test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Im Done With Gamespot, Gamespy, etc.

SystemSystem Member, NoReporting Posts: 178,019 Arc User
FYI - LONG POST

Okay so Ive been visiting Gamespot, Gamespy, IGN, etc. since the 90s. I thought they were the experts on everything gaming... BOY WAS I WRONG.

These people have NO IDEA what a good game is. Let me explain why:

All these game reviewers gave Star Trek Online low scores:

Gamespot game Star Trek Online a 5.5 score out of 10.
Gamespy gave Star Trek Online a 2 out of 5 (40%) .
IGN gave Star Trek Online a 6.8 (passable) out of 10.

Yet they give games that I bought near perfect reviews. Games that are total garbage.

I picked up Operation Flashpoint Dragon Rising, because the first OP Flashpoint was awesome (I know the sequel is done by a different studio but I hoped they put out a good product). Before I bought the game I check reviews on IGN and Gamespot (Gamespy didnt do a review).

Gamespot gave Operation Flashpoint a 7.5 out of 10.
IGN gave Operation Flashpoint a 7.8 out of 10.

So I picked up the game and Started to play. I dont know if you played it so let me tell you now ... the game stinks. It doesnt feel as epic as the first one. The storyline is near non existant. Its as if you go on missions just because you have to. The visuals are ok. The gameplay is eh at best. There are velichles in the game but you cant access all of em. 80% of the time ur on ur own. The multiplayer SUCKS. One time I fell into the river and couldnt get out. They didnt make a command for you to exit the water. All in all... it DEFINETELY wasnt worth $65 bucks. I played maybe 1 - 2 hrs of the game. My wife even complains when I put on the game cause the background muisic (menu music) is so nasty that she dont want to hear it.

The next game that I went online for their 'expert' ROFL opinion was Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2.

Gamespot gave Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 - 9.0 out of 10
Gamespy gave Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 - 5 out of 5
IGN gave Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 - 9.5 out of 10

Now I have to be honest... THIS GAME IS COMPLETE GARBAGE. The Single player story didnt make sense, and was VERY SHORT. You really didnt know whats going on. One minute your in Russia recovering some piece of equipment... next Russia invades the US, takes over DC and alot of Virginia (YEAH TOTALLY BELIEVEABLE - Their military is near 3rd world). Then your after some people who are responsible for a airport shooting... you never find em... and on a routine mission trying to revover computer files... your commander shoots you and your unit. All of a sudden this guy is part of a black op unit in THe US Military (Not sure if the people were US cause it never explained what was going on). Now your on your own and have to fight terrorists and black op people. The storyline was so bad ... it didnt make sense ... then when I beat this General... the game ended with my character leaving on a chopper. I was like... Uhhh so what does this mean... Was he working for The US Government... on his own,... WHATS GOING ON? Anyway I decided to not play the single player again... and concentrate on multiplayer.. I played a few matches... and honestly the multiplayer is eh. Its somtimes ok, but it feels like its missing alot. The game engine feels old... its as if you take the old Quake 3 engine... add better visuals and thats what COD MW 2 is. I spent a total of about 7 hrs of gameplay on COD MW 2. $65 bucks for 7 hrs. Now I hear the Multiplayer in the game is SO BROKEN that its unplayable (according to Gamespy).

I bought Battlefield 1943 for like 17 bucks back in October ... and have about 40 hrs of game time in it. DICE's engine is more advanced (LOVE The Frostbite engine) and gameplay more addictive. You can fly places, tanks, jeeps, use anti aircraft guns... snipe out a enemy miles away (if your that good).

So based on these sites reviews I bought two games that collect dust.

Now I bought Star Trek Online because Im a Trekkie and know STO would be amazing... and... The Game is INCREDIBLE. I have about 54 hrs of gameplay in less than 3 weeks. Ive never put that much time in any game ever. Cryptic has done a AMAZING JOB. The storyline for STO is by far one of the best I have ever played (and continue to play). LOVE the story with The Undine. The graphics are WOW. You can use em as desktop wallpaper ...there that good. The gameplay is VERY ADDICTIVE. I cant stop playing PvP... targeting a Klingon Bird of Prey with my Quantum Torpedoes and phasers... knocking their shields out... and sending them back to Qo'nos.

Star Trek Online has become part of my top 2 / 3 games of all time.

So in closing. I wont bother visiting Gamespot, Gamespy, and maybe IGN anymore. They have no idea what their talking about.
Post edited by Unknown User on
«134

Comments

  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    I agree that they completely jacked STO over on the reviews. I've never trusted some of the larger game review sites, as they do tend to have a habit of giving good games bad reviews and bad games good reviews. I disagree that Modern Warfare 2 was a bad game. It is one of the better games I have ever played and by far the best Call of Duty game. Admittedly, I haven't played MW2 since STO came out though. But I've probably put a good 200 to 300 hours into MW2.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    are you seriously *****ing about the score this game has been given? its not like its one or two game company's who dint like the game its basically everyone whos reviewed it has the exact same score and everyone here (except you fan boys) agrees that the reviews are spot on.

    be mad at cryptic for delivering such a piece of garbage not the people who review them.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    OP,I hope that you are prepared for the Antimatter flames that will follow your opinion.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    So you are saying that STO is a great game and deserves 9/10 ? You actually made me laugh. Did you play the Klingon side yet ? Hows the end game content working out for you ? You enjoying the depth of ground combat yet ? Sure feels like you are in a Star Trek episode when you kill everything in sight doesn't it ?

    Get real.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    I agree that they completely jacked STO over on the reviews. I've never trusted some of the larger game review sites, as they do tend to have a habit of giving good games bad reviews and bad games good reviews. I disagree that Modern Warfare 2 was a bad game. It is one of the better games I have ever played and by far the best Call of Duty game.

    COD MW 2 is garbage. Its unplayable in my opiniong.

    I think The First Modern Warfare was ALOT better. The storyline for that game was VERY GOOD. I was very immersed in that one... even though the engine felt like every other game. I played it a few times (Hated the multiplayer for COD MW 1, which also sucks) and shelved it. I moved on to Battlefield 2, which I put in about 40 - 60 hrs of gameplay time... maybe more.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    OP come on now. Since when we are supposed to take words of reviewers for games we enjoy? i give you an example, recently Gamespot had to pull down their review for GOLBAL AGENDA because reviewer only played for 6 hours and somehow players found it out. he gave GA same score as STO

    http://news.bigdownload.com/2010/02/18/gamespot-pulls-global-agenda-review/

    They rated new AVP as 5.5 and i think its an awesome game easily 8/10 if not more.

    Also do you remember Gamespot firing its reviewer for giving honest review of EA title KANE AND LYNCH?

    So what i am trying to say is that GAMESPOT is a joke. just laugh it off.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    killafawk wrote: »
    are you seriously *****ing about the score this game has been given? its not like its one or two game company's who dint like the game its basically everyone whos reviewed it has the exact same score and everyone here (except you fan boys) agrees that the reviews are spot on.

    be mad at cryptic for delivering such a piece of garbage not the people who review them.

    Okay I might not be a 'Game Expert', if there is such a thing... but Ive been playing video games since the 80's. Ive been a avid gamer for decades and I was even offered a game design job by Activision years back... so I think I have some knowledge on the subject., and I can tell you one thing ... STO is a AWESOME game. I love it. If you dont thats you.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    I usually disregard reviews in magazines (paper and online) since it's quite well known that you can buy a good review for a game no matter how fecal it is. And if you anger the magazines off they give you a bad review.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    mickeyx wrote:
    OP come on now. Since when we are supposed to take words of reviewers for games we enjoy? i give you an example, recently Gamespot had to pull down their review for GOLBAL AGENDA because reviewer only played for 6 hours and somehow players found it out. he gave GA same score as STO

    http://news.bigdownload.com/2010/02/18/gamespot-pulls-global-agenda-review/

    They rated new AVP as 5.5 and i think its an awesome game easily 8/10 if not more.

    Also do you remember Gamespot firing its reviewer for giving honest review of EA title KANE AND LYNCH?

    So what i am trying to say is that GAMESPOT is a joke. just laugh it off.

    WOW I did not hear of that. Not surprising.

    I was curious about AVP... all the 'Expert Game Sites' ROFL - Gamespy, Gamespot and IGN gave awful reviews, but now I think I might give it a try. The game sounds very innovative, especially the multiplayer match tournaments (Infestation sounds really cool)
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    While I'm not about to jump on the site bashing bandwagon over reviews I disagree with - hell, in my opinion MMOs as a whole shouldn't even be up for review at launch - I do agree that most of the larger sites have been sliding steadily downhill for years. This is why I personally stick to blogs and podcasts these days, of which Joystiq is probably the best out there in the former category.

    Giant Bomb is the new king, however. Their 10-part feature on STO was both awesome and hilarious, so consider that your homework assignment for the evening (and if the devs read this: why haven't you linked to it on the official site yet?)

    I for one welcome my new Space Neon Lobster overlords.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    i stopped trusting anyone who is paid for an opinion a long time ago.

    with reviews in magazines or sites, i gloss over opinion and ratings and look for the information provided.

    letting people who are being paid to tell the masses what to think make your mind up for you will often lead to dissapointment

    when i'm ready to let others decide what i think and do, i'll go sign up for a lobotomy, till then i'll cary on making up my own mind on things.

    congrats on bucking the trend OP, i hope it'll help open your eyes to other "feviews" on other products as well.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Places like Gamespot, Gamespy, IGN, etc. give out positive reviews/hype on games based upon how much they have been paid to advertise the game. More money=higher review, less money=not so high review. Read several articles (Game Informer, Game Revolution) about this happening on a very regular basis.


    Edit: Probably should have typed this faster as pretty much every reply above mine just said the same thing. Guess that's what happens when you put a Pakled in front of a keyboard. ;)
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Again, a website which reviews a game (Global Agenda) after playing it for only 6 hours to rate it low and face backlash from the community and eventually end up pulling down the review, is just a JOKE. Bottom line is that GAMESPOT is pathetic.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    well it is star trek so they have already made up there minds
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Gamespot keeps getting caught for not playing MMO's for more than a couple hours (if that) and pulling reviews out of their ears which all boils down to..This isn't WoW so it sucks.

    They have zero credibility with any gamer with an IQ over 84. :rolleyes:
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Gotta love the fan boys... Once someone gives this game a bad score that it deserves they are automatically a ****** review site that gets paid off. You all keep talking about how its all about blog reviews from people who don't get paid. Well for every 1 bad review from a major gaming website i can find 20 bad blog reviews. what the *** is your point? that just because a big gaming site says STO sucks means its not true because they get bribed?

    Well based on your logic you can blame cryptic again for not bribing gamespot and all other gaming sites for a good score.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    The reviews for STO show which reviewers are fair and which aren't. I'm going to start looking at sites that gave STO a fair review when looking for games in the future. I've definitely had enough out of the big companies.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    killafawk wrote: »
    Gotta love the fan boys... Once someone gives this game a bad score that it deserves they are automatically a ****** review site that gets paid off. You all keep talking about how its all about blog reviews from people who don't get paid. Well for every 1 bad review from a major gaming website i can find 20 bad blog reviews. what the *** is your point? that just because a big gaming site says STO sucks means its not true because they get bribed?

    Well based on your logic you can blame cryptic again for not bribing gamespot and all other gaming sites for a good score.

    Also gotto love the trolls who associate everything with being a FANBOY and fail to use any logic and common sense.

    Also Gamespot is a joke unless you want to cover up their recent TRIBBLE up with Global Agenda too.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Anyone who games on a regular basis knows not to trust reviewer sites on a factual basis.
    There have even been magazine articles where it has been mentioned by game companies how they manipulate the metacritic ratings. So take it with a grain of salt.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    mickeyx wrote:
    Also gotto love the trolls who associate everything with being a FANBOY and fail to use any logic and common sense.

    Also Gamespot is a joke unless you want to cover up their recent TRIBBLE up with Global Agenda too.

    Took the words right outta my mouth dude.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    ok then fan boys since the scores from basically every major gaming website are all shi-tty for STO can you tell me how this game deserves anything higher than a 60/100?

    You all keep talking about how stupid people are for believing these reviews yet your sitting here defending a game with no ground content, no space content, lots of bugs, a playable race that has no content and only one thing to do. A game that you can literally finish in 3 weeks without even trying.

    Call everyone Idi0ts all you want but your the suckers who are defending this embarrassment of a game.

    Also did anyone see the commercials they have all over TV now? HAHAHAHA its insane how great they make it out to be. They must be desperate. Oh yeah steam is already offering discounts of 10$ on the game 2 weeks after its been out. Also cryptic has 'USE YOUR BUDDY KEY, INVITE SOMEONE TO PLAY WE NEED MONEY" ads all over the login screen. This game really will be dead in 2 months.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Do review sites often inflate reviews? sure. If your company name is blizzard or Bioware or Valve you seem to get an automatic +3 modifier to review scores. Look at the scores for the original L4D which shipped with absolutely no content, horrible balance, and terrible bugs. The game was eventually patched up to a better state, but if any regular company had tried to ship such a product they would be getting reviews in the 4-6 range.

    Cryptic isn't one of those companies that can put out **** and get 90% average reviews, but why should we, the players, get mad about that? Consider the alternative: if a company like Blizzard put out a game like ST:O in exactly the same conditition that Cryptic did and got those sought after 90%+ reviews, what reason would they have to fix any of the flaws in their "perfect" game? ST:O right now is a deeply flawed game, but it has tons of potential (and the same could be said of many well reviewed games like Oblivion or Mass Effect 2). That's to be expected after only two years of development. Given all the criticism ST:O has received, imagine what Cryptic could do in another two years if they take that criticism to heart? Review sites pointing out the flaws in ST:O and giving low scores encourages Cryptic to improve the game, and ultimately that is good for the players.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    I'll let you in on a little secret: most reviews are at the mercy of advertisers. Draw your own opinions.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    killafawk wrote: »
    ok then fan boys since the scores from basically every major gaming website are all shi-tty for STO can you tell me how this game deserves anything higher than a 60/100?

    You all keep talking about how stupid people are for believing these reviews yet your sitting here defending a game with no ground content, no space content, lots of bugs, a playable race that has no content and only one thing to do. A game that you can literally finish in 3 weeks without even trying.

    Call everyone Idi0ts all you want but your the suckers who are defending this embarrassment of a game.

    Also did anyone see the commercials they have all over TV now? HAHAHAHA its insane how great they make it out to be. They must be desperate. Oh yeah steam is already offering discounts of 10$ on the game 2 weeks after its been out. Also cryptic has 'USE YOUR BUDDY KEY, INVITE SOMEONE TO PLAY WE NEED MONEY" ads all over the login screen. This game really will be dead in 2 months.

    Lets see, No Ground Content? Hmm, seems to me you beam down to the ground. You perform actions while there. So they aren't to your liking but that doesn't mean it isn't content. No space content? So you been doing missions in a volvo? You were flying a starship in space, guess what that is space content. No content for Klingons? Funny, I recall doing missions with them on my toon. As far as a game you can finish in 3 weeks, look at the top raiding guilds in WOW. They are done leveling and raiding high end content in a WEEK.

    You are so full of fail, you can't get higher on the fail meter.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    I'd recommend to any gamer to make Kotaku.com a part of their gaming news and reviews. They refuse to use a scoring system at all and instead do impressively exhaustive "Loved..." and "Hated..." lists that address the strengths and weaknesses of every game they review.

    I also enjoy rockpapershotgun.com; good reading with interesting, clever writers.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    AtomicFB wrote:
    Lets see, No Ground Content? Hmm, seems to me you beam down to the ground. You perform actions while there. So they aren't to your liking but that doesn't mean it isn't content. No space content? So you been doing missions in a volvo? You were flying a starship in space, guess what that is space content. No content for Klingons? Funny, I recall doing missions with them on my toon. As far as a game you can finish in 3 weeks, look at the top raiding guilds in WOW. They are done leveling and raiding high end content in a WEEK.

    You are so full of fail, you can't get higher on the fail meter.

    did you really just respond with that? What you said was content? flying in a ship is content? walking around doing actions is content? Well based on your logic ill be making star trek online 2. It will be a huge success if theres more suckers like you around, which there are obviously.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Game reviews: - A reflection of how much free stuff the developers send the reviewers.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    killafawk wrote: »
    did you really just respond with that? What you said was content? flying in a ship is content? walking around doing actions is content? Well based on your logic ill be making star trek online 2. It will be a huge success if theres more suckers like you around, which there are obviously.

    Yes we are content..shocking for you? why? because we enjoy something you don't? welcome to the real world, Enjoy your stay.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    I think the biggest problem is that the game review websites never play far enough into an MMO (aside from WoW) to get a solid opinion. They play like the first 20 levels, read the forums, and then write a review.

    For instance, in IGN's review, the writer said "APPARENTLY" there is no endgame content once you reach admiral. He obviously is just taking someones word for it. He then makes the comment that only the Guardian of Forever mission is voiced. Now, this is true, but that would be conjecture on his part because he never played to the end.

    Furthermore, he talks about ground PvP not being fun because of spamming a few buttons. He obviously did not play at higher ranks where you have numerous powers/skills to use.

    I rarely use online reviews of MMOs to make any kind of opinion upon purchasing and playing. IGN gave Warhammer a good review and it was terrible. They have a very small player base now.

    Also, it is a little unfair to leave a permanent score on an MMO. They should re-review it every year or so. An old score could go up or down based on the content that is released for it.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    mickeyx wrote:
    Yes we are content..shocking for you? why? because we enjoy something you don't? welcome to the real world, Enjoy your stay.

    I have no problem with you being content. Its people who bash websites or other people for saying it is a Disappointment. I think everyone can agree wtih that statement.

    Btw ill be looking out for all your "I quit" threads in the coming days or weeks. And before you post it im just gonna let all you guys know before you do in case i miss your thread...


    I told you so.
Sign In or Register to comment.