Gamespot Editor Addresses biased Xbox Claims!

[Brevity]

Tell me what U think.Here it is

[benz_300sl]

yo, good job posting this man.

here's my feedback.

I dont really think that GameSpot is too biased, but all the games that were on PS2 and now have been brought to XBox have receieved better ratings. I'm just curious what makes it just that much better. Well i just got the worst mind block right now....so when i can think of something else to write...you can expect to see it here.

[Brevity]

Mine is that he sidestepped the real Q, and issue. I cant see how they are giving Xbox versions of other games worse ratings when they improve ports so much.

[l Maximus l]

I also see that Gamespot sidestepped the issue as well. Yes, they give some good reviews and some very controversial reviews...but, the main thing that makes the controversial reviews so suspicisious is how they take ported games and give them different ratings when, in fact, it is the exact same game! It's blows my mind!

But, if you ask me, probably the biggest reason why a game that is ported to the XBox that might get a lower score is because the XBox is more than likely much more capable of producing a better version of the same game because it's a much more powerful system. So, part of me says that makes sense, and the other part of me wonders how this could be if it is the exact same game?!?!

[Frostberg]

I think gamespot is right on...but that doesnt make it fair...
Just because game x is the same on the PS2, GC and Xbox doesnt make it right to give it a higher score on the PS2! They are awarding it points because the PS2 isint as good as the XBox...they say "The xbox is cabable of more". Just because the Xbox has the power to do more than the PS2, doesnt mean you should take away points from the Xbox version of game X because "It could look better"

I dont think Joe Fielder is bias...He is probably the best one at the corrupt gamespot...

I believe the biggest reason we thing Gamespot is a bunch of PS2 fanboys is because they think the xbox should be overly good...and they compare Xbox games and graphics and such to CURRENT PS2 games...THATS NOT FAIR! The Xbox is still young, the PS2 has had 1 more year to figure out games and to polish and make new features and such, and they think that the Xbox shouldnt have the extra time and it should exceed the PS2...They fail to see that in its own way, it has exceeded the PS2...just the extras you get like the HD and how the PS2 didnt come broadband ready and such...

But back to games...the ports on the Xbox are CLEARLY better and they say "We don't think that a port of a game from the PS2 should get the same graphics score just for cutting out the jaggies. " Yeah thats right guys, it should get a BETTER score for no jaggies, not a worse score! Wheres the logic here? The game looks better=higher score. Do you know what a PORT is? It is the SAME game, just for a different system...the Xboxes power clearly demonstrated how powerful it is, based on the better looking and running ports over from the PS2...

Frostberg=

[Hugh_Jass]

In the case of the Xbox, we don't think that a port of a game from the PS2 should get the same graphics score just for cutting out the jaggies. Both the Xbox and GameCube are capable of more than that, and games on those systems should be judged accordingly.

It's just as I've always said about GS. The XBOX has more power than the PS2, thus the reviews are based on the capability of the XBOX and not how the game compares to the PS2 version. They expect more from the XBOX because everyone knows that the XBOX can deliver more.

Doesn't everyone here feel the same way? When you see a ported game don't you spend a few minutes thinking how cool it could have been if it was designed specifically for the XBOX? I know I do.

[l Maximus l]

Originally posted by Hugh_Jass
Doesn't everyone here feel the same way? When you see a ported game don't you spend a few minutes thinking how cool it could have been if it was designed specifically for the XBOX? I know I do.

Exactly! I'm right with ya, Humongous Ass!

[zanner]

One problem i have with the gamespot article is that he first states that numbers can be rearranged in anyway to get a point across and then he proceeds to give Gamespot rankings in relation to average scores. Then he goes onto state that different sites have different ratings of what is considered "good" and what is considered "great" ... So how in the hell can anyone relate the gamespot's scores with average scores from other sites when other sites have different rating systems? Not only that but they put it on a 100 based scale so how are they converting? I don't know- I haven't ever really went to gamespot, I've only heard what people say about them being biased. I have no idea whether they are or not, I'm just stating that his confronting the issue the way he did makes him seem like a moron to me and his whole argument really has no substance.

[raVen]

I personally don't believe that Gamespot is bias, and I reckon the article was pretty good.

Here's an example to prove my point:
If a game came out for the Playstation, and was ported to the PS2 with smoothened graphics, woud you want the PS2 review to have the same score? I mean, it's exactly the same game isn't it?

Obviously not, and I know that the difference between PS1 and PS2 is probably greater than the difference between PS2 and the Xbox, but the scores between the X and PS2 haven't usually been more than 10% anyway.

I think straight ports are severely limiting innovation for the XBox, can you imagine if every game company thought "Oh well, to get the best profits, I'll just make a PS2 game and port it to the GC and Xbox!". We'd end up with a hell of a lot of crappy games and wasted hardware.

End rant.