We rate games on a scale of 1 (the absolute worst) to 10 (the absolute best). The rating we assign to each game is intended to give you an at-a-glance sense of the overall quality of the game relative to other games on the same platform. However, we encourage you to read our full reviews to give context to our ratings.
Our ratings are generated from the component scores that our reviewers assign. That means the overall rating is not a pure average of five component scores--some components are weighted more heavily than others. GameSpot has consistently applied this same rating formula since we started.
Here's how the overall rating ranges break down. This exceedingly rare score refers to a game that is as perfect as a game can ever aspire to be. Such games could not reasonably be improved upon in any meaningful way.
We absolutely recommend any game in this range, especially to fans of that particular genre. However, games that score in the 9 range are also typically well suited to new players. Games that earn 9s are naturally uncommon, and earn GameSpot's Editors' Choice Award for their outstanding quality.
This range refers to great games that are excellent in almost every way and whose few setbacks probably aren't too important. We highly recommend games in the upper half of this range, since they tend to be good enough to provide an enjoyable experience to fans of the particular genre and to new players alike. A game within this range is good overall, and likely worth playing by fans of the particular genre or by those otherwise interested.
While its strengths outweigh its weaknesses, a game that falls in this range tends to have noticeable faults. Games that earn 6-range ratings have certain good qualities but significant problems as well. These games may well be worth playing, but you should approach them with caution.
A 5-range score refers to a game that's "merely average" in the negative sense. These games tend to have enough major weaknesses to considerably outweigh their strengths. There's probably a substantially better, similar game out there for you.
Games that just don't work right and maybe didn't spend enough time in production tend to fall in to this category. They simply lack the cohesion and quality that make other games fun. You probably shouldn't get too close to a game in this range.
Any of its positive qualities most likely serve only to make the rest of it seem even more disappointing. Beware, for a game in this range is almost entirely devoid of any remotely decent or fully functional features. Ouch.
The rare game that falls in this lowest-of-the-low range has no redeeming qualities whatsoever. Don't play this game. Here are descriptions of the component categories that are used to derive the final rating.
While GameSpot only assigns whole numbers for component scores, we consider each component in the context of the rating descriptions listed above. For example, if we believe a game looks good but not great, we'll give it a 7 in the graphics category. By graphics, we mean the technical merits of a game's visuals as well as the aesthetic quality of a game's appearance and presentation.
The graphical performance of a game weighs heavily into our consideration of its visuals, so even if it looks pretty in screenshots, there's no guarantee it'll earn a high graphics score. By sound, we mean the quality and use of sound effects, voice acting, and music in a game. Any of these may potentially have a significant impact on the overall sound score.
For instance, a game with an excellent soundtrack and sound effects may still lose points for sound if the voice acting is of low quality. By gameplay, we mean everything from the responsiveness and design of a game's controls to how challenging, intense, or exciting the game is. Basically, this represents how well a game plays and how enjoyable it is to play.
Games very rarely earn a 10 in this category, due to how elusive games with perfect or near-perfect gameplay actually are. We weigh the gameplay score heavily when deriving the overall rating. By value, we're referring to how long you'll be able to both play and enjoy the game, and also how much replay value you'll get out of it.
Breadth of gameplay options and overall volume of content both weigh heavily into this score. The retail price of a game can also figure into the value score, as can the presence or lack of similar, competitive products in the market. The overall quality of a game also has some impact on its value.
While this component is not intended to be directly representative of our overall experience with a game, we use it to influence the overall rating one way or another, based on our overall experience. For instance, a technically impressive game that's highly unoriginal may be tilted low, while a game with a truly outstanding story but an unremarkable presentation may be tilted high. What follows are the guidelines we internally use to prepare GameSpot editors for their review assignments.
GameSpot editors are expected to know, understand, and abide by the following principles. In turn, we invite you to consider them for yourself to better understand how we approach producing our content. Our reviews are written with the prospective customer in mind--someone who's naturally interested in playing a new game and has a limited amount of time and money to spend.
Our editors approach each review strictly from that perspective. In turn, our reviews are not intended to validate or support the beliefs of hardcore fans, nor are they intended to provide feedback to developers or publishers about how a given game could have been improved. Our reviews are only designed to tell you, the game player, to what extent a game is worth your while.
First and foremost, our reviews are an assessment of one particular game at a time. We approach each review assignment without assuming anything about the quality of the game, irrespective of prerelease preview coverage, the history of any previous games in the series, any perceptions about the developer's or publisher's track records, and so forth. That is, every game we review gets a fair shake, and is treated with the same level of care and attention with which we approach every review assignment.
We judge more critically as time goes by, because our expectations as game players are constantly increasing. When we review a game, we consider it at the exact point in time at which the evaluation is taking place (generally, the week of a game's release) and compare it to what we believe to be the current standards of quality at that time. In general, GameSpot does not favor highly derivative games, which mostly recycle elements from other, previous games.
Instead, we appreciate original concepts and ideas that are executed well. This also means that each time an excellent game is released, it becomes incrementally more difficult for another game to be as good in the grand scheme of things. As the quality of gaming experiences naturally improves over time, we do not simply rate new games higher, even if they're technically better.
Instead, we adjust our expectations and continually recalibrate our numeric rating scale accordingly. What this means in practice is that a high score awarded today by GameSpot is worth more than if we awarded the same score yesterday. In other words, a game that earns a high score today is probably superior in overall quality to a game that earned the same score on our scale several years ago.
Every gaming platform is different, especially in terms of its technical features. However, we believe high-quality gaming experiences are possible on all the gaming platforms that we cover. So we review games against the standards of their respective platforms by implicitly comparing them to other games on that same platform and, to a lesser extent, to other games in that genre.
As a result, our ratings of games on different platforms are not intended to be directly compared to one another. However, relative comparisons do apply, so a game that scores poorly is a poor game by any standards, while a game that scores extremely high is an outstanding game by any standards. Each game we review exists in a competitive environment.
That is, a game always has direct or indirect competition from other, possibly very similar games, which causes the game in question to be held to a higher standard. In other words, while technical merits are generally particular to a specific gaming platform, we believe that certain collective, universal standards also exist. GameSpot editors are expected to be familiar with current games on all platforms, in order to maintain an acute sense of global standards for gaming at all times.
Games come out for multiple platforms all the time. When GameSpot reviews a game that's on multiple platforms, you'll often see references to other versions of the same game on a different platform. We do this to give context to our reviews for the sake of game players with access to or interest in multiple game systems.
GameSpot reserves the right to reuse review text for multiplatform games, especially if the game has the same exact features on different platforms. We have the highest standards when it comes to the accuracy and validity of our reviews, and will never knowingly make factual assertions that are not completely correct. However, in the event that the facts stated in one of our reviews are refuted, we swiftly investigate the claims.
Consequently, we reserve the right to amend our reviews after they are published. Any time we substantively modify the facts of a review, we will acknowledge the changes in an editor's note at the end of the review. We do our best to make each of our reviews live up to our standards and fit well in the context of all our other reviews.
However, we take pride in the diversity and collective expertise of our editorial staff. Each individual who writes for GameSpot offers a different perspective and writing style, and we encourage each editor to bring his or her own experiences to bear with each new assignment. We only assign reviews to individuals that are naturally interested in the given style of game.
For example, we will never assign someone to review a sports game if he or she isn't personally interested in and knowledgeable about the real-world sport the game is simulating. But it's not just about personal preferences, either. GameSpot's reviews all go through a rigorous screening process by our reviews team, so you can rest assured that we collectively stand behind and support the statements made in each new review we publish.
We believe games are meant to be enjoyed, and our reviews seek to express what it is about a given game that is or isn't particularly enjoyable, entertaining, fun, amusing, interesting, memorable--any and all of these things, and more. Our philosophy is that if we succeed at reviewing each game on its own merits, against the standards of the point in time at which it was evaluated, then overall consistency of our ratings should naturally result. Ultimately, we believe that each of our reviews should be useful and engaging to you as a prospective player.
Want to dig even deeper? Here are answers to all the frequently asked questions received by our reviews department. "What types of games do you review?
" GameSpot reviews most commercial entertainment software for all major gaming platforms. That is, we review almost every game typically found on game store shelves or at leading online game retailers. We overlook certain types of games, such as those designed expressly for young children, those expressly suited to special interests, and those that are adult-oriented in nature (as opposed to for mature audiences), or those that we deem otherwise unsuitable for our audience.
While we typically do not review games that cannot be purchased through standard retail channels, we reserve the right to take exception for such games that we believe would be interesting to our audience. "When should I expect to see a particular game reviewed on GameSpot?" We review most games on or around the day on which they ship to retail channels.
However, in some cases, we need extra time. This can be for a variety of different reasons, such as to extensively test multiplayer features under realistic gameplay conditions, or because we were not given access to final review code from a game's publisher and needed to purchase the game at retail to begin our testing. We appreciate your patience in these instances, but our stance on review timeliness is simple: We do not rush reviews.
The timeliness of our coverage is extremely important to us, but a review is never rushed at the expense of its accuracy. Our editors are always given extra time on assignments should they require it. "With all the new game systems coming out, what do you expect from next-generation games and consoles?
How do you define standards for something that you haven't experienced before?" We expect next-generation games and game systems to be reasonably better than current-generation games. When we approach coverage of a new system, we expect that system to exceed current technical standards of quality, but also to provide us with compelling gameplay experiences that are at least as exciting as what we could be playing on older systems.
In other words, we have high expectations for next-generation systems. As a result, if a game is released for both current and next-generation platforms, and the next-generation version is not markedly better than other versions, you can expect that version to receive a lower rating than others. "How do you decide who gets to review a particular game?
" We assign reviews to editors best equipped to handle the review assignment. This generally means that the editor in question has a natural interest in the genre and subject matter of the game, yet has no inherent bias concerning it. Additionally, our policy is to never assign a review of a game to an editor who has extensively previewed the game.
Just as our audience tends to have no previous, direct exposure to a given game before purchasing it, so too do we select editors who can approach the given game review assignment with a fresh perspective and an open mind. Furthermore, reviewing games for GameSpot is an insular process, during which we do not consort with representatives from the given game's publisher or developer. If the reviewer has an urgent question that is preventing him or her from completing the assignment, an intermediary--a senior editor who is not the reviewer--may contact the game's publisher for assistance.
Our intention is for our reviewers to experience each given game as would a customer who just bought the game from a store. "How come some of your scores are so much lower than those of other publications I've seen? Are you all just jaded or something?
" On the contrary, we love games so much that we hold them to a higher standard. All of our editors were once avid consumers who relied on gaming publications to inform them about what to buy next. However, each of us has been burned at one time or another--we've each bought a highly rated game only to find that what we paid for wasn't nearly as good as what we read about.
As a result, our commitment to our readers is to provide them with unflinchingly honest and thorough appraisals of games. Sometimes the truth hurts, especially when you've been eagerly awaiting a given game for months or even longer, but we think you'll appreciate our candor in the long run. "Which version of this game should I get?
" For the convenience of players with access to multiple gaming platforms, some GameSpot reviews of multiplatform games provide an at-a-glance graphical designation for the best available version of a multiplatform game. The "best" graphical designation implies that if you own every system, one particular version of the game should provide the best experience overall, even if the experience is only marginally better. We determine "best" status based on any major or minor differences we identify across the respective versions of a given multiplatform game and assume, for the case of PC versions of games, that you own a high-end system.
We will not designate a "best" version of a multiplatform game that does not earn a good score in the first place. "I've seen a lot of advertisements on your site from specific game companies. Does advertising affect your editorial mission in any way, shape, or form?
" Absolutely, positively not. Never in GameSpot's history has money changed hands with regard to a review, nor have we ever altered our verdict about any game due to advertiser pressure. We accept advertising from game publishers so that we can continue to provide you with free, high-quality services.
However, GameSpot's business model is founded on the concept that if we provide our users with consistently trustworthy content, then they will visit us often and in great numbers. It is this large, dedicated audience that advertisers wish to speak to. We have operated on these principles for years and will continue to do so.
"How do you decide which games get video reviews? How come you don't make video reviews for every game?" We produce as many video reviews as possible, but the nature of the format makes them more resource-intensive to create than our written reviews.
Furthermore, we believe that certain games do not lend themselves particularly well to our video review format. Generally speaking, we produce video reviews for all games for which we have evidence to prove our audience is excited to see in action, but we also leave discretionary room for video reviews of games that our editors feel strongly about. The goal of our video reviews is to complement our written reviews, providing you with a more personal take from an editor who's played the game extensively.
"Sometimes you review games before they're even out in stores. Does that mean you review games before they're finished?" No, absolutely not.
In the interest of providing purely accurate information, GameSpot only reviews final code, which means that we will not evaluate a product until we have access to the same version you could purchase from a store. While we do base some of our reviews on "gold master" versions of games, which are sent to us by publishers expressly for review purposes (only without the finished retail packaging), the game content itself is identical to what's being sold. "I've seen exclusive first reviews in some other publications.
How come I never see these on GameSpot?" You never see exclusive reviews on GameSpot because we never ask for them, nor would we accept them. We believe that to barter with reviews is to invite a potential conflict of editorial interest.
Therefore, our relationship with our audience is far too important to be risked for the sake of just being the first to tell you how a high-profile game turned out. In fact, we actively discourage game publishers from doling out exclusive reviews to anybody. "What is the average rating on GameSpot?
" The average rating on GameSpot lies between a high 6 and a low 7, which is fully in line with what we believe is the fairly good quality of the average game on store shelves. Because we do not strictly grade on a curve, we have not set 5.0 as our average rating.
We believe the high end of our rating scale (the 8 and 9 range) works suitably well to distinguish truly outstanding games from all the others. However, most games really aren't bad. "How do you review persistent-world games, which are constantly evolving?
Do you reevaluate them at a later point in time?" We evaluate persistent-world games by playing them extensively for a number of days or weeks around the time of their releases. We typically invest approximately 30 hours' worth of playing time before committing to our evaluations.
While this does not necessarily allow us to cover the long-term prospects of a given persistent-world game, the truth is that we do not know what the future holds for any such games, and thus, we evaluate them at that immediate point in time based on what we feel is a lengthy amount of play. We do not currently reevaluate games as they evolve, though when retail expansion packs are released for games, we use our reviews of those products as a chance to reevaluate the core game and to describe how it has changed over time. "What's the numerical cutoff point for games I should be buying?
" That's entirely up to you. Everyone has a different threshold, which often depends on how much time and money you have to spend on games. If you're a hardcore enthusiast who likes to play lots of different games, then you shouldn't be dismissing games that we give 6-range and 7-range or even 5-range scores to because these may be of interest to you if you can look past their faults.
On the other hand, if you have a limited budget and have very discriminating tastes, then you may wish to only consider games that score in the 8 and 9 ranges. For our part, we are committed to rating games consistently, which means that when we give a game an 8 or a 9, we think you'll more than likely agree with us that it's well worth your while. "How come only one person reviews a game for GameSpot?
Why don't you have multiple reviewers providing different takes?" We feel that to provide multiple GameSpot reviews of a given game would be an unnecessary use of our resources, and that it would be confusing to our audience. Because we do our best to assign each review to a highly qualified individual--who, in turn, takes a considerable amount of time to extensively play the game and then write a detailed review that covers the game from all different angles--what we would end up with if we assigned multiple reviewers to a game is a lot of very similar reviews.
We do offer our readers a chance to chime in about games they feel strongly about with our player-reviews section. Furthermore, we conveniently provide links to reviews from other publications if you wish to see what other people are saying about a game. "Do you immediately post reviews as soon as they're written?
" No, certainly not. Though each of our reviews is credited to a single author, the reality is that our reviews are processed extensively before they are posted. They are fact-checked by GameSpot's reviews department, and they are carefully screened by our copyediting department to ensure compliance with current, commonly accepted written standards.
In short, we do not post reviews until we are completely confident in them. "Is it possible for a game to score a perfect 10 on GameSpot?" Yes, it's happened before.
However, while many games have earned 10s in the five component categories that factor into the overall rating, it's possible to find shortcomings in even the greatest games. As a result, you'll rarely (if ever) see us call a game perfect, and even when we do, what we mean is that the game is as reasonably close to perfection as it possibly could be at that point in time. We do believe that games can and should approach perfection.
"Do you always finish games before reviewing them?" The straight answer is no, not necessarily. The main reason is that not all games are capable of being finished, which would make a policy of finishing all games before reviewing them impossible to enforce.
For example, sports games and massively multiplayer online role-playing games have no definite conclusion. Likewise, many multiplayer-focused games cannot be finished but must be played extensively before they can be honestly evaluated. Our rule is that we play games extensively before committing to our full reviews.
On average, this translates into at least 10 hours' worth of play, though some games demand much more than that, and some require less. "Wait, reviews are just opinions. Right?
" Actually, we don't think so. We make no excuses for our verdicts about games and believe our reviews stand for themselves. While our reviews, of course, do contain an element of subjectivity to them, we see the process of reviewing games as one that primarily involves the reporting of facts.
To an extent, we naturally color these facts based on our own experiences of having spent much time playing other games in the past, but we make every effort to look at every game on its own merits, and we describe each game in the most factual terms possible. To this end, in the rare event that one of our reviews contains a factual inaccuracy, we will correct the inaccuracy and will acknowledge it in an editor's note that's appended to the end of the review. "How can you possibly assign a numeric rating to a game?
Shouldn't your reviews speak for themselves?" Along with our review summaries, our ratings provide our audience with an at-a-glance assessment of a game's relative quality. Some people have neither the time nor the inclination to read our full reviews, and we respect that.
Also, some people want a shorter assessment, which is why our review summaries tend to contain all the key points of the evaluation. We take great caution in administering our ratings, because we know a rating scale needs to be relatively consistent to be valuable. We are always looking for ways to improve our reviews, because we know they are important to you.
Please contact Executive Editor Greg Kasavin at greg@gamespot.com if you have any further questions about our standards or policies with respect to our coverage of games.
News RSS