Maybe they were just happy it ended short?
Seriously, even if shorter, it still had the same gameplay? And because it was shorter, it also had lower price, so i don't see a problem there.

Gamespot's review system is atrocious. It lacks consistency. Some games have their score lowered for being more of the same while others receive no such penalty. That is part of the reason they have lost their credibility with most of the gaming public.

i don't see a problem with the review system.

they are both games and you get what you pay for.

lol -- before you just read the score , read the entire ToD review and then you will see how bad the review is.

They scored R&CF:ToD low becuase they said it had too much variety... and it because the game felt like a platformer game...

Now i don't know about you but since when has variety been a bad thing? Also i prefer my platforming games to well be part of the genre. If Tools of Destruction was a FPS game or a RTS game or a MMO - then id be annoyed ...

Really, for the people saying the reviews are fine because one game is shorter and costs less, you are as well to say GT:P games should score the same as the full GT games.

Of course, that would be nonsense.

One is far shorter and provides far fewer playing options than the other, although it is graphically similar to the full game. Similarly, QfB is far shorter and provides far fewer playing options, but it is graphically similar to ToD. Does GT:P deserve the same score as GT? No. Does QfB deserve the same score as ToD? Personally, I think not.

ToD was by far the best in the series and gamespot are just fucking retarded.

Let me make it easy for you:

Gamespot reviews mean nothing anymore.

Actually you need around 20 hours to clock ToD IIRC...

Didn't IGN give Quest for Booty around the same score?