Gamespot possibly biased to Wii U

[megadrivesonic]

Recently reviews from Gamespot have been brought to my attention recently and It really confuses me. Like most people reviewing this game it got positive reviews which doesn't surprise me since its a genuinely good game. However here's where it gets odd, Gamespot gave the ps3 and 360 scores 9.0 but the Wii U version which is what the game was built for in the first place an 8.0? Now why is it a point lower i ask? From what i can gather it's all due to the fact that in the other versions you just press a button to interact with obstacles while in the wii u version the gamepad is used. I really don't see why this means it gets a lower score just due to that one thing. It seems like gamespot and IGN are a bit biased towards Wii U games. It's not like the other platforms don't have problems with this game, you need Xbox live gold to play online multiplayer and with the pc version even with steam it forces you to have Uplay( even though Rayman Origins didn't have any 3rd party DRM). My point is that if you bring up any kind of shortcoming in the Wii U version you can't ignore the shortcomings on the other gaming platforms otherwise you'll look like a hypocrite, end of story.

Article source: http://www.gamespot.com/rayman-legends/

[Bobbybroccoli]

First of all, one example of one review doesn't act as proof, no matter the circumstabces., mostly because it is most likely the author that is biased, if he even is. Rayman Legends is a disputed game in regards to the Wii U version, so chossing this game as proof is not a great choice.

Second of all, who cares? A ton of review sites are biased, and so are magazines. This is not anything new.

[Raab]

Gamespot has been sucking farts out of Nintendo's ass for years now. where have you been?

[megadrivesonic]

At 9/3/13 07:46 PM, Raab wrote: Gamespot has been sucking farts out of Nintendo's ass for years now. where have you been?

examples?

[oobooglunk]

You mean they're biased AGAINST the Wii U? Well, that's all very simple. Every review site that is paid by video game companies to review their games says nicer and nicer things when they are paid more and more money. Look, even the people on IGN are doubting the authenticity of the website itself:

http://www.ign.com/boards/threads/did-ign-get-paid-to-review-this-mass-effect-3-game.250084114/

You know what they say: you can't spell "ignorant" without IGN.

[Sword-of-Kings]

Don't go to Gamespot for game reviews. Don't go to IGN for reviews either.

[ZJ]

At 9/4/13 01:08 AM, Sword-of-Kings wrote: Don't go to Gamespot for game reviews. Don't go to IGN for reviews either.

I wouldn't go to any one place for reviews. I'd see what people are saying as a whole about a game on a website like Metacritic than a specific place like IGN.

[iMini]

Isn't something like "I found the controls more enjoyable on Xbox and PS3, then the Wii U" a fair critique? I feel like a review doesn't just need to rate the game for that console, but rate is according to all the other versions of the game available.

[darkjam]

Most reviews are payed for and are biased, just look up gameplay for a game then judge it on some people's honest opinion, like you friends, then you decide if you want the game.

[megadrivesonic]

At 9/4/13 01:39 PM, iMini wrote: Isn't something like "I found the controls more enjoyable on Xbox and PS3, then the Wii U" a fair critique? I feel like a review doesn't just need to rate the game for that console, but rate is according to all the other versions of the game available.

I just see the wii u gamepad as a valid excuse to give it a lower score, but then again it could be worse like the ducktales remastered review on their.