Well, I've stumbled upon two games that are considered GOTY contenders, but we may have known which game was better in the first place had we had a little something like the older GS review system in place before. The two games I'm talking about are the PC's magnificent World In Conflict, and the 360's climactic Halo 3. Both scored the same, 9.5. However, with an older, and smarter gamespot review system in place, these games may not be all to similar. The difference between a 9.5 game with gamespot's old review skill can be as much as .4 percentage points. That may not sound like a lot, but if you look at it like this: Halo 3 could have scored 9.3, while World in Conflict could have scored 9.7, that's a legitimate difference.

Yes, I know, does it really matter? Obviously, they are two different games, but with the old review system, it would make it far easier to figure which game gamespot liked better, and the only way we'll find out is the game of the year ceremonies...if it comes down to those two games. What do you guys think about this issue, and do you know any other games that fit under the category of being faulted from gamespot's "wonderful" new review system?