perfect games and their reviews

[Zera]

As some of you may know I work at a Gamestop as Game Advisor(aka clerk). Now every once in a while when I have time I would look at the magazines and check the reviews, since everyonce in a while some would ask if a game was good or not. Now at my store, all of us workers could not have a more diverse taste in games. By that I mean they dislike virtually everything I like, whether they are playing around or not. Now they also look at the reviews, which only provides ammo for them. This is something that really bothers me. Just because a game gets a 10(or a 5 depending on scales), it is a game from the heavens and is perfect in everyway.

Not in my book it is.

First of all there is no such thing as perfect, i think you can all agree with me on that. Now if a game was perfect, it would be the only one we would all play and i dont see that happening. This brings me back to the scores. It seems that people(not all) just look at the scores. And apparently thats all they need to back up their claims. Though the reviewers may mean well, the number system is not a good system, but thats just me. If it were up to me the grading scale would sum up on how much amusement and entertainment(AKA fun)the game should generally provide.

Or maybe all reviews are pointless. To me the greatest games of all time are the classics, the games that a few years later after you beaten it, you look back and say "damn that game was pretty good",and you can play it then and have fun. As for the "perfect" games of today, Im not denying your greatness. Im just saying that to gain the title of "one of the greatest games of all time", they must last through the test of time, a test I believe all game developers should have in mind.

That will be it for now
Later

 

[xbeaker]

Perfect does not mean a game is the last and only game you will ever need to play.

?Hey Sally, how did the cake turn out??
?It was perfect, I will never need to consume anything but chocolate cake again in my life!?

Also a perfect score does not mean a perfect game. It means the game reaches the highest level on the scale. It has either no flaws, or flaws that are so minor that they can be safely ignored. If you don?t like first person shooters (and I know you don?t) then even a great FPS is not the game for you. Just like a perfect JRPG is probably not the game for me. But a highly rated JRPG may be more likely to entertain me then a bad FPS.

Reviews and scores should never be taken as an absolute. The reviewer?s personal tastes and bias is going to be involved. And how that meshes with your own tastes. But I absolutely believe that games should be able to reach the top of the scale. If a game can never be a 5 star game, then why even have a 5 star scale?

If you really believe a game should not be able to score a 10 out of 10, try to think of it as an 11 point scale. That 11 point representing the mythical, yet unobtainable Platonic Ideal of a game.

 

[soladrin]

yea the anwser is pretty simple, perfect doesnt exist, and wel.. personal taste ~~ i have lot of games i love, that would come off like pieces of shit from reviews

 

[Break]

Isn't the only purpose of a review to make a recommendation? Beyond that, they don't mean a thing. Casual gamers play all kinds of crap. It doesn't mean they're getting any less out of it than a hardcore player does when he finishes Radiant Silvergun again. Hell, after playing games for pretty much the entirety of my sentient life, I envy the people who can walk into Woolworths, buy a game that looks cool, go home, and enjoy it. "Real" gamers, on the other hand, have to put up with the tiny trickle of good games that come out in a year, just to have any fun. And even then, these are often guilty of mass overhype, and turn out to be horrible. I wonder who really gets the most out of videogames...

 

[Joe]

I still say the people who hold perfect review scores on some pedestal are the same people who grow up to be professors that don't give out As, which is to say they take things entirely too seriously, most people shouldn't want to be around them, and their car has probably been keyed by an overachiever at some point in their life. In their world, the game review score isn't even a three-point scale.

I mean, break it down. Most every review boils down to X/10. Since most of the big sites only award below a 7 to truly terrible games without advertising budgets, it's safe to assume the majority of big-name games are going to fall somewhere above 7. So really, the majority of game reviews you're gonna read roll between 0 and 3, but for some reason reviewers and readers alike have a stick up their ass about that last 0.1, so it's really a scale of 0 to 2.9, which is, uh, stupid.

I think the fallacious scoring is caused by a number of factors. The first is advertising and payola - it's really hard for profit-oriented businesses to bite the hand that feeds. Another is most reviewers at big production houses don't buy their games, so it's hard to really assign a pragmatic value to a game, because you don't really know if you'd drop your $50 on it. Enter the 10-scale, which looks a lot like percentage grading at American schools: Only the very lazy or very incompetent score less than a 70%, or a C, and the kids who pay their dues and turn in a reasonable effort pull between a C+ and A. But we're still afraid of that A+ ruining the curve for everyone else. Fun fact: It doesn't. They're just subjective values on a subjective scale.

That's why I like my own three-point scale, which doesn't seem as weird when you break down how the 10-point one works. It goes:
Don't Bother
Rent It
Buy It

And within that scale lies all sorts of vagaries, the big one being cost-benefit analysis. Is it worth my money to actually own a game? It's also more honest and therefore more respectful to the people who actually have to budget for gaming.

 

[xbeaker]

Were you non-sentient for a significant part of your life?

I used to think that way too, about the non-gamers. Thinking it must be nice to be able to enjoy something as horrible as most licensed anime games. But do you envy your dog for enjoying his food mash while you eat steak? We aren?t missing anything. We just have refined out tastes and can enjoy games on a level that others may not be able to.

You are dead on about them being recommendations too. Zera, if the best your co-workers have to offer is that some magazine gave the game they like a 5, they have a pretty weak argument. I have read enough of your posts to know you could probably tear them up in any sort of debate if that is the best they can throw at you.

But I?m sure you know that your tastes are a little different then the general populace as well. It is all fine and good to recommend the games you like, but I hope you do so with the warning that if their kid isn?t into that type of game, they probably won?t like it. This is where the scores can help. But if a girl comes looking for a game for her boyfriend and she tells you he likes action games, button mashers, and that kind of thing, the reviews can tell you which games of that type rate high.

 

[GrowlersAtSea]

I'm not a big fan of most game reviews, despite how many I read. Most reviewers seem to have exceedingly sunny dispositions when it comes to most games, where around an average game can earn an 8 right off the bat, 9's come up, and "perfect" 10 games come up more frequently than I think perfect games could possibly exist.

The negative aspects of the game are the things that really bring them down, but most reviews seem to like to glaze over them, you'll sometimes see just a short paragraph that will mention all of the bad points of the reviews.

When it comes to personal recommendations, I only trust people I know who's gaming preferences I'm aware of. A stranger working in a game store I'm passing through might really know their games (then again, they might not) but if I don't know a lot more about what they like and why they like games, it won't really factor into whether I make a purchase.

I was considering making a topic here specifically to ask people around here for good, credible, but tough reviews out there. Not to sidetrack this thread but if anyone has any in mind and read my post, I would love to hear them.

 

[imcaseyimhott [deprecated]]

I think Halo 3 is the worst example of a FPS since Southpark on N64, but hey, thats me. I grew up and still play REAL FPS games like UT and CS... AND we get real FPS released for us first like FEAR and Crysis. I guess us PC gamers are just spoiled.

Why in hell would you want to use a controller for a FPS anyways? :barf:

Console players, who can understand them :/

 

[Geoffrey42]

I think Halo 3 is the worst example of a FPS since Southpark on N64, but hey, thats me. I grew up and still play REAL FPS games like UT and CS... AND we get real FPS released for us first like FEAR and Crysis. I guess us PC gamers are just spoiled.

Why in hell would you want to use a controller for a FPS anyways? :barf:

Console players, who can understand them :/

Let's see... referring to Halo 3 (unprompted, since it actually hasn't come up in the thread yet, though is tangentially related, albeit with no attempt to explore that tangent and make the reference relevant): check. Sideways accusation of opposition's immaturity: check. Unprompted reference to the Keyboard/Mouse versus Gamepad debate: check. References to "us" (PC gamers) vs. "them" (Console players): check.

By jove, I think we've found a troll. Everybody, SINGING!!

Troll, troll, troll your boat
Back be-neath your bridge...

 

[laikenf]

To me there is no such thing as a "perfect" game. The thing is that games are much like music, it's simply a matter of taste if you like the game or not. Take for example Exitetruck for the wii, that game got trashed by the general media, but when I got to play the game I noticed that it was the most fun I've ever had on a racing game (call me an idiot); another example is FPS's, I hate FPS's in general but who can argue the fact that those are the type of games that are getting the most attention these days (and by the way I agree with imcaseyimhott: a game pad is THE WORST input to play any FPS) that's why you see reviewers throwing perfect scores at most of the FPS's that come out. Then comes hype; nowadays AAA titles get OVERHYPED to the point where you already HATE the game and it hasn't even come out yet, THAT puts some pressure on the reviewer (whether they admit it or not), I mean c'mon guys, do y'all really think that Halo 3 deserved all those perfect 10's.

 

[Easykill]

I think Halo 3 is the worst example of a FPS since Southpark on N64, but hey, thats me. I grew up and still play REAL FPS games like UT and CS... AND we get real FPS released for us first like FEAR and Crysis. I guess us PC gamers are just spoiled.

Why in hell would you want to use a controller for a FPS anyways? :barf:

Console players, who can understand them :/

The xbox controller feels more natural than a mouse to me. I understand why it might be hard for the N64 to make good shooters but theres no such problem on my 360. Theres nothing inherently bad about consoles so stop acting like an elitist prick.

 

[soladrin]

I think Halo 3 is the worst example of a FPS since Southpark on N64, but hey, thats me. I grew up and still play REAL FPS games like UT and CS... AND we get real FPS released for us first like FEAR and Crysis. I guess us PC gamers are just spoiled.

Why in hell would you want to use a controller for a FPS anyways? :barf:

Console players, who can understand them :/

Let's see... referring to Halo 3 (unprompted, since it actually hasn't come up in the thread yet, though is tangentially related, albeit with no attempt to explore that tangent and make the reference relevant): check. Sideways accusation of opposition's immaturity: check. Unprompted reference to the Keyboard/Mouse versus Gamepad debate: check. References to "us" (PC gamers) vs. "them" (Console players): check.

By jove, I think we've found a troll. Everybody, SINGING!!

Troll, troll, troll your boat
Back be-neath your bridge...

"joins in on the song" i enjoy fps on console and PC anyway

 

[Geoffrey42]

Joe, I agree pretty much wholeheartedly with your views of the 10 point scale really only being a 3-4 point scale.

Per professors, I once nearly took a class on logic as an elective (philosophy course). The first day, the professor informed us that he did "not believe in grade inflation. The average in this class is a C." I did not stay much longer. While I agree that grade inflation is ridiculous (the average grade across my university was a B+), nobody else was going to understand that the "B" I would've earned in that class was really an "A-" by the school's scale. Which supports the point that numbers on a scale are useless without a point of reference (and even less useful when people use different points of reference.)

++ to the point that the number score at the end is useless. I read reviews primarily to see what the reviewer says, keeping my own preferences in mind the whole time.

EDIT: In closing, I give this thread a 10/Bubblegum.

 

[xbeaker]

Reviews are of very limited use in this day of downloadable demos anyway. They can help because the reviewer *usually* plays the game to it?s conclusion. But in most cases I can get a pretty good idea of a game from its demo.

When there is no demo available it is usually because A. the game is bad, and the publisher knows it. or B. The game is good and going to sell millions.

On a grades note, in my first English Lit2 class I got a D- the professor simply hated my term paper which I worked my tail off writing. I retook the class with a different professor and my selected term paper topic so was similar that I did almost no work, and in the end turned in an almost cut and paste from the previous year (the last 6 pages were literally cut and paste) And I got a B+, which was the highest grade in that class. It is really amazing how things like that can be viewed so different from 2 sets of eyes.

 

[Arbre]

I don't think a 10 on 10 means perfect. I think this score is given to games that are exceptionally well crafted... only.

 

[jadedcritic]

Here's the thing - and I do feel somewhat qualified to comment. Read allot of reviews over the years; even spent a couple years trying to get my foot in the door in "games journalism". Frankly, in retrospect, I probably tried pretty badly, but it made sense at the time at least.

The bottom line is this, people tend to forget the the reviews are at least every bit a a business as the actual games. Not to mention the fact that the major review outlets need publisher cooperation more then the publishers need cooperation from them. To the game companies, reviews are just an outlet for publicity, and there are many ways to generate publicity/hype in this day and age. The system in and of itself is hugely flawed. Otherwise you would never see giant four page reviews of CoD4 plastered across six pages (2 full page ads) in magazines. Let's not kid ourselves, pretty much everyone who was going to get CoD4, already knew about it, and very few people actually saw that Giant four page review and changed their mind about the game. (Never mind that the next page has a review for a score five game that barely got half a page.) That's just a way of downplaying a bad score that they either don't want to have to explain to the devs, or just that Game B spent less advertising budget then Game A. This is not even considering the simple fact that no one's opinion (in review form) is guaranteed to mesh with what you think.

The bottom line is you can't play games for any length of time without figuring out that reviews can certainly be taken into consideration, but decisions should not be made based on them alone.

Personally, if I worked at your Gamestop, I would avoid giving out my own opinion as much as possible. If customers are asking you if a game is good, you can certainly comment if you think it's appropriate, or if it might appeal to that person's tastes. However, no customer would get my actual opinion out of me unless they flat pinned me down and just asked what I think. (Under those circumstances you either have to dodge the question or lie, so it's best to just come clean.)

 

[RPJesus]

I made a 4 page list of ratings ranging from bomb to star once.
Personally though, I just read reviews to get the gist of the game and decide whether its worth my time regardless of the score it gets.

 

[GloatingSwine]

Personally, these days I try and read at least two or three reviews of any game I'm considering, preferably ones that have handed out a reasonable spread of scores.

I find Metacritic is a useful tool as well, you can see the range of reviews a game got, so you can tell if you're dealing with, say, a game that got a 7/10 average because it's a solid 7/10 across the board, or one like Folklore, that's total marmite and has a wide spread of different scores. (also, they have summaries of and links to any online reviews)

 

[werepossum]

I like Metacritic as well, and the Gamespot users score since that represents people who are inclined to buy the game. I don't care that Physconauts received 5 of 5, as I hate platformers. I'd rate it low - because I hate platformers. When I look at the review of a shooter, I want to see an evaluation from people who wanted to buy it, not an evaluation from someone playing it because she has to and who might normally only play platforms or MMOs or angst-ridden anime games (not that any of those are bad.) (Worst example: Dragon magazine once had a computer games reviewer who admitted to being dislexic. Not real good scores for Doom if you tend to move in unintended directions!)

I can see your point about perfect games, but I don't think you can apply that to a base 5 or base 10 games; the scale is just too limited to never give perfect scores. (And anyway, that just means that 4.5 or 9.9 becomes a perfect score.) On a scale of 100, it's probably valid. Also, games are highly subjective, so that score is simply one person's opinion. I think maybe PC Xcellerator had counterpoints, short mini-reviews by two or three staffers agreeing or disagreeing, but that's been awile and I'm old so maybe not. If not, some magazine should do that.

I think XPLAY gave Buy/Rent/Pass recommendations, but I don't get it anymore. Still, Joe's scale if applied by those predisposed to buy the game would be excellent. Although I only game on a PC and I don't think you can rent PC games; "rent it" would have to be pick it up at Wal-Mart when it hits $20. Maybe they could be rated in dollars.

Off Subject: Just as an oddity on the issue of controllers, I use a joystick and trackball to play FPS's on the PC. To me using the keyboard just shuts down immersion in the game; to me the joystick is just more fun. And I'm looking at dropping another $400-$500 in my rig before Christmas, with probably a new video card ($250 - $300) before spring. So although I don't game on consoles, I can certainly understand why some folks might find it preferable on many levels. But I can't see snobbery either way - it's just a matter of platform preference and which games you most want to play.