I tend to think Gamespot is a bit more reliable than other game review publications. I like Gamespot a lot more than IGN. Afterall, Gamespot has shown to be, for the most part, unbiased in their reviews. They gave Super Mario Sunshine an 8.0 (which I agreed with), Super Smash Brothers: Melee an 8.8 or an 8.9 (agreed with). They gave Dead or Alive Beach Volley Ball a 6.0 I think, and they gave merits where they belonged and were critical where it is warranted. IGN, on the other hand, thinks Super Mario Sunshine is 9.0+ worthy, DOABC is the greatest thing since sliced bread, and seems to throw a 9.0+ review to anything with any kind of hype. At Gamespot, you know an 8.0+ review is a "great" game that'll be worth the purchase.
I do think Gamespot could have given it a 9.5 or 9.6 review and it would have been more fair, but I haven't even played the game yet, so I don't know. The ease seems to be a valid complaint or even a bit of a let down. I noticed Gamespot rated Pokemon Ruby and Saphire an 8.0 or 8.1. I have played Saphire and I think the ease of it is also a bit of a let down. The graphics are pretty nice but not really GBA quality, but I think I agree with the Gamespot review. IGN on the other hand threw a 9.0+ at it. I have to think if everyone reviewed like IGN, games would never get better. I think Gamespot is doing these games justice by being critical. Splitercell didn't even get a 9.0+ rating from Gamespot, and we all know the hype surrounding that monster (and I use monster in a positive way, the game is a masterpiece for its strong points
).
I don't see any reason to rip Gamespot. In fact, I feel we should support them for being unbiased and critical. I almost never see the bias that some point out in Gamespot. Most of the time, it seems like they're speaking the truth.
The only thing I don't like about Gamespot is that stupid best icon that almost always lands beside "Xbox" on multiplatform games.