260: 1984 Out of 10
- Thread starter pparrish
- Start date
Hey, Bland But With Some Decent Ideas RTS is quite good. If you insist on it it grows on you. It's bland but it's got some decent ideas.
Seriously though, that's very true. I remember when Metal Gear Solid 4: Ridiculously Huge Senseless Name I Forgot Already came out and got a 9 in one or other major site (Gametrailers if I remember correctly) and fans just lost their shit over it. Of course, I remember it because of the Penny Arcade strip on it. "You guys know where 9 is, right? It's right next to 10!"
I discovered some time ago that numeric scores are worthless. The Escapist tried to avoid this pitfall but I haven't seen anything be awarded less than 2.5 out of 5 super shiny star thingies. Then again, I just don't pay attention to the scores and the reviews themselves are okay. The problem, of course, is that the industry chooses who gets the bonuses and who doesn't by looking at a game's Metacritic score. I remember that one article about Bobby Kottick where he said before starting the game the team actually meets with the publishers and decides which metacritic score they are shooting for! As if subjective numbers pulled out of one's ass were the best indicator of a game's quality, even though most people can't even say if a 7 out of 10 means 'average' or 'just okay'.
Of course, it seems that Orwell assumed that people would just stop reading novels out of distrust for the reviewers. That seems... exagerated. I mean, if you like a kind of thing, you'll look for it. Even if you can't trust the reviewers for telling you which novel is good, you'll have to trust your gut, but you'll keep reading. And nowadays we have the advantadge of the internet... a thousand opinions and you need but ask. The practices of PR people and reviewers are merely sealing them in the same casket as print media.
For now, the solution is: look at a couple of reviews in major sites, then watch Yahtzee's. The final average should be corrected.
(I may be joking, but ZP is for me the one stop shop for finding out what's wrong with a game. I was almost thinking Red Dead Redemption was awesome enough I should pull all stops to buy it when brave Mr. Croshaw was the only one who told me the one thing that, had I bought it, I would have wished someone had told me while crusing across America in a beaten-up Camaro with nothing but a butcher's knife and a lot of unbridled hatred for game reviewers: that it has the same retarded running movement as GTAIV that appears to forget that pressure-sensitive joysticks exist. That alone knocked it down from 'maybe I should buy it right now' to 'maybe I should rent it a few years in the future, if I have nothing better to do by then).
Seriously though, that's very true. I remember when Metal Gear Solid 4: Ridiculously Huge Senseless Name I Forgot Already came out and got a 9 in one or other major site (Gametrailers if I remember correctly) and fans just lost their shit over it. Of course, I remember it because of the Penny Arcade strip on it. "You guys know where 9 is, right? It's right next to 10!"
I discovered some time ago that numeric scores are worthless. The Escapist tried to avoid this pitfall but I haven't seen anything be awarded less than 2.5 out of 5 super shiny star thingies. Then again, I just don't pay attention to the scores and the reviews themselves are okay. The problem, of course, is that the industry chooses who gets the bonuses and who doesn't by looking at a game's Metacritic score. I remember that one article about Bobby Kottick where he said before starting the game the team actually meets with the publishers and decides which metacritic score they are shooting for! As if subjective numbers pulled out of one's ass were the best indicator of a game's quality, even though most people can't even say if a 7 out of 10 means 'average' or 'just okay'.
Of course, it seems that Orwell assumed that people would just stop reading novels out of distrust for the reviewers. That seems... exagerated. I mean, if you like a kind of thing, you'll look for it. Even if you can't trust the reviewers for telling you which novel is good, you'll have to trust your gut, but you'll keep reading. And nowadays we have the advantadge of the internet... a thousand opinions and you need but ask. The practices of PR people and reviewers are merely sealing them in the same casket as print media.
For now, the solution is: look at a couple of reviews in major sites, then watch Yahtzee's. The final average should be corrected.
(I may be joking, but ZP is for me the one stop shop for finding out what's wrong with a game. I was almost thinking Red Dead Redemption was awesome enough I should pull all stops to buy it when brave Mr. Croshaw was the only one who told me the one thing that, had I bought it, I would have wished someone had told me while crusing across America in a beaten-up Camaro with nothing but a butcher's knife and a lot of unbridled hatred for game reviewers: that it has the same retarded running movement as GTAIV that appears to forget that pressure-sensitive joysticks exist. That alone knocked it down from 'maybe I should buy it right now' to 'maybe I should rent it a few years in the future, if I have nothing better to do by then).
I like Netflix's rating system. It gives just enough granularity. At the same time, it flat out accepts that it is a subjective label and doesn't try to pretend to be an objective value. Also, you can rate anything with Netflix's 1-5 scale and you don't need to resort to comparing it to other things. I can easily say I "loved" a game or movie, no need for me to look back at other media to see how I rated it so I can place this one in the right spot.
1. Hated it.
2. Did not like it.
3. Liked it.
4. Really liked it.
5. Loved it.
1. Hated it.
2. Did not like it.
3. Liked it.
4. Really liked it.
5. Loved it.
Good article.
I dont think I can agree enough about the point about readers needing to take a big dose of the blame. Especially various fanboys who expression their rage asking "how dare the reviewer not like my favorite game".
Anyone who doubts the impact of this should spend a couple minutes reading the forums attached to yahtzee's reviews.
I dont think I can agree enough about the point about readers needing to take a big dose of the blame. Especially various fanboys who expression their rage asking "how dare the reviewer not like my favorite game".
Anyone who doubts the impact of this should spend a couple minutes reading the forums attached to yahtzee's reviews.
Tell me about it. I loved Army of Two. It was snarky and rude and hilarious, and the actual game was pretty good to boot. When its sequel, The 40th Day came out, it turned out to be an irredeemable, horrid piece of crap. Yet even Kotaku - whom I greatly approve of for avoiding scores (do they count as professional? they should) - acted like it was somehow an enjoyable game you'd like. That really bothered me. It clearly sucked. I felt like I was in the Twilight zone.Squaseghost said:
I sometimes wish he'd use a scoring system, even though he hates them. Just because then his reviews would be allowed on Metacritic (and given greater weight) to help deflate every game's score. ...I wonder sometimes what people see in that site.Squaseghost said:
[edit] OH MY GOD THAT AMIGA POWER SITE HE LINKED: http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/ap2/
That's a fuckin vintage site right there. I think we've discovered a living fossil guys! (it has frames!!!!!)
I found this article interesting. I have book reviews on my blog, for which I do not give numbers. I have several "levels" of overall feelings about a book. Most wind up at "recommended" (because I mainly review what I enjoy reading), but I have also had a "Must-read" and one "I would not urinate on this book to put it out if it was on fire".
Great article, really nailed the whole "mistrust of hyped-up games and the reviews they get" problem. Some of the reviewers I personally like and trust are Yahtzee (of course) for games and A.O. Scott for movies. He writes reviews for the N.Y. Times and usually does an enjoyable and decent job of reviewing the movie.
I've given up trusting any individual review. My personal procedure for mining review information:
1. Look up the game on Game Rankings and/or Metacritic.
2. Read the reviews with the lowest scores. What do they like about the game? More importantly, what do they hate?
3. Compare the likes/dislikes to my own preferences. Bad camera? Thumbs down. Too short? Thumbs up! The best part is the multiplayer? Thumbs down. And so on.
Basically, I don't really need a review to tell me what I'm going to like about a game. Usually I already have a pretty good idea about that from the genre, release hype, word of mouth, and so on. I want a review to tell me what I won't like - and whether the things I don't like will be minor annoyances or totally spoil the experience.
I do like Yahtzee's reviews!
1. Look up the game on Game Rankings and/or Metacritic.
2. Read the reviews with the lowest scores. What do they like about the game? More importantly, what do they hate?
3. Compare the likes/dislikes to my own preferences. Bad camera? Thumbs down. Too short? Thumbs up! The best part is the multiplayer? Thumbs down. And so on.
Basically, I don't really need a review to tell me what I'm going to like about a game. Usually I already have a pretty good idea about that from the genre, release hype, word of mouth, and so on. I want a review to tell me what I won't like - and whether the things I don't like will be minor annoyances or totally spoil the experience.
I do like Yahtzee's reviews!
I'd suggest Game Revolution [http://www.gamerevolution.com/] myself - their reviewers tend to be entertaining, they go into a great deal of detail and their "scores" are based on the standard American grading system with plus/minuses. So a game that's received an A- is positively excellent, albeit with some minor detractions. Very few games get a straight A, most good titles merit something in the B- to B+ range, the average bog-standard titles that are still playable and might have something to commend them receive something in a C (lots of games get C's), and terrible games get D's; staggeringly awful games, the really horribly unplayable messes or completely joyless abominations, get tarred with the dreaded F[footnote]There is usually nothing lower than an F, but one game was so astoundingly bad that the staff felt it would be a genuine insult to all the other awful games that had received F's, so they gave it the one and only F- (in a very entertaining review that let you choose your own hyperbole to describe how bad it was, heh).[/footnote]. They are definitely not afraid to call terrible or mediocre games what they are.Brotherofwill said:
One of the drawbacks is that they're a smaller review site and often don't receive pre-release copies of games, so their reviews aren't especially timely, but that could also be perceived as a strength, since there's less rush to churn reviews out without properly playing games first.
Rating music is pointless, you are correct.Frybird said:
But I do like the grading system. It's like a sub-categorization of genres.
You'd put Tchaikovsky's 4th Symphony [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mctpTyIBt_I] and Humperdink's Hansel and Gretal [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZ3-5vptO3A] in both the genre of Classical Music, but in their own right they could be graded by that A, B, C, D, F system.
By which you could put Half Life 2 and Halo: ODST both in the category of First-Person-Shooters and both rank very well from 0-100, but still be graded A or B.
(Or F)
I agree with Kukakku on this one. This allows people to truly elaborate with what they liked and hated about. There is no such thing as a perfect score, as even Yahtzee mentions in his latest EP (Extra Punctuation) that Portal was the closest thing to a perfect game but drops one point because of all the cake reference. I would also like to see perhaps more precise definition of certain numbered games, provided that they still use their scoring system.Kukakkau said:
This is a very important subject, yet there is so much more to it than I would like.
It's easy to say: "stop giving so damn high scores", but as soon as I start thinking about it, it becomes complicated.
Reviews are supposed to be as objective as possible. So for example, if somebody was to review say, Final Fantasy XII, he or she can't give it a low score because he did not like the way the combat works, that problem lies with him, not the game. And nobody can praise MGS4 for heavy use of cut scenes, even if that was what he or she enjoyed most about the game, since it's a subjective opinion.
If you are going to review a game objectively, there is only so much you can really complain about. If you are not allowed to let your personal opinions get in the way, then the only way to really analyze a game is seeing if it works as what it's intended to be, i.e. functionality. Does Final Fantasy XII's combat system work? Well yes, you may hate it's guts, but there is nothing broken about it. Are the cut scenes in MGS4 well written? Well yes, they may bore you to hell, but you can't deny that they are good. And since most games are functional, scores are gonna climb, and we are going to get into this mess.
Well, then get rid of objectivity, right? Let the reviewer express his or her feeling on the game instead of telling us how the game works. The problem is that with too much subjectivity it's gonna be hard to tell whether or not the game is actually suited for you. Take your average Zero Punctuation review, it's one man's firm, unbiased, subjective opinion, but does it really tell you if you are going to like the game or not? Is it better to have a vague review with a score that at best means nothing and at worst is misleading, than to have a review that you don't know whether or not to agree with?
And that's kind of just the tip of the iceberg! The deeper you dig the more messy it gets. I guess it goes to show that the review system is broke, hell, perhaps the whole concept of reviews is broken...
It's easy to say: "stop giving so damn high scores", but as soon as I start thinking about it, it becomes complicated.
Reviews are supposed to be as objective as possible. So for example, if somebody was to review say, Final Fantasy XII, he or she can't give it a low score because he did not like the way the combat works, that problem lies with him, not the game. And nobody can praise MGS4 for heavy use of cut scenes, even if that was what he or she enjoyed most about the game, since it's a subjective opinion.
If you are going to review a game objectively, there is only so much you can really complain about. If you are not allowed to let your personal opinions get in the way, then the only way to really analyze a game is seeing if it works as what it's intended to be, i.e. functionality. Does Final Fantasy XII's combat system work? Well yes, you may hate it's guts, but there is nothing broken about it. Are the cut scenes in MGS4 well written? Well yes, they may bore you to hell, but you can't deny that they are good. And since most games are functional, scores are gonna climb, and we are going to get into this mess.
Well, then get rid of objectivity, right? Let the reviewer express his or her feeling on the game instead of telling us how the game works. The problem is that with too much subjectivity it's gonna be hard to tell whether or not the game is actually suited for you. Take your average Zero Punctuation review, it's one man's firm, unbiased, subjective opinion, but does it really tell you if you are going to like the game or not? Is it better to have a vague review with a score that at best means nothing and at worst is misleading, than to have a review that you don't know whether or not to agree with?
And that's kind of just the tip of the iceberg! The deeper you dig the more messy it gets. I guess it goes to show that the review system is broke, hell, perhaps the whole concept of reviews is broken...
If you wonder why reviews tend to go fairly high often consider that there is a sampling bias. I don't know if you have those in the US (if not the App Store's non-highlighted games tend to be similar) but try grabbing 10 random titles from the "bargain" (at MSRP) shelves and play them. That should give you an appreciation of how much quality a game has to have to even be considered worthy of a review.
Interesting article, I can understand why reviewers tend to hide in the average 6/10 or 7/10 area. There are always some positives and negatives of a reviewed title, and let's say if it's "good gameplay mechanics" and "nonexistent storyline" that would be a 2/10 in my book, but could be enjoyable for some, so it's obvious that the game will eventually get a 6/10 in order not to offend anybody.
As a result, I much rather see a couple of main points about the game to see what about it stands out as good and what on the other hand stands out as bad.
As a result, I much rather see a couple of main points about the game to see what about it stands out as good and what on the other hand stands out as bad.
A refreshing article. I don't like the arse-kissing contest that seems to be going on between publishers and reviewers. I think I agree with the other posters when they call for a simpler scoring system. "Buy it, Try it or Fry It" being my personal favourite.
But like as the article had mentioned, the person who is best qualified to review a game is the gamer themselves. Not his/friend, not some Yes-man from IGN or the No-man that is Yahtzee at ZP.
While Yahtzee cannot be called a sycophant and award undeservedly high scores, he tends to go the other way and award undeservedly low scores toward games. While Yahtzee knows what HE likes - I don't think he knows what everyone else wants. (And they all look for different things in their games.)
Only the individual gamer knows what he or she likes. Though a reviewer can at least give a summary of the game, offer their recommendation as to try, buy or fry the game. Everything else is in the lap of the gods.
But like as the article had mentioned, the person who is best qualified to review a game is the gamer themselves. Not his/friend, not some Yes-man from IGN or the No-man that is Yahtzee at ZP.
While Yahtzee cannot be called a sycophant and award undeservedly high scores, he tends to go the other way and award undeservedly low scores toward games. While Yahtzee knows what HE likes - I don't think he knows what everyone else wants. (And they all look for different things in their games.)
Only the individual gamer knows what he or she likes. Though a reviewer can at least give a summary of the game, offer their recommendation as to try, buy or fry the game. Everything else is in the lap of the gods.
I have thought about this recently. There have been a few games in the last few years that I have thought shouldn't have received as higher scores as they did.
1. Uncharted 2
There are a few reasons for this. As much as I liked it, I don't think I could force myself to play it again. The main thing for me that works against it is it's basically a resuscitation of Uncharted 1. Sure, it's better than most other game stories that have been released but it's basically the same thing again. Another is the gameplay. I'll admit, the cover system is good and whilst I don't personally like regenerative health in such a seemingly realistic game, I'll let it go. The gameplay is repetitive. Apart from the stealth level in India(?), some of the open combat level in Nepal and the enjoyable train level, it was far too similar. Hide behind some convenient (and somewhat similar looking and positioned) cover in every level, shoot the bad guys, run, hide and shoot. Do some climbing that was even easier than the previous games' climbing system. Repeat. Ad nauseum. The puzzles, cutscenes and a few more character interactions are highlights. Check Wikipedia for the other scores. As for PSM3 France giving it 21/20, give me a break. My score: 8/10
2. FarCry 2
I enjoyed the first FarCry. It had relatively open levels despite not losing you in the detail, as it were. FarCry 2 is completely open. Here the repitition lies in the gameplay. Drive from hideout to objective, on the way, encounter enemies, dispatch enemies. Go about completing objective. Return to faction base. Get another fairly dull objective from a forgetable character and on the way, take out baddies in vehicles whose modus operandi never change. They don't gang up, they don't really flank unless they're forced to shift and they're surprisingly accurate shots, considering I'm hiding and can't be seen.
Boring objectives given by boring and forgetable characters of factions that don't stand for anything in a nothing story of a country with no name. Boring.
The buddy system works surprisingly well. Graphics are good. 6.5/10
I just wish I'd read a similar review to my outlines above before purchasing either of those games. I understand that reviewers only have a short turn-around time to complete reviews. This is probably their biggest problem and I get that it's also not their fault. Here in Australia, I think people are especially cautious about making a mistake in purchasing games as they are very expensive here and they know they may not get a good resale from it. PC games are probably worse in this respect, there are patches that can be downloaded and installed which you hope might fix bugs but of course don't improve deep seeded problems like gameplay. Games sellers won't accept a swap on PC games due to restrictions on PC software. You could also sell the games on ebay but there's nothing to guarantee someone will want to buy it at the price you would like to retrieve from its sale.
As for review scores, I think reviewers should base their best scores and reserve their best scores for games they actually believe have the highest replay value and therefore value for money at the end of their review session.
For me a score of 10 would only be justifiable by wanting to return and complete it again. Greg Miller said as much in his video review of ModNation Racers. Everything else is inferior. With developers trying to charge for more and more downloadable content, we should expect more from them. Not just more content for our cash, but better quality over quantity.
If a review can convey to me that it is worth playing again, that's the game I'll shell out dollars for.
1. Uncharted 2
There are a few reasons for this. As much as I liked it, I don't think I could force myself to play it again. The main thing for me that works against it is it's basically a resuscitation of Uncharted 1. Sure, it's better than most other game stories that have been released but it's basically the same thing again. Another is the gameplay. I'll admit, the cover system is good and whilst I don't personally like regenerative health in such a seemingly realistic game, I'll let it go. The gameplay is repetitive. Apart from the stealth level in India(?), some of the open combat level in Nepal and the enjoyable train level, it was far too similar. Hide behind some convenient (and somewhat similar looking and positioned) cover in every level, shoot the bad guys, run, hide and shoot. Do some climbing that was even easier than the previous games' climbing system. Repeat. Ad nauseum. The puzzles, cutscenes and a few more character interactions are highlights. Check Wikipedia for the other scores. As for PSM3 France giving it 21/20, give me a break. My score: 8/10
2. FarCry 2
I enjoyed the first FarCry. It had relatively open levels despite not losing you in the detail, as it were. FarCry 2 is completely open. Here the repitition lies in the gameplay. Drive from hideout to objective, on the way, encounter enemies, dispatch enemies. Go about completing objective. Return to faction base. Get another fairly dull objective from a forgetable character and on the way, take out baddies in vehicles whose modus operandi never change. They don't gang up, they don't really flank unless they're forced to shift and they're surprisingly accurate shots, considering I'm hiding and can't be seen.
Boring objectives given by boring and forgetable characters of factions that don't stand for anything in a nothing story of a country with no name. Boring.
The buddy system works surprisingly well. Graphics are good. 6.5/10
I just wish I'd read a similar review to my outlines above before purchasing either of those games. I understand that reviewers only have a short turn-around time to complete reviews. This is probably their biggest problem and I get that it's also not their fault. Here in Australia, I think people are especially cautious about making a mistake in purchasing games as they are very expensive here and they know they may not get a good resale from it. PC games are probably worse in this respect, there are patches that can be downloaded and installed which you hope might fix bugs but of course don't improve deep seeded problems like gameplay. Games sellers won't accept a swap on PC games due to restrictions on PC software. You could also sell the games on ebay but there's nothing to guarantee someone will want to buy it at the price you would like to retrieve from its sale.
As for review scores, I think reviewers should base their best scores and reserve their best scores for games they actually believe have the highest replay value and therefore value for money at the end of their review session.
For me a score of 10 would only be justifiable by wanting to return and complete it again. Greg Miller said as much in his video review of ModNation Racers. Everything else is inferior. With developers trying to charge for more and more downloadable content, we should expect more from them. Not just more content for our cash, but better quality over quantity.
If a review can convey to me that it is worth playing again, that's the game I'll shell out dollars for.
Great article, I enjoyed reading this piece.
I can not STAND games reviewers who buy into hype, or, worse, ignore issues in a game with the hopes of consumers supporting their new favourite game. Greg Miller from IGN used to excite me with his positive reviews, but his bias towards any new Playstation IP gets in the way of giving readers any kind of criticism that they can use...especially when his reviews are so often laced with, "honestly, it's not that bad!"
One of my favourite reviewers hails from Eurogamer.net, Mr. Oli Welsh. I find Eurogamer's reviews to be less taken with staying within defined categories, choosing instead to talk about a game at length; I rarely see any "graphics: good, writing: poor, gameplay: decent, score: 8" on that site
I can not STAND games reviewers who buy into hype, or, worse, ignore issues in a game with the hopes of consumers supporting their new favourite game. Greg Miller from IGN used to excite me with his positive reviews, but his bias towards any new Playstation IP gets in the way of giving readers any kind of criticism that they can use...especially when his reviews are so often laced with, "honestly, it's not that bad!"
One of my favourite reviewers hails from Eurogamer.net, Mr. Oli Welsh. I find Eurogamer's reviews to be less taken with staying within defined categories, choosing instead to talk about a game at length; I rarely see any "graphics: good, writing: poor, gameplay: decent, score: 8" on that site