next »

[SirNiko]

You can get some of those ambiguous qualities through equally ambiguous criteria. Nintendo Power used to put "Fun" as a criteria for their reviews. "Replay Value" is another score which can catch a lot of that.

My dilemma is that explaining the score is only useful when the game is bad, and therefore you don't feel guilty ruining the experience. If the game is good you either get a really ambiguous answer ("Look, the atmosphere is really good!") or you get an answer that spoils the whole thing. I'd really rather get a vague number with a single line of explanation to tell me to go for it unless it's awful.

[baconman]

Only two things have ever come of me reading reviews:

1. People can generally agree on what a TERRIFIC game is, and it's appeal is usually able to shatter pretenses of gaming genres; and if this 10/10 score is given, there's usually a DAMN GOOD REASON WHY.

1. People can ~usually~ agree on what an ATROCIOUS EXCUSE for a game is, and kick the horse in the teeth when it really deserves it. Generally this is written off at 6/10 or 6.5/10 for the sake of positivity and PR. Every once in awhile you'll luck out and see the deservedly-brutal 3/10 or 4/10 - and that's usually because there's a good consensus among the staff about it.

But generally, anything lower than a 7.5/10 (or even an 8.5/10) is something you can always find a "better than" for; unless it's a specific flavor of game you REALLY EFFING LIKE A LOT, and have no better/new fixes for available to you on your system at the moment.

This is why it sucks to be a PS3 gamer who likes DDR right now, for instance. There is ONE available release on PS3 right now, and it's clearly a 3.5/10 overall title.
____________________

This also makes me curious what would happen if elementary schoolers wrote game reviews, do you think they'd see them differently? Didn't you, as a kid, ever wonder how come pretty much all movie-games kinda sucked, or what made Mario, Sonic, Castlevania, Ninja Gaiden, and MegaMan so much better than their plentiful platformer competition?

Do you think they'd see older games as crappy, because of their dated graphics, limited (and sometimes sketchy) controls, total lack of tutorial levels, and being absolutely tough as shit?

[Samtagonist]

Hereitis Factor:
9.7 - It was like I was really there in the game.  Everything was presented to me in a way that was good.  I was enveloped in this intricately crafted dreamscape in a way that the dozens and dozens and dozens of games I have given this exact same score could never hope to do.

Looksgood:
11/7 - The game with graphics so nice, they made them twice.  Let's how your computer is up to the task of running a game that was a mod for an engine that came out in 2004.  Better bust out your screwdrivers and mother processors, gamers, you're in for an upgrade.

Soundloud:
0.009/0.01 - At first I was very disappointed with the sound of this game, but then I turned my speakers up.  The person talking to me talked to me good.  The sound came out of both of the sides of the speakers and sounded like they were good sounds.  Forgot .wav, gamers, this sound is .wow!

Playswell:
★ ★ - It's not even a game, idiot.  But you probably knew that because it's art.  The complete lack of fun notwithstanding, you might be able to get all sorts of kicks out of how great all the talking is.  Ignore this part and look at the other ones, because they're number one!  Just check out how good everything sounds.  Anyway, I dunno, it had a lot less shooting than Mass Effect 3 demo but I guess that's why it isn't that.  It plays to it's strong suits and it knows where to get a pal off on the bus.

Playtime:
Two thumbs, WAY UP - Short and sweet and worth TEN WHOLE DOLLARS FOR THE RELEASE OF A ONE HOUR MOD.  If the game seems short, or if you're mad that you bought a shitty mod, just play the game again.  You can actually play the game as many times as you want if you want to.  So, I guess that this game actually has enough replay time to be replayed all the time.  Better get some ice for those sore thumbs you're going to have from all the hours and hours of tireless fun you'll be looking at when you pick up our GAME PICK OF THE WEEK OF THE MONTH.


UNDER-OVER GAMEY-WAMEY
THIS NUMBER IS BIGGER
(Out of ten, not an average, unless it is and how freaky would that be?  Can someone check that...?)

[Samtagonist]

review of bayonetta the character forthcoming



but i wrote this instead
(its for rugrats: scavenger hunt)

more...........
will rise of the imoprtals get a rise out of this reviewer?  read on and decide.........

[C.A. Sinner]

i semi-agree with pleasingfungus. i dont think theres anything fundamentally wrong with review scores, they only become a problem when they're more important than the text (i.e. the actual review) which is the case in game journalism at the moment. fuck metacritic. or actually don't fuck metacritic, just fuck the enormous influence it has in the videogame world. reviewers are more or less bullied into giving certain "blockbuster titles" similarly high scores so the precious, precious metascore isnt damaged.

i disagree with this though:

Incredibly broken, unpolished games can be fantastic, for someone who's willing to push past the broken parts - STALKER, for example, or Crusader Kings. These games tend to get low review scores at launch, and not by 'bad reviewers'. On the other hand, extremely polished, tightly-scripted games can very easily end up turning people off with their artificiality, while still - again, justifiably - getting high review scores.

i dont get it. why should games automatically get pats on the back for "polish" and "tight scripting" (esp the latter )? do you think a michael bay movie deserves a positive review just because it has elaborate special fx? does the new lady gaga album deserve 4 out of 5 stars because its well produced?

[eyeliner]

i disagree with this though:

Incredibly broken, unpolished games can be fantastic, for someone who's willing to push past the broken parts - STALKER, for example, or Crusader Kings. These games tend to get low review scores at launch, and not by 'bad reviewers'. On the other hand, extremely polished, tightly-scripted games can very easily end up turning people off with their artificiality, while still - again, justifiably - getting high review scores.

i dont get it. why should games automatically get pats on the back for "polish" and "tight scripting" (esp the latter )? do you think a michael bay movie deserves a positive review just because it has elaborate special fx? does the new lady gaga album deserve 4 out of 5 stars because its well produced?

He just might. You don't. Isn't that talk of "reviews are personal opinion" all the rage?

[Samtagonist]

He just might. You don't. Isn't that talk of "reviews are personal opinion" all the rage?

If we're thinking of videogames as pure craftsmanship, than I guess we could applaud someone for coloring inside all the lines.  If I was to review Skyrim based purely on how well it was made I'd probably give it four or five stars.  If I was to review Skyrim as a video game I'd probably give it one or two stars.  I think it's kind of dangerous to not look beyond the fact that a game was assembled with competence, because then you end up kind of rewarding people who just know how to produce the same kitsch.  It's like how a robot would review a game or something, it seems to strive for an objective and almost scientific evaluation of the game.

(This is how you review an Uncharted game so you can give it all 9.5's so you get more advertising from Sony and Naughty Dog)

[senorbarborito]

I'll bite.

I'm in favour of reasonable score systems, like the following.

only three options:
-rubbish
-meh
-buy

that is all.

[Christian Knudsen]

There are already sites that use a "Bad", "Worth a Rental", "Worth Buying" system (or something similar). I think it muddles things up even further, since that seems to rate it from a monetary value point of view. I prefer games that are rated based on their qualities only, since if a game isn't worth buying, I'd not rent it either, so that type of rating doesn't make any sense to me. Also, some people would never buy a game of a certain genre regardless of rating.

[Superb Joe]

well new releases are worth the most. and the older ones are worth less. but when they get really old sometimes they're worth even more? i agree its a very confusing system and that obama is so inert on the issue is a true scandal.

[SirNiko]

Gamestop makes Rent/Buy/Avoid kind of obsolete anyway. You can buy it brand new, play through it, and when you're done you can return it or keep it as you please.

If the game is digital download, "Rent" isn't really an option.

Back in the 90s, though, it would have been perfect. I could have really used that scale.

[Samtagonist]

SIX HOURS
SIXTY DOLLARS
TEN DOLLARS AN HOUR

If you have to pay your game more than minimum wage, it's not a good game.


I guess this would make all movies unacceptable, yeah?  A new DVD costs twenty dollars for a movie that isn't even two hours long.  Well, as long as IGN can stand by this model and consisten-...

[C.A. Sinner]

the whole concept of "price" being a factor in videogame reviews is bullshit anyway. just for comparison, ive been reading music magazines for a long time and i don't think i've ever seen a review that said "hey this cd is good but its also expensive so it sucks."

[Superb Joe]

give me a single good reason any narrative based game should be longer than 6 hours

[J-Snake]

scores are stupid anyway

Especially made by ign and similar channels when it comes to fighters and combat-systems, since no one of them knows how to fight.