231 réponses à ce sujet

[Helena Tylena]

Il Divo wrote...

Personally, I think all review scores should be cast into the fire. They tell me pretty much nothing about an experience, aside from how much someone might have enjoyed it, which is ten times more effective with actual words when they can clearly explain where the game has so obviously succeeded.

This.

Especially since people *demand* their favourite games get perfect 10/10 scores, it becomes meaningless.


You know what 75% is? 75%. these days, is 'crap'. It used to be 'good, but not great'. See where I'm getting at?

[Dionkey]

Helena Tylena wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

Personally, I think all review scores should be cast into the fire. They tell me pretty much nothing about an experience, aside from how much someone might have enjoyed it, which is ten times more effective with actual words when they can clearly explain where the game has so obviously succeeded.

This.

Especially since people *demand* their favourite games get perfect 10/10 scores, it becomes meaningless.


You know what 75% is? 75%. these days, is 'crap'. It used to be 'good, but not great'. See where I'm getting at?

I feel like garbage unless I get an 85-90+ plus on a test, but perhaps my standards are just too high.

[muse108]

Very few games ever deserve anything near 10/10. Please dont complain about review scores, they are rarely acurate in my opinoin and say nothing about the game.

Read the review, pay no attention to an arbitrary number assigned as someones opinion.

For example, my review of Amular Reckoning. 3/10 Boring, combat was arcadey and character graphics as well as voice acting were terrible.

[Freakiq]

Not sure this game will warrant a 10/10, the two prequels didn't good as they were.

I hope this surpasses them though.

[Rickin10]

muse108 wrote...

Very few games ever deserve anything near 10/10. Please dont complain about review scores, they are rarely acurate in my opinoin and say nothing about the game.

Read the review, pay no attention to an arbitrary number assigned as someones opinion.

Exactly.  The problem with modern reviews (besides the odd early 'World Exclusive First Review' that's bought) is that sites need to placate the huge numbers of fanboys who would boycott their site if they don't give their fav game the score 'it deserves', which translates as at least 90%.  This is abundantly clear when you compare the review, i.e. the words, to that score.  Often they are a laughable contradiction.

[Pixieking]

Dionkey wrote...
]I feel like garbage unless I get an 85-90+ plus on a test, but perhaps my standards are just too high.

This thread amuses me.

In relation to the above - a test is supposed to measure your knowledge. A review measures entertainment "value". So, I get what you're saying, but you can't really compare the two types of scoring.

Modifié par Emoking, 02 mars 2012 - 12:36 .

[Dionkey]

Emoking wrote...

Dionkey wrote...
]I feel like garbage unless I get an 85-90+ plus on a test, but perhaps my standards are just too high.

This thread amuses me.

In relation to the above - a test is supposed to measure your knowledge. A review measures entertainment "value". So, I get what you're saying, but you can't really compare the two types of scoring.

Well, I'm speaking in terms of the reviewer. If I saw someone got a 70% on their test, I'd assume that they didn't study enough, same goes for gaming. If BioWare got a 75%, I'd assume that there were major flaws in the game's structure.

[nitefyre410]

Helena Tylena wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

Personally, I think all review scores should be cast into the fire. They tell me pretty much nothing about an experience, aside from how much someone might have enjoyed it, which is ten times more effective with actual words when they can clearly explain where the game has so obviously succeeded.

This.

Especially since people *demand* their favourite games get perfect 10/10 scores, it becomes meaningless.


You know what 75% is? 75%. these days, is 'crap'. It used to be 'good, but not great'. See where I'm getting at?

 

**** ... now  its 80% is considered and "bad" game  ..  it boogles mind because that whole notion is just 

asinine, asiten, asielven, asitwelve.

I could  care less about  reviews scores and more about impressions the game left, how the controls handled, mechinacs, music, voice acting, graphics..  fun factor.   Things like that.. not a  pointless score.  

[Srefanius]

Funny, how people come here and give scores for a game they didn't even played...

[AkiKishi]

Srefanius wrote...

Funny, how people come here and give scores for a game they didn't even played...

Play enough game and a demo and it's not as difficult as it sounds. The only thing that can throw a curve ball is some serious tech issue cropping up.

[Pixieking]

Like animations? :innocent:

Modifié par Emoking, 02 mars 2012 - 01:00 .

[Pixieking]

Dionkey wrote...

Emoking wrote...

Dionkey wrote...
]I feel like garbage unless I get an 85-90+ plus on a test, but perhaps my standards are just too high.

This thread amuses me.

In relation to the above - a test is supposed to measure your knowledge. A review measures entertainment "value". So, I get what you're saying, but you can't really compare the two types of scoring.

Well, I'm speaking in terms of the reviewer. If I saw someone got a 70% on their test, I'd assume that they didn't study enough, same goes for gaming. If BioWare got a 75%, I'd assume that there were major flaws in the game's structure.

Ah, this is true actually. Good point. 

[Srefanius]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Srefanius wrote...

Funny, how people come here and give scores for a game they didn't even played...

Play enough game and a demo and it's not as difficult as it sounds. The only thing that can throw a curve ball is some serious tech issue cropping up.

In my opinin you can only value a game if you finished it. I mean people can give a score for the demo or what they have seen so far, but when people come here and say "I would give ME3 80%" thats kind of idiotic in many ways. I would give ME1 kind  of 75% if I only played the first mission on eden prime...

[FedericoV]

Most people here have preordered the game (me included). And they discuss review score. Quite ironic. The only review that matters to me is my review. The same is true for any of you. Preorders have gone so well that the game will be a commercial success no matter what reviewers say. The doctors have allready payd the bills and bought another house with ME3 sales.

Metacritic score (wich imho is a nonsense since it aggregates reviews done using different standards from people who have very different personal values and tastes) will only matters to the people here who will discuss if ME3 is a triumph or a disaster (with little to none possibility of a middle ground).

Modifié par FedericoV, 02 mars 2012 - 01:10 .

[Prom001]

i would like it if reviewers would really use 1 to 10, but it seems the only number are 8 to 10.

That means a 5 is a solid but average game.
everything over 7.5 should really really be unheared of.
let alone a 9.

[Hyrist]

Can't grade what I haven't played through completely.

Not that the grading scale in this case is anything less than completely arbitrary to begin with. One person's 9 is another man's 6, and the only difference between them would be a lesser tolerance over the use of 1 button, or one cutscene. It's far too subjective to have any worth, especially to me, who have different tolerance limits to different things.

For example, I can deal with a story I dislike or disagree with if the gameplay is engaging, or overlook bit problems in gameplay if the story has enough draw. And it is possible to have flaws in each section, and still overall be regarded very highly.

A game to me, sells an experience. If I find that experience enjoyable and engaging, it can afford to be imperfect. The Mass Effect Universe has done this for me consistently, and I doubt I'll be so disenfranchised by minute flaws and a disagreeable ending that it will ruin that experience.

I'm more likely to have my experience 'ruined' by the community in multiplayer. Thankfully, it is primarily a single player game.

[AkiKishi]

Srefanius wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

Srefanius wrote...

Funny, how people come here and give scores for a game they didn't even played...

Play enough game and a demo and it's not as difficult as it sounds. The only thing that can throw a curve ball is some serious tech issue cropping up.

In my opinin you can only value a game if you finished it. I mean people can give a score for the demo or what they have seen so far, but when people come here and say "I would give ME3 80%" thats kind of idiotic in many ways. I would give ME1 kind  of 75% if I only played the first mission on eden prime...

Well I gave KOA 75-80% based on the demo and that never changed much. It's a solid game but it could have been a lot more. The engine can handle companions, but no companions were added and it felt a bit "lonely". Graphics were nice enough and the game was bright (no brown Morrowind). Nothing cutting edge theough.

The combat system was fun and got better over time as you unlocked abilities. The story was a little genreic, while at the same time being somewhat unique. Irish Mythology is not often explored in games.

In the end what it lost on story it made up for in other areas.

But generally how much you enjoy it will come down to how much you enjoy the combat system.

Bugs would have changed that, but I never came across a single one. You could up the score 5% for that novelty alone.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 02 mars 2012 - 01:21 .

[dkf360]

 ....a reviewer is a hipster if they give a game a 9.5?  This is news to me.  So if someone gives it a 9.... does that make them a hater? 

I thought a 9.5 was considered a near perfect, a score that should not be used as much as it is.  A 10 should almost never be given, if at all.

[Hyrist]

Prom001 wrote...

i would like it if reviewers would really use 1 to 10, but it seems the only number are 8 to 10.

That means a 5 is a solid but average game.
everything over 7.5 should really really be unheared of.
let alone a 9.

I'd like to address this.

Players are just as liable to double or slanted standards as the reviewers are.

It's the same as education and how the grading scale works.

By your scale 50% should be passable, but we all know from our education that 50% is failure. Hell 75% might be called "Average" but in truth, it's sub-standard.

There are plenty, and I mean an incredible amount of games that still fall flat and hit that grading scale failure. But reviewers are not going to waste their time on those. They're going to review the games that get your attention, thuse their raitings (and money). And many of these games are far above the 'average' shovelware that comes out of retail stores.

You just don't see them because you, like the game reviewers, will ignore them.

[Weskerr]

DarthCaine wrote...

Don't worry, EA will make sure to pay up for 10/10s

From an editorial of the 1UP editor, Sam Kennedy:

In an age where that sort of stuff goes on, do we need to worry about
more publishers trying to control the media? I look at EA as reason to
have hope. As the largest publisher of games, EA has the most weight to
throw around, but the company absolutely respects editorial integrity.
Did we hear some grumbling about our 4 out of 10 for Hellgate? Sure. But never once in all my years of working with the company can I remember EA saying a review score was wrong,
or trying to strong-arm us into to changing text or a score. Maybe it's
because the publisher releases so many products that one review score
won't affect its bottom line as perhaps it could with others, but I
happen to know that review scores are pretty darn important to the
company. I just think EA has created a culture of being above all that
and its people recognize that once it comes to review time, it's out of
their hands. As the industry continues to mature, I believe so will its
interaction with the press.


The full article is here
(It concerns Gamespot's firing of Jeff Gertmann).


From the same article:

"Friend and former Senior Editor at GameSpot (and now a Producer at EA), Amer Ajami wrote this on his GameSpot page:

"I worry about the reputation of GameSpot, which has been my
homepage for over 10 years and a publication that I deeply respect; I
worry about the constantly eroding line separating church and state
(editorial and marketing) at the site; I worry about a publication
that's being managed by people with no substantial editorial background
or an understanding of the games industry; and I worry about the impact
that this week's action will have on the credibility of the gaming press
as a whole. I love this site and the people that provide content for
it, but for some like me, it'll take a lot before I make a purchasing
decision based on that content.



To paraphrase something that Greg said this morning, credibility can be
gained and lost, though it's much harder to be gained. I hope those
responsible for the manner in which all of this was handled are made to
publicly answer for their irresponsible actions. That'd be the first
step in helping to restore some of that lost credibility."

Modifié par Weskerr, 02 mars 2012 - 01:30 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

Hyrist wrote...

Prom001 wrote...

i would like it if reviewers would really use 1 to 10, but it seems the only number are 8 to 10.

That means a 5 is a solid but average game.
everything over 7.5 should really really be unheared of.
let alone a 9.

I'd like to address this.

Players are just as liable to double or slanted standards as the reviewers are.

It's the same as education and how the grading scale works.

By your scale 50% should be passable, but we all know from our education that 50% is failure. Hell 75% might be called "Average" but in truth, it's sub-standard.

Sez who?
It's sub-standard BECAUSE the rating system is so skewed that you actually think so.

WTF? We got an entire range scale that gets unused.I bet a few years from now, all scores will be in the 9-10 range.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 02 mars 2012 - 01:33 .

[Fireflyx147]

This may have already been said, But does it matter if someone doesn't give it a perfect score. Do people really need a perfect score validation from a review before they even think about purchasing a game. The scoring system is a load of BS anyway. Modern Warfare 3 got perfect 10's...seriously
A reskin of a game made 5 years ago got 10.

I recall Uncharted 3 receiving an 8 and a bunch of psychotic fanboys issuing death threats. You know what Naughty Dog issued? A thanks for a good review.

[Hyrist]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Hyrist wrote...

Prom001 wrote...

i would like it if reviewers would really use 1 to 10, but it seems the only number are 8 to 10.

That means a 5 is a solid but average game.
everything over 7.5 should really really be unheared of.
let alone a 9.

I'd like to address this.

Players are just as liable to double or slanted standards as the reviewers are.

It's the same as education and how the grading scale works.

By your scale 50% should be passable, but we all know from our education that 50% is failure. Hell 75% might be called "Average" but in truth, it's sub-standard.

Sez who?
It's sub-standard BECAUSE the rating system is so skewed that you actually think so.

WTF? We got an entire range scale that gets unused.I bet a few years from now, all scores will be in the 9-10 range.

I suggest you look at your sources again. There have been 6s and even 5s of games that have been hyped, but were just terribly substandard. But these reviews are rare because most games that would rate this low, are not worth the time of the reviewers.

It's us, the players, who have a skewed idea of what is 'average'. If we really want to measure the quality of all games against each other, this is going to have to include movie/tv show games, casual games, iphone and facebook games - virtually everything that has been published. You're going to be overwhemed at the sheer volume of what I kindly refer to as 'shovelware'.

The "Average" game, is a lot cruddier than you think.

Again, Say's who? You do, I do, the reviewers do, the teachers do - the statistics do. The only reason why the rating system seems so lop sided, is because most game reviewers primarily only review good, or highly hyped games.

[Srefanius]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Srefanius wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

Srefanius wrote...

Funny, how people come here and give scores for a game they didn't even played...

Play enough game and a demo and it's not as difficult as it sounds. The only thing that can throw a curve ball is some serious tech issue cropping up.

In my opinin you can only value a game if you finished it. I mean people can give a score for the demo or what they have seen so far, but when people come here and say "I would give ME3 80%" thats kind of idiotic in many ways. I would give ME1 kind  of 75% if I only played the first mission on eden prime...

Well I gave KOA 75-80% based on the demo and that never changed much. It's a solid game but it could have been a lot more. The engine can handle companions, but no companions were added and it felt a bit "lonely". Graphics were nice enough and the game was bright (no brown Morrowind). Nothing cutting edge theough.

The combat system was fun and got better over time as you unlocked abilities. The story was a little genreic, while at the same time being somewhat unique. Irish Mythology is not often explored in games.

In the end what it lost on story it made up for in other areas.

But generally how much you enjoy it will come down to how much you enjoy the combat system.

Bugs would have changed that, but I never came across a single one. You could up the score 5% for that novelty alone.

May be that this works in the example of KOA, but in a story and role play driven game you can't judge the whole thing on the demo. In the demo we saw kind of nothing of the whole game experience except the combat and the intro. Back to the example of ME1: Combat, well not a big deal but entertaining enough, intro wasn't that good either. At least for me the game was about the whole journey and not about combat or graphics or something else you could judge with a demo.

But we are going OT. About professional reviews I agree to someone who said that they are very subjective (is this a word in english?). You never can be sure if you really will like a game based on a review. You only can get an overview on the informations in the text, the score isn't that important, cause everybody thinks different... I'm sure there will be many people who will like ME3 and there also will be people who don't. And who is right then? All, cause we all are different. Same goes for reviews...

[The End1942]

OmegaSpartan91 wrote...

THAT sucks. I'm sure, even without playing it, that it deserves a perfect score.

No offense intended, but LOL @ this quote....