts in games. Written reviews can say what they want and nobody would ever find out their mistakes.

 

[Green Goblin 1964]

I totally, 110%, agree with all of you guys...horrible reviews and they're gameplay videos are fuzzy and annoying and to get the HD vids you need to freaking pay?! WTH?! Reviews are always low for INCREDIBLE games...Ratchet and lack...7.5(I think that's what they said) are you people kidding me?! Ugh...they annoy the HELL out of me...


Gametrailers.com FTW....

 

[SalaciousVC]

i usually go on Ign.com and sometimes Gametrailers.com for the Angry video Game nerd vids