Jimquisition: Hate Out Of Ten
- Thread starter Jimothy Sterling
- Start date
You're actually claiming that people like Jim are equally responsible for all of this? Are you saying that developers only started taking interest in these reviews and their scores because of the handful of people like Jim, and not the thousands of complainers, the reviewers, and Metacritic?PeePantz said:
Oh and, you know, the fact that higher reviews often have a direct effect on sales? Yeah, I would say that one is pretty darn important. I think the link between a high score on Metacritic and sales has had just a tad more of an effect on these publishers than Jim.
Yep, I've commented on this before. With the raising standards for the gaming industry a lot of the games we're seeing right now should be rated 5s as they represent an industry standard for AAA titles.Rex Dark said:
I personally think Jim is wrong though, and the industry has a lot to do witht the problem, simply put they buy reviews, albiet indirectly usually. The guys doing the reviewes are told by their publishers to rate high or a publisher might not want to buy more advertising space which is how they make their money. As a result we've seen review scores creeping up, and things being rated on more or less a 3 point scale instead of a 10 point scale with 8 being like scoring a 1 out of 3, and anything below that scoring increasingly tiny percentages of a single star.
Honestly, a lot of these games that have been getting 8s have sort of been being panned if you read between the lines. Simply put with the marketing money being put into something like "Gears Of War 3" your not going to see many professional reviewers calling something like that average or below average, pretty much a deritivite engine based shooter showing off the latest graphical embellishments but otherwise delivering nothing paticularly compelling since just about everything about it is increasingly generic, especially given the imitators it's been inspiring. A lot of people who are invested in this kind of game, and want to see some validation of their interests get irritated when they see a bit of a snub coming out in the numbers... and really that's what it is from many sources, there is no way around that, simply because of how top heavy the reviews have gotten. If I'm scoring 1 out of 3 and I say something gets a 1, and everyone knows to take the text with a grain of salt... yeah... that does mean something.
Truthfully I think we need to see reviews balance out and use more of the scale, even if it will cause some fanboy backlash during a period of adjustment. The simple fact that something like "Gears Of War 3" is derivitive, and very average overall, kind of shows how far gaming has come.... and remember it's relative, I mean if one argues that all of these games Uncharted, Zelda, Gears 3, etc... are really good, and they represent most of whatt's on the market, then this sets the line for what the new "5" is. You should expect games like these with the current technology... simply exploiting the tech (which is what these games do, above and beyond anything) doesn't really mean much.
I'll also be painfully blunt, for those seething about my comments on Gears Of War 3... most people who ARE GoW fans will themselves point out that the storyline is pretty lame. Indeed even the fans spend a lot of time making fun of characters like Dom from the series. The same can also be said of other games like "Uncharted 3" which is a giant rip off of the whole "Indiana Jones" vibe that doesn't really have much unique going for it, using very stereotypical characters and set pieces. When you consider that the technology being used is par for the course for current systems... we're seeing so many games on this level it's pretty obvious anyone can do it if they spend the time and resources, you have to look at other aspects of the games and that includes things like the writing. You can't sell "our game has super graphics" as a point about why it's special when every AAA title has super graphics. Right now the standard is great tech, lame and uncreative writing, and "boxed" engines/control systems.
Basically fanboys tend to be aware of the failings of their games of choice, up until it comes time for someone else to rate them. It's fine to write 20 pages ranting about Dom and what a joke the Gears Of War storyline/characterizations are, but if someone else actually says the same thing and considers that for rating it... well, being treated like a crime.
Thanks for that, been saying the same thing for ages, I put my numbers closer to 5 for playable but flawed and 7 for great so I should probably fear for attempts on my life should I ever review a game.
If the awesome things that could happen in life were reviewed then "Everyone got jet-packs and we had a super awesome party in the sky all bloody week creating a new global holiday that led to a Utopian sky city that united our cause and advanced our civilization" is the event we are looking at for an 8/10, hell I'm pretty sure there is way better then that. The above is probably a ridiculous 6.5/10 because the return of magic didn't happen and no deities came in to play.
Come to think of it... They wouldn't have updated the mechanics very much and jet-packs are pretty gimmick at this point so we'll call it 4/10 first and then a we'll call it a day after that.
8/10 is twice as good as holidays, parties, floating cities, and jet-packs.
Get it straight people.
That's a very downward spiraling train of logic there, the next step is criticizing 10%, then 15%, ultimately culminating at the advocation of binary scoring systems.
If the awesome things that could happen in life were reviewed then "Everyone got jet-packs and we had a super awesome party in the sky all bloody week creating a new global holiday that led to a Utopian sky city that united our cause and advanced our civilization" is the event we are looking at for an 8/10, hell I'm pretty sure there is way better then that. The above is probably a ridiculous 6.5/10 because the return of magic didn't happen and no deities came in to play.
Come to think of it... They wouldn't have updated the mechanics very much and jet-packs are pretty gimmick at this point so we'll call it 4/10 first and then a we'll call it a day after that.
8/10 is twice as good as holidays, parties, floating cities, and jet-packs.
Get it straight people.
5%?Qitz said:
That's a very downward spiraling train of logic there, the next step is criticizing 10%, then 15%, ultimately culminating at the advocation of binary scoring systems.
Decided years ago that the Text of a review was more important than the straight Numerical Score and the text of Eurogamers "controversial" review of Uncharted 3 pretty much mirrored my experience with the game.
Basically "Damn this is fun and pretty to look at, also very well written, too bad the bits and pieces are starting to feel a little old and Uncharted's heavily scripted style in an era of Player Agency is also starting to show its age."
In other notes, I always figured an "out of 5" with no halvsies was the best scoring method.
0 = Oh god stay away, 1 = Might have some redeeming value, 2 = for fans and the hardcore only, 3 = Generally good and fun but doesn't go anywhere special, 4 = Pretty damn good, can't go wrong with this, 5 = As good as you could expect it to be, buy it and love it.
Basically "Damn this is fun and pretty to look at, also very well written, too bad the bits and pieces are starting to feel a little old and Uncharted's heavily scripted style in an era of Player Agency is also starting to show its age."
In other notes, I always figured an "out of 5" with no halvsies was the best scoring method.
0 = Oh god stay away, 1 = Might have some redeeming value, 2 = for fans and the hardcore only, 3 = Generally good and fun but doesn't go anywhere special, 4 = Pretty damn good, can't go wrong with this, 5 = As good as you could expect it to be, buy it and love it.
In theory sure, game reviews arn't school. But regardless of the hypothetical Games as a medium with critical consideration are extremely young. The frame of reference most redily translates to grades. I know that when I hear "80 out of 100" my first thought is B-. Ive seen plenty of reviews that do translate a percentage score into a letter grade and, truth be told, it makes sense. Most big budget games at least put the basic amount of effort to make a game playable and kinda enjoyable, and that minimum is well deserving of a C-, or 70. A grade-like evaluation would be an excellent standard and honestly, the only problem with an 8 out of 10 being merely okay is the fact that not everyone agrees on the metric. And in fact, when looking at reviews of other games, translation to a letter grader makes sense. 10 is the pinnacle, while 9 is excellent with minimal shortcomings. 8 is a solid but unremarkable effort, while 7 is where you begin to Phone it in. 6 is quite poor, and below that it merely the degree to which the game failed. If you look at the context of these reviews, generally, a letter grade makes perfect sense.Akalabeth said:
Don't get me wrong, complaining when a game gets an 8 is childish. The nature of reviews is that there is going to be a significant standard deviation amongst reviewers, and even the greatest game ever getting an 8 is a perfectly reasonable score, and not an outlier. But complaining that a person thinks of an 8 out of 10 translates to a B- is like complaining that some crazy idiot thinks that 120 is fat when in reality, they measure weight in Stones. What we need is a standardized metric, and honestly, grades are a pretty good one.
Turning an overall experience into a number isn't exactly the biggest problem here, it only becomes a problem when its linked with our most natural desire to compete "my stuff" with "your stuff".
This whole issue can be summarized by saying that these crazy people are just rabid fanboys of a particular series and need that super high number to justify to their peers that their game is better then everybody elses. And that somehow "my" games metacritic score of 93, makes "my" game "BETTER" then my friends games metacritic score of 91, when in fact what it really means is that they are BOTH really really really good games.
Notice how this thing NEVER happens when it comes to new IP's? Its because there arent any crazy fan boys for the series yet.
Now we have ex-game of the year "VS." another ex-game of the year, and so on, and competition gets into the point of losing perspective where all these people want is for "their favorite game" to end up with a higher score then everybody elses favorite game. This, of course, also applies to developers.
This whole issue can be summarized by saying that these crazy people are just rabid fanboys of a particular series and need that super high number to justify to their peers that their game is better then everybody elses. And that somehow "my" games metacritic score of 93, makes "my" game "BETTER" then my friends games metacritic score of 91, when in fact what it really means is that they are BOTH really really really good games.
Notice how this thing NEVER happens when it comes to new IP's? Its because there arent any crazy fan boys for the series yet.
Now we have ex-game of the year "VS." another ex-game of the year, and so on, and competition gets into the point of losing perspective where all these people want is for "their favorite game" to end up with a higher score then everybody elses favorite game. This, of course, also applies to developers.
I don't know. Personally, a video game score never really meant anything to me. I based whether or not I would buy a game on magazine articles and gameplay footage. If I've looked at the available preview material and decided that I want to buy a game, there isn't a single thing a review score can do to change my mind. The way I see it: who cares if the world at large likes this game? I'm sure I'm going to love it and that's all that matters to me.
So Cliffy B got butthurt over Gears 3 not getting a perfect score. I guess this means he's not a very good developer.
The phrase, "a good artist is his/her harshest critic" applies to game developers as well.
The phrase, "a good artist is his/her harshest critic" applies to game developers as well.
Time was when games were usually graded on a 100 point score, and nobody ever got a 100/100. Half-Life the first got in the mid-90s. WoW got in the low 90s. We knew that anything in the 90s was a leader in its respective genre.
Then people went to the 10 point scale, and then the 5 point scale, and when 5/5 is translated to a 100 point scale on metacritic, well that's typically 100 points unless some mathematical normalization takes into account score inflation.
Anyway, so here we are. I'll just say 5/5 does not equal 100/100, damn the math. Nothing wrong with 5 point scales, just that a 5 isn't a 100.
Then people went to the 10 point scale, and then the 5 point scale, and when 5/5 is translated to a 100 point scale on metacritic, well that's typically 100 points unless some mathematical normalization takes into account score inflation.
Anyway, so here we are. I'll just say 5/5 does not equal 100/100, damn the math. Nothing wrong with 5 point scales, just that a 5 isn't a 100.
Honestly, I don't get the "hate out of ten" logic. I've seen theses review scores and I was generally happy with them. In the cases of the games that I played, I generally agree with them. People really do need some perspective. Since when did 8/10 become terrible?
This is why I like X-play. They use their whole scale. Most games get a 3/5. Some get 4/5. Great games get 5/5. Hell, they even give out the occasional 1/5. Those are rare. Rarer than 5/5 I think (which were rare), but they were given out. At least, that's how it was back when I watched the show.
This is why I like X-play. They use their whole scale. Most games get a 3/5. Some get 4/5. Great games get 5/5. Hell, they even give out the occasional 1/5. Those are rare. Rarer than 5/5 I think (which were rare), but they were given out. At least, that's how it was back when I watched the show.
I've beaten Uncharted 3. I think it's a pretty great game. But it deserved a 4/5. It wasn't quite as solid as Uncharted 2. It was a fair review.Soviet Heavy said:
I'm reminded of one of the pieces of hate mail Yahtzee responded to in his "Mailbag Showdown" episode, where he said:
Don't like what somebody else said about your favourite game? Grow the fuck up and deal with it.
EDIT: Upon further contemplation, I'd say that "review rage" is yet another manifestation of a wider problem that exists on the internet - the fact that it is almost impossible to have a difference of opinion on just about any topic over the internet without it degenerating into crazed poo-flinging. It would appear that John Gabriel's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory strikes again.
I think in those two sentences Yahtzee summed up the mindset of the majority of people who ***** about reviews and review scores. It really is a mentality you'd expect to see on a school playground (and one I confess I engaged in when I was a wee boy) - "my video games are better than your video games! HA HA HA THE GAMES YOU LIKE ARE CRAP BECAUSE SOME TOTAL STRANGER SAID SO!"
Don't like what somebody else said about your favourite game? Grow the fuck up and deal with it.
EDIT: Upon further contemplation, I'd say that "review rage" is yet another manifestation of a wider problem that exists on the internet - the fact that it is almost impossible to have a difference of opinion on just about any topic over the internet without it degenerating into crazed poo-flinging. It would appear that John Gabriel's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory strikes again.