286 réponses à ce sujet

[Ridwan]

LinksOcarina 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.

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.  

I never had a single problem with the jump mechanics, ever. Neither did anyone I know who's played it. The only hard thing about jumping was when you rolled in a barrel, the ice levels or maybe the mining levels. Lackluster level designs compared to the sequels? Do you understand that if you create a blueprint of something, then of course it's going to improve? And last it's a game for kids and the family, how hard should it be? Ninja Gaiden hard?

Edit: Forgot some words.

Modifié par M25105, 13 juillet 2012 - 06:36 .

[Ridwan]

By the way, Ocarina, while I don't agree with you, in our current discussion on what makes a 10/10 game, you didn't mark out like a crazy fan boy in your review and had the decency to give it an appropriate score (I just finished reading your review).

Thumbs up for that.

Modifié par M25105, 13 juillet 2012 - 07:16 .

[Xeranx]

Filament wrote...

There's no such thing as perfection in games, treating 10/10 as such will always lead to disappointment. Treating it as an indicator of a very good game is more realistic, and IMO ME3 fits its aggregate score fairly well. But there is no uniform set of criteria for what constitutes a very good game.

It's not honest though.  9/10 does way more to imply a very good game rather than 10/10 does if you're going to use the 10/10 means it's close to perfection.  Again, 10/10 literally states perfection.  9/10 states very good or even excellent, but it could be better.

As people are saying and as people know, a review is strictly an opinion piece.  Reviews should be honest about the opinion they present.  10/10 when you think it comes close to perfect doesn't make sense.  9/10 reflects that better.  So why the double talk?  Why spin what 10/10 literally represents and, in turn, diminish its meaning?

Modifié par Xeranx, 13 juillet 2012 - 06:47 .

[LaughingDragon]

Donkey Kong Country was very, very good. It impressed.

Modifié par LaughingDragon, 13 juillet 2012 - 06:52 .

[LinksOcarina]

M25105 wrote...

LinksOcarina 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.

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.  

I never had a single problem with the jump mechanics, ever. Neither did anyone I know who's played it. The only hard thing about jumping was when you rolled in a barrel, the ice levels or maybe the mining levels. Lackluster level designs compared to the sequels? Do you understand that if you create a blueprint of something, then of course it's going to improve? And last it's a game for kids and the family, how hard should it be? Ninja Gaiden hard?

Edit: Forgot some words.

Its fine.

I should probably clarify when I say slippery. My fault there, basically, you need precision on jumps to get through some platforming bits, and the problem is that too much flicks of the d-pad leaves dead momentum, meaning you just stop where you are in a dead heat instead of gradually slowing down, making run jumps a chore. It shows no momentum basically (yeah, slippery is probably not the best term to use, sorrt.)

 They compensated by making jumping arcs further though, but its just one thing I noticed that was different (or similar) to most platforming games following the Mario school of design at the time. 

The ice levels were perhaps the best part of the game because of the simulated slipperyness. But I digress...

In terms of difficulty, thats subjective. got to remember that games from the past were meant for kids yes, but were artificially hard to double their length. Most games were about that at the time, and usually the mark of a good game was striking a balance in believable difficulty based on level design and player ability. 

Anyway, thank you for reading the review and the thumbs up, I do appreciate that. 

[LinksOcarina]

Xeranx wrote...

Filament wrote...

There's no such thing as perfection in games, treating 10/10 as such will always lead to disappointment. Treating it as an indicator of a very good game is more realistic, and IMO ME3 fits its aggregate score fairly well. But there is no uniform set of criteria for what constitutes a very good game.

It's not honest though.  9/10 does way more to imply a very good game rather than 10/10 does if you're going to use the 10/10 means it's close to perfection.  Again, 10/10 literally states perfection.  9/10 states very good or even excellent, but it could be better.

As people are saying and as people know, a review is strictly an opinion piece.  Reviews should be honest about the opinion they present.  10/10 when you think it comes close to perfect doesn't make sense.  9/10 reflects that better.  So why the double talk?  Why spin what 10/10 literally represents and, in turn, diminish its meaning?

Thats the point ive been making, more or less. 

[D3SM0ND0]

The contempt and cynicism in which gamer sights/magazines held the gamers (us) for daring not to like the ending of ME3 really rankled me, which has just added to the overwhelming disappointment of ME3. For what its worth I'd give ME3 a 6, before and after EC.

For gamer sites and magazines to dish out perfect 10/10 scores just whiffs of cronyism. Anyone who has given ME3 a perfect 10 has to have their judgement questioned, I just cannot see how it warrants it. That just my humble opinion though, like or lump it

[atalair]

for me mass effect 3 is an 8, its a good game but have a lot of flaws,if it wasn't part of the mass effect series i would give it a 6.75. isn't GOTY material for sure

Modifié par atalair, 13 juillet 2012 - 08:24 .

[Xeranx]

Filament wrote...

Xeranx wrote...

As people are saying and as people know, a review is strictly an opinion piece.  Reviews should be honest about the opinion they present.  10/10 when you think it comes close to perfect doesn't make sense.  9/10 reflects that better.  So why the double talk?  Why spin what 10/10 literally represents and, in turn, diminish its meaning?

It's not double-talk. It's what you get when you ask different people with different values to reduce the entirety of a complex work down to a numeric scale. If I had to rate things on a 10 point scale or a 5 star scale, I wouldn't mind giving something a 10 or 5 stars if I considered it among the best in the genre, even if it wasn't perfect. Maybe such scales should be done away with entirely for being too flawed as an approximation given there's no universal rule for how they should be determined, but as long as they're here we can't do anything but interpret them with caution.

I wish the numerical scale was done away with myself.  Let a review be a review and let people decide what to make of it.  I haven't watched any of Siskel and Ebert when Siskel was still alive, but I remember that them giving two thumbs up was a acknoledgement of how good they thought a movie was.  I don't remember hearing anything else in regards to that (one thumb up, maybe two thumbs down...maybe).  So as far as I knew, there wasn't a numerical identifier for any movie they viewed.  And if I remember correctly, Joe Segel (then on ABC) would just give his opinion on what he thought of a movie for a small segment or a show he had.  I don't remember any numerical ratings.  The papers, however, would give star ratings and still do today.

I'd be happy if I never saw another numerical rating for anything ever again unless it was the wyht-y (would you hit that) scale.  Nostalgia of my youth.

[LinksOcarina]

Xeranx wrote...

Filament wrote...

Xeranx wrote...

As people are saying and as people know, a review is strictly an opinion piece.  Reviews should be honest about the opinion they present.  10/10 when you think it comes close to perfect doesn't make sense.  9/10 reflects that better.  So why the double talk?  Why spin what 10/10 literally represents and, in turn, diminish its meaning?

It's not double-talk. It's what you get when you ask different people with different values to reduce the entirety of a complex work down to a numeric scale. If I had to rate things on a 10 point scale or a 5 star scale, I wouldn't mind giving something a 10 or 5 stars if I considered it among the best in the genre, even if it wasn't perfect. Maybe such scales should be done away with entirely for being too flawed as an approximation given there's no universal rule for how they should be determined, but as long as they're here we can't do anything but interpret them with caution.

I wish the numerical scale was done away with myself.  Let a review be a review and let people decide what to make of it.  I haven't watched any of Siskel and Ebert when Siskel was still alive, but I remember that them giving two thumbs up was a acknoledgement of how good they thought a movie was.  I don't remember hearing anything else in regards to that (one thumb up, maybe two thumbs down...maybe).  So as far as I knew, there wasn't a numerical identifier for any movie they viewed.  And if I remember correctly, Joe Segel (then on ABC) would just give his opinion on what he thought of a movie for a small segment or a show he had.  I don't remember any numerical ratings.  The papers, however, would give star ratings and still do today.

I'd be happy if I never saw another numerical rating for anything ever again unless it was the wyht-y (would you hit that) scale.  Nostalgia of my youth.

Well, the grading system won't go away any time soon regardless of what is done, because it has been used by gaming for over 30 years now. Even Roger Ebert rates movies on a star scale in the newspaper and on his blog, and he did that during his tenure on Siskel and Ebert. 

The problem is that, as I said, most reviewers can't really convey their feelings about a game without a score. If you look at the levels of writing from the 1990's to today, there is little difference in both the language and the overall take on the review. The simple truth of it is that most reviews read like a book report: mentioning this, this, and this like a bullet-point, and saying it is either good or bad. They put no weight into the writing, most make no comparisons to previous works of a similar style, and the biggest elephant in the room is the general lack of a consistant language of the review; basically, people kind of just throw terms out and expect the audience to know what they are talking about, or use general terms to make things clear. Buzz words like "aweomse" "visceral" "lack of polish" or "slippery" or things like that are all part of the reviewers lexicon, but it doesn't really tell us much, its just the barest of a description and sometimes is not even used in proper context.

And yeah, I am guilty of this too, but it is something that reviewers need to be aware of and try to stop doing. At the very least, try to elevate the reviews so that yeah, a game can be an 8/10, but it can also be a bad, pretentious game at 8/10, while a 5/10 game is one of the best of the year. That is a challenge that reviewers need to overcome, because then they won't be enslaved by the number.