Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Is Gamespot biased?

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
March 31, 2005 6:56:35 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

Anyone notice a tendency of Gamespot to be somewhat negative towards
Xbox titles? From reading some of their reviews, and esp. those
presented on the front page of a particular review, I'm left with the
feeling that Gamespot, for whatever reason, carries somewhat of an
anti-Xbox bias. If you check the rating given to Xbox titles by
Gamespot, and then check IGN, and other reviewers, for instance, what
other explanation can be given? When you factor in that, with the fact
that the console magazine (EGM) released by their parent company has
featured no more than three Xbox titles on their cover since the Xbox
first came out (Nov. of 2002), I think the argument is fairly strong
that a bias does exist.

For a quick example, check the ratings given for "MX vs. ATV
Unleashed".

03-21-2005 Gamespy 4 / 5
03-14-2005 IGN 9.3 / 10
04-01-2005 Game Informer 8 / 10
03-31-2005 GameDaily 4 / 5
EGM ---> 04-01-2005 Electronic Gaming Monthly 7.17 / 10

http://www.gamespot.com/xbox/driving/mxvsatvunleashed/i...

More about : gamespot biased

Anonymous
March 31, 2005 9:24:46 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

"aether" <vercingetorix@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1112309795.781731.269760@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Anyone notice a tendency of Gamespot to be somewhat negative towards
> Xbox titles? From reading some of their reviews, and esp. those
> presented on the front page of a particular review, I'm left with the
> feeling that Gamespot, for whatever reason, carries somewhat of an
> anti-Xbox bias. If you check the rating given to Xbox titles by
> Gamespot, and then check IGN, and other reviewers, for instance, what
> other explanation can be given? When you factor in that, with the fact
> that the console magazine (EGM) released by their parent company has
> featured no more than three Xbox titles on their cover since the Xbox
> first came out (Nov. of 2002), I think the argument is fairly strong
> that a bias does exist.
>
> For a quick example, check the ratings given for "MX vs. ATV
> Unleashed".
>
> 03-21-2005 Gamespy 4 / 5
> 03-14-2005 IGN 9.3 / 10
> 04-01-2005 Game Informer 8 / 10
> 03-31-2005 GameDaily 4 / 5
> EGM ---> 04-01-2005 Electronic Gaming Monthly 7.17 / 10
>
> http://www.gamespot.com/xbox/driving/mxvsatvunleashed/i...

I use them and other sites to help determine what games to get and haven't
really noticed any particular bias

- Cryo
March 31, 2005 9:47:28 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

aether wrote:
> Anyone notice a tendency of Gamespot to be somewhat negative towards
> Xbox titles?

I crunched the numbers a while back and found (if anything) a slight
bias in favor of Nintendo games.

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.games.video.xbo...

Jordan Lund Jan 21 2002, 3:46 pm
Newsgroups: alt.games.video.xbox
From: Jordan Lund <l...@earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 23:46:40 GMT
Local: Mon, Jan 21 2002 3:46 pm
Subject: Gamespot Review Analysis:

Interesting... I had a little too much time on the day off today (thank
you
MLK!) so I ran some numbers based on the reviews at Game Spot. Here's
what I
was able to discern:

As of 1/21/2002 they have reviewed 218 PS2 games, 36 Xbox games and 20
Game
Cube games.

The average score for each machine is 6.97 for PS2 games, 7.12 for Xbox
games and 7.64 for Game Cube games.

In order to qualify as a "Good" game you have to have a score of 7 or
higher. 41.28% of PS2 games fail to meet this qualification. Followed
by
33.33% of Xbox games and oly 30% of Game Cube games. I'm amused that
the
average PS2 score of 7.0 would barely qualify it as a "Good" system and
even
then it's only due to rounding. :^)

The good (and better) games break down as follows:

PS2
Perfect (10/10) .46% (1/218)
Superb (9+/10) 8.26% (18/218)
Great (8+/10) 22.94% (50/218)
Good (7+/10) 27.06% (59/218)
All Else (0-6+) 41.28% (90/218)

Xbox
Perfect (10/10) 0% (0/36)
Superb (9+/10) 8.33% (3/36)
Great (8+/10) 19.44% (7/36)
Good (7+/10) 38.89% (14/36)
All Else (0-6+) 33.33% (12/36)

GameCube
Perfect (10/10) 0% (0/20)
Superb (9+/10) 10% (2/20)
Great (8+/10) 40% (8/80)
Good (7+/10) 20% (4/20)
All Else (0-6+) 30% (6/20)

- Jordan
Related resources
Anonymous
March 31, 2005 10:26:03 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

This is patently absurd. Off the top of my head, I can think of ten
Xbox titles released over the past few months that could be described
as 'superb'. Now, any objective viewer could tell you that, over the
last two years, the Xbox has had the superior games. There's simply no
arguing it. The Playstation's games are simply dull and the poor
graphics are almost a distraction to the quality of the gameplay. The
quality of the average Xbox game, on the other hand, is head and
shoulders above that of the PS and Gamecube. This is coming from
someone who's owned all three systems essentially from their launch
dates.
March 31, 2005 11:00:51 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

Ever since I got an Xbox 2.5yrs ago, I've always used Gamespot to check out
their game reviews. I don't really know if they are biased or not however, I
find that their reviews and marks given accurately reflect the quality of a
game. However, that's just my opinion. As always, YMMV.

"aether" <vercingetorix@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1112309795.781731.269760@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Anyone notice a tendency of Gamespot to be somewhat negative towards
> Xbox titles? From reading some of their reviews, and esp. those
> presented on the front page of a particular review, I'm left with the
> feeling that Gamespot, for whatever reason, carries somewhat of an
> anti-Xbox bias. If you check the rating given to Xbox titles by
> Gamespot, and then check IGN, and other reviewers, for instance, what
> other explanation can be given? When you factor in that, with the fact
> that the console magazine (EGM) released by their parent company has
> featured no more than three Xbox titles on their cover since the Xbox
> first came out (Nov. of 2002), I think the argument is fairly strong
> that a bias does exist.
>
> For a quick example, check the ratings given for "MX vs. ATV
> Unleashed".
>
> 03-21-2005 Gamespy 4 / 5
> 03-14-2005 IGN 9.3 / 10
> 04-01-2005 Game Informer 8 / 10
> 03-31-2005 GameDaily 4 / 5
> EGM ---> 04-01-2005 Electronic Gaming Monthly 7.17 / 10
>
> http://www.gamespot.com/xbox/driving/mxvsatvunleashed/i...
>
April 1, 2005 12:27:44 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

Well, check the date that I collected the data: 1/21/2002 This is a
repost of an old post.

- Jordan
Anonymous
April 1, 2005 12:33:34 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

I've yet to get an explanation as to the lack of Xbox related material
on the cover of EGM. I was told by an individual who subscribes to
basically every gaming magazine, that over the past three years there
have been three Xbox games on EGM's magazine. I said three, as in one,
two, three. I dare someone to justify such blatent bias.
Anonymous
April 1, 2005 1:16:58 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

Leon - Halo was never on the cover of EGM. (I was told) Two incredible
games (Halo and Halo 2), one cover. (Halo 2) There might not even have
been three. I can only recall two. (Halo 2 and Jade Empire) Think about
that.

Neither KOTOR 1 or 2 was featured on the cover of EGM. On the other
hand, GTA has been on the cover as much (or more) as all Xbox games
combined. Not even Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory has been featured on the
cover. None of the previous versions of Splinter Cell were featured on
the cover. Brothers in Arms: Road to Hill 30? Star Wars Republic
Commando? The evidence points in one direction.
Anonymous
April 1, 2005 1:22:06 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

"aether" <vercingetorix@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1112309795.781731.269760@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Anyone notice a tendency of Gamespot to be somewhat negative towards
> Xbox titles? From reading some of their reviews, and esp. those
> presented on the front page of a particular review, I'm left with the
> feeling that Gamespot, for whatever reason, carries somewhat of an
> anti-Xbox bias. If you check the rating given to Xbox titles by
> Gamespot, and then check IGN, and other reviewers, for instance, what
> other explanation can be given? When you factor in that, with the fact
> that the console magazine (EGM) released by their parent company has
> featured no more than three Xbox titles on their cover since the Xbox
> first came out (Nov. of 2002), I think the argument is fairly strong
> that a bias does exist.
>


Tough call really. I have a Gamespot Basic account and have downloaded and
archived a good chunk of video reviews and have found said reviews to be
pretty fair. They also gave the Grand Theft Auto Double Pack a very high
rating for the Xbox and said it was better than the Playstation 2 version.

Greg Kasavin rules, and he has decent hair to boot.
Anonymous
April 1, 2005 5:51:18 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

"aether" <vercingetorix@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1112309795.781731.269760@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

> Anyone notice a tendency of Gamespot to be somewhat negative towards
> Xbox titles? From reading some of their reviews, and esp. those
> presented on the front page of a particular review, I'm left with the
> feeling that Gamespot, for whatever reason, carries somewhat of an
> anti-Xbox bias. If you check the rating given to Xbox titles by
> Gamespot, and then check IGN, and other reviewers, for instance, what
> other explanation can be given?

Gamespot's review score for just about any game is lower than most sites'
scores. Go to Gamerankings.com and click a few games, and see if that's not
the case. For example, ATV Offroad Fury 2 for PS2, from Sony (see below).
They're tougher to please, and good for them.

Games Domain 80.0%
GameSpot 67.0%
Gamespy 88.0%
IGN 87.0%
GMR Magazine 90.0%
GamePro 70.0%
PSM Magazine 80.0%
Game Informer 85.0%
Electronic Gaming Monthly 86.7%
Playstation Magazine 80.0%
Anonymous
April 1, 2005 7:40:41 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

> Leon Dexter wrote:
> "aether" <vercingetorix@hotmail.com> wrote in message
KOTOR 2 got a cover, and so did Halo 2 and
> Splinter Cell. I couldn't find 3 years' history so far, but here's
what I
> did find:

I believe I said three. Both Gamespot and EGM are subjective in their
analysis of Xbox titles and their overall attitude towards the console
is one of overt negativity, in comparison to their enthusiasm for even
mediocre Playstation titles. They can't help but be more positive in
recent months, as the Playstation's games look increasingly outdated.
They risk becoming a target of ridicule by even the dumbest of readers.
Their practical hostility towards the Xbox in it's early days was
almost comical. There were repeated comparisons made with the Dreamcast
by both EGM and Gamespot.

Got that? No Halo cover. (Halo 2) That's two groundbreaking games, and
one cover. Don't bullshit me about seven Playstation covers. There's
been at least three GTA covers alone -- before they were ported to the
Xbox. At least as many Final Fantasy covers. Your data further off than
mine.
Anonymous
April 1, 2005 7:54:15 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

Check out Gamespot's review of Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory, as compared
to other reviewers:

http://www.gamespot.com/xbox/action/splintercell3/index...

It speaks for itself.

Look at how lame the anti-Xbox Kasavin's review of the game is:

"It's got to be the most fully featured stealth action game to date, so
if you like the idea of high-tech espionage, it's certainly going to
have plenty to offer you." - Greg Kasavin

On the other hand, Tekken 5, which they gave a 9.2 (better than Chaos
Theory? lol...)

"This fighting game is even more addictive and exciting than the
original Tekken was when it first exploded onto the PlayStation back in
1995." - Jeff Gerstmann

Reviewers ratings of Chaos Theory:

03-25-2005 Gamespy 5 / 5
03-23-2005 IGN 9.6 / 10
05-01-2005 GamePro 4.5 / 5
04-01-2005 Game Informer 9.75 / 10
03-28-2005 Worth Playing 9.6 / 10
03-28-2005 Yahoo! Games 9 / 10
03-25-2005 1UP 10 / 10
03-24-2005 TeamXBOX 9.8 / 10

Despite their high rating of Chaos Theory, EGM didn't put it on their
cover. (who's surprised?) Splinter Cell never graced their cover when
it was released. Not once, despite it being the third installment.
Anonymous
April 1, 2005 8:15:50 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

Jordan:

> I crunched the numbers a while back and found (if anything) a slight
> bias in favor of Nintendo games.

It isn't bias. Nintendo games consistantly score very high in reviews.
--
Mac Cool
Anonymous
April 1, 2005 8:18:00 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

aether:

> Anyone notice a tendency of Gamespot to be somewhat negative towards
> Xbox titles?

Gamespot is much tougher in their reviews than other sites which is why I
prefer their reviews to any other source. I also find that Gamespot
focuses on the same things that I do when evaluating a game.
--
Mac Cool
Anonymous
April 1, 2005 8:44:55 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

"aether" <vercingetorix@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1112330014.814156.303810@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> I've yet to get an explanation as to the lack of Xbox related material
> on the cover of EGM. I was told by an individual who subscribes to
> basically every gaming magazine, that over the past three years there
> have been three Xbox games on EGM's magazine. I said three, as in one,
> two, three. I dare someone to justify such blatent bias.


I assume you mean exclusive Xbox games. Are you counting cross-platform
games or not? I find it hard to believe they didn't run covers of games
like Prince of Persia, which were hits on all 3 systems. And we also need
to know how many PS2 and Gamecube covers they had in the same time period.
Then we can compare that to the number of exclusive games for each system in
that timeframe, etc. You would expect fewer Xbox covers than PS2 covers, of
course, but the Gamecube, because of Nintendo, has a lot of high-profile
exclusives as well, despite its smaller game library.
Out of 36 covers, after you remove the cross-platform games to get the
number of system-exclusive games, and then divide that up by the number of
exclusive games per system, 3 might not be far-fetched at all.
Not to mention we need proof of the claim in the first place. "I was told"
isn't very conclusive. Give us a list of what was on the covers for the
past 3 years, and we can really talk about it.
Anonymous
April 1, 2005 9:56:42 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

"aether" <vercingetorix@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> Leon - Halo was never on the cover of EGM. (I was told) Two incredible
> games (Halo and Halo 2), one cover. (Halo 2) There might not even have
> been three. I can only recall two. (Halo 2 and Jade Empire) Think about
> that.
>
> Neither KOTOR 1 or 2 was featured on the cover of EGM. On the other
> hand, GTA has been on the cover as much (or more) as all Xbox games
> combined. Not even Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory has been featured on the
> cover. None of the previous versions of Splinter Cell were featured on
> the cover. Brothers in Arms: Road to Hill 30? Star Wars Republic
> Commando? The evidence points in one direction.

Your information is WAY off. KOTOR 2 got a cover, and so did Halo 2 and
Splinter Cell. I couldn't find 3 years' history so far, but here's what I
did find:

In the past 27 issues, 3 have been Xbox-exclusive games: Halo 2, Jade
Empire, and Knights of the Old Republic 2. Splinter Cell: Pandora Tomorrow
also got a cover, and so did the Xbox's exclusive Soul Calibur 2 character,
Spawn (there were 3 covers that month).
In the same time period, there were 2 exclusive Gamecube games that got
covers: Zelda Wind Waker and Rogue Squadron 3, and the Link cover of SC3.
PS2 got the most covers, with 7. Castlevania: LoI, Socom II, Final Fantasy,
Getaway 2, Metal Gear 3 (twice), and GTA: San Andreas.
But the clear winner overall was the non-system-related cover. 14 of those.
Take a look at the list below, with a link to all the covers.
I think you owe EGM an apology. Their coverage is clearly not neglecting
the Xbox. I'd say it reflects the market pretty well.

http://www.zinio.com/singles?issn=1058-918Xd

Zelda: Wind Waker Apr-03
Enter the Matrix May-03
Rogue Squadron 3 Jun-03
Castlevania: LoI Jul-03
Sonic Heroes Aug-03
Soul Calibur 2 Sep-03
Socom II Oct-03
Final Fantasy Nov-03
LOTR: Return of the King Dec-03
Ultimate Reviews Issue Jan-04
Top 15 Games of the Millenium Feb-04
Splinter Cell Pandora Tomorrow Mar-04
Getaway 2 Apr-04
Metal Gear Solid 3 May-04
Knights of the Old Republic 2 Jun-04
Driv3r Jul-04
PSP vs. DS Aug-04
LOTR: Third Age Sep-04
Scarface Oct-04
GTA San Andreas Nov-04
Halo 2 Dec-04
Metal Gear Solid 3 "Holiday 04"
Top Secrets Jan-05
Portable Systems Feb-05
The Godfather Mar-05
Jade Empire Apr-05
Phantasy Star Universe May-05
Anonymous
April 1, 2005 9:58:27 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

Oh, by the way, I don't think EGM is affiliated with Gamespot. Their
website is 1UP.com.
Anonymous
April 1, 2005 5:45:33 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

Four out of 36 covers. You do realize there are but three major
consoles, don't you? That equates to roughly 12%. Where is the Chaos
Theory cover? Brothers in Arms? Republic Commando? The Gamecube has had
as many covers as the Xbox.
Anonymous
April 1, 2005 5:54:45 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

Metal Gear Solid 3 had two covers dedicated in it's name. Chaos Theory?
Not even one, despite Chaos Theory being by far the superior game.
(that's simply indisputable) It speaks for itself. EGM and Gamespot
maintain a bias in favor of Sony.
Anonymous
April 1, 2005 6:10:50 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

The coup de grace.

God of War (PS2) -
Gamespot: 9.3

Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory - (Avg Ratio: 94%)
Gamespot: 8.6

..3 points from being a whole point higher. Bless thee who attempts the
undertaking of rationalizing that. (even Apollo says Chaos Theory is
the superior game)
Anonymous
April 1, 2005 8:19:48 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

"aether" <vercingetorix@hotmail.com> wrote in message >


> Got that? No Halo cover. (Halo 2) That's two groundbreaking games, and
> one cover. Don't bullshit me about seven Playstation covers. There's
> been at least three GTA covers alone -- before they were ported to the
> Xbox. At least as many Final Fantasy covers. Your data further off than
> mine.

Yeah, right...my data's "off". I only provided a link to the actual covers!
There's no arguing with that--except that you did. I guess you didn't
bother looking at them.

There was ONE GTA cover in that bunch, but assuming they did a cover for the
other two, well, they are the three best-selling games of this console
generation. Certainly worthy of covers. There are plenty of games worth
putting on a cover that didn't get one. After all, they only get 12 covers
a year, and they do most of their covers non-system specific. You're the
one with the bias.
Anonymous
April 1, 2005 9:20:10 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

aether wrote:
> The coup de grace.
>
> God of War (PS2) -
> Gamespot: 9.3
>
> Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory - (Avg Ratio: 94%)
> Gamespot: 8.6
>
> .3 points from being a whole point higher. Bless thee who attempts the
> undertaking of rationalizing that. (even Apollo says Chaos Theory is
> the superior game)
>

Being the superior game is a matter of opinion and preference. I for one
think that SC:CT is a good game but a lot of been there done that, more
of the same. God of War on the other hand is an incredible game, new
different and well done on all levels. I would easily put GoW over SC:CT.
Anonymous
April 2, 2005 2:22:20 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

>>>Look, you were dead wrong. Be a man and admit it. You said there
was no
KOTOR (1 or 2) cover; you were wrong. You said there was no Splinter
Cell
cover (of any of them); you were wrong. <<<

It was second hand information. On the subject at hand I was correct.
EGM is loathe to devote a cover to anything Xbox related. You managed
to find four out of 36, and found nothing wrong with it. Not even the
original Halo making the cover.

Metal Gear Solid 3? Twice. Got that? One Playstation game (MGS 3)
graced the cover of EGM half as many times as anything Xbox.

The number of Playstation covers you gave is bogus. I need to see a
month by month listing of them so I can count them myself. I'd be
willing to bet there were at least ten covers devoted to the
Playstation, over the past three years. Did you include GTA? Or not,
because you consider that a 'multiplatform release'? Nevermind that at
the time of the cover it was a Playstation exclusive, and is a game
completely associated with the Playstation.
Anonymous
April 2, 2005 7:03:58 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

> Leon Dexter wrote:
>
> I posted a link. You can click on it and see them. Try it! It's
magic!

http://www.zinio.com/singles?pager.offset=0&issn=1058-9...

Is that the link you're referring to?

It only goes back to April of 2003. In two years, there have been twice
as many Playstation covers as Xbox. (if that's what you're going off)
Anonymous
April 2, 2005 7:19:28 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

"aether" <vercingetorix@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1112391933.669577.229670@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Four out of 36 covers. You do realize there are but three major
> consoles, don't you? That equates to roughly 12%. Where is the Chaos
> Theory cover? Brothers in Arms? Republic Commando? The Gamecube has had
> as many covers as the Xbox.


Where's the Resident Evil 4 cover? The Mario Kart cover? Where's the Devil
May Cry cover? The Gran Turismo 4 cover?
The Gamecube got 2 covers. The Xbox got 4. The PS2 got 7. The rest were
multiplatform covers. I think that's a pretty good representation of
marketshare, in the US at least. Otherwise, it's the Cube that got screwed,
not the Xbox.
Anonymous
April 2, 2005 7:22:31 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

> Leon Dexter wrote:
>
> Yup. And since the PS2 has 4 times the market share of the Xbox, it
should
> have 4 times as many covers, not just 2x. EGM is anti-PS2!! Damn
pro-Xbox
> biased bastards!

If you extend it back further, it would probably approach that number.
It's not the covers alone, it's also how they rate the games. What they
write in their reviews, and the ratings they give. There exists a
definite pro-Playstation bias.
Anonymous
April 2, 2005 7:27:43 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

"aether" <vercingetorix@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1112392485.566020.115890@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Metal Gear Solid 3 had two covers dedicated in it's name. Chaos Theory?
> Not even one, despite Chaos Theory being by far the superior game.
> (that's simply indisputable) It speaks for itself. EGM and Gamespot
> maintain a bias in favor of Sony.

Actually, it's the population at large with the Sony bias, wouldn't you say?
And Chaos Theory is a multiplatform release, you know--there's no window of
exclusivity for the Xbox this time around.

Look, you were dead wrong. Be a man and admit it. You said there was no
KOTOR (1 or 2) cover; you were wrong. You said there was no Splinter Cell
cover (of any of them); you were wrong. You're wrong about the whole thing.
Grow some balls, accept the new information and stop the mindless hate.
YOU have a system bias. Which is fine, like what you want. But don't claim
the entire world is anti-Xbox just because it ain't tinted green.
Anonymous
April 2, 2005 9:02:46 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

aether wrote:
> The coup de grace.
>
> God of War (PS2) -
> Gamespot: 9.3
>
> Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory - (Avg Ratio: 94%)
> Gamespot: 8.6

What do two reviews from gamespot.com have to do with Electronic Gaming
Monthly magazine?
Anonymous
April 2, 2005 11:44:54 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

"aether" <vercingetorix@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> It was second hand information. On the subject at hand I was correct.
> EGM is loathe to devote a cover to anything Xbox related. You managed
> to find four out of 36, and found nothing wrong with it. Not even the
> original Halo making the cover.

Oh, I see. Even though your facts were wrong, the information you derived
from them is still true. Sure, that follows.



> Metal Gear Solid 3? Twice. Got that? One Playstation game (MGS 3)
> graced the cover of EGM half as many times as anything Xbox.
>
> The number of Playstation covers you gave is bogus. I need to see a
> month by month listing of them so I can count them myself.

I posted a link. You can click on it and see them. Try it! It's magic!


I'd be
> willing to bet there were at least ten covers devoted to the
> Playstation, over the past three years. Did you include GTA? Or not,
> because you consider that a 'multiplatform release'? Nevermind that at
> the time of the cover it was a Playstation exclusive, and is a game
> completely associated with the Playstation.

I counted GTA. And even if there are 10 Playstation 2 exclusive game
covers, so what? It has over twice the marketshare of the other 2 systems
combined. So twice the covers as their combined total wouldn't be "bias",
it would be smart business.
Anonymous
April 2, 2005 3:10:44 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

"aether" <vercingetorix@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1112439838.603750.166290@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > Leon Dexter wrote:
> >
> > I posted a link. You can click on it and see them. Try it! It's
> magic!
>
> http://www.zinio.com/singles?pager.offset=0&issn=1058-9...
>
> Is that the link you're referring to?
>
> It only goes back to April of 2003. In two years, there have been twice
> as many Playstation covers as Xbox. (if that's what you're going off)

Yup. And since the PS2 has 4 times the market share of the Xbox, it should
have 4 times as many covers, not just 2x. EGM is anti-PS2!! Damn pro-Xbox
biased bastards!
Anonymous
April 2, 2005 4:36:00 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

"aether" <vercingetorix@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1112440951.448045.212490@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Leon Dexter wrote:
> >
> > Yup. And since the PS2 has 4 times the market share of the Xbox, it
> should
> > have 4 times as many covers, not just 2x. EGM is anti-PS2!! Damn
> pro-Xbox
> > biased bastards!
>
> If you extend it back further, it would probably approach that number.
> It's not the covers alone, it's also how they rate the games. What they
> write in their reviews, and the ratings they give. There exists a
> definite pro-Playstation bias.

Says you...but you also claimed, first, that they were anti-Xbox because
Gamespot is (although they're not) and you thought that was EGM's
website--but it's not. And then it was because of the lack of Xbox
covers--which I proved wasn't true. Now you're falling back on something
unprovable, just so you won't have to admit you were wrong from the start.
If you don't like EGM, don't read it. Not that you have any reason to
dislike it, from what I've seen. It's irrational to go on this kind of
little vendetta without even getting your facts straight. Just accept your
mistake and go on with your life. You don't have to make up rationales
about why you were right "anyway", despite your errors.
Anonymous
April 2, 2005 6:11:11 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

> Leon Dexter wrote:
> Says you...but you also claimed, first, that they were anti-Xbox
because
> Gamespot is (although they're not) and you thought that was EGM's
> website--but it's not.

I never claimed Gamespot was EGM's website. I've always thought they
were connected, because they're owned by the same company. (Ziff Davis)


> And then it was because of the lack of Xbox
> covers--which I proved wasn't true.

It is true.


> You don't have to make up rationales
> about why you were right "anyway", despite your errors.

Minor errors. The overall crux of my argument remains true. Gamespot
gives lower ratings to Xbox titles, and writes in a somber and ho-hum
tone when writing the reviews. EGM only begrudgingly publishes their
magainze with an Xbox game on the cover. The fact that Metal Gear Solid
3, alone, has had as many covers as Halo and Splinter Cell, combined,
speaks for itself. In addition, were the hatchet job articles written
by both Gamespot and EGM in 2002 and early 2003, which harped on the
poor sales of the Xbox and made comparisons of the console to the
failed Dreamcast. The bias has existed from the beginning.
Anonymous
April 2, 2005 9:03:08 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

> Leon Dexter wrote:
> And get over the Metal Gear thing, would you? A PS2 game got 2
covers.
> Wow. That's not proof that they hate the Xbox. It's proof they like
Metal
> Gear.

One game: Metal Gear Solid 3 - Two covers

Halo, Halo 2, Splinter Cell, Splinter Cell: Padora's Tomorrow, Splinter
Cell: Chaos Theory - Two covers

It's symbolic of their bias.
Anonymous
April 3, 2005 1:35:21 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

aether wrote:
>>Leon Dexter wrote:
>>And get over the Metal Gear thing, would you? A PS2 game got 2
>
> covers.
>
>>Wow. That's not proof that they hate the Xbox. It's proof they like
>
> Metal
>
>>Gear.
>
>
> One game: Metal Gear Solid 3 - Two covers
>
> Halo, Halo 2, Splinter Cell, Splinter Cell: Padora's Tomorrow, Splinter
> Cell: Chaos Theory - Two covers
>
> It's symbolic of their bias.
>

That proves absolutely nothing, except maybe they like the MG series...
Anonymous
April 3, 2005 5:19:56 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

"aether" <vercingetorix@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> I never claimed Gamespot was EGM's website. I've always thought they
> were connected, because they're owned by the same company. (Ziff Davis)

Okay, that's what you said. You're still wrong. Gamespot is owned by CNet
Networks, not Ziff-Davis. CNet acquired ZDnet from Ziff-Davis some years
back, but they're not affiliated with Ziff-Davis Publishing. Ziff-Davis
owns several websites, including 1up.com, which includes EGM's online
version. They do not own Gamespot.
Shouldn't you be looking at 1up.com for your little crusade? But they gave
Halo 2 a 10.0, so I guess that doesn't help.



> > And then it was because of the lack of Xbox
> > covers--which I proved wasn't true.
>
> It is true.

Only because 4 is a small number. So is 2 (Cube covers) , and so is 7 (PS2
covers), so you're wrong. Remember how you had "secondhand information"
about their cover "bias"? Don't slip back on me now.



> Minor errors. The overall crux of my argument remains true. Gamespot
> gives lower ratings to Xbox titles, and writes in a somber and ho-hum
> tone when writing the reviews. EGM only begrudgingly publishes their
> magainze with an Xbox game on the cover. The fact that Metal Gear Solid
> 3, alone, has had as many covers as Halo and Splinter Cell, combined,
> speaks for itself. In addition, were the hatchet job articles written
> by both Gamespot and EGM in 2002 and early 2003, which harped on the
> poor sales of the Xbox and made comparisons of the console to the
> failed Dreamcast. The bias has existed from the beginning.

I hate to break it to you, but there are a lot of similarities between the
Dreamcast and Xbox. If Microsoft wasn't willing and able to lose a few
billion dollars, the Xbox would be dead, too. Conversely, if SEGA had a few
billion to throw around, they'd still be in the hardware business and the
Dreamcast would be fine. These are fair comparisions. People who say
things like that are not biased--you are, for getting mad about it.
And get over the Metal Gear thing, would you? A PS2 game got 2 covers.
Wow. That's not proof that they hate the Xbox. It's proof they like Metal
Gear.
Anonymous
April 3, 2005 6:28:00 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

"aether" <vercingetorix@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> One game: Metal Gear Solid 3 - Two covers
>
> Halo, Halo 2, Splinter Cell, Splinter Cell: Padora's Tomorrow, Splinter
> Cell: Chaos Theory - Two covers
>
> It's symbolic of their bias.


You're falling back on parroting yourself, now. I see you've decided to
ignore all the facts I've thrown your way in favor of simple repetition.
Who are you trying to convince? You haven't convinced anyone, probably not
even yourself.
Anonymous
April 4, 2005 8:16:12 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

God Magnus wrote:
>Both multiplatform games.

That would be even more reason to place them on the cover.

Let's be serious. Just as everyone rushed to purchase Vice City and San
Andreas for the PS2, nobody is eager to play Splinter Cell or Brothers
in Arms on it. Vice City, despite being 'multiplatform', is almost
entirely associated with the Playstation. The Xbox has released the
superior titles over the past two years, by far. This isn't reflected
with EGM or Gamespot. Gamespot's recent 8.6 rating and languorous
review of Chaos Theory is icing on the cake.
Anonymous
April 4, 2005 1:38:07 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

aether said

> Where is the Chaos
> Theory cover? Brothers in Arms?

Both multiplatform games. Do you have any idea what you're talking about?
Any at all?

--
The Kitchen Sink
http://bellsouthpwp.net/g/m/gmagnus/
Anonymous
April 4, 2005 9:54:34 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

Gamespot strikes again.

http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/914444.asp

The only reviewer out of the ten listed on the front page (and first
fifteen on the entire list) to rate it below 90%. (8.6) The same rating
they gave PS2's 'Devil May Cry 3: Dante's Awakening'. Who will dare to
argue that 'Devil May Cry 3: Dante's Awakening' deserves the same
rating as Doom 3? I await your illogic with baited breath.
Anonymous
April 4, 2005 11:49:30 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

aether wrote:
> Gamespot strikes again.
>
> http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/914444.asp
>
> The only reviewer out of the ten listed on the front page (and first
> fifteen on the entire list) to rate it below 90%. (8.6) The same
> rating they gave PS2's 'Devil May Cry 3: Dante's Awakening'. Who will
> dare to argue that 'Devil May Cry 3: Dante's Awakening' deserves the
> same rating as Doom 3? I await your illogic with baited breath.

They gave it .1 better rating than the PC version. Quite frankly it doesn't
deserve that high of a score. After a few hours the wow factors from the
graphics wear out an you realize how boring and predictable the game is.

Will you just get over this stupid perceved bias from Gamespot?
Anonymous
April 5, 2005 12:37:50 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

Gamespot is much more fairer now, but I remember that they used to be
much harsher towards Xbox games than PS2 games when it comes to
inferior quality or problems in a multiplatform game. Gamespot
reviewers would also condtradict themselves in the same reviews, they
would say that the Xbox and PS2 versions practically look the same,
then list the framerate drops/aliasing,etc in the PS2 versions. The
biggest problem I have with gamespot is that Kasavin reviews so many
major Xbox games. Kasavin is obviously more a fan of traditional
Japanese console games than Western developed console games. He
shouldn't be reviewing Splinter Cell or Kotor when it's clear that he
much prefers MGS or Final Fantasy. It wouldn't be fair coverage unless
Final Fantasy is reviewed by a guy that likes western RPGS more than
Japanese ones.
I don't want to sound like a conspiracy theorist but I thought that the
worst thing gamespot did to the Xbox was making Mechassault the 2002
game of the year. There was no better way to damn the Xbox with faint
praise than to name Mechassault game of the year.

With regards to EGM, I don't see how aether thinks that it's biased.
The EGM GOTY went to the Xbox. In the GOTY article, EGM mentioned
more Xbox games than any other games as great games that led off the
beginning of 2004. Gameinformer, to me, is much more biased with their
not so subtle jabs at the library. They mentioned that Fatal Frame 2
is just another delayed port for the poor Xbox games, when in fact,
most Xbox gamers couldnt' care less about FF2. As recently as less
than a year ago, they were making bs comments about how MS is finally
recognizing the importance of games over hardware. There is so much
blatant bias in Game Informer that it makes you wonder why they even
bother to make it a multiplatform mag.
Anonymous
April 5, 2005 12:55:05 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

brun132...@yahoo.com wrote:
> The biggest problem I have with gamespot is that Kasavin reviews so
many
> major Xbox games. Kasavin is obviously more a fan of traditional
> Japanese console games than Western developed console games. He
> shouldn't be reviewing Splinter Cell or Kotor when it's clear that he
> much prefers MGS or Final Fantasy. It wouldn't be fair coverage
unless
> Final Fantasy is reviewed by a guy that likes western RPGS more than
> Japanese ones.

Precisely. I was going to mention his name, but refrained. I believe
this bias is due, in part, to Kasavin's Asian ancestry. He displays a
definite bias in favor of Japanese titles and the Playstation console.


> With regards to EGM, I don't see how aether thinks that it's biased.
> The EGM GOTY went to the Xbox. In the GOTY article, EGM mentioned
> more Xbox games than any other games as great games that led off the
> beginning of 2004.

The superiority of the Xbox, at that point, could no longer be denied.
Had they continued their unbridaled favoritism, even the dumbest among
their readers would've caught on.


> There is so much blatant bias in Game Informer that it makes you
wonder > why they even bother to make it a multiplatform mag.

I believe there might be money being transferred under the table.
Sony's been known for this.
Anonymous
April 5, 2005 4:01:00 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

> Leon Dexter wrote:
> "aether" <vercingetorix@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> I love to see people rationalize. It's the most amazing thing.
People will
> warp reality to the point of insanity in order to keep from being
wrong.

Rationalize what? By 2004, the Xbox was clearly the superior console.
The titles being released for it were far and away better than that of
the Playstation. Gamespot's still largely in it's own little world,
with Kasavin and the other morons shooting off low ratings for almost
every elite Xbox game being released.
Anonymous
April 5, 2005 8:13:38 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

"aether" <vercingetorix@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> The superiority of the Xbox, at that point, could no longer be denied.
> Had they continued their unbridaled favoritism, even the dumbest among
> their readers would've caught on.

I love to see people rationalize. It's the most amazing thing. People will
warp reality to the point of insanity in order to keep from being wrong.
Anonymous
April 5, 2005 10:31:53 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

Leon Dexter said

> "aether" <vercingetorix@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
>> The superiority of the Xbox, at that point, could no longer be
>> denied. Had they continued their unbridaled favoritism, even the
>> dumbest among their readers would've caught on.
>
> I love to see people rationalize. It's the most amazing thing.
> People will warp reality to the point of insanity in order to keep
> from being wrong.
>
>
>

He's crazy AND stupid!

--
The Kitchen Sink
http://bellsouthpwp.net/g/m/gmagnus/
Anonymous
April 5, 2005 2:29:45 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

aether wrote:
> Gamespot strikes again.
>
> http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/914444.asp
>
> The only reviewer out of the ten listed on the front page (and first
> fifteen on the entire list) to rate it below 90%. (8.6) The same rating
> they gave PS2's 'Devil May Cry 3: Dante's Awakening'. Who will dare to
> argue that 'Devil May Cry 3: Dante's Awakening' deserves the same
> rating as Doom 3? I await your illogic with baited breath.
>


As far as Doom 3 goes...this opening paragraph in the review sums it up
quite sell.




"Extremely impressive from a technical standpoint yet behind the times
from a first-person-shooter design standpoint: This is the dichotomy
that is Doom 3, the long-awaited sequel from well-known Texas-based
developer id Software. Less than a year after it exploded onto the PC in
the dead of summer, the game is now available for the Xbox, boasting a
new two-player cooperative mode that really helps round out the
experience, and which probably should have been in the PC version to
begin with. Perhaps more importantly, those amazing good looks survived
the translation to the Xbox well intact--along with pretty much
everything else. And what that means is when you look past the
spectacular appearance, you'll still find a conventional, derivative
shooter. Some might interpret this straightforwardness as being
deliberately "old-school," especially since Doom 3 is packed with direct
references to its classic predecessors. However, Doom 3's old-fashioned
gameplay mechanics and level design are very much at odds with its
cutting-edge, ultrarealistic looks. Yet the quality of the presentation
truly is remarkable--enough so that it overwhelms Doom 3's occasional
problems."


It is a been there done that before, only with prettier graphics.
Half-Life 2 is/was a much better game, it was not even the best game of
its kind to come out. Not to mention this is a port, so it is something
that a good portion of people have already played. You really should
read how Gamespot does thier reviews, right there where the scores are
at it says ABOUT OUR RATINGS (or something very close to that), read
that and give it a rest!!
Anonymous
April 5, 2005 2:32:13 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

God Magnus wrote:
> Leon Dexter said
>
>
>>"aether" <vercingetorix@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>>
>>>The superiority of the Xbox, at that point, could no longer be
>>>denied. Had they continued their unbridaled favoritism, even the
>>>dumbest among their readers would've caught on.
>>
>>I love to see people rationalize. It's the most amazing thing.
>>People will warp reality to the point of insanity in order to keep
>>from being wrong.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> He's crazy AND stupid!
>

LMFAO!!! ;) 
Anonymous
April 5, 2005 2:33:30 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

aether wrote:
>>Leon Dexter wrote:
>>"aether" <vercingetorix@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>>I love to see people rationalize. It's the most amazing thing.
>
> People will
>
>>warp reality to the point of insanity in order to keep from being
>
> wrong.
>
> Rationalize what? By 2004, the Xbox was clearly the superior console.
> The titles being released for it were far and away better than that of
> the Playstation. Gamespot's still largely in it's own little world,
> with Kasavin and the other morons shooting off low ratings for almost
> every elite Xbox game being released.
>

So there are/were no good/great titles released for the PS2 then right?
Anonymous
April 5, 2005 3:09:21 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

massivegrooves wrote:
> It is a been there done that before, only with prettier graphics.
> Half-Life 2 is/was a much better game, it was not even the best game
of

I don't think that it's fair to come Hl2 to Doom. Other than the fact
that both are FPS, their atmosphere and gameplay are completely
different. HL2 on the PC also had many more technical problems than
Doom. I personally thought that HL2 should have been penalized more by
the reviewers for the technical problems that really shouldn't have
occured.

> its kind to come out. Not to mention this is a port, so it is
something
> that a good portion of people have already played.

Keep in mind that many console gamers do not have the PC equipment to
play Doom or at least play it properly. A $200 videocard would be
required for playing on a PC that is equivalent to playing on the Xbox.
The Xbox version also has the benefit of co-op mode. Kasavin himself
admits the co-op mode improved Doom 3 immensely.

With that said, I have no idea why aether is complaining about the
review. This is one of Kasavin's better reviews. He gave Doom 3 the
score of a very good game. Doom 3 is a very good but flawed game and a
8.6 is a perfectly acceptable score.
!