Game criticism needs a great big slap in the face (and is holding back our medium to a degree)

[veloper]

There can be alot said about the lack of professionalism and integrity in game reviews, but attacking the scoring system itself makes no sense.

All there is to the system, is knowing what the scores represent.

A logarithmic scale or [0; pi] or [-3.3; 2345.9] to would be just as valid as the scales in use now, if less intuitive.

So nowadays the big online gaming mags grade something like this:
0 to 6 mean varying degrees of crap, all not worth your time.
7 = mediocre/average
8 = above average
9 = good
10 = great

You can disagree with a reviewer on a game being crap or not, or one game being worse than another, but redefining their scale is pointless.

 

[etertay]

I have to say i completely agree with valleyshrew. theres not as much as a problem as people think, game review scored fluctuate just like the earth changes its weather patterns,

a lot of 10/10's were given in the n64 days and every one of those games DESERVED it (ocarina of time, perfect dark, goldeneye,) after those games the bar was raised because of the standard the new games set and review scored lowered a bit, the same thing is happening today.

ive played some of those games on the meta-critic page and i think every one of those games

deserved the score it got,

find me ONE game rated 8-10 that DID NOT deserve the score it got or simply stop complaining

about "ignorant game critics" who have more experience looking at these products objectively then you probably do


btw: since when have MOVIES been examples in the art of good storytelling (looks at transformers movie)

 

[Grygor]

To be fair tough, there's a reason why the cutoffs for "universal acclaim", "generally favorable", and "mixed or average reviews" on metacritic are higher for games than for other media.

"Universal acclaim" requires a metacritic score of 90 or higher for games, compared to 81 or higher for other media. "Generally favorable reviews" is a metacritic score of 76 to 90 for games, 61 to 80 for everything else. And "mixed or average reviews" is 51 to 75 for games, but 41 to 60 elsewhere. The line between "generally unfavorable" and "overwhelming dislike" is 20 for all media.

So while, for example, Call of Juarez: the Cartel's metacritic score of 47 looks like "close to average", as far as Metacritic is concerned it got generally unfavorable reviews.

And a film scoring 90 is equivalent to a game scoring 95 - and there are only 10 games (and only 6 titles, because Portal 2 and Skyrim have separate entries for the 360, PS3, and PC versions) to date this year with scores of 95 or higher. And note that the year-to-date list for games is twice as long as that for movies.

Keep in mind, part of the issue is just the mature of the medium. There are more games released every week than movies (even after factoring in multi-platform releases), and games generally have significantly more content. Many if not most publications that print film reviews only have one or two reviewers on staff, whereas most gaming publications have several reviewers - thus, gaming publications tend to assign game reviews to writers who like that genre of game. In other words, games are more likely to be reviewed by people who are already inclined to like the game, thus accounting for the minor score inflation.

---

If you want to see REAL score inflation, just look at music reviews - fully 75% of this year's album releases have metacritic scores from 60 to 80 ("generally favorable reviews"), and there are as many scores above 80 as below 60. I other words, according to music reviews, about 1 in every 8 albums released is average or worse.

At least for film and games, overall positive reviews ("universal acclaim" and "generally favorable reviews") make up less than half the total, and "mixed or average reviews" is the single largest category.

Yes, this basically means that score inflation for music reviews is so bad Metacritic doesn't even try to correct for it.

 

[Savagezion]

I see where you are coming from but I have to disagree. As for why, I will highlight some points you have brought up.

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.

Actually, an 8 means simply "good" on a 1-10 scale. It is above "above average".

1-2 Very bad.
2-3 Bad
3-5 Below average
5-7 Above average
7-8 Good
8-9 Very Good.
10 Already popular and very good.

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?

Movies and games are different mediums. Movies strictly try to tell stories while game try to do a bunch of stuff at once. Tell a story, have good controls, have good environments, etc. The term "movie magic" actually comes from the idea that you can manipulate the viewer's perspective with the camera angles and tricks. For instance, in the first Superman movie Krypton being destroyed is a top down view of a burning paint can. Games require 'sets' that can be viewed from multiple angles and distances.

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.

Adding to what I said before with a game having to be made with many more features taken into account, there is also much more to explore. A movie can be reviewed after only one viewing in under 2 hours sometimes. Books can be reviewed with one reading in anywhere between a 10-15 hour reading. TV shows, only require 20-40 mins of viewing. Games, however, vary from 20 hours worth of content all the way up into the hundreds. To want the reviewer to have to experience all of that is a bit demanding. You can get a good idea of a game even as large as Skyrim or RDR by simply playing it for about 10 hours. 10 hours is also enough time to beat CoD and play online for about 6-8 hours. As for online balance, that is enough time, reviewers aren't beta testers and humans will always find a way to manipulate the odds in their favor. (Exploits of 'imbalance') People ***** about everything in CoD so it is hard to cry imbalance when no matter what you equip, its overpowered.

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.

They do but no matter the things Extra credit said about that game it had good graphics, decent controls, and some other slightly positive merits in their mechanics. It isn't a shitty quality game, it is average quality. It is just a game with shitty writing. It DOES have some redeeming qualities. However, the writing is so bland/distasteful that it takes away any merit the game was trying to have with its story. So, the review is left to technical merit alone.

 

[Soviet Heavy]

I disagree, if we judge games by the same standards as we judge other forms of media, then we are doing them a disservice. Of course a movie or book will have better writing or stories than a game. A game needs to factor in the level of interactivity, being an interactive medium and all. They need to be judged by their own standards, not against standards of a different medium. The only time separate media should be taken into account is when the game is adapted from a novel or film, where comparisons are valid.

 

[eclipsed_chemistry]

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.

Or it could be that users tend to wildly exaggerate either praise or (usually) criticism of a game. It doesn't take long flipping through the user reviews on Metacritic to find reviews that point out one little flaw in the game and the score given is a 6/10. Not to mention that I think a larger number of offenders (especially for well-known, popular games like Halo and Call of Duty) give the game a bad user score BECAUSE the game is so popular it pisses them off. I'm guilty of this as well, and in that regard, I think professional reviewers do a better job at keeping reviews (more) objective than users can.

 

[DracoSuave]

...Have you considered that "average" modern games are usually better than "average" games from the last few generations?

Having played video games since the Atari 2600, I will be forced to say 'No.'

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

There can be alot said about the lack of professionalism and integrity in game reviews, but attacking the scoring system itself makes no sense.

All there is to the system, is knowing what the scores represent.

A logarithmic scale or [0; pi] or [-3.3; 2345.9] to would be just as valid as the scales in use now, if less intuitive.

So nowadays the big online gaming mags grade something like this:
0 to 6 mean varying degrees of crap, all not worth your time.
7 = mediocre/average
8 = above average
9 = good
10 = great

You can disagree with a reviewer on a game being crap or not, or one game being worse than another, but redefining their scale is pointless.

I don't understand why half of the scale should be wasted on bad games. With a scale like that, reviewers have the ability to actually differentiate the bad games more than the good games. No other medium uses a scale like that. Are you trying to say that literature, movie, music, etc. review scales that have been around much longer are basically wrong and the gaming scale is right?

I have to say i completely agree with valleyshrew. theres not as much as a problem as people think, game review scored fluctuate just like the earth changes its weather patterns,

a lot of 10/10's were given in the n64 days and every one of those games DESERVED it (ocarina of time, perfect dark, goldeneye,) after those games the bar was raised because of the standard the new games set and review scored lowered a bit, the same thing is happening today.

ive played some of those games on the meta-critic page and i think every one of those games

deserved the score it got,

find me ONE game rated 8-10 that DID NOT deserve the score it got or simply stop complaining

about "ignorant game critics" who have more experience looking at these products objectively then you probably do


btw: since when have MOVIES been examples in the art of good storytelling (looks at transformers movie)

That's like saying since when have games been good examples in the art of gaming (looks at X-Men: Destiny). On average, you find much better writing in movies than games. There's only a few games that come out each year that I would say have movie-quality writing. There's a shitload of games that got 8+/10 that don't deserve the score; Uncharted 1, Assassin's Creed games, most Final Fantasy games, Deus Ex Human Revolution, Call of Duty series, I can go on and on.

I see where you are coming from but I have to disagree. As for why, I will highlight some points you have brought up.

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.

Actually, an 8 means simply "good" on a 1-10 scale. It is above "above average".

1-2 Very bad.
2-3 Bad
3-5 Below average
5-7 Above average
7-8 Good
8-9 Very Good.
10 Already popular and very good.

This scale is a problem. Nobody else uses this scale except the schooling system. And the schooling system only uses that scale because tests are designed for the average student to get a C.

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?

Movies and games are different mediums. Movies strictly try to tell stories while game try to do a bunch of stuff at once. Tell a story, have good controls, have good environments, etc. The term "movie magic" actually comes from the idea that you can manipulate the viewer's perspective with the camera angles and tricks. For instance, in the first Superman movie Krypton being destroyed is a top down view of a burning paint can. Games require 'sets' that can be viewed from multiple angles and distances.

If games have to do so much more (and they do) than movies, shouldn't it be much harder to make a good game? The first Superman movie is bad because Superman would've killed everyone in that movie, you can't go back in time by spinning the Earth the other way, just horrible writing.

Adding to what I said before with a game having to be made with many more features taken into account, there is also much more to explore. A movie can be reviewed after only one viewing in under 2 hours sometimes. Books can be reviewed with one reading in anywhere between a 10-15 hour reading. TV shows, only require 20-40 mins of viewing. Games, however, vary from 20 hours worth of content all the way up into the hundreds. To want the reviewer to have to experience all of that is a bit demanding. You can get a good idea of a game even as large as Skyrim or RDR by simply playing it for about 10 hours. 10 hours is also enough time to beat CoD and play online for about 6-8 hours. As for online balance, that is enough time, reviewers aren't beta testers and humans will always find a way to manipulate the odds in their favor. (Exploits of 'imbalance') People ***** about everything in CoD so it is hard to cry imbalance when no matter what you equip, its overpowered.

I don't get a good sense of how the multiplayer plays in only 6-8 hours, I probably don't even know all the ins-and-outs of the maps. Why don't reviewers comment on how featureless COD's online really is? no clan support, no public rooms, no proper level system, no character customization, etc. No dedicated servers should be an automatic hit for a game that is supposed to be COMPETITIVE, someone running around with 0 ping makes every match unfair.

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.

They do but no matter the things Extra credit said about that game it had good graphics, decent controls, and some other slightly positive merits in their mechanics. It isn't a shitty quality game, it is average quality. It is just a game with shitty writing. It DOES have some redeeming qualities. However, the writing is so bland/distasteful that it takes away any merit the game was trying to have with its story. So, the review is left to technical merit alone.

I believe they said it had subpar shooting. If anything like a game, movie, book, etc. features a message that is totally despicable, then I'm going to say it's crap. A movie can have great cinematography and acting but be given a 1 star rating if the rest of it is crap.

I disagree, if we judge games by the same standards as we judge other forms of media, then we are doing them a disservice. Of course a movie or book will have better writing or stories than a game. A game needs to factor in the level of interactivity, being an interactive medium and all. They need to be judged by their own standards, not against standards of a different medium. The only time separate media should be taken into account is when the game is adapted from a novel or film, where comparisons are valid.

I'm not saying to use the same standards but the same scale while being more critical. Some people find certain things gamebreaking while other people find that same thing as just a minor issue. That is never reflected in reviews, there needs to be more subjectivity, a game is much more than just how well it functions. If a game is shooting to have a well-written epic plot with great characters, then the reviewer needs to be very critical when the writing is poor. A Mario game is not even attempting for high caliber writing so it wouldn't be scored lower for having a weak and near nonexistent plot like a RPG would. Jackie Chan movies aren't reviewed like a drama is reviewed.

 

[ResonanceSD]

Greg Tito's 5 star review for Dragon Age 2, on this website is key to this debate. Never before has one man been so stupid to the detriment of so many.

snip

snip

 

[Shoggoth2588]

I agree but the thing is, it's been an ongoing problem that we've all gotten a little too used to. I think a big problem is the motivation behind certain sources giving the reviews. Game Informer, for example, may be run and edited by some great people but in the end of the day, Game Informer reviews are there to make games look good so as to sell preorders, gamestop power-up rewards and, sometimes the games themselves. Hasn't IGN also been busted for taking some cash to give X game a good review? Also, as has been mentioned, there's a very vocal, belligerent and, downright ignorant minority (god I hope it's minority) who would kill (or so they say) for their favorite game/ series.

Reform would be great but it would be bad for business so I wouldn't expect it anytime soon. There will always be independent reviewers though who aren't afraid to voice their opinion so that could be the closest you're going to get at this point.

 

[Savagezion]

I see where you are coming from but I have to disagree. As for why, I will highlight some points you have brought up.

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.

Actually, an 8 means simply "good" on a 1-10 scale. It is above "above average".

1-2 Very bad.
2-3 Bad
3-5 Below average
5-7 Above average
7-8 Good
8-9 Very Good.
10 Already popular and very good.

This scale is a problem. Nobody else uses this scale except the schooling system. And the schooling system only uses that scale because tests are designed for the average student to get a C.

No, the schooling grade system stops at 59%. It uses the system you quoted veloper on. This designates 1/3 of the chart for bad-average-good where the reader is left to determine exactly where "average" falls into. If I see a game with a review score of a 6 I know 2 things.

1) This game will not blow my socks off as the best game ever.
2) I could like it, or I could not care for it but it is entirely going to be based on MY taste in games. If it is an RPG, I may like it because it is my favorite genre. However, I may also end up not liking it because the RPGs I play more often are leaps ahead of it. The "average" area is where subjectivity comes in. As you move up into 7-10 the odds of me not liking it if I enjoy the genre go down significantly.

There is no flaws in this system. it is the same system as the "5 star" system films and books use. Even if you prefer the Grading scale (A+/B-/F/etc.) some movie critics do for movies it still equates to only 1-13 possible grades. EVERYBODY uses that system. Its called ranking stuff.

Movies and games are different mediums. Movies strictly try to tell stories while game try to do a bunch of stuff at once. Tell a story, have good controls, have good environments, etc. The term "movie magic" actually comes from the idea that you can manipulate the viewer's perspective with the camera angles and tricks. For instance, in the first Superman movie Krypton being destroyed is a top down view of a burning paint can. Games require 'sets' that can be viewed from multiple angles and distances.

If games have to do so much more (and they do) than movies, shouldn't it be much harder to make a good game? The first Superman movie is bad because Superman would've killed everyone in that movie, you can't go back in time by spinning the Earth the other way, just horrible writing.

Woah, no. Superman was GREAT for its time. It was the Batman Begins/Dark Knight of its day. That was the first time people went to the movies and saw a Superhero not be entirely campy and have a story actually meant to entertain adults and children alike. That movie is the reason comic movies are what they are today and not a hybrid of Batman & Robin mixed with Adam West. Back then, movie studios were really skeptical of pulling the "Bam, Pow, ZAP!" campiness out of comic book iconography in films. That resistance even continued past that which is why the first Batman movies are so campy.

Second, do you even know Superman's character archetype? He wouldn't have killed everyone. Also, the going back in time thing was something the stuidios forced on Richard Donner because he was taking to long making a movie more along the lines of Dark Knight. The entire end of the movie was the producers saying "take the footage you have and make it make sense the best way you can, and wrap it up, you're taking too long." Similar to how publishers push games out before they are done.

If you see Superman as bad writing then you have to see Star Wars the same way. I could really go on for a while about the Superman movie but I'll just end it here and say "no".

Adding to what I said before with a game having to be made with many more features taken into account, there is also much more to explore. A movie can be reviewed after only one viewing in under 2 hours sometimes. Books can be reviewed with one reading in anywhere between a 10-15 hour reading. TV shows, only require 20-40 mins of viewing. Games, however, vary from 20 hours worth of content all the way up into the hundreds. To want the reviewer to have to experience all of that is a bit demanding. You can get a good idea of a game even as large as Skyrim or RDR by simply playing it for about 10 hours. 10 hours is also enough time to beat CoD and play online for about 6-8 hours. As for online balance, that is enough time, reviewers aren't beta testers and humans will always find a way to manipulate the odds in their favor. (Exploits of 'imbalance') People ***** about everything in CoD so it is hard to cry imbalance when no matter what you equip, its overpowered.

I don't get a good sense of how the multiplayer plays in only 6-8 hours, I probably don't even know all the ins-and-outs of the maps. Why don't reviewers comment on how featureless COD's online really is? no clan support, no public rooms, no proper level system, no character customization, etc. No dedicated servers should be an automatic hit for a game that is supposed to be COMPETITIVE, someone running around with 0 ping makes every match unfair.

You have some valid points in there, but the only point I was trying to make was the time it would take to review a game under those terms is a bit of wishful thinking on your end. Most big titles are worked on until release day and then even continued to be worked on through patches based on reception for an additional month. They already send out incomplete copies of the game to be reviewed as it is, which is why so many reviews say things like "these issues should be resolved by the time you're reading this".

Games getting pushed out the gate before they are done is the real issue you are fighting here and it isn't fair to bash the reviewers for that.

They do but no matter the things Extra credit said about that game it had good graphics, decent controls, and some other slightly positive merits in their mechanics. It isn't a shitty quality game, it is average quality. It is just a game with shitty writing. It DOES have some redeeming qualities. However, the writing is so bland/distasteful that it takes away any merit the game was trying to have with its story. So, the review is left to technical merit alone.

I believe they said it had subpar shooting. If anything like a game, movie, book, etc. features a message that is totally despicable, then I'm going to say it's crap. A movie can have great cinematography and acting but be given a 1 star rating if the rest of it is crap.

Then you would make a horrible reviewer as you would seek to discredit all the good over 1 problem you have with it. Every reviewer is allowed to show some bias, it is their job after all but to completely disregard the good aspects is not truly reviewing something. If a movie has good acting, cinemetography, and lighting, it deserves at least a 2-3 star. It doesn't matter how shitty the story is. Starship Troopers and many other movies are loved by many just because of the good outweighing the bad for them. Do you have to like something that you give a 5 star as a reviewer? No. Hell no. But reviewing isn't about if you like something or not, it is about recognizing the quality.

Have you yourself played the game Call of Juarez?

 

[AD-Stu]

I can see where you're coming from, and I think there's all sorts of reasons for it.

For example: I remember the days (going back almost 20 years) when it was common for graphics and sound to be big components of a typical video game review score: often each one of those would be rated on an equal footing with gameplay, resulting in scores that could be heavily weighted towards how good a game looked and sounded. I sometimes wonder if that mentality still persists. If it does, it could go some way to explaining the lack of low scores since let's face it, even the worst games released today still tend to look and sound pretty damn good.

FWIW, one of the gaming magazines I read on a semi-regular basis (and I don't think they're alone) deliberately downplays the score they give each game: they almost apologise for having to give one, but do it because it's expected of them. But the reviews themselves tend to be pretty well written and informative, so I think in a lot of cases the problem really is with the numerical scoring system and not reviewing as a hole.

Also, out of interest, what are the plot issues you're referring to with Mass Effect?

 

[docSpitfire]

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.

These aren't the biggest problems with the review. Almost no changes were made gameplay/control wise from Uncharted 2, but the game is not as good, there are plenty of new unique things to complain about that weren't already established features of the series.

Which is kind of funny to me that people got all upset when it got an 8/10 before it came out. Just because Uncharted 2 was touted as Game of the Year, most awards ever, doesn't mean that developers can't make steps backwards, which they did.

I think a lot of the problems with the uncharted series come down to the fact that they made a solid single player series, and they've been trying to transition it to a multiplayer series, but the controls are well designed for jumping puzzles, and not combat.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

haha wow never knew metacritic did movies/tv (i honestly don't go to it much at all.)

but after taking a gander, their tastes do not line up in the slightest with mine, so i will def. stay away from that..

but OT:

i think there are many reasons why games are like that, books/movies were around long before mainstream reviews became known, especially on the internet, so i think there is some odd "bias" there, and on top of that i think "average" games are evolving much quicker than "average books/movies" are, therefore the system just can't keep up with it in the same way.

plus in all, i don't think you can directly compare scores between movies/games/books in all the same fashion.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

No, the schooling grade system stops at 59%. It uses the system you quoted veloper on. This designates 1/3 of the chart for bad-average-good where the reader is left to determine exactly where "average" falls into. If I see a game with a review score of a 6 I know 2 things.

1) This game will not blow my socks off as the best game ever.
2) I could like it, or I could not care for it but it is entirely going to be based on MY taste in games. If it is an RPG, I may like it because it is my favorite genre. However, I may also end up not liking it because the RPGs I play more often are leaps ahead of it. The "average" area is where subjectivity comes in. As you move up into 7-10 the odds of me not liking it if I enjoy the genre go down significantly.

There is no flaws in this system. it is the same system as the "5 star" system films and books use. Even if you prefer the Grading scale (A+/B-/F/etc.) some movie critics do for movies it still equates to only 1-13 possible grades. EVERYBODY uses that system. Its called ranking stuff.

I realize it wasn't quite the school grading system but it is kinda close to that, I quickly just looked over it and saw 5-7 with above average and kinda saw 7 as then being average. But yeah, I really don't have any problems with that scale. However, I really don't think most review sites use this scale because 7 definitely seems closer to average instead of 5. I don't even know if I could name a AAA game that has gotten a 7/10 overall score or lower. I think we'll all agree that we've played AAA games that are average.

Woah, no. Superman was GREAT for its time. It was the Batman Begins/Dark Knight of its day. That was the first time people went to the movies and saw a Superhero not be entirely campy and have a story actually meant to entertain adults and children alike. That movie is the reason comic movies are what they are today and not a hybrid of Batman & Robin mixed with Adam West. Back then, movie studios were really skeptical of pulling the "Bam, Pow, ZAP!" campiness out of comic book iconography in films. That resistance even continued past that which is why the first Batman movies are so campy.

Second, do you even know Superman's character archetype? He wouldn't have killed everyone. Also, the going back in time thing was something the stuidios forced on Richard Donner because he was taking to long making a movie more along the lines of Dark Knight. The entire end of the movie was the producers saying "take the footage you have and make it make sense the best way you can, and wrap it up, you're taking too long." Similar to how publishers push games out before they are done.

If you see Superman as bad writing then you have to see Star Wars the same way. I could really go on for a while about the Superman movie but I'll just end it here and say "no".

I realize the first Superman movie did a lot of things right but the time-traveling really ruins what is a pretty good movie. I'm sorry, but whole idea is just plain dumb, Superman would've killed everyone on the planet by doing that. Also, Superman would killed millions (probably billions) by moving the Moon in Superman IV (that movie is just all bad though). Now, Superman II is by far the best Superman movie. The studio wouldn't have been complaining about the movie taking too long if they knew how long it would take to get 5th Superman movie done. You aren't going to get me saying Star Wars is good at all, I hate everything about those movies, they are literally unwatchable to me (I hate all the characters and the story), but I don't think they have as big a plot hole as the 1st Superman movie.

You have some valid points in there, but the only point I was trying to make was the time it would take to review a game under those terms is a bit of wishful thinking on your end. Most big titles are worked on until release day and then even continued to be worked on through patches based on reception for an additional month. They already send out incomplete copies of the game to be reviewed as it is, which is why so many reviews say things like "these issues should be resolved by the time you're reading this".

Games getting pushed out the gate before they are done is the real issue you are fighting here and it isn't fair to bash the reviewers for that.

I thought for the most part review copies are basically finalized copies of the game as games go gold a few weeks before release (don't reviewers get gold copies?), that's what the consumer buys on release day. That's at least for the single player, I realize the multiplayer is usually always being tweaked even long after release.

Then you would make a horrible reviewer as you would seek to discredit all the good over 1 problem you have with it. Every reviewer is allowed to show some bias, it is their job after all but to completely disregard the good aspects is not truly reviewing something. If a movie has good acting, cinemetography, and lighting, it deserves at least a 2-3 star. It doesn't matter how shitty the story is. Starship Troopers and many other movies are loved by many just because of the good outweighing the bad for them. Do you have to like something that you give a 5 star as a reviewer? No. Hell no. But reviewing isn't about if you like something or not, it is about recognizing the quality.

Have you yourself played the game Call of Juarez?

If the game has one (or a few) major problems, then that's a big deal, same with a movie. If a movie is pretty much all about building up to a twist ending and the twist ending blows, then there is no way that movie is 3 star worthy. I would give the 1st Superman movie probably 2 stars (out of 4) because of the time-traveling plot device, it really ruins a lot of the film for me. Certain things can really ruin a lot even if the rest of game or movie is good. Bioshock takes quite a hit for it's huge plot holes, I'd give it a 6-7; however, if the plot was executed well, it would easily be in 8 territory. Of course, if Bioshock was a movie, it would take a bigger hit since movies don't have gameplay to make up for bad plots.

I haven't played Call of Juarez, and I really have no interest in playing it. I don't care for FPSs much as 3rd-person shooters are my bread and butter.

Also, out of interest, what are the plot issues you're referring to with Mass Effect?

It's been quite awhile since I've played Mass Effect 2 so I can't really go into detail about the plot issues. Mainly the Reapers should be a lot smarter than they are. I don't think there's a huge gaping plot hole but lots of minor to decent plot issues. A lot of the game's plot issues are detailed in this thread:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.174366-Mass-Effect-2-Plot-Holes-Spoilers#4906653

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

You lost your entire point when you said that games need interesting stories. As Lex Luthor would say "WRONG!". If games are ever going to become art they must focus on the one aspect of the medium exclusive to them, the interactivity. Plots are nice, but should be secondary thanks. Books and movies kind of have it covered.

I never said games NEED a story. I said games that do have stories (like a RPG) should be criticized more for having bad writing when they don't deliver. Games have the ability to go beyond the stories of movies and books because of their interactivity yet very few even attempt at having an emotionally engaging experience and even fewer succeed.

 

[AD-Stu]

Also, out of interest, what are the plot issues you're referring to with Mass Effect?

It's been quite awhile since I've played Mass Effect 2 so I can't really go into detail about the plot issues. Mainly the Reapers should be a lot smarter than they are. I don't think there's a huge gaping plot hole but lots of minor to decent plot issues. A lot of the game's plot issues are detailed in this thread:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.174366-Mass-Effect-2-Plot-Holes-Spoilers#4906653

Maybe I missed something, and I don't want to go over what must be old ground by now by putting my own refutation here*... but having read the entire thread, I don't see anything that'd rate as a hole or issue - especially given it was always intended to be the second installment in a trilogy. It makes sense that some answers will be left for the third installment.


* OK, I can't resist this one point: the Arrival DLC shows us exactly why the Omega 4 relay couldn't have been destroyed

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Maybe I missed something, and I don't want to go over what must be old ground by now by putting my own refutation here*... but having read the entire thread, I don't see anything that'd rate as a hole or issue - especially given it was always intended to be the second installment in a trilogy. It makes sense that some answers will be left for the third installment.


* OK, I can't resist this one point: the Arrival DLC shows us exactly why the Omega 4 relay couldn't have been destroyed

In the 1st game, Sovereign could've made Saren just waltz in and activate the Citadel. This could be explained in the 3rd game, but I really see no reason for the Reapers needing to make that human reaper in the 2nd game. I figured when I was playing, it was so a Reaper could then be there quite a bit before the rest of the Reapers got there. But with the Arrival DLC, the rest of the Reapers were real close and there was really no point in even trying to make that human reaper, and that really only allowed access to Reaper technology and a possible means to defeat the Reapers if you ask me.

Sorry but I linked to the wrong thread as I searched the game forum. The thread I did read through and I agreed with a few of the plot issues is this thread (which was in the review forum actually instead the game forum):
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.274711-Mass-Effect-2-Arrival-DLC-contains-spoilers#10635053

I don't have huge issues with Mass Effect like I do Bioshock but the plot could definitely be tighter.

 

[The Gnome King]

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 agree with you completely. I know it's for older games, but I like the "CRPG Addict" style of reviewing a game.

http://crpgaddict.blogspot.com/

He reviews old CRPGs (think "Pool of Radiance" and "Wasteland" and "Ultima IV" etc) and his rating system actually means something; thus far out of everything he has reviewed only a few games really top his list. As it should be.

An 8/10 SHOULD be a great rating. Not an "ok" rating. But a great rating. A game with a 6/10 should be, perhaps, an average game or a game with some major flaws. A game that scores a perfect 10/10 better damned well give me goosebumps in the way the first Baldur's Gate did with its dialog, or Dragon Age I did with its sheer awesomeness, or Mass Effect for those who prefer that genre. (And I realize some people would disagree with me there.)

I'm playing Skyrim right now. I'd give it an 8/10, probably. It IS a great game but the computer interface feels like it was ported right over from a console game, which I hate; and the characters don't feel alive or interesting to me like ones from, say, Bioware games feel. It's just a big sandbox - which can be a lot of fun - but a perfect "10" sandbox game, to me, would have an interface I like using that feels like it was made for the PC; not a console... and it would include characters as diverse and as memorable as characters from the very best Bioware games.

The last game I would have given a 10 to that I played would be perhaps Dragon Age or The Witcher or Mass Effect 2 - and I realize some people would disagree with me on that.