Poll: Two review scores?!

[Lysserd]

This is something that has honestly bothered me for years. Many times when I go to review sites, or read magazines, for gaming I see many sequel games treated unfairly. They will either be rated too high because of the previous game's success, when the game itself isn't that great; rated too low because they didn't surpass the previous title, when the game is actually rather good; or just kind of ignored because nobody cared about the first title.

I really don't think its fair to judge a game on the quality of a previous title. Many times the sequel games can be made by new design crews, or even a different studio! So really rating a game by its prequel is like rating a game against any other game in a similar genre.

For example: Mass Effect 2 was rated highly because of the prequel's success and because its a pretty good game as well. (I'm saying that in this case ME2 earned its score.) Anyway, I could say that ME2 is actually terrible by rating it against a different game, because its shooting sections just don't hold up against Halo 3. And don't forget the multiplayer elements and blah blah blah [insert a reviewers game comparison malarchy here].

All I think should be done is that when a sequel comes out make two different review scores for it. First, rate it normally by ignoring the previous title and just based on its own merits as a single game. Then second, rate it against the rest of its series. That wouldn't be so hard, and would give many sequel games a more fair review.

What do YOU think, Esacpist?

 

[MiracleOfSound]

Mass Effect 2's shooting is nothing like Halo 3.

It's a completely different game and most reviewers see it as an RPG/shooter hybrid.

I can't think of one game that does shooting and story/stat building so well together.

I've also never heard of a review being higher or lower because of a game being a sequel. They are generally judged on thier own merits.

Take Bioshock 2 for example. Mechanically a better game than the first, but recieved lower scores.

 

[Jojo1378]

i Guess its possible, but really, I don't look at ratings anymore, it only points out the flaws of the game that I don't wanna know so that I can enjoy my games. Scores and ratings ruined Midnight Club LA for me. This would definitely be fairer, but first people have to recognize the fact that they are basing it off the first game and not just give it a good score.

 

[FactualSquirrel]

You know, I was going to answer seriously, but I couldn't resist the little squirrel....

Anywho, why not just have one which isn't based on the previous title?

 

[almostgold]

I've always thought this should be the case. I'm glad someone else agrees with me.

 

[dududf]

I can't think of one game that does shooting and story/stat building so well together.

Please, for the love of god I hope your kidding on stats... I was pissed at the lack of anything really stat related in ME2.

Seriously. It just became a dramatic Gears of war, that didn't really progress the story forward, just to the side (as in didn't move forward, not that it was neglected)

*Edit
By Dramatic Gears of war, I am implying if Gears of war had a story, and was actually an RPG... mix kotor with Gears of war... there we go.

 

[Lysserd]

Mass Effect 2's shooting is nothing like Halo 3.

It's a completely different game and most reviewers see it as an RPG/shooter hybrid.

I can't think of one game that does shooting and story/stat building so well together.

I've also never heard of a review being higher or lower because of a game being a sequel. They are generally judged on thier own merits.

Take Bioshock 2 for example. Mechanically a better game than the first, but recieved lower scores.

I was trying to avoid people going off on my example, which is why I said that ME2 is a good game. Hopefully this is the end of it. But I also hoped for strawberry chocolate this morning.

Your post also confuses. You say you've never heard of reviews being skewed because of a game being a sequel. Then you say Bioshock 2 is better with mechanics but got a lower score.

That's exactly it my good man! Bioshock 2 is at the very least equal to Bioshock. But, unfortunately for its points, it didn't make itself different enough from the first title which got it rated down.

With a two score system it would have recieved one low score for its sequel-ness and one high score for how the game actually plays on its own merits. This seems better to me because it lets you decide, and not the reviewer, whether or not you care about its relation to other games in its series.

 

[Baconmonster723]

I can somewhat see what you are trying to say. However, using your approach (ME2 aside) games like Halo 3 and others like it would be reviewed very low. If Halo 3 weren't a sequel in the Halo series it would have been given a realistic score. Which is below an 8, not the high 9s and sometimes 10s. Most sequels just can't hold up. Halo 3 is a great example of a game that got scores that were not deserving of the quality it provided. There are many sequels that aren't worthy of the high 9s (Halo 3, MW2 to name a couple), however, they get them anyway. I think that's a fair idea, review it as a stand-alone game stacking up against the rest of the genre and then reviewing it as part of the series. Therefore, games like Halo 3 would recieve the lower scores they deserve.

 

[IHaveNoCoolness]

They are already rating the game by itself. People don't rate ME1 based on ME2 and vice versa. They are rating the game that they are playing currently. Sure they might be bringing in past experiences with them from other games, other games in the storyline and other games in the genre, but ultimately a review of ME2 is a review of ME2 even if you think that it isn't. People already compare games to other games when reviewing it and to other games in the series when they are reviewing it. The original ME got good scores on its own and ME2 is going the same because it's also good.

 

[MiracleOfSound]

Mass Effect 2's shooting is nothing like Halo 3.

It's a completely different game and most reviewers see it as an RPG/shooter hybrid.

I can't think of one game that does shooting and story/stat building so well together.

I've also never heard of a review being higher or lower because of a game being a sequel. They are generally judged on thier own merits.

Take Bioshock 2 for example. Mechanically a better game than the first, but recieved lower scores.

I was trying to avoid people going off on my example, which is why I said that ME2 is a good game. Hopefully this is the end of it. But I also hoped for strawberry chocolate this morning.

Your post also confuses. You say you've never heard of reviews being skewed because of a game being a sequel. Then you say Bioshock 2 is better with mechanics but got a lower score.

That's exactly it my good man! Bioshock 2 is at the very least equal to Bioshock. But, unfortunately for its points, it didn't make itself different enough from the first title which got it rated down.

With a two score system it would have recieved one low score for its sequel-ness and one high score for how the game actually plays on its own merits. This seems better to me because it lets you decide, and not the reviewer, whether or not you care about its relation to other games in its series.

Aha...

I was confused by your OP because I thought that you meant sequels tended to get higher scores if thier big brothers did too.

Any reviewer who rates Bioshock 2 down because it's similar to the first is... silly. It's a better game in almost every way.

Here's a little review of it I did myself:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.175856-Miracles-Whip-Bioshock-2

 

[Lysserd]

I can somewhat see what you are trying to say. However, using your approach (ME2 aside) games like Halo 3 and others like it would be reviewed very low. If Halo 3 weren't a sequel in the Halo series it would have been given a realistic score. Which is below an 8, not the high 9s and sometimes 10s. Most sequels just can't hold up. Halo 3 is a great example of a game that got scores that were not deserving of the quality it provided. There are many sequels that aren't worthy of the high 9s (Halo 3, MW2 to name a couple), however, they get them anyway. I think that's a fair idea, review it as a stand-alone game stacking up against the rest of the genre and then reviewing it as part of the series. Therefore, games like Halo 3 would recieve the lower scores they deserve.

Even better, it encourages quality standards. If a studio knows that they can't ride solely on the merit of the previous game it could encourage consistant quality.

They are already rating the game by itself. People don't rate ME1 based on ME2 and vice versa. They are rating the game that they are playing currently. Sure they might be bringing in past experiences with them from other games, other games in the storyline and other games in the genre, but ultimately a review of ME2 is a review of ME2 even if you think that it isn't. People already compare games to other games when reviewing it and to other games in the series when they are reviewing it. The original ME got good scores on its own and ME2 is going the same because it's also good.

If you really listen/read teh creviews carefully you'll see that a sequel is always compared to its predecessor. Often someting like "graphics were good, but failed to compare to []" or "Gameplay has fun but no different from []". Take away the comparisons and you just get a regualr game review. Which is rating a game against the standard instead of its series.

 

[MR T3D]

because a number some foo gives the game you want really matters.

just read their criticisms, and THINK FOR YOURSELF if they really matter.

 

[S.R.S.]

I would like to see a 'sequel' score in reviews. Let's see how they review tomb raider.

 

[Lysserd]

because a number some foo gives the game you want really matters.

just read their criticisms, and THINK FOR YOURSELF if they really matter.

I wish everyone would think for themselves, but I doubt they ever will. I wonder how many sequel titles have been ignored by people just because of their numbers? If I knew people all thought for themselves I never would have proposed two scores.

 

[Zacharine]

Not a good idea. Even the current numbering system is too arbitary. To add another number to it would simply mess things up even more.

I would rather remove numbers and stars and whatnot from reviews alltogether. If people can't be bothered to read a few sentences that describe the different aspects of the game then they likely aren't reading reviews at all. Instead of "Metacritic gives X" labels, there should be "Metacritic recommends; a good story and great gameplay"

Okay, so that wouldn't work either, but at least it would be more informative than a number or two numbers.

 

[Pimppeter2]

You're wrong

Reviewers do it because its what the readers want to hear. Before you go into Mass Effect 2, you don't want to know whether it stands up to Halo 3. You want to know if it will be ass awesome as Mass Effect 1, or if it will be a giant disappointment

Reviewers will stop doing it when gamers stop demanding for it.

That said, you will really enjoy my Mass Effect 2 review. It is exactly what you are asking for.

 

[PDizzle418]

Mass Effect 2's shooting is nothing like Halo 3.

It's a completely different game and most reviewers see it as an RPG/shooter hybrid.

I can't think of one game that does shooting and story/stat building so well together.

I've also never heard of a review being higher or lower because of a game being a sequel. They are generally judged on thier own merits.

Take Bioshock 2 for example. Mechanically a better game than the first, but recieved lower scores.

I was trying to avoid people going off on my example, which is why I said that ME2 is a good game. Hopefully this is the end of it. But I also hoped for strawberry chocolate this morning.

Your post also confuses. You say you've never heard of reviews being skewed because of a game being a sequel. Then you say Bioshock 2 is better with mechanics but got a lower score.

That's exactly it my good man! Bioshock 2 is at the very least equal to Bioshock. But, unfortunately for its points, it didn't make itself different enough from the first title which got it rated down.

With a two score system it would have recieved one low score for its sequel-ness and one high score for how the game actually plays on its own merits. This seems better to me because it lets you decide, and not the reviewer, whether or not you care about its relation to other games in its series.

Here's the thing though is that bioshock 2 got a lower score because it did exactly the same thing as it's predecessor, almost to a T. if they had changed up some of the gameplay mechanics it would have been rated higher but if you want a completely fair comparison than there it is.

Bioshock and Bioshock 2 are completely different games, and when you compare one to the other like your examples of ME2 vs Halo 3, the result is a lower score.

your implying that the two games aren't different games and it's just an expack which it's not. It's a stand alone game. What you want you already have, games are matched against other games and what better game to compare then it's predecessor. In this case Bioshock innovated Bioshock 2 copied and improved but it isn't something new it's been done before.

 

[Regiment]

Rather than this, I'd like to see seperate ratings for single- and multiplayer. I'm reminded of when Metroid Prime Echoes came out, and the reviewers penalized it for the tacked- on- feeling multiplayer while praising the single- player mode. Can a great game be called poor because it comes with extra, mediocre modes? To me, this is like putting down a phenomenal steak because it came with a free side of gravel.

 

[SantoUno]

You know EGM used to have 3 reviewers for each game, that was pretty weird.