Are reviews too high?

alright ive been gaming since the snes days and many games seem extremely overrated. i noticed that the bigger name game would usually get high reviews like cod even if its no where near comparable to gears,halo,killzone or even resistance. final fantasy 13 while decent takes 30 hours to actually get interested in how is that comparable to lost odyssey and vesperia? in the end reviews are just someones opinion but we look at those to get a barometer on what games are good and what games are bad. if the systems paid for(cough activision) then what helps to get a game?

what do you guys think and has anyone else noticed this trend.

GTA IV and MGS4 definitely didn't deserve the 10s they got.

If they did deserve them, then GTA:SA and MGS3 should've got 11's, as they're both much better.

As I said in a similar thread ...

Yes games are rated too high

I think the problem is that at the start of each console generation the scores given out are too high. I think that is why we are starting to see a correction coming now ... games that would have been given a 9-9.5 are now routinely given 8-8.5, as perhaps they should have been from the get go.

Gamespot (and other review sites) are guilty of overscoring at the start of every generation, because they compare the new games to the games that were on the previous system. Whereas they should be comparing them to the best of genre available, regardless of the system they are on.

Instead they seem to be caught up in the new flash and style, the marketing hype, the graphics and a whole lot less about the core gameplay. i.e. what makes a game great.They essentially paint themselves into a corner, basically leaving themselves a scoring range of between 8-10.

As an example ... should MGS 4 have gotten a 10 when the stealth parts of the game (the core gameplay) had already been surpassed by other games years before on other systems? Sure the production values were awesome at the time and are completely top notch and it is a great game to boot. But the core stealth components had been done better in games like the Thief, Hitman and Splinter Cell series. Is there anything from a functional/gameplay point of view that could not have been done before? Hell even MGS 3 was a better "game" If the only differentiation is production values then you are handing out a high score based on style over substance.

Was Halo the best FPS on the XBOX? Yes it was. Was it the best FPS compared to what else was available? Hell no.There were many FPS already out on another system that were leagues ahead of it, and had been for some time.Just because it is new for that generation of whatever system, that shouldnt give it a "free ride" compared to something that is out on another system already and is better.

Was Halo the best FPS on the XBOX? Yes it was.

N3xus9

But that is just your opinion ( well and maybe a few other people too ) and there will be people who disagree!! All reviews are subjective and you cannot mark a game down now because of what might happen in 12 months time!

Makes me chuckle everytime I see something like this, people thinking review scores are "facts" rather than opinions.

I would say yes, and that is coming from someone who reads 5-6 different reviews of the same game when they're released.

Honestly I think one problem I have encountered since becoming interested in games again (around 3 months ago) is that in quite a lot of cases it feels like the review doesn't respect the reader enough to give a low score. For example, on the 1-10 scale, I think reviewers tend to believe that the readers will think a '7' is an 'average' game, or a '6' becoming a 'poor' game with a '9' being a very good game and a '10' a fantastic game. Maybe they don't trust their readers to actually read the whole article rather than just look at what is in my opinion a pretty arbitrary number at the end. I'd like to see more reviews where '5' is an average game, '7' is a good game, and a '10' is a timeless masterpiece. Even more though I'd like to see more sites just get rid of a number/rating system. Write a good, informed article and people sensible enough to care will read it.

I would say yes, and that is coming from someone who reads 5-6 different reviews of the same game when they're released.

Honestly I think one problem I have encountered since becoming interested in games again (around 3 months ago) is that in quite a lot of cases it feels like the review doesn't respect the reader enough to give a low score. For example, on the 1-10 scale, I think reviewers tend to believe that the readers will think a '7' is an 'average' game, or a '6' becoming a 'poor' game with a '9' being a very good game and a '10' a fantastic game. Maybe they don't trust their readers to actually read the whole article rather than just look at what is in my opinion a pretty arbitrary number at the end. I'd like to see more reviews where '5' is an average game, '7' is a good game, and a '10' is a timeless masterpiece. Even more though I'd like to see more sites just get rid of a number/rating system. Write a good, informed article and people sensible enough to care will read it.

N-J-S

THIS!

[QUOTE="N3xus9"]

Was Halo the best FPS on the XBOX? Yes it was.

SadPSPAddict

But that is just your opinion ( well and maybe a few other people too ) and there will be people who disagree!! All reviews are subjective and you cannot mark a game down now because of what might happen in 12 months time!

Makes me chuckle everytime I see something like this, people thinking review scores are "facts" rather than opinions.

Ummm what other first person shooter was on the Xbox when Halo came out?

And who said scores are fact?

In my opinion there shouldn't even be any scores for reviews. Tell me what is good about the game, what is new and different, what it does better than other games in the genre, what it does worse than other games in the genre. Is it fun? Is it boring? What could be done better.

If you are going to add a score next to it, make sure that it is comparitive to what else is already available in the genre ... not just what is available on the platform. Got nothing to do with what may happen in 12 months time.

Always makes me chuckle when "holier than thou" types make assumptions.

[QUOTE="SadPSPAddict"]

[QUOTE="N3xus9"]

Was Halo the best FPS on the XBOX? Yes it was.

N3xus9

But that is just your opinion ( well and maybe a few other people too ) and there will be people who disagree!! All reviews are subjective and you cannot mark a game down now because of what might happen in 12 months time!

Makes me chuckle everytime I see something like this, people thinking review scores are "facts" rather than opinions.

Ummm what other first person shooter was on the Xbox when Halo came out?

Relevance??

[QUOTE="SadPSPAddict"]

[QUOTE="N3xus9"]

Was Halo the best FPS on the XBOX? Yes it was.

N3xus9

But that is just your opinion ( well and maybe a few other people too ) and there will be people who disagree!! All reviews are subjective and you cannot mark a game down now because of what might happen in 12 months time!

Makes me chuckle everytime I see something like this, people thinking review scores are "facts" rather than opinions.

And who said scores are fact?

In my opinion there shouldn't even be any scores for reviews. Tell me what is good about the game, what is new and different, what it does better than other games in the genre, what it does worse than other games in the genre. Is it fun? Is it boring? What could be done better.

If you are going to add a score next to it, make sure that it is comparitive to what else is already available in the genre ... not just what is available on the platform. Got nothing to do with what may happen in 12 months time.

You did - by saying Halo was the best.....

I agree regarding scores - I don't pay much attention to the number, I always read the words. I often find that something the reviewer dislikes is something I won't mind or will even like. I also think comparisons to other games aren't particularly helpful unless you happen to have played said other game!

Surely the score should reflect one thing only - how much fun was the game to play! :D

Over the years I've found reviews to be an extremely poor way for me to decide which games to buy. I've wound up with a lot of overhyped AAA titles which I quite frankly found extremely mediocre. On the other hand, if I listened to reviews I would have missed out on three of my favorite games of this generation.

They can over-rate, they can under-rate, doesn't matter. I've found my gut instinct to be a much more reliable method of choosing which games to buy.

I do get a chuckle out of how an average game gets about a 7.5 or 8 these days though. Seems to me that (1+10)/2 = 5.5

They can over-rate, they can under-rate, doesn't matter. I've found my gut instinct to be a much more reliable method of choosing which games to buy.Jackc8

[QUOTE="N3xus9"]

[QUOTE="SadPSPAddict"]

But that is just your opinion ( well and maybe a few other people too ) and there will be people who disagree!! All reviews are subjective and you cannot mark a game down now because of what might happen in 12 months time!

Makes me chuckle everytime I see something like this, people thinking review scores are "facts" rather than opinions.

SadPSPAddict

And who said scores are fact?

In my opinion there shouldn't even be any scores for reviews. Tell me what is good about the game, what is new and different, what it does better than other games in the genre, what it does worse than other games in the genre. Is it fun? Is it boring? What could be done better.

If you are going to add a score next to it, make sure that it is comparitive to what else is already available in the genre ... not just what is available on the platform. Got nothing to do with what may happen in 12 months time.

You did - by saying Halo was the best.....

I agree regarding scores - I don't pay much attention to the number, I always read the words. I often find that something the reviewer dislikes is something I won't mind or will even like. I also think comparisons to other games aren't particularly helpful unless you happen to have played said other game!

Surely the score should reflect one thing only - how much fun was the game to play! :D

Halo was a release title that released the same time as the Xbox ... there were no other FPS's on the Xbox other than Halo on release ... ergo it was the best.

Was it the best FPS available at the time, considering the PC had lots available already??

How can a score reflect fun ... when my idea fun may be different than your idea fun, and your idea of fun may different from the reviewers idea of fun?

[QUOTE="SadPSPAddict"]

[QUOTE="N3xus9"]

And who said scores are fact?

In my opinion there shouldn't even be any scores for reviews. Tell me what is good about the game, what is new and different, what it does better than other games in the genre, what it does worse than other games in the genre. Is it fun? Is it boring? What could be done better.

If you are going to add a score next to it, make sure that it is comparitive to what else is already available in the genre ... not just what is available on the platform. Got nothing to do with what may happen in 12 months time.

N3xus9

You did - by saying Halo was the best.....

I agree regarding scores - I don't pay much attention to the number, I always read the words. I often find that something the reviewer dislikes is something I won't mind or will even like. I also think comparisons to other games aren't particularly helpful unless you happen to have played said other game!

Surely the score should reflect one thing only - how much fun was the game to play! :D

Halo was a release title that released the same time as the Xbox ... there were no other FPS's on the Xbox other than Halo on release ... ergo it was the best.

Was it the best FPS available at the time, considering the PC had lots available already??

How can a score reflect fun ... when my idea fun may be different than your idea fun, and your idea of fun may different from the reviewers idea of fun?

A review is subjective so your point is obvious. My idea of whether the graphics are good might differ from yours, we might disagree on whether the load times are too long or not my point all along is that reviews AND scores are all a subjective opinion. If I reviewed MW3 I'd give it a 1 because I can't stand FPS games so, in my opinion, that automatiacally makes them not fun and not interesting. I will probably score NFS The Run a little higher than GS not least because I'm finding the game fun enough that the load times don't bother me too much. None the less it was correct of Caro to point it out in the written review - which leans itself towards the "don't use a score" arguement.

So back to the point, what makes a game good? Obviously the enjoyment to be had playing it is the main factor - hence fun. If graphics were the be all and end all no-one would still be playing games like MW2 etc etc. So I put the question back to you, if not fun/enjoyment then what should a score be telling you about??

Subjective, subjective, subjective :D:D

Halo was a release title that released the same time as the Xbox ... there were no other FPS's on the Xbox other than Halo on release ... ergo it was the best.

Was it the best FPS available at the time, considering the PC had lots available already??

N3xus9

I have to disagree - I don't want a review to tell me that compared to another platform a game is bad - I might not have the other platform so a review and/or score should only be based on that platform! Well that's my opinion anyway :D

I think a more significant question would be "are reviewers high?"

It astonishes me that some games can average right around a 9.5. I thought critics were supposed to, eh, critique. A lot of reviews seem to be like OMG this game is awesome, there are flaws, but its still super kewl. 10/10.SoNin360

alright ive been gaming since the snes days and many games seem extremely overrated. i noticed that the bigger name game would usually get high reviews like cod even if its no where near comparable to gears,halo,killzone or even resistance. final fantasy 13 while decent takes 30 hours to actually get interested in how is that comparable to lost odyssey and vesperia? in the end reviews are just someones opinion but we look at those to get a barometer on what games are good and what games are bad. if the systems paid for(cough activision) then what helps to get a game?

what do you guys think and has anyone else noticed this trend.

ps2snesgod

GTAIV and MGS4 definately deserved 10/10 everything else, yeah probably.

Reviews are definately too high and way too predictable. AAA game? Pretty sure it'll get an 8+, no matter the end product. And a high review score equals higher sales and since the gaming industry is aiming more and more for profit I'm pretty sure it's just untrustworthy. The last couple of games that scored high scores barely deserved it. They were very good, just not exceptional like a 9.0 score implies.

Boo hoo a reviewer's opinion differs from mine. Right your own reviews if it bothers you so much.

i think there are a lot more overrated than underrated games. LoG-Sacrament