286 réponses à ce sujet

[dayvancowboy1]

i think people fail to understand that reviews are comparative. a game isn't given an absolute mark but rather a score that reflects how it compares to other game currently on the market.

say a reviewer gave ME3 a 10, what that means is that it is among the best games that came out recently(i assume the scale of comparison is the respective year in which the game was released), not that it's a perfect game that's without flaw.


and all in all i think the general agreement is that ME3 is one of the better games to come out in 2012.

[LinksOcarina]

dayvancowboy1 wrote...

i think people fail to understand that reviews are comparative. a game isn't given an absolute mark but rather a score that reflects how it compares to other game currently on the market.

say a reviewer gave ME3 a 10, what that means is that it is among the best games that came out recently(i assume the scale of comparison is the respective year in which the game was released), not that it's a perfect game that's without flaw.


and all in all i think the general agreement is that ME3 is one of the better games to come out in 2012.

Well, what is the mandate by the review sites? Basically, what do they say their score is supposed to reflect, comparisions to the current market or a watershed game that will be remembered for all time?

Knowing what the score is supposed to mean will dictate what the number means. Each website does it differently, and most do it from my experience that the games are among the best ever made, not how it compares to other games at that time. 

[Ridwan]

10/10 should only be given to games that are truly incredible, fun, polished, great sound, replayability, a good length and in some way or form creates a new way to experience a video game. An example to that would be the gravity gun in Half-Life 2. Or taking control over your minions in Dungeon Keeper.

[LinksOcarina]

M25105 wrote...

10/10 should only be given to games that are truly incredible, fun, polished, great sound, replayability, a good length and in some way or form creates a new way to experience a video game. An example to that would be the gravity gun in Half-Life 2. Or taking control over your minions in Dungeon Keeper.

by the definition you gave, Mass Effect 3 fits the bill. Or at the very least, Mass Effect as a trilogy. 

Although I will be honest, a 10/10 should be impossible to achieve. It should be what games strive for, but the minute something reaches perfection in every aspect of its design, then there is no need to achieve that perfection again, no need to try to make that 10/10. 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 13 juillet 2012 - 05:26 .

[Ridwan]

LinksOcarina wrote...

M25105 wrote...

10/10 should only be given to games that are truly incredible, fun, polished, great sound, replayability, a good length and in some way or form creates a new way to experience a video game. An example to that would be the gravity gun in Half-Life 2. Or taking control over your minions in Dungeon Keeper.

by the definition you gave, Mass Effect 3 fits the bill. Or at the very least, Mass Effect as a trilogy. 

Although I will be honest, a 10/10 should be impossible to achieve. 

How does it fit the bill?

Sound? Check.
Polished? No.
Replayability? Depends on the person playing it. But suffice to say that the series has been a singleplayer experience, and when it comes to the singleplayer experience Mass Effect 3 is the one you least want to replay due to incredible downer ending.
Creates something new? No.
Length? No.
Fun? Check.
Incredible? Well it's visually beautiful, but you're forced down one path, it's not like you can roam around and see things.

And we're not judging the series, we're judging the game.

And 10/10 is not impossible to achieve. I just requires a lot of work.

What's a 10/10 game?

Half-Life.
Dungeon Keeper.
Donkey Kong Country.
Team Fortress 2.
Civilization 2.


Games that are pretty close to 10/10

Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas.
Warcraft 3.
Total War: Shogun 2

Those are just examples. 10/10 and 9/10 shouldn't be given to games that can't fit the rule.

Modifié par M25105, 13 juillet 2012 - 05:35 .

[LinksOcarina]

M25105 wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

M25105 wrote...

10/10 should only be given to games that are truly incredible, fun, polished, great sound, replayability, a good length and in some way or form creates a new way to experience a video game. An example to that would be the gravity gun in Half-Life 2. Or taking control over your minions in Dungeon Keeper.

by the definition you gave, Mass Effect 3 fits the bill. Or at the very least, Mass Effect as a trilogy. 

Although I will be honest, a 10/10 should be impossible to achieve. 

How does it fit the bill?

Sound? Check.
Polished? No.
Replayability? Depends on the person playing it. But suffice to say that the series has been a singleplayer experience, and when it comes to the singleplayer experience Mass Effect 3 is the one you least want to replay due to incredible downer ending.
Creates something new? No.
Length? No.
Fun? Check.
Incredible? Well it's visually beautiful, but you're forced down one path, it's not like you can roam around and see things.

And we're not judging the series, we're judging the game.

I judge the series, because the series is a 3-piece set.

Length is debatable, what is an adequate length for a good game anyway? 20 hours? 30? The average length of a game is around 12, and back in the 1990s it was maybe 8-9 if you knew how to play it. Hell, Half-Life 2 was beatable in 15 hours. Is that not short enough when Mass Effect 3 can take on average 25-35 hours?

Polished is also a loaded term as well. Were the games graphical asethetics working properly? Did they fit the series, was there an insignificant amount of bugs found? You can say you found bugs on it yeah, hell I encounted only two the entire game, one for the multiplayer and one for the single-player. However, other games get a pass on their bugs all the time and still get perfect scores. Skyrim by volume alone is an example. Red Dead Redemption back in the day had similar problems. 

So whats the real barometer here? 

As for creating something new....ok you are right there. Mass Effect 1 did that. But like I said, this is a 3-piece set here from my perspective. A flawed 3-piece set, but an important 3-piece set. 

10/10 is not impossible to achieve. I just requires a lot of work.

What's a 10/10 game?

Half-Life.
Dungeon Keeper.
Donkey Kong Country.
Team Fortress 2.
Civilization 2.


Games that are pretty close to 10/10

Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas.
Warcraft 3.
Total War: Shogun 2

Those are just examples. 10/10 and 9/10 shouldn't be given to games that can't fit the rule.

 

So what makes those games there a 10/10? How do you discern Civilization 2 from DOnkey Kong Country as pillars of the gaming world, when they have different criteria to even achive that threshold. 

What makes the other 3 pretty close, when most of them being sequels or PC only titles added very little to their genres except more features and, at times, unecessary features as well. 

Seriously, why are they perfect, why do they fit the "rules" you set up? 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 13 juillet 2012 - 05:42 .

[Ridwan]

LinksOcarina wrote...

M25105 wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

M25105 wrote...

10/10 should only be given to games that are truly incredible, fun, polished, great sound, replayability, a good length and in some way or form creates a new way to experience a video game. An example to that would be the gravity gun in Half-Life 2. Or taking control over your minions in Dungeon Keeper.

by the definition you gave, Mass Effect 3 fits the bill. Or at the very least, Mass Effect as a trilogy. 

Although I will be honest, a 10/10 should be impossible to achieve. 

How does it fit the bill?

Sound? Check.
Polished? No.
Replayability? Depends on the person playing it. But suffice to say that the series has been a singleplayer experience, and when it comes to the singleplayer experience Mass Effect 3 is the one you least want to replay due to incredible downer ending.
Creates something new? No.
Length? No.
Fun? Check.
Incredible? Well it's visually beautiful, but you're forced down one path, it's not like you can roam around and see things.

And we're not judging the series, we're judging the game.

I judge the series, because the series is a 3-piece set.

Length is debatable, what is an adequate length for a good game anyway? 20 hours? 30? The average length of a game is around 12, and back in the 1990s it was maybe 8-9 if you knew how to play it. Hell, Half-Life 2 was beatable in 15 hours. Is that not short enough when Mass Effect 3 can take on average 25-35 hours?

Polished is also a loaded term as well. Were the games graphical asethetics working properly? Did they fit the series, was there an insignificant amount of bugs found? You can say you found bugs on it yeah, hell I encounted only two the entire game, one for the multiplayer and one for the single-player. However, other games get a pass on their bugs all the time and still get perfect scores. Skyrim by volume alone is an example. Red Dead Redemption back in the day had similar problems. 

So whats the real barometer here? 

As for creating something new....ok you are right there. Mass Effect 1 did that. But like I said, this is a 3-piece set here from my perspective. A flawed 3-piece set, but an important 3-piece set. 

You won't find anyone rating a game based on a combined set and if they do, they've failed at their jobs miserably. You rate the game you got infront of you, if it's a sequel to another game, then you compare it to the previous. What changes did they made? Did they keep the good stuff? Did they improve the bad stuff? Did they get rid of the annoying stuff? And so on and so on.

[LinksOcarina]

M25105 wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

M25105 wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

M25105 wrote...

10/10 should only be given to games that are truly incredible, fun, polished, great sound, replayability, a good length and in some way or form creates a new way to experience a video game. An example to that would be the gravity gun in Half-Life 2. Or taking control over your minions in Dungeon Keeper.

by the definition you gave, Mass Effect 3 fits the bill. Or at the very least, Mass Effect as a trilogy. 

Although I will be honest, a 10/10 should be impossible to achieve. 

How does it fit the bill?

Sound? Check.
Polished? No.
Replayability? Depends on the person playing it. But suffice to say that the series has been a singleplayer experience, and when it comes to the singleplayer experience Mass Effect 3 is the one you least want to replay due to incredible downer ending.
Creates something new? No.
Length? No.
Fun? Check.
Incredible? Well it's visually beautiful, but you're forced down one path, it's not like you can roam around and see things.

And we're not judging the series, we're judging the game.

I judge the series, because the series is a 3-piece set.

Length is debatable, what is an adequate length for a good game anyway? 20 hours? 30? The average length of a game is around 12, and back in the 1990s it was maybe 8-9 if you knew how to play it. Hell, Half-Life 2 was beatable in 15 hours. Is that not short enough when Mass Effect 3 can take on average 25-35 hours?

Polished is also a loaded term as well. Were the games graphical asethetics working properly? Did they fit the series, was there an insignificant amount of bugs found? You can say you found bugs on it yeah, hell I encounted only two the entire game, one for the multiplayer and one for the single-player. However, other games get a pass on their bugs all the time and still get perfect scores. Skyrim by volume alone is an example. Red Dead Redemption back in the day had similar problems. 

So whats the real barometer here? 

As for creating something new....ok you are right there. Mass Effect 1 did that. But like I said, this is a 3-piece set here from my perspective. A flawed 3-piece set, but an important 3-piece set. 

You won't find anyone rating a game based on a combined set and if they do, they've failed at their jobs miserably. You rate the game you got infront of you, if it's a sequel to another game, then you compare it to the previous. What changes did they made? Did they keep the good stuff? Did they improve the bad stuff? Did they get rid of the annoying stuff? And so on and so on.

I did.  and I did so by comparing it. So yeah, I see no failure in this. 

[Xeranx]

M25105 wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

M25105 wrote...

10/10 should only be given to games that are truly incredible, fun, polished, great sound, replayability, a good length and in some way or form creates a new way to experience a video game. An example to that would be the gravity gun in Half-Life 2. Or taking control over your minions in Dungeon Keeper.

by the definition you gave, Mass Effect 3 fits the bill. Or at the very least, Mass Effect as a trilogy. 

Although I will be honest, a 10/10 should be impossible to achieve. 

How does it fit the bill?

Sound? Check.
Polished? No.
Replayability? Depends on the person playing it. But suffice to say that the series has been a singleplayer experience, and when it comes to the singleplayer experience Mass Effect 3 is the one you least want to replay due to incredible downer ending.
Creates something new? No.
Length? No.
Fun? Check.
Incredible? Well it's visually beautiful, but you're forced down one path, it's not like you can roam around and see things.

And we're not judging the series, we're judging the game.

And 10/10 is not impossible to achieve. I just requires a lot of work.

What's a 10/10 game?

Half-Life.
Dungeon Keeper.
Donkey Kong Country.
Team Fortress 2.
Civilization 2.


Games that are pretty close to 10/10

Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas.
Warcraft 3.
Total War: Shogun 2

Those are just examples. 10/10 and 9/10 shouldn't be given to games that can't fit the rule.

I just want to amend the bit in bold if I may.  While the ending can and may be the factor that drags the game/trilogy down, I feel it was just as Conniving_Eagle said a few pages ago, that the reduction of dialogue (another gameplay aspect for Mass Effect) does more to hurt the game.  For me it was like this.

I have a number of Shepards who may have the same or different backgrounds.  All of them have different reasons for why they joined the Alliance that fit in well with what was stated in the background blurbs.  All of them also have different motivations for the things they do and how they act.  One has a blood thirsty view towards Batarians because she lost her family on Mindoir and another who got involved due to the Mindoir issue doesn't have that view.  In fact, her personality is completely different and was made to be even more pronounced with the event on Akuze.

Everything fuels and fueled every dialogue choice I made in the games even if they made the same made the same exact choices (I'm sure choices overlapped, but I'm unsure as to which ones).  ME3 tossess the baby out with the bath water and tub in regards to that.  It severely limits the already limited avenue for roleplay (which got smaller from the first to the second to the third) to such a point that I had one run and that's all I can muster.  So, by the time I got to the ending, it just didn't matter.  Had I had the same wide avenue of roleplay I had in the first game, and the ending was as it was, I might have felt differently.  As it is, I can't share the view of others on the ending precisely because I feel the investment I made to numerous play throughs was dashed.  In the end, the ending is a non-factor for me.

**EDIT**

And I just want to reiterate this since people still say that a 10/10 means close to perfect when, if taken literally, doesn't mean that at all.  Using 10/10 to state a figurative is using the number scale dishonestly as far as I'm concerned.  When EA released that ad that talked about perfect scores, who read that and thought EA meant that ME3 was as close to perfect as possible?

I view a 10/10 scale the same way I do a score on a test.  10/10 means there's nothing else that could be done to get 11-12/10, bascially do better.  There's no more work to be done and it's perfect as is.  I believe that anyone who uses a scale to rate anything and states that a "perfect score" is the equivalent of saying "close to perfect" is intentionally trying to mislead the audience.  Perfection does not mean almost.

Modifié par Xeranx, 13 juillet 2012 - 05:57 .

[Ridwan]

LinksOcarina wrote...

So what makes those games there a 10/10? How do you discern Civilization 2 from DOnkey Kong Country as pillars of the gaming world, when they have different criteria to even achive that threshold. 

What makes the other 3 pretty close, when most of them being sequels or PC only titles added very little to their genres except more features and, at times, unecessary features as well. 

Seriously, why are they perfect, why do they fit the "rules" you set up? 

They're the best in their own genre. Donkey Kong Country is polished, visually beautiful, great sound and music appropriate for the leves, easy to learn and get into to. Riding the animals you can get, such as the Rhino. The ability to change characters in the game, nice length and definately fun and incredible. And despite it being a sidescroller it's more open than modern games as you jump around trying to get to secret places.

[dayvancowboy1]

LinksOcarina wrote...

dayvancowboy1 wrote...

i think people fail to understand that reviews are comparative. a game isn't given an absolute mark but rather a score that reflects how it compares to other game currently on the market.

say a reviewer gave ME3 a 10, what that means is that it is among the best games that came out recently(i assume the scale of comparison is the respective year in which the game was released), not that it's a perfect game that's without flaw.


and all in all i think the general agreement is that ME3 is one of the better games to come out in 2012.

Well, what is the mandate by the review sites? Basically, what do they say their score is supposed to reflect, comparisions to the current market or a watershed game that will be remembered for all time?

Knowing what the score is supposed to mean will dictate what the number means. Each website does it differently, and most do it from my experience that the games are among the best ever made, not how it compares to other games at that time. 

well my experience is quite the opossite. even 10's aren't labeled as best in history or anything like that. just best at the time of the review. and also that 10 doesn't mean perfect or flawless, just best in class at the time.

here's how IGN and Gamespot define a 10:

IGN - "10.0 - Masterpiece[/u]The pinnacle of gaming, a masterpiece may not be flawless, but it is so exceptional that it is hard to imagine a game being better. At the time of its release, this game is the not just the best the system can offer, but better than we could have expected."

Gamespot  - "10.0: PrimeThis exceedingly rare score refers to a game that is as perfect as a game can aspire to be at its time of release. Obviously, the constantly changing standards for technology and gameplay will probably make this game obsolete some day, but at its time of release, a game earning this score could not have been improved upon in any meaningful way."

there are others like this too, Eurogamer, PSX extreme etc... CBA to quote them though. anyway, i'd be surprised if you'll find a review site that says their scores are absolute or that 10 means the game is a masterpiece of perfection. in all honesty, a 10(or any score) isn't even encompassing the entire spectrum of genres at any given time. as i've said, it's all completely comparative and based on what's relevant right now.

also for the record, ME3 got a 9 at both IGN and Gamespot. 

Modifié par dayvancowboy1, 13 juillet 2012 - 05:57 .

[LinksOcarina]

M25105 wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

So what makes those games there a 10/10? How do you discern Civilization 2 from DOnkey Kong Country as pillars of the gaming world, when they have different criteria to even achive that threshold. 

What makes the other 3 pretty close, when most of them being sequels or PC only titles added very little to their genres except more features and, at times, unecessary features as well. 

Seriously, why are they perfect, why do they fit the "rules" you set up? 

They're the best in their own genre. Donkey Kong Country is polished, visually beautiful, great sound and music appropriate for the leves, easy to learn and get into to. Riding the animals you can get, such as the Rhino. The ability to change characters in the game, nice length and definately fun and incredible. And despite it being a sidescroller it's more open than modern games as you jump around trying to get to secret places.

Ahh, so its an opinion basically?

dayvancowboy1 wrote...

well my experience is quite the opossite. even 10's aren't labeled as best in history or anything like that. just best at the time of the review. and also that 10 doesn't mean perfect or flawless, just best in class at the time.

here's how IGN and Gamespot define a 10:

IGN - "10.0 - Masterpiece[/u]The pinnacle of gaming, a masterpiece may not be flawless, but it is so exceptional that it is hard to imagine a game being better. At the time of its release, this game is the not just the best the system can offer, but better than we could have expected."

Gamespot  - "10.0: PrimeThis exceedingly rare score refers to a game that is as perfect as a game can aspire to be at its time of release. Obviously, the constantly changing standards for technology and gameplay will probably make this game obsolete some day, but at its time of release, a game earning this score could not have been improved upon in any meaningful way."

there are others like this too, Eurogamer, PSX extreme etc... CBA to quote them though. anyway, i'd be surprised if you'll find a review site that says their scores are absolute or that 10 means the game is a masterpiece of perfection. and for the record ME3 got a 9 both at IGN and Gamespot.

 

I highlighted the key words there that make some of these somewhat conflicting statements. It also doesn't help much when you have aggregate sites like Metacritic that filter out the intent of the numbers and bring instead a hard number to follow. But, it seems you are right that most sites point out that fact, which is interesting because a few years back most sites never had a mandate for their grading system. 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 13 juillet 2012 - 05:59 .

[Ridwan]

LinksOcarina wrote...

M25105 wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

So what makes those games there a 10/10? How do you discern Civilization 2 from DOnkey Kong Country as pillars of the gaming world, when they have different criteria to even achive that threshold. 

What makes the other 3 pretty close, when most of them being sequels or PC only titles added very little to their genres except more features and, at times, unecessary features as well. 

Seriously, why are they perfect, why do they fit the "rules" you set up? 

They're the best in their own genre. Donkey Kong Country is polished, visually beautiful, great sound and music appropriate for the leves, easy to learn and get into to. Riding the animals you can get, such as the Rhino. The ability to change characters in the game, nice length and definately fun and incredible. And despite it being a sidescroller it's more open than modern games as you jump around trying to get to secret places.

Ahh, so its an opinion basically?

Mine and many others. And everything I wrote is there in the game to be experienced. From the music to the different levels varying in design.

[LinksOcarina]

M25105 wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

M25105 wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

So what makes those games there a 10/10? How do you discern Civilization 2 from DOnkey Kong Country as pillars of the gaming world, when they have different criteria to even achive that threshold. 

What makes the other 3 pretty close, when most of them being sequels or PC only titles added very little to their genres except more features and, at times, unecessary features as well. 

Seriously, why are they perfect, why do they fit the "rules" you set up? 

They're the best in their own genre. Donkey Kong Country is polished, visually beautiful, great sound and music appropriate for the leves, easy to learn and get into to. Riding the animals you can get, such as the Rhino. The ability to change characters in the game, nice length and definately fun and incredible. And despite it being a sidescroller it's more open than modern games as you jump around trying to get to secret places.

Ahh, so its an opinion basically?

Mine and many others. And everything I wrote is there in the game to be experienced. From the music to the different levels varying in design.

I know, I played it. Pretty good, but DKC 2 was a better game. 

[dayvancowboy1]

LinksOcarina wrote...

M25105 wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

So what makes those games there a 10/10? How do you discern Civilization 2 from DOnkey Kong Country as pillars of the gaming world, when they have different criteria to even achive that threshold. 

What makes the other 3 pretty close, when most of them being sequels or PC only titles added very little to their genres except more features and, at times, unecessary features as well. 

Seriously, why are they perfect, why do they fit the "rules" you set up? 

They're the best in their own genre. Donkey Kong Country is polished, visually beautiful, great sound and music appropriate for the leves, easy to learn and get into to. Riding the animals you can get, such as the Rhino. The ability to change characters in the game, nice length and definately fun and incredible. And despite it being a sidescroller it's more open than modern games as you jump around trying to get to secret places. 

Ahh, so its an opinion basically?

dayvancowboy1 wrote...

well my experience is quite the opossite. even 10's aren't labeled as best in history or anything like that. just best at the time of the review. and also that 10 doesn't mean perfect or flawless, just best in class at the time.

here's how IGN and Gamespot define a 10:

IGN - "10.0 - Masterpiece[/u]The pinnacle of gaming, a masterpiece may not be flawless, but it is so exceptional that it is hard to imagine a game being better. At the time of its release, this game is the not just the best the system can offer, but better than we could have expected."

Gamespot  - "10.0: PrimeThis exceedingly rare score refers to a game that is as perfect as a game can aspire to be at its time of release. Obviously, the constantly changing standards for technology and gameplay will probably make this game obsolete some day, but at its time of release, a game earning this score could not have been improved upon in any meaningful way."

there are others like this too, Eurogamer, PSX extreme etc... CBA to quote them though. anyway, i'd be surprised if you'll find a review site that says their scores are absolute or that 10 means the game is a masterpiece of perfection. and for the record ME3 got a 9 both at IGN and Gamespot.

 

I highlighted the key words there that make some of these somewhat conflicting statements. It also doesn't help much when you have aggregate sites like Metacritic that filter out the intent of the numbers and bring instead a hard number to follow. But, it seems you are right that most sites point out that fact, which is interesting because a few years back most sites never had a mandate for their grading system. 

yeah reviews are opinions. what's the problem with that? reviews have always been professional opinions.

i don't see what's confliting about your higlights. "at the time of release". meaning given the current relative present this game is best in class. two years ago it might not have been, 3 years from now it might be considered junk, but right now the reviewer couldn't come up with a game in the genre that he considered to be better.

also try to ignore vapid statements like "pinnacle of gaming" obv it's just there for the hype.

Modifié par dayvancowboy1, 13 juillet 2012 - 06:07 .

[Alamar2078]

Honestly I think we the consumer are getting exactly what we [as a whole] deserve in terms of games and game review sites.

In this case if we consumers accept games with bugs in them and allow companies to get away with fixing them later [or sometimes never] then it shouldn't be surprising that this is what we get.

If we as consumers don't demand totally impartial reviews from reviewers that don't benefit whatsoever by ad revenue then we shouldn't be surprised that virtually every AAA title with a big ad budget gets a 9+.

It's simple cause & effect. Nobody has to be evil ... unfortunately this would be the natural evolution of things if we as the consumer don't set certain standards.

Therefore we have nobody [really] to blame but ourselves.

/Rant over

[LinksOcarina]

dayvancowboy1 wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

M25105 wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

So what makes those games there a 10/10? How do you discern Civilization 2 from DOnkey Kong Country as pillars of the gaming world, when they have different criteria to even achive that threshold. 

What makes the other 3 pretty close, when most of them being sequels or PC only titles added very little to their genres except more features and, at times, unecessary features as well. 

Seriously, why are they perfect, why do they fit the "rules" you set up? 

They're the best in their own genre. Donkey Kong Country is polished, visually beautiful, great sound and music appropriate for the leves, easy to learn and get into to. Riding the animals you can get, such as the Rhino. The ability to change characters in the game, nice length and definately fun and incredible. And despite it being a sidescroller it's more open than modern games as you jump around trying to get to secret places.

Ahh, so its an opinion basically?

ummm... yeah? do you know a medium where reviews aren't opinions?

No. I'm pointing out the audacity of an absolute truth that M25 is touting basically.

[dayvancowboy1]

LinksOcarina wrote...

M25105 wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

So what makes those games there a 10/10? How do you discern Civilization 2 from DOnkey Kong Country as pillars of the gaming world, when they have different criteria to even achive that threshold. 

What makes the other 3 pretty close, when most of them being sequels or PC only titles added very little to their genres except more features and, at times, unecessary features as well. 

Seriously, why are they perfect, why do they fit the "rules" you set up? 

They're the best in their own genre. Donkey Kong Country is polished, visually beautiful, great sound and music appropriate for the leves, easy to learn and get into to. Riding the animals you can get, such as the Rhino. The ability to change characters in the game, nice length and definately fun and incredible. And despite it being a sidescroller it's more open than modern games as you jump around trying to get to secret places.

Ahh, so its an opinion basically?

dayvancowboy1 wrote...

well my experience is quite the opossite. even 10's aren't labeled as best in history or anything like that. just best at the time of the review. and also that 10 doesn't mean perfect or flawless, just best in class at the time.

here's how IGN and Gamespot define a 10:

IGN - "10.0 - Masterpiece[/u]The pinnacle of gaming, a masterpiece may not be flawless, but it is so exceptional that it is hard to imagine a game being better. At the time of its release, this game is the not just the best the system can offer, but better than we could have expected."

Gamespot  - "10.0: PrimeThis exceedingly rare score refers to a game that is as perfect as a game can aspire to be at its time of release. Obviously, the constantly changing standards for technology and gameplay will probably make this game obsolete some day, but at its time of release, a game earning this score could not have been improved upon in any meaningful way."

there are others like this too, Eurogamer, PSX extreme etc... CBA to quote them though. anyway, i'd be surprised if you'll find a review site that says their scores are absolute or that 10 means the game is a masterpiece of perfection. and for the record ME3 got a 9 both at IGN and Gamespot.

 

I highlighted the key words there that make some of these somewhat conflicting statements. It also doesn't help much when you have aggregate sites like Metacritic that filter out the intent of the numbers and bring instead a hard number to follow. But, it seems you are right that most sites point out that fact, which is interesting because a few years back most sites never had a mandate for their grading system. 

yeah reviews are opinions. what's the problem with that? reviews have always been professional opinions.

i don't see what's confliting about your higlights. "at the time of release". meaning given the current relative present this game is best in class. two years ago it might not have been, 3 years from now it might be considered junk, but right now the reviewer couldn't come up with a game in the genre that he considered to be better.

also try to ignore vapid statements like "pinnacle of gaming" obv it's just there for the hype.

[Ridwan]

LinksOcarina wrote...

dayvancowboy1 wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

M25105 wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

So what makes those games there a 10/10? How do you discern Civilization 2 from DOnkey Kong Country as pillars of the gaming world, when they have different criteria to even achive that threshold. 

What makes the other 3 pretty close, when most of them being sequels or PC only titles added very little to their genres except more features and, at times, unecessary features as well. 

Seriously, why are they perfect, why do they fit the "rules" you set up? 

They're the best in their own genre. Donkey Kong Country is polished, visually beautiful, great sound and music appropriate for the leves, easy to learn and get into to. Riding the animals you can get, such as the Rhino. The ability to change characters in the game, nice length and definately fun and incredible. And despite it being a sidescroller it's more open than modern games as you jump around trying to get to secret places.

Ahh, so its an opinion basically?

ummm... yeah? do you know a medium where reviews aren't opinions?

No. I'm pointing out the audacity of an absolute truth that M25 is touting basically.

Name me the flaws of Donkey Kong Country.

This forum is filled with threads on what's wrong with Mass Effect 3, from gameplay issues to stories (and since the game takes great pride in its story that's valid criticsm), can you say the same for Donkey Kong Country? If you honestly think Mass Effect 3 deserves a 10/10 then you might as well say an WV Passat from 1996 is better than a Audi A8, cause you have some sort of emotional attachment to the WV.

You're ignoring the issues infront of you, it's not an opinion, that Mass Effect 3 has it's flaws. IT'S THERE TO SEE.

[Persephone]

Yeah. I can't understand why Skyrim got any.

But hey, that's about a game I dislike, so that makes it a universal fact.

/Sarcasm

What it boils down to is: Reviews, no matter by whom, are opinions. Never impartial, unbiased or facts.

To me ME3 is a 9/10. Skyrim a 5/10 and everybody's doll RPG Planescape Torment the dullest dud ever.

And I have been an RPG gamer for 20 years, love many of the classics as well as more recent releases.

[LinksOcarina]

M25105 wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

dayvancowboy1 wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

M25105 wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

So what makes those games there a 10/10? How do you discern Civilization 2 from DOnkey Kong Country as pillars of the gaming world, when they have different criteria to even achive that threshold. 

What makes the other 3 pretty close, when most of them being sequels or PC only titles added very little to their genres except more features and, at times, unecessary features as well. 

Seriously, why are they perfect, why do they fit the "rules" you set up? 

They're the best in their own genre. Donkey Kong Country is polished, visually beautiful, great sound and music appropriate for the leves, easy to learn and get into to. Riding the animals you can get, such as the Rhino. The ability to change characters in the game, nice length and definately fun and incredible. And despite it being a sidescroller it's more open than modern games as you jump around trying to get to secret places.

Ahh, so its an opinion basically?

ummm... yeah? do you know a medium where reviews aren't opinions?

No. I'm pointing out the audacity of an absolute truth that M25 is touting basically.

Name me the flaws of Donkey Kong Country.

This forum is filled with threads on what's wrong with Mass Effect 3, from gameplay issues to stories (and since the game takes great pride in its story that's valid criticsm), can you say the same for Donkey Kong Country? If you honestly think Mass Effect 3 deserves a 10/10 then you might as well say an WV Passat from 1996 is better than a Audi A8, cause you have some sort of emotional attachment to the WV.

You're ignoring the issues infront of you, it's not an opinion, that Mass Effect 3 has it's flaws. IT'S THERE TO SEE.

?

I'm just confused now. Of course Mass Effect has flaws, and of course it doesn't deserve a 10/10. Did you even read the review I linked? 

But so does Donkey Kong Country. Slippery jump mechanics, overall low difficulty meaning the game had no challenge to it. Lack of replayability except to compete for freinds or finding secret areas. Uninspired boss battles. And if you want me to be totally honest, the level design was lackluster when compared to the two sequels, which had a more varied design. So other than an apples to oranges comparison here (because DKC, lets face it, is a different game on a different criteria) you have me being a part of, you missed the point completely. 

So like I said, everything has flaws to it. Even those two random cars you mentioned, which I have no idea what the differences are.  

[Persephone]

M25105 wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

dayvancowboy1 wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

M25105 wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

So what makes those games there a 10/10? How do you discern Civilization 2 from DOnkey Kong Country as pillars of the gaming world, when they have different criteria to even achive that threshold. 

What makes the other 3 pretty close, when most of them being sequels or PC only titles added very little to their genres except more features and, at times, unecessary features as well. 

Seriously, why are they perfect, why do they fit the "rules" you set up? 

They're the best in their own genre. Donkey Kong Country is polished, visually beautiful, great sound and music appropriate for the leves, easy to learn and get into to. Riding the animals you can get, such as the Rhino. The ability to change characters in the game, nice length and definately fun and incredible. And despite it being a sidescroller it's more open than modern games as you jump around trying to get to secret places.

Ahh, so its an opinion basically?

ummm... yeah? do you know a medium where reviews aren't opinions?

No. I'm pointing out the audacity of an absolute truth that M25 is touting basically.

Name me the flaws of Donkey Kong Country.

You're ignoring the issues infront of you, it's not an opinion, that Mass Effect 3 has it's flaws. IT'S THERE TO SEE.

1) I hate monkeys. Not my genre. Story? What story is there in DKC? And why compare apples to oranges? Are we comparing Frank Sinatra to Placido Domingo next, just because they were both singers? (With their fair shares of dissenters)

2) Every game has them. EVERY SINGLE ONE.

[LinksOcarina]

dayvancowboy1 wrote...

yeah reviews are opinions. what's the problem with that? reviews have always been professional opinions.

i don't see what's confliting about your higlights. "at the time of release". meaning given the current relative present this game is best in class. two years ago it might not have been, 3 years from now it might be considered junk, but right now the reviewer couldn't come up with a game in the genre that he considered to be better.

also try to ignore vapid statements like "pinnacle of gaming" obv it's just there for the hype.

Nothing is wrong with that, except that most of the time reviewers show no professionalism nor any subtlety in saying WHY they think that opinion. It's basically an issue of bad writing conveying emotions, and using those vapid statements like "pinnacle of gaming" that reflect the culture and what they look for. 

In other words, those statements don't stay hype, they become the truth, even though they shouldn't. 

[N7 Banshee Bait]

M25105 wrote...

• Insanity is hard, but still doable for an experienced gamer.

Insanity was easy except for all those damned Cerberus grenades.  I got killed by grenades 90% of the time. Stay in cover=get killed by the grenade. Jump out of cover=get killed by everything else.
Where's the throw it back option? 

Modifié par Steelgrave, 13 juillet 2012 - 06:19 .

[Ridwan]

Persephone wrote...

M25105 wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

dayvancowboy1 wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

M25105 wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

So what makes those games there a 10/10? How do you discern Civilization 2 from DOnkey Kong Country as pillars of the gaming world, when they have different criteria to even achive that threshold. 

What makes the other 3 pretty close, when most of them being sequels or PC only titles added very little to their genres except more features and, at times, unecessary features as well. 

Seriously, why are they perfect, why do they fit the "rules" you set up? 

They're the best in their own genre. Donkey Kong Country is polished, visually beautiful, great sound and music appropriate for the leves, easy to learn and get into to. Riding the animals you can get, such as the Rhino. The ability to change characters in the game, nice length and definately fun and incredible. And despite it being a sidescroller it's more open than modern games as you jump around trying to get to secret places.

Ahh, so its an opinion basically?

ummm... yeah? do you know a medium where reviews aren't opinions?

No. I'm pointing out the audacity of an absolute truth that M25 is touting basically.

Name me the flaws of Donkey Kong Country.

You're ignoring the issues infront of you, it's not an opinion, that Mass Effect 3 has it's flaws. IT'S THERE TO SEE.

1) I hate monkeys. Not my genre. Story? What story is there in DKC? And why compare apples to oranges? Are we comparing Frank Sinatra to Placido Domingo next, just because they were both singers? (With their fair shares of dissenters)

2) Every game has them. EVERY SINGLE ONE.

This is about why Donkey Kong Country is a 10/10 game in the platform genre. Something that I already stated in my earlier posts.