Assassin's Creed. It had great graphics, but it was horribly repetitive and the enemies are ridiculously easy to counter, so there was no challenge. I would have given it a 7.5 at most.
It's mostly the recession, game development has always been a hard industry especially for smaller companies. These smaller companies are very vulnerable to downturns in the economy especially tightening of credit markets.
[QUOTE="Shafftehr"]Even though Blizzard isn't what it used to be, I'd still cast my vote for Diablo III.HoldThePhone
What exactly did Blizzard "used to be?"
They used to make games that were deep and atmospheric, however since warcraft 3 (though it wasn't a bad game) they have clearly shifted their focus to be more mainsteram. They have opted for a more cartoonish look in all of their upcoming games and thereby have emphasised an inviting style over any real substance.
well if anyone doesn't know what they are getting for christmas, I can assure you now that its a wii. Even if you already have one these numbers still seem to indicate you will recieve another.
That dosn't apply here. The fact is, the lower the number of sources the less saturised the average becomes with data from poor sources. If there are say only 10 sources, then atleast 5 of thosse sources should be reliable, because they will usually be the ones that are forced to review large numbers of games (Sites like Gamespot, Eurogamer, 1UP, Gametrailers and IGN). The larger the list becomes the more likely you are to see biast or weak sources effect the score one way or another. The law of large numbers can only work presuming all sources are of relatively equal reliability, and with critics on the internet, that is not the case.
WasntAvailable
It works perfectly actually, it's the same as a science experiment where some data is less reliable but multiple trials ensures that it is balanced out. Reviewing games is naturally based a large amount on opinion so it is difficult if not impossible to be reliable at all on every game, so the only solution is to take a large number of reviews to get everyones opinion on a game, even good games have people that naturally don't like the game and it is neccessary to include them in the score or it will become overstated. This is shown beautifly at IMDB where thousands of viewer rankings taken over a long amount of time give a very accurate score despite more than a few people giving movies 10's or 0's for no good reason. taking just a few well known sites you could end up with a hyped game that meets expectaions getting a 10 average however realistically there is no such thing as a 10 because there is always a way to improve games, so including the less mainsteam review opinion can actually give the game a better score since they might be more inclined to review games fairly while ignoring the hype it recieves.
More reviews simply makes the score more accurate because it balances out the high and low error. It's called the law of large numbers, both 60 and 40 reviews respectively are good enough to give the games accurate scores, and the 20 extra reviews makes very little difference in this case as both games have enough reviews to make them accurate (r2's score is really only +/- 0.5% less accurate at the most). Even if some games have more reviews than others it is still a far better comparison than simply relying on a single review where we have seen games off by as much as +/- 10% where they should be
Yes, I'm amazed how much I still play it and I have only mastered two characters. The only other game this year I've enjoyed as much as it is fallout 3.
Wow even if there writing is good they should put more effort into giving their games Logical scores. It's just unrealistic to tell people that they can go out and buy another generic Tombraider and get a better game than Fallout 3 or R2.
Log in to comment