As most gamers do in todays gaming environment, I almost always research and investigate most titles before laying down my money for a new game. Frankly I don't have as much money or free time as I used to and want to make sure I get some bang for my buck. I tend to watch as much gameplay footage as possible, hit the forums and read a few reviews. Now-a-days, however, Reviews - particularly from the bigger publications and websites - aren't as honest or as trustworthy as they used to be. Most big releases receive questionable scores in hindsight, often never lower than 8 when in hindsight it should've been a 6, and often a popular series' latest instalment is rated higher than superior-but-lesser-known titles. Some games receive the covetted 10/10, and in two months time the internet is filled with the general consensus that the game is utter crap. What happened?Reviewers often give conflicting scores to their written opinions - the review will be cite tales of utter and extreme frustration and boredom, or how simply unfun playing the game is, and then drop an 8.5 at the end as if they're trying to dodge a bullet, with 8.5 being considered neither great nor bad. A new title, similar to a popular series but with improvements and new ideas will emerge and be given a 6/10 and insulted for being too similar. Then the next installment in the popular series - which is exactly the same as previous entries, now with slightly flashier graphics - will receive a 9 or a 10. Why the double standards?Anyway, I think the current review system no longer serve the general public's needs. Most gamers want to know one thing: is it worth the asking price! The 5 Star system is the best current system as it's concise and simple, however it's often scrapped or used only in film. In its place we get the 10/10 system or the 100 point scale. Each have their benefits. The 5 Star system forces the reviewer to rate the game into one of five levels. The major problem is that there isn't really a lot of difference between a 1 star game and a 2 star game; no one really wants to play them and so most games either get a 1 star or a 4 star, and then some people like to use half-stars, creating a basic 10/10 system. The 10/10 system is better as it gives more ratings and thus allows for greater reviewer detail however, again, the difference between a 4/10 and a 5/10 is moot; most people won't play them. Furthermore, most reviewer systems like to use decimal scores, such 9.2, defeating the purpose of the 10/10 system as it becomes a 100 point scale. Now, the 100 point scale is fantastic as it gives a lot of room for really intricate and detailed reviews... however in order to justify the difference between an 66 and a 67, the review needs to be more detailed than most people care to read. Instead of one or two page reviews, a 100 point scale really needs a small thesis about the game to justify such a massive scale. We also see that around 70/80 is the cut off point for most gamers; if a game scores a 69 or lower most people won't care to play it unless they were already going to play it before the review.Personaly, I think we need a new system that reflects the basic question - a Three Star system, so people instantly get the info they want: is the game worth my money. One star simply means it's a bad game and isn't worth playing. I feel getting a game finished and out there to buy is worth one star at least for the effort. Two stars means its either worth renting to play through it or you should buy it if its really cheap, because its good but not worth the purchase price. Three stars means its a great game and worth your money. This forces reviewers to be decisive - is it worth it not? Instead of bickering over 8.9s and 9.1s, people would simply get the info they want.What do you guys think? 3 Stars, 5 Stars, 10/10, or 100 points?
I don't think any of those systems will make a difference if the reviews are tainted by publisher's clout and advertising budget. Personally, I use a monetary system as a rating. How much do I think the game is worth. What I would be willing to pay for it.
You trust the asshats and smacktards that review games? Critics are usually arrogant and close minded. I only read gamespy or IGN to see what the console mainstream are up to. The idea of any of these sites actually comeing out with anything worth reading since Fargo left for Blizzard is truly laughable.
Gamespot is a giant advertising site with what amounts to advertorials since there is so little content they become "GAME XYZ Good: Graphics Bad: only 3 hot chicks to sleep with Score: 8.5 bananas out of 12.6 hammers."
Scores are meaningless. Whats the diffrence between 3 and 4 stars? Is 5 stars a must buy? Even if you don't LIKE Roackstair's new rape simulator? Haveing a numerical system to define what should be a short summary is sooooo last generation.
ANY rating system is flawed, not through its information but rather because there is a human doing a opinion based, biased and probably incompetent (Arma2 and Mount&Blade wants to say something bout dat) analysis.
The best way to get any information out of any review is to know the reviewer. Is he Anthony Galgagos? (Whatever) Did he give it 4 dorritoes? Then its probably a game where you will get ganked, spawn camped or suitabled griefed somehow.
Is the person speaking Shawn 'Certis' Andrich? Is he talking about Synergy? No? Then its probably a good game. Just stay away if he uses any buzzwords to describe "emergent" or "inovative and different" . He plays Japanese games. Willingly.
(Edit: Just want to point out that Certis is in no way an asshat nor are any of the people I read and listen to at GWJ. Apart from Certis who is a total asshat!)
If an asshat is reviewing a game, the score is worth as much as his advice on how be just like him.
I think I rambled on a little bit there...
Heh...was pretty funny though
You are right of course, the question whether or not the critic has become jaded will shaft any potential meaning in a review of anything at all, let alone just games. As they say, the medium is the message...just design your own processes and hang on for the ride, everythings a gamble at some level.
I don’t give a rat’s ass about the score. I read the review.
I have a similar mindset. I mean some of my favorite series are lucky if they get 7 because these so called professional reviewers penalize the series for the very thing that fans of the series enjoy, aka maybe gameplay is slow laid back for example. There was on reviewer who thought it was appropriate to go after Afrika and the Endless Ocean series as boring. Hey, those series are not for everyone, but they do a pretty good job at what they do. It's a mistake to think that the guy, or gal, who gushes over MW2 is equipped to play and enjoy a picture taking game.
Anyway, I usually ignore scores unless its a 1 or 2 which usually means you're lucky if you can get the game to start. I'd say buggy as hell but some top rated games get their perfect scores despite being buggy as hell too.
Reviews have two ranges - the range of possible scores and the used/effective range. So while 100 point scales have a lot of room to move, they tend to only use the 60-90 range, with a few outliers.
Scott (from Board Games With Scott) talks about this a lot, and he proposed a similar system - green, yellow, and red light. The problem here is that if you have four games that are all green lights, which is greener?
I use metacritic for almost all of my game purchases now. I look up what the metascore is and see how large the sample size is. I then compare that with IGN and PC Gamer's reviews and make a decision on whether the game is worth looking into.
It isn't about what system you use. You could argue that a 100% system does not really make much sense as it is more or less not possible to rate the fun of a game this concise. A maximum of 5 Stars might be insufficient as you don't make a difference between really great games and great games. The reason that nowadays games get such high scores has to do with a) publisher and customers.There are some publishers who do pressure magazines, reviewers into giving good scores. But more importantly it seems that the majority of customers (problem with gaming is that a large portion of gamers might be fanboys) actually wants these high scores.Back in the day I used to buy a magazine that gave strict scores. 60-70% meant that a game was enjoyable with larger flaws and might be tried out by fans of the genre. 70-80% meant that a game was good. If you like the genre, you should give a try. 80-90% was a must buy for everyone who likes the genre. 90%+ (around 1-3 per year) was a must buy for every gamer).This magazine had to go out of business. Other more successfull magazines started giving our better ratings where at some point below 70% meant "Bad game, do not play" and below 80% meant "only for fans".Nowadays you just need to browse comments on a review of a good game that got something between 80-90% or even 70-90%. THe comments will be full of people whining about that the game should have gotten 90%+.IMHO fanboys got what they wanted (for publishers it probably wouldn't make a much of a difference if ratings where perceived differently. They'd just pressure reviewers to give at least 70% instead 80%).
Most reviewers started out as gamers, and they're still fanboys for some franchises, or some types of games over others. Combine that with the corruption in the review industry and you get a system that works really poorly. Final Fantasy 13 is a great example, a lot of reviewers simply overlooked all the problems (including an incredibly terrible 360 port) and gave it high scores because it's a Final Fantasy game and has pretty cutscenes on the PS3.
In a lot of ways, the best method is just to wait a couple weeks/months and see what the wider reaction is. Pretty cutscenes don't impress people a month after a game is out, solid gameplay does.
There was a point in time when I enjoyed getting the latest and greatest pc games. Now I am older, less likely to jump on any game hype bandwagon and tend to buy games that have been released or been out for some time. Much like the old days, its 'caveat emptor' or "buyer beware". There are currently so many choices from the past that are excellent titles and are fully patched that I still want to play. Most of these are far cheaper and fun to play than trying to get the newest game working. I recommend slowing down to enjoy the experience of gaming, ignore most reviews except those giving tech specs, breakdown of DRM.
Of course, if your cutting edge tech then you will try everything anyways and sometimes you find a nugget, and othertimes your just slogging through a minefield of muck. Reviews are nice for when you step away from gaming for a while(always need a break) and then return or if you don't have the time and/or money to experiment.
I take reviews with a grain of salt. I have my own likes and dislikes. For example God of War. I am not interested in it AT ALL. But it's very popular and people seem to like it. If I were to review it my score would reflect my personal taste.
Actually ArmaII was rated mostly fairly, it had major flaws at launch which are mostly fixed now so 70-80% was fine - meaningless but since metacritic influences sales it got the nessesary 75 minimum even with all the idiots.
Im talking about the reviwers comments who clearly don't have a clue what they are playing and then just get frustrated and say silly things like "Worst game I've ever played". People look to game reviwes for expert opinion not for "Hey dawg!" "Dis is da new shit!" but everyone who knows a reviewer knows they aint experts at anything but using phrases like "mixed bag" or "tight graphics" and "compelling gameplay".
If a fool gives a game 60% and another idiot gives it 95% do they cancel each other out?
The perfect score for ArmaII is 82.348% btw. - That was a joke. - There is no 'score' for Arma II - if you like battlefield combat simulation they play it. If not, don't play it. Simples!
The "which green is greener" is just the fanboi mentality. I can't decide which game is better than any other game. I love my UFO but do I love Baldurs gate more? I don't know! Why would I take the time to work it out when I could be PLAYING THEM AGAIN?!? I say let the fanbois argue over which is better in the internets bowels for time eternal. Give me intelligent disscusion about the game, with footage and multiple viewpoints. Thanks.
Demo's and beta's and customer reviews ..OH MY!!! You are forced to read these new since any site or tv show or magazine cannot be trusted since they are only about the money. Also it s good to see what a company says about their game so you can pick out the fake customer reviews that are put up by people in that company. If the review sounds alot like the press release then its probably a pr guy pretending to be a regular consumer. Also anyomapany which forces you to pay for a demo or beta know's that game is garbage.. Thats why EA wants to charge for them now. Even thought they now changed what they call a demo. Also when reading customer reviews you have to watch for fanboys..If they are a fanboy of the series they usually will give a higher review score and if its a competitor to the game they are a fanboy of then will give it a lower score.. Of course CnC 4 was soo bad that even the fanboys gave that the correct score.(3 on gamespot)But of course the official gamespot review gives it a 7. Then you look at the top of the page and there are 3 advertisements for CnC4. Since money is what drives these show, sites and mags you will always get this.. All hail the dollar!!!
There is, however, one reviewer who will never overhype a game. His reviews are also quite entertaining. And yes, I am talking about Yahtzee.
Also, it is quite fun to go to metacritic and compare the "pro" reviews with the actual consumer reviews. Case in point, lol: http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/pc/assassinscreed2
http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/pc/silenthunter5
http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/pc/commandandconquer4
That's why you read the review and not the score. 'Professional' review sites are pretty blatantly corrupt these days, and give scores a bonus based on how much a publisher sunk into advertising; and can't give negative reviews of major publishers in fear of the company pulling advertising. As bad as any game is, I challenge you to find any mainstream big publisher title these days that gets less than a 6/10 no matter how shitty it is. 10/10s are given out like candy, even though only a small handful of games should ever be considered to have obtained such perfection. Not to mention with the number of games churned out these days, many reviewers don't seriously play each game assigned to them. In fact, with some reviews it's pretty clear the person writing the review didn't even play the entire game.
No, the true rating is generally hidden in the actual words. If a game gets 8s and 9s, and yet the only good thing the reviews really have to say is that the production values were good (ie the gameplay isn't worth mentioning), then you can safely assume the score was bribed up at least a few points or there was massive bias by the reviewer. However, when they spend a lot of time talking about the actual gameplay, it's a far better indication that the reviewer actually wanted to play the game instead of the review just being work. This works in reverse as well; if a review gives a game a really bad score without going into any detail whatsoever as to what was wrong with it, you can safely assume the person playing it didn't want to play it in the first place (or flat out didn't play it, and is just being an spiteful ass).
The most important thing is of course to read multiple reviews. Reviews are ultimately opinions, and like anything else you should not be basing decisions on the opinions of one or two strangers.
Like the multiple 3 sentence reviews at Amazon.com for most EA games? Oh Noz theyz not real?
Back to review sites. I find myself looking more and more to sites that gather up a large number of scores and then give an average of all the scores. Like Metacritic.com.
For a while I'd use 3 review sites, gamespy, ign and gamespot. After a while I realised they weren't very reliable and switched to an average of critics (while reading a few of the reviews in more detail). I've now become even more disillusioned with reviews and I rely on user ratings as much as the professional ones.
As to the rating system to use, you need to be able to distinguish between decent-very good games, and a 3 star system doesn't allow that. To get around the '0-59% = don't buy' issue, you could always just have a different scale - red, yellow, or green, and if green then an additional rating of say 1-3 stars depending on how good it is. Red means don't buy, yellow means it's hit and miss, and green means good, very good or exceptional.
The best advice I can give... Like what you like, don't like what You don't like, and to hell with what anyone else things. Be your own person even if that means you're the only person in the world playing a particular game. As long as you like it and it makes you happy, it doesn't matter what anyone else thinks. Don't be a clone.
"Hmmm. I have 20 games to review this week. What's this? A turn based game? I guess I'll play it for 10 minutes and see if it's any good..."
"Why are you wasting time with that game? Atari just gave us more bags of money. Work on one of their titles. Give it to Joey."
"But Joey's a halo junkie who hates anything turn based or has the word "strategy" in it."
"Then it will be an unbiased review then, right?"
Elemental: War of Magic Review ~ by Joey Douche
Me no like game. Me had to read texts.
Game said war but lots of clicks on things.
Thick manual is good for doorstop.
2.43 / 10
How exactly does your philosophy actually help someone choose a game? The reason people read reviews is to figure out whether they should throw their 60 dollars down for a game or not. Your position takes place after the purchase and not before which is completely useless in the decision part of the equation. As for sharing your like of a game despite medicore or low scores, well word of mouth and fan reviews work real well for that. I usually hit the official and game forums after launch too to see what's happening.
I do love his reviews, but more for the entertainment than the actual reviewing. After his, and I quote "marriage proposal to Saints Row 2 disguised as a review" He just couldn't be trusted anymore. On PC it had to be one of the worst games I've played in ten years.
I buy the games I like simply because I think I'll like them. Like the DBZ fighting games that come out on almost every system. They get horrid reviews except by the companies that make them. Any serious fighting game aficionado would avoid one of those games like the plague. I buy them because I like the subject matter, period.
In my opinion people who buy games just because someone else thinks it's good are nothing but "sheeple". It's about subject matter. Either way though you'll never actually know if a game is "fun" until you've played it no matter how many reviewers might think it's fun or might think it's boring. No one can account for your individual tastes. I know some people that Love shooters and yet they can't stand Any of the Halo games. That completely goes against public opinion but they like what they like.
My philosophy Won't help someone chose a game if they're looking to "get their money's worth" but it will help them buy the games that are about the things they like. Just as your example given about "Africa and the Endless Ocean". Many people wouldn't like games like those. If you go into it knowing you like the subject content though does it really matter? Someone who likes massive action and explosions isn't going to like those games no matter how good they are or no matter how many sites say they are the most awesome games ever made. If you like taking pictures though then these games are probably on your radar.
Did you play it coop? It was one of the best coop games I've ever played in terms of sheer fun. We wish all the other games had the same level of coop.
Also - a game about taking pictures? Seriously? Are you serious? Seriously?
Sounds fine.
If I were making a game review site today, I would probably do something like the following:
5-Star review system with defined rating levels.
UNPLAYABLE Frequent CTD, hardware incompatibilities, showstopping bugs, infected with UbiDRM, etc. Obvious attempt at charging retail prices for a beta product with a promise to "fix it in post".
SHOVELWARE Works, but probably isn't worth playing even by fans of the genre. Poorly designed and/or a blatant ripoff of whatever was popular last year.
MEH A decent game, but nothing noteworthy. This may be due to minor flaws, a lack of innovation, or simply being designed for such a small subset of players that all twelve of them have already heard of it and sent in their pre-orders. You'll probably be better off renting this one or waiting until it goes to the bargain bin.
GOOD Worth paying full price for. Has noticeable gameplay innovations and/or refinements and actually does what it says on the box. Likely to appeal to most fans of the genre, and possibly others as well.
AWESOME Buy this or you won't understand what your friends are talking about for a month. Well polished and advances the genre with significant innovations. A must-buy for genre fans and others alike.
Reviewer Profiles that include lists of each reviewer's preferred genres and favorite games, so you can decide how relevant their tastes are to your own. These should be easily accessible from the review page itself.
Good/Bad/Other Summary. Gamespy does this already and it's a good idea. Shows you the game's strong and weak points at a glance.
Multiple Viewpoints. Each game should be reviewed by multiple people, with at least one being a fan of the game's genre and at least one not being a fan of that genre. If Strategy Steve says Elemental is awesome, you know it's a good game for strategy fans. If Halo Junkie Joey says it's pretty decent, you know it might be worth checking out even if you don't usually play TBS games.
Average user score including comments and a breakdown of how many people voted for each score.
No Publisher Advertising. This creates conflicts of interest, as we've seen in the past. I'm not sure how else you could make money, but maybe donations or site-branded merchandise would be a way to go. Ads for things gamers want that aren't games is another option. Bawls, Jolt soda, and computer gear for example.
Now I'm starting to wish I knew web design...
Honestly if I had played it on a console(Like i believe Yahtzee did) it had the potential of giving a GTA game a run for it's money, but the afterthought of a PC port was just horrid.
I do like to read reviews of really terrible games. They can be entertaining and usually seem to be the times the reviewer is at their most honest. GameFaqs user reviews also can be fun to read just for the LoLs.
A three star system wouldn't work for me. I like to know how games compare to each other and 3 stars doesn't leave room for that. Personally 10 points is good to me. 100 is nice if you view it as basically a 10 point system with some padding for saying "this game is great, but not quite a great as <put in your favorite game>".
As for the actual reviews I agree for the most part. Some are just ridiculous. The philosophy I use is to find a few reveiwers or companies I trust and base your descisions mainly on that. That and read multiple reviews. Personally I fnd the print magazines (at least the one left for PC that I know of) to be the best reviews as they usually play most of the game and seem to be more consistant. You just have to wait longer for the review though.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
