Does this annoy you about reviews?

How many times have you seen a review come out for a new game that falls short of expectations and the immediate gamer response is, "It should be higher!" Almost as bad are the ones who go, "They got it all wrong. I've played an hour of this game and it's a least a 9.0, maybe a 9.5."

You've played AN HOUR. That's a very small portion of a game that's (hopefully) much longer. I know demos can give you a decent impression of what a game's gonna be like, but playing a game for an hour and determining it's worth based on that is poor reviewing. How seriously would you take somebody that told you a game sucked that they only played for 15 minutes? Some people have short attention spans and different tastes. Likewise, judging a game based off of an hour of gameplay is like judging a book by its cover.

Does anyone else agree with this?

It annoys me when people start treating the review scores like decrees handed down from the golden gods of gaming. They start referring to things as AAAE or AAZ007 or whatever the hell, and then they use it for the sake of argument. And we all know that review scores are totally worthless when you're actually playing the game, and that a game can get 500 As and still suck balls. I just don't understand it.

I think I've played enough of Bowser's Inside story, Heart Gold, and Tri to review them, but I'm not until I complete them. Every good review should at least finish story/campaign mode before reviewing. Or they could do what joystiq.com does: Play a few hours and give it a "Snap Judgment," which isn't a full review (it doesn't even include a score) but give readers an Idea of what to expect.

It does, but the most annoying thing about reviews would be this

I wish they'd just do away with the numbering system.

The problem you talk about TC stems a lot from this reason alone. People don't see a 9 out of 10 and immediately think bad, and it's because generally in reviews that's the way it's portrayed.

People on this board even have stated that they hate the 5 point system because a 4 out of 5 is not as good (or can't be as good) as a 9 out of 10. Like wtf who cares about what the number is?

I never use these number to determine what game I want. Why do so many people care, and why do they feel they have to trick them into thinking the game is a 9 or a 10 as you stated TC? Why can't they just say "****'s good man 8)"?

You want to know what really annoys me about reviews. They give a game an ok score, something like Lost Odyssey because although the game is great and they like it, it doesn't break new ground for the genre therefore gets an average score. But then a game like Splinter Cell Conviction comes around and reinvents the series and makes a very modern stealth game and the reviewer doesn't score 9.0 or higher because it's not like the old games! This site in my opinion is infamous for terrible reviews and they do this type of stuff all the time.

It does, but the most annoying thing about reviews would be this

I wish they'd just do away with the numbering system.

The problem you talk about TC stems a lot from this reason alone. People don't see a 9 out of 10 and immediately think bad, and it's because generally in reviews that's the way it's portrayed.

People on this board even have stated that they hate the 5 point system because a 4 out of 5 is not as good (or can't be as good) as a 9 out of 10. Like wtf who cares about what the number is?

I never use these number to determine what game I want. Why do so many people care, and why do they feel they have to trick them into thinking the game is a 9 or a 10 as you stated TC? Why can't they just say "****'s good man 8)"?

treedoor

This is pretty much the only thing that bothers me about reviews. If a site/mag has a 10 point scale they should use it. This wierd trend where only things 8 and up are worth buying is pathetic and its the reviewrs fault to some extent.

[QUOTE="treedoor"]

It does, but the most annoying thing about reviews would be this

I wish they'd just do away with the numbering system.

The problem you talk about TC stems a lot from this reason alone. People don't see a 9 out of 10 and immediately think bad, and it's because generally in reviews that's the way it's portrayed.

People on this board even have stated that they hate the 5 point system because a 4 out of 5 is not as good (or can't be as good) as a 9 out of 10. Like wtf who cares about what the number is?

I never use these number to determine what game I want. Why do so many people care, and why do they feel they have to trick them into thinking the game is a 9 or a 10 as you stated TC? Why can't they just say "****'s good man 8)"?

This is pretty much the only thing that bothers me about reviews. If a site/mag has a 10 point scale they should use it. This wierd trend where only things 8 and up are worth buying is pathetic and its the reviewrs fault to some extent.

I think they need a 120 point system for presentation alone, then another 240 points for gameplay/design, and 140 for story. 500 point system is the future B)mayceV

[QUOTE="mayceV"] I think they need a 120 point system for presentation alone, then another 240 points for gameplay/design, and 140 for story. 500 point system is the future B)Jandurin

[QUOTE="Jandurin"][QUOTE="mayceV"] I think they need a 120 point system for presentation alone, then another 240 points for gameplay/design, and 140 for story. 500 point system is the future B)mayceV

[QUOTE="mayceV"][QUOTE="Jandurin"] What they NEED to do, is do the ABCDE method. And then as a group decide what games reflect each letter. Then stick to it.Jandurin

It should just be bad,good,great and thats it nothing more complicated.

i think they should do away with scores in general and simply have:

• buy it
• rent it
• stay away

because that's all that really matters to consumers anyways

It should just be bad,good,great and thats it nothing more complicated.

rzepak

It does, but the most annoying thing about reviews would be this

I wish they'd just do away with the numbering system.

The problem you talk about TC stems a lot from this reason alone. People don't see a 9 out of 10 and immediately think bad, and it's because generally in reviews that's the way it's portrayed.

People on this board even have stated that they hate the 5 point system because a 4 out of 5 is not as good (or can't be as good) as a 9 out of 10. Like wtf who cares about what the number is?

I never use these number to determine what game I want. Why do so many people care, and why do they feel they have to trick them into thinking the game is a 9 or a 10 as you stated TC? Why can't they just say "****'s good man 8)"?

treedoor

This is how I rate games, it's true actually :P

7 means you got the concept right and is heading towards the right direction; games that fall into this category are Mirrors edge, the conduit

8 means good game but it won't wow!! you, it also has lots of minor flaws or one huge flaw; game: MKWii, Heavenly Sword

9 means great game, you need to buy this one if you're into the genre; it won't wow!! you but there's lots of polish; NSMBW

10 (or close to)means this game is the best for what it is, and it will wow!! you multiple times, it has both polish and innovation: SMG

Perfect review system =

1: Below expectation

2: As expected

3: Exceeds expectation

I think they need a 120 point system for presentation alone, then another 240 points for gameplay/design, and 140 for story. 500 point system is the future B)mayceV

That's basically how you rate games today, well the numbers depend on the person ofc, someone puts more weight into story than others etc. It wouldn't work as a universal rating system

Perfect review system = 1: Below expectation 2: As expected 3: Exceeds expectationsalxis

[QUOTE="salxis"]Perfect review system = 1: Below expectation 2: As expected 3: Exceeds expectationJandurin

you know what grinds my gears ? When people review a game without spending much time on it . they play it for a few hours and act like they know everything about it . i also hate when they review a game thats not done like empire total war . they put it out to early and it has to many bugs .

It does'nt really bother me. You will know if a game is good or bad within the first hours or even minutes of playing it. I bought Haze at full price when it released and knew within 30 minutes I had made a mistake. If a game starts off bad its rare it will get better the more you play.

i also hate when they review a game thats not done like empire total war . they put it out to early and it has to many bugs .

dontshackzmii

It does'nt really bother me. You will know if a game is good or badwithin the first hours or even minutes of playing it. I bought Haze at full price when it released and know within 30 minutes I had made a mistake. If a game is starts off bad its rare it will get better the more you play.

coltsfan4ever

It annoys me when people start treating the review scores like decrees handed down from the golden gods of gaming. They start referring to things as AAAE or AAZ007 or whatever the hell, and then they use it for the sake of argument. And we all know that review scores are totally worthless when you're actually playing the game, and that a game can get 500 As and still suck balls. I just don't understand it.

MangaJ

This is the first smart thing I have read on gamespot this week.I don'tcare that some random guy on the internet gives my favorite game an 8, what bugs me is the internet zeolets that somehow think its more than just an opinion of some random guy on the internet.

What annoys me most about reviews is the constant flip flopping. Now I'm not saying that every game is fantastic but I hate it when reviewers are all "But what they are doing with the 3rd person shooter hasn't been done before." And they expect me to think it is a bad thing when they will go on about say Gears of War and say "It is everything we have seen before in a 3rd person shooter, and yet we like it." Judging their pick not in facts, because they are both "the same old thing" but in the fact that it is a big franchise or other factors are making them change their judgement that have nothing to do with what they are talking about.

yeah, you shouldn't judge a game's overall quality until you've beat it unless it's such trash that it's not even worth finishing. Like Bioshock, for example.Jandurin

Wait....BIOSHOCK 1 was trash to you?

[QUOTE="Jandurin"]yeah, you shouldn't judge a game's overall quality until you've beat it unless it's such trash that it's not even worth finishing. Like Bioshock, for example.Persistantthug

Wait....BIOSHOCK 1 was trash to you?

[QUOTE="Persistantthug"]

[QUOTE="Jandurin"]yeah, you shouldn't judge a game's overall quality until you've beat it unless it's such trash that it's not even worth finishing. Like Bioshock, for example.Jandurin

Wait....BIOSHOCK 1 was trash to you?

Yeah, I'm gonna say that's one you should play till the end before judging it. ;)

I had a friend who simply said that he had no interest in the game. When I asked why he said that he saw a friend playing it on a laptop. He didn't "see the appeal." :?

[QUOTE="Jandurin"][QUOTE="Persistantthug"]

Wait....BIOSHOCK 1 was trash to you?

Yeah, I'm gonna say that's one you should play till the end before judging it. ;)

I had a friend who simply said that he had no interest in the game. When I asked why he said that he saw a friend playing it on a laptop. He didn't "see the appeal." :?

The way it should be:

1-3 = Hahahahaha, oh wow, this game sucks ASS.

4-5 = Meh, don't bother.

6-7 = not bad; decent.

8 = Pretty good! Recommended purchase.

9 = Terrific! Highly recommended!

10 = If this game were a woman, I would marry it, have sex with it, raise a family with it, and live happily ever after.

10 = If this game were a woman, I would marry it, have sex with it, raise a family with it, and live happily ever after.

DJ-Lafleur

The way it should be:

1-3 = Hahahahaha, oh wow, this game sucks ASS.

4-5 = Meh, don't bother.

6-7 = not bad; decent.

8 = Pretty good! Recommended purchase.

9 = Terrific! Highly recommended!

10 = If this game were a woman, I would marry it, have sex with it, raise a family with it, and live happily ever after.

DJ-Lafleur

Isn't that almost the way it is here on Gamespot?

I believe the problem is not the reviewer, the problem is the reader. For interpreting stuff the wrong way and then using that stuff as fact.

Either system you choose: Good-Decent-Bad, A-B-C, 1-2-3, or anything else you can imagine.

Logically in the end 1=Good=A, Decent=2=B, Bad=C=3.

IMO the best way to do a review would be to have a 10 point system for 10 separate areas of the game such as Single Player, Story, Multiplayer, Graphics, Audio design, Bugs/Glitches/exploits, Controls, Longevity, developer support, and the most important Overall gameplay... ect ect. Each section has its own 10 point scale and after each is graded you add them up to get the X out of 100 (if a game lacks multiplayer or singleplayer then it would be out of 90) but it would be important to make sure that each separate section has its own grade so the reader can readily see where the game specifically is lacking. Sense each game would have its own Y out of X (Y being the score and X is its potential) redbaron3

So are you saying a game like Zelda or Kingdom Hearts or Final Fantasy should instantly get a lower review score because of no mulitplayer?

Tcs only saying this cuse hes mad everyone is picking on the low scores of a certain graphics killer that just came out Origami_Kill3r

Actually, the inspiration for this thread was Alan Wake and ModNation Racers. Reviews are just starting to trickle in for both games and I saw people taking this stance when they didn't like the review. Someone saw an 8.6 review for AW (I believe it was GT) and they were like, "The reviewer doesn't know what he's talking about. I've played an hour of this game and it's great. Easily 9.5." How can you gauge a whole experience based on a tiny portion of it? That'd be like watching the first 5 minutes of a movie and saying, "BORING!" or "It's the best movie EVAR!" You can't know for sure without the whole experience.

Some great movies start out slow but build up to something great. Some movies start out great and have terrible endings. You're not gonna know either unless you experience the whole thing.

Exactly. You don't rush through a game, play one or two levels of it, or "play at your friend's house" to experience a game. That just isn't how it's done (atleast with me).SpiritOfFire117

This I agree with. I mean, you can get a decent first impression like a demo, but I wouldn't say you were qualified to give a review if you haven't played the full game.

[QUOTE="SpiritOfFire117"]Exactly. You don't rush through a game, play one or two levels of it, or "play at your friend's house" to experience a game. That just isn't how it's done (atleast with me).Ryan_Som

This I agree with. I mean, you can get a decent first impression like a demo, but I wouldn't say you were qualified to give a review if you haven't played the full game.

[QUOTE="Ryan_Som"]

[QUOTE="SpiritOfFire117"]Exactly. You don't rush through a game, play one or two levels of it, or "play at your friend's house" to experience a game. That just isn't how it's done (atleast with me).SpiritOfFire117

This I agree with. I mean, you can get a decent first impression like a demo, but I wouldn't say you were qualified to give a review if you haven't played the full game.

I can understand that. The first time I played Fallout 3, I played it for a couple hours and thought it sucked. So I went and played other games, then came back to it to try it again. After getting further into the game I REALLY start to enjoy it. Now it's one of my favorite games this gen. I'm just glad I went back and gave it an honest try.