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

[Miles Tormani]

Sorry, what? I was playing Resistance 2.

...

I honestly don't care about this game one way or another. It still looks like a Call of Duty clone that continues to be iffy about what it wants to be good at (shoot the water cooler bottle and it does the most realistic water cooler bottle being shot effect ever, but the voicework just sounds terrible), forgot what color is, and OMFG COVER SYSTEM YAAAAY. That may be because I still prefer the games where "cover" means "enemy cannot shoot through walls."

Maybe a demo would change my mind about it, but it seems I need to either be British or already going OMFG COVER SYSTEM YAAAAY I'LL TAKE 20 IN ADVANCE to even do that. Which naturally comes off as overly pretentious.

Edit: Oh, and X-Play is probably the only review thing where I pay attention to the numbers, because they actually do something similar to the 'movie star' thing, where three still means 'If you like that kind of game, check it out.' No point padding. (Unless of course someone other than Adam or Morgan is reviewing it, like that one guy squeezing fanboy juice all over the Fable 2 review without actually making valid points, etc. etc.)

I find additional merit because the score shows up at the END of the review rather than before it, which inclines the viewer to actually watch the damn thing and see what points they make as opposed to GI's method of "This game is 9 out of 10! Ignore the rest of the review and buy the game from GameStop used so we get money!"

 

[ndogg34]

Let's face it, any point system by itself is utter crap, somewhat analogous to using a multiple choice test to see how smart someone is. A game could get a 10/10, but if it's an FPS, I'm not buying it.

The best reviews will give a run-down of the pros and cons of the various aspects of gameplay (i.e. aesthetics, music, story, controls, replayability, co-op/multiplayer, etc.) If a point scale must be used, give it as few points as possible. When I look at a five-point scale, as a rule of thumb, I think like this:

Within my preferred genres:

5 - Buy it.
4 - Rent first, then buy.
3 - Rent it.
2 - If there's some intriguing aspect, rent.
1 - Don't rent, if given as a gift, use as a coaster.

Outside of my preferred genres:

5 - See 3 above.
4 - See 2 above.
3 - See 2 above.
2 - See 1 above.
1 - Even unworthy of use as a coaster.

 

[Miles Tormani]

Didn't X-Play pick on some negative aspects overly but still give it a 100%?

Maybe. I don't watch TV that often, so I didn't see it. But as I recall, according to their rating scale a 5 star doesn't mean 'perfection' so much as 'highly recommended.' It's still a little more credible than usual considering the review doesn't hinge entirely on the score, they don't pad the scores (I've seen plenty of one star/two star scores), and the lack of an arbitrary drop in score for a port. (Unlike GI's drop of Bioshock's score from 10 on 360 to 8 on PS3, despite the PS3 version having no flaws or glitches the 360 didn't. Does that mean they fucked up the 360 review?)

 

[AceDiamond]

Follow me here.

7/10 = B.

B = Good.

Is B a low mark to be given away nowadays? I wish I had some B's once in a while in maths.

Pah, this won't be affecting me as I:

1) Don't pay attention to reviews.
2) Don't own a PS3.
3) I'm sick of generic FPS's.

In a 100% system a 70 is a D. (By American standards.)

No 70 is a C-

Also 70 =/= 7/10. On a 10 point scale a 5 is average. I don't know how hard it is for people to grasp this simple concept.

 

[AceDiamond]

Follow me here.

7/10 = B.

B = Good.

Is B a low mark to be given away nowadays? I wish I had some B's once in a while in maths.

Pah, this won't be affecting me as I:

1) Don't pay attention to reviews.
2) Don't own a PS3.
3) I'm sick of generic FPS's.

In a 100% system a 70 is a D. (By American standards.)

No 70 is a C-

Also 70 =/= 7/10. On a 10 point scale a 5 is average. I don't know how hard it is for people to grasp this simple concept.

Because it goes by the same system of grading as the lettered one, with 50% being a fail.

Yeah except for that part where it doesn't, which is what I just said but you chose to ignore in favor of being wrong. I have no idea why you decided that was the best course of action.

On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being the worst and 10 being the best, what does that make 5? Average. The 10 point scale is not about percentages and anybody who attempts to take the Grade Letter, Percentage, and 10-point ratings systems and claim they are all interchangeable or (even worse) the same is easily and unquestionably wrong.

 

[McClaud]

It will not be affecting me because after playing the demo i can confidently say: That is not a 7/10 game

I agree. I gave it 8 out 10. And that's all the higher it will probably rate on my personal radar, since once something new comes out and I'm more involved in that, it will probably never go up. To give you a comparison on the XBox side, Chromehounds got an 8 out of 10 from me. I played that for a long time and thoroughly enjoyed it.

The only game I have ever given a 9 out of 10 to was Team Fortress 2. I'm still playing it nearly every weekend with 10 friends. If the game is fun enough to stay in my radar this long after it was released, it will probably be the only game.

The only 10 out of 10 will be the one that absolutely stuns and wow's me so much that I die. My will stipulates that in that instance, my wife report that I have officially rated that game a 10/10.

 

[Uncompetative]

Let's face it, any point system by itself is utter crap, somewhat analogous to using a multiple choice test to see how smart someone is. A game could get a 10/10, but if it's an FPS, I'm not buying it.

The best reviews will give a run-down of the pros and cons of the various aspects of gameplay (i.e. aesthetics, music, story, controls, replayability, co-op/multiplayer, etc.) If a point scale must be used, give it as few points as possible. When I look at a five-point scale, as a rule of thumb, I think like this:

Within my preferred genres:

5 - Buy it.
4 - Rent first, then buy.
3 - Rent it.
2 - If there's some intriguing aspect, rent.
1 - Don't rent, if given as a gift, use as a coaster.

Outside of my preferred genres:

5 - See 3 above.
4 - See 2 above.
3 - See 2 above.
2 - See 1 above.
1 - Even unworthy of use as a coaster.

Thank you. We have a winner ! Not only someone who understood that I wasn't complaining about the "low" score Edge gave to some PS3 game (...I don't own a PS3 and don't care...), but someone who must have read the thread (or was thinking along similar lines to myself) and felt that the way out of this whole mess was to take the emphasis off the score (97% anyone?) by reducing the number of intervals to 5.

My idea was to emphasize that this n/5 score wasn't scalar (i.e. a 4/5 game wasn't twice as good as a 2/5 game, etc.), by replacing it with stars. This would have the added benefit of it being exactly like the rating scheme used for Movie reviews.

I suppose it would have been better if I hadn't based this thread around an example at all and just asked the abstract question:

"Why don't game reviews use a Five Star rating system, like Movies?"

Within my preferred genres:

***** Buy it.
**** Rent first, then buy.
*** Rent it.
** If there's some intriguing aspect, rent.
* Don't rent, if given as a gift, use as a coaster.

Outside of my preferred genres:

***** => *** Rent it.
**** => ** If there's some intriguing aspect, rent.
*** => ** If there's some intriguing aspect, rent.
** => * Don't rent, if given as a gift, use as a coaster.
* => Even unworthy of use as a coaster.

I hope you don't mind me adapting your system. What does everyone think? Would they miss the numbers? Is it right to rate games in the same way as Movies - as an entertainment medium? What does that even mean? To what extent are games a 'pseudo-career' for the ultra competitive player, but merely a 'escapist pastime' for others wishing for a distraction from their everyday concerns? Can they even be compared with Movies? Surely this would suggest that you could then make an equivalent choice of how to spend your evening based upon which entertainment product had the larger number of stars, whether that was 2 hours of listening to music, a Movie or part of a game?

Maybe games aren't ready to stand this comparison as so many start with training levels. What do games need to be as accessible as Movies? Standardized controls within each genre, or controls that can be easily remapped to something you have already habituated to in another game (say, from a central Dashboard, rather than the idiosyncratic User Interface of each game)? A pause button that is persistent, so you can save anywhere in a game without giving yourself extra chances (like the way iPhone games can be stop/started)? More buttons on the gamepad so there is room for redundancies? Skippable cutscenes and plot summaries to help you pick up the narrative after being away from the game for a while? A recap of previous action as you resume the game from pause? Episodic gaming, or downloadable quests/missions for your open world? What would make them challenge Movies whilst remaining games? Your thoughts please...

 

[FadedMemory]

Strange, because i think that now... Anyway i would only give it a 6/10 because i didn't like it that much. I'll admit it was an alright game but it just wasn't a great 10/10, 5/5 game like all the reviewers are saying.

 

[Zersy]

Follow me here.

7/10 = B.

B = Good.

Is B a low mark to be given away nowadays? I wish I had some B's once in a while in maths.

Pah, this won't be affecting me as I:

1) Don't pay attention to reviews.
2) Don't own a PS3.
3) I'm sick of generic FPS's.

me too i just realised after you said it

i too am sick of generuc shooters i would really like to see something new and original
so i guess that leads to the PSN and Flower !

Edge
So, just to make the subject of this thread crystal clear, I am asking if you mind that Killzone 2 has been given 7/10? Will it affect your purchasing decision? Will you wait and see it in action before you pre-order it? Are you not bothered as you only want it for Multiplayer? Is Edge being elitist, or is it getting flamed by a lot of ignorant PS3 fanboys who have only played the demo?

i still will buy Killzone 2 because this game is point blank FUN and any game that is Point Blank i purchase

e.g.

Gears 2
MGS4
LBP
Burnout
Fallout 3
Dead space

 

[Wargamer]

The review tastes of hypocrisy.

The fact is, if you substituted the Killzone References for Halo references, you'd have a perfectly fair and valid Halo 3 review. Everyone proclaimed how fucking awesome Halo 3 was, and it wasn't. Now we're seeing people try and be 'cool' by slagging off Killzone 2. I obviously haven't playing anything bar the demo, but I seriously doubt it's a Halo 3 repeat.

The other area that annoys the hell out of me is the claims that it 'lacks originality'. Striving to be 'original' has almost become a way to destroy gaming; the reason Dynasty Warriors continues to succeed is not because we're all idiots, it's because it gives us exactly what we want each time, just with a little bit of improvement.

I want a new FPS. I do not want a point-and-click interface, I do not want an inventory screen taken from a JRPG, I don't want to have to order a squad around, I don't like Portable Armouries, I don't want a love interest, I don't give a shit about your Grandma, and I sure as hell don't want to be playing as Master Chief. The notion that a FPS that leaves out all this unnecessary and pointless crap is somehow BAD is shocking to me. Games do not need gimmicks; if they have real quality, it will shine through.

Killzone 2 looks to be excellent, and the lack of 'innovation' will only make it better.

 

[Syphonz]

The review tastes of hypocrisy.

The fact is, if you substituted the Killzone References for Halo references, you'd have a perfectly fair and valid Halo 3 review. Everyone proclaimed how fucking awesome Halo 3 was, and it wasn't. Now we're seeing people try and be 'cool' by slagging off Killzone 2. I obviously haven't playing anything bar the demo, but I seriously doubt it's a Halo 3 repeat.

The other area that annoys the hell out of me is the claims that it 'lacks originality'. Striving to be 'original' has almost become a way to destroy gaming; the reason Dynasty Warriors continues to succeed is not because we're all idiots, it's because it gives us exactly what we want each time, just with a little bit of improvement.

I want a new FPS. I do not want a point-and-click interface, I do not want an inventory screen taken from a JRPG, I don't want to have to order a squad around, I don't like Portable Armouries, I don't want a love interest, I don't give a shit about your Grandma, and I sure as hell don't want to be playing as Master Chief. The notion that a FPS that leaves out all this unnecessary and pointless crap is somehow BAD is shocking to me. Games do not need gimmicks; if they have real quality, it will shine through.

Killzone 2 looks to be excellent, and the lack of 'innovation' will only make it better.

I agree entirely with this post.

 

[Uncompetative]

...On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being the worst and 10 being the best, what does that make 5? Average. The 10 point scale is not about percentages and anybody who attempts to take the Grade Letter, Percentage, and 10-point ratings systems and claim they are all interchangeable or (even worse) the same is easily and unquestionably wrong.

Then of course, you have this:

The Grade curve; explained here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grade_curve

This transforms absolute raw scores into ABCDEF with a middle-grade weighting determined by the tutor.

I don't believe a game that is rated 9/10 (by any magazine) is three times better than one that is rated 3/10. This is because the rating is related to the absolute score via a simple curve whose slope increases in order to make 8, 9 & 10/10s rarer than lower scores. These curves can have different profiles and I think Edge has always used one that is steeper - i.e. harder to get more than 7/10, so, more critical.

So, you are quite correct to point out how foolish it is to treat a **** as 4/5 as 8/10 as 80% as B - as they are by no means interchangeable rating schemes. I'd still like to know if a **** game could be regarded as equivalent to a **** movie or **** album, what would be the best way to measure this? Fun/Hour? How would value for money factor into this? Longevity x Replayability / Cost? If I can rent a 2 Hour movie from Sky+ HD Box Office for 4 Pounds then that implies 2 Pounds per Hour... Did COD4 provide 20 Hours of gameplay, did Halo 3? Hmm... makes me think about how much value for money an "interactive movie" can be such as MGS4 or the upcoming Heavy Rain.

I do wonder why they bother to give out scores below 5/10 as if it mattered to anyone whether something got a 2 or a 3...

I suppose it may be of interest to the Publisher, or (thinking about it) it may affect the metacritic average, but that is unlikely.

 

[RAWKSTAR]

Edge is always harsh, the score 7/10 from them is fine by me. Although I hardly listen to reviews anyway.

 

[Uncompetative]

Interestingly, Edge have always maintained that 5/10 is 'Average'. However, that doesn't mean that it uses a linear rating scheme. If you were to map every game they reviewed to every rating they gave I would expect 10% of these games to score 10/10.

Most other magazines regard 5/10 as below average... I suppose this is because they are part of a "culture of celebration", or if you were to be cynical, they were pushing games on behalf of the industry (as indirectly their survival depended upon sub-optimal product being shifted and there may well be cases where Publishers have given out exclusives provided that a magazine gives them a 'favorable review', this then leads to more copies of that magazine being sold... until this practice destroys its reputation).

Reviews (and to a lesser extent, ratings) are important. If they weren't why would people on this site write in their own User Reviews?