Is Gamespot biased?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

> Leon Dexter wrote:
>
> Yup. And since the PS2 has 4 times the market share of the Xbox, it
should
> have 4 times as many covers, not just 2x. EGM is anti-PS2!! Damn
pro-Xbox
> biased bastards!

If you extend it back further, it would probably approach that number.
It's not the covers alone, it's also how they rate the games. What they
write in their reviews, and the ratings they give. There exists a
definite pro-Playstation bias.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

"aether" <vercingetorix@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1112392485.566020.115890@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Metal Gear Solid 3 had two covers dedicated in it's name. Chaos Theory?
> Not even one, despite Chaos Theory being by far the superior game.
> (that's simply indisputable) It speaks for itself. EGM and Gamespot
> maintain a bias in favor of Sony.

Actually, it's the population at large with the Sony bias, wouldn't you say?
And Chaos Theory is a multiplatform release, you know--there's no window of
exclusivity for the Xbox this time around.

Look, you were dead wrong. Be a man and admit it. You said there was no
KOTOR (1 or 2) cover; you were wrong. You said there was no Splinter Cell
cover (of any of them); you were wrong. You're wrong about the whole thing.
Grow some balls, accept the new information and stop the mindless hate.
YOU have a system bias. Which is fine, like what you want. But don't claim
the entire world is anti-Xbox just because it ain't tinted green.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

aether wrote:
> The coup de grace.
>
> God of War (PS2) -
> Gamespot: 9.3
>
> Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory - (Avg Ratio: 94%)
> Gamespot: 8.6

What do two reviews from gamespot.com have to do with Electronic Gaming
Monthly magazine?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

"aether" <vercingetorix@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> It was second hand information. On the subject at hand I was correct.
> EGM is loathe to devote a cover to anything Xbox related. You managed
> to find four out of 36, and found nothing wrong with it. Not even the
> original Halo making the cover.

Oh, I see. Even though your facts were wrong, the information you derived
from them is still true. Sure, that follows.



> Metal Gear Solid 3? Twice. Got that? One Playstation game (MGS 3)
> graced the cover of EGM half as many times as anything Xbox.
>
> The number of Playstation covers you gave is bogus. I need to see a
> month by month listing of them so I can count them myself.

I posted a link. You can click on it and see them. Try it! It's magic!


I'd be
> willing to bet there were at least ten covers devoted to the
> Playstation, over the past three years. Did you include GTA? Or not,
> because you consider that a 'multiplatform release'? Nevermind that at
> the time of the cover it was a Playstation exclusive, and is a game
> completely associated with the Playstation.

I counted GTA. And even if there are 10 Playstation 2 exclusive game
covers, so what? It has over twice the marketshare of the other 2 systems
combined. So twice the covers as their combined total wouldn't be "bias",
it would be smart business.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

"aether" <vercingetorix@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1112439838.603750.166290@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > Leon Dexter wrote:
> >
> > I posted a link. You can click on it and see them. Try it! It's
> magic!
>
> http://www.zinio.com/singles?pager.offset=0&issn=1058-918Xd
>
> Is that the link you're referring to?
>
> It only goes back to April of 2003. In two years, there have been twice
> as many Playstation covers as Xbox. (if that's what you're going off)

Yup. And since the PS2 has 4 times the market share of the Xbox, it should
have 4 times as many covers, not just 2x. EGM is anti-PS2!! Damn pro-Xbox
biased bastards!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

"aether" <vercingetorix@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1112440951.448045.212490@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Leon Dexter wrote:
> >
> > Yup. And since the PS2 has 4 times the market share of the Xbox, it
> should
> > have 4 times as many covers, not just 2x. EGM is anti-PS2!! Damn
> pro-Xbox
> > biased bastards!
>
> If you extend it back further, it would probably approach that number.
> It's not the covers alone, it's also how they rate the games. What they
> write in their reviews, and the ratings they give. There exists a
> definite pro-Playstation bias.

Says you...but you also claimed, first, that they were anti-Xbox because
Gamespot is (although they're not) and you thought that was EGM's
website--but it's not. And then it was because of the lack of Xbox
covers--which I proved wasn't true. Now you're falling back on something
unprovable, just so you won't have to admit you were wrong from the start.
If you don't like EGM, don't read it. Not that you have any reason to
dislike it, from what I've seen. It's irrational to go on this kind of
little vendetta without even getting your facts straight. Just accept your
mistake and go on with your life. You don't have to make up rationales
about why you were right "anyway", despite your errors.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

> Leon Dexter wrote:
> Says you...but you also claimed, first, that they were anti-Xbox
because
> Gamespot is (although they're not) and you thought that was EGM's
> website--but it's not.

I never claimed Gamespot was EGM's website. I've always thought they
were connected, because they're owned by the same company. (Ziff Davis)


> And then it was because of the lack of Xbox
> covers--which I proved wasn't true.

It is true.


> You don't have to make up rationales
> about why you were right "anyway", despite your errors.

Minor errors. The overall crux of my argument remains true. Gamespot
gives lower ratings to Xbox titles, and writes in a somber and ho-hum
tone when writing the reviews. EGM only begrudgingly publishes their
magainze with an Xbox game on the cover. The fact that Metal Gear Solid
3, alone, has had as many covers as Halo and Splinter Cell, combined,
speaks for itself. In addition, were the hatchet job articles written
by both Gamespot and EGM in 2002 and early 2003, which harped on the
poor sales of the Xbox and made comparisons of the console to the
failed Dreamcast. The bias has existed from the beginning.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

> Leon Dexter wrote:
> And get over the Metal Gear thing, would you? A PS2 game got 2
covers.
> Wow. That's not proof that they hate the Xbox. It's proof they like
Metal
> Gear.

One game: Metal Gear Solid 3 - Two covers

Halo, Halo 2, Splinter Cell, Splinter Cell: Padora's Tomorrow, Splinter
Cell: Chaos Theory - Two covers

It's symbolic of their bias.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

aether wrote:
>>Leon Dexter wrote:
>>And get over the Metal Gear thing, would you? A PS2 game got 2
>
> covers.
>
>>Wow. That's not proof that they hate the Xbox. It's proof they like
>
> Metal
>
>>Gear.
>
>
> One game: Metal Gear Solid 3 - Two covers
>
> Halo, Halo 2, Splinter Cell, Splinter Cell: Padora's Tomorrow, Splinter
> Cell: Chaos Theory - Two covers
>
> It's symbolic of their bias.
>

That proves absolutely nothing, except maybe they like the MG series...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

"aether" <vercingetorix@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> I never claimed Gamespot was EGM's website. I've always thought they
> were connected, because they're owned by the same company. (Ziff Davis)

Okay, that's what you said. You're still wrong. Gamespot is owned by CNet
Networks, not Ziff-Davis. CNet acquired ZDnet from Ziff-Davis some years
back, but they're not affiliated with Ziff-Davis Publishing. Ziff-Davis
owns several websites, including 1up.com, which includes EGM's online
version. They do not own Gamespot.
Shouldn't you be looking at 1up.com for your little crusade? But they gave
Halo 2 a 10.0, so I guess that doesn't help.



> > And then it was because of the lack of Xbox
> > covers--which I proved wasn't true.
>
> It is true.

Only because 4 is a small number. So is 2 (Cube covers) , and so is 7 (PS2
covers), so you're wrong. Remember how you had "secondhand information"
about their cover "bias"? Don't slip back on me now.



> Minor errors. The overall crux of my argument remains true. Gamespot
> gives lower ratings to Xbox titles, and writes in a somber and ho-hum
> tone when writing the reviews. EGM only begrudgingly publishes their
> magainze with an Xbox game on the cover. The fact that Metal Gear Solid
> 3, alone, has had as many covers as Halo and Splinter Cell, combined,
> speaks for itself. In addition, were the hatchet job articles written
> by both Gamespot and EGM in 2002 and early 2003, which harped on the
> poor sales of the Xbox and made comparisons of the console to the
> failed Dreamcast. The bias has existed from the beginning.

I hate to break it to you, but there are a lot of similarities between the
Dreamcast and Xbox. If Microsoft wasn't willing and able to lose a few
billion dollars, the Xbox would be dead, too. Conversely, if SEGA had a few
billion to throw around, they'd still be in the hardware business and the
Dreamcast would be fine. These are fair comparisions. People who say
things like that are not biased--you are, for getting mad about it.
And get over the Metal Gear thing, would you? A PS2 game got 2 covers.
Wow. That's not proof that they hate the Xbox. It's proof they like Metal
Gear.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

"aether" <vercingetorix@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> One game: Metal Gear Solid 3 - Two covers
>
> Halo, Halo 2, Splinter Cell, Splinter Cell: Padora's Tomorrow, Splinter
> Cell: Chaos Theory - Two covers
>
> It's symbolic of their bias.


You're falling back on parroting yourself, now. I see you've decided to
ignore all the facts I've thrown your way in favor of simple repetition.
Who are you trying to convince? You haven't convinced anyone, probably not
even yourself.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

God Magnus wrote:
>Both multiplatform games.

That would be even more reason to place them on the cover.

Let's be serious. Just as everyone rushed to purchase Vice City and San
Andreas for the PS2, nobody is eager to play Splinter Cell or Brothers
in Arms on it. Vice City, despite being 'multiplatform', is almost
entirely associated with the Playstation. The Xbox has released the
superior titles over the past two years, by far. This isn't reflected
with EGM or Gamespot. Gamespot's recent 8.6 rating and languorous
review of Chaos Theory is icing on the cake.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

Leon Dexter said

>
> Your information is WAY off.

I'd say he's just an idiot.

--
The Kitchen Sink
http://bellsouthpwp.net/g/m/gmagnus/

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

aether said

> Where is the Chaos
> Theory cover? Brothers in Arms?

Both multiplatform games. Do you have any idea what you're talking about?
Any at all?

--
The Kitchen Sink
http://bellsouthpwp.net/g/m/gmagnus/

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

Gamespot strikes again.

http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/914444.asp

The only reviewer out of the ten listed on the front page (and first
fifteen on the entire list) to rate it below 90%. (8.6) The same rating
they gave PS2's 'Devil May Cry 3: Dante's Awakening'. Who will dare to
argue that 'Devil May Cry 3: Dante's Awakening' deserves the same
rating as Doom 3? I await your illogic with baited breath.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

aether wrote:
> Gamespot strikes again.
>
> http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/914444.asp
>
> The only reviewer out of the ten listed on the front page (and first
> fifteen on the entire list) to rate it below 90%. (8.6) The same
> rating they gave PS2's 'Devil May Cry 3: Dante's Awakening'. Who will
> dare to argue that 'Devil May Cry 3: Dante's Awakening' deserves the
> same rating as Doom 3? I await your illogic with baited breath.

They gave it .1 better rating than the PC version. Quite frankly it doesn't
deserve that high of a score. After a few hours the wow factors from the
graphics wear out an you realize how boring and predictable the game is.

Will you just get over this stupid perceved bias from Gamespot?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

Gamespot is much more fairer now, but I remember that they used to be
much harsher towards Xbox games than PS2 games when it comes to
inferior quality or problems in a multiplatform game. Gamespot
reviewers would also condtradict themselves in the same reviews, they
would say that the Xbox and PS2 versions practically look the same,
then list the framerate drops/aliasing,etc in the PS2 versions. The
biggest problem I have with gamespot is that Kasavin reviews so many
major Xbox games. Kasavin is obviously more a fan of traditional
Japanese console games than Western developed console games. He
shouldn't be reviewing Splinter Cell or Kotor when it's clear that he
much prefers MGS or Final Fantasy. It wouldn't be fair coverage unless
Final Fantasy is reviewed by a guy that likes western RPGS more than
Japanese ones.
I don't want to sound like a conspiracy theorist but I thought that the
worst thing gamespot did to the Xbox was making Mechassault the 2002
game of the year. There was no better way to damn the Xbox with faint
praise than to name Mechassault game of the year.

With regards to EGM, I don't see how aether thinks that it's biased.
The EGM GOTY went to the Xbox. In the GOTY article, EGM mentioned
more Xbox games than any other games as great games that led off the
beginning of 2004. Gameinformer, to me, is much more biased with their
not so subtle jabs at the library. They mentioned that Fatal Frame 2
is just another delayed port for the poor Xbox games, when in fact,
most Xbox gamers couldnt' care less about FF2. As recently as less
than a year ago, they were making bs comments about how MS is finally
recognizing the importance of games over hardware. There is so much
blatant bias in Game Informer that it makes you wonder why they even
bother to make it a multiplatform mag.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

brun132...@yahoo.com wrote:
> The biggest problem I have with gamespot is that Kasavin reviews so
many
> major Xbox games. Kasavin is obviously more a fan of traditional
> Japanese console games than Western developed console games. He
> shouldn't be reviewing Splinter Cell or Kotor when it's clear that he
> much prefers MGS or Final Fantasy. It wouldn't be fair coverage
unless
> Final Fantasy is reviewed by a guy that likes western RPGS more than
> Japanese ones.

Precisely. I was going to mention his name, but refrained. I believe
this bias is due, in part, to Kasavin's Asian ancestry. He displays a
definite bias in favor of Japanese titles and the Playstation console.


> With regards to EGM, I don't see how aether thinks that it's biased.
> The EGM GOTY went to the Xbox. In the GOTY article, EGM mentioned
> more Xbox games than any other games as great games that led off the
> beginning of 2004.

The superiority of the Xbox, at that point, could no longer be denied.
Had they continued their unbridaled favoritism, even the dumbest among
their readers would've caught on.


> There is so much blatant bias in Game Informer that it makes you
wonder > why they even bother to make it a multiplatform mag.

I believe there might be money being transferred under the table.
Sony's been known for this.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

> Leon Dexter wrote:
> "aether" <vercingetorix@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> I love to see people rationalize. It's the most amazing thing.
People will
> warp reality to the point of insanity in order to keep from being
wrong.

Rationalize what? By 2004, the Xbox was clearly the superior console.
The titles being released for it were far and away better than that of
the Playstation. Gamespot's still largely in it's own little world,
with Kasavin and the other morons shooting off low ratings for almost
every elite Xbox game being released.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

"aether" <vercingetorix@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> The superiority of the Xbox, at that point, could no longer be denied.
> Had they continued their unbridaled favoritism, even the dumbest among
> their readers would've caught on.

I love to see people rationalize. It's the most amazing thing. People will
warp reality to the point of insanity in order to keep from being wrong.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

Leon Dexter said

> "aether" <vercingetorix@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
>> The superiority of the Xbox, at that point, could no longer be
>> denied. Had they continued their unbridaled favoritism, even the
>> dumbest among their readers would've caught on.
>
> I love to see people rationalize. It's the most amazing thing.
> People will warp reality to the point of insanity in order to keep
> from being wrong.
>
>
>

He's crazy AND stupid!

--
The Kitchen Sink
http://bellsouthpwp.net/g/m/gmagnus/

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

aether wrote:
> Gamespot strikes again.
>
> http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/914444.asp
>
> The only reviewer out of the ten listed on the front page (and first
> fifteen on the entire list) to rate it below 90%. (8.6) The same rating
> they gave PS2's 'Devil May Cry 3: Dante's Awakening'. Who will dare to
> argue that 'Devil May Cry 3: Dante's Awakening' deserves the same
> rating as Doom 3? I await your illogic with baited breath.
>


As far as Doom 3 goes...this opening paragraph in the review sums it up
quite sell.




"Extremely impressive from a technical standpoint yet behind the times
from a first-person-shooter design standpoint: This is the dichotomy
that is Doom 3, the long-awaited sequel from well-known Texas-based
developer id Software. Less than a year after it exploded onto the PC in
the dead of summer, the game is now available for the Xbox, boasting a
new two-player cooperative mode that really helps round out the
experience, and which probably should have been in the PC version to
begin with. Perhaps more importantly, those amazing good looks survived
the translation to the Xbox well intact--along with pretty much
everything else. And what that means is when you look past the
spectacular appearance, you'll still find a conventional, derivative
shooter. Some might interpret this straightforwardness as being
deliberately "old-school," especially since Doom 3 is packed with direct
references to its classic predecessors. However, Doom 3's old-fashioned
gameplay mechanics and level design are very much at odds with its
cutting-edge, ultrarealistic looks. Yet the quality of the presentation
truly is remarkable--enough so that it overwhelms Doom 3's occasional
problems."


It is a been there done that before, only with prettier graphics.
Half-Life 2 is/was a much better game, it was not even the best game of
its kind to come out. Not to mention this is a port, so it is something
that a good portion of people have already played. You really should
read how Gamespot does thier reviews, right there where the scores are
at it says ABOUT OUR RATINGS (or something very close to that), read
that and give it a rest!!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

God Magnus wrote:
> Leon Dexter said
>
>
>>"aether" <vercingetorix@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>>
>>>The superiority of the Xbox, at that point, could no longer be
>>>denied. Had they continued their unbridaled favoritism, even the
>>>dumbest among their readers would've caught on.
>>
>>I love to see people rationalize. It's the most amazing thing.
>>People will warp reality to the point of insanity in order to keep
>>from being wrong.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> He's crazy AND stupid!
>

LMFAO!!! 😉

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

aether wrote:
>>Leon Dexter wrote:
>>"aether" <vercingetorix@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>>I love to see people rationalize. It's the most amazing thing.
>
> People will
>
>>warp reality to the point of insanity in order to keep from being
>
> wrong.
>
> Rationalize what? By 2004, the Xbox was clearly the superior console.
> The titles being released for it were far and away better than that of
> the Playstation. Gamespot's still largely in it's own little world,
> with Kasavin and the other morons shooting off low ratings for almost
> every elite Xbox game being released.
>

So there are/were no good/great titles released for the PS2 then right?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

massivegrooves wrote:
> It is a been there done that before, only with prettier graphics.
> Half-Life 2 is/was a much better game, it was not even the best game
of

I don't think that it's fair to come Hl2 to Doom. Other than the fact
that both are FPS, their atmosphere and gameplay are completely
different. HL2 on the PC also had many more technical problems than
Doom. I personally thought that HL2 should have been penalized more by
the reviewers for the technical problems that really shouldn't have
occured.

> its kind to come out. Not to mention this is a port, so it is
something
> that a good portion of people have already played.

Keep in mind that many console gamers do not have the PC equipment to
play Doom or at least play it properly. A $200 videocard would be
required for playing on a PC that is equivalent to playing on the Xbox.
The Xbox version also has the benefit of co-op mode. Kasavin himself
admits the co-op mode improved Doom 3 immensely.

With that said, I have no idea why aether is complaining about the
review. This is one of Kasavin's better reviews. He gave Doom 3 the
score of a very good game. Doom 3 is a very good but flawed game and a
8.6 is a perfectly acceptable score.