Any good games coming out?

[mkreku]

Lets face it they seem to have a two tier review process of late. Good or Bad. Handing 10's out like candy. PATHETIC!

So what you're saying is that if three games come out that all deserve tens, the third game shouldn't be getting it because that would be "handing 10's out like candy"? Flawless logic there.

 

I'm pretty sure they (try to) score each game what they think it deserves, relatively independent of whether they've already given a ten that month/week/day.

[Slowtrain]

Lets face it they seem to have a two tier review process of late. Good or Bad. Handing 10's out like candy. PATHETIC!

So what you're saying is that if three games come out that all deserve tens, the third game shouldn't be getting it because that would be "handing 10's out like candy"? Flawless logic there.

 

I'm pretty sure they (try to) score each game what they think it deserves, relatively independent of whether they've already given a ten that month/week/day.

 

 

Sadly 10s are pretty much meaningless these days, or at least have lost any meaning they once had, since 10's ARE handed out like candy. Maybe those three games did deserve a 10, but it doesn't mean anything because the eight before those three probabaly didn't deserve the 10s they got.

 

How many 10's would Yahtzee give out, if he handed out numerical scores? Not many.

 

We need more 1 ands 2. Without a low end, a scale has no meaning.

[Llyranor]

Nightshade will cry himself to sleep when his secret PS3 game won't get 10/10 from Eurogamer.

 

We need more 1 ands 2. Without a low end, a scale has no meaning.

I can already think of a few games.

 

Morrowind: 1/100

 

Oblivion 2/100

 

Wow, I should have my own review site!!!

Edited February 16, 2009 by Llyranor

[Slowtrain]

Nightshade will cry himself to sleep when his secret PS3 game won't get 10/10 from Eurogamer.

 

We need more 1 ands 2. Without a low end, a scale has no meaning.

I can already think of a few games.

 

Morrowind: 1/100

 

Oblivion 2/100

 

Wow, I should have my own review site!!!

 

No, see you've got it backward. And you were a little to harsh on one and little too lenient on the other.

 

Allow me to correct it for you.

 

Morrowind: 3/100

 

Oblivion 0/100

 

 

Better!

[Musopticon?]

Nightshade will cry himself to sleep when his secret PS3 game won't get 10/10 from Eurogamer.

 

We need more 1 ands 2. Without a low end, a scale has no meaning.

I can already think of a few games.

 

Morrowind: 1/100

 

Oblivion 2/100

 

Wow, I should have my own review site!!!

Lemme try:

 

Mass Effect: 7/100

 

Wow, it's really easy!

[Slowtrain]

See how easy it is to give out low scores? One wonders why major sites and mags find it so difficult, eh?

 

 

Bioshock 4/100!

[Lorfean]

See how easy it is to give out low scores? One wonders why major sites and mags find it so difficult, eh?

They're scared of the Big Bad Publishers knocking on their doors and telling them off for being mean to their multimillion dollar games.

 

Let's face it -- if someone like Yahtzee presented his opinions in well-written reviews accompanied by numerical scores, he would've been fired long ago. They only let him do what he does because he does it in an entertaining, tongue-in-cheek way and doesn't take himself (or his audience) too seriously.

 

 

L.

[Nightshape]

Nightshade will cry himself to sleep when his secret PS3 game won't get 10/10 from Eurogamer.

 

Yes, lets not factor in all the other people working on it, I am obviously the ENTIRE team.

 

I don't care if Eurogamer reviews it or not.

[Nightshape]

Gothic: -67.289/100

 

No game is perfect, and alot of games which are given low scores aren't total duds.

[newc0253]

We need more 1 ands 2. Without a low end, a scale has no meaning.

what are you talking about? there is obviously a low end for computer game reviews - i believe it is currently somewhere between 7.6 and 8.5 out of 10.

[Calax]

GameReviewers just need to get better backing for their companies. As it is they rely mainly on revenue from the game companies that they are writing reviews about, and i don't know about you but if I were getting money from somebody I wouldn't say a bad thing about them unless the failings were obvious. If the reviewers could get money from another source we'd probably see more honest reviews

[Purkake]

Yeah, games journalism as it is, is pretty abysmal. I like to listen to the gaming podcasts where they usually say what's on their mind and don't have to worry about evil corporate overlords.

 

I think the problem is that games journalism is too dependent on the publishers. They are easily bullied around when the publisher can decide not to send them preview copies or let them to their events, also they can pull the ad money to really make them suffer. 1UP got banned from all Ubisoft event at one point IIRC, the GFW magazine guys really tired to make a difference.

 

Until the games press grows some balls and stands up to the publishers in numbers, nothing is going to change. Where would movie critics be if the big studios could just bully the reviewers into giving them good reviews? The studios and more importantly (some of) the directors and actors actually care enough to make a good movie.

 

As it is now, the gaming press is a joke and they seem perfectly happy eating out of the publisher's hand.

Edited February 16, 2009 by Purkake

[Mamoulian War]

Lets face it they seem to have a two tier review process of late. Good or Bad. Handing 10's out like candy. PATHETIC!

So what you're saying is that if three games come out that all deserve tens, the third game shouldn't be getting it because that would be "handing 10's out like candy"? Flawless logic there.

 

I'm pretty sure they (try to) score each game what they think it deserves, relatively independent of whether they've already given a ten that month/week/day.

 

nah the games which do get 10/10 nowaday would get max 6/10 few years ago... same with movies... it's sad...

[mkreku]

Well, to continue to take Eurogamer as an example, there's an easy way to see what constitutes "giving out 10's like candy" since Eurogamer has a page with a summary of all their recent reviews:

 

http://www.eurogamer.net/archive.php?type=...o&platform=

 

Of all the 50 first reviews, there's ONE ten awarded. That's the Street Fighter 4 one. Of the 100 first reviews there are three tens (Street Fighter 4, World of Goo and Chrono Trigger on the DS). Three percent.

 

So in real-life-giving-out-candy references, that would mean you'd get candy 11 times in a year. Less than once a month. No wonder you're all bitter (and wrong).

[Purkake]

Well, to continue to take Eurogamer as an example, there's an easy way to see what constitutes "giving out 10's like candy" since Eurogamer has a page with a summary of all their recent reviews:

 

http://www.eurogamer.net/archive.php?type=...o&platform=

 

Of all the 50 first reviews, there's ONE ten awarded. That's the Street Fighter 4 one. Of the 100 first reviews there are three tens (Street Fighter 4, World of Goo and Chrono Trigger on the DS). Three percent.

 

So in real-life-giving-out-candy references, that would mean you'd get candy 11 times in a year. Less than once a month. No wonder you're all bitter (and wrong).

 

I think the idea here was that game reviews are inflated. The scores usually go from 7.5 to 9.5 for most games(that get at least a little marketing). They are actually pretty reluctant to give out real 10s. This isn't true 100% of the time, but I'm sure you can at least agree that the game press isn't very objective.

[Hell Kitty]

The scores usually go from 7.5 to 9.5 for most games

 

Then FEAR2 must be pretty bad with it's score of 5.

 

I'm sure you can at least agree that the game press isn't very objective.

 

Probably more objective than gamers.

 

Review scores is an argument that never leads anywhere.

[Purkake]

The scores usually go from 7.5 to 9.5 for most games

 

Then FEAR2 must be pretty bad with it's score of 5.

 

 

Are you saying that it is good? And I said usually.

 

 

I'm sure you can at least agree that the game press isn't very objective.

 

Probably more objective than gamers.

 

Review scores is an argument that never leads anywhere.

 

The difference is that game journalists actually do it for a living and one would expect a level journalistic integrity from them.

 

I have to agree that arguing over review score is pointless. I am just trying to say that the game reviews are a joke compared to say movie reviews.

[Hell Kitty]

The scores usually go from 7.5 to 9.5 for most games

 

Then FEAR2 must be pretty bad with it's score of 5.

 

 

Are you saying that it is good? And I said usually.

 

So they use a 7-9 scale for most games, but sometimes they don't? What scale did FEAR use? 1-10? 4-6?

 

If we accuse them of lying about the scale they claim to use, such accusations are based on our own biases, not the actual truth. Knowing there is corruption in an industry is not the same as knowing who is corrupt.

 

"I don't think this game deserved a score of x, but the reviewer gave it x, so clearly they are lying to us. I don't have any proof, I just know how the industry works."

 

I am just trying to say that the game reviews are a joke compared to say movie reviews.

 

How so? How, for example, if we ignore the score, is the Eurogamer Street Fighter 4 review mkreku linked to a joke?

Edited February 17, 2009 by Hell Kitty

[Amentep]

I'll come from it from a different perspective - why aren't movie reviews a joke? They're just as full of opinion and bias as any other review and the "4 star" rating system is just as meaningless as the ten point.

 

This doesn't mean that it can be a useful guide - if you read enough reviews from the same person to get an idea of their taste you can usually gauge where your own tastes lie in line (or oppose) that of the reviewer.

 

But that doesn't make them any less idiosyncratic or arbitrary. Reviews are by their nature subjective.

[Moatilliatta]

Could it be that the reason that some people believe that "games journalism sucks lol" is because they have preconceived notions of what games journalism should be that have nothing to do with reality and as such it'll seem wrong?

 

Just throwing it out there.

 

By the way, I counted the Eurogamer scores and unless I counted it wrong the average seem to lie around 7.

 

I'm not trying to defend games journalism here, in fact I don't read most of it. On the other hand I don't run around calling them hacks or dishonest just because I disagree with their opinions or buissness models.

 

I'll come from it from a different perspective - why aren't movie reviews a joke? They're just as full of opinion and bias as any other review and the "4 star" rating system is just as meaningless as the ten point.

 

This doesn't mean that it can be a useful guide - if you read enough reviews from the same person to get an idea of their taste you can usually gauge where your own tastes lie in line (or oppose) that of the reviewer.

 

But that doesn't make them any less idiosyncratic or arbitrary. Reviews are by their nature subjective.

I was going to write something similar so I'll just quote it instead and waste space.

[alanschu]

Yup. Reviews we agree with are lauded.

 

Reviews we disagree with are obviously wrong and should be chastised. Cognitive dissonance won't allow it! (it's my phrase of the day).

[Slowtrain]

Could it be that the reason that some people believe that "games journalism sucks lol" is because they have preconceived notions of what games journalism should be that have nothing to do with reality and as such it'll seem wrong?

 

 

http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/...vion?q=oblivion

 

lol

[Mamoulian War]

and another one...

 

i wonder what game they truly tested, it was for sure not PC version

 

http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/pc/grandtheftauto4

[Calax]

I'll come from it from a different perspective - why aren't movie reviews a joke? They're just as full of opinion and bias as any other review and the "4 star" rating system is just as meaningless as the ten point.

 

This doesn't mean that it can be a useful guide - if you read enough reviews from the same person to get an idea of their taste you can usually gauge where your own tastes lie in line (or oppose) that of the reviewer.

 

But that doesn't make them any less idiosyncratic or arbitrary. Reviews are by their nature subjective.

I think it's because movies are much easier to write reviews for because of their length. I mean they're 2 hour experiences in general and you can see it in a day, mull it over and pop up a review. Game reviews take MUCH more time because of the amount of content the reviewer has to sift through to get a good idea of what's going to happen, and thus they need to get the game much earlier than a movie reviewer does. Also the games industry in general.... well not the industry, more like it's surrounding media, is driven by the marketing of the games. Why would I want to click the add for the game who's review says it sucks? That's the catch 22 of the entire gaming review industry, if a game gets bad reviews then people won't want to buy it, and then you loose ad revenue because the company who's game you gave a bad review to will pull the marketing.

[Enoch]

People still read gaming magazines? All the good game commentary is in the blogs (here is a nice post indexing some of the best ones), as well as some, surprisingly enough, in mainstream newspapers (e.g., Seth Schiesel at the NYT). As with any other type of criticism, you've got to shop around a bit to find writers whose understanding and analysis is strong and whose tastes are generally comparable to your own. But once you do, you can just bookmark those particular blogs and use their recommendations to decide what is worth your time and what isn't.

Edited February 17, 2009 by Enoch