How does Gears of War go from a 9.6 to a 7 in 9 years?

[HDKG_]

I'm buying it exactly for the multiplayer,I might play the campaign if one of my friends wants to online co-op it,mp was an after thought to you cuz knowing your cheap ass you aint have any live cuz u didn't wanna pay for it

The game rates highly among casual low skilled gamers.

Where do yall get this shyt?

 

[RiffRaff]

They lost credibility when they gave the God of War 3 remaster an 8. It's the same exact game even visual wise from the PS3 version and they gave that an 8. Here you're getting an actual remake of the game and it gets a 7, lol tf?

 

[Fatboi1]

They lost credibility when they gave the God of War 3 remaster an 8. It's the same exact game even visual wise from the PS3 version and they gave that an 8. Here you're getting an actual remake of the game and it gets a 7, lol tf?

it's not a remake.

 

[Bawon Samedi]

Who cares about Gamespot opinions...

 

[RiffRaff]

it's not a remake.

A very well done remaster then.

 

[Dirty Mcdrawz]

There is no form of media where a classic is backdoor retroactively removed of that label. Suddenly in video games that's OK?

Special effects have advanced in the present day. Does that mean classic movies are removed of that label due to them not meeting today's standards? What about a classic TV show?

As a review outlet they should take their scoring system seriously enough to not contradict it in 9 years.

the other forms of media aren't interactive like video games though....

 

[be back in a bit]

1) different reviewers, like you pointed out
2) standards are much higher now
3) this review is for new buyers. So it's being reviewed as a new game cus somebody gonna drop $40 on this. It's not worthy of a 9/10 anymore.

 

[ORDER_66]

"Gaming journalism" is all around atrocious. Not only do we constantly have terribly skilled players reviewing games, but we'll get reviewers giving their opinion on a style/genre/series they never liked in the first place and pass it off as objective.



They sure are. You're not getting the Gears MP experience in any other title.

But you admittedly don't play multiplayer games...

I do play MP games, when the ideas are new and fresh, But I tend to lean into good solid single player campaigns more. MP gets repetitive after a while.

 

[winb83]

I dig wat u saying. But wat if u were a kid when GoW came out. The kid may go to the store & buy it based of a 9.6 rating. They would see the rating is much better than Titanfall, COD, Battlefield, hell even Halo MCC(I kno it's old too, but that value tho). But when they pop it in. No way GoW 1 is better than those current games. It's fair to downgrade newer games.

And a kid today may watch Star Wars A New Hope and think it's trash now because it came from the 1970s and looks dated as hell. As a critic you put your foot down and rate the game and If they re-release it either you post an amended review touching on the changes with no score or if it's effectively the same game you give it the same score. You don't re-score a game you gave a 9.6 to and downgrade it to a 7.

 

[Lord Beasley]

Who cares???????

 

[Draje]

Doesn't matter. The game came out when it came out. The rating should stand. I've literally only seen this type of shyt done as frequently as its done with video games. No other form of entertainment does this type of shyt on the scale these video game reviewers do it. It takes the value away from the original rating.

This happens all the time in films, critics change how they feel about films a lot. Movies that seem good but don't stand up to repeat viewings.

This is why I hate number ratings because it's hard to simplify these things into numbers when they're more complex.

Gears of War's rating is lowered because it's a relatively simple and mindless experience that was defined by its crisp gameplay for the time but feels dated because games have pretty much built on that experience while offering loads more.

Hell, Vanquish and Binary Domain are two perfect examples of games that built on that cover combat style to make it more engaging and making Gears of War a little more dated.

A kid, now, that had never played GOW would probably thinks it's a pretty fun, action packed, and likable experience but there have been games that have done the cover combat (3rd person) better, games that have done the emotional and character sides better (Spec Ops and the Last of Us), and so forth.

It was a 9 when it came out but it's like 7.5 now. If Goldeneye was released today, same weird control scheme and graphics, shyt would get roasted because more I'd expected.

 

[spliz]

This happens all the time in films, critics change how they feel about films a lot. Movies that seem good but don't stand up to repeat viewings.

This is why I hate number ratings because it's hard to simplify these things into numbers when they're more complex.

Gears of War's rating is lowered because it's a relatively simple and mindless experience that was defined by its crisp gameplay for the time but feels dated because games have pretty much built on that experience while offering loads more.

Hell, Vanquish and Binary Domain are two perfect examples of games that built on that cover combat style to make it more engaging and making Gears of War a little more dated.

A kid, now, that had never played GOW would probably thinks it's a pretty fun, action packed, and likable experience but there have been games that have done the cover combat (3rd person) better, games that have done the emotional and character sides better (Spec Ops and the Last of Us), and so forth.

It was a 9 when it came out but it's like 7.5 now. If Goldeneye was released today, same weird control scheme and graphics, shyt would get roasted because more I'd expected.

nikka what don't u get? U can't knock an experience created in the past cause it's not up to present standards. Ol lets criticize a 70s Mustang for not having GPS ass nikkas.

 

[winb83]

This happens all the time in films, critics change how they feel about films a lot. Movies that seem good but don't stand up to repeat viewings.

This is why I hate number ratings because it's hard to simplify these things into numbers when they're more complex.

Gears of War's rating is lowered because it's a relatively simple and mindless experience that was defined by its crisp gameplay for the time but feels dated because games have pretty much built on that experience while offering loads more.

Hell, Vanquish and Binary Domain are two perfect examples of games that built on that cover combat style to make it more engaging and making Gears of War a little more dated.

A kid, now, that had never played GOW would probably thinks it's a pretty fun, action packed, and likable experience but there have been games that have done the cover combat (3rd person) better, games that have done the emotional and character sides better (Spec Ops and the Last of Us), and so forth.

It was a 9 when it came out but it's like 7.5 now. If Goldeneye was released today, same weird control scheme and graphics, shyt would get roasted because more I'd expected.

Then you don't put a number on the review. You just talk about the changes and either recommend it or don't. All this really shows is that in a single console generation a game that was 0.4 away from a perfect score is barely cutting average now. IGN just game MGSV a 10. How long until that 10 isn't a 10 anymore? What other classic games should we shyt on now? Super Mario Bros? It's dated as hell it deserves what a 5 in modern times? Ocarina of Time? Where does this kind of crap end?

Either what we have is a game that was never a 9.6 and was given one anyway because it was AAA or a review system that in completely broken and meaningless.

 

[Draje]

Then you don't put a number on the review. You just talk about the changes and either recommend it or don't. All this really shows is that in a single console generation a game that was 0.4 away from a perfect score is barely cutting average now. IGN just game MGSV a 10. How long until that 10 isn't a 10 anymore? What other classic games should we shyt on now? Super Mario Bros? It's dated as hell it deserves what a 5 in modern times? Ocarina of Time? Where does this kind of crap end?

Either what we have is a game that was never a 9.6 and was given one anyway because it was AAA or a review system that in completely broken and meaningless.

And yes, if Super Mario Brother's was released RIGHT NOW, as a $60 game then it would get slammed too and rightfully so. And vice versa...if you plopped The Order back a decade ago, it'd be changing what people thought games could do and it'd be given 10s simply based off of what it did visually even though it's only a fairly solid game by today's standards.

Games can be iconic and great for what they did for the medium or the impact they had but that doesn't mean they hold up well.

Games have grown as an art form and a medium so tastes have grown and shifted. More is expected so when old games are released at new game prices, they should get rated by the standards now.

Acting like critics and the medium can't grow or that ratings should be static/unchanging is doing a disservice to the medium

 

[HarlemRiverDrive]

Number ratings suck.