The rating mistake

I made this thread to point out some broken reviews throughout history (and no i'm not talking about final fantasy I'm sure it is a great game like many exclusives) but some ratings are truly broken , I'm also going to give you some examples.

of course it is impossible to be perfectly objective in a review, but there are 7 things that always come back.

1. Originality

2. Implementation (or improvement) of game mechanics

3. Technological quality (graphics , physics, and so on)

4. Sound quality

5. Story

6. Artwork

7. Content

Now let's give you some examples:

- The witcher 3: a great game for sure but a 10? the game makes big mistakes that other games don't make. If I'm battling monsters then it is very akward if some dude is watering his plants 10 feet away like nothing is happening. The AI is too bad to give this type of game a 10.

- Hitman codename 47: yes it's been 20 years ago. 5.3 on this site, and many others scored it low as well. Gunplay, ragdoll physics, ai, sneak mechanics was all revolutionary, graphics , sound, story, artwork, content was all top notch yet it scored so low because of a hard first level.

- worms 4 mayhem: scores through the roof on all 7, but 6.3 on this site and overall very low as well.why because some of the missions on story mode seem to be difficult for the reviewer, while it is actually a cakewalk compared to most arcade games from the eighties and nineties., the reviewer doesn't know how to use the camera, explosions seem weak to him but you can blast away half the map if you want and every mechanic is pretty much improved compared to the previous 3d worm games.

- Dragon's dogma: not so bad as the first two, but still minor compains about the pawn system, well show me a game that does it better, since this is a new an original game mechanic. You need to backtrack to an open world map, sure why not complain about this in dark souls that you give a 9.5. This while the game does pretty much everything better than other rpg's, it made the dragons in skyrim look like 10 year old tech (his was 2012)

So as you can see reviews can be very subjective, while they don't need to be , and sometimes you get this across the board, since a lot of reviewers just follow others and then you have a lot of shitty reviews, not doing a game justice at all, and that is with both high and low scores.

Im a huge Hitman fan but original game was kinda bad. it was broken.

Hitman 2 SA on other hand was masterpiece and huge improvement.

@ghosts4ever: how was it broken, did you play it at release?

Nah, reviews are subjective. We can literally point to flaws in most games, but it all comes down to personal preference. I personally gave MGS5 a 6/10. A lot of people will disagree with me, but there you go.

@virusvaccine21: Why do you give it a 6/10

You cannot judge every game based on a set of objective criteria. Not all of them are applicable to all cases. You can't downscore an indie game for its shitty graphics or Hitman for having a weak story.

I guess you could only apply those rules that make sense for a particular game but subjectivity will nevertheless still be a factor. One reviewer might not find The Witcher's AI or combat to be bad enough to detract from an otherwise amazing experience and give the game a 10, while another may be turned off by it and give the game an 8.

In the end ratings are inevitably subjective. Even coming from a great reviewer, you can only interpret them as a rough indication of a game's overall quality.

The problem with the terms objective and subjective has always been that you can view (almost?) anything objective as fundamentally subjective. Just like with analogue and digital. Anything digital is typically analogue in some ways. Anything analogue can be seen as something digital by nature. Which leads to discussion about definitions instead of what we actually want to talk about.

I think it's just something we have to live with that reviews are a combination of an understanding of what is considered good or bad in general, plus their personal preferences. Subjectivity in reviews might be impossible to prevent entirely and it doesn't have to be a problem. Some things about a game could be really bad in a way that is tough to describe objectively. If you get the chance to learn a reviewer's tastes or they are well explained in the review, you can sort of offset their personal quirks compared to yours.

Where the reviews can go bad is when they lean too much on the reviewers' personal quirks and as a result the review fails to inform the reader whether he or she would enjoy the game. And from where I stand, game reviews have been travelling down this 'online persona' path for a while. I do yearn for a bit more objectively informative game reviews than what is currently the online standard.

I also notice that reviews have started to talk less extensively about a game's inner workings and what you get for your money, and this is annoying. Ultimately, whether a reviewer is impressed or had a tough time adjusting to something in a game tells me less than a reviewer talking about the content available in the game, the systems of progress implemented, the pacing, the ways the game tries to innovate or overcome traditional problems in the genre, whether there were technical issues, etc. The way it makes the reviewer feel can be of value, but not to the extend that it should forego the other more 'objective' information about a game.

What does it matter if the reviewer is turned off or not because there is only basic ai. that is indeed subjective. What is objective is that a lot of other games, much older games do this ten times better.

The good graphics cannot make up for it in this type of game to give the game a 10 out of 10.

@commander:

We must look at it as someone else's opinion, some kind of indication : nothing more, nothing less!

Except for implementation and to a lesser extent graphical technology, all the other measurements you offer are senses dependent. Thus also subjective.

As for content, many will argue that is some kind of filler, or that it is too time consuming to be regarded as a plus.

Pleasing everybody is an unreachable target.

That said, i think your opinion on any games is what matter most.

I've enjoyed some 5.0 games much more than let's say some 9.X games.

There are far more parameters to take into account when it comes to your enjoyment than just a score.

I'm fed up with nintendo worlds, reached some kind of burn out with their universe. So even if they are some masterpieces outta there, they are not appealing to me anymore.

The same goes for the FPS genre, i used to enjoy them in the 2000 era, now far more less.

And the list goes on and on.

It is a complex topic, and the only score that matters is and will remain : my enjoyment!!!

It should be the same for every gamer, enjoyment is far more important than a good score.

That's what the games are made for after all!!!

I hardly ever even pay attention to reviews. I do my own research and make decisions based on what I want to play. Simple as that.

So how is your subjective opinion better than the reviewers?? Also TW3 is one of the greatest games ever made a fully deserving of all the praise it got and dragons dogma is terrible..

Something being original doesn’t automatically make it good. The inverse is true as well. Something being repetitive doesn’t make it bad. At the end of the day reviews for any entertainment product are going to be somewhat subjective and that doesn’t necessarily mean that they are “right” or “wrong”.

I agree I dislike BoTW weapon degradation & ubisoft towers, Witcher 3 clunky combat reviewers somehow biased enough to give it a 10.

Bloodborne on the other hand is a perfect 20/20, reviewer just dont understand this once in a lifetime perfection.

@sakaixx:

yes it does, if its originality proves to be popular and successfull, even copied in other games.

Similar game mechanics are indeed not a reason to give it a lower score,

I agree on bloodborne, perfectly executed, with enough emphasis on tech, sound, artwork, gameplay mechanics, and content.

There isn't much of story, but if there's another bloodborne like game with a much better story we can give that a 20/20 as well.

there is nothing subjective about the fact that the ai is bad, and that it has been a lot better in much older games.

Find me a reason why dragon's dogma is terrible.

you can really put it a lot further than that. Sound for instance, there's a difference when you have a wide array of sound that catches on and a single song that is very repetive.

Content can be too repetive as well, and seen as filler that is objectifiable.

artwork can be very diversive, and when there's a lot of work put into it it's going to be mostly better.

The depth of a story can be measured.

game mechanics can be scored against previous already existing game mechanics.

originality can be scored as well, if it's new and it's successfull then it should get scored, highly, allthough this is probably the most difficult one.

It's not because you don't enjoy nintento's worlds anymore or fps for that matter, that this should play any role in a review. That's the same as saying an action movie isn't good because there's too much action scenes in there.

yeah that's exaclty my point in this thread, subjectivy is defenitely present in any review, but reviews are mostly too subjective.

No, it doesn’t. Something being original does not automatically make it good.

This site should stop giving scores to games. Problem solved.

Genre defining games and lots of great devs went into shadows.

I'm still unable to understand who the hell killed decimal rating system.

I always appreciated Roger Ebert's movie reviews, because even if he didn't personally like a movie, he would always give the reader enough information to decide for themselves if it was something they would enjoy seeing (for instance, his reviews of the Sex and the City films are hilariously brutal, but he readily admitted that they were everything that fans of the television series would want them to be). Too many game reviewers, unfortunately, fail to adequately inform the reader, and I find myself forced to do a lot of "reading between the lines" to figure out what a game might actually offer.

@commander: I totally get the guy watering his plants while I'm fighting monsters, RUINED the whole game for me. 1/10 and that's generous.

@dzimm: Well he was wrong, fans of the show disliked the movies as well.

Except for implementation and graphic tech as I said, all the rest can't be measured!!!

" Content can be too repetive as well, and seen as filler that is objectifiable. "

Just as I said, repetitive, filler, too short, too long ///

"artwork can be very diversive, and when there's a lot of work put into it it's going to be mostly better."

Surely, but what will be your perception of it, is what matter, Take an example of Jrpg : Some will never admit the art values it holds. Some abhors the super realistic approach. Some don't like the porno-violence!!!

"The depth of a story can be measured."

No!!! Best stories are the simplest ones - Greek tragedy, Ancient Tales - Depth =/= Good

And mostly you perception and reception of what a good story is depends largely on your cultural background and your level of education.

"originality can be scored as well, if it's new and it's successfull then it should get scored, highly, allthough this is probably the most difficult one."

Sure it is.

" It's not because you don't enjoy nintento's worlds anymore or fps for that matter, that this should play any role in a review. That's the same as saying an action movie isn't good because there's too much action scenes in there."

Did not say that. What i was saying is that there far more external parameters that also influence your perception of a game, regardless of its intrinsic arguments ( graphics, story etc...)

pubg came up with the mass multiplayer last man standing,

pretty much every other multiplayer fps now copied it.

it's original, and because of it's success and popularity it is good. not automatically no, that's why i mentioned popularity and success, it is also very difficult to score this as a reviewer, but this seperates the good reviewers from the best reviewers (if they are good at scoring the other 6 points)

no it didn't

@commander: What are you trying to argue here? I said that just because something is original it doesn’t make it automatically good. Then you try to correct me by saying yes it does. Then you say if it becomes popular that it does. Then you say that it doesn’t automatically make it good. Good lord man, you’re all over the place here and are just reiterating what I said. Also who cares if something gets popular and widely used afterwards. It has to be reviewed in how it is done currently in that particular game. It’s not like you can retroactively review the game and change a review based on something that other developers may or may not implement in their games better.

maybe you should read what you say, you say originality doesn't automatically make it good, i say it does when it's popular and successfull. then you just reply the same thing as you replied before, you're the one ignoring my context, not the other way around.

and yes some reviewers can spot originality that's going to be successfull, it has already happened, with many games.

@vaeh: Eurogamer ditched the score system awhile ago.

@commander: I said “no it doesn’t” in response to you saying “yes it does”. I initially said that just because something is original doesn’t automatically make it good. It’s pretty damn straightforward.

when there's a comma afterwards ,and it gives a requirement to 'yes it does', then that's context, you cannot just take 'yes it does' out of context lol

AI was busted on Codename 47, getting detected in an instant degraded the game into trial and error rather than a stealth puzzle game.

Your response to my post is nonsensical though. I simply said that something being original doesn’t automatically make it good. Starting off by saying “Yes it does” then saying if such and such conditions exist is in no way a counterpoint to my post.

Also we are talking about how this factors into reviews. So if someone does something first they should go back and rereview a game if that thing becomes popular and used in other games? That certainly makes no sense either.

Seriously, what point are you even trying to argue with me about. I simply said that being original doesn’t automatically mean it’s good.

I honestly feel like this thread makes no sense. Again, someone arguing with you because of his subjective opinion trying to pass it off as fact is the point we're all trying to make.

@virusvaccine21: Yeah it’s basically just a thread complaining about someone else’s subjective view of a game ie. reviews. Reviews are fine, the problem is some people’s reaction to them.

Kinda useless when you think about it. I mean really, what's the difference between a 8.9 and a 9.1? That doesn't communicate anything substantial to the reader.

The details are in the written review (or they should be). The number attached is just a very vague "this is how much I like it, this is how good I think it is".

The decimal system made for some fun fanboy shit, where that extra 0.1 could mean the world, but otherwise? Meh.

Tbh, I feel the 10 point scale could go away. Especially considering how this industry doesn't really utilize the full scale, 5 points would be fine.

it wasn't busted it was just notoriously difficult, because it was realistic, it's not like you come into a house with 10 people and some strange dude comes into the house they not going to see you're don't belong there, even with clothers from somebody there, it might help from far out but not from up close.

It is unforgiving, but you can shoot your way out of every level, if you're good, and that means using cover , you could use lean to shoot around corners.

There's a reason the next hitman games scored better since they made easier levels. Today nobody would complain about this because it's difficult, look at dark souls.

I finished the game about 20 times and apart from the 1st time I shot my way out of every problem.

While not super needed, it was fun and much more technical. Like when Gamespot did the whole score based on graphics, sound, tilt, value and audio - you kind of understood it. If a game scored 8/10 in graphics, it would make sense and they would explain it. Now it's so random. A game gets an 8/10 and you barely understand why.

Plus again, it was so much fun. I was a member here back in 2003-2007. Never forget when a title would score an 8.9. The meltdown was epic as hell. Grant Turismo 5 was a great example.

Yeah I've maintained that for years. 1 star for an awful, awful game. 2 stars for a bad game. 3 stars for an OK game. 4 star for a good game. 5 stars for a great game.

Let the review do the talking. Most people don't even bother reading/watching and just scroll down to see the final score.

The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess - 8.8

Never forget.

It is perfectly sensible when you dismiss originality as part of a review score. The way I phrase it has nothing to with it, when I say' no it doesn't automically make it good, but it does when is becomes popular and succesfull' then that's just the same thing,

and yes you can predict if something original in a game is going to be popular and successfull. and no you don't need perfect empathy for it. you can already do a test with some friends and collegues and see how it goes.

The devs of these original successull games don't pump money and time into game without any research as well, heck the reason why most original games are successfull is because they've done their research right.

Review scores matter to me... not just one review but a collection of them. It helps me decide if I wanna drop $60 or wait till it's cheaper. For instance, Persona 5... I wouldn't have thought to get that game if it wasnt for the good reviews everywhere. I got it and loved it.

@virusvaccine21: 6/10? Blasphemy. I gave MGSV a 12/10.

My biggest gripe with gaming industry is how they've broken the scale.9/10s are handed out like candy, so when a game gets 8/10 it's nothing special. 7/10 on metacritic means it's a pretty bad game. I've read reviews completely destroy a game and still give it 6/10 after calling it hot garbage for three pages.

10 = a superb game

9 = a typical great game

8 = semi-good game

7 = okay game

6 = boring game

1-5 = avoid like the plague.

My scale would look like this:

10/10 - GOTG / Game of the Decade

9/10 - GOTY

8/10 excellent game

7/10 good game

6/10 decent

5/10 average

4/10 sub-par

3/10 bad game

2/10 garbage game

1/10 worst game ever

I only reason Bloodborne is not a 10/10 for me is the chalice dungeons. The last trophy grind was so frustrating for me that I almost gave up on the platinum. If the devs took out the chalice dungeons and added some new areas or rather released the Old Hunters DLC with the base game then it would've instantly be a 10/10 for me.

GameSpot will drop review scores if its readers decide to do the same. Eurogamer no longer give games scores, why not GameSpot?

Is it necessary to review video games with a score? Book reviews or even newspaper endorsements of candidates for public office (e.g. President of the United States) do not give out numeral or letter scores.

Your scale is ridiculous too. Makes the ten completely useless and even the nine not very useful. What's to stop two games the same year from being masterpieces? And who gives a shit about game of the year? The game should be rated on its own merits, not how it compared with everything else. Above good should be very good, not excellent. Excellent means extremely good or outstanding.

MOST reviews are subjective, however, FFVIIR is most certainly a perfect 10 (as is the original game) and anyone who says otherwise is lying to you. Also, Tom Marks from IGN is a tool and someone needs to yank his stupid bowtie off his neck.

@commander: