Gamespot getting worse?

[wur1]

Is it just be, or is Gamespot posting less and less reviews over the years?  I like how they aren't as influenced by hype as the other guys, but it's starting to remind me of how MTV gradually stopped showing music videos and became a talk / reality show station.

[KanYozakura]

Less GS reviews....sound like a good thing to me.

And they were always crap.  They are the lowest common denominator in video game reviews.  Especially Gerstman, Kasavin, and Navaro(sp?), they're just TERRIBLE.  A waste of bandwidth.  It's a shame that they sucked the soul out of GameFAQs.

[JasonhasRSI1]

Kasavin, in my opinion, was far and away the best video game reviewer I ever came across. His reviews were full of detail and contained all the information you needed to make a personal decision as to whether or not the game was for you. What I liked best was that his obvious love for gaming came across in everything he did for that site (see the 12-hour Oblivion marathon and 1:00 AM at-home videotaping of him downloading/playing SFII for XBLA as examples of this).

That said, after his departure, GS has clearly taken a hit in quality. I loathe their new ".5" reviewing system and silly game "badges." Navarro's reviews can still be entertaining reads.

[hi there]

Gamespot has gotten better. They used to have a (very obivous) bias against the N64. Hell, the only reason they gave good scores to some of the better games (Mario 64, OOT, Goldeneye) is because they knew that people would get angry if they gave the low scores they WANTED to give to those games.

Thankfully, they seem to have given up all bias.

[JasonhasRSI1]

[QUOTE=hi there]Gamespot has gotten better. They used to have a (very obivous) bias against the N64. Hell, the only reason they gave good scores to some of the better games (Mario 64, OOT, Goldeneye) is because they knew that people would get angry if they gave the low scores they WANTED to give to those games.

Thankfully, they seem to have given up all bias.
[/QUOTE]

Hmm, I never noticed the N64 Bias, only the 9.9s, 10s, etc received by OOT, Perfect Dark, and the like. Which of your favorite games received a score lower than you had hoped?

[Funkmaster V]

The only Gamespot reviews I ever thought they sucked on was Mario Kart 64, the Warioware stuff, and Excite Truck.

Everything else seems to be in the ballpark of where I lean on games.

FUNK

[m0zart1]

A lot of Gamespotters feel there is an XBOX 360 bias on Gamespot.  It's possible I guess, but only a few years ago it was claimed there was a Gamecube bias instead, because Gamecube games were almost consistently winning GOTY.  I don't really think there's a bias though, at least in the same sense that one exists on IGN, where they literally and unapologetically feed off of the bias generated by their unequally staffed fanboy departments.

Are there editors who have preferences?  Yeah there are.  Gertsmann seems to prefer the 360 and writes about it in his personal blog reguarly.  There are a few reviewers who are consistently dealing with VC games who seem to trash practically every game as well, though they are newer reviewers and don't seem to have as much of a voice.

Personally, I like Alex Navarro.  That guy has an uncanny ability to be as objective as possible while still being wildly entertaining.  I was SO glad he was the one to do the recent VC "Adventure of Link" review instead of Gertsmann.  Although I still felt it fell a little short, it was far more positive than Gertsmann's revisionist history review.  Just compare the two final paragraphs of their respective reviews, first Gertsmann's review of the GBA game and then Navarro's review of the Wii VC download:

[QUOTE=Jeff Gertsmann]From:  http://www.gamespot.com/gba/rpg/famicomminilinknobouken/review.html

For nostalgic purposes, Zelda II for the GBA puts on the same show that it did back on the NES. It's a reasonably lengthy game (unless you still remember where everything is), the side-scrolling is intact, and that one villager in the first town still simply says, "I AM ERROR." However, the antiquated design doesn't stand up too well today. Having to rely on three lives to get everywhere, and fumbling through towns with very little direction about where to go next (Here's a hint: Bagu's cabin is hiding in the forest) represents the sort of stuff that will make you wonder what you saw in the game back in '88. And if you're just now playing it for the first time, you'll probably wonder why everyone was so excited in the first place.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Alex Navarro]From:  http://www.gamespot.com/wii/rpg/linknobouken/review.html

It's entirely understandable why someone might not like Zelda II. It's such a wild departure from the original Zelda, and there are certainly some foibles and questionable design decisions floating around within the game. But with that said, Zelda II doesn't deserve nearly the level of derision it gets nowadays. It's an interesting adventure that, in some respects, paved the way for concepts and mechanics found in the modern Zelda games. More than anything, Zelda II as a downloadable game serves as a way to educate fans who weren't old enough to play it back in the '80s. The game doesn't hold up especially well, but it's worth a look for those curious about the roots of the series--just be prepared to go FAQ hunting before embarking on this journey.[/QUOTE]

[Steerforth]

(unless you still remember where everything is), the side-scrolling is intact, and that one villager in the first town still simply says, "I AM ERROR - from review
 
You see, this in particular is really dumb, because later in the game you find a villager in another town who tells you to go back and talk to Error, who then tells you how to find a secret passage to a palace, which is absolutely critical to finishing the game, unless you happen to find it by accident. So obviously the guy didn't even hardly play the game. Error ain't an error, Turkey!

We are all biased, of course, if not to systems than to stlyes of games, so its a fine line for a reviewer to walk. I, for one, and so sick and tired of gamespot, IGN and whoever else reviewers who are completely obsessed with Wii graphics. Every freaking game. You can't tell how much of a low score is for graphics, or just a game that ain't so much fun. Good graphics never saved a bad game. Not once! If it does not affect gameplay, it should not affect the score.

[Atarifever1]

I haven't been to gamespot in ages.  In fact, for a long time now I haven't been to any modern gaming review site that wasn't arcade focused or more dedicated to old school stuff.  I can't say I've missed it.  The last thing I read was so retarded I couldn't picture going back (I know it was a review of an old arcade game, but I can't remember which).

[Adamant1]

[QUOTE=Gertsmann] fumbling through towns with very little direction about where to go next (Here's a hint: Bagu's cabin is hiding in the forest)[/QUOTE]

Here's another hint: You are told to go there if you talk to the slime in Saria a couple times (and when someone says "..." in this type of game, it usually means "talk to me a couple more times")