Especially not uncharted 3. Can anyone in their right mind rate an 8 hour standard shooter over a 300 hour multi play style open ended epic like skyrim?Bara_no_Hime said:
Jimquisition: Hate Out Of Ten
- Thread starter Jimothy Sterling
- Start date
Recommended Videos
No, you see, I can save time by not reading it, and spend that time complaining. If I took the time reading the review, I wouldn't have as much time complaining about it.EverythingIncredible said:
And this is why this is one of my favourite web shows on the internet.
Nail on the fucking head!
Nail on the fucking head!
That doesn't answer the question. What's the difference between an 82 or an 83, or an 86 and an 87? By the way, there is no way to accurately summarize his opinion with a number. To paraphrase Yahtzee in his Mailbag Showdown video, complex opinions cannot be accurately expressed via a single number.veloper said:
Bullshit.Abandon4093 said:
Again, it's one point. What's the difference between an 89 and a 90? NOTHING. You say the reviewer is not comfortable giving it a 90? I say explain this clear difference between 89 and 90 that you see in real terms. And no, just saying "he gives it an 89 because he doesn't want to give it a 90" is not a clear difference. See these?Abandon4093 said:
http://www.destructoid.com/the-official-destructoid-review-guide-2011-203909.phtml
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/editorials/7149-What-Our-Review-Scores-Mean
Write something like that for 80 through 90 showing a clear, reasonable difference between each increment so everyone can see the difference between an 82 and an 83, or a 89 and a 90, without confusion. If you can't tell me the difference between an 89 and a 90, there's no point in having an 89 and a 90.
Of course, the true solution is to not have review scores at all or to just stop paying so much attention to them and actually read the review itself, not to further complicate a system that most people are already too dumb to understand by throwing more numbers into it.
Anyone in their right mind would know not to compare the scores of a third person shooter and an RPG in the first place.brainslurper said:
If I was reviewing games, I would use a few rules for the 1 - 10 scale:
'Average' in any area is FIVE. This means that the average triple-A title would receive a 5/10. Features that are better than average and push the envelope would get higher scores, thus bringing up the game's rating. Features that are substandard, suck, or are missing would drag down the rating.
A 5.0 wouldn't mean that a game sucks - merely that it is average. Spending millions of dollars in development means nothing special.
Take your all-time favorite game...ever. Is it perfect? Is there any feature anywhere in any game that you think would make it better? Or any feature you can possibly comprehend that would add to the experience? Then it's not perfect.
No game anywhere deserves a perfect 10.0 score. In my opinion, Half Life 2's storyline MIGHT qualify for an 8.0 - but that's pushing it. Eve probably doesn't deserve an 8.0 for its open-endedness. World of Warcraft likely wouldn't get an 8.0 for its social community from me.
When Modern Warfare 7 comes out...how many people will even remember that Modern Warfare [most recent one to date] even exists? Or how about Battlefield 9, Halo 11, or Madden 2023? If your game is transient, then it's not perfect. It's not great. It's probably not even that good.
It is average. (Maybe less.)
'Average' in any area is FIVE. This means that the average triple-A title would receive a 5/10. Features that are better than average and push the envelope would get higher scores, thus bringing up the game's rating. Features that are substandard, suck, or are missing would drag down the rating.
A 5.0 wouldn't mean that a game sucks - merely that it is average. Spending millions of dollars in development means nothing special.
Take your all-time favorite game...ever. Is it perfect? Is there any feature anywhere in any game that you think would make it better? Or any feature you can possibly comprehend that would add to the experience? Then it's not perfect.
No game anywhere deserves a perfect 10.0 score. In my opinion, Half Life 2's storyline MIGHT qualify for an 8.0 - but that's pushing it. Eve probably doesn't deserve an 8.0 for its open-endedness. World of Warcraft likely wouldn't get an 8.0 for its social community from me.
When Modern Warfare 7 comes out...how many people will even remember that Modern Warfare [most recent one to date] even exists? Or how about Battlefield 9, Halo 11, or Madden 2023? If your game is transient, then it's not perfect. It's not great. It's probably not even that good.
It is average. (Maybe less.)
You're no different than those people complaining about the review score because something got 8/10. Quite sad.brainslurper said:
Wow, what a waste of space. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.Link XL1 said:
OT:
Given that Jim Sterling has been commenting about this issue quite a lot over the past month (on Destructoid), I'm not all that surprised about today's content. Needless to say, I agree with Jim's opinion. I think this is an issue that needs to be aired out more often because the attitudes and perceptions surrounding numeric averages have become a mea culpa of the gaming community.
I personally get around this issue by limiting myself to the text of a review and avoiding the winery of the gamer elite.
Good point on this vid Jim.People should stop hating on the number 8.
Also +1 because you took off your glasses for the first time on this show.
I'm impressed.
Also +1 because you took off your glasses for the first time on this show.
I'm impressed.
Hey, you made this argument with Russ Pitts on his podcast~! Not that I'm complaining, it's still interesting to hear. I agree though, there are entire websites I just don't use because their scores are far too high and their descriptions so similar that it's hard to distinguish between the quality of games. If anything nowadays I just skim over the review summaries of most review sites and pick based on that. In truth, most my memorable game experiences have come from games that are 7s. It used to be the case that 6 and up was good enough for me, the higher the better, nowadays I find myself more interested in the 6-7.9 games because that at least implies there's something different enough about them not to fit in what's quickly becoming a very generic bracket for game scores.
In other words most reviewers are being silly and it's getting hard to interpret their opinions in any coherent way.
In other words most reviewers are being silly and it's getting hard to interpret their opinions in any coherent way.
All i gotta say is, if i made a game that got an 8/10 with reviews...i wouldn't complain i'd jump for freaking joy and shout everybody on the development team a night out at the pub! Good god, what is wrong with people: 8/10 is a damned good score. Infact, anything above 6 is atleast at a level of 'playable'. If something like, say, Skyrim got a 1/10 in an incredibly biased review...yeah, ok, start that shit-storm rolling cause something is wrong. But going that crazy over a 9/10? Wow..
I was going to write a very long post, but that picture nails every point. Good Show.Scrumpmonkey said:[HEADING=2] I Shall make my post in Poster Form;[/HEADING]
Oh my god. The zelda comment actually stopped him from reminding us to thank god for him.
To be fair...eurogamer are often excessively harsh. Not really worth getting so angry about, true, at least not for a near perfect game being seen as a great game, although it could be on the occasions eurogamer marks an okay game as rubbish.
Maybe it's the metascore? Alot of people depend on metacritic as a mark of how good a game is, I even use it basically as a series of links to reviews, so maybe fans of particular games get mad at scores only a couple of marks off of perfection because it'll harm the metascore? Seems petty, but at least it's some reason for this madness!
To be fair...eurogamer are often excessively harsh. Not really worth getting so angry about, true, at least not for a near perfect game being seen as a great game, although it could be on the occasions eurogamer marks an okay game as rubbish.
Maybe it's the metascore? Alot of people depend on metacritic as a mark of how good a game is, I even use it basically as a series of links to reviews, so maybe fans of particular games get mad at scores only a couple of marks off of perfection because it'll harm the metascore? Seems petty, but at least it's some reason for this madness!
You said it yourself Jim... when the average of a good game is from 9.5 to 10, and then suddenly what you believe is going to be a great game gets an 8, you think "either this game is fucking awful, or the reviewers have some brain damage". Since fanboys just can't accept a game they are hyped about might not actually be as good at they think, the problem is obviously reviewers being "trolls" here.
What to do here: Stop giving games a number.
What to do here: Stop giving games a number.
God I hate fanboism. Just come off IGN and the comment section was going mental over review scores. I have to say I completely and totally agree with this video; a 'ten out of ten' is a perfect and umique game that has no faults at all (giving it the best overall score)where as 'five out of ten' would qualify for most games as that is the average score in that system. To be clear, average = most games and in which an 'eight' should count as a great game (portal, hl2, RDR, etc) and only a couple truely exceptional games reaching higher.
I'm glad to see I'm not the only one infuriated by 7 or 8 out of ten being considered "average," rather than a 5 out of ten.
"Games as a medium with critical consideration is extreme young? Games have been reviewed as long as games have been around. Ever heard of PC Gamer? It's a review magazine that's been around since 1993.
Computer Gaming World, now discontinued, was in print since 1981."
And Plato talked about theater, Shakespeare had his critics, and im sure that shortly after someone banged on some rocks in rhythm, the guy next to him made known what he thought of it. In the grand scheme of things, 30 years ago is downright infantile, and im going to say that to this day, Games still have a ways to go before they have a critical language that facilitates constructive review.
"You're assuming that the education system in areas outside your own use the letter grade system. As far as my education was concerned, letters stopped in grade 8. After that it was out of a 100."
In other words, you, like most everyone else, have an intuitive understanding of this system
"I wasn't complaining I was merely stating the obvious that reviewing a game, and giving a school grade are not the same thing. The standards even for school differ at varying degrees of education. In elementary you need what, a 50 to pass? In university, or at least the one I went to you need a 65% or a 70% in my degree program. If you want to "pass" to get into one of the other schools like law or medicine your passing grade is even higher. And then on top of that some education systems in the US uses some grades on the 4.0 scale or something.
Obviously for you, you equate to school marks but personally I never have. And given how variable education systems are, equating it to school marks is inferring more than is actually there.
50/100 is average because on the bell curve, 50 is in the middle. That's it."
First off, the details differ, absolutely. The exact cutoff points for grades varies a bit. But the very general point of the grading systems remains the same. Reviewing is an inexact science, and whether passing is 65 or 70 is not a significant enough difference to be noticeable. And yes, my school had a scale going up to 4. However, this score was calculated by adding up letter grades, where the excellent grades led to a good GPA, and a more middling GPA comes from...thats right...the C range, 7-8 out of 10, 70%-80%.
You say that other people don't view these scores as I do, yet the context of the majority of these views agrees with me. In most reviews, a qualitative description that seems to be describing a letter grade of B will probably get a numerical score in the 8's. Below 60, and they will likely talk about how the game needs to be avoided at all costs. If they are not thinking of letter grades directly, they are certainly thinking of a measure that corresponds with letter grade nearly perfectly. Which for all intents and purposes, is functionally identical to a letter grade.
And lastly, that is not the middle of a bell curve. That would be a bell curve assuming that a test full of true/false answers were answered by a class at random. That is a bell curve if the scores were picked at random. Were students to pick at random in a multiple choice test, the bell curve would peak at 25. In both reviews and grades, the bell curve peaks more towards a little above 70. Saying that 50 is the center of the bell curve is arbitrary and lacks meaningful context.
Computer Gaming World, now discontinued, was in print since 1981."
And Plato talked about theater, Shakespeare had his critics, and im sure that shortly after someone banged on some rocks in rhythm, the guy next to him made known what he thought of it. In the grand scheme of things, 30 years ago is downright infantile, and im going to say that to this day, Games still have a ways to go before they have a critical language that facilitates constructive review.
"You're assuming that the education system in areas outside your own use the letter grade system. As far as my education was concerned, letters stopped in grade 8. After that it was out of a 100."
In other words, you, like most everyone else, have an intuitive understanding of this system
"I wasn't complaining I was merely stating the obvious that reviewing a game, and giving a school grade are not the same thing. The standards even for school differ at varying degrees of education. In elementary you need what, a 50 to pass? In university, or at least the one I went to you need a 65% or a 70% in my degree program. If you want to "pass" to get into one of the other schools like law or medicine your passing grade is even higher. And then on top of that some education systems in the US uses some grades on the 4.0 scale or something.
Obviously for you, you equate to school marks but personally I never have. And given how variable education systems are, equating it to school marks is inferring more than is actually there.
50/100 is average because on the bell curve, 50 is in the middle. That's it."
First off, the details differ, absolutely. The exact cutoff points for grades varies a bit. But the very general point of the grading systems remains the same. Reviewing is an inexact science, and whether passing is 65 or 70 is not a significant enough difference to be noticeable. And yes, my school had a scale going up to 4. However, this score was calculated by adding up letter grades, where the excellent grades led to a good GPA, and a more middling GPA comes from...thats right...the C range, 7-8 out of 10, 70%-80%.
You say that other people don't view these scores as I do, yet the context of the majority of these views agrees with me. In most reviews, a qualitative description that seems to be describing a letter grade of B will probably get a numerical score in the 8's. Below 60, and they will likely talk about how the game needs to be avoided at all costs. If they are not thinking of letter grades directly, they are certainly thinking of a measure that corresponds with letter grade nearly perfectly. Which for all intents and purposes, is functionally identical to a letter grade.
And lastly, that is not the middle of a bell curve. That would be a bell curve assuming that a test full of true/false answers were answered by a class at random. That is a bell curve if the scores were picked at random. Were students to pick at random in a multiple choice test, the bell curve would peak at 25. In both reviews and grades, the bell curve peaks more towards a little above 70. Saying that 50 is the center of the bell curve is arbitrary and lacks meaningful context.
No apparently its 7... for some reason...Rex Dark said:
Personally as someone trying to become an artist I hate the idea of perfection. Its what we should strive for but acheiving it will cause many people to stop trying and things to become stagnent. I SPIT ON PERFECTION!!!