Crap-Detector: GameSpot gives two perfect scores in a span of seven weeks
Video gaming site GameSpot, whose reputation was recently tarnished because of Gerstmanngate, actually had the gall to hand out two perfect scores in a span of weeks. First was for Grand Theft Auto IV, which was released last April 29, and the second was for Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots, which came out last June 17. Watch the MGS4 video review below.
The last time GameSpot handed out a 10 was for The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time last 1998. To give you an idea how hard it is to make just one terrific game, it took a decade before the next perfect score was awarded (which was GTA IV). Now, barely two months later, another game is deemed “perfect.”
Could it just be dumb luck that two games released in a span of several weeks earned perfect scores? Admittedly, I’m a fan of the Metal Gear and GTA series. However, I wholeheartedly disagree that both deserve a 10. If GameSpot is set on earning back its credibility, its staff would have to do a better job in making reviews and handing out numerical ratings.
Update: A friend of mine corrected me about the history of perfect scores given in GameSpot. Ocarina of Time was given the first 10, followed by Tony Hawk’s Pro Skater 3, then GTA IV and MGS4. This however doesn’t change the fact that there’s something dubious about handing over a couple of perfect scores in a span of several weeks. Even Famitsu took more time to churn out “perfect” scores.
Do you hear that sound? Thought I heard a loud ka-ching all the way from San Francisco.
Tags: gamespot, game_reviews, gerstmanngate, gta_4, metal_gear_solid_4Related Stories
POSTED IN: Crap Detector, Reviews, Videos
14 opinions for Crap-Detector: GameSpot gives two perfect scores in a span of seven weeks
GotGame.com
Jun 17, 2008 at 3:29 pm
Yeah, kinda makes you wonder if GameSpot and IGN are lowering their standards as of late . . . but then again, they do have a point–both of those games are incredibly good . . .
Klopzi
Jun 18, 2008 at 7:29 am
Mike -
GameSpot isn’t unique in giving both games a 10/10.
First off, everyone gave GTA 4 a perfect score even though I’ve heard that it’s a little underserved when all’s said and done.
As for MGS4, giving that game anything less than a perfect score would bring out the Sony fan boys, torches, and pitchforks.
All in all, I think GameSpot tends to give games slightly higher review scores. That being said, I think most experienced video game review sites are jaded and are no longer representative of how your average Joe might view a game.
I think GameSpot’s 10/10 just means “if you like video games and you own this console, this game is a must play at any price”.
Mike
Jun 19, 2008 at 3:37 am
@ GotGame.com
“Incredibly good” and “perfect” are two completely different terms. ;) As for IGN, its standards have always been viewed as low. Why, IGN is actually an advertising website in disguise!
@Klopzi
Au contraire, GameSpot prides itself (or used to, at least) in giving scores lower than that of the “industry standard.” Remember Doom 3’s 8.5 score? How about scores for Bloom Blox and Ratchet & Clank Future: Tools of Destruction?
GameSpot has never been the same since the departure of Greg Kasavin. I don’t think this is about review sites being jaded. The separation of GameSpot’s editorial and advertising is indeed no more.
MGS4 playthrough: Could boss fights be not as good?
Jun 19, 2008 at 4:50 am
[…] the case, the eyes of all Metal Gear fans and gamers everywhere are on Kojima and crew. Forget the perfect score given to MGS4 by GameSpot. Forget all the hype that we were subjected to for four years. Play the […]
Klopzi
Jun 19, 2008 at 7:40 am
Mike -
I think “used to” is the key point being made. Even before the whole Gerstmann - Eidos scandal, GameSpot’s scores had been creeping up. For example, they gave Two Worlds a 7/10 when everyone else struggled to give it much better than 5/10.
I don’t mind the fact that GameSpot has eased up on their restrictions. First off, the better the review scores, the better the game industry does as a whole (in theory). And as I mentioned before, I believe that many reviewers rate games too harshly due to the typical reviewers “been there, done that” attitude.
I don’t need a game to be innovative to have fun playing it. I just need the game to fun, even if it is the same old recycled crap that we’ve seen tons of times before.
Maybe I’m too easy on games. I’m just happy to be playing video games, I guess.
Mike
Jun 19, 2008 at 9:03 am
@ Klopzi
I agree that games don’t have to be innovative for people to have fun playing it. What I am questioning is the implied involvement of money and GameSpot’s already-fragile reputation.
This series of perfect scores certainly won’t help them regain the credibility they used to have.
Klopzi
Jun 19, 2008 at 9:24 am
I don’t think there’s such a thing as an unbiased review nowadays. How many times have you seen one particular site or magazine completely disagree with what others are saying? I think it’s understood that good games get good scores, bad games get bad scores, and games with lots of money behind them get reviewed a little lighter.
I’ve reviewed products and sites myself and I find myself far gentler with my review if my palms have been greased with money or free merchandise. I guess I’d be a good reviewer for GameSpot.
For what it’s worth, I’m still a big fan of GameSpot and CNET’s reviews. I think the whole Kane & Lynch debacle was overblown and sensationalized.
Mike
Jun 19, 2008 at 9:36 am
The very principle of a review is about one’s personal opinion, so these are inherently biased. However, when money is involved, it is definitely frowned upon.
Like news, the purpose of a review is to inform. If it’s tainted with cash, then its purpose is to deceive. I think GameSpot and Eidos got off pretty easy in the Kane & Lynch controversy.
Klopzi
Jun 19, 2008 at 9:45 am
I guess there’s a big difference between suspecting that a review is biased and being shown the reality of it. GameSpot K&L fiasco may have just brought what everyone suspected to the forefront.
The simple fact that most reviewers receive free copies of the games they are reviewing changes things. My opinion of a game is correlated to the amount of money that I paid for the game.
For example, I’d probably give Gears of War a 4/5 at a $70 price point and a 5/5 at a $30 price point. In that same vein, a game given to me by a publisher for review would probably get a boost to its score due to its price of $0. However, I’d also disclose this information in my review where possible.
I wonder if some reviewers tend to be overly critical as a way of compensating for the bias that comes from receiving free merchandise? I guess I’ll have to wait for some game publishers to target me with review copies before I can come up with any sort of definite answer here.
Mike
Jun 19, 2008 at 10:25 am
The talk of cash would always be involved in any business. However, this fiasco isn’t limited to $70 or $100. We’re talking about thousands of dollars being poured into GameSpot via advertising (perhaps payola would be a more apt term).
Like I said, GameSpot’s lines between editorial and advertising are beginning to blur. It’s sad because as a game journalist (and a real IT journalist), I know of our efforts to legitimize the game journalism beat. This controversy with GameSpot pushes the entire medium several steps backward.
Klopzi
Jun 19, 2008 at 10:51 am
Maybe the answer isn’t to sick the unrealistic ideal of reviews unaffected by the promise of big advertising contracts and other forms of recompense.
Perhaps companies such as GameSpot, IGN, 1UP, and others need only disclose the conditions under which each game is reviewed. I’m not sure how this would work since game publishers might not be willing to pay for advertising prior to a review coming out for fear that the scores would seem a little shady.
Or maybe game publishers could be restricted from purchasing advertising until after a site/magazine/etc. has reviewed the game. Maybe advertisers could float a little money to the various blogs and fan sites out there to promote the game and move in with the big contracts after the reviews are out?
I think the only realistic solution is to keep going the way we are now. Take the reviews at face value or look for conspiracies behind every written word and posted score. We live in a world where money talks.
While I wait to be contacted by publishers and marketing companies looking for reviews or advertsing, I’ll continue checking GameSpot, IGN, and the rest for their latest reviews.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m off to buy another 8 games that have been reviewed as “Perfect!” and “Must Own!” by GameSpot. ;)
Klopzi
Jun 19, 2008 at 10:52 am
BTW - previous comment should start “Maybe the answer isn’t to stick to the unrealistic…”
Mike
Jun 24, 2008 at 6:21 am
That’s a good idea–disclosing the conditions in the review. However, I don’t think the publishers are willing to let the readers know. This is the nature of marketing.
Klopzi
Jun 24, 2008 at 7:16 am
Mike -
I know. I’ve written paid reviews on another site of mine. Sometimes the advertisers ask that the true nature of the post (ie. paid advertisement) not be disclosed to the readers. I refuse to publish ads or write reviews under that pretext myself. If you’re paying for advertising, everyone’s going to know about it.
Have an opinion? Leave a comment: