Topic: I'm really starting to hate GSpot.

[Quemaqua]

From what I posted in the Orange Box thread before moving to its own to avoid further thread derailment ala the Halo 3 thread:

How would you do it then?  It has to be done somehow.

Are you saying that each game and expansion should get its own independent review?  That would work for me, if they're all presented together.

Yes.  The package can be rated as a whole, but if you do it with one, you need to do it with others (why haven't a bunch of other GOTY or Gold editions been reviewed?), and all the games themselves need to be rated on their individual merits given that they're all for sale on their own.  But that still hasn't been done.  What about those of us who don't want the box but want some of the individual games?

Look at how GSpot reviews games now.  They award them different things and give an overview of the strengths and weaknesses.  Taking into account that the OBox isn't even a game of any kind, but a collection of shit that was already released plus some other stuff, let's take a look at what pre-written accolades the OBox was awarded:

* The "Funny" award
* The "Get More Than Your Money's Worth" award
* The "Great Original Soundtrack" award
* The "Innovative" award
* The "Outstanding Visual Design" award
* The "Superior Animation" award
* The "Technically Proficient Graphics" award

Surely not all of the games in there deserve each of those awards.  HL2 wasn't funny.  Is TF2 really innovative?  How much Team Fortress have we all played, and we were doing that... when?  Team Fortress was in 1996 or 97, and Team Fortress Classic was in 1999.  TF2 seems surely better than those and all, but from what I've seen it doesn't seem at all innovative considering what other current shooters are doing, and even if that was the case, the review doesn't even get into why.

And what about the bad?  The only thing listed as bad in the review is that if you play all the HL2 stuff together, you realize that Episode 1 is "a relatively weak link".  I'm sorry, that's crap.  The GSpot review of HL2 mentions lackluster story, somewhat lackluster AI, and an easy difficulty.  Where's that in the OBox review?  Nowhere.  There are a hell of a lot more negatives to dish out there, even when taking the games together.  Granted this is likely a mostly positive experience, but what we've got here is just affectation.  Portal = 4 hours of gameplay.  That's what you get when you buy the game alone on Steam.  Sure, it's a nice part of the OBox, but shouldn't that be relevant?  Yet I don't see a Portal review anywhere tell me that you get four hours of game for twenty bucks.

Yes, I know, none of this is criminal.  I need to stop derailing threads with my angst.  It's just that each of the things included in the package is a different game, all of which can be purchased separately, and you don't see GSpot reviewing GOTY or Gold or Platinum packages basically ever.  So why this one?  It's somewhat justified for 360 given the way it works there, but the GSpot of old would have made sure individual reviews were up at the time of the main one if they were going to do it this way.  But now it seems like they're reaching for audiences, and audiences like hype.  This is the kind of shit they just never used to do, and the kind of thing they're doing more than actual journalism now.  Now it's all about "launch centers" and stroking off the publisher of whatever big game is coming out just so they can get people more excited and get more people on the page.  It's the kind of sensationalism that Gerstmann has been smacking of for years in his writing.  This is why LocoRoco got a 7.7.

Does it matter that the OBox got its own review?  Not really, no.  Most people that plan to buy it probably already know what's in it anyway, and latecomers probably appreciate being able to see all of what's in there.  Does it matter that Loco got a 7.7?  No, of course not.  It's just a fucking review.  But the principle of the thing is wrong here considering the way GSpot used to operate, and the fact that Gerstmann seems to be the one dragging it down now makes me angry, hence... all this.

What I've seen out of Gamespot recently has made me lose a lot of confidence.

That's really what it comes down to.  They're fast becoming IGN #2.  In fact, I'd say that IGN has on a few occasions now provided me with something I wanted from GSpot but didn't get, and you all know how much I hate IGN... so that's not a good sign at all.

Anyway, that's why this bothers me.  I should really move this post to another thread so as not to derail this one.  In fact, I think I will.

[TheOtherBelmont]

I pretty much agree with a good portion of what you said, especially Gertsmann's reviews and the launch center shit they've been pullling recently.  Their reviews are getting to general and not enough detail is being put into why games get marked down, just some broad statement on the bullet points of the review.

[MysterD]

Regarding Portal reviews, GameSpy's only "Con" for Portal was this -- "Three hours at best."

Now, this is also from Gamespy's review...

While it's more than possible to get through the entirety of Portal's story mode in under three hours, you'll be smiling at the end.

Once you're finished, you have the option of playing through Portal's maps with more challenging settings: some maps have been tweaked to make them harder, or you can play to try and get the best time, or using the fewest portals or steps. There's also a full set of developer commentary nodes, just as there was in Valve's "Lost Coast" demo and last year's HL2: Episode One: a wide variety of members of the Valve staff talk about everything from how to train players to puzzle balancing to the voice acting, and it's worth replaying the game for this alone.

At a launch price of $20 via the Steam digital download service, it's debatable whether Portal is a little too short, even with the epic finale. A few more puzzles would have been most welcome. What's not debatable is that Portal is one of the most unique, funny and satisfying games of 2007, and we can't wait until Valve produces more of it.

I'm looking at GameSpot's review for Orange Box and they don't even mention that for Portal, you can turn on a In-Game Commentary mode. That will add SOME replay value of the game, for some.

[Cobra951]

I see two issues then.  One, Gamespot is going down the commercial tubes along with IGN and the rest of the money-obsessed hype rags.  There's nothing else to be said about that, except perhaps a eulogy.  Two, what's the best way to review a boxed collection of games which were once released individually?

I hear what you're saying.  I agree with what you're saying in general.  Each game in the box is its own entity, and requires individual evaluation.  However, the box is itself one product.  A lot of people are going to see it as one product.  How does it rate as a collection?  Surely that matters.  Are the games related to each other?  Are they chapters of the same story?  Are they consistent with each other?  What, other than the quest for money, makes these items fit together, and how well was that done?

You mentioned the 360 version, and that's a perfect illustration of what I mean.  I'm guessing most people who get this for the console have never played the games on the PC.  To them, it's all one big, new thing, with extras and many features.  They're going to want to know if the whole bag is worth $60 (or whatever it is).  A competent review, I think, would paint that whole picture--the individual games, their merits, how they were integrated into one product, and the merits of that.

[Pugnate]

I think they are still far from being IGN#2. Yet I hate the new scoring system. Nothing says pussification more than that.

[iPPi]

I really dislike their new scoring system.  It seems completely arbitrary and the pros and cons don't necessarily reflect the score.

[Quemaqua]

But Cobra, they don't review any other pack.  Why this one?  Isn't a GOTY edition of something with the original game and a couple of expansion packs just one big product to the layman?  Wouldn't Morrowind's pack of original 100+ hour game with 2 40+ hour expansions be worth doing this way?  If one says no, then the question is "why does the Orange Box rate?"  I think I've already given my opinion on the answer to that question in the above rant.  If one says yes, then the question is "why wasn't Morrowind's GOTY unit ever reviewed as a whole?"  The answer is because they'd already reviewed the individual products in detail, because you know, that's what a proper journalist would do: give details instead of a half-assed overview.  But if we go with that answer, we also have to ask why none of the OBox stuff has been reviewed individually.  We have no detailed review of Episode 2.  We have no detailed review of Portal.  We have no detailed review of TF2.  Obviously, if he calls himself a reviewer and can supposedly tell us why the OBox is so fucking great, Gerstmann has played them.  So where's the real review?  All I see is a lousy article that really doesn't detail anything of substance and sounds more like a fucking advertisement than an opinion.

[Pugnate]

I like what IGN did. You click on the Orange box review, and there is a score for the entire package,yet there are links to separate reviews within.

[MysterD]

All in regards to Que....

But Cobra, they don't review any other pack.  Why this one?  Isn't a GOTY edition of something with the original game and a couple of expansion packs just one big product to the layman?  Wouldn't Morrowind's pack of original 100+ hour game with 2 40+ hour expansions be worth doing this way?

I'm trying to figure out GameSpot's logic...so, let me try...

I think one of the reasons Morrowind GOTY was never reviewed was when Morrowind released the Morrowind GOTY Pack, all of the pieces -- Morrowind, Tribunal and Bloodmoon -- were available separately at retailers for purchase. Plus, you can still buy all these games, piece by piece, if you need to, at retail outlets. Good luck finding it, though -- as most stores only now sell the Morrowind GOTY Pack.

With the Orange Box, there's three brand new games in the Orange Box, upon this compilation's original release. And for some reason, you can't buy the three brand new "episodic" mini-games separately -- Portal, HL2 Ep Two and TF2 alone -- at a retailer; though, you can only buy those separate over freakin' Steam. You still can buy HL2 and HL2 Ep One separate at retailers, though.

Though, I think all the three new pieces have never been reviewed before in detail -- and they really are separate entities, too. And since this is the case, this is why I think they should review the Orange Box as a whole, but also review in depth each of the brand new 3 pieces. Especially since you can buy all three separately, even if it's only on STEAM, for a $20 price tag or so. So yes -- Que, I agree, each new piece should've been reviewed.
 

If one says no, then the question is "why does the Orange Box rate?"  I think I've already given my opinion on the answer to that question in the above rant.  If one says yes, then the question is "why wasn't Morrowind's GOTY unit ever reviewed as a whole?"  The answer is because they'd already reviewed the individual products in detail, because you know, that's what a proper journalist would do: give details instead of a half-assed overview.  But if we go with that answer, we also have to ask why none of the OBox stuff has been reviewed individually.  We have no detailed review of Episode 2.  We have no detailed review of Portal.  We have no detailed review of TF2.  Obviously, if he calls himself a reviewer and can supposedly tell us why the OBox is so fucking great, Gerstmann has played them.  So where's the real review?  All I see is a lousy article that really doesn't detail anything of substance and sounds more like a fucking advertisement than an opinion.

You hit it on the nose, Que -- "why didn't they write a detailed review for EACH piece of Orange Box also separately like GameSpy and IGN did?"

What is odd about both Gertsmann's Video and Written review for the Orange Box, he mentions some things in the video review he doesn't mention in the written review -- and vice versa. For example,in the video review, he noted at the end -- "I've already finished Portal THREE times." Though, in the written review, he mentions that Portal's only around THREE hours short. Why he didn't mention both in both the video and written review, it's beyond me.

Basically, Gertsmann's review does not go into depth of the three new pieces, too damn much. Namely, one or two paragraphs per game. Not much detail, not much cited for flaws, nothing. Even when Gertsmann does say in the video review there's flaws for each game at the very end, he never really said what exactly they were b/c rigfht after he says that, he basically said "but there's so much different content in this box." It all sounded like you said -- a product placement.

I think I can smell what Gertsmann's flaws are for each, which he barely states -- Portal's short, HL2 Ep Two's short, and TF2 don't have enough maps. I just can smell it b/c in TF2 video review, he does state "Even though there's only 6 maps...," he then goes on to state how awesome he thinks the game is. He probably thinks the lack of lengthy content in this box isn't so bad b/c there are so many "episodic-sized pieces" together here in one big-ass pack. Like I said earlier -- in the video review, he even noted "I've already finished Portal THREE times."

I like what IGN did. You click on the Orange box review, and there is a score for the entire package,yet there are links to separate reviews within.

Me too -- IGN might not be my favorite game reviewers to read or watch, but they took the right way to review this. GameSpy did the same thing, as well.


All in regards to Puggy...

I think they are still far from being IGN#2. Yet I hate the new scoring system. Nothing says pussification more than that.

Yeah, it seems like every brand new game is getting a 8.0 or 8.5, these days.....

Scores that REALLY had to earned b/c of the way the scoring system worked, back when guys like Kasavin were around ....

[gpw11]

What?  I haven't read the review, but it certainly sounds like a bullshit system they used for it.  And yeah, I agree 100% on the 'awards' system at gamespot being just retarded.

[sirean_syan]

I liked the award system when I first heard about it, but now that I've seen it in practice it doesn't really seem to be working out like I imagined. For the most part, that seems like a result of the lousy reviews lately more than a fault with the idea, but in general Gamespot just doesn't seem to be working it like it used to.

As far as online reviews are going these days, it feels like the cycle has gone back to the independent/smaller guys again. For a while around 1999-2000 we had some great sites that didn't review every game that came out, but instead focus on putting out great reviews. Most notably, we had www.thegia.com. I still think some of the game game reviews I've ever read came from that place, especially the Ico review. That changed, mostly after Daily Radar fell and Gamespot really stepped up to the plate. Of course, that's wained in the past year and now we have people like Zero Punctuation and a few of the other "secondary" gaming sites filling in the gaps. I imagine it'll be that way for a while again. Big sites will be there for the news, other sites of the opinions. Maybe we just got spoiled when we could get them both at Gamespot.

[Pugnate]

You know the website I really admired? www.alloutgames.com

It had some great reviews, and was hardcore, without the hate!

[Quemaqua]

And it had these two sexy editors who got all the ladies.

[gpw11]

Um, did anyone else click on that link?  It's fucked. 

[Xessive]

Woah that is not what I thought it meant with "All Out"

[Pugnate]

...I had no idea would turn into link.