Comments on: Is GameSpot Behind the Times or Out of Touch http://www.wiiliving.com/is-gamespot-behind-the-times-or-out-of-touch/ Tue, 06 Jan 2009 01:53:17 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: illisium http://www.wiiliving.com/is-gamespot-behind-the-times-or-out-of-touch/#comment-715 illisium Sat, 17 Mar 2007 01:00:10 +0000 http://www.wiiliving.com/is-gamespot-behind-the-times-or-out-of-touch/#comment-715 The concerns about the Wii you tend to dismiss are valid. Just about everyone loves the Wii, but there are real questions about whether or not it can thrive with the limited technology it has at its command. You charge that "Gone are the days when you could simply add lens flares and bump maps and you could wow gamers into thinking they are having fun", but those days AREN'T gone; I went to see 300 this afternoon, and what I saw was a shallow movie that was still pretty damn good cause it was pretty and sounded great. Whenever I start thinking like that, I look over at the games on my shelf like Rez and Eternal Darkness; they remind me that a sense of style and technological knowhow can combine to create a hell of a game, even if it doesn't have much "substance" (also see: entire console RPG genre). If those shortcomings are affecting the ability of GameSpot reviewers to enjoy games, you can't blame them. Hope that developers can find novel ways to use the Wii to further suspend disbelief and wow players, because frankly, that does matter. A lot. The concerns about the Wii you tend to dismiss are valid. Just about everyone loves the Wii, but there are real questions about whether or not it can thrive with the limited technology it has at its command. You charge that “Gone are the days when you could simply add lens flares and bump maps and you could wow gamers into thinking they are having fun”, but those days AREN’T gone; I went to see 300 this afternoon, and what I saw was a shallow movie that was still pretty damn good cause it was pretty and sounded great. Whenever I start thinking like that, I look over at the games on my shelf like Rez and Eternal Darkness; they remind me that a sense of style and technological knowhow can combine to create a hell of a game, even if it doesn’t have much “substance” (also see: entire console RPG genre). If those shortcomings are affecting the ability of GameSpot reviewers to enjoy games, you can’t blame them. Hope that developers can find novel ways to use the Wii to further suspend disbelief and wow players, because frankly, that does matter. A lot.

]]> By: Nigel http://www.wiiliving.com/is-gamespot-behind-the-times-or-out-of-touch/#comment-697 Nigel Thu, 15 Mar 2007 20:07:43 +0000 http://www.wiiliving.com/is-gamespot-behind-the-times-or-out-of-touch/#comment-697 I strongly disagree with this article for several reasons. The first, if you read on Gamespot's "reviews explained" they explain very clearly how they come to their conclusions. Within the rating system each catagory used to rate the games is weighted. The five catagories are Gameplay, Graphic, Sound, Value, and Tilt (tilt is the reviewers opinion of the game and is used to account for things like story, pacing, and fun). As previously stated these things are weighted, 1 point in game play is equal to .3 to the over all score of the game. 1pt in graphics is equal to .15 , 1 pt in sound is = to .1, value is .15, and tilt is .3 (.3 + .15 +.1 + .15 + .3 = 1.0) as you can see they value gameplay and what the reviewer thinks (as far as story and the very subjective "fun") of the game more highly than graphics. The second reason I strongly disagree with you is that you claim Gamespot is behind the times yet your problem is really with individual reviewers as the review is still that reviewers personal opinion of the game. Because its someone's opinion you shouldn't look at a review as a game being good or bad, as much as the score representing the likelyhood that you will enjoy that game. Are they going to be "right" all the time, no. As for your example that perfect dark zero got a 9.0 not only that but it got the highest score of all 360 launch titles, and as far as I'm concerned King Kong was a better game and King Kong wasn't that good. You brought up the fact that members on gamespot's website made petitions 10-pages long asking for reviewers to re-rate games. Gamespot includes on a games page an average score from game spot site members right under gamespots score and over an average score from other game review sites. So why should a reviewer re-rate a game if the community is given an outlet for expressing their own opinion of what they think of the game. You stated "[the Wii is] a new and improved method for playing video games and having fun" I partly agree with you. It certianly is new, and I would say that the controls are Intuitive, which is why "old school gamers to those who haven't played a single video game" might enjoy it. But to suggest that it is "improved" is rather subjective don't you think? But I forgot this is coming from Wii Living the un-baised source for all things Wii. By being affliated either by employment or membership to a site entitled "Wii Living" you show bias toward the Wii (clearly you like the wii, if you didn't you wouldn't be here), maybe not from game to game but certainly for the console as a whole. And while your suspicions and accusations that gamespot's staff are jaded may or may not be true (but for the sake of arguement I will give you the benefit of the doubt and say they are jaded) I would rather get my reviews from a jaded game reviewer than a biased one, which is why I get my xbox scores from Gamespot and not from OXM because OXM is bias toward Xbox. For my own credibility I have played the Wii and it is fun (my girlfriend left it at my house for the week while she was out of town), but I can't play it for 12 hours like I can my 360. And while the controls are fun and interesting for titles like Zelda and Wii sports, I find them lackluster for games that I enjoy like splinter cell, and call of duty 3. What it gains in "fun" is lost in control for more complex titles, as I can press the throw grenade button faster than I can move my arm to signal a throw grenade command (I find the competive nature of those games fun). My point being that while the Wiimote is "better" for some genres of games a traditional controller is "better" for other types of games, just like the mouse and keyboard is "better" for certain types of games its all subjective. I'll go deeper into the graphics discussion as I've brought up two titles that are on both the Wii and Xbox 360 and are some what graphics intensive games (atleast on the 360). do I think graphics are everything? no. for the same reasons I don't like action movies, something that looks cool like special effects isn't going to "wow" me like a really good story, or a new game play mechanic but in the defense of graphics they do suspend your disbelief. They help get people into the game, when a game is cluttered with jagged edges and poor draw distances it just reminds you that you are playing a game. For the careful observer there is a huge differance between bad graphics and dated graphics, Halo, golden eye and super mario (for NES, I have one of those) have dated graphics they are simply old, bad graphics would imply graphical errors that hurt the game experience. So while you argue against graphics just as many people will argue for them. Which brings me to my final point, gamespot is trying to be objective (un-biased) and that is the hardest thing to do no matter what you are doing. They are not reviewing the games for Wii fans, they are not reviewing the games for fans of that series, they are reviewing them for an average gamer. One of my favorite games is Hitman, the highest score the series has recieved is an 8.6 from gamespot the lowest is 5.6, and I live with it because I love those games, I know I like them and the score of those games would not and will not change how much I like them. and quite honestly even though it is one of my favorite series I would have rated them as high as gamespot did if it had been my job to do so. I strongly disagree with this article for several reasons. The first, if you read on Gamespot’s “reviews explained” they explain very clearly how they come to their conclusions. Within the rating system each catagory used to rate the games is weighted. The five catagories are Gameplay, Graphic, Sound, Value, and Tilt (tilt is the reviewers opinion of the game and is used to account for things like story, pacing, and fun). As previously stated these things are weighted, 1 point in game play is equal to .3 to the over all score of the game. 1pt in graphics is equal to .15 , 1 pt in sound is = to .1, value is .15, and tilt is .3 (.3 + .15 +.1 + .15 + .3 = 1.0) as you can see they value gameplay and what the reviewer thinks (as far as story and the very subjective “fun”) of the game more highly than graphics.
The second reason I strongly disagree with you is that you claim Gamespot is behind the times yet your problem is really with individual reviewers as the review is still that reviewers personal opinion of the game. Because its someone’s opinion you shouldn’t look at a review as a game being good or bad, as much as the score representing the likelyhood that you will enjoy that game. Are they going to be “right” all the time, no. As for your example that perfect dark zero got a 9.0 not only that but it got the highest score of all 360 launch titles, and as far as I’m concerned King Kong was a better game and King Kong wasn’t that good.
You brought up the fact that members on gamespot’s website made petitions 10-pages long asking for reviewers to re-rate games. Gamespot includes on a games page an average score from game spot site members right under gamespots score and over an average score from other game review sites. So why should a reviewer re-rate a game if the community is given an outlet for expressing their own opinion of what they think of the game.
You stated “[the Wii is] a new and improved method for playing video games and having fun” I partly agree with you. It certianly is new, and I would say that the controls are Intuitive, which is why “old school gamers to those who haven’t played a single video game” might enjoy it. But to suggest that it is “improved” is rather subjective don’t you think? But I forgot this is coming from Wii Living the un-baised source for all things Wii. By being affliated either by employment or membership to a site entitled “Wii Living” you show bias toward the Wii (clearly you like the wii, if you didn’t you wouldn’t be here), maybe not from game to game but certainly for the console as a whole. And while your suspicions and accusations that gamespot’s staff are jaded may or may not be true (but for the sake of arguement I will give you the benefit of the doubt and say they are jaded) I would rather get my reviews from a jaded game reviewer than a biased one, which is why I get my xbox scores from Gamespot and not from OXM because OXM is bias toward Xbox.
For my own credibility I have played the Wii and it is fun (my girlfriend left it at my house for the week while she was out of town), but I can’t play it for 12 hours like I can my 360. And while the controls are fun and interesting for titles like Zelda and Wii sports, I find them lackluster for games that I enjoy like splinter cell, and call of duty 3. What it gains in “fun” is lost in control for more complex titles, as I can press the throw grenade button faster than I can move my arm to signal a throw grenade command (I find the competive nature of those games fun). My point being that while the Wiimote is “better” for some genres of games a traditional controller is “better” for other types of games, just like the mouse and keyboard is “better” for certain types of games its all subjective.
I’ll go deeper into the graphics discussion as I’ve brought up two titles that are on both the Wii and Xbox 360 and are some what graphics intensive games (atleast on the 360). do I think graphics are everything? no. for the same reasons I don’t like action movies, something that looks cool like special effects isn’t going to “wow” me like a really good story, or a new game play mechanic but in the defense of graphics they do suspend your disbelief. They help get people into the game, when a game is cluttered with jagged edges and poor draw distances it just reminds you that you are playing a game. For the careful observer there is a huge differance between bad graphics and dated graphics, Halo, golden eye and super mario (for NES, I have one of those) have dated graphics they are simply old, bad graphics would imply graphical errors that hurt the game experience. So while you argue against graphics just as many people will argue for them.
Which brings me to my final point, gamespot is trying to be objective (un-biased) and that is the hardest thing to do no matter what you are doing. They are not reviewing the games for Wii fans, they are not reviewing the games for fans of that series, they are reviewing them for an average gamer. One of my favorite games is Hitman, the highest score the series has recieved is an 8.6 from gamespot the lowest is 5.6, and I live with it because I love those games, I know I like them and the score of those games would not and will not change how much I like them. and quite honestly even though it is one of my favorite series I would have rated them as high as gamespot did if it had been my job to do so.

]]> By: elbarto69 http://www.wiiliving.com/is-gamespot-behind-the-times-or-out-of-touch/#comment-147 elbarto69 Sat, 16 Dec 2006 13:58:36 +0000 http://www.wiiliving.com/is-gamespot-behind-the-times-or-out-of-touch/#comment-147 The Wii section of the Gamespot forums are a-buzz with people who are thoroughly disappointed with Gamespot's reviews of Wii games, and several players have created petition threads 10+ pages long with signatures asking specific reviewers to re-review the game or change their reviewing criteria. I think the biggest conflict is actually how the controller is used, which is what leads to frequent reviews with "clunky controls" mentioned 4 or 20 times throughout. If you watch the 4½ hour special Gamespot had when they first got the Wii, TONS of Gamespot reviewers were clammoring to get their hands on the controller and play. Those that got into it (standing in a batting stance during baseball), had the smiles on their faces, were laughing, and enjoying themselves. Those that did not get into it, and ironically enough followed Nintendo's own recommendations of how to use the Wiimote, looked bored and dissatisfied, like they were sitting in on a lecture. Nintendo actually recommends that people only move the Wiimote in about a 1 foot diameter sphere, basically cocking and twisting the controller with just your wrist. While this will get the same (or very similar) results as the full motion, it's simply more fun to go through the full motion. I would guess that 90% of people play this way, which is why they are having more fun. It's certainly true for me, I cannot imagine playing Wii Sports baseball by simply flicking my wrist downward when I want to swing the bat. Someone in the Gamespot forums started a thread asking "When will Gamespot reviewers learn how to use the Wiimote?" I think the question is when will people agree that there is one "right" way to use the Wiimote, and there is one "fun" way to use the Wiimote? The Wii section of the Gamespot forums are a-buzz with people who are thoroughly disappointed with Gamespot’s reviews of Wii games, and several players have created petition threads 10+ pages long with signatures asking specific reviewers to re-review the game or change their reviewing criteria.

I think the biggest conflict is actually how the controller is used, which is what leads to frequent reviews with “clunky controls” mentioned 4 or 20 times throughout. If you watch the 4½ hour special Gamespot had when they first got the Wii, TONS of Gamespot reviewers were clammoring to get their hands on the controller and play. Those that got into it (standing in a batting stance during baseball), had the smiles on their faces, were laughing, and enjoying themselves. Those that did not get into it, and ironically enough followed Nintendo’s own recommendations of how to use the Wiimote, looked bored and dissatisfied, like they were sitting in on a lecture.

Nintendo actually recommends that people only move the Wiimote in about a 1 foot diameter sphere, basically cocking and twisting the controller with just your wrist. While this will get the same (or very similar) results as the full motion, it’s simply more fun to go through the full motion. I would guess that 90% of people play this way, which is why they are having more fun. It’s certainly true for me, I cannot imagine playing Wii Sports baseball by simply flicking my wrist downward when I want to swing the bat.

Someone in the Gamespot forums started a thread asking “When will Gamespot reviewers learn how to use the Wiimote?” I think the question is when will people agree that there is one “right” way to use the Wiimote, and there is one “fun” way to use the Wiimote?

]]>