By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - does every game get dropped down in average by unknown sites?

brute on 06 July 2008

^well we all know a good gmae should be high,and the bad ones shouldnt,what im saying is that when they were reviewing gmaes back then there werent to many reviewers and they were all professional,now some site goes and gives a game a low score to get noticed and it does it months after the release(they never get the review copy this late).
if the company doenst send a site a review copy then we know that site isnt professional
plus i think alot of games should beat the older ones but they dont,this case being soul calibur 2 being better then the original



tag:"reviews only matter for the real hardcore gamer"

Around the Network
brute on 06 July 2008
Gnizmo said:
brute said:
^thats the thiung gamerankings shouldnt allow those sites though,like ow we look at Oot 10 years later we look at it being so high,but when we will look at these new games we will see how there not as high as there supposed to be cause some site reviewed it months later gave it a good core and got some traffic

 Why shouldn't it be allowed? They will not get any traffic because the game was reviewed high or low. All the internet hype of a game dies within a month of its release. Even GTA4 is getting forgotten and it was supposed to be the greatest game ever made. If the game is being reviewed that late then it is probably an honesy opinion. Why should their review be any less meaningful just because it was released late?

 

 but why is it that all the reviews that come out late,are the lowest ones?



tag:"reviews only matter for the real hardcore gamer"

flames_of on 06 July 2008

I doubt they always are the lowest, or possibly they are the lowest because they are the more critical reviewers? I doubt having someone be more harsh on a game can be a negative, especially since we can get a guarentee out of it that they won't gain money...

What makes a review "professional"? Or is it a term given to simply the biggest or the one that gives favourable reviews?



flames_of - "I think you're confusing Bush with Chuck Norris."

 Wii: 80-85 Million end of 2009 (1.1.09)

Fishie on 06 July 2008
Riachu said:
Fishie said:
Riachu said:
Fishie said:
brute said:
^these unknown sites that give good games low sores for nothing

 

Give us specific names of sites

I think he means those UK video game sites, am I correct?

 

Yeah, but which ones?

 

 

Eurogamer, Netjak. Forgot the name of the others though. Just look at the lowest score recorded for MGS4 on gamerankings ofr the rest of the sites

 

Eurogamer is one opf the biggest most respected sites out there, why should they be barred from metacritic and gamerankings?

 



iamisaac on 06 July 2008
brute said:
Gnizmo said:
brute said:
^thats the thiung gamerankings shouldnt allow those sites though,like ow we look at Oot 10 years later we look at it being so high,but when we will look at these new games we will see how there not as high as there supposed to be cause some site reviewed it months later gave it a good core and got some traffic

 Why shouldn't it be allowed? They will not get any traffic because the game was reviewed high or low. All the internet hype of a game dies within a month of its release. Even GTA4 is getting forgotten and it was supposed to be the greatest game ever made. If the game is being reviewed that late then it is probably an honesy opinion. Why should their review be any less meaningful just because it was released late?

 

 but why is it that all the reviews that come out late,are the lowest ones?

 

Maybe newer reviews are just more influenced by the hype generated for the game? 

I think adding some time for reviews, if anything, helps... I remember some games I thought were great at the time of beating them but now I see them as mediocre.  While truely great games (ZeldaOOT, Mario64, Goldeneye, ect.) withstand the test of time.  I think you have to look back at a game 2 years after release to determine if it was an awesome game(B+) or legendary(A+).

One last note, wouldn't their be lower scores for ALL games which general makes them even out?



Around the Network
brute on 06 July 2008
flames_of said:
I doubt they always are the lowest, or possibly they are the lowest because they are the more critical reviewers? I doubt having someone be more harsh on a game can be a negative, especially since we can get a guarentee out of it that they won't gain money...

What makes a review "professional"? Or is it a term given to simply the biggest or the one that gives favourable reviews?

 

 hmm this just made me think of somthing,do you think they review it lower just cause they didnt get money for it?



tag:"reviews only matter for the real hardcore gamer"

Riachu on 06 July 2008
Fishie said:
Riachu said:
Fishie said:
Riachu said:
Fishie said:
brute said:
^these unknown sites that give good games low sores for nothing

 

Give us specific names of sites

I think he means those UK video game sites, am I correct?

 

Yeah, but which ones?

 

 

Eurogamer, Netjak. Forgot the name of the others though. Just look at the lowest score recorded for MGS4 on gamerankings ofr the rest of the sites

 

Eurogamer is one opf the biggest most respected sites out there, why should they be barred from metacritic and gamerankings?

 

They only gave MGS4 an 8/10.  I think the game is better than that

 



 

http://www.youtube.com/user/InvaderZimGuy1?feature=mhum

brute on 06 July 2008
Fishie said:
Riachu said:
Fishie said:
Riachu said:
Fishie said:
brute said:
^these unknown sites that give good games low sores for nothing

 

Give us specific names of sites

I think he means those UK video game sites, am I correct?

 

Yeah, but which ones?

 

 

Eurogamer, Netjak. Forgot the name of the others though. Just look at the lowest score recorded for MGS4 on gamerankings ofr the rest of the sites

 

Eurogamer is one opf the biggest most respected sites out there, why should they be barred from metacritic and gamerankings?

 

 

 eurogamer dont do that alot,and they were one of the first to review it,so that means they didnt review high cause of hype.



tag:"reviews only matter for the real hardcore gamer"

flames_of on 06 July 2008

@ Isaac
Welcome, and yeah the reviews might be lower cause the games didn't age well...

@ Brute
Who knows, that could be the reason?



flames_of - "I think you're confusing Bush with Chuck Norris."

 Wii: 80-85 Million end of 2009 (1.1.09)

Fishie on 06 July 2008
brute said:
^i wasnt talking about all sites,just the ones that put reviews for traffic

 

 How do you know who does what?

 

For instance in order to get early acces to MGS4 you had to sign a contract stating you were not allowed to talk about certain story points(thats fair so far), you were not allowed to talk about the install times(wait a sec that is getting a bit weird now innit?) nor talk about certain gameplay mechanics that tied into parts of the story(now we are getting into seriously silly territory, oh so wxe cant even fucking mention rumble related shit now?) etcetera.

Media who reviewed/reported on it early had to sign an NDA several pages long and quite retarded too I might add with Konami even stating you couldnt talk about levels and certain gameplay mechanics so in order to get a timely review out you had to bend over and say fuck me in the ass now like the little bitch I am please Konami or not get access at all so yeah you think those big site early reviews of MGS4 were more of an honest oppinion then the ones posted on smaller sites?