Gamespot gives Gun a 7.4

[The Iron Weasel]

Gamespot's review of Gun (http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/gun/review.html) is up.

Despite a great presentation that'll likely give a very positive first impression, Gun ultimately offers too little content for it to be a truly satisfying game. Most all of the right ingredients are here in some quantity. But the hastily delivered storyline (which, fittingly, concludes with an incredibly abrupt ending) and the lack of any real depth to the gameworld make Gun much better suited for some quick, fleeting thrills instead of for the long haul.
Well, I was thinking about picking this up.....the key word there being was.

[thecrazyd]

Then again, Kasavin would give Jesus Fucking Christ reborn a 8.2

[The Iron Weasel]

Thats true...he did give chaos theory a 8.6.....MOTHER FUCKING 8.6!! THATS ONE OF THE BEST GAMES I'VE EVER PLAYED!

*simmers down*

[sTubbs]

Then again, Kasavin would give Jesus Fucking Christ reborn a 8.2

Which would be perfectly justified if Jesus 2.0 presented no major upgrades over Jesus 1.0.

[rein]

The day Gamespot determines what games I will purchase is the day I stop playing games.

[thecrazyd]

Which would be perfectly justified if Jesus 2.0 presented no major upgrades over Jesus 1.0.
But what if Jesus 2: Electric Boogaloo was a much more polished, and finely tuned experience that really takes it to the next level?

This is not a valid question, just an excuse to say "Jesus 2: Electric Boogaloo."

[The Iron Weasel]

Gamespot has the best reviews if you ask me, so I base alot of what I buy on what they say.

[MaiXu]

I tend to agree with Kasavin more often than not. I've even felt there were times when he was too leniant on some game's major flaws. So Gun was probably only going to be a rental for me anyway. This review likely won't change that.

If I was buying a 360 this month, however, I might be more prone to buy (assuming the visuals made the leap).

[KamaItachi]

Damn, I was kinda' hyped after this one, even started watching Deadwood again to get back in the gun-slinging mood.

I'll probably wait and check out a few more reviews before I write it off though.

"Those who doubt me suck cock by choice!"

I love Deadwood.

[Chill]

Still, even if the review score is not the most accurate, it still doesn't negate what he says in the review. Things like "lack of any real depth to the gameworld" makes me think twice about this title. Normally, I would've picked up Gun as soon as I could, but now, I'll wait until I hear more about it. So, thanks Gamespot. You may have saved me $50.

[thecrazyd]

I feel that Kasavin low balls everything to keep his hard ass rep and to get more people to look. That is not to say that it is undeserving in this case, but that is how Kasavin does things in general.

[The Iron Weasel]

As much as Kasavin was wrong with his opinion of Chaos Theory (:D). Hes usually dead on if you ask me.

[KSmitty]

Well, I was thinking about picking this up.....the key word there being was
You sir took the words right out of my mouth...

-K

[Heretic Machine]

I was never really considering this game... Too many shitty Old West games for me to give anything a try that doesn't get a 9.0 nearly universally. When they make the Halo or GTA: Vice City of the Old West, then I'll consider giving the genre another try.

[Dracula-X]

Dammit. I was kinda looking forward to this, especially with the voice talent behind it (Brad Douriff is the man, and Deadwood kicks ass)

Hopefully it fairs better in other reviews...

[Swick]

I was never really considering this game... Too many shitty Old West games for me to give anything a try that doesn't get a 9.0 nearly universally. When they make the Halo or GTA: Vice City of the Old West, then I'll consider giving the genre another try.What, you never played Outlaws?

[Wonka]

The trouble with gamespot reviews is that they have such variability of score depending on who the reviewer was. This was Kassavin, so I have to remember to add a point or maybe two (depending on whether it was a game style that he likes). With some of their other reviewers, you should maybe take away a point...

I reccomend gamerankings as the place to go to get an idea of game quality. The cranky reviewers like Kassavin and the fanboys can all have reasonable shot at becoming merely outlier data points there. Just be sure to look at their pie chart to try and get a sense of how the data is distributed.

[if76]

Ok so the game doesn't give you a penalty for dying and a radar tells you where to go so you dont' get lost. The reviewer doesn't mention anything about load times so I imagine they're low. In other words, all the annoying things that usually pad gametime are eliminated and the score suffers because of it. Ridiculous.

Hey I've got an idea. Instead of being able to restart a mission, make the player have to walk all the way back to the starting point and reacquire all his lost weapons and equipment. Then we'd get the 12 hour game we couldn't live without.

[Player 1]

Wonka, with due respect, a review tends to be one person's opinion anyway. If your own personal barometer of that person's opinion tells you to add 1 or 2 points and that works for you then go for it.

I'm a cranky, jaded gamer so I tend to agree with GK's opinion on a lot of stuff. I've seen him genuinely gush over stuff like Devil May Cry 3 (and Gerstmann's video review of Guitar Hero was awesome entertainment on it's own) and other games in the past.

I guess, if you've been around the block a few times, you've seen things before and you're harder to impress. I trust one review on Gamespot a hundred times more than sugar-rush "OMFG!" rankings on Game Rankings. Particularly of Nintendo games and sequels. I do feel Gamespot's attitude towards scoring of sequels is absolutely spot on.

Also, GK looks like a genuine geek and Gerstmann's a tubby gamer dude. I trust them :)

Hey! They'd do some awesome cosplay as Toejam and Earl.

[ldi222]

I watched the video review and what the conclusion seems to me was that it was great fun and a fantastic story, just over a bit too quickly. I can handle that although I have to say as much as I wanted to flame gamespot, they seem to be pretty credible despite their harsh critiques.

[Captain Awesome]

It seems every attempt to make a really cool and amazingly well done western shooter has turned into a mediocre thing. Red Dead Revolver was so dissapointing. This one kind of bugged me through its trailers alone. I'd love to have a very visercal and agressive gun, on foot and horseback system. With a great story behind it. Like Deadwood mixed with Tombstone. Maybe even the option to play a Native American and or a Cowboy.

There's a PC western game coming out 2006 called Call To Juarez, that looks and sounds promising so far.

[GunnyMo]

There should be a warning label on Gamespot reviews: "CAUTION: Take reviews with a grain of salt. The pricks that write them are just that: pricks."

[Ernst_Jager]

Gun is coming out on to many platforms for me. Usually in my opinion that spells medicore.

[EvilBob46]

When Kasavin gives a really really good score to the game you just know it's going to be one of the best games in that genre in years (see: RE4). That's what I like about him. And all this whining about a a hyped game receiving an 8.something is annoying as hell.

[AspectVoid]

There should be a warning label on Gamespot reviews: "CAUTION: Take reviews with a grain of salt. The pricks that write them are just that: pricks."

The only pricks around are the ones that don't understand the freaking scoring system. A 7.4 is a GOOD game. It says so right under the number. Seriously, what is bad about a game being labled as good? Please, I really want to know.

[crashedout]

I base off of Gamespot as well, they are tough on games and have played, as have I. Sometime they get caught doing a hack job but overall, if it is a 7 its worth renting, 8 worth buying, 9 a must have. Cannot say the same thing about 1up, IGN and others. Those I take with a grain of salt. Gun looked good on the G4 special, will have to rent it. Neversoft has not let me down yet, altough I did skip the Bruce Willis game.

[Ravenlock]

I was never really considering this game... Too many shitty Old West games for me to give anything a try that doesn't get a 9.0 nearly universally. When they make the Halo or GTA: Vice City of the Old West, then I'll consider giving the genre another try.

Gun was supposed to BE the GTA: Vice City of the Old West. Turns out it may just be the GTA 1 or GTA 2 of the Old West. Personally, that still sounds like crazy fun to me, so I'll still be trying this out, I just won't be rushing out the door to grab it right away.

Seriously, his review sounded a little off-kilter to me, as though his own expectations were a little high. "The acting is great, the gameplay is solid, the guns feel good, I like the action, horseback riding is fun... it's just short and not too deep." Well hell, "short and not too deep" isn't much of a criticism when you consider some of the crap that comes out these days.

Kinda ticks me off that a game has to provide 30 hours of gameplay to be called good anymore. I don't HAVE 30 hours to give to most games. :rolleyes:

But I digress. Again, I'm hoping it's as fun as it looks, however long it lasts.

[AspectVoid]

Kinda ticks me off that a game has to provide 30 hours of gameplay to be called good anymore. I don't HAVE 30 hours to give to most games. :rolleyes:

But I digress. Again, I'm hoping it's as fun as it looks, however long it lasts.

A game doesn't need to be 30 hours long, but it better provide more then 2 nights of gaming, which is what a 5 to 6 hour game is for me. Recently I got around to renting Genji. It was a fun game, I enjoyed it alot, but there's no way I would buy it. It took me a touch over 6 hours to beat. I was so dissapointed because I could easily see how the story could have been expanded and provided a much richer experiance.

Reading the Gamespot review of GUN, the first thing I thought of was Genji. So much potential around to expand the game, yet none of it used. I will be renting Gun, but if it is a 6 hour game, I certainly won't buy it.

[Kelegacy]

A game doesn't need to be 30 hours long, but it better provide more then 2 nights of gaming, which is what a 5 to 6 hour game is for me. Recently I got around to renting Genji. It was a fun game, I enjoyed it alot, but there's no way I would buy it. It took me a touch over 6 hours to beat. I was so dissapointed because I could easily see how the story could have been expanded and provided a much richer experiance.

Reading the Gamespot review of GUN, the first thing I thought of was Genji. So much potential around to expand the game, yet none of it used. I will be renting Gun, but if it is a 6 hour game, I certainly won't buy it.
I will never buy another grossly short game again. Stubbs was 5 hours. FIVE FUCKING HOURS!! I can masturbate longer than that.

And those of you who can’t read a fucking review and just look at scores should be shot, castrated, and turned into hamburger. Go ahead and add 2 more points to Kasavin’s score to make yourself happy…but you’ll be a fool. I look at Kasavin and other reviewers as professionals; we disagree many times, but they know what they’re talking about for the most part…they do this shit for a living, though in the end they are just giving their informed opinions. Still, if you actually read the review, you can pick out facts about the game, instead of just opinions.

And those of you who don’t like reviews and would rather use your own judgement…hey, by all means go out and buy shitty games and make your own judgements. I’ll be saving my money for the good stuff and will read multiple reviews. Keyword here being READ!

[KSmitty]

A game doesn't need to be 30 hours long, but it better provide more then 2 nights of gaming, which is what a 5 to 6 hour game is for me. Recently I got around to renting Genji. It was a fun game, I enjoyed it alot, but there's no way I would buy it. It took me a touch over 6 hours to beat. I was so dissapointed because I could easily see how the story could have been expanded and provided a much richer experiance.
Same story except replace 'renting' with 'buying' and 'Genji' with 'Ultimate Spiderman'. I thought the extra missions and rewards would keep me interested, but its just more of the same with a ramped up difficulty level. :(

[MasterKwan]

Stubbs was short AND crappy. Just watching over my 14 year old's shoulders, I knew it wasn't worth picking up the controller for. Game Fly just saved me another $50.

[AnthraxKitty]

The only pricks around are the ones that don't understand the freaking scoring system. A 7.4 is a GOOD game. It says so right under the number. Seriously, what is bad about a game being labled as good? Please, I really want to know.

I have yet to see someone answer this.

[Wonka]

Wonka, with due respect, a review tends to be one person's opinion anyway. If your own personal barometer of that person's opinion tells you to add 1 or 2 points and that works for you then go for it.

I'm a cranky, jaded gamer so I tend to agree with GK's opinion on a lot of stuff. I've seen him genuinely gush over stuff like Devil May Cry 3 (and Gerstmann's video review of Guitar Hero was awesome entertainment on it's own) and other games in the past.

I guess, if you've been around the block a few times, you've seen things before and you're harder to impress. I trust one review on Gamespot a hundred times more than sugar-rush "OMFG!" rankings on Game Rankings. Particularly of Nintendo games and sequels. I do feel Gamespot's attitude towards scoring of sequels is absolutely spot on.

Also, GK looks like a genuine geek and Gerstmann's a tubby gamer dude. I trust them :)

Hey! They'd do some awesome cosplay as Toejam and Earl.

Have you ever even used game rankings? Do you even know what it is? They don't rate games there you know. It's a meta site. They take all the reviews that all the major places (print and online) give and place them all into a nice little pie chart for you. This lets you see for yourself what most people think without having to mentally compensate for stuff like the fact that Kassavin is a nitpicker. That's great if you think that Kassavin is god and all, but I think you would be better served by not putting trust into just one dude. Even a very jaded bitter sounding dude. That's why I prefer to hear more than just one dudes opinion. I can see right now (from gamerankings) that of the reviews so far, there has been one review in the 90's, four reviews in the 80's and one in the 70's. Hmmm, I wonder which review that single 70's review might be??? Like I said, you usually have to add a point for that guy (though not always, sometimes he is over too). Anyhow, this is a brand new game so its reviews are still trickling in. Give it a couple days and there will be about 50 reviews there. Then you can get a real good idea of how the ratings are distributed. Who knows, maybe Kassavin was closer to the mean than I normally expect this time? Maybe there will suddenly be a TON of reviews coming in that are all negative. It could happen. It has even happened before.

But no matter how you slice it: 50 opinions are still better than 1.

[Wonka]

I have yet to see someone answer this.

I deliberately don't CARE about this. They just do this to try and be "different" and thus to try to cultivate a readership that will only look at their reveiws. It's just their way of trying to be the one stop shopping place for opinions on all games. Do you actually think that if a sites numbers are all smaller by a point or two that this makes them a better site??? I would argue that it does NOT.

I read reviews to try and guage whether or not *I* would like to own the game. Not whether some game journalist who litereally does nothing else thinks about it. The best guage for whether or not *I* would like the game tends to be reflected in a collection of opinions rather than the opinion of one eccentric journalist. Even then, sometimes I have different taste. That's where the gamefly comes in.

[Metal Jesus]

I usually like Gamespot's review...hell, I pay $20 for the COMPLETE access to the site. That said, I fully understand that they are harder on games than anybody. If the game gets an 8 at Gamespot, that usually a 9 at other sites. If Gamespot LOVES a game, than it's very very good.

[Captain Awesome]

Kinda ticks me off that a game has to provide 30 hours of gameplay to be called good anymore. I don't HAVE 30 hours to give to most games.

You do know you don't have to finish the game in one day right?

Thats the brilliance of the "save feature". I think games are getting shorter and shorter when people think they can charge 50 dollars for content thats around a 30 dollar pricetag.

I want to sit there and enjoy long hours of refined gameplay, not Max Payne short plays.

[The Iron Weasel]

HEY! MAX PAYNE WAS GREAT! I know it was short, but it was SOOOOO GOOD!

[AversionFX]

The only pricks around are the ones that don't understand the freaking scoring system. A 7.4 is a GOOD game. It says so right under the number. Seriously, what is bad about a game being labled as good? Please, I really want to know.

Let's rank that on a 100 point system, shall we?

7.4 translates into 74. Now, I don't know where everyone else went to school, but in my schools, 74 meant C. C is not great, but it could be worse.

I would translate a 74 (or realistically, a 7.4) as pretty much "not worth the money, maybe worth a rent."

I wasn't exactly interested in GUN, because Western's don't cream my twinkie/blow my skirt up/float my boat. And since it's a 7.4, it doesn't really rank on my list of "Games to play after I've finished what's on my plate."

Good day.

[Player 1]

Have you ever even used game rankings? Do you even know what it is? They don't rate games there you know. It's a meta site.

Short answer: Yes

Long answer: I've been using it for years - mainly to monitor the reception of games whose development I've been directly involved in. You'll find a lot of publishers and developers have metacritic, gamerankings, rotten tomatoes and gamestats bookmarked for this very reason.

They take all the reviews that all the major places (print and online) give and place them all into a nice little pie chart for you. This lets you see for yourself what most people think without having to mentally compensate for stuff like the fact that Kassavin is a nitpicker. That's great if you think that Kassavin is god and all, but I think you would be better served by not putting trust into just one dude.

I personally don't think a bunch of numbers represented as a pie-chart will give me the necessary information that I want when I seek information about a game I'm considering. I'll grant you, I may use that as a secondary source but never a primary.

Stats can always be interpreted in ways you never expected. Such as 7.4 out of 10 being regarded as "bad". Stats without context are fairly meaningless to me. I find context essential and I get that from a review.

..and one in the 70's. Hmmm, I wonder which review that single 70's review might be??? Like I said, you usually have to add a point for that guy (though not always, sometimes he is over too).

No biggie. It's one guy's opinion to give it 70 and rate it as good. I just so happen to find myself in agreement with that guy more than most others. But, hey, that's me.

But no matter how you slice it: 50 opinions are still better than 1.

I personally disagree. I trust the opinion a single individual who I have personally found to share my opinion of gaming quality and can give context to his opinion than 50 anonymous people that can perform an easy click and sometimes go as far as adding "grt game!!!1" to it.

There's no issue here. My option seems to work for me, your option seems to work for you. I very much doubt either of us are going to buy the new Matrix game so, although we may take different paths, we probably reach the same conclusion ;)

[Zanzibar]

I'll buy it in the bargain bin or when the price gets marked down to $19.99. That way the developers still get a 'unit sold'.

[crackeriah]

Originally Posted by AspectVoid
The only pricks around are the ones that don't understand the freaking scoring system. A 7.4 is a GOOD game. It says so right under the number. Seriously, what is bad about a game being labled as good? Please, I really want to know.

I have yet to see someone answer this.
I'll answer it with a question:
On average, what's the difference between a 9.6, a 9.3 and a 9.0?

On Gamerankings, the answer is that there are 4 games with an average score of a 9.6, 17 games with 9.3 and 38 games with 9.0.

If game reviews were evenly distributed across the 10 point scale, you would expect to see as many 9's as 7's. In reality you see a hell of a lot more 7's.

What this means is that there's a bigger difference in quality between a 9.3 game and a 9.0 game than a 7.3 and a 7.0 game. Gamespot's average is 6.8, which means to them "Gun" is barely above average, not "Good."

/end normal distribution math rant

[endrom]

It seems every attempt to make a really cool and amazingly well done western shooter has turned into a mediocre thing. Red Dead Revolver was so dissapointing. This one kind of bugged me through its trailers alone. I'd love to have a very visercal and agressive gun, on foot and horseback system. With a great story behind it. Like Deadwood mixed with Tombstone. Maybe even the option to play a Native American and or a Cowboy.

There's a PC western game coming out 2006 called Call To Juarez, that looks and sounds promising so far.

Are you joking or something? Red dead revolver was great, and rock star as a tech demo was showing western style settings with shadow effects. but aside form that, RDR was a awesome game and I still play it for my xbox. Ill play gun at my buddie's EB when he gets off form work and see if its good.

[H.Bogard]

Well, I was thinking about picking this up.....the key word there being was.

You are an idiot....why not form an opinion of your own you goddamn tool!

[RandomViolence]

I love review threads. They're so entertaining! :D

[Kelegacy]

You are an idiot....why not form an opinion of your own you goddamn tool!

Because not everyone has the money to make mistakes. You cannot form an opinion without dishing out cash one way or another, so some people rely on others for a little purchasing help. I value the reviews of Gamespot and other places, because I think they probably have saved me thousands of dollars over the years. Their views regularly reflect my own.

Do you enjoy buying turds and looking like a moron for being duped? If so, go buy The Matrix: Path of Neo. Tell us what you think without the help of gaming sites.

[The Iron Weasel]

You are an idiot....why not form an opinion of your own you goddamn tool!

Thanks for making me feel so good about myself...also I didn't say I wasn't thinking about renting it...jebus...apparently I have to buy a game to have an opinion. Also tell me how I'm soposed to rent a PC game....

[Ravenlock]

You do know you don't have to finish the game in one day right?

Thats the brilliance of the "save feature". I think games are getting shorter and shorter when people think they can charge 50 dollars for content thats around a 30 dollar pricetag.

I want to sit there and enjoy long hours of refined gameplay, not Max Payne short plays.

Yes, but unless it's a long RPG like a Baldur's Gate or Morrowind, or a stay-on-the-harddrive-forever game like Civ, I don't WANT most games to take me 3 months to beat. Around my job and the other stuff I have to do I might get a few nights a week where I can put in an hour or two of gaming. I realize that makes me less "hardcore" than lots of folks (and significantly less than I used to be in college) but I think a lot of people are in my situation.

So unless I'm gonna focus on just one game for weeks at a time, a 12 to 15 hour game usually fits the bill nicely for me.

Is $50 unreasonable for 12 to 15 hours of entertainment? Maybe. I generally try to avoid paying that unless it's a huge RPG or something like Civ. But is $40 or $30? I don't think so. A DVD will have an MSRP of $20, $25 and then sell for $10-$15, and will give you a few hours of entertainment tops.

And that's without considering the content vs. filler argument. I'd MUCH rather play through Max Payne 2 again, which was a short, extremely focused, well-paced action game, than sludge my way through a longer game that's only longer because they added needless corridors filled with boxes.

[H.Bogard]

Thanks for making me feel so good about myself...also I didn't say I wasn't thinking about renting it...jebus...apparently I have to buy a game to have an opinion. Also tell me how I'm soposed to rent a PC game....


I apologize for making you feel good....i was drunk when i made that post (on tea that is..) and you dont rent PC games....you wait for playable demo's.

Because not everyone has the money to make mistakes.

Neither do I.....so I try to make sure that the game I am buying is gonna be something that I like.....not some thing greg fucking halo 2 9.4 kasavin likes to play.

Oh ....and what the fuck do ya know XD.......path of neo got a 7.3.... (http://www.gamespot.com/xbox/action/thematrixthepathofneo/review.html) Gamespot just helps me themselves every time to get my point right (remember that old pc games bias thread? :p )

[AspectVoid]

Let's rank that on a 100 point system, shall we?

7.4 translates into 74. Now, I don't know where everyone else went to school, but in my schools, 74 meant C. C is not great, but it could be worse.

I would translate a 74 (or realistically, a 7.4) as pretty much "not worth the money, maybe worth a rent."

I wasn't exactly interested in GUN, because Western's don't cream my twinkie/blow my skirt up/float my boat. And since it's a 7.4, it doesn't really rank on my list of "Games to play after I've finished what's on my plate."

Good day.

I figured someone would pull this stuff. Guess what, this is NOT school. In fact, school grading systems are only valid IN SCHOOL. 70% of something is NOT the middle road when it comes to real life. 50% is the middle of it.