Gamespot Gives Its Second 1.0/10 Score Ever to Ride to Hell: Retribution

[BrotherRool]

That said we really need a new score system or something. Its clear numbers don't work anymore since anything less than a "7" is considered the worset kind of shit.


There used to be a mag a while ago that simply said "buy", "rent/ wait for sale" and "avoid". That would work much better I think.

If you think about it though, that's replacing a 1-10 scale with a 1-3 scale, is it really that much better? It doesn't distinguish between the games in a genre that fans would really love and the games which are so exceptional even people unfamiliar with the genre would adore.

But that's sort of a nitpick, I don't have a problem with the 1.3, 1-5, or 1-10 rating systems (1-100 is 1-10 in disguise), they're companion pieces to reviews that give useful instantly scannable information but if you want to get more of an accurate gauge, that's what the review is for (that would be my defence against my arguments in the first paragraph). It's important that they're consistent across the site and that they explain the system somewhere for people looking for accuracy (like Polygon or the Escapist etc) and that's about all. For example Angry Joe has a scale which actually does centre on 5 but he's always careful to explain it so people don't get confused.

And I actually think reviews centring on 7 is the system working. Because games aren't equally distributed in quality due to their high budget succeed-or-die nature. Most big games are so expensive that publishers can't afford for them to fail and will polish them until they're at least decent and have lots of redeeming features. And then because games are expensive(and take lots of time) and their are lots of AAA to choose from, most people aren't satisfied with a decent game because you could buy only exceptional games and more than satiate your gaming need for the year.

And then the only games that don't make it to 7 normally mean either they were way under budget and the design studio were bad at their jobs or the project absolutely exploded and screwed up everything over multiple years with developers failing in every direction (Aliens Colonial Marine/Duke Nukem Forever). We don't have so much of the not good/not bad dross that films get (partly because there are more ways for a game to fail than a film)

Even this doesn't seem that bad, it's only the 2nd 1 Gamespot have given out, so they don't normally make this mistake and a large number of people in the thread feel like it's 2-4 instead of 1, which means the rating has enough clarity of meaning that we can have discussions on small changes like that without having to set ground rules (which is pretty amazing when you think about it)

 

[DoPo]

From the review this looks like a terrible game, but nowhere near as bad as Big Rigs.

Yeah, I'm with everybody saying that - Big Rigs gots a 1/10 because it wasn't even a game. Seriously for a premise of essentially "race opponents wile delivering stuff" you can neither pick stuff up to deliver, nor really race them, because physical laws pretty much don't exist in the game, and you didn't even HAVE opponents. That's before getting to the fact that it barely worked. It fails as a game, heck, it fails as a software product, you could, at most, call it a prototype or a leaked alpha but nothing more. That gets a 1. This game...well, works. It's a game, I mean. Not as much bad, as really, really dull. Just to clarify, I'm not saying it's not bad, it's bad mixed with boring and boring wins over.

 

[Tazzman]

Just by watching that review I want a copy to chuck in the bin. Yeah it's not broken but damn did it look boring as shit. It's probably one of those games that's so bad that you think it's going to be fun to play but then your Pc get's an STI and you realise how much of a mistake you made

 

[shrekfan246]

From the review this looks like a terrible game, but nowhere near as bad as Big Rigs.

Yeah, I'm with everybody saying that - Big Rigs gots a 1/10 because it wasn't even a game.

I dunno, I'd say that's basis to not even score it in the same way most games get reviewed. You could say that 1/10 should be reserved for titles that don't even function, but I feel like Destructoid's system is a bit more realistic, where it's held for the lowest of the low, the titles that absolutely nobody should play because there's nothing redeeming about them in the slightest--But they're still games. Big Rigs transcends normal boundaries because it's, as you say, technically not even a game. Would it still be included on a scale of "Games nobody should ever play"? Sure. But I don't think it should be some brown standard that every other potential 1/10 gets held up against because they actually function as games, just as I don't think it's fair to hold up Half-Life 2, Portal, or Bioshock as standards for other games to compete with; Games should be taken and examined on their own merits, and numbered scores should be topical both inside and outside of independent voids.

But then, maybe that's just because I'm tired of all the people who say stupid things like "Oh, you'll give [Popular Game] an 8 but you gave [More Niche Game] a 7, so [Popular Game] is better!?!?"

 

[DoPo]

Would it still be included on a scale of "Games nobody should ever play"? Sure. But I don't think it should be some brown standard that every other potential 1/10 gets held up against

Yeah, however, Ride to Hell, is the only other game to get that score, as dull as it is, I'm pretty sure other games are on the same level as it. Daikatana got a 4.6, so it's saying this is worse than Daikatana. When I'd say it's about the same level. From what I've seen so far, that is.

 

[Longstreet]

Why do i have the feeling that this getting a 1/10 will only increase sales.

Now people want to see what all the fuss is about that get a good laugh (although for 39.99 the chances are slim)


I cant believe anyone said, yeah this is good enough to sell.

 

[Roxas1359]

if big rigs is a 1.0 then this is worth more. at least this game is playable despite gliches. but beside that, yeah........ this wont really do. still, tis fun to know they still make such horrible games around, i though the tradition was dead.

Their system doesn't allow them to go lower then 1.0, and they said in their review of Big Rigs in the past that if they could go lower then they would.

OT: Yeah, this game is just plain bad, perhaps that's why Maceman put a bounty on it for someone to do an LP of it on Game Anyone.

 

[Something Amyss]

I dunno, I'd say that's basis to not even score it in the same way most games get reviewed.

Yeah, it doesn't deserve a 1/10. It's more like a purple/10.

 

[DoPo]

I dunno, I'd say that's basis to not even score it in the same way most games get reviewed.

Yeah, it doesn't deserve a 1/10. It's more like a purple/10.

Hey, you know what, I just checked and apparently, GameSpot, think this game is worse than Superman 64. Yeah, Supes got 1.3, so...yeah - if that isn't a testament that the 1.0 is not deserved, I don't know what is.

Also, don't be dissing purple - Big Rigs doesn't even deserve purple/10, it's clearly banana/10.

 

[Something Amyss]

I dunno, I'd say that's basis to not even score it in the same way most games get reviewed.

Yeah, it doesn't deserve a 1/10. It's more like a purple/10.

Hey, you know what, I just checked and apparently, GameSpot, think this game is worse than Superman 64. Yeah, Supes got 1.3, so...yeah - if that isn't a testament that the 1.0 is not deserved, I don't know what is.

Also, don't be dissing purple - Big Rigs doesn't even deserve purple/10, it's clearly banana/10.

Let's compromise and give it fish/10.

But yeah, if this game got lower than a game almost completely broken? That's utter crap. Though how Superman 64 didn't get a 1/10 (or fish/10) is beyond me.

 

[Brown Cap]

One look at the Metascore for Ride to Hell: Retribution tells you it's a genuinely terrible game.

Well, seeing as the trailer was literally just an audio track and a guy frowning, I'd believe it.

 

[mbarker]

it is a bad game and everything about it is bad, but the Idea is cool.

 

[Voulan]

I look at 1/10 scores with the same skepticism as a 10/10, simply because those scores are usually made by trolls or by users who are very quick to judge and terrible at critiquing.

Then again, I know nothing about the game to say whether it's accurate or not.

Of course, the fact that there's only been two titles to get this honour from this source should be an indicator. It should tell you they don't drop this lightly. This was mentioned in the OP and the title, so I'm sure you noticed.

Yep, I did. That's why I said later that it looks like it really does deserve it. Those glitches make the game look completely broken and unplayable, you have to wonder whether they tested it at all. I hate how companies seem more concerned with deadlines and profit than actual quality.

Sorry, but that did come across a little condescending.

 

[daveman247]

sniiiiiip

Oh believe me, I read/ watch the actual reviews to see why they think the game is good/bad/ok as well as look at 3-4 different reviews to get a spread of the pro's/con's. But I know a lot of people don't

Thats the thing, it makes six whole numbers useless. Under seven you are really just splitting hairs, you ain't gonna buy it.

Maybe add "for the fans" Just under my "buy" suggestion? Four point review scheme! Might as well just be stars by then I suppose.

 

[The_Scrivener]

Does anybody actually take Gamespot seriously as a review source anymore?I know I haven't since the Jeff Gerstmann incident

Seconded. They were also a fly in the The Last of Us paint.