Fable 2 scores 10/10 on Eurogamer...

[Maria Caliban]

Freaking crap. I went to bed with a whore, and then she robbed me of $5,000.

 

Go Grand Theft Auto on her ass. Maybe you can beat it back out of her.

[Aristes]

Freaking crap. I went to bed with a whore, and then she robbed me of $5,000. If this game isn't a metaphor for my real love life, I don't know what is.

 

This made me laugh out loud. hahaha I hope you don't sleep with women who rob you of 5 grand regularly!

[newc0253]

I'd put it in the 8-9 range, but I need to finish it first. The original I'd give an 8.5, mostly because I felt the ending was way too quick. Otherwise I'd rate it a solid 9.

 

But hey, this is like a fun adventure game. That's not everyone's cup o' tea.

so a 'fun adventure game' these days rates 8.5 or 9 on a 10 point scale?

 

some day you kids are gonna grow up and finish high school and realise that the average of a bell curve distribution on a 10 point scale isn't 7 or 8. i realise you're all on ritalin and everything but this kind of grade inflation is truly puerile.

Edited October 25, 2008 by newc0253

[Hurlshort]

I'd put it in the 8-9 range, but I need to finish it first. The original I'd give an 8.5, mostly because I felt the ending was way too quick. Otherwise I'd rate it a solid 9.

 

But hey, this is like a fun adventure game. That's not everyone's cup o' tea.

so a 'fun adventure game' these days rates 8.5 or 9 on a 10 point scale?

 

some day you kids are gonna grow up and finish high school and realise that the average of a bell curve distribution on a 10 point scale isn't 7 or 8. i realise you're all on ritalin and everything but this kind of grade inflation is truly puerile.

 

Go go condescending posts!

 

Your way must clearly be the right way. That must be why so many educational institutions classify 7-8 as average, 8-9 as above average, and 9-10 as excellent.

 

When I get out of High School, I hope I learn to capitalize words at the beginning of a sentence.

Edited October 25, 2008 by Hurlshot

[thepixiesrock]

Yeah, everyone needs to stop being pricks and just deal with the fact that people like games they don't.

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

Yeah, everyone needs to stop being pricks and just deal with the fact that people like games they don't.

 

That's like asking every country to get along.

 

But I think if we eliminate the fanboys, we might get close to this ideal situation. I call shotgun.

[Slowtrain]

Game ratings have become a lot more lenient over the years. I remember when CGW used to regularly give out scores of 12, 18, 26, 32% on a hundred point skill. During my formative years, giving a game a 9 or a 90 meant is was one of the best games you had ever played and had nothing bad to say about. Giving a game a 10, or close to it, meant that it was an all time classic, something that should be held up and lauded from all corner of the earth and would likely never be surpassed.

 

Nowadays, a 10 seems to mean "a game works and I enjoyed it". Its kind of funny actually.

[thepixiesrock]

I mean, the problem is that if they rated games extremely exclusively like some people want, then how do you compare them to games later on? So take a great game from ten years ago and give it a ten out of ten. But what about now ten years later? Is it still worth that? I mean, how could it be, games have advanced so far. If you made a game exactly like that game ten years ago today, it wouldn't get a ten out of ten. How could it? Graphics, gameplay, voice acting, storylines, cutscenes, all of this type of stuff has progressed since ten years ago. So how could you possibly say that that game ten years ago deserves a ten out of ten, or even a nine out of ten if you're one of those "no ten exists" people.

 

Wait, what's that? The game was fantastic for it's time? Given what it was working with, and what it was competing against, it was near perfect? It was, the best at what it did relative to a lot of factors.

 

If they rate games they way they do now, it does kind of devalue the system of rating games, but it makes it easier to tell what good games will be if you're looking to buy a new game right now. I mean, give a kid who didn't grow up with your old games the choice of your old game, or a new game. your old game they rated a nine back when it was almost impossible to get that rating, or a new game that they gave a nine or ten "undeservingly" The kid is going to pick the new game, because your old games suck. Face it. They were great for you because you grew up on them, but when it comes down to it, old games just aren't as good as new games, and will never be. They are great to you because you saw what it was, what games were when it came out. You still rate the game a ten because it was the best at what it did given it's circumstances. Ten years from now, new games won't stand up either, except to people that were gaming when they came out.

 

This is all ignoring the fact that people like different things in their games. So while you may value one thing highly, other might not, and while you hated this feature, someone else could have loved it.

Edited October 25, 2008 by thepixiesrock

[Aristes]

Wow, that was eloquent, thepixiesrock. Seriously, a very passionate defense.

 

I think the rating system has become skewed but, unlike some of the other aged persons here, I didn't like the old scales either. We're intelligent people. How about we get away from numbers altogether? Why not have a reviewer write a review that doesn't boil down to a cheap and easy number?

 

All that aside, there are games that become classics and those old games either revolutionized the industry or provided the framework for long standing franchises or even created a backstory that endures for a long time. Some of the new games will do the same and folks will talk about them when they're old games.

 

More to your previous point. I think we should not act like jerks because someone likes a game we don't like. I mean, rail a little bit, but then let it slide. I was just lurking in this thread, as I have been, when I saw your funny comment about the five thou. So, two posts in a thread about a game I'm probably never going to own may be a bit excessive. Nevertheless, I don't need to play the game to agree with you about the underlying issue of respecting other folks' views.

[Hurlshort]

I remember when CGW did away with review scores altogether. That was great, but I guess the community complained a lot and they went back to the old system pretty quickly.

 

I also think it's ridiculous to argue with a score someone assigns to a game. Sure, disagreeing is great. Having discussions about why you rate something can be really helpful for folks looking to pick it up, but it's an opinion. Their opinion isn't wrong, it's just not your opinion. When you go into a thread and try to belittle someone over their opinion, you've got serious issues.

[Slowtrain]

Yeah, I'm not saying one system is better than the other, only that how we view a score depends on what we learned when we were younger.

 

When I see someone give a game a 9, I immediately think that they are indicitating this is one of the best games they've ever played, just short of being a classic. Nowadays I have to stop and think again, no wait, that's not what a 9 means anymore.

 

Its just interesting how times change what things mean.

[Slowtrain]

Graphics, gameplay, voice acting, storylines, cutscenes, all of this type of stuff has progressed since ten years ago.

 

 

I would also add that I don't agree with this. Graphics have advanced hugely of course; the ability to represent things visually on a screen is so far beyond what was once the case that I still can't believe some of the things I see when I play games today.

 

But gameplay, story, characters? Sure some games implement them better than others, but overall there has been no real overall advancement in any of these from 10 years ago. I would argue in fact that in order to widen their appeal games have lost much of the complexity and originality they used to have.

[Aristes]

People say the same thing about literature today. ...And folks have been saying it for a long, long time. Plato talked about the lost values of his youth.

 

Rapture, and its founder, were both great. The cutscene with Ryan is one of the best I've seen in any computer game, and I don't mean the graphics. The premise for MotB is wonderful. The story, particularly the early part, of Indigo Prophecy was as good as any computer game from the good ol' days.

 

What I'm saying is that there are good examples of great design and storytelling in computer games today just like there were when we were younger. There are splendid examples of terrible design and storytelling just as there were in the good ol' days. The best will likely endure, although fate is capricious. You never know.

 

Basically, I agree with newc and you in regards to the inflated scores, but I don't see that gaming has been on a downward spiral. Remembering one of the games from my youth, pong, I can say that storytelling, characters, and design have traveled lightyears since then.

[Whipporwill]

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.

 

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.

Edited October 25, 2008 by Whipporwill

[Slowtrain]

but I don't see that gaming has been on a downward spiral.

 

I'm not really saying that though, since "downward spiral" has negative connotations.

 

The advancement in graphics has been a great thing. I love it.

 

and there are quality games being made as well. I just don't think that story, gameplay and characters have moved so impressively forward as pixies does.

 

 

As far as Bioshock goes, I'll just say that I don't have anything positive to say about it. Except that it's pretty.

[Hurlshort]

7 as an average is a pretty well accepted idea. Honestly if I see a 5, I'm thinking this game is not worth playing and only for the most desperate or hardcore of fans.

 

Maybe it would be better to stick with a strictly letter grade system. Ok, I give Fable 2 a B+.

 

Education is trying to move towards a different scale in many areas, basically a 4-point or 6-point rubric, because of many of the reasons you folks are listing. I'm not arguing with your logic, I'm just stating the the accepted conventions don't line up with your reasoning.

 

I'm not going to sit there and go "for the typical grading curve where 7 is average, I'd give Fable an 8.5, but for those who feel that a 5 is average, I give it a 7.8.

[random n00b]

I mean, give a kid who didn't grow up with your old games the choice of your old game, or a new game. your old game they rated a nine back when it was almost impossible to get that rating, or a new game that they gave a nine or ten "undeservingly" The kid is going to pick the new game, because your old games suck. Face it.

No. Ask a kid whether he prefers the latest Harry Potter book or flick vs Crime and Punishment or The Seventh Seal, and you get pretty much the same result. Following that argument only leads to the conclusion that game reviewers have the degree of refinement in their criteria of a five year-old - which I suspect isn't what you were trying to prove.

 

Mind you, I agree in principle with what you're saying. There's a lot of different games for different tastes, and many (most) people won't be able to make fair comparisons between games they played fifteen years ago and present titles. But that doesn't mean a few select old games aren't better than a good chunk of what's produced today. And it has no relation either to the fact that rating an average (read: mediocre) game a 7.5 is misleading and absurd.

 

Those of you who think it's "ok" to have that sort of idiocy in ratings: take a look here to see how percentile ratings are really used by those who understand what they mean.

Edited October 25, 2008 by random n00b

[Hurlshort]

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

[Maria Caliban]

How about we get away from numbers altogether? Why not have a reviewer write a review that doesn't boil down to a cheap and easy number?

 

Two reasons:

 

1. The publishers don't like it, especially marketing. Being able to get exclusives or to review a game before it's out is important for sites and magazines, and that hurts their ability to do so.

 

2. Consumers don't like it. People like numbers, stars, or thumbs up or down.

 

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

 

RT's methodology is great for modern cinema. For video games, it doesn’t fare as well.

Edited October 25, 2008 by Maria Caliban

[Aristes]

Yep, even worse, some compensation for developers comes from sorting through the review numbers. I understand that I might be a minority, but I still prefer a review that doesn't rely on numbers. If numbers are included, then a thorough description of the ideas behind those numbrs in imperative. That's why some reviews quantified by a numerical system still excel.

[Calax]

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!

[thepixiesrock]

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.

 

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.

 

We're talking about average here, not median. There's a difference, just because five is in the middle doesn't mean most games are going to be five. Most games are going to be good, above a five.

 

 

I mean, give a kid who didn't grow up with your old games the choice of your old game, or a new game. your old game they rated a nine back when it was almost impossible to get that rating, or a new game that they gave a nine or ten "undeservingly" The kid is going to pick the new game, because your old games suck. Face it.

No. Ask a kid whether he prefers the latest Harry Potter book or flick vs Crime and Punishment or The Seventh Seal, and you get pretty much the same result. Following that argument only leads to the conclusion that game reviewers have the degree of refinement in their criteria of a five year-old - which I suspect isn't what you were trying to prove.

 

Right, I didn't mean to imply a certain age by what I said. I just meant someone who didn't grow up with the game. I guess I said kid in the more abstract sense, where it's a person younger than the other person, like from a different time. Older person vs. younger person.

[Pidesco]

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?

[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.

[random n00b]

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.

 

 

Right, I didn't mean to imply a certain age by what I said. I just meant someone who didn't grow up with the game. I guess I said kid in the more abstract sense, where it's a person younger than the other person, like from a different time. Older person vs. younger person.

Well, I don't know then. You may believe that somebody able to appreciate good storytelling and solid roleplaying is going to prefer Sonic RPG over Fallout because it's prettier, but I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Even taking my rose-colored glasses off, pretty graphics and Liam Neeson still don't make a game better by themselves.

 

Again, there's really very few "old gems" and in most cases the technical aspect hasn't aged very well at all. But most modern games set the bar really, really low. The thing is, good modern games with their high profiles tend to compensate for that, in an apparent sense. Think about it, what % of published games in a given platform do you actually bother with each year? And why?

 

Instinctively, you try to weed out the crap. And you know you aren't going to get a crap game, even if mags assure you it's a solid 75%. So then, what I'm wondering is, 75% of what exactly?