Does precision really matter?
Limitcast Episode 35 - The Great FFXIII Debate
Gamer Limit Review: Final Fantasy XIII
Battlefield: Bad Company 2 Review
The forums at Giantbomb are buzzing that Gamespot changed their review score for Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2. Multiple posters state that the 9.0 present isn’t the original score, and that Gamespot had posted an 8.5 first. None of the forum users have produced a screenshot of the alleged original score, but we decided to contact Chris Watters, the author of the review, for clarification
Not only did Watters respond, but the Sections Editor at Gamespot, Justin Calvert, did as well.
Watters said, “That rumor is patently false. I wrote the review, I produced the review, I set the review live, and at no point was the score changed. It was a 9.0 all the way. Somebody fabricated that tidbit and it is absolutely untrue.”
After receiving this response we asked Watters why MW2’s review was posted a day after the game’s release, putting it a day behind the game guide.
We received the answers to these questions from Calvert. In an effort to avoid confusion we have posted the entirety of Calvert’s email to Gamer Limit.
“I understand that you’ve been in contact with Chris Watters and asking questions about our Modern Warfare 2 review. Chris forwarded your most recent message to me, so I’m here to answer the questions you posed in it. First though, I’ll point out that our review scores for this game (8.5 on PC, 9.0 on X360 and PS3) didn’t change at any point during our entire review process. Those are the scores that Chris submitted his reviews with, and while it’s not uncommon for score changes to be discussed during our pre-publish team QA process, on this occasion that simply wasn’t the case. Also, on the exceedingly rare occasions when we make a change to a review after it’s been posted (whether it be a score or a text correction), we don’t do so secretly in the hope that nobody will notice – frankly, we’re not that stupid. Rather, we post either an editor’s note at the foot of the review or, if more explanation is warranted, a reviews blog on the subject. Here’s a blog entry I posted when we changed our score for the PS3 version of NHL 10, for example:
http://www.gamespot.com/news/6233619.html
“OK, your questions:
1. Why did it take more than 24 hours for the review of the game to be posted?
The main reason that our review was posted later than those of other major sites is that we have a strict policy of not attending review events. The only way to get a review done “on time” for Modern Warfare 2 would’ve been for us to go and spend a couple of days in a fancy LA hotel with representatives from Activision and Infinity Ward hovering around. All multiplayer testing would, I suspect, have been done on a LAN in optimal conditions, and I don’t even know for sure if the code being used at the event was retail. Upon refusing to attend the event, we were told that we wouldn’t get code from Activision until the day of release, but we stuck to our guns. Ultimately we managed to get retail copies a little early, but certainly not as early as we’d like.
Our reasons for not wishing to attend review events are, in our eyes, just common sense for the most part. When reviewing a game, any game, our goal is for the reviewer to have as close an experience as possible to the one that our readers will have. For that reason, our reviewers are given a retail copy of the game, the accompanying instruction manual, and nothing more. They don’t get “review guidelines” written by PR people, they don’t get to pose any questions they might have to developers, and they most certainly don’t get to stay at a hotel paid for by the game’s publisher.
2. Why was our game guide posted before the review?
Because it was ready first. Take a look at the game guide and you’ll see that, save for a “general tips” video, it deals exclusively with the relatively brief single-player campaign. It doesn’t mention the Spec Ops missions, nor does it offer any advice for competitive multiplayer maps, perks, or game modes – all of which Chris needed to spend time with before writing the review. Chris also had to play the game on three different platforms, while our game guides editor played exclusively on Xbox 360.
Hopefully that clears this up.
All the best”
The clarity is duly appreciated. Since no real evidence has yet to surface, we appreciate Justin and Chris shedding light on these rumors.
Stay tuned to Gamer Limit for anymore information regarding this story.
Source: Gamespot.com, Giantbomb.com
Given their history, community trust is not on their side.
Whatever, I was vocally against MW2 just because of the hype. I couldn’t handle it and I broke down and bought it, which I’m very glad I did. Who cares if he changed it or not, it deserves the 9.0
so, te real question is “who gives a fuck who gives a damn”
thank you Mr. Steve Langford
I think it’s a pretty fair trot Jamie, Gamespot already got in hot water over this during the whole “Kane and Lynch” incident.
That statement he replied with is true:
…. I never trust Gamespot reviews, they let me down most of the time. I’m 100% convinced that they’re getting some type of compensation for writing a positive spin on games that have a ton of flaws. It’s not like they’re completely wrong, but they seems to spin some titles, and oddly sometimes when they have a bunch of negative things to say about a game sometimes the score is high!??
” I wrote the review, I produced the review, I set the review live, and at no point was the score changed.” However that was the second review he published (allegedly), so ya he never changed the score of the second one
I love a good conspiracy theory ….
I want a screencap.
The Kane and Lynch incident was someone getting fired for voicing their opinion; THAT’S a big deal. This is changing an abstract number that is supposed to give a quantifiable opinion on a game… by 0.5. Even if numeric scores matter that much to someone, what is the grave implication of this action that I’m not understanding?
If what Watters is saying is not true, then my next question would be, why would this be something he has to lie about. Like Jamie said, it’s only .5 point, and not a big deal. So therefore, until evidence surfaces, I have to give the guy the benefit of the doubt.
The implications ARE the .5. Our trade is one that is maligned with misinterpretations of review scores. Since we really ONLY talk about the games that have earned their place halls of history, that minute number is a big deal. It’s almost like shaving time off a record.
However, until someone comes forward with a screenshot, or some of other form of evidence, Chris Watters is absolutely correct.
I disagree. A record in an olympic event or sport is indisputable; it’s a fact. Opinions are subjective, and even the very numbers can mean different things to different people; in other words, there’s no definitive “right” number, not even an average score. They are not even possibly comparable.
Yes, Jamie – to you, the numbers are arbitrary; and yes, they’re opinion based; but that doesn’t mean they don’t serve a purpose. Keep in mind that for some developers, a game’s Metacritic score can directly influence their financial ability to create another game, or even their employees’ salaries.
Though I doubt Infinity Ward is worried about this, my point is that, like it or not, scores have a place in the critical reception of games.
yeah wen i checked gamespot it was 8.5. gs is stupid to not stick with their orignal review score. in ma opinion they didnt want creare controvery like wah happen to kane and lynch. hence da damn guy changed it so he doesnt lose his job. ign all da way frm now on
What Josh said. Just like a “fresh or rotten” Rotten Tomatoes rating can effect subsequent sequels/funding, publishers may or may not pump funding into another project as a direct result of sales and/or critical acclaim, including Metacritic/Gamerankings.
The PC review of MW2 on Gamespot is 8.5…
Seems to me like a big misunderstanding. More than likely the 8.5 was always for the PC version.
Also, if it did happen, 0.5 is a very minor change, unless it’s the difference between a 9.5 and a 10. In a review I *just submited* to GamerLimit, I cut off 0.5 right at the last second, deciding that the score I’d given it was off by that much. Their MW2 review *reads* like a 9/10, as well.
I remember once Gamespy added several stars onto a contributor’s Donkey Konga 2 review for no reason, then took the review down entirely when it came out. I’ve seen scores misprinted on sites and in magazines, retractions of reviews based on unfinished code, that sort of thing. These things happen. I think everyone’s too keen to jump on Gamespot these days – yes, the whole Kane & Lynch thing was extremely dodgy, but it doesn’t mean they’ve struck some sort of deal with the proverbial devil.
Seems to me like a big misunderstanding. More than likely the 8.5 was always for the PC version.
Also, if it did happen, 0.5 is a very minor change, unless it’s the difference between a 9.5 and a 10. In a review I *just submited* to GamerLimit, I cut off 0.5 right at the last second, deciding that the score I’d given it was off by that much. Their MW2 review *reads* like a 9/10, as well.
Also worth noting that when they recently changed the score of NHL 10, they had no problem discussing it: http://au.gamespot.com/news/6233619.html
I remember once Gamespy added several stars onto a contributor’s Donkey Konga 2 review for no reason, then took the review down entirely when it came out. I’ve seen scores misprinted on sites and in magazines, retractions of reviews based on unfinished code, that sort of thing. These things happen. I think everyone’s too keen to jump on Gamespot these days – yes, the whole Kane & Lynch thing was extremely dodgy, but it doesn’t mean they’ve struck some sort of deal with the proverbial devil.
this is circeling around the net…fake or not? http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/1900/gamespotmw285scorescree.jpg
I’ve seen this, but I am not going to use it without the ability to prove whether it’s a real screen shot or not. It’s easily photoshoped.
LOLOL.
I have no screen cap, but I did remember seeing 8.5/10. That was for the PC version. Not sure what the 360 or PS3 scores were.
Does this even matter?
Honestly, MW2 had the biggest release in entertainment history. I don’t think there’s ever been an item so unanimously desired that it makes EVERY SINGLE REVIEW absolutely worthless.
When you sell nearly 5 million copies in 24 hours, before many of the reviews even went to press, then I don’t think it matters what obscure number you assign it on a 10 point scale. People obviously didn’t give a shit about your opinion anyways.
nobody seems to ask why it was changed if it was changed at all. one thing is sure it gives a lot of other gaming blog site a lot of spin when people flock to air their opinion on the matter. for example i clicked trough three sites to end up here at the original article site. mw is an 9 btw so there i put my opinion up too. spin me too kodie.tumblr.com and plurk.com/andstuff
If anything, lower that 9.0 to a 1.0. MW2 sucks majorly.
For the PC they gave it 8.5. Link here: http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/modernwarfare2/review.html
The score for the PC version is 8.5 and the Xbox and PS3 is 9.0. Some one didn’t notice they where reading the pc review and then later in one console reviews thinking the score was changed.
Josh: Thanks for explaining that, though. That’s what I was asking for – a more definitive reason as to why the changing of the score is a big deal, and now it makes sense.
VanordSpot is a joke run by the maintenance staff.
I couldn’t give a flying fuck about reviews everyone has their opinion of a game. So why would you listen to others views on it get it or rent it and find out your self!
This article is BS. You contridict yourself with this quote:
“None of the forum users have produced a screenshot of the alleged original score…”
And then at the same time say:
“I’ve seen this (screenshot), but I am not going to use it without the ability to prove whether it’s a real screen shot or not. It’s easily photoshoped.”
I’m a forum user and that is my screenshot so your first sentence is completely false!
Any screenshot can easily be photoshoped, you may as well be doing PR work for Gamespot/covering their asses.
I have a pic of the 8.5
Nothing to do with MW2 but Gamespot is simply the worse gaming site of the bunch. I consider them biased plus it takes them forever to put up a review, sometimes weeks go by after the release of a game and still nothing.
More likely than not, people saw the review of Gamespot for the PC after news saying that people are giving it an extremely low userscores, and then later on checked the review of the console of their choice.
I think an 8.5 or 9.0 suits it justice because it is good and at times the story is very epic (but still can’t beat all the good PS3-Exclusive games e.g. Uncharted 2, MGS4, R&C ACRIT (for a Ratchet fan this is an epic game!)) and online is pretty much the same but new maps, guns and killstreaks. THATS IT! But the Spec Ops is actually much better than I thought so I would give the multiplayer a 9.5 (although it is very repetitive it is still the same brilliant Modern Warfare multiplayer) Spec Ops a 9.0 (This is brilliant! It is totally unique, it is just amazing! But they are obviously short and lack a number of missions but hopefully more as DLC. But getting a better time once you’re got all 69 stars still isn’t very rewarding!) and the Story! I would give it a 5.5 because even though it is epic at times it is pretty tiresome at times although it is still the same great Call of Duty (just a bit more modern). DO NOT BUY THIS IF YOU DON’T HAVE PSN/LIVE!!! But if you have someone you play split screen with this is always a game you could pick up when its cheap! You will spend about 100 hours on multiplayer, 15 hours on story (Playthroughs on harder difficulties and people that say they have done the story in 2 hours are speaking complete BULLSHIT! I know it is short but people that are overexagurating it big time!) and about 20-40 hours on Spec Ops.
I have a picture of the score as a 93%,this infuriates me even moire as theyre using a different ranking system than the score was previously posted as !! UNPROFESSIONAL !!
Looking at the site I see the PC version has gotten an 8.5. Gasp!! Could it have been an honest mistake.
People still care about scores hey?
seriously is everyone retarded or am i retarded? The pc review is 8.5 and the console reviews are 9.0 .. so what is the problem? Their diff because the console and pc provide different game experiences. Its not like they had a 8.5 and now have a 9.0 … so there is nothing wrong or strange… everything is fine and false alert. BUT… these sites and their reviews are complete BS and completely financed by the video game companies, if not directly then through affiliate companies.
The fact that 14 reviews by the website staff are considered more important than the THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS of reviews by the players… is ridiculous. Not to mention they are deleting reviews.. people have a right to post what they feel about the game and not have their opinion deleted if it does not meet the expectations of the video game franchise. Kinda like passing the patriot act which takes freedoms away instead of protecting them.
Och BOY!!!! Giantbomb 2 is on the way !!!!
I can definitely appreciate their view on review events. However, I think a lot of the elements of any press event are taken into account when going to said events.
Hey Kevin,
For what it’s worth, we also have a policy of not assigning reviews to any writer who has previously attended any kind of preview event for a game. Based on the surprised reactions that I still get when explaining that to PR folk, I suspect we’re either alone or one of very few outlets that does that.
@Justin
Thats a neat idea, but I would assume the review writers are professional enough to put initial preview reactions/PR speak aside, and approach the review in a fair manner.
@Chris
I think that putting those notions aside is like trying to find true objectivity. Kind of like a Jury, it’s hard to turn all of your bias or outside influences off completely. Having “controlled” conditions make it difficult to gauge a games impact on launch day. Especially if you are trying to get the review out the gate the same morning.