surf dtoid with 
Rising (10+)
People you follow
I think the problem is, critics will usually just slap a score of around 7-8 on most games that aren't exceptional. Apparently there are a lot of average video games, fewer really good games, and even fewer totally shitty games - at least, that's how it appears from the way games are typically scored.
yeah, cause we all know that ultimately twilight princess is simply mediocre.
at best.
lol. i mean you know that's what it'll boil down to, your review of zelda. But i do agree on most of you points...it just that glaring 4 is blinding as piss; hard to focus.
at best.
lol. i mean you know that's what it'll boil down to, your review of zelda. But i do agree on most of you points...it just that glaring 4 is blinding as piss; hard to focus.
Since I didn't finish the article, I'll talk out of my ass for a second.
Most reviewers acknowledge that a 10 does not represent a perfect game, because there's no such thing. One game mag, forget which one, even went so far as to add an unattainable 11 to their rating scale, just to illustrate their point. Now, I know what you're thinking, "Why not just make 10 louder?"
Gears of War is a masterpiece, maybe even a killer app, that every 360 owner should have in their collection. That is what makes a 10.
With the exception of the oft-baffling 10, I agree that video games are rated far too favorably. For the last 10 years, I've rarely found myself considering anything less than an 8 average even playable. If I'm not going to recommend a game to friends it's not a good game, in my opinion.
You gave Twilight Princess a 4?????
Most reviewers acknowledge that a 10 does not represent a perfect game, because there's no such thing. One game mag, forget which one, even went so far as to add an unattainable 11 to their rating scale, just to illustrate their point. Now, I know what you're thinking, "Why not just make 10 louder?"
Gears of War is a masterpiece, maybe even a killer app, that every 360 owner should have in their collection. That is what makes a 10.
With the exception of the oft-baffling 10, I agree that video games are rated far too favorably. For the last 10 years, I've rarely found myself considering anything less than an 8 average even playable. If I'm not going to recommend a game to friends it's not a good game, in my opinion.
You gave Twilight Princess a 4?????
Wow, you're completely right. Game reviewers need to grow a set and back up their words with appropriate numbers. I doubt it will ever happen though. You know there's some payola going on.
Yes I will give you that Twilight Prince could be considered repetitive if you played Ocarina of Time...but couldn't you say the same thing about the 3028308 Madden games and the 2037480328 Rainbow Six/Splinter Cell games?
What scores have you given Madden Titles and Splinter Cells and Rainbow Sixes?
What scores have you given Madden Titles and Splinter Cells and Rainbow Sixes?
Agree with just about everything you said in that article. Look forward to part 2.
I hope this doesn't turn into another page for people just to whine about Zelda.
I hope this doesn't turn into another page for people just to whine about Zelda.
@LaBomba: "it just that glaring 4 is blinding as piss; hard to focus."
That's exactly the problem he's describing. A 4 shouldn't be blinding as piss. I'm guilty of doing this too...
Part of the problem is that after the gaming community has come to expect this skewed system, reviewers have to buy into it to communicate effectively.
Rev's is a perfect example -- his review totally justifies a score of "sub-par" but it seems like nobody actually read the words he wrote. Because he didn't use the skewed system that other people use, his point was lost on most readers.
That's exactly the problem he's describing. A 4 shouldn't be blinding as piss. I'm guilty of doing this too...
Part of the problem is that after the gaming community has come to expect this skewed system, reviewers have to buy into it to communicate effectively.
Rev's is a perfect example -- his review totally justifies a score of "sub-par" but it seems like nobody actually read the words he wrote. Because he didn't use the skewed system that other people use, his point was lost on most readers.
Excellent read. I was going to suggest that they just lower the scale to 1-5, but that would just result in shitloads of decimals being thrown out and games getting rated as threes and fours. Because honestly, the scale is much simpler that way and you don't have to nitpick.
1 - Terrible
2 - Poor
3 - Average
4 - Above Average
5 - Excellent
The word perfect gets thrown around too much. Some publications even refer to their highest possible scores as "perfect" while at the same time pointing out flaws in the game. It's as you said, there is no such thing as a perfect game because somewhere someone will find something that they don't particularly like about a given title. In all respects, numbers should probably be done away with completely and reviewers should just go with a simple, two choice grading system: recommend, and don't recommend.
1 - Terrible
2 - Poor
3 - Average
4 - Above Average
5 - Excellent
The word perfect gets thrown around too much. Some publications even refer to their highest possible scores as "perfect" while at the same time pointing out flaws in the game. It's as you said, there is no such thing as a perfect game because somewhere someone will find something that they don't particularly like about a given title. In all respects, numbers should probably be done away with completely and reviewers should just go with a simple, two choice grading system: recommend, and don't recommend.
EGM is about the only print magazine I see using that ratings scale effectively, and it's pretty much the only source I use for game reviews. I've seen EGM pass out a justified 1 or 2 average on a game, and most other reviewers give the same game a 4 or 5.
I like the idea about 4/10, we don't see that enough.
Your right everything is a 6.75-7.50.
maybe we should get tougher on scores?
And maybe next time, a review of the most anticipated Zelda game EVER should perhaps be conducted by a Zelda fan.
cant wait for the next part.
Your right everything is a 6.75-7.50.
maybe we should get tougher on scores?
And maybe next time, a review of the most anticipated Zelda game EVER should perhaps be conducted by a Zelda fan.
cant wait for the next part.
Games should be rated on one of two things.
1. Is it fun?
2. Is it worth the price point?
That's it. That's all that should matter. When I tell someone about a game, that's what happens. There's no numbers involved, no mention on if it's a system pusher, just pure fun or not fun.
1. Is it fun?
2. Is it worth the price point?
That's it. That's all that should matter. When I tell someone about a game, that's what happens. There's no numbers involved, no mention on if it's a system pusher, just pure fun or not fun.
I stopped reading reviews years ago. Not only have I been wasting less time playing videogames ever since, but I've only been playing games I'm interested in without worrying about what some asocial fatty thinks about it. It's awesome, let me tell you. I'm playing less, spending less, and having a better time with the games I end up buying.
I was watching the news last night and they brought up something similar. Women's clothing sizes. The clothes have been getting bigger and the numbers staying the same. Meaning that a 4 of 1980 is all of the sudden a 0 today. Or something like that.
The same is true of grades. I got A's in most of my classes; however, so did everyone else. There were people in my graduating class who got 4.5 GPAs out of a 4.0 scale. WTF????
As a society, we've become to PC to tell someone they suck, even if they really do suck (or are overweight). All we do is raise the bar artificially or change the scale as Rev A. mentioned for games. 5/10 is the new 1/10. It doesn't make sense and it screws with the scale. There should be a reset button so everybody can start over the way the scale should be.
The same is true of grades. I got A's in most of my classes; however, so did everyone else. There were people in my graduating class who got 4.5 GPAs out of a 4.0 scale. WTF????
As a society, we've become to PC to tell someone they suck, even if they really do suck (or are overweight). All we do is raise the bar artificially or change the scale as Rev A. mentioned for games. 5/10 is the new 1/10. It doesn't make sense and it screws with the scale. There should be a reset button so everybody can start over the way the scale should be.
I agree with Toneman, I usually read whats so great or not so great...
We all know you're still getting reemed for the 4/10 score on Z:TP... that's why there's 3 paragraphs explaining yourself. Im not judging Im just saying...
We all know you're still getting reemed for the 4/10 score on Z:TP... that's why there's 3 paragraphs explaining yourself. Im not judging Im just saying...
Ars Technica shifted to a Buy, Rent, Pass system. It's better cause you actually read more of the review to figure out why. Although, lately, they've been putting qualifiers after everything (Buy but only if this...). Old habits die hard.
The problem as I see it is a 1-10 scale is related to grades from school. I see a score of 5 I see a non passing grade. 5.5 (in a 1-10 grading system)is a true average (product for our discussion), however in life we are trained to see 70% as average or a "C" grade the 5.5 or 55%(as it would be percieved is an "F". The preception of scale has been modified due to the way we are brought up.
Perception must be realigned before a "true" scale of gaming fun can be achieved.
Perception must be realigned before a "true" scale of gaming fun can be achieved.
Kryptinite
I like your idea...I guess in "is it worth it" you would put the special features or what not....
I like your idea...I guess in "is it worth it" you would put the special features or what not....
Well think of it like this its going to a grading scale if you got a 50% you fail. plus they cant say it like you can your just too blunt. plus it can be like that any more since games are bigger then they uste to be.
i read reviews, evaluate the pros and cons, then I choose what to get.
i don't make choices because THEY say so.
and a 4 for Zelda was STILL the dumbest shit ever.
sounds like someone needed attention.....
I believe in a 0-π rating scale. 0 is awful, π/4 is not worth your money, π/2 is a decent game but not worth your money, 3π/4 is a lot of fun, great replay value with no flaws that take away from the playability of the game, and the best score of π is a perfect game, a la mode.
Seeing as how it would be pretty difficult to give gamers ice cream with their purchase, π shouldn't be given out to often
Seeing as how it would be pretty difficult to give gamers ice cream with their purchase, π shouldn't be given out to often
"I've rarely found myself considering anything less than an 8 average even playable."
Same here. I feel that a lot of games are graded too highly. I generally subtract 0.5 for the average score to balance things out. It really depends on the context of the written review.
I usually dont like a number attached to a game because all to often I see written reviews and scores that dont add up. Personally I feel scores should be done away with. Unlike most people I read many reviews to determine if a games final score is justified.
That was a great read.
Keep on preaching Reverend.
Oh... and also cocks
Same here. I feel that a lot of games are graded too highly. I generally subtract 0.5 for the average score to balance things out. It really depends on the context of the written review.
I usually dont like a number attached to a game because all to often I see written reviews and scores that dont add up. Personally I feel scores should be done away with. Unlike most people I read many reviews to determine if a games final score is justified.
That was a great read.
Keep on preaching Reverend.
Oh... and also cocks
Well, I will be blunt, the 4 for TP shocked me. It takes alot to shock me, there aren't many games that I like. I would have personally given TP about a 6. Hell, it was the first Zelda I have played since SNES. The Wii is the first console I have owned from Nintendo since the NES. I have been a major sony fanboy for years. Until the PS3 and sony decided to rip the consumers.
However, I will agree, too many games get good reviews that they don't deserve. Ahem, Red Steel is one, it recieved 6's and 7's across the board. All the levels are soo redundant, the sword play is mediocre at best, the AI is just horrendous. It was probably a 3 on a good day when you are snowed in and thats the ONLY game you have to play.
I don't find God of War to be as great as boasted, an 8 is generous. It was a nice game, but nothing that I personally would get to immersed in.
It's all about personal tastes. I'm going insane attempting to gather the cash to get myself a 360. I can't really judge any games on the 360, as I have never played on the 360, hell, the original xbox for that matter.
However, I will agree, too many games get good reviews that they don't deserve. Ahem, Red Steel is one, it recieved 6's and 7's across the board. All the levels are soo redundant, the sword play is mediocre at best, the AI is just horrendous. It was probably a 3 on a good day when you are snowed in and thats the ONLY game you have to play.
I don't find God of War to be as great as boasted, an 8 is generous. It was a nice game, but nothing that I personally would get to immersed in.
It's all about personal tastes. I'm going insane attempting to gather the cash to get myself a 360. I can't really judge any games on the 360, as I have never played on the 360, hell, the original xbox for that matter.
I still disagree with your Zelda TP score, but I totally agree with what you're saying about the current rating system. I think the system you've defined is ideal, but not implemented at this point. I think part of the problem is that our (American) standards for "average" aren't truly average at all; perhaps we expect too little, so we're too pleasantly surprised when something doesn't turn out to be complete shit.
This is a very interesting topic, Rev - I look forward to Part 2.
This is a very interesting topic, Rev - I look forward to Part 2.
I definitely don't play as many games as I would like to. I don't have the time, so when it's time for me to get a new game I'm pretty selective. I don't want to spend $50 on something that I'm not going to enjoy. If a game has an average rating of 7 or below chances are I'm not picking it up. I don't want to play a "good" or "great" game. I want to play something that's absolutely fantastic that I'll love. So I hover towards the 8's, 9's and when they occur, the 10's. Even then though, when I play the 8's sometimes I'll think "Yeah, it was good...but it really didn't deserve that score". If the game reviews really went by what number meant I would probably pick up more 6's and 7's. But when something gets that score it might as well be a 5 or below.
Something I think what the industry needs to do is set a standard for review scores. A lot of industries (such as movies) have a scoring system that everyone grades on. Im not saying we have to grade God of War II in stars but something about game scoring needs an overhaul.
People probably think about it like a grade.
You take a test. You could get a score anywhere from 0-100, but anything below 65 is an F.
I see nothing wrong with this mindset. Regardless of how bad a game is, it could almost always get worse.
You take a test. You could get a score anywhere from 0-100, but anything below 65 is an F.
I see nothing wrong with this mindset. Regardless of how bad a game is, it could almost always get worse.
"Gears of War is a masterpiece, maybe even a killer app, that every 360 owner should have in their collection. That is what makes a 10."
im sorry but gears of way is no masterpeice, the only thing for me that lived up to the hype, was the graphics and being able to play the single player with someone else, after that, i saw alot of terrible things that made me sell the game back to gamestop, if anything, it deserved a 5, almost the entire 11 hours i played the game, its been "ehhhhhhhhhh"
im sorry but gears of way is no masterpeice, the only thing for me that lived up to the hype, was the graphics and being able to play the single player with someone else, after that, i saw alot of terrible things that made me sell the game back to gamestop, if anything, it deserved a 5, almost the entire 11 hours i played the game, its been "ehhhhhhhhhh"
I personally would prefer to see all scores removed. In place put a much simpler system:
BUY IT
RENT IT
DONT BOTHER
It would be a function of the cost of the game, and if everyone subscribed, metascores would be a better indicator of how worthwhile a game is.
BUY IT
RENT IT
DONT BOTHER
It would be a function of the cost of the game, and if everyone subscribed, metascores would be a better indicator of how worthwhile a game is.
Honestly, if he's ranking Zelda TP at a 4, he's doing so on the grounds he states because he wants the controversy. And he can back up his claims all day with his review.
"And that's why I gave it a 4" is his easy out for any criticism against his review. I liked the story. The controls worked just fine for me. And gameplay mechanics are what make a game they way they are. If you feel it's repetitive, then maybe the game is a little too long for your tastes.
"And that's why I gave it a 4" is his easy out for any criticism against his review. I liked the story. The controls worked just fine for me. And gameplay mechanics are what make a game they way they are. If you feel it's repetitive, then maybe the game is a little too long for your tastes.
I agree with everyone who said they think of the rating system as an academic grading system. I think it should be this way because it's specific and familiar. Just as you're probably not going to want to read someone's paper that got a C or D - you probably arent going to want to play that video game. And (at least in college) its almost impossible to get a perfect 100%, especially if you've got an idealistic professor.
I agree that the ratings are inflated just like a lot of grades are today, and often wonder if people get paid to give games certain scores (just like teachers get paid more if their students do well). There should be more games that get 10% and less that get 70% definitely for sure.
No comment on the Zelda review.
I agree that the ratings are inflated just like a lot of grades are today, and often wonder if people get paid to give games certain scores (just like teachers get paid more if their students do well). There should be more games that get 10% and less that get 70% definitely for sure.
No comment on the Zelda review.
I agree wholeheartedly with this piece. Its sad that its hard to differentiate a "good" game from a "great" game from an "excellent" game based on review scores. Anything in that realm seems to get roughly the same score when review scores are collated - prolly around an "8".
(On a totally unrelated note, Lost Planet deserves at least a 7. Its the first console shooter to play like a console shooter instead of a piss-poor rip of a PC FPS. Analog sticks are not mice, and console FPSs like to pretend they are - auto-aim for the lose.
(On a totally unrelated note, Lost Planet deserves at least a 7. Its the first console shooter to play like a console shooter instead of a piss-poor rip of a PC FPS. Analog sticks are not mice, and console FPSs like to pretend they are - auto-aim for the lose.
I see the point RevA was trying to make by giving Zelda a 4/10, that the rating system is botched. Had he skewed his number into the rating system most agree with the game probably would have recieved a score of 6.5-7.5. At least that is what I would equate a 4 to in terms of the american grading system.
I actually think that the best scale for video games would be a monatray scale. You know, since games actually cost a butt-load more than any other media, in terms of cash and time a review telling you how much they'd pay for the game in REAL MONIES ZOMG would actually be kinda useful. It leaves room for the hyperbolic scores that people sometimes feel compelled to give, and doesn't suffer from the problem of having the "perfect score".
On the other hand I think a 1-10 scale is fine. Not too sure about adding in .1 because then it's essentially a percentile scale, which are dump in my opinion. 8 is different from a 9, but and 8.8 from a 9.2? Not so much, and so kinda pointless unless you're feeling uber pedantic.
Really though whoever said to focus on the text of a review was bang on the money. Pun unintended I swear.
On the other hand I think a 1-10 scale is fine. Not too sure about adding in .1 because then it's essentially a percentile scale, which are dump in my opinion. 8 is different from a 9, but and 8.8 from a 9.2? Not so much, and so kinda pointless unless you're feeling uber pedantic.
Really though whoever said to focus on the text of a review was bang on the money. Pun unintended I swear.
Yes, dvddesign. You've created an impenetrable argument. Despite my paragraphs upon paragraphs explaining why I gave Zelda a 4, I'm doing it because I want controversy.Just because you said so, which therefore means you cannot possibly be disproven.
Citing actual gameplay flaws MUST seem like an easy out when there's no way for you to back up your claim that I'm mugging for attention, is there?
Feel free to simulate putting your fingers in your ears and repeating "I can't hear you" ad infinitum.
Citing actual gameplay flaws MUST seem like an easy out when there's no way for you to back up your claim that I'm mugging for attention, is there?
Feel free to simulate putting your fingers in your ears and repeating "I can't hear you" ad infinitum.
Let's see how many more people can point out the grade-in-school to game-review connection...
I feel like I'm alert and pro-active enough to anticipate the reviews for any games coming out these days. I play the demo, watch the movies, read the articles, and mostly make up my mind about a game before I see a single review. I read reviews these days mainly to see if I agree with the reviewer or not, but I rarely am surprised by what they say or really put a lot of stock into their opinion.
I feel like I'm alert and pro-active enough to anticipate the reviews for any games coming out these days. I play the demo, watch the movies, read the articles, and mostly make up my mind about a game before I see a single review. I read reviews these days mainly to see if I agree with the reviewer or not, but I rarely am surprised by what they say or really put a lot of stock into their opinion.
Hey rev, what did you give the latest madden? How about VF5? I see rehashes galore, so Id like to see what you think about them?
What about the Buy it/Rent it/Dont bother system?
What about the Buy it/Rent it/Dont bother system?
"If you feel it's repetitive, then maybe the game is a little too long for your tastes."
How do you account for personal taste? How can somebody accurately convey something like how "fun" or "good" something is with a set of numbers? When you take something as abstract and objective and "fun" and try to apply a quantifiable scale to it, it's no surprise that there are problems and inconsistencies.
How do you account for personal taste? How can somebody accurately convey something like how "fun" or "good" something is with a set of numbers? When you take something as abstract and objective and "fun" and try to apply a quantifiable scale to it, it's no surprise that there are problems and inconsistencies.
mandlebaum123:
To be totally honest, I don't play rehashes unless they try something drastically new, or if I really didn't like an earlier iteration of the series. A sequel that does nothing new will usually get a sub-average score from me, as was the case with MGS3 and Twilight Princess. I know we all have to resepect a game on its own merits, but I find it personally impossible to play all the games in a series that gets progressively more complex, and then not get disappointed when the final entry is almost exactly like the one preceding it.
And personally, I think the buy it/rent it/don't bother system is fantastic. It wasn't originally in part two of this article, but it definitely will be now that you've mentioned it.
To be totally honest, I don't play rehashes unless they try something drastically new, or if I really didn't like an earlier iteration of the series. A sequel that does nothing new will usually get a sub-average score from me, as was the case with MGS3 and Twilight Princess. I know we all have to resepect a game on its own merits, but I find it personally impossible to play all the games in a series that gets progressively more complex, and then not get disappointed when the final entry is almost exactly like the one preceding it.
And personally, I think the buy it/rent it/don't bother system is fantastic. It wasn't originally in part two of this article, but it definitely will be now that you've mentioned it.
A few of my friends and I are jumping into the whole reviewing of games because of the same reasons displayed in the article. We want to base games, as I stated earlier, on if the game is fun and if you would pay $60 to own it. In my mind, Zelda was fun and I thought it justified buying it to own. Gears of War was fun and I thought it justified buying it to own. Hell, I think Viva Pinata is fun and I bought that the same time I bought Crackdown. I can careless about a score that someone gives the game because some games are more than just who published it. I love this topic and Reverend Anthony, your a bad ass for putting this out there.
I thought MGS3 tried somethign new with the whole camouflage yourself and eat bugs/rodents for health...i never played the game but all that was never really in the previous games(besides a cardboard box and rations)...so i thought that was new.
follow
