Fable 2 scores 10/10 on Eurogamer...

[Llyranor]

Oh man, Hurlshot, you got burnt hard. Go back to the 360 thread and cry, you little baby.

[Hurlshort]

Yes, Rotten Tomatoes is clearly the ultimate authority on how ratings work. I've seen the light!

Hear that? Yeah, that's what the point sounds like when going right over your head.

 

It's true, I really have no clue what your point is.

 

Do you want to explain it a bit more?

[thepixiesrock]

Most games are going to be good, above a five.

 

How did you reach that conclusion? Most music is crap, most movies are crap, most books are crap, most everything done by people is crap. Why would games be any different?

 

I don't know about the other things, but most music is actually good. I mean, right, we've just gotten down to the root of subjectivity, but most music is good. It depends on how you evaluate it I guess, like, if you evaluate it on how much you like it, sure a lot of music is crap, but if you evaluate it on how it uses the different aspects of music, or how it doens't use them, and to what effect, and what intent, then yeah, most music is actually good. But more to your point, I wouldn't mind betting everything on the assumption that the gap between what the worst a game can be, and the average, is much larger than what the best a game could be given the circumstances, and the average. I don't know how either of us can argue this, but it's what I think.

[random n00b]

Do negative or pessemistic people know they are that way? Because there are quite a few negative folks on these forums, and I just assumed they knew that is their disposition. Most people who get a job writing game reviews are positive. That's how they continue to get work. There are only a few exceptions where a negative person manages to carve out a niche, like the zero punctuation guy.

 

So figure out what your disposition is and stop being outraged every time someone with a different disposition posts a review.

This is equivalent to admitting that pr0 reviewers are essentially whores. Thus, their "ratings" are worthless. I've been arguing this for a long time, and it's good people are finally realizing it.

 

 

It's true, I really have no clue what your point is.

 

Do you want to explain it a bit more?

I didn't say RT are an authority on anything, merely that they understand what a percentile rating is supposed to represent. Often I don't even agree with the particular ratings there, and rarely check the website myself. However, people posting reviews there only have their e-cred to lose, and so aren't afraid of giving a bad movie a bad rating. No, bad is not 55%. Because you know, the great thing with percentages is that they give a good idea of a proportion with a glance. That's why they are used at all. However, if the rating scale effectively starts at 60% (since very rarely anything will score lower), that's misleading.

 

The catch is, ratings are never explained in detail. It's impossible they are intended to represent percentile rank. So then, they are a proportion of what?

Edited October 26, 2008 by random n00b

[Maria Caliban]

why do people whine when we apply school grading scales to games? I mean I earned a 70% on my test that earned me (barely) a C grade... WHICH IS AVERAGE!

 

A C isn't always average. Teachers that grade on scales ususally have B as the average score. A C being average depends on the subject, the type of teacher, and the students. High School English is usually a B average. Math used to be C average, but a number of laws reward schools with more funding if students get higher test scores so you're seeing more student aids like being able to use notes on a test and partial credit for an incorrect answer.

 

School grading scales are borked up for a large number of reasons right now.

[Hell Kitty]

When people list game titles and assign them 10/10, as was done earlier in this thread, that doesn't actually tell me a damn thing about the game. When all I know is the score all I can assume is that it means "I love this game". The same is true of all reviews, professional or amateur, if all I'm going to look at is the score* all I can really tell is how much they might like or dislike that game.

 

Ratings alone are worthless, and that's true of reviewers who only give top scores, reviewers who only give low scores, or reviewers who give a whole range of scores. It's also true of professional journalists, people who post reviews on their blogs or people that list game titles on forum threads.

 

Reviews typically comment on similar types of games, but I don't think scores should be modified based on other games. Obviously holding off on a top score for future games is ridiculous ("This RPG is the best there has even been, but there might be a better one released in the future, so I'll only give it nine rubber chickens.") but how far back should reviewers go when comparing games to older titles? Fallout 1 & 2 will obviously be mentioned in reviews of Fallout 3, but should they also mention Wasteland? What about games that don't fit into one strict genre? Should the ratings for Far Cry 2 be modified based on straight shooters like Half-Life 2 and open world games like GTA4?

 

As for the people who claim most everything is crap, well that's a completely useless point of view. Unless you've actually experienced most of everything you're just being pointlessly negative. For something to be crap I think absolutely everything about it has to be terrible, of the lowest quality possible, which would make for a score of 0/10, whereas it seems people use "crap" to mean "I don't like this for some reason". If I was going to review a game/book/movie/whatever and give it a score out of 10, then everything would start out at a 5. Pros would earn it points, cons would take points away. A score above 5 would mean the good outweighs the bad, a score below 5 means the bad outweighs the good.

Folks like to complain about reviewers only ever giving high marks, but their own scales are just as bad, only the other way around. If something like Crysis is considered crap, then what score does trash like the latest Soldier of Fortune get? Everyone's a critic, but I don't think many have what it takes to give an honest critique.

 

* How many people actually read the reviews they are criticizing before calling the reviewer a whore or a sellout based on a top score? Do you feel the same way about reviewers giving top scores to games you love? "Man, what a ****ing sellout, this game doesn't deserve a 10, it's merely a 9! Obviously paid off by the publisher." It's the body of the review that counts, but people seem more interested in ignoring that and focusing on the number, because a top mark means you can just tell they've been bribed. lol

Edited October 26, 2008 by Hell Kitty

[Maria Caliban]

When people list game titles and assign them 10/10, as was done earlier in this thread, that doesn't actually tell me a damn thing about the game. When all I know is the score all I can assume is that it means "I love this game". The same is true of all reviews, professional or amateur, if all I'm going to look at is the score* all I can really tell is how much they might like or dislike that game.

 

Ebert gave Tomb Raider 3/5 and then went on about how much he loved the movie. I've read many reviews by movie critic in which how much they like/dislike the film isn't what they base the review on.

 

Now, I can't say that about game reviews, though Yatzee may come close at times.

[Hurlshort]

Do negative or pessemistic people know they are that way? Because there are quite a few negative folks on these forums, and I just assumed they knew that is their disposition. Most people who get a job writing game reviews are positive. That's how they continue to get work. There are only a few exceptions where a negative person manages to carve out a niche, like the zero punctuation guy.

 

So figure out what your disposition is and stop being outraged every time someone with a different disposition posts a review.

This is equivalent to admitting that pr0 reviewers are essentially whores. Thus, their "ratings" are worthless. I've been arguing this for a long time, and it's good people are finally realizing it.

 

 

Can you answer the first question I asked Mr. n00b?

 

I don't remember anyone arguing for the idea that pro video game reviewers are upstanding journalists. These are trade magazines and websites, they rely on the companies they review to stay in business. But a negative person is going to look at that and say they all must be soulless shills for the man, and a positive person is simply going to read the review for the content and not worry too much about whether the game got a 92.75 percent out of 93.

[Maria Caliban]

Hmm, no, I don't believe the average person is self-aware enough to know whether they are essentially pessimistic or optimistic. Some do, but not all.

 

There

[Aristes]

But a negative person is going to look at that and say they all must be soulless shills for the man...

 

I'm probably just tired, but this made me laugh out loud. I was also impressed with Hell Kitty's post because it tends to reflect most of my views.

 

on the other hand, and I'm not being a polllyanna here, I don't really think most folks are as far apart as it seems. To me, the real problem is the perfect score. For that reason, I

think folks have raised their eyebrows. I mean, some folks see 10 as absolutely perfect. Other folks just see it as a must buy for the genre. There is a difference, because I have played games that don't call perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but I would unquestionably recommend to others. Personally, I would not give them a 10 becaue I tend to see it, as others do, as the pinnacle of the scale. On the other hand, if a 10 merely means a game that you would recommend to any fan of the genre, then it makes sense to give it the top score.

 

So, the perspectives are different, but not by that much. Both would concede that the game is not absolutely perfect but that fans of the genre will enjoy it. Of course, I don't know if that applies to this particular game. Calax and Hurlshot have both said it fell short of perfect, and the disconnect is where newc saw Calax' '9' and wondered how the hell such a critical review ended with a score one less than perfection. I have to admit, to be honest, that I was kind of caught off guard like newc. Still, the review was solid and did tell us somethin about the game. That's the important thing for me. Once I get a feel for Calax' numerical tilt, I can see his numbers and have an idea of where the game falls. Like HellKitty, though, I'm still going to read the review, because that's really going to tell me something.

[Gorgon]

Most people who get a job writing game reviews are positive. That's how they continue to get work.

 

I'm just curious, so you prefer positive reviewers to neutral or negative ones.

[Morgoth]

It just shows that game journalism is neither professional, nor serious. It's just there so that a bunch of losers who couldn't get a real job get paid for writing/interviewing/ranting about stuff that doesn't require any education or skill at all.

Edited October 26, 2008 by Morgoth

[Calax]

meh I'm kinda suprised people actually ready my review given that I seem to be invisible to 90% of the people here. :shrugs:

Calax's Beef of the night!

 

Fable 2 is a good game for most people. I suppose I shouldn't have bought it given I generally don't like "driving" a character that is little more than a cheer in terms of characterization. In the first game you were given some character by your supporting allies what with saving your mother and all and your main quest had alot more repercussions on the world. what with the death of twinblade, the whole Jack of Knives thing and the destruction of the guild and all that. I've been told that most of the events that actually change the game world take place in sidequests in Fable 2 but I just can't get beyond the fact that somehow a person (hammer) can become an adoring friend to a mute who does little more then fetch things for a blind 500 year old woman and has a dog that will faithfully follow them to the end of the earth. I suppose I'm too used to the biware/obsidian way of giving you a character thats actually got lines with which the player is allowed to define the characters personality rather than having an arcane meter system that says "you've been this good" or "this corrupt" or what have you. PM's system of having the character say nothing could have been done much better. of course he'd have to give the character a TINY bit of life beyond the player which he seems to be averse to to say the least. and by better I mean doing it the half life two way with well fleshed out characters speaking to the mute protagonist and sometimes speaking for the protagonist.

 

I suppose that's what hurt Fable 2 in my eyes the most (other than my previous reviews anger at the fact that there are no changes to the world over the blasted main quest line) was the fact that NONE of the characters had more than a cardboard cutout personality. Hell Lucian didn't even have Jacks level of personality or even your mothers level in the previous game and your mother had less lines than Rose in fable 2! The only character with even a modicum of personality (who ironically i thought had the most lines over all) was the hero of Skill. and the guy is a pompous Jackhole. when I was able to the first thing I did was pull out my gun and shoot him in the head for some of the crap he put me through.

 

Honestly my favorite part of the game was during the 10 year gap. Why? because it felt like you were actually doing something rather than shuttling back and fourth across the land playing Fed-ex for a blind woman. it's also the only time in the entire main questline where you can make a choice about what to do. Admittedly the choice doesn't have any impact on the world at large, it's just a chance for you to get penalized for being good and bad points for being apathetic. Combat in the game is easy as cake, and the ranged system was improved, although once you can target a body part with your rifle you generally get all one hit kills while your opponents are running at you like lemmings.

 

The sound design is well done if a tad bit LOUD at times (my TV was playing at a volume setting of 7 and I was still yelled at for it being too loud. usually I play things at 15 and don't get yelled at). guns sound like guns rather than nerf/mattell creations. Visually the game is impressive. Like I said earlier when I ended the main quest my character looked to be 65 with grey hair, glowing red eyes, and her skin glowed blue with sigils and arcane symbology because I had invested in Magic. Of course you couldn't tell it was a she given that after a certain level of Physique you look like you should turn green and scream HULK SMASH. I was a little dissapointed that PM had removed armor because a guy in armor looks freaking SWEET in comparison to the clothing choices we are given. I ended up going with the higway man look (i thought it was more of a pirate look to be honest) for almost the entire game because it was the only thing that looked even remotely good. I tried on a will users robe and found that my boots often clipped through the tail of my robe and it just looked nasty.

 

Death in Fable 2 isn't really death, when your life goes down you get knocked out. after your corpse stops bouncing on the ground all ragdolly and often looking like it doesn't have a bone structure to speak of (are my feet supposed to be in my mouth when I bend over backwards?) you will knockback anyone in melee range and stand back up with full life. Later on in the game once you've powered up you will find that your opponents come in droves and also have stupid amounts of health. Those bandits that you faced off with and killed in two swings back when you had no upgrades and a simple iron longsword? well when you've got a master longsword and lvl 4 strength that same twerp will take a good 15 swings (without blocking) to knock to the ground. It doesn't help that Lucians grunts generally give out less XP than a Hobbe and are some of the toughest grunts a evil villian can pick up from the henchmen store. Supposedly every time you get knocked out you earn a scar. but I've yet to really see any visible scars. they're probably covered up by my magic blue veins.

 

Most of my dislikes will probably be overlooked by other players but honestly? I'm thinking I should have waited for a Used copy to come in and checked that sucker out at work. For two reasons 1 the main story is criminally short and 2 I've never felt the draw to doing sidequests or trying to get every little thing in a game. Sure I got the "turian ally" and "krogan Ally" achievements the world of Mass Effect felt easier to get around in than Fable 2. Sure Fable 2 has the breadcrumb system (which is wonderful don't get me wrong) and a simple fast travel system... you know I really don't know why I was able to stay interested in ME rather than Fable. Maybe it's the fact that the side quests in ME felt more natural to the progression of the game?

 

Now that I think about it alot of the fable 2 interface system doesn't feel that natural... from the breadcrumb system (which I'm willing to let slide because it's golden pixie dust AWESOMENESS!) to the way quests are given to you (they just kinda appear in your quest menu and you can quick travel to the questing area). And it is a little jarring that if you make a mistake and accidentally shoot somebody all your good deeds are overlooked and you are constantly assailed and yelled at as a murderer. The menu system is atrocious as somebody else pointed out, every time you use a potion or item in general you are instantly booted back out to the game screen. This is especially bothersome when you've got eight books that you want to use to get your dog some new tricks and yourself some new expressions (how do you learn an expression from a book anyway? it seems kinda stupid).

 

I've decided that on Tuesday I'm gonna trade Fable 2 in when I pick up Fallout 3. and if people like these penny reviews I might be convinced to do one on fallout after a few days.

[Nightshape]

It just shows that game journalism is neither professional, nor serious. It's just there so that a bunch of losers who couldn't get a real job get paid for writing/interviewing/ranting about stuff that doesn't require any education or skill at all.

 

Game journalism is what happends when a talentless hack who dreams of making games can't, because they're actually a talentless jerk with none of the required skills.

 

As far as I personally am concerned, I can't stand these parasite critics, they're scum feeding on the achievements of others, on some inane power trip because that's where uses go to find out about games.

 

They can make or break a franchise and they think that makes them important, fact is they aren't, they're usually wrong, they mislead the public. Journalists actually "get it wrong" more than developers themselves do.

 

Over the next month we're expecting lots of games... I don't think a single one of them will score poorly from the journalists, even when they should, every title will be hailed as some second coming from GoW2 to FO3, Fable 2 to LBP.

 

That's what makes Yahtzee so entertaining for me personally, it's the exact opposite of what the mainstream media is ranting on about, and usually a damn site closer to the truth.

 

In summary, the games journalist is a no talent hack mouth piece whom is part of the hype machine, ignore them.

[Gorth]

In summary, the games journalist is a no talent hack mouth piece whom is part of the hype machine, ignore them.

So, Codemasters haven't give you any PR related tasks yet? >_

[random n00b]

As for the people who claim most everything is crap, well that's a completely useless point of view. Unless you've actually experienced most of everything you're just being pointlessly negative. For something to be crap I think absolutely everything about it has to be terrible, of the lowest quality possible, which would make for a score of 0/10, whereas it seems people use "crap" to mean "I don't like this for some reason". If I was going to review a game/book/movie/whatever and give it a score out of 10, then everything would start out at a 5. Pros would earn it points, cons would take points away. A score above 5 would mean the good outweighs the bad, a score below 5 means the bad outweighs the good.

Then it looks to me like your time is worth very little. Getting into anything is an investment of time, and starting off at 5 is cutting it some slack up front. Of course, most entertainment will "entertain" you, but little else. That probably traduces into "the good outwheighing the bad", which results in most mediocre works getting scores above 5. This overinflation of grades has the added problem of cramming really good stuff into a very small interval. If mediocre and bad works got mediocre and bad grades, the high grades would have more meaning as they would be issued out more rarely, and the difference between a 93% and a 95% would mean something.

 

It's also funny that you focused mainly on the uselessness of any and all rating systems and the unreliability of their authors based on their inherent subjectivity (of course, you failed to mention that subjectivity tends to factor out when ratings are taken and evaluated in groups), and then went on to lay out your very own biased scheme.

 

Yeah, everyone's got an agenda but me, eh buddy?

 

 

* How many people actually read the reviews they are criticizing before calling the reviewer a whore or a sellout based on a top score? Do you feel the same way about reviewers giving top scores to games you love? "Man, what a ****ing sellout, this game doesn't deserve a 10, it's merely a 9! Obviously paid off by the publisher." It's the body of the review that counts, but people seem more interested in ignoring that and focusing on the number, because a top mark means you can just tell they've been bribed. lol

You were careful enough not to quote me directly, but I should make it clear that I was simply following what Hurlshot said. I don't bother with reviews for the most part, and when I do, the figures hold no meaning for me.

 

But at any rate, your post shows a lack of knowledge of how the specialized press works, in any field. Because, believe it or not, there is a give-and-take working relationship between journalists and companies. There's got to be, a journalist's salary sucks.

 

 

Can you answer the first question I asked Mr. n00b?

What, whether I'm a "positive" or "negative" kind of guy?

 

Well, that depends on the time I get up from bed, mostly. But also what I have for breakfast and whether the floor is cold. What does it matter, anyway? I'm not making reviews and assigning scores. What you seem to refuse to understand is that I'm not disputing that some games are worth 4/5, 95% or 10/10. What I find pretty retarded (clever as it may be) is that scores below 40% simply don't exist... for no other reason than to offer a distorted perspective to prospective buyers. And the best part is that folks are ok with being deceived!

 

As for the rest of your post, well. Word it however you want, but the bottom line is the truth gives way to money. The actual quality of the product being reviewed is tangential. What matters is the PR investment, the relationship between the reviewer and the company, and other factors such as how "respected" one particular publication is and to what extent can they risk discredit by going against either the prevalent opinion or the hard facts.

[newc0253]

The entire point of a review scale is to compare games with other games. An average game should get an average score. If you make 7 an average score then you're essentially refusing to use the lower half of your scale.

exactly.

 

any system of reviews that seeks to quantify quality has its inherent problems but there's something especially silly about a scoring system that gives 8 or 9 out of 10 as the average for any new release that isn't grossly flawed.

 

if folks are gonna seriously defend scoring reviews, at least try and honestly grapple with something like metacritic. is every summer release at 80 or 90%? the dark knight, probably one of the best films of the summer, and probably one of the best superhero films ever made, rates an 82% on metacritic. if dark knight had been a video game, silly kids and gaming mags would be giving it 11 or 12 out of 10.

 

I should add that I don't think grade inflation is precisely what's happening. What I think is happening is that easily impressed gamers are reviewing games.

no, the lazy and the corrupt are reviewing games and the easily impressionable fanboys are copying them.

Edited October 26, 2008 by newc0253

[Nightshape]

In summary, the games journalist is a no talent hack mouth piece whom is part of the hype machine, ignore them.

So, Codemasters haven't give you any PR related tasks yet?

 

How'd you guess LOL... Please be aware that it's my personal opinion .

 

There is obviously a very close relationship between the media and developers/publishers.

Edited October 27, 2008 by Nightshape

[Hell Kitty]

It's also funny that you focused mainly on the uselessness of any and all rating systems and the unreliability of their authors based on their inherent subjectivity and then went on to lay out your very own biased scheme.

 

Yes, that was very funny wasn't it. Anyway, I wasn't trying to offer up some kind of perfect review system, I was trying to point out why I think the idea that "most of everything is crap" is ridiculous.

 

It's like with people, there are those I trust, those I don't trust, and then there is everyone else. I don't trust or distrust them, I give them the benefit of the doubt. Sure, I could tell myself that I can't trust most people, that maybe I shouldn't trust most people, but it doesn't actually mean that most people are untrustworthy.

 

Starting out at 5 really isn't cutting anything some slack, because starting in the middle of the road and taking off points to a minimum of 0 and adding them for a maximum of 10 is really no different from starting off at 0 and only adding points to a maximum of 10. People are so obsessed with the numbers, they just have to mean something in particular. For me a ranking of 5 says there is nothing good or bad about the product, it simply exists, which means uninteresting.

 

But at any rate, your post shows a lack of knowledge of how the specialized press works, in any field. Because, believe it or not, there is a give-and-take working relationship between journalists and companies.

 

My post does no such thing, and claiming I don't know "how the specialized press works" is pointless condescension. I'm not arguing for games journalists, claiming that there isn't a "give-and-take working relationship between journalists and companies", I'm arguing against those who dismiss any and all reviewers who give a top score and accusing them of being sellouts, based only on their own biased opinions. "I don't agree with game X getting a top score, refuse to believe the reviewer is giving an honest opinion, therefore they must be a sellout." Oh, and I didn't need to be careful not to quote your post directly because mine wasn't a direct response to yours.

 

It's one thing to be aware of corruption in any type of business, it's another matter entirely to accuse anyone who operates a particular way of being corrupt when you have absolutely no evidence.

Edited October 28, 2008 by Hell Kitty

[Hurlshort]

I'm really enjoying Fable, in fact I've spent a lot more time doing side stuff in this one than I did in the original. I ate and drank myself to obesity just to get a demon door open, and now I'm purging my body of all the toxins. Good stuff. I also moved my family into a bigger house, and I've bought most of the real estate in Oakfield.

[thepixiesrock]

So, do you still make money when the game is off? I didn't really understand that. Like, I don't have the game up at college with me so am I making money right now, or does the game have to be on for me to make money?

[Hurlshort]

If you own and rent out property, then yes you are making money even with the game off.

 

I logged in after two days and have a nice 20k savings built up.

[thepixiesrock]

Wow, I'm so mad right now. I sold all of my property and shops just before I left my house Sunday. I could have had a weeks worth of money saved up when I play the game this weekend. Crap.

[Meshugger]

Meh, i remember reading PC Gamer UK back in the day. The reviewers were sometimes really nasty but witty at the same time. But they were brave as well, there was even one issue heavily critizing on how much publishers got and how little the seller and most importantly, the developers got for each sold copy.

 

But there was one issue that stood out from the rest though. It was about their highest rated 20 games during 1991-1995(the time of the issue was published). Only the top 4 had gotten over 90% out of 100, with Ultima Underworld II at the top with 93%. Imagine that.

 

What strikes me as sad, is when people like Yahtzee are considered as fringe in today's gaming journalism, while a decade ago, he would've been considered as the norm.

[Hurlshort]

What strikes me as sad, is when people like Yahtzee are considered as fringe in today's gaming journalism, while a decade ago, he would've been considered as the norm.

 

The internet has definitely diluted the media, and there really are too many gaming mags, and they tend to cater to the lowest common denominator.