Gamespy's New Review Policy

[if76]

Gamespy (http://www.gamespy.com/articles/667/667191p1.html) announced their new philosophy on reviewing games with online multiplayer components. Instead of trying to be the first to get their review out there, they're going to wait until they can sample the game in real-world online conditions before they give their score. Will this lead to a new era in credibilty or will Gamespy crack under the pressure from the lost hits?

The first information gets the most page views. Unfortunately, the push to be first often means certain things may not be accurate when a game becomes available to the masses. And the thing that usually takes the hit is multiplayer, particularly online multiplayer. How can you post a review on a game when you have not had a chance to see the PC net code in action or see if the servers are handling the load properly? How can you see what the Xbox Live experience is like or how the PS2 network component plays?
Sounds great to me. Games should have seperate multiplayer and single-player scores and maybe this will lead to that.

[The Iron Weasel]

I dunno, I lost faith in gamespy a long time ago, I don't think they'll be getting that faith back. I just couldn't understand why they shifted to the star system. I like a 10.0 or % score in game reviews.

[Ultima Thulian]

So basically they're saying that they are going to actually play the online content in real life conditions before reviewing it. Umm...Ok. Perhaps they've should've done that before? Still, I like Gamespy, but that was kind of disheartening.

[BleedTheFreak]

This is all well and good, but it doesn't explain the lack of a Condemned CO review, which as far as I'm aware is SP only? Dang it! Maybe there is an NDA on that one, I think only print mags have reviews for it ATM.

[TrackZero]

Sounds good in theory. We'll see how this pans out though.

[mkelehan]

Good. Did you see Gamespot's Mario Kart DS review? They complained that not a lot of people were online. Hey, idiot... the game wasn't out when you posted the thing.

[thecrazyd]

I dunno, I lost faith in gamespy a long time ago, I don't think they'll be getting that faith back. I just couldn't understand why they shifted to the star system. I like a 10.0 or % score in game reviews.
Why, so you can complain when a score gets a 8.96 instead of a 9.12? I perfer a simplified review system.

[xanthome]

gamespy sucks anyway so who cares what they change?

[Roc Ingersol]

You could --and this is crazy i know-- dig up some other people and try it out?

Seriously, how hard could that be? No-one expects a consumers report style reliability and load management assessment from a game rag. Just dig up some friends, play some games, and say whether it sucked or not.

Sure, put an asterisk in and say you can't speak to the quality of the matchmaking service. Not that it matters. PC/PS2 matchmaking pretty much universally blows, and people suffer through it anyway.

[RainOfTerror]

This is not a new policy at all, maybe they simply never mentioned it like this, but they have been doing this for a long time.

I know, because I used to work there...

[jervo]

Um, duh? The concept of waiting to publish a review of a game until all of its components have been fully tested shouldn't be treated as ground-breaking or trend-setting - it ought to be considered COMMON FREAKING SENSE.

This is why I'd rather wait for Gamespot's reviews - they're never first out of the gate, but they're generally the most thorough and they, unlike IGN, use spellcheck.

[Luxoman]

Gamespy is right at the bottom of the barrel.

They started as a low-cost and painless way to play online. Developers loved using their tool as it was a low cost and effective method of getting people into multiplayer games. Now, it's run like the Mafia where they use strongarm tactics to suck as much money out of you as posssible, while forcing publishers to give up as many rights as they can at the very last second when publishers are scrambling to get a title out the door. And yet, people go back to them. /boggle

Gamespy is almost as bad as the ESRB. And that's saying a lot.

PERSONALLY, they are nice people. PROFESSIONALLY, Gamespy has grown more bloated and arrogant as their prices skyrocket and their level of service and quality bottoms out.

Oh, and the fact they have FilePlanet makes it even worse....

Feel the h8!

[Klade]

Its doubtful this will change their scores and make them anymore viable - from everything I've been able to learn about major review sites they tend to change scores not based on the game instead based on a scale on what other games they have played and rated - meaning they can decide another game is better and give the game a lower score to stay in line with this other benchmark - or the other way around.

In short all gaming reviews are crap unless they come from other players with nothing to gain - and then only if theres a lot of them saying the same thing.

[DeadPixel]

Who the hell can tell a difference between 9.2 and a 9.5? I say elminate the decimals completely and just stick with a 5 point system (Horrible, OK, Good, Great, Excellent). Do we really need to know more?

[BleedTheFreak]

Who the hell can tell a difference between 9.2 and a 9.5? I say elminate the decimals completely and just stick with a 5 point system (Horrible, OK, Good, Great, Excellent). Do we really need to know more?

Some folks may not, it's true, but I like knowing the degree of "great" or "okay" that a game is. A game that scores a 9.2 vs. a game scoring a 9.5 might have the same sound and graphics, but not as much replayability. Those same two games with just a 9 vs a 9 means I'm going to have to read the actual text review to get the information I could normally have had at a glance.

[thecrazyd]

Who the hell can tell a difference between 9.2 and a 9.5? I say elminate the decimals completely and just stick with a 5 point system (Horrible, OK, Good, Great, Excellent). Do we really need to know more?
Hear hear. I would love EA's scoring method if they did not allow for half points.

[thecrazyd]

Some folks may not, it's true, but I like knowing the degree of "great" or "okay" that a game is. A game that scores a 9.2 vs. a game scoring a 9.5 might have the same sound and graphics, but not as much replayability. Those same two games with just a 9 vs a 9 means I'm going to have to read the actual text review to get the information I could normally have had at a glance.
Or, the difference could be attributed to a different reviewer, or any number of variables. If you base your purchase on an arbitrary number, then you deserve what you get.

[Murmillo]

Who the hell can tell a difference between 9.2 and a 9.5? I say elminate the decimals completely and just stick with a 5 point system (Horrible, OK, Good, Great, Excellent). Do we really need to know more?agree, I like the simple 5 star system. All the stupid arguements the come from Halo2 getting a 9.4 and Half-Life2 getting a 9.2 are absolutly worthless. Then you get the assholes that say games can never get a 10 out of 10 because 10 is the absolute perfect of perfection, and nobody (not even games) can be perfect... I just want to know if a game is Excellent, Good, So-So or Garbage.

[DeadPixel]

.......... Those same two games with just a 9 vs a 9 means I'm going to have to read the actual text review to get the information I could normally have had at a glance.
Hold on one second, you're saying that extra .3 would make or break your buying decision? How can you know why the game is better based on the 9.5 vs 9.2 without taking that "glance" inside the review? If you take the "glance" to find out, then the decimal point is already useless.

[Ultima Thulian]

I don't mind a five or ten point rating (even if they use half and even quarter intervals) but seeing a game get a 8.437892 is unneccessary.

Hell, EvAv has their own in house content now (hooray! I've asked for this since I joined!:)) We can just rely on the reviews of the best sources in the world: US.

[Chagrinful]

Gamespy fucking sucks anyway, they give 5 out of 5 stars for ALOT of fucking games then list a shitload of negatives, BULLFUCKINGSHIT it shouldn't have ANY negative aspects if its 5/5 ya fucking douche bags, albeit everything can be flawed, but 5/5 suggests a perfect game as its a perfect score.

[BleedTheFreak]

Hold on one second, you're saying that extra .3 would make or break your buying decision? How can you know why the game is better based on the 9.5 vs 9.2 without taking that "glance" inside the review? If you take the "glance" to find out, then the decimal point is already useless.

Maybe. There are a lot of factors. What if the reviewers are the same person? If the same guy gives a game in the same genre a 9.2 then another game in that same genra a 9.5, it's pretty clear which one he favors.

Like I said, to each his own, I like more detail at a glance though. And no matter what you say, a 9.8 is much different then a 9.0 or 9.1, and that won't come across with your preferred style.

[thecrazyd]

Gamespy fucking sucks anyway, they give 5 out of 5 stars for ALOT of fucking games then list a shitload of negatives, BULLFUCKINGSHIT it shouldn't have ANY negative aspects if its 5/5 ya fucking douche bags, albeit everything can be flawed, but 5/5 suggests a perfect game as its a perfect score.
No it does not. You simply do not understand the scale. If you have to think of it as a percent, then 5 stars would be 80-100. i.e. an excellent game.

[Crabby]

Old news; they have been doing this and saying this for months.

[Zombosis]

I used a 5-star system when I wrote for the Adrenaline Vault, and we use a "5 dragons" system at GameXtasy as well. Its ok but too limited at times in describing shades of good/bad.
We use an 'out of 10' system at WorthPlaying, which covers a wider range of good/bad, I find that personally I try to shy away from anything other than half-points though. 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, etc.
Aren't GameSpy the ones that had that one reviewer give a really low score to Savage, only to have the developers check his online logs and discover he was only in the game for like, 10 minutes? Or am I thinking of GameSpot?

[thecrazyd]

I used a 5-star system when I wrote for the Adrenaline Vault, and we use a "5 dragons" system at GameXtasy as well. Its ok but too limited at times in describing shades of good/bad.
Isn't that what the review is for? I think scores should give a very general gist of how positive / negative the reviewer feels about the game. Anything else is really too complex to be catagorized with a numeric system and is better left for the review itself.

[Demo_Boy]

Savage rocked? Actually it STILL rocks.

I think you can dl and play it free from their forums too.

Savage rocks.

[Demo_Boy]

As far as the 8.8834756 is concerned, its getting to the point where ppl wont even read a review if it is below 7 so they have to start the scale at 7 and well you cant give anything a 9.9 or better.
So you've got this bizzarre scale where a 7.1 isn't even worth dling the demo and where 8.5s can be "only get it if you are a fan".

I think reviews need to change a lot more than decimals if they want to really get relevant.
How about putting the following values on scales:

Innovation
Intensity
Polish
Size of player community.
Reason why it will make you stop playing WOW.

[Murmillo]

Innovation What is Innovation?
Intensity Intensity of what? Bloom?
Polish My knob?.. :p Your right, this is a good number to score. The major make or break of games.
Size of player community. Give it a 7.5 or less community does not exsist, give it a 8 community is average, give it a 8.5 or better and and a huge community forms.
Reason why it will make you stop playing WOW. All forms of electronics fail world wide.....

See text in red...

[The Iron Weasel]

Why, so you can complain when a score gets a 8.96 instead of a 9.12?

In a word....yes....

[thecrazyd]

In a word....yes....
How is that a good thing? It just is a distraction from the real review.

[Babbster]

Paying attention to numerical scores without reading the actual text of reviews is a sign of ignorance and, as a bonus, stupidity. Even if a game scored a 10% on whatever numerical score is being used, the review is probably worth reading just for the entertainment of the negativism. When trying to evaluate whether or not to buy a game whose numerical rating is 70-100% (again, on whatever numerical scale), going by the numbers alone just guarantees being as uninformed before seeing the numbers as after. Oh, and anyone making a big deal out of differences in numerical scores on the same game (OMG! They gave Halo 2 a 9.1 when it SO deserved a 9.3 like so-and-so gave it!) goes beyond ignorance and stupidity into some sort of intellectual catatonia...I'd probably give them 1/5 stars on my intelligence rating system...

[The Iron Weasel]

How is that a good thing? It just is a distraction from the real review.

I actually read the review and look at the score to make my choices on games. In fact I read LOTS of reviews, and ask people here before purchasing a game. I just prefer the 10 point scale. I dunno why but I do.

[if76]

I think that if a score is below 7 the review should start off by immediately listing the good things about it and if it's above 9 the review should immediately list the bad things about it. The whole intro,story,graphics,gameplay,sound review format is getting old. With as many games are out right now I dont' have time to read every 5 page review out there and would appreciate ones that got right to the point.