Is 7/10 a low score to give Killzone 2?

[MrGFunk]

and here's Edge's concluding remarks reviewing GTA4:

There are few other games so constantly engaging or entertaining, and it may be a painfully long time before anything else matches up to its breadth of vision.

Verdict: 10/10

Who even talks about GTA4 these days?

I can't fault you on this, I think EDGE massively dropped the ball. However, reviews everywhere and my most impetuous friends got this wrong, so I don't think EDGE's opinion should be discounted as a result.

I wish I'd rented before I bought GTA IV. It, and it's useless strategy guide, sit on my game shelf gathering dust.

 

[Frank_Sinatra_]

Apparently, many agree. Looking over at the IGN review [http://www.gamerankings.com/itemrankings/launchreview.asp?reviewid=988773] the reviwer gave it 9.2, but the average player ranking with 1143 players responding was a was a 7.4.

Looks like Game Informer was actually right for once.

Did you look at the user "reviews" in there? Its just a giant flame war.

 

[ProfessorLayton]

People have different opinions. You may like a game that no one else likes and you may hate a game everyone else loves. Scores are just opinions and if you don't agree, good for you but no one's opinion is wrong.

 

[geldonyetich]

Apparently, many agree. Looking over at the IGN review [http://www.gamerankings.com/itemrankings/launchreview.asp?reviewid=988773] the reviwer gave it 9.2, but the average player ranking with 1143 players responding was a was a 7.4.

Looks like Game Informer was actually right for once.

Did you look at the user "reviews" in there? Its just a giant flame war.

Yeah, but only 93 of the respondents wrote a review, and most of them were complete fanboys giving it a 10.0. The game has bugs, no, it's not perfect. I'll settle for the 7.4 simple vote with 100 times more people involved as being more likely.

 

[new_age_reject]

Well for a start it doesn't really matter, but you saw the exact same thing in the OPS1 magazine giving every TR game a 10/10 when, imo, only the first actually deserved it.

 

[Frank_Sinatra_]

Apparently, many agree. Looking over at the IGN review [http://www.gamerankings.com/itemrankings/launchreview.asp?reviewid=988773] the reviwer gave it 9.2, but the average player ranking with 1143 players responding was a was a 7.4.

Looks like Game Informer was actually right for once.

Did you look at the user "reviews" in there? Its just a giant flame war.

Yeah, but only 93 of the respondents wrote a review, and most of them were complete fanboys giving it a 10.0. The game has bugs, no, it's not perfect. I'll settle for the 7.4 simple vote with 100 times more people involved as being more likely.

Well just read comment 34 on this thread.

 

[geldonyetich]

Well just read comment 34 on this thread.

Yeah, that's pretty much exactly what I'm saying. Critics can think the game is great, but apparently the average player has a much more mixed bag of it. Even taking that Metacritic link [http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/ps3/killzone2], at 79 votes from the users the game is sitting at a 6.3. Looking over at Gametrailers, it has a more respectable 8.8, but the trouble with that is that they allow people to rate the game before it's come out - a lot of that is just residual hype from the trailers.

Bottom line, the critics generally like the game because (like Crysis) it's technically excellent. However, the average user's reception has been much lower, much closer to Game Informer's rating, and that's probably because it's basically a pretty straightforward shooter -- prettier than usual, but not all that innovative at all.

Reviewer rubberstamp applied, the people have ignored it, played the game, and spoken. Some will give it a 10, but apparently enough felt differently that it hasn't stuck.

 

[Uncompetative]

...That's why the Edge review is useless--it's like the food critic who works for the Michelin Guide rating your local restaurant. There's a difference between a quality game and a classic game, and that's what this Edge score misses.

Excellent point. Maybe Edge would be on safer ground if they went quarterly and just did previews, interviews and retro criticism.

I am interested in this Star system notion as a substitute for n/100 or n/10 or n/5 even. Someone suggested that games get one to five stars, and this would then make it easier to compare them for "entertainment value". A lot of games aren't enough of an 'escape' for me these days and some feel like full-blown careers (i.e. multiplayer ranking systems), so it is questionable whether all games could survive comparison with a film on a Star system of rating - e.g. I have 2 hours free this evening and I can play X or watch Y, I know I'll decide solely on the basis of which has more stars as I know that entertainment/hour has been factored into the review of each and I don't have to struggle through the initial part of X for 3 hours just to get acquainted with the controls, etc.

I'd like to see what people thought 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 stars could be reasonably mapped to actual well known games. What would be the typical, lowest & highest *** game, for example. As far as I can recall, 3 stars for a movie means "Worth Watching". Would the equivalent 3 stars for a game mean "Worth Renting"?

 

[Geo Da Sponge]

Meh. PS3 fanboys have been reagin over any score which they disagree with. Obviously the Xbox 360 fanboys are being just as annoying, but the fact that the PS3 fanboys complain when their favourite game gets anything less than a perfect score (and sometimes even when it does) is just... weird.

I can't believe it when people ***** about good review scores.
"imagination... barely exists."
So its another generic fps. So does it deserve a 10/10? No.

You're once again confusing refined and generic. It has managed to polish all elements to the point where it is the pinnacle of its domain - hence, yes, it does deserve a 10/10

Huh. Saying something is 'refined' rather than 'generic' is the argument I've always used for Halo 3, since it has the most polished and perfected online experience of any game I've played. Does that mean you like Halo 3?

Indigo? Huh? Does it?

 

[TheBadass]

Judging by your rage first, think later approach to matters, I'm hardly surprised.

I really wish there was a laugh smiley here. Are you being serious? Rage first, really?

Halo - Generic shooter hailed as the second coming of Jesus in some circles.
Killzone 2 - Generic shooter hailed as the second coming of Jesus in some circles.

Why do other people's opinions of the game effect your own? It plays nothing like Halo and therefore shouldn't be considered like Halo. Web hype shouldn't be taken into account one way or the other.

Rage first, wow.

 

[Cheesebob]

Just to clear things up. Edge uses the full 1-10 scoring spectrum where as most sites use 1-10 but really only use 6-10 since 7 means average.

Edge 5/10 = average
other sites 7/10 = average

From the Gamefaqs forum

talk about in denial, not that 7/10 is a bad score (I would play anything with a 7/10)

 

[Flour]

I'd have to disagree with that Flour. If a game is getting that low of a rating that means that the design of the game is flawed or buggy that will interfere with the player having fun. It could also mean that the game is so niche for a very specific audience that most gamers will not have fun with the game. One cannot take a score and simply take it for face value to mean "do not buy this game". I will take it for a precautionary measure that it may not shape up to a player's expectations that will make the overall experience unenjoyable.

Give one good reason why a 7.0 would be a "low" review score...

That's the issue--should perfect scores be reserved for classics, or should that just mean "as good as any game out there today, besides a couple of once-in-a-generation games that blow the curve."

Perfect scores should never be used. It should be something developers should try to get, improving on other, similar games, not just releasing "Halo clone #23" and demanding a 10/10 score.(using "halo clone" for actual halo clones and licensed games)

Current rating systems make a 7/10(or 3/5) a near failure.
Anything under 7/10(or 3/5) means "don't buy this game".

I'm not saying I agree but because you think this I can't say you're wrong. If this is popular opinion I think it's wrong that it's come to this and the review scores have been skewed.

Maybe EDGE's reviews are still on an appropriate scale (7 being pretty good) and it shouldn't be considered as 10=GOOD. Anything else BAD.

Review scores are what the majority wants. Publishers want to sell copies of their product(using "publisher" for both the gaming magazine/website and game publisher) and the easiest way to do this is to provide good scores on a scale that most people agree with.

In my opinion, the only proper way to use a review score is to ignore it. The review might have some decent points, but the score adds nothing.

 

[Clemenstation]

We should have a star system like in film reviews.

It's a lot better than the 1-10 ratings we have now.

Is it really? It's still just a numerical assessment, graphically represented. You could rate a game three crack pipes out of five, but for most people that translates directly to a 3/5, or 6/10, or whatever. Unless they're smoking the crack.

 

[geldonyetich]

I have played some games that have generally been panned by users and critics alike, and found something I enjoyed about them enough to finish the game, so I'm not one to take a mere 7/10 as meaning the game isn't worth playing.

 

[Uncompetative]

So, Killzone 2 gets *** then?

 

[I3uster]

I can't believe it when people ***** about good review scores.
"imagination... barely exists."
So its another generic fps. So does it deserve a 10/10? No.

You're once again confusing refined and generic. It has managed to polish all elements to the point where it is the pinnacle of its domain - hence, yes, it does deserve a 10/10

hmmm... why does this remind me of halo fanboys?

 

[Aardvark]

Why do other people's opinions of the game effect your own? It plays nothing like Halo and there shouldn't be considered like Halo. Web hype shouldn't be taken into account one way or the other.

Boy, you just don't seem to get it, do you?

When you take away the web hype, both games are stock standard shooters with little going for them that hasn't been done already. There's the comparison right there. The biggest selling point both of them have going for them is pure hype. Though Killzone also has a lack of any other standout exclusives as well.

If you still can't figure it out, I'll break out the sock puppets and large word cards. Maybe help you sound out each syllable. How about some furry mascots to get this one through that barrier of fanboyism you seem to be armoured in?