By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Killiana1a on 25 November 2010
Edit Thread
ishiki said:
Killiana1a said:

Trust? No. Read to get an opinion on a game? Yes. Same goes for any online review site.

The problem I have with the likes of Gamespot and IGN is their changing standards. When Far Cry 2 came out back in October 2008, it had game breaking bugs where all your save files would become corrupted forcing you to restart. They patched it about 3 weeks in and it was playable.

Now what did IGN and Gamespot score Far Cry 2 at? 8.8 and 8.5 respectively, seemingly glossing over the corrupt save game issue.

Fast forward two years to the release of Fallout: New Vegas and Fable 3. What did IGN and Gamespot score them? 7.5 and 8.5 (Fallout: New Vegas) and 7.5 and 8.5 (Fable 3). Why did they not score as high as a just as bugged game called Far Cry 2?

Changing review standards.

This is why I cannot trust any online gaming review site because they nitpick over the insignificant (bugs, gameplay menus, and on) while not giving enough due credit to the significant (story, gameplay and replay value).

well, fallout New Vegas is buggier than Far Cry 2 was launched... atleast for me on PC

but my save file didn't get corrupted  in FC2 (PC version atleast).
But I'd give Farcry 2 a 7 anyways.
And New Vegas Higher (haven't beatenit yet) not that anything I said is  relevant to your point..

I bring up the issue of bugs because back in the day (1990s and early 2000s), it was expected for PC games to have bugs. PC Gamer magazine expected this and did not downgrade them like Gamespot does nowadays. As for console gaming, the expectation has always been a finished, perfectly polished product.

However, when the platform for consoles is becoming more and more similar to PC gaming minus the keyboard, work apps, and Internet browsing, then should this not be taken into account by reviewers?

I think it should because the open platform of Live and PSN allow for gaming devs to add to and patch games to an extent where they are far better 2 months out than at release. The easy and most justified route is to blame the developer for caving to internal and publisher demands to rush out a product before it is polished. The harder route, which I mentioned above takes into account that as the console generations increase, consoles become more and more PC like, thus they should be held to a different standard than the Nintendo Seal of Quality standard norm.

The expectation of a Nintendo Seal of Quality product for all console games is a tad high nowadays considering the technology. Just my opinion.