Game Reviews

norrie rugger

Is it just me or is the standard of reviews dropping.


As the level of consoles/PC's has risen, has the level of expectation from the press risen in time with it?

Just wondering this, given the poopy-storm that has arisen because of EGM giving Little Big Planet "only" 9/10

Is there such a thing as a 10/10 game. More so has the perfect score lost all meaning of late, due to the number of 10's

I am asking as during the Mega Drive/SNES era, a 90% was considered f***ing awsome, best in the business etc. These days anything lower than 90% is considered a "rent a game".

Should the standards be realligned to mean that there are more "Average" games getting actuall "average" scores?

0ubliette

Seems like nowadays if a game scores less than an 8, its an insta-fail. 1 - 5 should be reserved for terrible games, 5 is average, 6-7 above average, but flawed, 8 -10 for true greats.

norrie rugger

that's exactly my point. If everything is getting 9/10, how are we ment to actually judge based on it's peers.
I just think that there should be some bell curve applied with the majority being down around a 5 average

Sabre0001

Numbers at this stage mean very little to me in reviews. Prefer to read the good, the bad and the ugly (and at that will check out a couple of reviews). Also look at user reviews (game threads here are good) but overall try to get a demo!

Jazzy

edge gave Halo 3 10/10.
that says it all imo. the standard in reviews has dropped

super_furry

Jazzy wrote: »

edge gave Halo 3 10/10.
that says it all imo. the standard in reviews has dropped

Many people, myself included believe Halo 3 is a 10/10 game.

The standard of reviews has been dumbed down thanks to the influnence of sites like Gamespot and IGN. On their scale 7/10 is an average game and any big release getting anything below a 9 is considered a failure. Luckily there's still some decent places. Edge, Games TM and Eurogamer offer honest and accurate reviews that, even if you don't agree with them, you know that the reviews are the honest opinions of the writers.

Retr0gamer

super_furry wrote: »

Many people, myself included believe Halo 3 is a 10/10 game.

You sir, are sick and wrong. Good day to you!

rizzla

Well I listen to the IGN podcasts and the reviewers their hate the numbers associated with a review. Too much emphasis on the number and not enough people form their opinion on wheter they'll buy the game from the written review.

I hate the numbers scale, or any other review scale. The written review should be enough.

Kiith

% ftw!

Halo 3 is not a 10/10 game. I loved the game, but to give it a perfect score is a bit of a travesty. There have been far better games in the past few years which didnt get that rating. As for reviews nowadays, its kind of hard to judge a site for reviews, as they vary between each reviewer. I always thought that a game needs to be reviewed by 4 people, and it gets the average score between them.

Branoic

Yeah I think the numbers scale has lost a lot of meaning over the years. I generally won't play anything that's got a 6 or less, but I have no issues with playing a 7 game - they can still be great fun (eg, I thought Force Unleashed was class). The idea that if a big game "only" gets an 8 its a failure really annoys me, and the fanboys blathering about LBP only get a 9 fills me with murderous rage.

Jack Sheehan

Jazzy wrote: »

edge gave Halo 3 10/10.
that says it all imo. the standard in reviews has dropped

Thats the bunny, the definition of mediocrity was what that game was.

johnny_ultimate

Scores are the worst thing that ever happened to cultural criticism. The content of the review is what I would consider the significant part: a thourough examination of the flaws and positives of a particular game. I will stand by Edge in this regard, because their reviews are generally intelligent criticisms of the game (although I mostly buy the magazines for the fantastic opinion pieces at the end). It is unfortunate that they tag a game with a simple score at the end, because that does nothing but make people angry. Yeah I agree Halo wasn't perfect, but there is no reviewer I agree with all the time, and one out of 100s of reviews a year thats slightly off the mark can be ignored (waits for Retro to mention Gunstar Heroes ). Mostly their reviews hit the spot, willing to examine a game objectively.

I just can't read the likes of IGN and Gamespot anymore: their reviews come across as slightly immature. They do have a nasty habit of gushing over undeserving titles, and seem to have a minor alliegance to big-name releases (their rambling 10 page reviews of certain huge titles are pointless). As sites for media and news, they are pretty handy, but not really a big fan of their reviewing. 1up is a decent online source though: their reviews tend to be short and to the point, like the effective new Kotaku reviews (good points, bad points, short conclusion, end).

But compared to book and film criticism, gaming reviews are decades behind. Most book reviews wisely come without star ratings, and films have plenty of magazines like Sight & Sound that provide intelligent and in-depth criticism. There are few gaming sites or magazines up to this standard yet (again, Edge is the closest thing to it, along with some smaller online sites) but game reviewers (and readers too) need to stop being so concerned with the score at the end. Remove that and the content speaks for itself. So discussion boards wouldn't be filled with reactionary 'OMG it only got a 7!" rants, and would perhaps be a bit more in-depth when more people started to read the content itself.

noodler

I can't understand why people wouldn't use the % system. Im not sure if I ever bought a game that wasn't scored between 80 and 100%.

Perhaps FFX-2. But I liked that so feck you.

RobertFoster

rizzla wrote: »

Well I listen to the IGN podcasts and the reviewers their hate the numbers associated with a review. Too much emphasis on the number and not enough people form their opinion on wheter they'll buy the game from the written review.

I hate the numbers scale, or any other review scale. The written review should be enough.

They should write shorter reviews then. Or review it in a different medium, like in a video...or cat picture

I don't have all day to read multiple reviews on multiple games just to make a decision on what to buy. I mean, we all know Eurogamer and their ilk are just writing longer reviews to fit more ads in


I think the cost of games has skewed the scale somewhat. I've no qualms about seeing an "average" film as I've only wasted ~€10 if I hate it. But with games, €60 is a lot to pay for something that's not stellar, 8/10+ material.

Jack Sheehan

noodler wrote: »

I can't understand why people wouldn't use the % system. Im not sure if I ever bought a game that wasn't scored between 80 and 100%.

Perhaps FFX-2. But I liked that so feck you.

Then you missed out on some brilliant, but not necessarily critically loved titles.

humanji

noodler wrote:

I can't understand why people wouldn't use the % system. Im not sure if I ever bought a game that wasn't scored between 80 and 100%.

Perhaps FFX-2. But I liked that so feck you.

So you see the flaws in the % system.

The percentage is how the reviewer rates the game. If they have a different taste in games than you, you could find yourself missing out on a great title, simply because you trusted someone elses opinion.

As said above, a review should have the good points, the bad points and a conclusion. If only for the fact that I won't have to get annoyed at fanboys over-hyping crap games.

projectmayhem

Jack Sheehan wrote: »

Then you missed out on some brilliant, but not necessarily critically loved titles.

+1

Why would you trust an opinion piece so much as to sway you from a genuinely brilliant title?

A relevant example would be reading a piece about the American election. It probably makes good sense, has good references etc., but you're still probably going to hope that your preferred candidate wins.

i.e. Just because someone didn't enjoy his/her experience, doesn't mean its a bad game. If that was peoples rule of thumb, then after watching any Zero Punctuation reviews, you'd end up never buying anything except Portal.

Stephen

The Eurogamer comments thread following their 9/10 review of Little Big Planet is quite possibly the most retarded thing I have ever seen on the internet. Its full to the brim of fanboys raging that the game didn't get a 10 because Microsoft (spelt, of course, with a dollar sign in place of the s) pay them off, as well as another bunch of tools who wish to express that they think such games are gay and that Halo 3 is better.

Apparently 9/10 for this game means its a flop.

Lulz.

Stev_o

I think PC Gamer UK get most of their scores right and when using the 100/100 system to leaves way for a great game being great but still having one small thing that makes it slight suffer.

Retr0gamer

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

and one out of 100s of reviews a year thats slightly off the mark can be ignored (waits for Retro to mention Gunstar Heroes ). Mostly their reviews hit the spot, willing to examine a game objectively.

Slightly off the mark?

http://www.gamesetwatch.com/gunstar.jpg

****ing travesty that's what that is!

Actually that review sums up everything that is wrong with the score based system. Reading the review it sounds like a solid 9/10 other than it being a little bit on the short side. If you went by the score it comes across as merely average and unfortunately you've just let one of the greatest games ever made pass you by.

Some games don't review that well because they defy genres or belong in a genre that the reviewer just doesn't get or understand. Look at Gradius V. Despite being one of the finest games ever made it scored poorly mostly due to it's genre (and I must say Edge was one of the only magazines that gave it the 9/10 it deserved). I've bought plenty of games that have interested me despite having scored in the 70's and 80's. If you limit yourself to review scores you will miss out on an awful lot of great games. I remember I got Odin Sphere because I loved the art style despite reviews saying it was flawed. Yes it was flawed but it didn't stop me loving it.

Need any more examples? Suikoden 2 received mostly average scores due to unfortunately being released along side FFVIII. Fast forward to the present, Suikoden 2 is rightfully regarded as one of the greatest RPGs ever made and is highly sought after while FFVIII is regarded as an overrated mess of a game. Poor Grandia also suffered from FFVIII syndrome.

Jeanne D'Arc on the PSP had the misfortune of being released around the same time as FF Tactics, possibly the best game in it's genre. FFT is definitely a better game but if Jeanne D'Arc was released at another time it would have been hailed a classic. Copies now are highly sought after since people have realised just how good it is.

I think one of the best feelings as a gamer that you can get is discovering poorly scoring forgotten game that turns out to be an absolute gem. It's the reason I'm always checking the updates of hardcore gaming 101. Just check out their article on the zelda CDi games to see how damaging the ill informed press can be. Apparently they are pretty good games.

As for you noodler, remember when I told you not to bother with Kingdom Hearts 2. Nearly all the hardcore gamers absolutely hate that game but you really liked it. Sometimes it just comes down to personal taste.

noodler

To be fair, it is conincidence that I don't think I have ever BOUGHT a game that fell below 80%. I rarely buy a brand new game based on a review (usually I will have wanted it to begin with).

KH2 is better than the original in every way bar the difficulty.

Throw a few class games at me that generally scored less that 80% overall? I think 80 is a decent catchment point.

uncleoswald

Anyone else try teletexts gamecentral? Updated daily its a surprisingly good read that gives fairly sensible reviews. 5/10 really means 5/10.

norrie rugger

noodler wrote: »

To be fair, it is conincidence that I don't think I have ever BOUGHT a game that fell below 80%. I rarely buy a brand new game based on a review (usually I will have wanted it to begin with).

KH2 is better than the original in every way bar the difficulty.

Throw a few class games at me that generally scored less that 80% overall? I think 80 is a decent catchment point.

the problem is that nodays everything seems to be getting 80% as the default.
only the worst of the worst get below this.

I like to read the reviews myself but the number score is ment to be an indicator.

noodler

Hate to plug a certain magazine, but PSM3 has been pretty hard pushed to give games 90+. In fact last 3 issues few games have made it over 80. I understand theres been a bit of a PS3 drought but I think the bigger issue is that we only read reviews online for bigger well-known games (Arguably these are at least going to look good-whatever about gameplay).

Theres alot of games released every month you wouldn't even bother reading reviews for IMO.

Fnz

Do we really know how much utter crap is out there in the gaming world? The kind of stuff that's aimed at the casual market, to be bought for the kids by folk that don't know any better.

Maybe an "average" (5/10) game is far worse than we would like to believe.


Edit: oh, and the scoring system serves a purpose and should not be gotten rid of because of the "I prefer to read the actual review" brigade (not that anyone explicatively suggested that). If I see a game that I had little interest in getting a 3 then I'll leave it be... but if it gets an 8 I might read the review, which may lead to downloading the demo, etc.

Jazzy

uncleoswald wrote: »

Anyone else try teletexts gamecentral? Updated daily its a surprisingly good read that gives fairly sensible reviews. 5/10 really means 5/10.

yes!


bring back digitiser... it was the only games media u could trust imo and it was funny as hell.

i find that most sites and mags just generally write the review very well and then they balls out on the score. they tend to give games more what they feel they should get rather than what the review is actually dictating they should get.
look at the emphasis on score tho - u can search up what the overall score is of the game over various reviews and publications. u search for games and they appear there with their score either weighing them down or lifting them to places they should never be.
its all so very fickle and very very very few reviewers have the balls to follow through with what games actually deserve.

Halo 3 is the best example of this. because its such an awesome game its very easy to call it perfect and such a furore was created on its release that u can get away with saying its 10/10 because its quite hard to argue against that. it makes it look like its something really special and it stops forums and emails being spammed by angry fanboys who think 9/10 is something to be ashamed of. chances are most ppl will like the game if they play it and the publication doesnt lose as much weight in its reviews because no1 is that bothered to argue against it, as those who would know that 1 point in the difference is nothing to cause a ruckus about.

on the other hand, if it gets 9/10 then ppl will rage because wat they love isnt being rated as perfect and they think that the 1 point the game lost is a travesty.
its like that old saying - empty vessels make the most noise


edit - just read that review of gunstar heroes retrogamer. that is pretty much exactly what im talking about. if the game was called "Sonic Gunstar Heroes" then it would have equalled the score of 8 given to the game just below it. the reviewer wussed out based on what he feels a name should get, not the actual game. and if no secret levels and screens takes 4 points off a review marked outta ten then my name is Douglas Quiad and you should get your ass to mars

MOH

Stev_o wrote: »

I think PC Gamer UK get most of their scores right and when using the 100/100 system to leaves way for a great game being great but still having one small thing that makes it slight suffer.

I used to think that but there's been some notable exceptions. Spore being the most obvious. Longish review, did raise a number of negative points among the positives, but then gave it 91% giving the impression that those negatives weren't that big an issue.

[edit] Just read Jazzy's post, that's it exactly, scores not necessarily matching the review, but if you're trying to get a aggregate picture, scores are all you have to go by.