Is Gamespot biased?

[ted]

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

Leon Dexter wrote:
snip
> In any case, I don't think it's healthy for you to be looking at any sites
> other than Xbox.com, or reading any magazines other than OXM.

Come now, it's not healthy for anyone to read OXM.

 

[Guest]

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

brun132001@yahoo.com wrote:
> 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.

True, like I said though a good portion of people (and especially most
of the bigger fans of the series) will have already have played it.
Reviewers likely have already seen/played the PC version, so it kills
its thunder to some degree...if that is truly fair or not is another
subject. Just not the same thing though as when the game first comes out
though. A port of a game with a delay from when it was first release IMO
is always going to score a little lower due to that, unless it
drastically improves upon the first released version or makes some
sizable editions.


> 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.
>

I agree, nothing wrong with the score at all. Something with him though
that if it doesn't meet his expectations, or they don't praise it or
like it as much as he does then it must be bias 😉

 

[Guest]

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

> Leon Dexter wrote:
> "aether" <vercingetorix@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > 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.
>
>
> You were talking about EGM, not Gamespot, when you said:
>
> "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."

Two separate points made in the same paragraph.

This is what I was responding to with that particular statement:

> 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."

That Gamespot is ranking the top games for the Xbox lower than other
reviewers can't be denied. The opposite is true of their Playstation
rankings. Their readers ranking is often lower than what they give.
It's a tightrope they walk, but they walk it.

 

[Guest]

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

> Leon Dexter wrote:
> "aether" <vercingetorix@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > 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.
>
>
> You were talking about EGM, not Gamespot, when you said:
>
> "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."

Two separate points made in the same paragraph.

This is what I was responding to with that particular statement:

> 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."

That Gamespot is ranking the top games for the Xbox lower than other
reviewers can't be denied. The opposite is true of their Playstation
rankings. Their readers ranking is often lower than what they give.
It's a tightrope they walk, but they walk it.

 

[Guest]

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

> Leon Dexter wrote:
> They give most games lower scores than most other sites. Of the
major
> sites, pick almost any game and Gamespot's score will be on the low
side.
> You claim that they're in Sony's pocket, but then how do you explain
their
> low score of Sony's last big title, Killzone?

Killzone is universally considered to be a mediocre game.

http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/918762.asp

 

[Guest]

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

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

> That Gamespot is ranking the top games for the Xbox lower than other
> reviewers can't be denied. The opposite is true of their Playstation
> rankings. Their readers ranking is often lower than what they give.
> It's a tightrope they walk, but they walk it.

They give most games lower scores than most other sites. Of the major
sites, pick almost any game and Gamespot's score will be on the low side.
You claim that they're in Sony's pocket, but then how do you explain their
low score of Sony's last big title, Killzone?

 

[Guest]

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

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

> Killzone is universally considered to be a mediocre game.
>
> http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/918762.asp


But Gamespot scored it lower than most--shouldn't they be one of the sites
that gave it a 8, 9, or 10? You're the one claiming they have an anti-Xbox,
pro-Sony bias. Yet this is a Sony game and they gave it a low score...how's
that fit with your fantasy?

 

[Guest]

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

"Leon Dexter" <leondexterNOSPAM@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Ti%4e.1949$An2.1501@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...

>
> But Gamespot scored it lower than most--shouldn't they be one of the sites
> that gave it a 8, 9, or 10? You're the one claiming they have an
> anti-Xbox,
> pro-Sony bias. Yet this is a Sony game and they gave it a low
> score...how's
> that fit with your fantasy?
>


It wouldn't be a conspiracy without a coverup.


>

 

[Guest]

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

aether wrote:

> It seems Kasavin is responsible for Xbox reviews, as the majority of
> the top Xbox games over the past few months have been reviewed by
him.
> Curious.

When Wreckless came out IGN gave it a 9.0 and OXM gave it a 9.1.
Gamespot gave it a 6.8. Everyone moaned how Gamespot is biased against
the Xbox and this was proof. Then everyone played the game and they
realized Gamespot's review was accurate and IGN and OXM over-inflated
the score.

Personally I like Gamespot. Thier tastes seem to be the same as mine.
You are clearly focusing too much energy focusing on this. You don't
like Gamespot because they aren't as big of a fanboy as you so don't
read them. Contiue reading OXM where they will tell you every Xbox game
they overhype is wonderful and the flaws should be overlooked because
the game is pretty and has great audio.

 

[Guest]

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

"Hank the Rapper" <xflopgoon@yahoo.com> wrote in message

> When Wreckless came out IGN gave it a 9.0 and OXM gave it a 9.1.
> Gamespot gave it a 6.8. Everyone moaned how Gamespot is biased against
> the Xbox and this was proof. Then everyone played the game and they
> realized Gamespot's review was accurate and IGN and OXM over-inflated
> the score.

I like Wreckless. But then, I never expected it to be a "GTA Killer" like
it was billed to be. It's definitely no "9", but judging it by what it is
rather than what it was 'supposed' to be, I'd give it an 8. But I guess I
score a lot of games higher in that case...like Halo 2.

 

[Guest]

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

"Hank the Rapper" <xflopgoon@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1113071890.598561.112900@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> aether wrote:
>
>> It seems Kasavin is responsible for Xbox reviews, as the majority of
>> the top Xbox games over the past few months have been reviewed by
> him.
>> Curious.
>
> When Wreckless came out IGN gave it a 9.0 and OXM gave it a 9.1.
> Gamespot gave it a 6.8. Everyone moaned how Gamespot is biased against
> the Xbox and this was proof. Then everyone played the game and they
> realized Gamespot's review was accurate and IGN and OXM over-inflated
> the score.


Yeah, but Wreckless came out early in the system life, so "fair" scores will
tend to look inflated now. For comparison, notice that Gamespot gave
Fantavision almost the same score (6.6) as they gave Wreckless. That's
insane.

 

[Guest]

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

"Pray for Mojo" <asdlf@alkjfd.com> wrote in message
news:1u-dnQW6quOg0sbfRVn-
>
> Yeah, but Wreckless came out early in the system life, so "fair" scores
will
> tend to look inflated now. For comparison, notice that Gamespot gave
> Fantavision almost the same score (6.6) as they gave Wreckless. That's
> insane.

Why's it insane? I've never played Fantavision, but I've spoken to people
who like it. It's got a nearly identical score at Gamerankings as
Wreckless, so why's it "insane" that Gamespot's score would be close as
well? Sounds fair to me.

http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/250585.asp

http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/475755.asp?q=wreckless