Every major game that comes out gets pretty much a guaranteed 8/10 or higher. An 8/10 means whatever you are rating is very good. Just look at the HUGE difference in video game scores [http://www.metacritic.com/browse/games/score/metascore/90day/all] and movie scores [http://www.metacritic.com/browse/movies/score/metascore/year?sort=desc&view=condensed] at MetaCritic.
Only 3 movies have received overall scores of 90 or higher ALL YEAR.
Whereas, just in the past 90 DAYS, there have been 15 games that have received overall scores of 90 or higher (not counting the HD re-releases).
To me, this is just a complete joke. The writing in games is overall terrible. Even the games that are noted for having good writing usually have just OK-to-good writing, Bioshock has huge plot holes and Mass Effect has some pretty major plot issues. Plus, not that many games have what I would call 9+/10 gameplay. Therefore, with most games having shit writing plus below 9/10 gameplay, how the fuck are all these games getting 9+/10 scores?
If gaming wants to become a respected art medium like movies, TV, music, books, etc., game critics need actually criticize like games are art and not just something that's functional like a car. The majority of art produced in all other mediums is not 8/10 good. Game critics just go around saying everything is good. You have to go beyond the fact that a shooter has good shooting and rate the plot and characters more like what a movie critic would. I realize games don't need a plot or games like Mario aren't trying to have any more plot than a Jackie Chan movie does. As a reviewer, you have to realize what the game is trying to accomplish, COD is trying for a serious-type plot that a good action-thiller movie would have whereas Mario's plot is like a Jackie Chan movie (just an excuse for Mario to go platforming where ever to save the princess like a Jackie Chan plot is just a clothesline to witness Jackie's unique brand of fight scenes and physical comedy). Also, does the online multiplayer have any balance issues, the last few CODs have had balance issues (which is something that is pretty important and game breaking). You can't just play the multiplayer for a few hours (outside of public release) and accurately rate it.
Game reviewers should be able to blast into a game the way Extra Credits did to Call of Juarez: The Cartel [http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/call-of-juarez-the-cartel]. Now, that is proper art criticism. The game STILL received a 47 Metacritic score, which basically means average, GameSpot gave it a 5.5 calling it mediocre, not even low enough to be called below average, bad, or poor.
Note: Yes, this was sparked by the latest Jimquisition but it's also something that I've felt for quite awhile. I remember when a game getting an 8/10 in EGM meant the game was damn good (quite oftenly game of the month even).
I have to disagree, I don't think good writing/a good story should be a priority in game design. Gameplay that is enjoyable is more than enough to warrant a perfect review score, in my book, crappy writing be damned.
Also, I don't really see how the way games are criticized has any bearing on the health of the medium. In any medium, reviews have always been supplementary to the experience, wholly subjective and not particularly indicative of how "respected" the medium is.
I also watched the Jimquisition today and it made me wonder why the reviewers should care about fans bitching that their favorite games got less than perfect reviews.
The reviews don't seem to take much of the public online multiplayer into the reviews in my experience. I do remember hearing about some reviews changing their scores for Dark Souls based on the multiplayer servers being so bad.
I agree, but guys like Tom Chick have railed against the rating system and it only got them death threats from fanboys. Seriously, he gave Deus Ex a bad -- but well-written and fair -- review and got death threats for his opinion.
It's an admirable effort, but the community is going to have to mature before the market will respond in kind. If we're going to push for this, we have to accept it when people give games WE like bad reviews. I don't feel like the bulk of gamers are even close to being ready to accept an opinion that contradicts their echo chamber.
I have to disagree, I don't think good writing/a good story should be a priority in game design. Gameplay that is enjoyable is more than enough to warrant a perfect review score, in my book, crappy writing be damned.
Also, I don't really see how the way games are criticized has any bearing on the health of the medium. In any medium, reviews have always been supplementary to the experience, wholly subjective and not particularly indicative of how "respected" the medium is.
I said that games don't even need to have a story like a sports game, Galaga, Angry Birds, etc. But the games that do attempt to have good stories with well-developed characters (like Bioshock and Mass Effect) should be have their stories graded like a movie critic would review a movie.
I think the gaming medium does take a hit when game reviewers just go around saying everything is awesome. And the difference between 2 AAA games has devolved to basically Game A is even more awesome than Game B.
ResonanceGames said:
I agree, but guys like Tom Chick have railed against the rating system and it only got them death threats from fanboys. Seriously, he gave Deus Ex a bad -- but well-written and fair -- review and got death threats for his opinion.
It's an admirable effort, but the community is going to have to mature before the market will respond in kind. If we're going to push for this, we have to accept it when people give games WE like bad reviews. I don't feel like the bulk of gamers are even close to being ready to accept an opinion that contradicts their echo chamber.
The game community is only the way it is because of how game reviewing is. Every review site gives every game basically the same score so when 1 reviewer does break the norm, gamers think he/she is just doing it to troll or get website hits. There's no issue with a Roger Ebert giving a well-reviewed movie 1 star. There should be no issue with Gamespot giving a game an 8/10 while IGN giving that same game a 4/10, that NEVER FUCKING HAPPENS and that's the problem. I think game reviewers need to get together and do a hard reset on game reviews, and also inform the gamer community (on all their sites) that reviewing has changed and actually review games like other mediums.
Even back in 2000 when Tom Chick reviewed Deus Ex, he asked the CNET GameCenter editor if the site used the 1-10 scale (where 5 is average) or the now commonplace 7-9 scale. The editor said the 1-10 scale so that's why he gave it a 3 instead of a probably a 7 if the editor said the they used the 7-9 scale.
I hear people blame Metacritic since apparently certain publishers have it that developer bonuses are given to them based on their games Metascore, hence every game being over scored by sympathetic reviewers.
I have to disagree, I don't think good writing/a good story should be a priority in game design. Gameplay that is enjoyable is more than enough to warrant a perfect review score, in my book, crappy writing be damned.
Does it need to be? Undoubtedly, there are still people who look at film and literature as vapid wastes of time, but fans of either know better. Why shouldn't it be the same for gaming? What makes gaming so special that it should be universally recognized as serious, with all detractors and critics silenced forever, until the end of time and trumpets sound? As long as we, the gaming public, enjoy what we do, what does it matter what anyone else thinks?
So... expand the scoring range to 15? 20? Who determines what generation receives what scoring range?
Films made in the 30s are fucking awful by today's standards. Four stars way back when doesn't mean the same thing as four stars right now. Why shouldn't the exact same standard apply to video games?
I agree wholeheartedly with the OP. Your average movie reviews section usually hands out 1-2 "average" scores a week, 1-2 "unwatchable" scores, 3-4 "meh" scores, and 1-2 "must see" scores per month.
Your average gaming reviews section? Half the games are 8s and 9s right off the bat. Only a small subsection review lower than a 7. It's stupid.
Exactly, so people should stop raging at critics when they're technically doing their job right. I agree that the system is weighted, but it doesn't mean reviewers are incompetent like people love to make them out to be.
Every major game that comes out gets pretty much a guaranteed 8/10 or higher. An 8/10 means whatever you are rating is very good. Just look at the HUGE difference in video game scores [http://www.metacritic.com/browse/games/score/metascore/90day/all] and movie scores [http://www.metacritic.com/browse/movies/score/metascore/year?sort=desc&view=condensed] at MetaCritic.
Only 3 movies have received overall scores of 90 or higher ALL YEAR.
Whereas, just in the past 90 DAYS, there have been 15 games that have received overall scores of 90 or higher (not counting the HD re-releases).
To me, this is just a complete joke. The writing in games is overall terrible. Even the games that are noted for having good writing usually have just OK-to-good writing, Bioshock has huge plot holes and Mass Effect has some pretty major plot issues. Plus, not that many games have what I would call 9+/10 gameplay. Therefore, with most games having shit writing plus below 9/10 gameplay, how the fuck are all these games getting 9+/10 scores?
If gaming wants to become a respected art medium like movies, TV, music, books, etc., game critics need actually criticize like games are art and not just something that's functional like a car. The majority of art produced in all other mediums is not 8/10 good. Game critics just go around saying everything is good. You have to go beyond the fact that a shooter has good shooting and rate the plot and characters more like what a movie critic would. I realize games don't need a plot or games like Mario aren't trying to have any more plot than a Jackie Chan movie does. As a reviewer, you have to realize what the game is trying to accomplish, COD is trying for a serious-type plot that a good action-thiller movie would have whereas Mario's plot is like a Jackie Chan movie (just an excuse for Mario to go platforming where ever to save the princess like a Jackie Chan plot is just a clothesline to witness Jackie's unique brand of fight scenes and physical comedy). Also, does the online multiplayer have any balance issues, the last few CODs have had balance issues (which is something that is pretty important and game breaking). You can't just play the multiplayer for a few hours (outside of public release) and accurately rate it.
Game reviewers should be able to blast into a game the way Extra Credits did to Call of Juarez: The Cartel [http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/call-of-juarez-the-cartel]. Now, that is proper art criticism. The game STILL received a 47 Metacritic score, which basically means average, GameSpot gave it a 5.5 calling it mediocre, not even low enough to be called below average, bad, or poor.
Note: Yes, this was sparked by the latest Jimquisition but it's also something that I've felt for quite awhile. I remember when a game getting an 8/10 in EGM meant the game was damn good (quite oftenly game of the month even).
What happens is that CORRUPTION(see DA2 reviews) and FANBOYISM has taken hold of game reviewing. Granted, there are far more good games(but few are revolutionary) coming out these days than in years past but when mediocrity is rated with 7 and 8's you know something is up. I respect a game reviewer who tries to take a more objective look at the game and doesn't buy into the hype machine. Ideally, he should read little to no news about the game so as to not have preconceptions and just play it, giving us the pros and cons of the game. And yes fanboys, there will be cons. Look, I am playing skyrim like crazy now and am loving it but the PC version shouldn't get more than a 9 due to the fact that one of the basic gaming mechanisms has been f**ked up by Bethesda, the UI. The game is otherwise very good to great but the interface keeps hacking away at my enjoyment. Would it really have kiled Bethesda to spend a couple more days designing a separate UI?It's pretty shameful that modders have to do your work for you. For that alone, Skyrim shouldn't be rated above a 9 IMO. On PC that is. Because it's a BIG flaw. I'm sure the UI is perfectly serviceable on console.
You mentioned Bioshock. Bioshock was solid 8 game for anyone who played System Shock 2. For the kids who didn't, Bioshock seemed like the second coming of Jesus, I think even Yahtzee mentioned this, saying that Bioshock had far more depth than other console fps's but compared to SS2 it seems laughable on every level. But if you look at it, again 90+ scores all over the board. AntiSocialFatman did a great review on Bioshock on youtube, you should check it out.
I think reviewers should stop being fanboys and step away a bit from all the hype. The yahtzee method should apply. Expect games to suck bigtime and play them. If you actually enjoy them after that, then you will have a far objective review at the end of the day. I went into Skyrim expecting a slightly better Oblivion but what I got was a better Morrowind so I was pleasantly surprised. I rate it around 9 but if I reviewed the game with "OMFG DRAGONS, HOLY CRAP IT'S GONNA BE AWESOME, F**K YEAH" mentality that a lot of game reviewers seem to be having nowadays, I would be blind to its flaws and the review would have been more subjective than expected of a critic.
No. The SCORING system needs a slap in the face. If one were to actually read the reviews, the majority of the (even from the likes of IGN) are quite well written.
IGN is a total joke. Their reviews have gotten worse and worse over the years. I remember IGN's reviews used to be 4-5 pages long and you could actually make informed purchasing choices from reading the review. Now, the reviews are basically an advertisement for the game and are only 2 pages long.
For example:
- 2001 Final Fantasy X IGN review [http://ps3.ign.com/articles/107/1075772p1.html], Word Count: 3,733
- 2010 Final Fantasy XIII IGN review [http://ps2.ign.com/articles/164/164008p1.html], Word Count: 1,472
The Uncharted 3 IGN review has literally no criticisms when Uncharted has slightly above average 3rd-person shooting. The controls leave a lot to be desired, the camera is sluggish and you can't change the sensitivity. And, of course, O being for both cover and rolling gets you killed a lot. Even The Escapist's own Susan Arendt said the game's controls blow even though she loved the game.
Not only that but IGN reviewers get facts wrong. Here in the Uncharted 3 review, the reviewer states:
For many of you, these multiplayer facts aren't news, as fans have been playing the final version of multiplayer as part of a North American Subway promotion for weeks. However, there was an outcry when the beta went live because Naughty Dog adjusted the damage dealt by bullets and players were now able to absorb more. Many threw their hands up in disgust, and Naughty Dog listened. The developers went in and dialed the damage back to what it was in the summer beta.
I was on the Naughty Dog forums during the Subway beta (and I played the Summer beta). The fans were not complaining about health or how many bullets kill, they (and me) were bitching about Naughty Dog removing stopping power and making sprint ridiculously broken. The result was there was literally no point in aiming, all you had to do was blindfire and melee for a kill. And, in fact, the fans were demanding to NOT CHANGE THE HEALTH because of the Uncharted 2 health debacle. And, the multiplayer is still broken, wins record as losses in one game mode for example, that's not in the review.
You mentioned Bioshock. Bioshock was solid 8 game for anyone who played System Shock 2. For the kids who didn't, Bioshock seemed like the second coming of Jesus, I think even Yahtzee mentioned this, saying that Bioshock had far more depth than other console fps's but compared to SS2 it seems laughable on every level. But if you look at it, again 90+ scores all over the board. AntiSocialFatman did a great review on Bioshock on youtube, you should check it out.
I think reviewers should stop being fanboys and step away a bit from all the hype. The yahtzee method should apply. Expect games to suck bigtime and play them. If you actually enjoy them after that, then you will have a far objective review at the end of the day. I went into Skyrim expecting a slightly better Oblivion but what I got was a better Morrowind so I was pleasantly surprised. I rate it around 9 but if I reviewed the game with "OMFG DRAGONS, HOLY CRAP IT'S GONNA BE AWESOME, F**K YEAH" mentality that a lot of game reviewers seem to be having nowadays, I would be blind to its flaws and the review would have been more subjective than expected of a critic.
I wasn't even talking about Bioshock from a gameplay standpoint either. I never played System Shock 2 but I wasn't at all blown away by Bioshock even then. Yeah, it's better than most of these "modern" shooters with health regen and a 2 weapon carry limit but it's still nothing great. I'd say Bioshock is a solid game (like a 6 or 7). I was mainly saying how the story has huge gapping holes, and it's one of the games people point to when talking about how games can have good stories, but Bioshock's story actually blows and Bayonetta makes more sense than Bioshock's story.
Yahtzee is a much better reviewer than people give him credit for. His reviews are more for comedy purposes than serious criticism; however, if he were to do serious in-depth game reviews, he'd be damn good at them.
Game criticism is terrible because game reviewers need no qualifications and there's lack of insight and discussion into game design decisions. They're more consumer reviewers than critics. You're being really ignorant for criticising just the scores, and it shows that's all you look at. You don't read the reviews, you just look at the scores and throw a hissy fit because you don't understand why they are that way. It's getting incredibly frustrating to see people spamming the same dumb crap over and over. It's getting to be at least once a day I see someone criticising the review scores for being too high.
Here's my stock lists of points because I'm so annoyed with the same tired arguments being repeated ad nauseum.
1. The review scale length does not matter anywhere near as much as the depth. The larger depth of scale, the more insight it provide. A scale 90-100 is better than 1-5, provided you recognise the scale's usage.
2. Games are more objectively comparable. Graphics, physics, animations, world design, gameplay depth, camera controls, glitches, bugs. Most features of a game that get judged are not subjective, unlike films where almost all films have the same graphics, length and storytelling concept. You don't rate a film based on the graphics and physics and world design because these are already perfect on film. Because of this, most competent games deserve a minimum of 5-10, and 1-5 is reserved for games that are outright broken in some of these areas.
3. The games that would lower the average do not get released to be reviewed. Many games are scrapped if they are bad. It's much easier to know if a game is bad than a film. Many terrible films still make a huge amount of money. Many of the terrible games are released and just dont get reviewed as it does not generate much money to review the thousands of horrible games that have been released.
4. Review scores are not an average. It is impossible for them to be an average without being unfair. If you want to have 5/10 your average for the year, what if all the best games are released in november when your average is already 5/10? Do you rate those games lower than they deserve to keep the average low? How do you maintain the average with increasing quality? Currently when an innovative new game comes out it sets a new standard. Call of duty 4 set a new standard for multiplayer and multiplayer games are reviewed primarily based on how they compare to it.
5. Review scores for video games have creeped upwards because unlike film, games are slowly improving on most of these aforementioned judgeable objective features (graphics etc.). But they certainly have gotten more critical in some respects too. If you had bad camera controls 15 years ago it was expected, now you'd lose marks. A singleplayer shooter on the ps2 wouldn't have lost marks for lacking multiplayer, now it would.
6. 10/10 does not mean perfect. If you rate games based on perfection then they would all get 0/10. You rate games based on how enjoyable their features are, which is affected by flaws but not irredeemably. It's ok for a game to have a low quality textured rock if the graphics are otherwise good. It's ok to have glitches if the game is so deep, complex and immersive that it would be improbable to remove all the potential bugs before release.
7. The more precise you can be the better. It doesn't make sense that a 93% is better than a 92% because it's not meant to, it's just a rough thing and you can argue that it makes just as little sense for 9/10 and 10/10 and you end up arguing for a binary review score system which is not very informative.
8. It's human nature to be extreme. Look at the amount of user reviews that are either 1/10 or 10/10. You either love something or you don't. Professional reviewers would lose credibility if they did that. They're fairer on a games flaws. If you take the extreme 1/10s out of the user reviews average, you'd find it more closely matched the professionals.
Whereas, just in the past 90 DAYS, there have been 15 games that have received overall scores of 90 or higher (not counting the HD re-releases).
This is the best year ever for scores. Do you think skyrim and zelda dont deserve high scores? There's nothing wrong with high scores if the games are good. Films are nearly all subjective so there will be less consensus. The most popular film critic (roger ebert) rates 71%, the most popular game reviewer (ign) rates 69%. Those are easily findable pages on metacritics website if you bothered to check the data for yourself instead of creating such a biased comparison. You are ignoring the huge amount of awful games that get low reviews because no one has heard of them. Metacritic data show games get 73% on average, films get 59%. The above points adequately explain why game reviews are 14% higher. The average review score of a documentary film is 66% [http://www.metacritic.com/browse/movies/genre/metascore/documentary?view=condensed&page=18], which is even closer to games because different media are not comparable. You can't rate a documentary for bad storytelling, likewise you can excuse bad storytelling in a game if it's got good gameplay, but you cant excuse it in a fictional film.
To me, this is just a complete joke. The writing in games is overall terrible. Even the games that are noted for having good writing usually have just OK-to-good writing, Bioshock has huge plot holes and Mass Effect has some pretty major plot issues.
Star wars has hundreds too, does it deserve a 1/10? It's really curious how gamers have film as the pinnacle of entertainment when even film lovers think it's pretty terrible. Films have awful writing. TV shows have surpassed them in the past decade.
Plus, not that many games have what I would call 9+/10 gameplay. Therefore, with most games having shit writing plus below 9/10 gameplay, how the fuck are all these games getting 9+/10 scores?
Competent gameplay + competent world design + competent story telling + great graphics = 9/10. (see uncharted, gears, halo, cod, etc.) You don't have to be great at everything to be great. Imo the main problem with review scores is they don't punish shallowness and reward depth. Why bother creating a hugely deep game like bethesda do, when naughty dog can come along with their 8 hour long race track-esque series of levels and get the same score. I'd give alpha protocol a higher score than uncharted for example.
Yahtzee is a much better reviewer than people give him credit for. His reviews are more for comedy purposes than serious criticism; however, if he were to do serious in-depth game reviews, he'd be damn good at them.
As it is he does good game reviews, even if he only touches on them quickly, he points out major flaws in gameplay and story, and he'll praise (albeit backhandedly) the good points. But I'd have to agree that he'd be great at serious in-depth reviews. Plus I agree with his refusal to give games a numerical score. You can't base every game by the same standards and just slap a number value on it. Say you have two games that some reviewer gave a score of 8/10 for, one a horror-based shooter and the other a comedy adventure, you can't go by just a number for all games, someone who hates horror games is going to have serious issues with a game they don't like getting the same score as a game they like. Or if they think shooters are stupid they'll hate if it gets as good a score as a story-based adventure or vice versa and think detailed stories get in the way and just want a good gunfight.
Time to fire up the cloning machine and get us some more Yahtzees!
Game criticism is terrible because game reviewers need no qualifications and there's lack of insight and discussion into game design decisions. They're more consumer reviewers than critics. You're being really ignorant for criticising just the scores, and it shows that's all you look at. You don't read the reviews, you just look at the scores and throw a hissy fit because you don't understand why they are that way. It's getting incredibly frustrating to see people spamming the same dumb crap over and over. It's getting to be at least once a day I see someone criticising the review scores for being too high.
I totally agree that game critics need to step it up on the criticism front like a Jim Sterling or a Yahtzee does. Game critics should really be both game critics (for stuff like gameplay) and film critics (for story and character related things). I am not just throwing a hissing fit over scores. I just posted above how bad IGN written reviews are now.
Phoenixmgs said:
IGN is a total joke. Their reviews have gotten worse and worse over the years. I remember IGN's reviews used to be 4-5 pages long and you could actually make informed purchasing choices from reading the review. Now, the reviews are basically an advertisement for the game and are only 2 pages long.
For example:
- 2001 Final Fantasy X IGN review [http://ps3.ign.com/articles/107/1075772p1.html], Word Count: 3,733
- 2010 Final Fantasy XIII IGN review [http://ps2.ign.com/articles/164/164008p1.html], Word Count: 1,472
The Uncharted 3 IGN review has literally no criticisms when Uncharted has slightly above average 3rd-person shooting. The controls leave a lot to be desired, the camera is sluggish and you can't change the sensitivity. And, of course, O being for both cover and rolling gets you killed a lot. Even The Escapist's own Susan Arendt said the game's controls blow even though she loved the game.
Not only that but IGN reviewers get facts wrong. Here in the Uncharted 3 review, the reviewer states:
For many of you, these multiplayer facts aren't news, as fans have been playing the final version of multiplayer as part of a North American Subway promotion for weeks. However, there was an outcry when the beta went live because Naughty Dog adjusted the damage dealt by bullets and players were now able to absorb more. Many threw their hands up in disgust, and Naughty Dog listened. The developers went in and dialed the damage back to what it was in the summer beta.
I was on the Naughty Dog forums during the Subway beta (and I played the Summer beta). The fans were not complaining about health or how many bullets kill, they (and me) were bitching about Naughty Dog removing stopping power and making sprint ridiculously broken. The result was there was literally no point in aiming, all you had to do was blindfire and melee for a kill. And, in fact, the fans were demanding to NOT CHANGE THE HEALTH because of the Uncharted 2 health debacle. And, the multiplayer is still broken, wins record as losses in one game mode for example, that's not in the review.
I actually used love reading IGN's reviews 10 or so years back. I like reading Jim Sterling's reviews, Eurogamer's reviews, and RPGDreamers reviews.
valleyshrew said:
2. Games are more objectively comparable. Graphics, physics, animations, world design, gameplay depth, camera controls, glitches, bugs. Most features of a game that get judged are not subjective, unlike films where almost all films have the same graphics, length and storytelling concept. You don't rate a film based on the graphics and physics and world design because these are already perfect on film. Because of this, most competent games deserve a minimum of 5-10, and 1-5 is reserved for games that are outright broken in some of these areas.
I agree that games are more objective than other mediums. The film equivalent to game graphics is cinematography. Directors can really give their film a unique visual style like a Zack Snyder. I don't agree that games should get a minimum of a 5/10 though. I would give games like Uncharted 1, Assassin's Creed 2, and Final Fantasy X pretty much all in the 4-6 range and these games are still alright and not horrible. Uncharted 1 was just a tech demo; shooting was bad, level design uninspired, no set-pieces, horrible jet ski sections, and artificially lengthened by throwing waves of enemies at you. I loved Uncharted 2 by the way. Assassin's Creed 2 had no core gameplay, the missions were pretty much all boring, the combat was crappy and super easy, stealth was pretty much nonexistent, and the platforming was actually worse than the 1st game. Final Fantasy X had bad and broken RPG mechanics, the game was piss easy, story was alright, characters weren't very good, graphics weren't even that good, and the voice acting was bad.
valleyshrew said:
3. The games that would lower the average do not get released to be reviewed. Many games are scrapped if they are bad. It's much easier to know if a game is bad than a film. Many terrible films still make a huge amount of money. Many of the terrible games are released and just dont get reviewed as it does not generate much money to review the thousands of horrible games that have been released.
True, but not every movie is reviewed either, just so many straight to DVD movies that get released that it's impossible for a publication to review everything.
valleyshrew said:
4. Review scores are not an average. It is impossible for them to be an average without being unfair. If you want to have 5/10 your average for the year, what if all the best games are released in november when your average is already 5/10? Do you rate those games lower than they deserve to keep the average low? How do you maintain the average with increasing quality? Currently when an innovative new game comes out it sets a new standard. Call of duty 4 set a new standard for multiplayer and multiplayer games are reviewed primarily based on how they compare to it.
I'm not actually saying that at the end of the year, games should have an average review score of 5/10. Some years are better than other years. And, COD4 didn't set a new standard for multiplayer shooters, the game lacked and still lacks several basic features like clan support (you actually have to pay for COD Elite to get clan support in MW3, it's just a total joke), any kind of level system to determine player skill and make even matches, character customization, public game rooms, etc.
valleyshrew said:
5. Review scores for video games have creeped upwards because unlike film, games are slowly improving on most of these aforementioned judgeable objective features (graphics etc.). But they certainly have gotten more critical in some respects too. If you had bad camera controls 15 years ago it was expected, now you'd lose marks. A singleplayer shooter on the ps2 wouldn't have lost marks for lacking multiplayer, now it would.
Films have improved and are still improving as well, something like Inception wouldn't have been possible 30 years ago. If something like camera control have been ironed out for the most part, look at other things like level design, enemy AI, etc. An game that was 8/10 10 years ago isn't an 8/10 by today's standards. You have to raise your standards as the medium evolves. Movies also feel dated just like games do. Uncharted 1 didn't have multiplayer and it scored very high. Vanquish scored very high as well. Not all shooters need a multiplayer component.
valleyshrew said:
6. 10/10 does not mean perfect. If you rate games based on perfection then they would all get 0/10. You rate games based on how enjoyable their features are, which is affected by flaws but not irredeemably. It's ok for a game to have a low quality textured rock if the graphics are otherwise good. It's ok to have glitches if the game is so deep, complex and immersive that it would be improbable to remove all the potential bugs before release.
I never claimed 10/10 should be for perfect games, it should be reserved for the masterpieces and classics. Uncharted 3 is an example of a game that doesn't deserve a 10/10; it's shooting is good not great, aiming isn't great due to the sluggish camera that has no sensitivity option + the bad aim assist (switching shoulders is cumbersome as well), it has that auto-platforming, controls could be better (O for both cover and rolling has never worked well), and the multiplayer is in shambles (it's part of the game and should reflect on the score). And, not even one reviewer noted the bad aiming Uncharted 3 has that is getting fixed in a patch.
valleyshrew said:
8. It's human nature to be extreme. Look at the amount of user reviews that are either 1/10 or 10/10. You either love something or you don't. Professional reviewers would lose credibility if they did that. They're fairer on a games flaws. If you take the extreme 1/10s out of the user reviews average, you'd find it more closely matched the professionals.
I'm not at all wanting reviewers to be extreme. I would just like to see IGN and Gamespot disagree a decent amount of time like say how Ebert disagrees with Roeper now and Siskel in the past, like IGN give a COD say a 6.5 because the reviewer found problems with the storyline and found some unbalanced weapons/perks in multiplayer while GameSpot gave it a 8.5 because the reviewer really enjoyed the storyline and doesn't think the multiplayer is as unbalanced. Or maybe one reviewer hated the difficulty of Dark Souls while another reviewed loved difficulty of Dark Souls and there was a significant difference in review scores. Something along those lines, not IGN giving a 1/10 and GameSpot a 10/10.
valleyshrew said:
Whereas, just in the past 90 DAYS, there have been 15 games that have received overall scores of 90 or higher (not counting the HD re-releases).
This is the best year ever for scores. Do you think skyrim and zelda dont deserve high scores? There's nothing wrong with high scores if the games are good. Films are nearly all subjective so there will be less consensus. The most popular film critic (roger ebert) rates 71%, the most popular game reviewer (ign) rates 69%. Those are easily findable pages on metacritics website if you bothered to check the data for yourself instead of creating such a biased comparison. You are ignoring the huge amount of awful games that get low reviews because no one has heard of them. Metacritic data show games get 73% on average, films get 59%. The above points adequately explain why game reviews are 14% higher. The average review score of a documentary film is 66% [http://www.metacritic.com/browse/movies/genre/metascore/documentary?view=condensed&page=18], which is even closer to games because different media are not comparable. You can't rate a documentary for bad storytelling, likewise you can excuse bad storytelling in a game if it's got good gameplay, but you cant excuse it in a fictional film.
I don't think Skyrim deserves quite the scores it's getting because of all the glitches and the combat not being that great. I watched about 2+ hours of my friend playing it, it's looks good and all, but not like 95/100 good. It's probably at least 8/10 good, I haven't played it but 95/100 territory is pretty special territory in my book. Batman Arkham City is my game of the year, and I'd give it a 9.5 at most (not even 10/10). The Zelda games are of very high quality so it probably deserves great scores, but great should be anywhere from 85 and up in my book instead of like mid-to-upper 90s. Uncharted 3 doesn't deserve the scores it's getting. Deus Ex HR doesn't deserve it's 90 overall score either, there's several flaws in that game that bring it down to at least 80 territory. There is no way 15 games released this year are 9+/10 worthy, let alone in past 90 days. More movies get released a year than games, yet there are only 3 movies that scored 90+ at MetaCritic this whole year.
I'm not going to go through and prove this (because I see no quick and easy way to do it) but I'm pretty sure that Ebert's average review score is inflated by having a bunch of his old reviews of good movies on the site and of re-releases and such. Just clicking on quite few other film critics the average review score seemed to be much closer to the mid-60s with most reviewers being in the 64-66 range, a few in the low 60s, and a few in the upper 60s. I think the 59% for movies and 73% for games being a huge difference. And, I do agree with games being more objective than movies due to having gameplay so I can understand games being more highly rated than movies on average. I would like to see gaming review scores come down to that documentary level of 66. There's just too many inflated game scores, reviewers don't even play the multiplayer of games long enough too actually get a feel of how it really plays to know if the game has balance issues or not, reviewers just automatically give COD a gold star for its multiplayer.
Some game genres should be basically a film review and a game review (and some like Heavy Rain just really a film review) like the RPG genre. I definitely feel story (much more subjective than gameplay) is one of the most important aspects of a RPG. If a RPG fails to have a good story with good characters, it really hurts the game a lot more than COD having a bad story with forgettable characters. So a game like Final Fantasy XIII should have a much bigger review discrepancy among critics because the reviewers that don't like the story should have scored the game quite differently than the reviewers that loved the story. However, over at MetaCritic, I see the PS3 version getting 73 positive reviews, 9 mixed reviews, and only 1 bad review (good old Jim Sterling). I'm not even getting into the gameplay choices that were rather controversial like the battle system, the empty world with no towns, etc. Final Fantasy XIII is the kind of game that should be one of the most love/hate type games (only thing that should've been agreed on is the game's graphics) yet Metacritic shows that 89% of game critics saying it's a good game. That too me is a huge problem. Plus, Jim Sterling and Destructoid got removed from MetaCritic because they were accused of purposefully giving bad reviews for hits when they are just being honest.
valleyshrew said:
To me, this is just a complete joke. The writing in games is overall terrible. Even the games that are noted for having good writing usually have just OK-to-good writing, Bioshock has huge plot holes and Mass Effect has some pretty major plot issues.
Star wars has hundreds too, does it deserve a 1/10? It's really curious how gamers have film as the pinnacle of entertainment when even film lovers think it's pretty terrible. Films have awful writing. TV shows have surpassed them in the past decade.
Most film critics like the 1st 3 Star Wars films, it's the prequels that get stomped on. I absolutely hate everything Star Wars but there's no way it has more story issues than Bioshock. Not liking a story is different than thinking it's nonsensical.
I'm not going to say films have great writing but it definitely is better than the writing in games. Most of the time games are development where the levels and gameplay are made first and then the writer has to shoehorn some kind of story into that. TV is has definitely eclipsed movies in writing quality because writers have so much more time to develop characters and plots than a 2 hour movie. Games also have that ability to have more story and dialog than a movie can as well, although this potential has sadly is rarely even attempted let alone achieved.
valleyshrew said:
Plus, not that many games have what I would call 9+/10 gameplay. Therefore, with most games having shit writing plus below 9/10 gameplay, how the fuck are all these games getting 9+/10 scores?
Competent gameplay + competent world design + competent story telling + great graphics = 9/10. (see uncharted, gears, halo, cod, etc.) You don't have to be great at everything to be great. Imo the main problem with review scores is they don't punish shallowness and reward depth. Why bother creating a hugely deep game like bethesda do, when naughty dog can come along with their 8 hour long race track-esque series of levels and get the same score. I'd give alpha protocol a higher score than uncharted for example.
Very few games in my book have 9/10 gameplay and game stories usually suck as I've previously mentioned. That leaves world design and graphics. Level design is something I definitely think is lacking in a lot games, and there are so many open world/sandbox games when so few developers actually understand how to properly design these worlds with well designed and engaging missions. I think we need to get away from graphics being rated in the sense of it just looks good to more of a emphasis on aesthetics. We've reached that graphical point where just about every game looks good but how about reviewers comment more on the how they think the world and characters look instead just how much polygons they have and how good the textures look.
I agree that Bethesda is trying to make deeper and more complex games than Naughty Dog is with the Uncharted series. I don't see the issue with Uncharted getting the same scores as an Elder Scrolls game because they are different genres. Scores aren't necessarily there just to say Game A is better than Game B. It's hard to say that the best RPG is better than the best action-adventure game because they are totally different games just like with movies, it's tough to argue that a really great comedy is better than a really great drama and vice verse. But when the game of the year awards come around, then that's when game critics can make their statement on what games they feel should be valued more. Just like a really great and well-reviewed summer blockbuster isn't going to get Oscars nominations like a drama with great acting performances and a great story will.
Too true OP. People don't realise that most games are deserving of a 5/10. Not to be harsh, or unfair, but because that's the damn mean value. It's the middle of the scale, and most results should be clustered there. A perfect 10 SHOULD be impossible: Giving out one makes any better game a reality bending destruction of your scale.
I propose a ranking ladder: Put games into categories for genre, and then rank them against each other. So strategy games go in one, fpses go in another, horror in another and so on. Then, rank them from best to worst. We get a subjective scale for a subjective opinion, and no messing around is needed. So for instance, if I were making a list of strategy games, it might look like this:
Shogun 2
Age of Empires 2
Starcraft 2
Civilization 5
Age of Empires
Civilization 4
Starcraft
Age of Empires 3 (Screw you AOE 3!)
Miles down below: Halo Wars (Hahah, now you see why you should have released to the PC gamers who could actually use a mouse and keyboard for your gameplay, rather than the console players who didn't necessarily want it [I'm such a vengeful person, it's what makes me fun])
So, now I have a ranking list (Yes, it's subjective, and some people would disagree: Get over it, it's not the point I'm going to make). So to include this in a review, you'd put in the genre rank number, and an image showing what, at the time of writing, was above and below it.
Hence, the reader can tell whether they'd like a similar game. So from this, I might extrapolate that if I like Age of Empires, I might like Age of Empires 2, or maybe even Starcraft 2. It helps to recomend titles, and keep perspective on the numbers. Because the values are there for one reason: Comparison. A 8/10 game, should be better than a 5/10 game, and that's it. To keep a consistent numerical system would require rechecking all your review numbers anyway (Which they don't do) to make sure that the quality escalates with review score.
So scrap the numbers, and do a ladder. You'll piss off the publishers, but you'll have a subjective system for a subjective subject, which shows relative values.
Ahem ahem. In the spirit of this post, I'd like you to thank the flying spaghetti monster, For Me.
I actually think (and I realize that this is possible to manipulate) that a more telling issue with the job that game reviewers are going is the differential between the professional reviews and the fan reviews. If you poke around Metacritic for a bit you'll see a gap (in many cases a significant one) between what the reviewers gave a game and what the players thought of it especially in the breakdown of the reviews, i.e. # of positive reviews, neutral reviews, negative reviews. This sort of gap makes one wonder how much score inflation and/or corruption (seems like a harsh word but I couldn't think of a better description) is affecting pro scoring of games.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
