coolbeans said: iWarMachine said: coolbeans said: RageBot said: TowlieFTW said: Xoj said: well halo 3 wasn't innovative, whats the score? Forge, Screenshots, Fileshare-being able to download things from B.net, Theatre, 4 player co-op, Massive stat tracking on Bungie.net-heatmaps etc., video rendering.   Ignore all of those please. Don't mind if I will, since all of these existed on the PC WWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYY before bungie created the first Halo :) Yes same for Play.Create.Share. on LBP have been done on PC WWWWAAAAAYYYYYY before this game was announced :).  So much for double-standards on your part, amirite? wait.... there's a full game that is like LBP on PC? =/.... i'm sorry but the truth is that Bungie did the exact same thing as naughty dog, yet they receive a 9.8 for their game and ND gets 9.3 for something that it's done better (cinema mode) (Storytelling)? also truth is that Epic took some modes from other games and improve them, still it's innovation for GT and it scored 9.5... also truth is that GTAIV DIDN'T INNOVATE AT ALL. and it scored 9.8... lol the PC itself is a Play.Create.Share Genre is what's known. You forgot to mention Bungie did this over 2 years ago!! That's called evolving standards, not double. Innovative in it's gameplay mechanics, bro.  Mentioned that on last page, reviewer said he just didn't find that change in Uncharted 2 (which gameplay from the first one wasn't great to begin with) And yet your only complaining about that while GTAIV gets 10's on Gamespot and others, while U2's getting 9.5 and what not.  Should've you be yelling double standards about that at them too while your at it? Or just the website that gives U2 a great score of 9.3?

i know that the pc itself it's a play.create.share thing, but where's a full game focused on doing this? garry's mod?

they did this over 2 years ago, and it was "invented" 10 years ago...

gameplay wasn't that great!? Even GT said that the gameplay in uncharted was better than the GeoW gameplay.... and tell me why would you change a gameplay that already was the best in the genre? and it's not exactly that they didn't change anything at all, ND added a fast pacing to the game, better cover system, more weapons, locations, etc....it's not the same game...they even add an MP, a cinema mode and co-op... all of them being better than anything seen on ps3....

and...yes, i complained about GTAIV having such a high score.

Onyxmeth said: This is the saddest, sack of shit thread this site has had in a long time. Congrats Soriku. The Ubisoft boycott has competition. Anyhoos, just to attempt to put an end to this: Uncharted received an 89 from Gametrailers and the sequel got a 93. Gears of War got a 91 from Gametrailers and the sequel got a 95. In both cases, the sequels got a 4% increase even without innovating. Is that fair enough? Regarding GTA IV and Halo 3, both were the first in the series this gen, so everything had a nice coat of polish on it, and that counts for something. Both Gears and Uncharted are on their second games this gen, and the standards to differentiate are higher for both. It seems regardless of the speech used, Gametrailers has treated both fairly equally, even though it was surely accidental. I think the real problem isn't that they worded their explanation poorly, it's that they had to provide an explanation in the first place just because complete morons felt the need to complain about a 9.3. You, including those bitching in this thread, are the problem with the review system.

People are forgetting, that Halo 3 was in 2007, and Gears 2 in 2008, standards change quickly. I still can't believe, people are crying over 9.3, they are less than half a point apart. Ps3 fanboys(evil kind) on gametrailers, are awful, they gave me chills just thinking about them.

leo-j said: I dont think a game needs to innovative to be good.. GTA IV and KZ2 are examples of that.. *well kz2 has its FP cover mechanic..*

I agree and I think the Donkey Kong Country games are and older example of the same thing.  Extremely polished, well made games, but not original.

My take on this whole thing is that a game reviewer should always justify their score for a game, they should never have to explain it.  While professional reviewers should always try to be objective about what a new game brings to the table, in the end it is still just their opinion.

For people who are saying but but but, U2 is absolutely better than Halo3, Gears etc., no it's not, in your opinion it is better.  There are people out there who will prefer Gears or Halo or some other game ant they don't give two hoots that U2 has the equal highest meta rating this gen.  There is no absolutely objective measure of the quality of a game. 

If you are not going to buy a game because it only got 93% you need to get your head checked and the only other reason you could care is for bragging rights.  Well, guess what, Gametrailers doesn't exist to satisfy your ego and if you don't like their reviews, or think they are inconsistent, don't watch them.

Procrastinato said: Onyxmeth said: I think the real problem isn't that they worded their explanation poorly, it's that they had to provide an explanation in the first place just because complete morons felt the need to complain about a 9.3. You, including those bitching in this thread, are the problem with the review system. I completely disagree. The gaming industry media's review system suffers from the same "score inflation" that college grades suffer from, except that in college's case, the scores were inflated to keep kids out of Vietnam.  In the gaming media's case, scores are inflated to further their own site hits, by inciting as many forum arguments as possible. =) Honestly, a 6.0 should be a pretty decent score, on any site.  Perhaps GT is trying to undo the "10.0s for everyone" problem that has cropped up in the last few years, and they've just decided to start with games like KZ2 and U2.

How have sites been trying to incite forum arguments if they're inflating the scores? They're constantly pandering to the needs of idiots like those that complain about 9.3s. It has to start somewhere. The sites don't know to score inflate unless the forums speak out first. It's the equivalent of letting the chimpanzees run the zoo, and that's probably why people here then behave like they got shit thrown at their face when they don't get their way.

Procrastinato said: Onyxmeth said: I think the real problem isn't that they worded their explanation poorly, it's that they had to provide an explanation in the first place just because complete morons felt the need to complain about a 9.3. You, including those bitching in this thread, are the problem with the review system. I completely disagree. The gaming industry media's review system suffers from the same "score inflation" that college grades suffer from, except that in college's case, the scores were inflated to keep kids out of Vietnam.  In the gaming media's case, scores are inflated to further their own site hits, by inciting as many forum arguments as possible. =) Honestly, a 6.0 should be a pretty decent score, on any site.  Perhaps GT is trying to undo the "10.0s for everyone" problem that has cropped up in the last few years, and they've just decided to start with games like KZ2 and U2.

I didn't know that i quees you learn something every day.

Leo-J I think EVERYONE agrees that GTA 4 was overrated, period, even the hardcore GTA fans agree.

Thats why I hate game journalism.

Honestly the whole idea of review scores is ridiculous numbers candy, invented by the media. One of the guys in the show says as much.

Everyone has a different viewpoint on how games compare to each other. How is a person, who, just having bought a X360 yesterday, supposed to consider "innovation" when buying a title? What if they never played a console game in their life?

Review scores ARE actually for gaming fanatics, and gaming fanatics only.

Take the Wii as an example. VC games often score in the 8.0+ range... but um.. how do they compare, in the eyes of a new gamer? Wii games, crossplats often score 8.5 or less... but... to someone who only owns a Wii, and doesn't care how they compare to HD games, shouldn't comparisons to HD crossplats not be considered?

kutasek said: Onyxmeth said: This is the saddest, sack of shit thread this site has had in a long time. Congrats Soriku. The Ubisoft boycott has competition. Anyhoos, just to attempt to put an end to this: Uncharted received an 89 from Gametrailers and the sequel got a 93. Gears of War got a 91 from Gametrailers and the sequel got a 95. In both cases, the sequels got a 4% increase even without innovating. Is that fair enough? Regarding GTA IV and Halo 3, both were the first in the series this gen, so everything had a nice coat of polish on it, and that counts for something. Both Gears and Uncharted are on their second games this gen, and the standards to differentiate are higher for both. It seems regardless of the speech used, Gametrailers has treated both fairly equally, even though it was surely accidental. I think the real problem isn't that they worded their explanation poorly, it's that they had to provide an explanation in the first place just because complete morons felt the need to complain about a 9.3. You, including those bitching in this thread, are the problem with the review system. People are forgetting, that Halo 3 was in 2007, and Gears 2 in 2008, standards change quickly. I still can't believe, people are crying over 9.3, they are less than half a point apart. Ps3 fanboys(evil kind) on gametrailers, are awful, they gave me chills just thinking about them.

People aren't forgetting a damn thing. They're conveniently pegging it to Gears of War to suit their needs, but in the next argument will mention just how different it is. Let's look at this in reality. Uncharted is not original because it's Tomb Raider with a high polish. I loved the game to death, but frankly it got beat long ago as far as innovation goes. People were pegging it as Dude Raider before it even came out, and there's a reason why.

guys, we're not talking about the 9.3 here, it's an awesome score, we all know that.
the subject here is that GT is talking about "we don't give more than 9.3 to any game that is not innovative" when they give geow2 a 9.5? a halo 3 a 9.8? a gtaIV a 9.8?

Tech wise, I'd say GTA4 was pretty innovative. Most realistic open world ever with really amazing physics and collision detection. Even online. Other than that, not so much impressive.

Gears2 on the other hand... i don't see it.

But why complain about a 9.3?? That's a pretty good score, last I checked.