deanb Posted September 22, 2011 Report Share Posted September 22, 2011 They're not mutually exclusive(see L4D2 as a good example). Also the dedicated server thing is kinda veering this a tad off topic. 'Specially after Yante just linked the other thread 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope Posted September 22, 2011 Author Report Share Posted September 22, 2011 @MasterDex: I think we may be simply disagreeing now about what is relevant to each of us in a review. I don't care as much about the features you're describing to be bare minimum but that's just preference. Also, maybe we're saying the same thing but in a different way. Yes there's a group of angry people and that may or may not matter. A group of angry reviews tells us only just that, there's a group of angry people. I don't think you can extrapolate that to anything more or less than just that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope Posted September 22, 2011 Author Report Share Posted September 22, 2011 http://www.giantbomb.com/news/metacritic-finds-bans-group-of-users-unfairly-scoring-games/3688/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted September 22, 2011 Report Share Posted September 22, 2011 I'm surprised metacritic allows user ratings without attached reviews. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorgiShinobi Posted September 23, 2011 Report Share Posted September 23, 2011 I haven't really bothered to read every post, but I only have one point. In my experience, I would say that more people would swarm online to leave negative feedback than positive feedback. If it's negative, usually it's because there are a few things the user might want to complain/argue about in their fit of rage. You also get the users who are on a "first week" high, but I've always had the strong impression that most people will leave positive feedback to their friends, offline or online, rather than go and rate it on a website. It's something like... "Oh man, this game is really good! I've got to tell Joe and Bob about this game!" vs. "This is ass! I can't believe I wasted my time and money on this crapfest! This game needs a lower score (either for "warning" or "spite")!" 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GunFlame Posted September 23, 2011 Report Share Posted September 23, 2011 To be honest, I think everyone here is clued up enough about games and the community to understand the stigma attached to most high profile games. And it is only with high profile games where there are these huge sways in positive and negative feedback. So taking that, you can use something like Metacritic, just understand the flaws in the system. For example, if I read a review on a Final Fantasy game, or a Call or Duty game, you can expect that the perfect scores and incredibly bad scores are there due to a certain bias. The meat is what is in the middle of the sandwich. You want to be looking for around the 6-7 like ratings for true opinions. To choose those numbers shows a balance in thinking. But that's if you care to use Metacritic as a way to influence your purchases. If you want to see if it is useful for showing the general opinion of a game, then is it useful? Actually, yeah, it is. Regardless of what bias may be there, it will show what people think of the game. And how much they like it. The key word here being 'like'. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MasterDex Posted October 19, 2011 Report Share Posted October 19, 2011 http://kotaku.com/58...r-online-passes This has to be one of the stupidest things ive ever read. Thats like lowering a score on a movie because you didnt wait to watch it in the dollar theater. But it takes away from my experience of the game...which I bought second-hand while expecting first-hand quality. That's like marking down a car because the lifetime service deal only counts for the first owner. It's one thing to have a problem with online passes et al, it's another to demand a game should score less because of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FredEffinChopin Posted October 19, 2011 Report Share Posted October 19, 2011 Scoring a game lower is a bit extreme, but I definitely think a writer should include the fact in a review. I wouldn't be surprised to see larger sites like IGN and Gamespot even develop a little icon to put next to their review score to indicate it. I'd definitely appreciate it. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madbassman39 Posted October 19, 2011 Report Share Posted October 19, 2011 (edited) I read a comment on that article which I agreed with 100%. The reviewers are reviewing the game as new, not as a used game. Should they make a mention of it in the review? Absolutely, but it in no way affects the new game, as it only affects the used game. If the DLC is included in the new game, then it is to be reviewed as part of the game as a whole. The writer (what ever the commentor's name is) then says it affects the owners of new games, and I have no idea how it affects owners of new games. This whole used game thing has me sitting on the fence. Buying a used game is unlike a used vehicle, because, even with a used car, the maker of the car still has a chance you will buy parts that are necessary to run the vehicle from them if they go bad (and every car needs parts replaced, its part of maintenance). Having said that, the online pass/new game codes/whatever are stupid, and shouldn't be in there, what these developers need to do is make DLC that is worth having, and sell that to all users, allowing used gamers to buy something from the creators allowing them to make good money. Expansion packs come to mind. I chose not to buy used games because frankly buying a game used is worth more than saving $5, and around me, that's all you'll save. I wait a little longer, search for deals and end up buying a game a few weeks (or in some cases pre-order the game) cheaper than I can buy it used. Alas, thats another discussion for another topic, just a rant. Edited October 19, 2011 by madbassman39 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hot Heart Posted October 19, 2011 Report Share Posted October 19, 2011 It also opens that whole can of worms as to scoring games that have online as well. For example, I can see people who love all aspects of Gears of War to love the third because it has so much. For them they'd say "Oh, it should be a 9 or a 10 THERE IS JUST SO MUCH STUFF". But I do not like the competitive side, can't get enough people to make Horde or Beast mode worthwhile and only really play the campaign. The other content makes little to no difference to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyber Rat Posted October 19, 2011 Report Share Posted October 19, 2011 I wouldn't give a game a lower score for something I didn't encounter while playing, but I would note it. For example, if my game experience is worse because of the online pass, then yes, I would factor it in (for example, the system bugs out and I'm locked out of content I should have access to). If not, then I will note it at the end of the review in addition to anything else that needs to be noted ("The game requires a constant Internet connection, my gameplay wasn't impacted but here's how it could affect you..."). Generally, I make it a rule to write and consider everything I witnessed first hand and note everything I've heard that might be relevant, but not make it a part of my own verdict. That's as fair as I think anyone can be. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Mr. GOH! Posted October 20, 2011 Popular Post Report Share Posted October 20, 2011 (edited) Reviewers should take off points for whatever the fuck they want to. They should explain why, of course. But I don't want standardized review criteria; I want the critical world to be full of a myriad of conflicting opinions. That makes it more likely that I will be able to find a reviewers whose reviews serve *me* as a good guide due to shared preferences or a writing style I enjoy. Edited October 21, 2011 by Mr. GOH! 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thursday Next Posted October 20, 2011 Report Share Posted October 20, 2011 I agree with GOH. Reviewers should be free to mark as they wish. If only so that I can spot the ones that mark down games for stupid things like this. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P4: Gritty Reboot Posted October 20, 2011 Report Share Posted October 20, 2011 My trigger finger is tired from all the upvoting of comments in this thread. Good talk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pojodin Posted October 20, 2011 Report Share Posted October 20, 2011 What about the idea of a segmented review by means of accessibility? A reviewer would still review all of the available content, but within the confines of its availability so that the initial review would only cover content available when the game is purchased (noting that bonus content would be reviewed in the post-segment). That content is discussed and graded, and then another segment would immediately follow as a continuation of the review. This content, depending on what it is, could be discussed separately for its own merits, as well as what it adds to the overall game. Another assessment and grade can be given to the added content itself and/or the complete product. Could that be a way to allow reviewers to provide a more complete portrayal of what is being reviewed without having to dock points for a lack of reviewable content? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Posted October 20, 2011 Report Share Posted October 20, 2011 Directed at the above discussion: I'm still amazed every time I find anyone but the most extreme fanboys giving a damned about the final score. Please, people, I expect better from most of you. I hate to compare and contrast to movies and music, but I don't remember the last time I heard anyone critizise a film or music critic being slammed for the SCORE he gave a title; instead, people tend to focus on what is actually being said. Why can't we do this in gaming? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyber Rat Posted October 20, 2011 Report Share Posted October 20, 2011 Why can't we do this in gaming? Because gaming requires investing in a console or PC and investing in the actual games. Not just money, but time. And people like to feel good about their investments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thursday Next Posted October 21, 2011 Report Share Posted October 21, 2011 Directed at the above discussion: I'm still amazed every time I find anyone but the most extreme fanboys giving a damned about the final score. Please, people, I expect better from most of you. I hate to compare and contrast to movies and music, but I don't remember the last time I heard anyone critizise a film or music critic being slammed for the SCORE he gave a title; instead, people tend to focus on what is actually being said. Why can't we do this in gaming? Here is noted film critic Robert Ebert complaining that Thor has a Rotten Tomato score of 79%. http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011/05/_i_didnt_attend_the.html. That's the last time you heard of someone in the movies criticising the score that someone else gave a film. The number is important because it let's you gauge stuff at a glance. If something is rated 10% or lower, then I won't waste my time on it. If its 90%+ then I feel pretty confident that I could jump in without having to do loads of research. It also helps to aggregate scores so that you can easily see what the general consensus on a product is. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Posted October 21, 2011 Report Share Posted October 21, 2011 Rotten Tomatoes works differently from say Metacritic and is actually useful in that it very simply measures how many people liked it, gives a short description of the film, and quick access to a myriad of reviews. The tomatometer has nothing to do with what wether people score Modern Warfare 3 a 8 or 9 on the scale of arbitraryness. Unlike, say, metacritic. When Roger Ebert says that Thor has a 79% score on rotten tomatoes, in essence what he is saying is that "79% of critics liked it". Not that "they should have scored it slightly differently." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thursday Next Posted October 21, 2011 Report Share Posted October 21, 2011 Robert Ebert is still commenting on the score. That it was a score of 1 or 0 (Rotten or Fresh) is not the point. The point is that movie reviewers are no more immune to the lure of numbers than gamers. Robert was criticising the score Thor had. He didn't say "I can't believe the film had so many positive reviews." He said "Here is a film that is scoring 79% on Rotten Tomatoes. For what?" He criticised a number of critics for giving the film an arbitrary score of (>0.5) and believed it should have been lower (<0.5). This is very much Ebert giving a damn about the final score. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Posted October 21, 2011 Report Share Posted October 21, 2011 Are you missing my point on purpouse? I was talking about people bickering about details surrounding how one should score a game. Roger Ebert is saying he doesn't understand why most critics liked Thor. It is not the same thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thursday Next Posted October 21, 2011 Report Share Posted October 21, 2011 Directed at the above discussion: I'm still amazed every time I find anyone but the most extreme fanboys giving a damned about the final score. Please, people, I expect better from most of you. I hate to compare and contrast to movies and music, but I don't remember the last time I heard anyone critizise a film or music critic being slammed for the SCORE he gave a title; instead, people tend to focus on what is actually being said. Why can't we do this in gaming? I'm sorry, I thought this was about gamers giving a damn about the final score when film critics don't. I was lead to believe this because you wrote the words "giving a damned about the final score" and so I posted a link about Ebert clearly giving a damn about the final score to illustrate an incidence of a film critic giving a damn about the final score. It should have been obvious to me that when you said "giving a damned about the final score" you actually meant "bickering about details surrounding how one should score a game" even though you didn't say that. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Posted October 21, 2011 Report Share Posted October 21, 2011 I'm sorry that you lack the ability to tell from context clues that I was talking about the people giving a shit wether GT gives the next Modern Warfare an 8 or a 9.7. I wasn't talking about a rotten tomatoes score (how many critics like or dislike a title.) Considering rotten tomatoes doesn't even exist for gaming, I thought this would be pretty obvious. I made the mistake of assuming that because everyone else I linked that post to got it, you would understand as well. I'm sorry for that. I'll try to compensate for your deficiency in this area in the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hot Heart Posted October 21, 2011 Report Share Posted October 21, 2011 He didn't say "I can't believe the film had so many positive reviews." Sorry, T-Next, but it appears that is exactly what he is saying. If I have this right (never used Rotten Tomatoes), it is my understanding that a positive rating as classified by the site could be various individual final scores as long as it is positive, i.e. 3/5 or 7/10 or 89/100 are all considered 'positive'. Therefore, if enough critics are scoring above a certain threshold, they are seen as a positive. Enough with the belligerence, you two! Anyway, as far as caring about scores go. I'm sure a lot of us don't care about them, personally. But it's not like they're going anywhere and if they do have an impact either on sales or even developer bonuses (as the case may be, sadly) then it's understandable that we might worry about their usage/implementation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thursday Next Posted October 21, 2011 Report Share Posted October 21, 2011 Fair enough, perhaps the Ebert/RT example is not strictly comparing apples to apples, but since movie reviews tend not to attribute a number it's tough to find a truly analogous comparison. Let's put the movie thing to one side and accept that games are somewhat unique in that reviewers attempt to provide an objective numerical score to what is a more and more subjective entertainment medium. I think that in the 80's-90's games were much better able to be objectively judged as the mechanics were being worked out and the graphical and audio fidelity was coming on in leaps and bounds increasing immersion with every game. I'd also like to point out that I don't live or die by review scores. They just happen to be a good indicator of general consensus. As for arguing over seemingly small differences like 9.7 and 8, it's unfair to place all the blame on "extreme fanboys". As an industry game reviewers have pretty much established that ratings go from 7-10. So on that scale, and excuse the crude illustration: 7---------8|---------9-------|--10 8 to 9.7 is a pretty huge difference and if you feel invested in a product you may well feel justified in defending something that you care about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.