These guys have crossed the line. They are totally out of their mind.

:eek:

What was that line about GameSpot having their wangs too far up their X-Boxes to give unbiased reviews? I'm a few hours into R&C, and so far I can't give it anything other than at least a 9.5!! Conan, on the other hand, I can't even bear to look at.


Wow.

that seems pretty disgraceful to me also. r&c does nothing for me, but the conan demo was absolutely disgusting...in a bad way.

I just spit coffee all over my computer screen.

Conan should be way lower than R&C ToD. Like five or six. Platformers ,like R&C, have to be easy play ,because players are younger.(difficulty setting would be nice though)

Conan should be way lower than R&C ToD. Like five or six. Platformers ,like R&C, have to be easy play ,because players are younger.(difficulty setting would be nice though)

Don't you get a 'Hard' option when you complete it? I thought I read that somewhere.

These guys have crossed the line. They are totally out of their mind.
I would have to agree with you on that. I can't believe they both scored the same. I stopped visiting Gamespot a while ago.

PS. I think you have too many 7.5's in your title.:)

Don't you get a 'Hard' option when you complete it? I thought I read that somewhere.

Yes you do.

If they really think Ratchet deserves a 7.5 fine, I disagree totally but fine. Thinking a game with as little polish as Conan deserves the same score? Seriously, now I really lose respect for these guys. Now they are basically promoting bad games.

I'm fuming right now and can barely sit still. How can they possibly compare the AWESOMENESS of Conan to the garbage of R&C? OK, you can even give Ratchet a 5 if you want, but only if Conan gets a 10! I'll never trust Microspot again. ;)

Wow if poeple get hung up on a number after all the nice things Gamspot said... what are they going to do when the read Gamespy spends time talking about the slowdown and stuttering!

The thing that seems to drag the GS score down is that they compared it to the PS2 versions and found it wanting in some areas. UYA got an 8.7, GC an 8.9 and R&C a 9 and Deadlocked an 8.6 as well as the PSP version an 8.2.

Its a long and very successful series. Is there anything wrong with comparing the latest to the others and finding it not quite as good?

(I know many sites did the same with the latest Splinter Cell without much of an outcry)

The problem is that you are comparing apples to oranges. In my opinion, R&C is a great game, but not better than Oblivion, or Resistance, or R6V or GRAW2 (again my opinion), but better than Heavenly Sword. look at the average score for these games and then figure where the average score for R&C should be. It should be at about 88%. Conan will have an Average score much less.

The problem with the scoring is that it seems to be an exponential decay curve type of scoring. Every game (almost) gets an average score above 50%. then there are some from 50-60, more from 60-70, tons from 70-80, and similarly 80-90, and then a few from 90-92, less from 92-94, and rare above 94. This makes 80% the median. The other problem with scoring is that is accounts for current expectations, not past, not furture. Goldeneye (N64) has an extreemly high rating (95% or so), but if that game came out now, it would score very poorly. All the R&C scored 85-90% (when they came out at their time compared to other games at that time) this game is no different. Comparing the current R&C to previous R&C and then stating that "better graphics, better sound, etc therefore better gamerscore" is not valid.

Wow if poeple get hung up on a number after all the nice things Gamspot said... what are they going to do when the read Gamespy spends time talking about the slowdown and stuttering!

The thing that seems to drag the GS score down is that they compared it to the PS2 versions and found it wanting in some areas. UYA got an 8.7, GC an 8.9 and R&C a 9 and Deadlocked an 8.6 as well as the PSP version an 8.2.

Its a long and very successful series. Is there anything wrong with comparing the latest to the others and finding it not quite as good?

(I know many sites did the same with the latest Splinter Cell without much of an outcry)
? lol...I don't get your point? So the score given by that idiotic site is fair then? TOD and Conan on par with each other ? Get real...

many sites rated LAIR on par with SONIC, and if you played both, you'd know SONIC made LAIR looks like the 2nd coming..

Guys, don't read; rent, buy, play.

Punditry is outta control these days.

:confused:

Wow...Either this site is pretty stupid or... well, I can't think of anything else.

perhaps it was just that one guy's opinion?

perhaps seeing the almost totally adult ownership of the ps3 he expected a more mature game?

i'm really enjoying it, but i can where someone coming off of games like R6V, Oblivion, Resistance, and such, would find the difficulty a little off putting.

then again, he likely didn't do much exploring. these guys just tear through the game as fast as possible, and yeah, if you do that, and are familiar with the R&C games, it's not hard. however, if you explore, god how many times have i died trying to get somewhere tough in this game, just playing last night?

however, if you're a crack gamer, and focus on just winning the game, you could easily beat it with no challenge at all.

but if you do that, i think you've missed the point.

As I understand it,game scores at Gamespot are not based on comparing games from different genres across competing game consoles.They are judged against games of a similiar genre on the console it's made for.Simply put, Conan is not being judged a 7.5 against Ratchet,it's being judged against other similar style games on the 360.In my opinion the demo was crap so I think 7.5 is way too high for Conan as it compares to other similiar games I've played on 360.

On the other side,Ratchet is reviewed a 7.5 against other similar games on the PS3.Which is harder as there isn't much competition in the platformer genre on PS3 to use as a basis for comparison.But after the demo I played,I can't fathom Ratchet being under an 8.5...

The problem with the scoring is that it seems to be an exponential decay curve type of scoring. Every game (almost) gets an average score above 50%. then there are some from 50-60, more from 60-70, tons from 70-80, and similarly 80-90, and then a few from 90-92, less from 92-94, and rare above 94. This makes 80% the median. The other problem with scoring is that is accounts for current expectations, not past, not furture. Goldeneye (N64) has an extreemly high rating (95% or so), but if that game came out now, it would score very poorly. All the R&C scored 85-90% (when they came out at their time compared to other games at that time) this game is no different. Comparing the current R&C to previous R&C and then stating that "better graphics, better sound, etc therefore better gamerscore" is not valid.

So, by your same logic, since almost every action game created has a better fighting system, graphics, and sound, let alone polish and presentation, than Conan, it's score should be pretty low now. But if it came out pre God of War or DMC, then maybe it could have gotten away with a better score.

Almost every reviewer has stated (and I agree) that Ratchet Future polished the platforming genre and is possibly the best game of it's genre out right now. It didn't do anything new, but neither did Conan. Neither did Halo, neither did any of these great games. Great games don't always get great scores for pushing boundaries and implementing new things, they get great scores for being fun and very polished.

Besides, this guy at Gamespot criticized the game for having an identity crisis by having too many different modes of gameplay throughout the campaign, something almost every other reviewer gave it praise for. Ratchet games have been known for their many little mini games, not just a simple shooter with a platforming mechanic. Sounds to me like he was trying to find things wrong.

All that review was from a guy that wanted another Gears clone or another FPS, but since it attempts to be slightly different or is maybe not the genre he personally enjoys he slammed the score.

This is where a professional reviewers job is different than ours. We can rate all games based on our personal preference, since we decide to buy a game only for ourselves. But review sites like IGN and Gamespot have to be more open minded, rate games based on their merits not necessarily on whether or not they personally liked it. They need to rate quality and potential fun. If you only play sports games, you shouldn't review platformers that you already know you don't enjoy that much.

I understand what you're saying, but why pay them any attention at all? All of these sites need to generate money, which makes them subject to influence one way or another.

Their opinions aren't worth the webpages on which they're printed.

Bleh,

I used to trust Gamespot, but I know I'm not alone in thinking that they're receiving some kind of big-time payola from MS. Don't get me started on how derivative Halo is. Their reviews are just plain garbage lately for PS3 games.

I know the folks on this site are sort of picture and sound quality whores ;) and believe me, that's why I come here, I appreciate it, but most of us can appreciate the "fun" factor of a game. Conan was worth at least an 8 in my opinion. Yeah it's a GoW clone, and yeah the pixelation on those cut scenes was horrible, but dammit if I didn't get a real kick out of slashing a guy, punching him up into the air, tossing my sword into him, and then yanking it out causing body parts to fly akimbo.

R&C was great as well, I mean, it fell short of a cg interactive movie, but not all that short. It looks far and away to be the "cleanest" game I've seen in HD on my system. Though the game wasn't exactly my thing, I can recognize quality when I see it. 7.5 is about 1-1.5 points below where that should have been. One of GS's bigger complaints was about the weak story, and while I haven't played the full game, I'm sure that your kids (the target audience) aren't complaining that they didn't get enough backstory behind the last of the lombax. If you check that reviewer's other "reviews" you can see form your own opinion on what weight you should give his critique.

At this point I'm rambling, so let me just sum-up. Gamespot is staffed by d-bags, and I hope they one day regain my trust because at one time it was a decent site.

If you guys go and watch the video review, you'll see its actually a pretty positive one where he hits on all the things that make the game good. He also hits on some of the things that might take away from the overall experience....

However, I'll say this, that score is a mistake...it should have been an 8.5, sounds more like the guy was biased about not having more platforming....but then, IMHO, that would just make the game duller. As it is they said 10-14 hour gameplay, I think this review is a little borked myself.

However, I think you guys who claim they are in the "360's pocket" are kinda just mashing sour grapes....alot of the PS3's ports have been sub-par, and some of its original content has kinda sucked.

Sour grapes, no it is pretty clear. Long history of scores that more than adequately shows it as well. I still read the reviews simply for the content but the scores are pretty much tossed out. Granted I take IGN's and most other sites reviews with a grain of salt as well and just look for the info within the review.

In an ideal world I'd have a demo for every game before they release it so there wouldn't be any blind buys. 2nd best would be a week and I'd be more than happy with that as well.

http://www.digitalmediathoughts.com/images/ps3xboxadvertising.jpg

You all moan and complain about Ratchet and Clank but conveniently forget about Resistance (8.6) and Ninja Gaiden Sigma (9.0). So please give it a rest, take a break and get off the Internets for a bit, and put back on your tinfoil caps.

If Conan were a PS3 "exclusive", I wonder if they would have been so generous with their score...

...think about it.

Sour grapes, no it is pretty clear. Long history of scores that more than adequately shows it as well.


The world is against the PS3 because Microsoft pays them money to say the games suck, is that it? Guys are driving around in X-box cars and swim in their free xbox-shaped swimming pools....something like that you're getting at??


I still read the reviews simply for the content but the scores are pretty much tossed out. Granted I take IGN's and most other sites reviews with a grain of salt as well and just look for the info within the review.


I really didn't think the review was that bad, the score seems like a mistake...its clearly not a 7.5 based on the verbal review, and it does seem like the guy reviewing the game had some kinda bone to pick with the diversity of things to do in the game....but I can't recall seeing that Ogre in any other video reviews so I dont know if he's biased or what...

http://www.digitalmediathoughts.com/images/ps3xboxadvertising.jpg[/QUOTE]

Its advertising space.....Microsoft paid for it.....the real question is, why didn't Sony? :)

You all moan and complain about Ratchet and Clank but conveniently forget about Resistance (8.6) and Ninja Gaiden Sigma (9.0). So please give it a rest, take a break and get off the Internets for a bit, and put back on your tinfoil caps.

Yet they gave Perfect Dark Zero a 9.0, lfmao.. :eek: "Editor's choice"

I'll just say my tastes in games and what makes something good is very different than the editor's at gamespot.

The problem is you guys put too much into the number. Who cares about the number? They don't even have the same person review the games, so there's going to differences in the score. Everyone would put a different number on the same thing.

I like their reviews, but I look at the content, not the number.

Yet they gave Perfect Dark Zero a 9.0, lfmao.. :eek: "Editor's choice"

I'll just say my tastes in games and what makes something good is very different than the editor's at gamespot.

I guess I'd attribute that to 360 Launch Madness...everyone was blinded by the high resolution and shiny...everything. PDZ is definately a 7.5 game.

But this type of psychosis isn't unique in the gaming world, as we all know LAIRS Disease affected thousands of brainwashed gamers, desperately trying to convince themselves that LAIR wasn't a game that sucked as hard as it actually does. :)

Conan = 4.5 out of 10 with a 3.0 bonus for gratuitous tittie shots throughout the game, hence the 7.5. Simple logic, people!

I've said this before,and I've seen others say it,but I still feel that PS3,because of it's initial price,hype,and specs is held to a higher standard.If Ratchet had come out on 360,I think it would have scored higher.

Conan = 4.5 out of 10 with a 3.0 bonus for gratuitous tittie shots throughout the game, hence the 7.5. Simple logic, people!
Throw in a chainsaw and it would've been 10.0!

I have heard people claim that MS recruits people to go to internet sites and promote there products and bash there competitors, is this true? Link(proof)? If this is true, then I would not be surprised if MS has penetrated the review sites....

I have heard people claim that MS recruits people to go to internet sites and promote there products and bash there competitors, is this true? Link(proof)? If this is true, then I would not be surprised if MS has penetrated the review sites....

Probably true for many online interests (although I seem to remember a few incidents where MS employees were actually implicated). Googling "shills" and "astroturfing" yields many hits. This one is old but kind of funny (if true):

http://www.newsfactor.com/perl/story/13046.html

I have heard people claim that MS recruits people to go to internet sites and promote there products and bash there competitors, is this true? Link(proof)? If this is true, then I would not be surprised if MS has penetrated the review sites....

There are several marketing companies that do this for any company who wishes to contract with them. Its likely that Sony, Nintendo and Micosoft ALL use them.

So far the only company to be caught red handed using an internet persona to deceive consumers though was Sony though the the ad company ZIPATONI.

Hint: "All I want for Christmas is..."

These are for profit companies fighting for consumers dollars. They will use any means at thier disposal to do so.

Throw in a chainsaw and it would've been 10.0!

Throw in a chainsaw and you've got a Bruce Campbell movie.

"Gimmie some sugar, baby!"

I have heard people claim that MS recruits people to go to internet sites and promote there products and bash there competitors, is this true? Link(proof)? If this is true, then I would not be surprised if MS has penetrated the review sites....

A recent striking example is what happened to Apple's iPod discussion forums.

You would read them before the Zune came to market and the vast majority of posts were positive.

You read now and the vast majority of posts are negative.

The Internet never was a reliable source of first-hand information, but it's rapidly becoming the #1 source of guided misinformation.

I have heard people claim that MS recruits people to go to internet sites and promote there products and bash there competitors, is this true? Link(proof)? If this is true, then I would not be surprised if MS has penetrated the review sites....

Not sure about anything directly tied to Microsoft... just lots of rumbling...

But for reviews in general, this article has a nice bit of insight: http://vgmwatch.com/?p=1111

(The game in question in that article, Prey for the 360, that received the 9 rating averages quite a bit lower overall (78%) (http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages4/928189.asp)... Interesting, at least.)

The problem is you guys put too much into the number. Who cares about the number? They don't even have the same person review the games, so there's going to differences in the score. Everyone would put a different number on the same thing.

I like their reviews, but I look at the content, not the number.

Indeed. Unless these two reviews are written by the same person I don't see the issue. Maybe the person rating Conan tends to rate games higher in general, while the R&C person is more adept at using the 1-10 spectrum.

I have heard people claim that MS recruits people to go to internet sites and promote there products and bash there competitors, is this true? Link(proof)? If this is true, then I would not be surprised if MS has penetrated the review sites....

I am sure this is true, and true with all of the companies involved in these console wars. As far as I know, the only people actually caught redhanded doing it were Sony (there was an EGM expose on it a year or so ago), but I'm sure all 3 are guilty of the same.

Indeed. Unless these two reviews are written by the same person I don't see the issue. Maybe the person rating Conan tends to rate games higher in general, while the R&C person is more adept at using the 1-10 spectrum.

That was exactly my point. Have you ever noticed the web site users always rate the game higher too. What makes their reviews valuable is the level of detail they go into about their likes and dislikes. Frequently, they have rated a game lower that I loved, but in the review it says they were annoyed by a certain aspect of it. I, however, found that problem less of an annoyance, so I liked the game better. If you read the whole review, it can give you some wonderful insight into how the game is going to play before you buy it. The number is much less meaningful. Some people here need to calm down and stop the conspiracy theory BS.

Dude that site is a joke, anyway... Play the game for your self, then make judgment. I'm glad I did.

The game is THE best R&C ever!

Top quality production, impressive fun - not to hard gameplay... What else can you ask for?

It is far from short, and pure FUN!

" GameSpot 10/26/07 4.5 /10 4.5
PS3 Advanced 10/25/07 9.5 /10 9.5
RipTen 10/25/07 9.8 /10 9.8
GameSpot 10/24/07 7.5 /10 7.5
Game Informer 10/24/07 9.25 /10 9.2
Gaming Age 10/24/07 A- /A 9.0
GameDaily 10/24/07 4.5 /5 9.0
Play Magazine 10/24/07 10 /10 10.0
GameSpy.com 10/23/07 4 /5 8.0
IGN.com 10/23/07 9.4 /10 9.4
GamePro 10/23/07 5 /5 10.0
UnderGroundOnline (UGO) 10/23/07 A- /A+ 9.0
GameZone Online 10/23/07 9.3 /10 9.3
1UP.com 10/23/07 8.5 /10 8.5
PSM 10/23/07 9.5 /10 9.5
PSX Extreme.com 10/23/07 9 /10 9.0
GameTrailers 10/23/07 9.0 /10 9.0
Pro-G - Prodigious Gaming 10/23/07 9 /10 9.0
GamerNode 10/23/07 9.5 /10 9.5
Game Almighty 10/23/07 9 /10 9.0
GameTap 10/23/07 10 /10 10.0 "

See... Only two low scores to offset the great 9+ average... Its laughable...

Indeed. Unless these two reviews are written by the same person I don't see the issue. Maybe the person rating Conan tends to rate games higher in general, while the R&C person is more adept at using the 1-10 spectrum.

The problem is that the numerical score is meaningless if no attempt is made to use a consistent metric. Why bother giving numerical scores if they have no meaning relative to each other? Does the 7.5 given to R&C mean that the Gamespot reviewers feel it is of the same quality as Conan, does it mean that R&C is 75% as good as that reviewer's notion of a perfect game, or does it mean something completely different? I doubt anyone, including the Gamespot reviewers, can answer this question. If the reviewers are going to assign scores capriciously, the entire numerical system should be scrapped.

The problem is that the numerical score is meaningless if no attempt is made to use a consistent metric. Why bother giving numerical scores if they have no meaning relative to each other? Does the 7.5 given to R&C mean that the Gamespot reviewers feel it is of the same quality as Conan, does it mean that R&C is 75% as good as that reviewer's notion of a perfect game, or does it mean something completely different? I doubt anyone, including the Gamespot reviewers, can answer this question. If the reviewers are going to assign scores capriciously, the entire numerical system should be scrapped.

scrapped? That's never going to happen. I think computer gaming monthly started doing that - how's that going? Anyone read it?

Anyway, I get your point but the simple fact is that people need some sort of reference. I don't have time to read every single review out there. It's not rocket science. It's the universal law of the scale from 1 to 10.

That being said, reviews are a reference point for me and sometimes useful in making a decision, but certainly not all the time. To be honest, there's really no review that would keep me from another R&C game. Well . . . it'd have to be really poor and then I'd really question it :)

The problem is that the numerical score is meaningless if no attempt is made to use a consistent metric. Why bother giving numerical scores if they have no meaning relative to each other?

There's no point in even trying to have a consistent metric. Even if one review rated all of it, the number is still totally subjective. I don't fault them for not trying to have consistent numbering. I'm sure we have all had games we loved that someone else would have given a low score to. This isn't like figure skating or gymnastics where there are established criteria to score from. And, with the large variety of games out there, it would be pointless to try and develop such a system.

Some of you folks need to chill out and go back to school. Have you ever noticed it's the uneducated that typically spot out conspiracy theories? Have you ever noticed the people who have no idea what it takes to make something complain most about the way it's made?

There's no point in even trying to have a consistent metric. Even if one review rated all of it, the number is still totally subjective. I don't fault them for not trying to have consistent numbering. I'm sure we have all had games we loved that someone else would have given a low score to. This isn't like figure skating or gymnastics where there are established criteria to score

Some of you folks need to chill out and go back to school. Have you ever noticed it's the uneducated that typically spot out conspiracy theories? Have you ever noticed the people who have no idea what it takes to make something complain most about the way it's made?

So if there is no point in trying to be consistent, what is the purpose of the numerical scores? Why don't the reviewers randomly pick numbers out of a hat if, as you mention, they should not even attempt to be consistent. Also, I never mentioned a Gamespot conspiracy, I just suggested that they were sloppy with their scores.

Your suggestion that everyone questioning Gamespot's scores must be uneducated, ignorant conspiracy nuts is comical. I'm guessing that multiple graduate degrees is not enough to allow me to question Gamespot's infallible rating system.

So if there is no point in trying to be consistent, what is the purpose of the numerical scores? Why don't the reviewers randomly pick numbers out of a hat if, as you mention, they should not even attempt to be consistent. Also, I never mentioned a Gamespot conspiracy, I just suggested that they were sloppy with their scores.

Because while most of us here are more focused on the content of the review when making our decisions on the games, many more casual gamers don't want to read that much and are just looking to get in and get out, for a number is the only option. As always, they spend less time looking into it and end up making less educated decisions, but it's each person's prerogative whether they'd rather spend the time to make a more educated decision or save some time for other things and possibly end up enjoying their game purchase less (IE buying Conan instead of R&C).

I think if IGN, Gamespot, etc were only catering to the people here and the people that actually read through their reviews they would probably prefer to drop the numbers themselves. But we make up too few people for that, and the fact of the matter is they need those millions of hits from casual gamers just looking to glance at a 1-10 number to show to their advertisers.

So if there is no point in trying to be consistent, what is the purpose of the numerical scores? Why don't the reviewers randomly pick numbers out of a hat if, as you mention, they should not even attempt to be consistent. Also, I never mentioned a Gamespot conspiracy, I just suggested that they were sloppy with their scores.

Your suggestion that everyone questioning Gamespot's scores must be uneducated, ignorant conspiracy nuts is comical. I'm guessing that multiple graduate degrees is not enough to allow me to question Gamespot's infallible rating system.

I wasn't referring to you necessarily with the last part of the post. Sorry if it seemed that way. I understood that you were only commenting on the sloppiness that I agree is there. I was simply pointing out there's that aspect in any numerical value given to such things. People need to learn what goes into those numbers, so they don't take it for more than it is. I'm with you on the multiple graduate degress. Of course, it all depends on what they are in. Basket weaving doesn't count. :D

I suspect the rating system is there out of habit and consumer desire. Do you think many people would give much credibility to a review site that didn't do numerical ratings of some kind? All of these, however, are completely subjective.

I wasn't referring to you necessarily with the last part of the post. Sorry if it seemed that way. I understood that you were only commenting on the sloppiness that I agree is there. I was simply pointing out there's that aspect in any numerical value given to such things. People need to learn what goes into those numbers, so they don't take it for more than it is. I'm with you on the multiple graduate degress. Of course, it all depends on what they are in. Basket weaving doesn't count. :D

I suspect the rating system is there out of habit and consumer desire. Do you think many people would give much credibility to a review site that didn't do numerical ratings of some kind? All of these, however, are completely subjective.

So you're telling me my M.S. and Ph.D. in basket weaving don't count? Actually, they're in electrical and computer engineering, which I hope is considered legitimate.

Back on topic, I agree that all major gaming sites are forced to give numerical or letter scores because of expectations created by the competition. I think many people, especially casual gamers, give these subjective scores a disproportionate amount of credence. Since the scores are subjective, there will inevitably be some scores that seem strange. Being a numbers person, I would hope that the editor would at least make some attempt to improve the consistency of numerical scores, such as normalizing the scores of each reviewer, to prevent situations like R&C and Conan receiving identical scores.

So you're telling me my M.S. and Ph.D. in basket weaving don't count? Actually, they're in electrical and computer engineering, which I hope is considered legitimate.

Back on topic, I agree that all major gaming sites are forced to give numerical or letter scores because of expectations created by the competition. I think many people, especially casual gamers, give these subjective scores a disproportionate amount of credence. Since the scores are subjective, there will inevitably be some scores that seem strange. Being a numbers person, I would hope that the editor would at least make some attempt to improve the consistency of numerical scores, such as normalizing the scores of each reviewer, to prevent situations like R&C and Conan receiving identical scores.

*Sigh* If only we engineers were allowed to run the world.

I agree your suggestion would be quite useful. But they do those numbers for the sheep, and the sheep don't care until something doesn't go the way they think it should. :D

So you're telling me my M.S. and Ph.D. in basket weaving don't count? Actually, they're in electrical and computer engineering, which I hope is considered legitimate.

Back on topic, I agree that all major gaming sites are forced to give numerical or letter scores because of expectations created by the competition. I think many people, especially casual gamers, give these subjective scores a disproportionate amount of credence. Since the scores are subjective, there will inevitably be some scores that seem strange. Being a numbers person, I would hope that the editor would at least make some attempt to improve the consistency of numerical scores, such as normalizing the scores of each reviewer, to prevent situations like R&C and Conan receiving identical scores.

People who want a game to fail just need to influence the numerical score. That is because most gamers only look at the numerical score.

That's what allows those sites to fool themselves into believing their hands are clean. They will give a poor numerical score and a much more positive textual review. They get advertising contracts for the poor numerical score and they can find refuge behind the textual review when the publisher of the victimized game complains.

I just spent 2 hours with R&C ToD today and it's one of the best game released this year without any doubt.

Oh yeah and Conan is still utter crap.

People who want a game to fail just need to influence the numerical score. That is because most gamers only look at the numerical score.

That's what allows those sites to fool themselves into believing their hands are clean. They will give a poor numerical score and a much more positive textual review. They get advertising contracts for the poor numerical score and they can find refuge behind the textual review when the publisher of the victimized game complains.

I just spent 2 hours with R&C ToD today and it's one of the best game released this year without any doubt.

Yes, but after reading the whole review, I could see why they gave it the score they did. There were several components of the game they found lacking. Those components aren't things I was looking for, and I'm sure you felt the same. I felt the 7.5 was fair. I haven't read the Conan review, but I did play the demo. Let me see what that one has to say.

I love Conan, I bought both it and Ratchet at the sametime and outside a hour spent on Ratchet have played nothing but Conan every night now for four days. The game is awesome IMO, and fun and addictive as hell. I am a huge Conan and Frank Fezetta fan, and this game uses both elements to their fullest IMO and is very faithful to both. And the gameplay is exemplary IMO, much has been said about how its a GOW clone but IMO that isn't 100% accurate. Both GOW and Heavenly Sword are at their core button mashers, I have beaten both even on hard doing nothing but hitting random buttons, but Conan actually requires you to learn its Combo and to mix up weapons in order to proceed. The enemies in Conan can and will kick your ass if you don't use the right weapons against them, and learn the best combo's to use. And doing a five hit combo that ends with your opponent split down the middle>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>anything in HS IMO. Is it technically better than Ratchet, no. Is it technically a AAA game, no. But for me it is both of these simply because it combines two of my loves in such a steller way.

I played Conan on PS3 last night. Conan > Heavenly Sword for sure. Not sure why folks are ragging on Conan so badly after playing the game. It was silky smooth and challenging. The only thing I could see against it was the facial animations and quality it the "cutscenes" but it surpassed it on other areas.

So if anything people should be noting how Conan does not deserve the 7.5 when a VERY similiar game got a 8!

Since everyone is talking about reviews...I downloaded Metacritic scores for all last gen and current gen games and did some analysis. The first two tables are just your typical descriptive statistics, the third table is an OLS regression with the systems dummy coded so as to allow comparisons between the consoles in terms of average game ratings. For those not familiar with how to interpret the 3rd table, basically the coefficient by "_cons" represents the mean score for games for the XBOX system (roughly a 68%). The coefficients by the the console names represents how many percentage points above or below the constant (since the metric is in percentage points) that consoles respective mean is (i.e. PS3 = 4.2, therefore the mean game score for the PS3 is 4.2 + 68.5 = 72.7). If you look at the P < |t| this gives you the measure of statistical significance (< .05 is good, > .05 not significant - I'm leaving out a bunch of stuff, but for our purposes this is good enough for government work).

It would seem the PS3 actually has the highest average game score! Although, average isn't everything...look at the Wii's abysmal average score of about a 62%.

Not intending to start wars, just giving people something to look at.

Granted HS was an 8, I still can't give more than 5.5 to Conan and 5.5 because I am a fan of Conan, the character.

But, obviously, I am not surprise to see that some people like it.

I don't trust magazine reviews except for electronic gaming monthly and ign. The other magazines I think are paid from the gaming companies, especially that one that you get that if join Gamestop membership. They give the crappiest games 7.5.

I call shaninigans!

Mo!

I played Conan on PS3 last night. Conan > Heavenly Sword for sure. Not sure why folks are ragging on Conan so badly
lololol.....oh wait, you're serious? :confused:

Don't you get a 'Hard' option when you complete it? I thought I read that somewhere.

Yeah you do, it's called Challenge Mode.

lololol.....oh wait, you're serious? :confused:

Yup.

Its an homage to God Of War just as God of War 2 and Heavenly Sword are. I cannot imagine any fan of those not appreciateing Conan unless they just feel like complaining. Its 90% the same gameplay as those games!

Yup.

Its an homage to God Of War just as God of War 2 and Heavenly Sword are. I cannot imagine any fan of those not appreciating Conan unless they just feel like complaining. Its 90% the same gameplay as those games!

Well, I love both God of War and Heavenly Sword. And honestly the thing the drew me into HS was the storytelling and the characters. Conan has got the good license, but found that it failed horribly to draw me into it's world. Mind you I only played the demo a couple times, but unless the rest of the game is completely different I don't see that changing.

I'm not saying the core gameplay was bad, but at this generation I'm just looking for a little more. And I don't think Conan goes beyond average in any category of gameplay or presentation. That's not enough for my money. But to each his own.

Well, I love both God of War and Heavenly Sword. And honestly the thing the drew me into HS was the storytelling and the characters. Conan has got the good license, but found that it failed horribly to draw me into it's world. Mind you I only played the demo a couple times, but unless the rest of the game is completely different I don't see that changing.

I'm not saying the core gameplay was bad, but at this generation I'm just looking for a little more. And I don't think Conan goes beyond average in any category of gameplay or presentation. That's not enough for my money. But to each his own.

Wow....I felt the exact same way about Heavenly Sword

I have heard people claim that MS recruits people to go to internet sites and promote there products and bash there competitors, is this true? Link(proof)? If this is true, then I would not be surprised if MS has penetrated the review sites....

Look what I found this morning:

http://www.vgvc.net/?page_id=2

I guess those left behind must be scrambling to get in.