What do you think about game reviews?

[DragonmasterDan]

But you also get militant reactionaries scoring 0s and 1s on games that are at worst average, so it's actually balanced out in the end. The advantage to fan reviews is a game often exists only as itself - it's features are new to someone experiencing them for the first time. The only question asked is"did I enjoy this, and why/why not?" More importantly, you'll find reviews scattered out over the course of several years, allowing more of a perspectice than an industry writer is allowed.

 

Yeah, but you wind up with inflated scores (or too low of scores) based on what types of fans are in higher numbers at the media outlet allowing the fan reviews. This is why GameFaqs polls and such usually wind up with Final Fantasy (or related characters) winning. Because their fans are in higher numbers at that particular outlet than anywhere else.

 

If I seemed too harsh initially on professional reviewers. I apologize. But I believe the current state of the craft is lacking something not missing in film reviews, or in consumer reports. Seldom is it asked if a game achieves what it's team intended for it to do - far too often, I see the opinions of fans of a game a reviewer doesn't like dismissed as being irrelevant ( in a review of Ultimate Ghouls n' Ghosts, one critic defending himself against imaginary complaints about the difficulty being rated poorly by suggesting the fans would defend the game no matter how bad it was ) and worse, sometimes reviewers defending their opinion as a fact ( My favorite example was Gamepro's Major Mike refering to Virtua Fighter 3 as a shallow button masher, then when responding to a reader's complaint, asking who was going to take the time to learn all those moves? )

 

When that happens, the only difference between a professional writer and an amateur fan is how well the transitions are placed between each thought.

 

As far as the concept of a fan review having a "new" experience as being an advantage, it's also a disadvantage in adequately ranking the value of a game. For example, I might play Rayman having not played any platformers in years and think it's great, But without the experience of having played Mario, Ratchet and Clank and other 3D platformers it's hard to judge how good this game is of a value for the money since I have nothing to compare it to.

 

As a professional reviewer it's my job to be informed enough about games to say this game ranked 9.0 is a better worth your time (and money if the price is equal) than this game ranked 7.5 and another game ranked 7.0 so that readers of my review can know what game is likely to be the best purchase. Obviously everyone has individual tastes and they differ from person to person, but games usually fall around a certain range for most experienced professional reviewers which is why sites like GameRankings are so important in creating averages.

 

Yes, there's bad professional reviewers out there, GamePro is certainly not well regarded for the integrity of their editorial content since you used them as an example, but an average of review scores from professional reviewers generally yields for more accurate results of the quality of a game (to most people) than does fan reviews based on experience.

 

Added in edit: Here's a few other thoughts. First off there are also games that as a reviewer I might enjoy but realize are fundamentally flawed products. A great example of this for me personally is Dragon's Lair 3D it's a game I can't recommend. But I'm a big fan of the original arcade game (as well as of Don Bluth's animation) and I personally found a great deal of enjoyment in the fan service provided in the game. The actual game itself is incredibly frustrating, poorly paced and has terrible camera and control problems. But I enjoyed it, it's a game that I couldn't actually give a fair review to since I'm well aware 99% of the population wouldn't have found the redeeming qualities I found in the game to at all make up for its rather substantial deficiencies.

 

Also, I am a big fan of calling out reviewers on doing a poor job. Years ago IGN had a review of Tactics Ogre on PSone which for all intents and purposes claimed the title was a Final Fantasy Tactics knockoff. The author of the review failed to realize Tactics Ogre was a much older game than Final Fantasy Tactics and though the title was released in North America after Square's game hit the market, Tactics Ogre is actually what Final Fantasy Tactics was based on, and not the other way around. IGN shortly thereafter pulled the Tactics Ogre review. The Virtual Fighter 3 situation sounds to me like a reviewer who didn't take the time to learn the intricacies of the game. In some circumstances this can be difficult and in the past has been acommon problem for reviewers who have a large plate of games to review and a fast approaching editorial deadline. However it's also no excuse for doing a poor job.

Edited December 4, 2007 by DragonmasterDan

[bretthorror]

http://kotaku.com/gaming/kane-%26-lynch/ka...ores-329529.php

 

And, it doesn't end at GS. Eidos liiiiies!

[A Sprite]

But you also get militant reactionaries scoring 0s and 1s on games that are at worst average, so it's actually balanced out in the end. The advantage to fan reviews is a game often exists only as itself - it's features are new to someone experiencing them for the first time. The only question asked is"did I enjoy this, and why/why not?" More importantly, you'll find reviews scattered out over the course of several years, allowing more of a perspectice than an industry writer is allowed.

 

Yeah, but you wind up with inflated scores (or too low of scores) based on what types of fans are in higher numbers at the media outlet allowing the fan reviews. This is why GameFaqs polls and such usually wind up with Final Fantasy (or related characters) winning. Because their fans are in higher numbers at that particular outlet than anywhere else.

 

If I seemed too harsh initially on professional reviewers. I apologize. But I believe the current state of the craft is lacking something not missing in film reviews, or in consumer reports. Seldom is it asked if a game achieves what it's team intended for it to do - far too often, I see the opinions of fans of a game a reviewer doesn't like dismissed as being irrelevant ( in a review of Ultimate Ghouls n' Ghosts, one critic defending himself against imaginary complaints about the difficulty being rated poorly by suggesting the fans would defend the game no matter how bad it was ) and worse, sometimes reviewers defending their opinion as a fact ( My favorite example was Gamepro's Major Mike refering to Virtua Fighter 3 as a shallow button masher, then when responding to a reader's complaint, asking who was going to take the time to learn all those moves? )

 

When that happens, the only difference between a professional writer and an amateur fan is how well the transitions are placed between each thought.

 

As far as the concept of a fan review having a "new" experience as being an advantage, it's also a disadvantage in adequately ranking the value of a game. For example, I might play Rayman having not played any platformers in years and think it's great, But without the experience of having played Mario, Ratchet and Clank and other 3D platformers it's hard to judge how good this game is of a value for the money since I have nothing to compare it to.

 

As a professional reviewer it's my job to be informed enough about games to say this game ranked 9.0 is a better worth your time (and money if the price is equal) than this game ranked 7.5 and another game ranked 7.0 so that readers of my review can know what game is likely to be the best purchase. Obviously everyone has individual tastes and they differ from person to person, but games usually fall around a certain range for most experienced professional reviewers which is why sites like GameRankings are so important in creating averages.

 

Yes, there's bad professional reviewers out there, GamePro is certainly not well regarded for the integrity of their editorial content since you used them as an example, but an average of review scores from professional reviewers generally yields for more accurate results of the quality of a game (to most people) than does fan reviews based on experience.

 

Added in edit: Here's a few other thoughts. First off there are also games that as a reviewer I might enjoy but realize are fundamentally flawed products. A great example of this for me personally is Dragon's Lair 3D it's a game I can't recommend. But I'm a big fan of the original arcade game (as well as of Don Bluth's animation) and I personally found a great deal of enjoyment in the fan service provided in the game. The actual game itself is incredibly frustrating, poorly paced and has terrible camera and control problems. But I enjoyed it, it's a game that I couldn't actually give a fair review to since I'm well aware 99% of the population wouldn't have found the redeeming qualities I found in the game to at all make up for its rather substantial deficiencies.

 

Also, I am a big fan of calling out reviewers on doing a poor job. Years ago IGN had a review of Tactics Ogre on PSone which for all intents and purposes claimed the title was a Final Fantasy Tactics knockoff. The author of the review failed to realize Tactics Ogre was a much older game than Final Fantasy Tactics and though the title was released in North America after Square's game hit the market, Tactics Ogre is actually what Final Fantasy Tactics was based on, and not the other way around. IGN shortly thereafter pulled the Tactics Ogre review. The Virtual Fighter 3 situation sounds to me like a reviewer who didn't take the time to learn the intricacies of the game. In some circumstances this can be difficult and in the past has been acommon problem for reviewers who have a large plate of games to review and a fast approaching editorial deadline. However it's also no excuse for doing a poor job.

 

I believe in everything you said; I guess I didn't make it clear that I regard fan reviews as a supplement to professional reviews, not a replacement. We part ways only in one area:

 

As a reader of your Dragon's Lair game, I'd want your recommendation of the game, as a fan, side by side with the objective reviewer's thoughts, even if it failed to meet the industry standards for play control ( Was it a question of a delayed response due to the graphics taxed from the system, which many people can adjust for, by treating it as a timing puzzle - or a lack of functionality leading to the computer offering multiple responses to the exact same button presses when not ignoring them completely? The two problems aren't equal.) camera ( showing off leading to reversed controls, or are you struggling to turn a camera that actively hides life or death situations from the players view? ) and pacing.

 

Sometimes graphics and sound, and all the other frosting we usually try to ignore, can create enough reward on their own that a bad game becomes a guilty pleasure.

 

And those kinds of bad games shouldn't be allowed to slip away from those of us blessed with the bad taste to forgive them their sins.

 

Besides, a great bad game is better for your brain than a decent average game; you've convinced me to buy it, if I ever see it in stores.

 

Would I be as enthusiastic if I'd read your published review?

Edited December 4, 2007 by A Sprite

[DragonmasterDan]

I believe in everything you said; I guess I didn't make it clear that I regard fan reviews as a supplement to professional reviews, not a replacement. We part ways only in one area:

 

As a reader of your Dragon's Lair game, I'd want your recommendation of the game, as a fan, side by side with the objective reviewer's thoughts, even if it failed to meet the industry standards for play control ( Was it a question of a delayed response due to the graphics taxed from the system, which many people can adjust for, by treating it as a timing puzzle - or a lack of functionality leading to the computer offering multiple responses to the exact same button presses when not ignoring them completely? The two problems aren't equal.) camera ( showing off leading to reversed controls, or are you struggling to turn a camera that actively hides life or death situations from the players view? ) and pacing.

 

Sometimes graphics and sound, and all the other frosting we usually try to ignore, can create enough reward on their own that a bad game becomes a guilty pleasure.

 

And those kinds of bad games shouldn't be allowed to slip away from those of us blessed with the bad taste to forgive them their sins.

 

Besides, a great bad game is better for your brain than a decent average game; you've convinced me to buy it, if I ever see it in stores.

 

Would I be as enthusiastic if I'd read your published review?

 

Since it's late my time and I don't feel like writing any sort of extensive mini review the basics of the game are as follows. The game has great cel shaded animation for characters, familiar environments to anyone who has played the earlier Dragon's Lair arcade games and a decent sized quest for an adventure game.

 

The games protagonist Dirk the Daring moves and handles awkwardly, he slides too frequently on jumps and control over how and where he attacks is limited leading to frustration with missed hits of enemies. While the level design has a great deal of aesthetic appeal due to nice looking environments many of which are modeled after scenes from the arcade classic, there are many platforming elements which go beyond just difficult to frustrating due to the games sloppy control scheme, in many areas jumps need to be very precise in order to land without falling off of your target.

 

In addition to the aforementioned problem with hitting enemies, being able to see where enemies are coming from can be problematic due to camera problems, the games angle does at times (particular in boss battles) switch beyond the players control and often times you can't see where an enemy is coming from. It's particularly noticeable with flying enemies (say for example bats) who can attack you nearly undetected depending on the camera angle).

 

This game also has a few "It's not a bug, it's a feature" elements that are sure to turn a lot of gamers off. In keeping with the tradition of the original Dragon's Lair a number of obstacles stand in Dirk's way which kill him instantly, certain types of enemy attacks or other hazards can kill Dirk in a single hit regardless of his life bar (yes, there is a life bar). This is designed intentionally as an homage to ways Dirk would die in the original Dragon's Lair but is lost on most players of the game as a frustrating way to die instantly when you have a full life bar.

 

With an extra 6 months to a year in development time of merely cleaning up the game engine, camera problems and refining the controls Dragon's Lair 3D could have been a fantastic game, but in its current state it is a title that should really only be recommended to die hard fans of the original arcade game.

 

Based on what I've said (though not as detailed or as lengthy as any sort of published review would normally be) hopefully you can draw your own conclusions as to whether or not you're enthusiastic about the title.

Edited December 4, 2007 by DragonmasterDan

[A Sprite]

I believe in everything you said; I guess I didn't make it clear that I regard fan reviews as a supplement to professional reviews, not a replacement. We part ways only in one area:

 

As a reader of your Dragon's Lair game, I'd want your recommendation of the game, as a fan, side by side with the objective reviewer's thoughts, even if it failed to meet the industry standards for play control ( Was it a question of a delayed response due to the graphics taxed from the system, which many people can adjust for, by treating it as a timing puzzle - or a lack of functionality leading to the computer offering multiple responses to the exact same button presses when not ignoring them completely? The two problems aren't equal.) camera ( showing off leading to reversed controls, or are you struggling to turn a camera that actively hides life or death situations from the players view? ) and pacing.

 

Sometimes graphics and sound, and all the other frosting we usually try to ignore, can create enough reward on their own that a bad game becomes a guilty pleasure.

 

And those kinds of bad games shouldn't be allowed to slip away from those of us blessed with the bad taste to forgive them their sins.

 

Besides, a great bad game is better for your brain than a decent average game; you've convinced me to buy it, if I ever see it in stores.

 

Would I be as enthusiastic if I'd read your published review?

 

Since it's late my time and I don't feel like writing any sort of extensive mini review the basics of the game are as follows. The game has great cel shaded animation for characters, familiar environments to anyone who has played the earlier Dragon's Lair arcade games and a decent sized quest for an adventure game.

 

The games protagonist Dirk the Daring moves and handles awkwardly, he slides too frequently on jumps and control over how and where he attacks is limited leading to frustration with missed hits of enemies. While the level design has a great deal of aesthetic appeal due to nice looking environments many of which are modeled after scenes from the arcade classic, there are many platforming elements which go beyond just difficult to frustrating due to the games sloppy control scheme, in many areas jumps need to be very precise in order to land without falling off of your target.

 

In addition to the aforementioned problem with hitting enemies, being able to see where enemies are coming from can be problematic due to camera problems, the games angle does at times (particular in boss battles) switch beyond the players control and often times you can't see where an enemy is coming from. It's particularly noticeable with flying enemies (say for example bats) who can attack you nearly undetected depending on the camera angle).

 

This game also has a few "It's not a bug, it's a feature" elements that are sure to turn a lot of gamers off. In keeping with the tradition of the original Dragon's Lair a number of obstacles stand in Dirk's way which kill him instantly, certain types of enemy attacks or other hazards can kill Dirk in a single hit regardless of his life bar (yes, there is a life bar). This is designed intentionally as an homage to ways Dirk would die in the original Dragon's Lair but is lost on most players of the game as a frustrating way to die instantly when you have a full life bar.

 

With an extra 6 months to a year in development time of merely cleaning up the game engine, camera problems and refining the controls Dragon's Lair 3D could have been a fantastic game, but in its current state it is a title that should really only be recommended to die hard fans of the original arcade game.

 

Based on what I've said (though not as detailed or as lengthy as any sort of published review would normally be) hopefully you can draw your own conclusions as to whether or not you're enthusiastic about the title.

 

I owe you one.

 

That was longer than many of the published reviews I read...I wasn't expecting any of my questions to actually be answered in depth, this late at night.

 

Now I know I want the game.

 

Thanks.

 

Are you here anonymously? I'd like to read more of your work; but won't press the issue given the nature of this site...

[DragonmasterDan]

I believe in everything you said; I guess I didn't make it clear that I regard fan reviews as a supplement to professional reviews, not a replacement. We part ways only in one area:

 

As a reader of your Dragon's Lair game, I'd want your recommendation of the game, as a fan, side by side with the objective reviewer's thoughts, even if it failed to meet the industry standards for play control ( Was it a question of a delayed response due to the graphics taxed from the system, which many people can adjust for, by treating it as a timing puzzle - or a lack of functionality leading to the computer offering multiple responses to the exact same button presses when not ignoring them completely? The two problems aren't equal.) camera ( showing off leading to reversed controls, or are you struggling to turn a camera that actively hides life or death situations from the players view? ) and pacing.

 

Sometimes graphics and sound, and all the other frosting we usually try to ignore, can create enough reward on their own that a bad game becomes a guilty pleasure.

 

And those kinds of bad games shouldn't be allowed to slip away from those of us blessed with the bad taste to forgive them their sins.

 

Besides, a great bad game is better for your brain than a decent average game; you've convinced me to buy it, if I ever see it in stores.

 

Would I be as enthusiastic if I'd read your published review?

 

Since it's late my time and I don't feel like writing any sort of extensive mini review the basics of the game are as follows. The game has great cel shaded animation for characters, familiar environments to anyone who has played the earlier Dragon's Lair arcade games and a decent sized quest for an adventure game.

 

The games protagonist Dirk the Daring moves and handles awkwardly, he slides too frequently on jumps and control over how and where he attacks is limited leading to frustration with missed hits of enemies. While the level design has a great deal of aesthetic appeal due to nice looking environments many of which are modeled after scenes from the arcade classic, there are many platforming elements which go beyond just difficult to frustrating due to the games sloppy control scheme, in many areas jumps need to be very precise in order to land without falling off of your target.

 

In addition to the aforementioned problem with hitting enemies, being able to see where enemies are coming from can be problematic due to camera problems, the games angle does at times (particular in boss battles) switch beyond the players control and often times you can't see where an enemy is coming from. It's particularly noticeable with flying enemies (say for example bats) who can attack you nearly undetected depending on the camera angle).

 

This game also has a few "It's not a bug, it's a feature" elements that are sure to turn a lot of gamers off. In keeping with the tradition of the original Dragon's Lair a number of obstacles stand in Dirk's way which kill him instantly, certain types of enemy attacks or other hazards can kill Dirk in a single hit regardless of his life bar (yes, there is a life bar). This is designed intentionally as an homage to ways Dirk would die in the original Dragon's Lair but is lost on most players of the game as a frustrating way to die instantly when you have a full life bar.

 

With an extra 6 months to a year in development time of merely cleaning up the game engine, camera problems and refining the controls Dragon's Lair 3D could have been a fantastic game, but in its current state it is a title that should really only be recommended to die hard fans of the original arcade game.

 

Based on what I've said (though not as detailed or as lengthy as any sort of published review would normally be) hopefully you can draw your own conclusions as to whether or not you're enthusiastic about the title.

 

I owe you one.

 

That was longer than many of the published reviews I read...I wasn't expecting any of my questions to actually be answered in depth, this late at night.

 

Now I know I want the game.

 

Thanks.

 

Are you here anonymously? I'd like to read more of your work; but won't press the issue given the nature of this site...

 

No, this is a screen name I mostly use for online boards and stuff. I previously worked for a publication called Silicon Magazine which was a print magazine that was given out to independent game stores, it was typically 32-48 pages per issue paid for by ads. A lot of stores would line their bags with it (meaning you got it with any purchase). As the smaller game stores started to die out (used stores, import stores) the circulation dropped and the magazine faltered. I've worked for a number of online publications over the years though many of them are since defunct. Some of my reviews can still be found that were written for GamesAreFun.com

[BydoEmpire]

I always use GameRankings or MetaCritic these days. While there are some games I preorder, most games I'll wait for some reviews to get an overall feel of the quality of the game. Any single review is pretty worthless to me, unless they mention something specific about the game that I would either really love, or really hate (like sloppy or unresponsive controls). If I'm interested in a game and it gets across-the-board lousy reviews, I'll definitely hold off.. perhaps rent first.

 

The problem with game reviews isn't that they're bought off en masse by advertisers, it's that they're not journalists. You have people who aren't trained in objectivity doing what should be an objective piece. The worst is when an individual magazine's reviewers are all over the place (Game Informer). At least with some places (EGM ) they seem to have relatively clear standards for how to score games. I don't subscribe to either anymore, but that's how I remember it.

 

I also hate it when they compare games on different systems for no reason[/]. This is particularly bad with Wii reviews - why does every Wii review start with "Well, it doesn't look like a 360 game." Yeah, no kidding. But does it look good? Now, if the Wii controls of a ps2 port add (Godfather) or subtract (MoH: Vanguard) from the game, that's absolutely worth mentioning for a game that appears on multiple platforms. But for platform exclusives, it's really silly. Are the controls good? Why or why not? That's what I want to know. If I'm reading a review for Game X on System Y it's because I have System Y and I'm interested in Game X. I think reviewers forget that.

 

I also dislike any review score finer than the 5-star scale. All I want to know is a general overview of quality; let me decide from the text of the review if it's for me. 10 point scales are never used properly (to be fair EGM was pretty good), and more than 10 is ridiculous. How many 7.9 games have there been? How many 7.8 games? What's the difference between the two? Yet the perceived difference between a 7.9 and 8.0 is huge. The 100 point scale is a cop out, and a disservice to the games.

 

Finally, I don't like that so many overhyped, big-name games get 10/10 so often. No WAY Halo 3 is a ten. Not even close. Same thing for MK: Double Dash. Not sure if this is payola, or the reviewers honestly really loved the games, but it doesn't seem right to me. Especially when I get sucked into the hype and drop $50 or $60 on something ultimately disappointing. A 10/10 games should NOT be disappointing at all if you're remotely interested in the game.

 

Good topic, though, I think a lot of people have a lot of different beefs with game reviewers.

Edited December 4, 2007 by BydoEmpire

[Atari5200]

i have written some reviews for Gamefaqs and I try to be objective, my user name on gamefaqs is Review4you, One of the games I reviewed was Gears of War, which I gave a favorable score, but I still called out it's faults and bugs. Most of the reviews I read made no mention of anything bad at all, and the invisible wall syndrome of GOW can be a major pain in the ass, but again, no mention of this in any review I read.

 

I know one review I did was Checkerd Flag for the Jag years ago under a different user name that I believe I gave a 2 out of 10, and then read a review on some church persons video game review site, basically they rate anything other than cartoony games very low because of religious beliefs, and they rated Checkered Flag highly and even made the point to not believe other reviews. I'm going to try to find this review, if it's still around, and post it, it's ridiculous.

[ls650]

http://kotaku.com/gaming/kane-%26-lynch/ka...ores-329529.php

Hilarious!

[Lord Helmet]

The only time I trust reviews is when they are for a game that is an absolute turd. No one is taking any kickbacks to rank a game 2 out of 10

[DragonmasterDan]

I also dislike any review score finer than the 5-star scale. All I want to know is a general overview of quality; let me decide from the text of the review if it's for me. 10 point scales are never used properly (to be fair EGM was pretty good), and more than 10 is ridiculous. How many 7.9 games have there been? How many 7.8 games? What's the difference between the two? Yet the perceived difference between a 7.9 and 8.0 is huge. The 100 point scale is a cop out, and a disservice to the games.

 

I think the ten point scale is completely flawed as well, mainly because it isn't a scale of 1-10 it's a scale of 5-10, VERY VERY VERY rarely will you ever see a game fall below a five, the reason being if a publisher gets that upset about a negative review the reviewer or his publication could always claim that a 5 means average when actually it means poor in most cases.

 

With the Kane and Lynch situation it's obviously become apparent that long ago most publishers became hip to the 5-10 scale and the infamous 6 out of ten that title recieved was seen as a flogging of mass proportion when the scale technically should mean the game is above average. It's a huge flaw with the industry.

Finally, I don't like that so many overhyped, big-name games get 10/10 so often. No WAY Halo 3 is a ten. Not even close. Same thing for MK: Double Dash. Not sure if this is payola, or the reviewers honestly really loved the games, but it doesn't seem right to me. Especially when I get sucked into the hype and drop $50 or $60 on something ultimately disappointing. A 10/10 games should NOT be disappointing at all if you're remotely interested in the game.

 

Good topic, though, I think a lot of people have a lot of different beefs with game reviewers.

 

I don't necessarily have a problem with a game getting 10 out of 10 if in the reviewers mind the spectacular strengths of the title make up for the games flaws. There are games I feel are fully worthy of a perfect score, not because they are technically perfect but because they are so highly exceptional they are as close to it as can be reached via the medium. Also everyone is disappointed with some game, since you brought up Halo 3 I personally am not a fan of playing first person shooters with a controller. As a result I know that my enjoyment of the game would be much lower than most people who bought and played it simply because I strongly prefer to have some sort of pointing device like a mouse to aim in a game that requires accurate shots in fast action rather than using analog sticks to serve that purpose.

 

There is a variation in tastes between everyone.

[BydoEmpire]

I can see your point, and I don't have a problem with games getting 10/10. But there's a difference between a great game having a few little flaws or quirks, and being disappointing. Mario Kart: DD and Halo 3 were both disappointments beyond having little flaws. But that's personal preference, I suppose, as I know lots of people who loved both games. Hence, Gamerankings and Metacritic.

[Atari5200]

Gears of War is prime example of hype reviews. Is it a great game. YES, but not 10 out of 10 great. I think I gave my review 8 out of 10. It's fantastic, but not a perfect 10. The invisible wall thing alone is enough to warrant a full point drop. The most evident part is the scene where your underground at the pump station, all the way to the left hand side there's a crate that is next to the side of the wall of the cave, I tried to hide in there during a fire fight and was unable to. A gap 3 times larger than the character and you couldn't go in there because of invisible walls, and this wasn't the only place you could find this, often times there were pillars that you couldn't hide behind, you would just roll against them over and over again as you tried. But nowhere anywhere did you read about this stuff anywhere. There were also little graphical things I noticed that should be present on a next gen system, like the rain scenes. did anybody else notice that the rain does not leave ripples in the puddles?

 

So i have to agree with Bydo on the subject of over hyped game reviews.

[ls650]

it isn't a scale of 1-10 it's a scale of 5-10, VERY VERY VERY rarely will you ever see a game fall below a five

That is absolutely correct!

Game scores should settle out in a bell curve, with most lumped in the middle between 3 and 7, and only the occasional stellar game reaching above that - or crap games falling below. It seems as though a game has to be literally broken (crashes or locks up frequently, input simply doesn't work, etc.) to score below 5.

[A Sprite]

I think the ten point scale is completely flawed as well, mainly because it isn't a scale of 1-10 it's a scale of 5-10, VERY VERY VERY rarely will you ever see a game fall below a five, the reason being if a publisher gets that upset about a negative review the reviewer or his publication could always claim that a 5 means average when actually it means poor in most cases.

 

Allow me to be the devil's advocate.

 

Most review systems were created during the 8 bit era, when a 5 or less meant the graphics the scanner made with it's feet flickered in and out of sight, the game would run at half speed, and attempting to punch the skateboarder 3 times in the face to kill it meant taking a mandatory hit that knocked Batman 10 feet back into the deep puddle of instant death. Nobody makes a game that bad these days.

 

Those that came later, could count the polygons in a bad game on one finger, and could count on the camera getting the best view of Laura Croft's crotch while they were playing Tenchu.

 

Nobody makes a game that bad these days either.

 

Except for Red Ninja.

 

So what is a game critic to do? Simulations finally have the power to be sim like, RPG's can show up to 50 emotions per scene, whether they need them or not, and only die hard sports fans can even play the sports games anymore. Everyone else making a game peeked at Miyamoto's answers.

 

Games like "The Guy Game" and "Big Rig Truckers" keep us reminded of what a bad game looks like, but how often do they come around?

 

We need to redefine mediocrity.

 

What is a 4 out of 10 in this day and age?

Edited December 6, 2007 by A Sprite

[Gabriel]

What is a 4 out of 10 in this day and age?

 

Well, according to TeamXbox.com

 

Star Trek: Shattered Universe = 3.6

 

Warriors Orochi = 4.0

 

Space Giraffe = 4.3

 

Spyglass Boardgames a 5.8

 

Word Puzzle at 4.4.

 

Kane & Lynch is a 7.0.

 

 

Moving back to Gamespot, they rated the same games as follows:

 

Warriors Orochi = 5.0

 

Star Trek: Shattered Universe = 4.4

 

Space Giraffe = 7.5

 

Spyglass Boardgames = 5.0

 

Word Puzzle = 4.5

 

Kane & Lynch = 6.0

 

 

Now IGN

 

Warriors Orochi = 6.3

 

Star Trek: Shattered Universe = 3.9

 

Space Giraffe = 4.7

 

Spyglass Boardgames = 4.5

 

Word Puzzle = 5.5

 

Kane & Lynch = 7.0

 

 

These are just a few reviews which I remember being strange on their own or in relation to other reviews. Notice TeamXbox and IGN both go with the traditionally non-committal 7.0 on Kane & Lynch. According to the reviews, Star Trek: Shattered Universe is worse than a Word Puzzle game and the crippled Spyglass Boardgames. Check out Warriors Orochi's scores.

 

Those scores couldn't make less sense even if they used the Chewbacca Defense.

[DragonmasterDan]

I think the ten point scale is completely flawed as well, mainly because it isn't a scale of 1-10 it's a scale of 5-10, VERY VERY VERY rarely will you ever see a game fall below a five, the reason being if a publisher gets that upset about a negative review the reviewer or his publication could always claim that a 5 means average when actually it means poor in most cases.

 

Allow me to be the devil's advocate.

 

Most review systems were created during the 8 bit era, when a 5 or less meant the graphics the scanner made with it's feet flickered in and out of sight, the game would run at half speed, and attempting to punch the skateboarder 3 times in the face to kill it meant taking a mandatory hit that knocked Batman 10 feet back into the deep puddle of instant death. Nobody makes a game that bad these days.

 

Those that came later, could count the polygons in a bad game on one finger, and could count on the camera getting the best view of Laura Croft's crotch while they were playing Tenchu.

 

Nobody makes a game that bad these days either.

 

Except for Red Ninja.

 

So what is a game critic to do? Simulations finally have the power to be sim like, RPG's can show up to 50 emotions per scene, whether they need them or not, and only die hard sports fans can even play the sports games anymore. Everyone else making a game peeked at Miyamoto's answers.

 

Games like "The Guy Game" and "Big Rig Truckers" keep us reminded of what a bad game looks like, but how often do they come around?

 

We need to redefine mediocrity.

 

What is a 4 out of 10 in this day and age?

 

Well even back in the 8-bit era not many games received exceptionally low reviews. There were a lot less 9s and 10s given out but games scored at 5 are below were still very uncommon. I think there was a lower median, but the extremes of 1,2,3 and 4 were used just as infrequently.

 

Added in edit: I think when you look at what's a 4 out of 10 in this day in age you have to grade on a curve relative to the era. Some problems like bad control and level design make a game from any era lousy. Other problems like bad graphics for its time, or an overused gameplay mechanic can make a game today uninspired or "below average" which is where the 4 should be used.

Edited December 6, 2007 by DragonmasterDan

[A Sprite]

I think the ten point scale is completely flawed as well, mainly because it isn't a scale of 1-10 it's a scale of 5-10, VERY VERY VERY rarely will you ever see a game fall below a five, the reason being if a publisher gets that upset about a negative review the reviewer or his publication could always claim that a 5 means average when actually it means poor in most cases.

 

Allow me to be the devil's advocate.

 

Most review systems were created during the 8 bit era, when a 5 or less meant the graphics the scanner made with it's feet flickered in and out of sight, the game would run at half speed, and attempting to punch the skateboarder 3 times in the face to kill it meant taking a mandatory hit that knocked Batman 10 feet back into the deep puddle of instant death. Nobody makes a game that bad these days.

 

Those that came later, could count the polygons in a bad game on one finger, and could count on the camera getting the best view of Laura Croft's crotch while they were playing Tenchu.

 

Nobody makes a game that bad these days either.

 

Except for Red Ninja.

 

So what is a game critic to do? Simulations finally have the power to be sim like, RPG's can show up to 50 emotions per scene, whether they need them or not, and only die hard sports fans can even play the sports games anymore. Everyone else making a game peeked at Miyamoto's answers.

 

Games like "The Guy Game" and "Big Rig Truckers" keep us reminded of what a bad game looks like, but how often do they come around?

 

We need to redefine mediocrity.

 

What is a 4 out of 10 in this day and age?

 

Well even back in the 8-bit era not many games received exceptionally low reviews. There were a lot less 9s and 10s given out but games scored at 5 are below were still very uncommon. I think there was a lower median, but the extremes of 1,2,3 and 4 were used just as infrequently.

 

Added in edit: I think when you look at what's a 4 out of 10 in this day in age you have to grade on a curve relative to the era. Some problems like bad control and level design make a game from any era lousy. Other problems like bad graphics for its time, or an overused gameplay mechanic can make a game today uninspired or "below average" which is where the 4 should be used.

 

Now take it one step further down the path of creative rot - what seperates a 3 from a 4, and a 2 from a 3? What does a 4 drop at your feet that isn't offered in any number below it?

 

Can a failing grade still point out to a developer what potential there is in a game, or is it just a tool for releasing emotion?

Edited December 7, 2007 by A Sprite

[DragonmasterDan]

I think the ten point scale is completely flawed as well, mainly because it isn't a scale of 1-10 it's a scale of 5-10, VERY VERY VERY rarely will you ever see a game fall below a five, the reason being if a publisher gets that upset about a negative review the reviewer or his publication could always claim that a 5 means average when actually it means poor in most cases.

 

Allow me to be the devil's advocate.

 

Most review systems were created during the 8 bit era, when a 5 or less meant the graphics the scanner made with it's feet flickered in and out of sight, the game would run at half speed, and attempting to punch the skateboarder 3 times in the face to kill it meant taking a mandatory hit that knocked Batman 10 feet back into the deep puddle of instant death. Nobody makes a game that bad these days.

 

Those that came later, could count the polygons in a bad game on one finger, and could count on the camera getting the best view of Laura Croft's crotch while they were playing Tenchu.

 

Nobody makes a game that bad these days either.

 

Except for Red Ninja.

 

So what is a game critic to do? Simulations finally have the power to be sim like, RPG's can show up to 50 emotions per scene, whether they need them or not, and only die hard sports fans can even play the sports games anymore. Everyone else making a game peeked at Miyamoto's answers.

 

 

 

Games like "The Guy Game" and "Big Rig Truckers" keep us reminded of what a bad game looks like, but how often do they come around?

 

We need to redefine mediocrity.

 

What is a 4 out of 10 in this day and age?

 

Well even back in the 8-bit era not many games received exceptionally low reviews. There were a lot less 9s and 10s given out but games scored at 5 are below were still very uncommon. I think there was a lower median, but the extremes of 1,2,3 and 4 were used just as infrequently.

 

Added in edit: I think when you look at what's a 4 out of 10 in this day in age you have to grade on a curve relative to the era. Some problems like bad control and level design make a game from any era lousy. Other problems like bad graphics for its time, or an overused gameplay mechanic can make a game today uninspired or "below average" which is where the 4 should be used.

 

Now take it one step further down the path of creative rot - what seperates a 3 from a 4, and a 2 from a 3? What does a 4 drop at your feet that isn't offered in any number below it?

 

Can a failing grade still point out to a developer what potential there is in a game, or is it just a tool for releasing emotion?

 

well, I think it varies from instance to instance, to me a 5 is an uninspired game that does nothing exceptional and probbaly has a few gameplay flaws or other problems but may have the potential to be okay. A 4 is a game with some serious problems with design, lack of content or other issues but may have had the right idea. A 3 is a game that probably never had potential. A 2 is a game that never should have been made. A 1 is a wonder it was published.