Rocky Posted August 3, 2007 Share Posted August 3, 2007 This is where we review the reviewers, and score their scores. There will be a seperate thread for each GRAW 2 Review. Feel free to add your comments about this review, below. We start each review with 0 points and it losses points for inaccuraccies and gains points for detail and depth. Sites will be allowed to right of reply in a future feature. Remember, reviews are an OPINION, but readers deserve to expect that opinion to be INFORMED. And that is how we are marking these sites. They can hate GRAW2 and score highly here, they just have to justify their dislikes Gamespot UK - Reviewer: Jason Ocampo : Game Score 70% Inaccuracies -20 pts According to Gamespot the sigle player campaign cannot be played co-op. Woha, huge error guys. Facts - 20pts Kit selection, multiplayer, details that could have been gleemed from the back of the box, not much for gamers to learn here at all. Detail -10 pts Half way through this review and there was no detail at all. Some brief mention of load outs later on, and a paragraph about multiplayer although it's pretty clear the reviewer never played online, or decided it wasn't worth reporting on one of the major aspects of the series. Comments 0 pts Gamespot is one of the larger Gameing sites out there, it's a real shame that this review falls very much short of the mark. Instead of giving the reader a reveiw of the game and its features, for the most part we get somplaints about how hard it is, on easy, which is patently false. Reasons They Marked GRAW 2 Down For - 30 pts Gamespot say GRAW 2's difficulty made them cry even on easy. Considering the enemy AI will empty mags at 50 feet from you and never land a single shot on target, I'd say there is something seriously wrong with that observation. Coupled with the fact the player can now save numerious times during the mission, GRAW 2 really offers very little in the way of a challenge when played on Easy level. "Universally drab color palette", come on guys, this is MEXICO, you ever been there?! We know people who have, and they say GRAW2 accurately reflects the look and feel of the area. I wonder how many extra points they gave R6:Vegas for all the lights and glamour of the Vegas setting. *sigh* GRAW 2 graphics are superb, to have any complaint about them highlighted in a review summary is questionable at best. "the PC version is very much one shot, one kill. And if you do manage to find a place to resupply, you do not heal. " HELLO?! This is the PC version of the latest title in Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon series. You know, the series famed and acclaimed for tactics and realism? Again, this review holds the X360 version up against the PC version when they are two different games aimed at two different audiences sharing only the same name (and a few assets). Reviewers who fail to realise this and review accordingly are cheating the PC readership out of a balanced review. Complaining because there is no "healing" in a PC tactical squad based shooter is like complaining there's medic in Need for Speed. There are a number of valid reason GRAW 2 can be marked down, but Gamespot failed to pick up on them and instead manufactured complaints by hauling the X360 version in to the equation. Reasons They Marked GRAW 2 UP For -20 pts This is another review that gives a GOOD rating, but fails to identify exactly why in the body of the review, instead focussing almost entirely on perceved negatives. They compliment gameplay and multiplayer in the summary, but at no point explain why or go in to detail. FINAL SCORE -100 pts Gamespot have a cool review feature that allows fans to post their own mini review and score. The average score for that secion is higher than the official review, but digging deaper we can actually see that amny user reveiws actually vote GRAW 2 over 90%, the average score is much lower though due to a few stupidly low scores of less than 30%. Considering that, the user reviews are much closer to the mark than the published review. Something to think about Gamespot. Gamespot make the mistake of some other reviews by comparing the PC and X360 version, and in the end contradicting themselves. For example, early on the X360 version is hailed as being "more action focused", and then later the final mission PC version is criticised for having too much action. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ARDelta Posted August 3, 2007 Share Posted August 3, 2007 Well done, Rocky. I like this review the reviewer feature. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoot Posted August 3, 2007 Share Posted August 3, 2007 (edited) Agreed completely! BTW, it would be nice if you got this stuff in 1 thread so they stop going back in the pages! I want to stay updated Edited August 3, 2007 by Zoot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Posted August 3, 2007 Author Share Posted August 3, 2007 Agreed completely! BTW, it would be nice if you got this stuff in 1 thread so they stop going back in the pages! I want to stay updated I'm doing it one thread per review at the moment so people get a chance to correct me or add their own opinion on the review in question. It would be impossible to do that if they were all in one thread. Once I had completed them all though, they will be published in one big article with a summary of my findings. It looks like it is going to be an interesting bit of research, there'll be some red faces around certain sites by the look of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleepdoc-iBeta Posted August 3, 2007 Share Posted August 3, 2007 This "review of the reviewer" is one of the most interesting and welcomed ideas on the subject in ages. Thanks for the effort. great reading! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Posted August 3, 2007 Author Share Posted August 3, 2007 This "review of the reviewer" is one of the most interesting and welcomed ideas on the subject in ages. Thanks for the effort. great reading! Thanks for the feedback. When this goes live I dare so I'm not going to make many new friends, but let's not forget these people are more than likely being paid to write the reveiws, and are in the majority being provided with the game for free, so they have an obligation to their employer, the publisher and the reader to produce something of value that is a true reflection of the game and its contents. So far, there has not been much of that going around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleepdoc-iBeta Posted August 3, 2007 Share Posted August 3, 2007 I, for one, would like ot see reviewers indicate how many hours they spent playing each aspect of the game. Something like ... SP Caampaign --- 5 hours Coop Campaign -- 4hours with 3 other humans Coop --- 6 hours with 4 to 7 otherplayers etc But I'm just dreaming .... But it would help reviewers gain more credability by showing their readers that they recognize the differences in the modes of play and paid attention to each seperately Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dirtbag Posted August 3, 2007 Share Posted August 3, 2007 Just one comment, not much of a review. And he can not of played much, if at all. I tried a level on easy just to see how easy it was. No challenge No effort not even hit once, hardly so hard you want to cry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgt.hoot Posted August 3, 2007 Share Posted August 3, 2007 CORPORATE THUGS *shakes fist at gamespot employee* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stormcrow Posted September 14, 2007 Share Posted September 14, 2007 CORPORATE THUGS *shakes fist at gamespot employee* Glad to see that you guys have picked up on Gamespots inability to properly gauge this series and its tactical gamplay. To say that GRAW2 is torturously difficult is just wide of the mark. If these guys are looking for little sandwiches and apples to boost health on the battlefield then stick to other FPS types. They have incorrectly assesed this and are using the wrong genre of game as a benchmark I feel. GR as a series has always been underated as far as I can see. PCGAMER in the UK constantly slated GR and the R6 series. After reading gamespots review I scoffed at their difficulty criticism, it is evident that these guys have been spending too much time on BF2 or bioshock or some similar FPS. Good work Rocky. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stormcrow Posted September 14, 2007 Share Posted September 14, 2007 As a caviat on gamespot, these are the same guys that gave BF2 a 9 out of ten (or similar). If you read the review they are falling over themselves to hand this beast the tactical game of the century award. Needless to say if youve played BF2, it leaves alot to be desired....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyre11 Posted September 14, 2007 Share Posted September 14, 2007 (edited) Bravo Rocky! I have always felt that most game reviewers didn't have much of a clue about any game more complex than pong and it seems you are proving me correct. The companies really should pay more attention to who they hire to review the different games to ensure a thoroughness as well as a working knowledge of the game types. I salute your efforts to provide oversight to the poor reporting methods of the game reviewers. Edited September 14, 2007 by Vampyre11 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.