I doubt GS would go to the 0.5 - 5 Scale but that straight up single digit scale is lame for the meta-game. While it does bring down all the fanboy melt down it also makes the review scores less exiting to look at. There was this spark that came from a game scoring an 8 vs a game that scored an 7.5 Now both of these scenarios just get an 8 and call it a day.
They should just get rid off scores altogether. People cling on to them to much.
I really don't care what a game scores anymore when I am excited to play it. I'll enjoy games like Thief, Castlevania, South Park, Titanfall, ... all the same. i'll make up my own mind about how good they are.
The only reason I care about scores is when it makes a fanboy faction cry like the score of Titanfall did. That was funny.
They should just get rid off scores altogether. People cling on to them to much.
I really don't care what a game scores anymore when I am excited to play it. I'll enjoy games like Thief, Castlevania, South Park, Titanfall, ... all the same. i'll make up my own mind about how good they are.
The only reason I care about scores is when it makes a fanboy faction cry like the score of Titanfall did. That was funny.
I meant it for the meta game... GS reviews themselves are not one of the best. Some of them even have spoilers :s and some just feel like they already had a certain mentality towards the game before playing it.
I meant it for the meta game... GS reviews themselves are not one of the best. Some of them even have spoilers :s and some just feel like they already had a certain mentality towards the game before playing it.
The meta game is fun and all. But some people will just flock to MC every time they want a game to score higher or lower than what it scored on GS. So some people will never follow the rules.
Not only that, but the new Review page presentation is a clusterfuck of a mess. You can't see good/bad ribbons/icons/medals/etc anymore, no easy link to the Video Review and the written Review itself is awkwardly spaced out with enormous stretched videos / pictures that disrupt the viewing angle of everything in the page. Did I mention how useful adblock has become with the influx of ads in Gamespot?
I meant it for the meta game... GS reviews themselves are not one of the best. Some of them even have spoilers :s and some just feel like they already had a certain mentality towards the game before playing it.
The meta game is fun and all. But some people will just flock to MC every time they want a game to score higher or lower than what it scored on GS. So some people will never follow the rules.
I'll never follow the rules. I use MC in the real world as a starting point to research a game's quality, so why wouldn't I use it in the 'fake world'?
Using one reviewer's subjective score of a game as ownage is silly, especially when there's as much suspected corruption in gaming "journalism".
I'll never follow the rules. I use MC in the real world as a starting point to research a game's quality, so why wouldn't I use it in the 'fake world'?
Using one reviewer's subjective score of a game as ownage is silly, especially when there's as much suspected corruption in gaming "journalism".
We don't say that you should go by gamespots scores to make up your purchase decision. That is not the rule.
But the rule is that a game flopped or didn't flop when it reaches the score it was hyped as on gamespot. Not metacritic. Some people flock to MC because they didn't want it to flop or wanted it to flop. But that's not how it goes.
They should just get rid off scores altogether. People cling on to them to much.
I would also add the pros and cons section to the list of things reviewers need to ditch. It seems that several people will only look at the score and then the cons section and then ask why the game only scored a 7 when there is only one negative thing listed (South Park: Stick of Truth being used as an example).
I'll never follow the rules. I use MC in the real world as a starting point to research a game's quality, so why wouldn't I use it in the 'fake world'?
Using one reviewer's subjective score of a game as ownage is silly, especially when there's as much suspected corruption in gaming "journalism".
We don't say that you should go by gamespots scores to make up your purchase decision. That is not the rule.
But the rule is that a game flopped or didn't flop when it reaches the score it was hyped as on gamespot. Not metacritic. Some people flock to MC because they didn't want it to flop or wanted it to flop. But that's not how it goes.
Well if a game gets AAA (9) here on gamespot it should at least be a score close to that on MC (at least between 85-89), not 79 or 80 which Forza 5 has been to really be considered AAA, at least in my opinion. I mean if a game gets AAA here but barely gets AA when considering other reviews, not really a AAA game is it?
I'll never follow the rules. I use MC in the real world as a starting point to research a game's quality, so why wouldn't I use it in the 'fake world'?
Using one reviewer's subjective score of a game as ownage is silly, especially when there's as much suspected corruption in gaming "journalism".
We don't say that you should go by gamespots scores to make up your purchase decision. That is not the rule.
But the rule is that a game flopped or didn't flop when it reaches the score it was hyped as on gamespot. Not metacritic. Some people flock to MC because they didn't want it to flop or wanted it to flop. But that's not how it goes.
I guess I'll just refrain from the "Flop Wars" then.
I guess I'll just refrain from the "Flop Wars" then.
Hahaha, it's your choice, but it can be really hilarious at times. Look at the titanfall thread.
@PS4TrumpsXbox1 said:
@R4gn4r0k said:
@bforrester420 said:
I'll never follow the rules. I use MC in the real world as a starting point to research a game's quality, so why wouldn't I use it in the 'fake world'?
Using one reviewer's subjective score of a game as ownage is silly, especially when there's as much suspected corruption in gaming "journalism".
We don't say that you should go by gamespots scores to make up your purchase decision. That is not the rule.
But the rule is that a game flopped or didn't flop when it reaches the score it was hyped as on gamespot. Not metacritic. Some people flock to MC because they didn't want it to flop or wanted it to flop. But that's not how it goes.
Well if a game gets AAA (9) here on gamespot it should at least be a score close to that on MC (at least between 85-89), not 79 or 80 which Forza 5 has been to really be considered AAA, at least in my opinion. I mean if a game gets AAA here but barely gets AA when considering other reviews, not really a AAA game is it?
I completely disagree. A review is just an opinion, so it can be totally different from other opinions. So yeah, scores can vary and the reviewers have a right to put the score they want to on the game.
I've seen Thief scores range from 6 to 9s and that's normal, because it all depends on how far people are willing to look past its flaws. I can look past the flaws of Thief, and I've found a great game. Not a 9 or anything, but definitely an 8.
I've played many games I liked that reviewers didn't like. Because opinions differ. And so do scores.
1-10 score is pointless. Especially with .5 increments.
What's the point when 1-5 are rarely if ever used. And how is a game .5 better or worse. How the hell do you quantify gameplay into "well tha twas .5 better."
Stars are the best way to go. The entire scale is used.
1-10 score is pointless. Especially with .5 increments.
What's the point when 1-5 are rarely if ever used. And how is a game .5 better or worse. How the hell do you quantify gameplay into "well tha twas .5 better."
Stars are the best way to go. The entire scale is used.
stars or .5 - 5 would be the best thing imo, and the .5 scaling was good as to say uhmmm a game that got an 8 had some bugs or glitches and annoyances while a game that got a 9 had a better gameplay now a game that had bugs and glitches but solid gameplay would get like an 8.5. But i agree 1-5 isn't even used, it's only reserved for games like RE6. Which totally deserved that 4.
I guess I'll just refrain from the "Flop Wars" then.
Hahaha, it's your choice, but it can be really hilarious at times. Look at the titanfall thread.
@PS4TrumpsXbox1 said:
@R4gn4r0k said:
@bforrester420 said:
I'll never follow the rules. I use MC in the real world as a starting point to research a game's quality, so why wouldn't I use it in the 'fake world'?
Using one reviewer's subjective score of a game as ownage is silly, especially when there's as much suspected corruption in gaming "journalism".
We don't say that you should go by gamespots scores to make up your purchase decision. That is not the rule.
But the rule is that a game flopped or didn't flop when it reaches the score it was hyped as on gamespot. Not metacritic. Some people flock to MC because they didn't want it to flop or wanted it to flop. But that's not how it goes.
Well if a game gets AAA (9) here on gamespot it should at least be a score close to that on MC (at least between 85-89), not 79 or 80 which Forza 5 has been to really be considered AAA, at least in my opinion. I mean if a game gets AAA here but barely gets AA when considering other reviews, not really a AAA game is it?
I completely disagree. A review is just an opinion, so it can be totally different from other opinions. So yeah, scores can vary and the reviewers have a right to put the score they want to on the game.
I've seen Thief scores range from 6 to 9s and that's normal, because it all depends on how far people are willing to look past its flaws. I can look past the flaws of Thief, and I've found a great game. Not a 9 or anything, but definitely an 8.
I've played many games I liked that reviewers didn't like. Because opinions differ. And so do scores.
While I do agree with you on your point about reviews being just people's opinion and yes they will vary, if a game is AAA it shouldnt vary by a large gap like with Forza 5. On MC Forza has 70 plus critic reviews but only around 20 of them score it at 90 or above, while true AAA exclusives like TLOU and Halo 2 (thought I would give examples from both Sony and MS to appease both the cows and lems) both had just under 100 critic reviews and both had around 75 critic reviews with scores of 90 or above. With those two example critics didnt vary all that much
While I do agree with you on your point about reviews being just people's opinion and yes they will vary, if a game is AAA it shouldnt vary by a large gap like with Forza 5. On MC Forza has 70 plus critic reviews but only around 20 of them score it at 90 or above, while true AAA exclusives like TLOU and Halo 2 (thought I would give examples from both Sony and MS to appease both the cows and lems) both had just under 100 critic reviews and both had around 75 critic reviews with scores of 90 or above. With those two example critics didnt vary all that much
While it's true that there are some large variations on same games and almost no variations on other games, I don't think they can be avoided entirely.
And user reviews range from 0 -10 now that is funny, hahahahaha
I also think that reviews should downrate a game like Forza 5 for being a full priced game filled with microtransactions or a game like BF4 because it launched in a terrible state. Some reviewers do that, others don't.
I liked it when it was on a scale where we saw scores like 8.7, 6.4, etc.
That was the worst. Score are a very subjective thing too that are different for each genres. Shooters may get much harsher reviews because there are just so many of them and the bar is set pretty high but something like turn based, tactical RPGs are going to be reviewed relative to the games in their genre.
Giving an 8 to a game in one genre and a 9 to a game in a completely different genre doesn't make the second game the better of the two.
I all ways found the 1-5 scale the best. It gives a range for every kind of game. 1 would be complete garbage don't buy, 2 not garbage but not that great, 3 average, 4 above average, 5 amazing. **** with all these .6 .5 reviews. It's just a bunch of people pulling shit out their asses.
I all ways found the 1-5 scale the best. It gives a range for every kind of game. 1 would be complete garbage don't buy, 2 not garbage but not that great, 3 average, 4 above average, 5 amazing. **** with all these .6 .5 reviews. It's just a bunch of people pulling shit out their asses.
Yup this. For me 1 star = bad, 2 average, 3 good, 4 great, 5 amazing.
Yeah the vast majority of the scale should be used to grade quality.
Right now, at least half the scale is used to signify bad games. What's the difference between a 1,2,3,4 and 5 score? They all suck.
And no there defo shouldn't be 8.7 games compared to 7.9. As you say, that was meaningless.
Scores drive people nuts, just do what the movie industry does and just say if you liked it or not. Remember Cisco and Ebert? Simple thumbs up or thumbs down. Or use 5 star or 4 stars, eventually people will wise up and actually read up on games instead of looking at scores.
Scores drive people nuts, just do what the movie industry does and just say if you liked it or not. Remember Cisco and Ebert? Simple thumbs up or thumbs down. Or use 5 star or 4 stars, eventually people will wise up and actually read up on games instead of looking at scores.
I remember Siskel and Ebert. Cisco was an alcoholic beverage and a rapper who wanted to see thongs......................then came out of the closet.
Well, they do seem to be using more of the scale anyway. And it pushes the developer to choose between giving a game an 8.0 or a 9.0, whereas before it easy to copout with an 8.5.
People said the same thing at the turn of the seventh generation when review scores went from the 0.1 scale to the 0.5 scale. A lot of people complained, but then people just got used to it.
1-10 score is pointless. Especially with .5 increments.
What's the point when 1-5 are rarely if ever used. And how is a game .5 better or worse. How the hell do you quantify gameplay into "well that twas .5 better."
Stars are the best way to go. The entire scale is used.
exactly. This is the effect of the .1 or .5 increments:
1-10 score is pointless. Especially with .5 increments.
What's the point when 1-5 are rarely if ever used. And how is a game .5 better or worse. How the hell do you quantify gameplay into "well that twas .5 better."
Stars are the best way to go. The entire scale is used.
exactly. This is the effect of the .1 or .5 increments:
Holy shit still remember when Greg kasavin used to review everything with alot analysis and that great 0.1 review scale unlike today
But hell times changes, things never stay the same.
Log in to comment