Just so you all know, I did not go looking for a biased site, I discovered it mistakenly.

So I've been checking out the screens for the upcoming big hitters on PS3. Particularly Resitance 2 and Killzone. During my endeveurs I discovered something unusual.... To me it seemed that 2 of the biggest games for the PS3 were...... graphically unpleasing. I thought to myself "surely this can't be, I've seen so many praise these graphics... Are they blind?". These shots I was looking at on Gamespot seemed to be extremely blurry. So I decided to check out some PS3 games I owned and knew how they looked (Warhawk & Uncharted in particular) and I was amazed to see that Warhawk, and game that looks good but is no where near amazing appeared to be better than Resistance 2 and Killzone 2!

So I began to look into it... The file sizes for Warhawk & Uncharted screens generally ranged from 300KB to 450KB while the Killzone and Resitance shots ranged from 200KB to 300KB. I was amazed, the shots for KZ2 and R2 often had 2, or 3 times more going on and the file sizes are drastically lower! Is Gamespot intentionally compressing and distorting PS3 screens to make them look worse?

I figured I needed a second source before I could call foul play, so I referred to IGN. And sure enough, not only were their screenshots of Resistance 2 much sharper and clearer but the file sizes were in that clear and crisp 300-450KB range nearly 33% larger file sizes than Gamespots.

I still wasn't ready to call out Gamespot... I thought to myself, perhaps they've just been compressing their screens too much lately, could be an honest mistake right? So I looked at some Gears of War 2 screens, and sure enough they were in that magical 300-400KB range right on par with IGN. (I found the same thing with LBP screens, IGN screens were clearer, and had larger file sizes)

So, is Gamespot making PS3 screens look worse to turn away potential customers?

I know I will not be going to gamespot for screenshots anymore.

yea their screens aren't the most reliable, but I've seen them hand out good and bad scores for all systems and since they gave MGS4 at 10 they're not on my bad list,,, eurogamer now thats another story

Well I noticed that as well, their review scores are often the same as the others, but I was just shocked out how horrible their screens are. I only found bad screens for the PS3 though, and only on recent games, like I said Warhawk and Uncharted screens both look great.

So I don't know what the deal is with their screens but I will no longer use that site.

Interesting..

Also there is a reason why Jeff isnt with gamespot anymore, and if you think its just because of Kane and Lynch..

Gamespot to me appears to one of the most unreliable major US review sites (not consistent, seems to up 360 exclusives for similar reasons to down PS3 exclusives), IGN one of the most reliable. Eurogamer depends on the region, the UK version appears to be by far the worst pushing some sort of agenda.

MGS4 --- 10/10

source Gamespot

the day Gamespot proved it wasn't biased toward PS3.....it recognized that MGS4 was the best game ever!

@Darth

Just because they gave MGS4 a 10 doesnt mean crap, they have done so many things in the past against sony its not even funny.

The Day the PS3 launched there site was flooded with "XBOX 360 BEST NEXGEN CONSOLE" news, and ads, and Gears of war GOTY, etc..

Jeff was pretty bad, still is. I have no idea why he is important at all, but I think since than gamespot tried to change a little.

That's the one game their score doesn't matter much for, it's a proven franchise guaranteed to get massive sales. According to friends the best in the series and gerne. It's the new franchises and efforts, less highly anticipated games for which fair reviews are crucial.

They could have just given the game a 9.5 or something like that, maybe they wanted to use this game to counter criticism.

Eurogamer, yuck lol