When did Gamespot turn into such HARSH reviewers?

[bogey_j]

when did they become such harsh reviewers (almost to the point of contrarianism)?

They’ve been flopping big AAA games for a while now and consistently lowball any game that isn’t Mario, Zelda or Fromsoft

like is Gotham Knights really a 4/10 type of game? that type of score should be reserved for a game that’s non functional or barely playable. Reviewers scoring a game like this below average is just sum clickbait bullshyt

 

[The G.O.D II]

They’ve always been the HOH reviewers as opposed to IGN despite the 5/10 too much water meme. 4/10 seems reasonable if the combat is bad/uninspired and the story is crap. A score of 1 or 2 means a game is complete unplayable

 

[Canon]

Have you played it?

IGN just gave it a five. You running defense for a game that you haven’t played yet.

 

[bogey_j]

Have you played it?

IGN just gave it a five. You running defense for a game that you haven’t played yet.

I know a below 5 game when I see one and Gotham Knights ain’t it


Bland, boring, unimaginative? Okay 6/10 at worst but it’s not a 4

That’s a clout chase type of review designed to get more clicks (bombing a game worse than it deserves)

 

[Canon]

I know a below 5 game when I see one and Gotham Knights ain’t it


Bland, boring, unimaginative? Okay 6/10 at worst but it’s not a 4

That’s a clout chase type of review designed to get more clicks (bombing a game worse than it deserves)

Do you?


From my perspective it always looked mid/trash

 

[BBG]

when did they become such harsh reviewers (almost to the point of contrarianism)?

They’ve been flopping big AAA games for a while now and consistently lowball any game that isn’t Mario, Zelda or Fromsoft

like is Gotham Knights really a 4/10 type of game? that type of score should be reserved for a game that’s non functional or barely playable. Reviewers scoring a game like this below average is just sum clickbait bullshyt

4/10 should be reserved for a game that's non-functional

 

[The Intergalactic Koala]

On the real, Gamespot been foot on neck since Jeff Gerstmann shytted on Kane and Lynch. If the platform wasn't such a boring and outdated slog to watch, they would exceed IGN's stronghold on the industry.

 

[ALonelyDad]

Was it them that fit hate for the cyberpunk review?

I can’t judge them after that, they are right

 

[Legal]

Nah, breh. This deserves a bad review. From what I've seen, the general thought is that the combat is bad, the leveling and crafting is bad, the game forces you to grind for progress by interacting with the bad combat and progression, and it has issues maintaining the 30 FPS target, but the story is ok, even if it plays out in the obvious way you'd expect.

What about that elevates it to the the 50-70 range? If the game doesn't do its base gameplay well, continually forces you into the bad grinding and progression via the mediocre to bad gameplay, and then struggles to present it to you, there's not a whole of positivity to fall back on.

 

[Deltron]

wasn't Gamespot where that one dude got fired cause of his harsh review of a sponsored game?

They had the game plastered all over the website but homie gave the game a shyt review and the dev was mad

edit: Report: GameSpot's Gerstmann Fired Due to Negative Kane & Lynch Review

yeah for Kane & Lynch

 

[The Mad Titan]

I agree, everyone is super over critical now or just so blown away by a game it's a 9 or 10.

It's actually refreshing to see a 7.

A 4 is like it fails everything to a certain extent, from graphics, gameplay, performance and story along with glitches.


Like even if they are trying to properly use the 10 point scale. A 4 is below average.


I can look at both this game and saints row and know they just aren't 4's.

5's at worse.


And that would mean average.

 

[B86]

when did they become such harsh reviewers (almost to the point of contrarianism)?

They’ve been flopping big AAA games for a while now and consistently lowball any game that isn’t Mario, Zelda or Fromsoft

like is Gotham Knights really a 4/10 type of game? that type of score should be reserved for a game that’s non functional or barely playable. Reviewers scoring a game like this below average is just sum clickbait bullshyt

They could be being harsh or these games have been ass, like I’ve been saying…

 

[zerorequiem]

1-3 non playable, 4-6 average with glaring problems, 7-9 pretty good to great game with minor hiccups. 10 should be a very hard to achieve score, free of graphical issues, great story, gameplay, etc.

But Gamespot has been like this for years with their reviews. Part of me thinks they do it for clicks/views, the other part is that they don't know what they're talking about.

From what reviewers have been saying about Gotham Knights, the score is probably deserved. Hell, if anything it makes me want to play Arkham series again

 

[Tetris v2.0]

It all started with their 7/10 Diablo 2 review way back when. If everyone else is high, they tend to be the lower one. If everyone else is low, they go lower. Seems like their editorial stance or approach is to get those rage clicks and stand out from the pack

 

[SupaHotIce]

I know a below 5 game when I see one and Gotham Knights ain’t it


Bland, boring, unimaginative? Okay 6/10 at worst but it’s not a 4

That’s a clout chase type of review designed to get more clicks (bombing a game worse than it deserves)

How does a "Bland, boring, unimaginative" game get a 6(AT WORST) which means above average