Modnation Racers was completely gipped, I mean an 8 just a week after SMG 2 gets a 10?
also innovative games like Heavy rain and Alan Wake get an 8.5 while MW2 gets a 9?
Do you think GS is losing the plot with their review scores?
GS reviews are losing the plot (poll)
This topic is locked from further discussion.
What do you mean by plot?
SgtKevali
screwing up
No. Honestly, it sounds like you're just butt-hurt that a Sony game didn't get what you wanted it to and a Nintendo game got praised to high heaven. That MW2 part was thrown in to appeal to SW's hate of that game.
GreySeal9
honestly your assumption is miles off.
[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]
No. Honestly, it sounds like you're just butt-hurt that a Sony game didn't get what you wanted it to and a Nintendo game got praised to high heaven. That MW2 part was thrown in to appeal to SW's hate of that game.
Lantern-Cusp
honestly your assumption is miles off.
Judging from your post history, I doubt it.
And why else would you draw a comparison between Modnation's 8 and SMG2's 10 if not for the reason of being mad that one got an astronomical amount of praise and the other got just a normal amount of praise?
Yeah. I've reached the point where i no longer trust Gamspots numerical score. However the actual review is usually a good source.
For jrpg's, yes...
But they're somewhat accurate. Personally, Gametrailers gets me more, as well as IGN here and there.
BUT, I love Game Informer's reviews, even though they're handing out way too many 9's lately
GS is alright. It's 50/50 with me. I agree w/ their Alan Wake score, but Heavy Rain and 3d dot I don't agree with. Heck, I even thought 9 was a lil low for God of War 3
Yeah. I've reached the point where i no longer trust Gamspots numerical score. However the actual review is usually a good source.
brennan7777
That's all I care for anyways. I would never ever consider a numerical score worth even a single grain of salt.
Anyways, what's the problem TC? Did you read the reviews? What's wrong with them giving Modnation Racers an 8, and why are you comparing it to a platformer?
Also, why do you think innovation should guarantee great scores? What happened to great games getting great scores?
I think they do fine. The thing about GS reviews is you have to read them, as the numeric score can be misleading.
It's also unwise to compare scores for games from different genres. SMG 2 was a better platformer than ModNation Racers was a kart racer. GS scores for those games are in line with the metacritic scores, so I'd say they got it right in both those cases.
Don't let it get to you. Mass Effect is one of my fav games this gen and GS gave it a 8.5. Once again, the content of the review is more important than the score.
[QUOTE="brennan7777"]
Yeah. I've reached the point where i no longer trust Gamspots numerical score. However the actual review is usually a good source.
treedoor
That's all I care for anyways. I would never ever consider a numerical score worth even a single grain of salt.
Anyways, what's the problem TC? Did you read the reviews? What's wrong with them giving Modnation Racers an 8, and why are you comparing it to a platformer?
Also, why do you think innovation should guarantee great scores? What happened to great games getting great scores?
This is one reason I doubt the sincerity of the OP.
I think my biggest problem is I would like to see more comparisons, and more consistancy. I know its not laid out in the grading rubric to compare games, but i would still like reasoning.
Like what made GTA4 a 10, that stops RDR from being a 10?
Why did Mario Kart score higher than Modnation when reading through the reviews the problems in Mario Kart seemed much more prevelant than those in Modnation?
Why was Super Mario Galaxy 2 the 10 when SMG1 showed much more innovation and had the bigger "WOW" factor?
I know they dont do comparisons in reviews but an explanation would still be nice. Of course it is all based on opinions, but being professional reviewers they should still be able to give in depth explanations on these things.
I think my biggest problem is I would like to see more comparisons, and more consistancy. I know its not laid out in the grading rubric to compare games, but i would still like reasoning.
Like what made GTA4 a 10, that stops RDR from being a 10?
Why did Mario Kart score higher than Modnation when reading through the reviews the problems in Mario Kart seemed much more prevelant than those in Modnation?
Why was Super Mario Galaxy 2 the 10 when SMG1 showed much more innovation and had the bigger "WOW" factor?
I know they dont do comparisons in reviews but an explanation would still be nice. Of course it is all based on opinions, but being professional reviewers they should still be able to give in depth explanations on these things.
brennan7777
Because standards change? GTA4 got a 10 2 years ago. You don't think anything changed within that time to stop RDR from getting a 10?
Mario Kart, same thing. Came out YEARS AGO.
And their reasoning for SMG2 getting a 10 was that it outdid everything SMG1 did, and set the new standard for what a platformer should be. Their words, not mine.
NIER got a 5. Seriously?
I think my biggest problem is I would like to see more comparisons, and more consistancy. I know its not laid out in the grading rubric to compare games, but i would still like reasoning.
Like what made GTA4 a 10, that stops RDR from being a 10?
Why did Mario Kart score higher than Modnation when reading through the reviews the problems in Mario Kart seemed much more prevelant than those in Modnation?
Why was Super Mario Galaxy 2 the 10 when SMG1 showed much more innovation and had the bigger "WOW" factor?
I know they dont do comparisons in reviews but an explanation would still be nice. Of course it is all based on opinions, but being professional reviewers they should still be able to give in depth explanations on these things.
brennan7777
Why should reviews include comparisons? That makes it so that games are not judged fairly or on their own merit.
As for Mario Kart having more flaws, just because a game has less flaws than another doesn't automatically make it the better game.
From what I've heard, Super Mario Galaxy 2 simply improves so much on the first Galaxy that it wouldn't seem right not to give it a better score.
[QUOTE="brennan7777"]
I think my biggest problem is I would like to see more comparisons, and more consistancy. I know its not laid out in the grading rubric to compare games, but i would still like reasoning.
Like what made GTA4 a 10, that stops RDR from being a 10?
Why did Mario Kart score higher than Modnation when reading through the reviews the problems in Mario Kart seemed much more prevelant than those in Modnation?
Why was Super Mario Galaxy 2 the 10 when SMG1 showed much more innovation and had the bigger "WOW" factor?
I know they dont do comparisons in reviews but an explanation would still be nice. Of course it is all based on opinions, but being professional reviewers they should still be able to give in depth explanations on these things.
treedoor
Because standards change? GTA4 got a 10 2 years ago. You don't think anything changed within that time to stop RDR from getting a 10?
Mario Kart, same thing. Came out YEARS AGO.
And their reasoning for SMG2 getting a 10 was that it outdid everything SMG1 did, and set the new standard for what a platformer should be. Their words, not mine.
This is why i feel the "standards change" rule that reviewers put out is just to hide inconsistancies in their reviews. I mean of course standards change, but its not like a 10 now would have been a 11.5 two years ago.
Like some of the above posters mentioned, I generally enjoy and appreciate the written reviews GS publishes... although once I'm done reading I sometimes have a hard time understanding how on earth the score given matches the full review...:shock:
But no real biggie. The scores make it easy for people to get into "discussions" comparing games. If you're looking at reviews with an eye towards purchase, you're gonna be paying more attention to the full review anyhow.
[QUOTE="brennan7777"]
I think my biggest problem is I would like to see more comparisons, and more consistancy. I know its not laid out in the grading rubric to compare games, but i would still like reasoning.
Like what made GTA4 a 10, that stops RDR from being a 10?
Why did Mario Kart score higher than Modnation when reading through the reviews the problems in Mario Kart seemed much more prevelant than those in Modnation?
Why was Super Mario Galaxy 2 the 10 when SMG1 showed much more innovation and had the bigger "WOW" factor?
I know they dont do comparisons in reviews but an explanation would still be nice. Of course it is all based on opinions, but being professional reviewers they should still be able to give in depth explanations on these things.
GreySeal9
Why should reviews include comparisons? That makes it so that games are not judged fairly or on their own merit.
As for Mario Kart having more flaws, just because a game has less flaws than another doesn't automatically make it the better game.
From what I've heard, Super Mario Galaxy 2 simply improves so much on the first Galaxy that it wouldn't seem right not to give it a better score.
If games arent being compared how can you say the judging is fair though? I mean say game X is better than game Y in every way, but they are being judged on their own merit and game Y recieves the higher score? How is that fair judgement for game X?GreySeal9 is unstoppable lol
Aanyways... SOunds like you are just mad because Mario is still the KING of games!!!
[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]
[QUOTE="brennan7777"]
I think my biggest problem is I would like to see more comparisons, and more consistancy. I know its not laid out in the grading rubric to compare games, but i would still like reasoning.
Like what made GTA4 a 10, that stops RDR from being a 10?
Why did Mario Kart score higher than Modnation when reading through the reviews the problems in Mario Kart seemed much more prevelant than those in Modnation?
Why was Super Mario Galaxy 2 the 10 when SMG1 showed much more innovation and had the bigger "WOW" factor?
I know they dont do comparisons in reviews but an explanation would still be nice. Of course it is all based on opinions, but being professional reviewers they should still be able to give in depth explanations on these things.
brennan7777
Why should reviews include comparisons? That makes it so that games are not judged fairly or on their own merit.
As for Mario Kart having more flaws, just because a game has less flaws than another doesn't automatically make it the better game.
From what I've heard, Super Mario Galaxy 2 simply improves so much on the first Galaxy that it wouldn't seem right not to give it a better score.
If games arent being compared how can you say the judging is fair though? I mean say game X is better than game Y in every way, but they are being judged on their own merit and game Y recieves the higher score? How is that fair judgement for game X?If Y game gets a higher score, perhaps X game is not better in every way. Perhaps there's something about Y game that makes it more appealing.
Of course similar games are going to be taken into consideration when games are reviewed, but reviewers are not going to draw the direct comparisons that you seek. It would simply create biases that shouldn't be present. The only time a game should be directly compared is if it is a carbon copy.
What if from now on R&C games were given medicore scores due to SMG2's perfect 10. Would that be fair to what R&C does very well in its own right? Should R&C games be judged according to the fact that they probably won't be able to match SMG2's genre-defining standards? Or should it just be judged on its own merits?
I agree with most of their reviews
seems like most people agree that there is something wrong with their scores.
To the guy nagging me.... my reasoning is all based on my opinion, and IMO SMG 2 was not better then SMG and did SMG get a 10? no it did not. Also IMO Modnation Racers is the best cart racer ever made, but at the same time my favorite FPS this gen were Borderlands and Far Cry 2 and those games got less than preferable reviews and scores. So maybe I just got a certain taste that isn't cohesive with the main stream ideals.
seems to me GS gives decent reviews, but they do scores based on hype and mediation between other scores.
Modnation doesn't deserve anymore than that Heavy Rain and Alan Wake are not innovative. In the case of Heavy Rain it's unique sure, but all of it's design has been done before in adventure games. Maybe a more progressive version of adventure games, but not an innovative one. Modern Warfare 2...doesn't deserve a 9. Ok one thing I'll agree with you.Modnation Racers was completely gipped, I mean an 8 just a week after SMG 2 gets a 10?
also innovative games like Heavy rain and Alan Wake get an 8.5 while MW2 gets a 9?
Do you think GS is losing the plot with their review scores?Lantern-Cusp
If games arent being compared how can you say the judging is fair though? I mean say game X is better than game Y in every way, but they are being judged on their own merit and game Y recieves the higher score? How is that fair judgement for game X?[QUOTE="brennan7777"]
[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]
Why should reviews include comparisons? That makes it so that games are not judged fairly or on their own merit.
As for Mario Kart having more flaws, just because a game has less flaws than another doesn't automatically make it the better game.
From what I've heard, Super Mario Galaxy 2 simply improves so much on the first Galaxy that it wouldn't seem right not to give it a better score.
GreySeal9
If Y game gets a higher score, perhaps X game is not better in every way. Perhaps there's something about Y game that makes it more appealing.
Of course similar games are going to be taken into consideration when games are reviewed, but reviewers are not going to draw the direct comparisons that you seek. It would simply create biases that shouldn't be present. The only time a game should be directly compared is if it is a carbon copy.
What if from now on R&C games were given medicore scores due to SMG2's perfect 10. Would that be fair to what R&C does very well in its own right? Should R&C games be judged according to the fact that they probably won't be able to match SMG2's genre-defining standards? Or should it just be judged on its own merits?
And thats why i would like an explanation as to what made Y game more appealing.A game can be recognized for its own merits, but there has to be comparisons for a review system to work. Lets say Mario Kart wii is the only kart racing game ever invented. How can you know its doing something good or bad if its the only one there? There can be better ways to do things that nobody is aware of. Comparing, whether subconcious or not is necessary for a review system or else the numbers being thrown out are just random.
[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]
[QUOTE="brennan7777"] If games arent being compared how can you say the judging is fair though? I mean say game X is better than game Y in every way, but they are being judged on their own merit and game Y recieves the higher score? How is that fair judgement for game X?
brennan7777
If Y game gets a higher score, perhaps X game is not better in every way. Perhaps there's something about Y game that makes it more appealing.
Of course similar games are going to be taken into consideration when games are reviewed, but reviewers are not going to draw the direct comparisons that you seek. It would simply create biases that shouldn't be present. The only time a game should be directly compared is if it is a carbon copy.
What if from now on R&C games were given medicore scores due to SMG2's perfect 10. Would that be fair to what R&C does very well in its own right? Should R&C games be judged according to the fact that they probably won't be able to match SMG2's genre-defining standards? Or should it just be judged on its own merits?
And thats why i would like an explanation as to what made Y game more appealing.A game can be recognized for its own merits, but there has to be comparisons for a review system to work. Lets say Mario Kart wii is the only kart racing game ever invented. How can you know its doing something good or bad if its the only one there? There can be better ways to do things that nobody is aware of. Comparing, whether subconcious or not is necessary for a review system or else the numbers being thrown out are just random.
Name dropping in a review is the worst way to review a game. If you keep comparing games to other games you're going to get some comparrisons that will just be match up differences because of how the two work. It would be like comparing Bayonetta and God of War and then punishing God of War for it's massively inferior combat(which it is). When for all intents and purposes the games have such a different way of doing business that it becomes incomparable. God of War is more tightly paced with it's other elements, Bayonetta aims for more relentless romp of pure hack n slash bliss. Two games in a similar genre, but two different ways of doing business(although yes I would argue Bayonetta does so many things better than GoW, but I'll spare myself that arguement) you can compare GTA 4 to red dead, but is that even all that fair at times? You can't compare a western aesthetic to the crime drama feel GTA 4 was going for. You can't compare a western frontier to the busy, bustling city that was Liberty City. Spaghetti Western vs Satire. Gameplay wise sure RDR does things better. Multiplayer wise both games are incomparable in every way outside of both being arguably bad it. Subconciously the comparrisons are always made anyway, but going delibrate comparrison is over doing it. You can argue that it's not upto the genres best in certain aaspects, but anything more detailed than that is being unfair to the game unless it's significant enough to honestly go in detail.Grr I voted no. I meant inconsistent. GTAIV getting a 10, MW2 getting a 9 from GS, etc... Can't say those were innovative games that were groundbreaking or even good.Lethalhazard
Indeed, when Halo gets 10/10 just to please fans, and games like Fable 2, Mass Effect a 8.5 !!!!! than what can i say, i have lost all and any interest in Gamespot reviews, because for me are totally off
Lost Odyssey was the worst of all,a game that is 10000x better than any JRPG this genertion (including FF12, FF13, WKC etc etc) got .......... 7.5 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]
[QUOTE="brennan7777"] If games arent being compared how can you say the judging is fair though? I mean say game X is better than game Y in every way, but they are being judged on their own merit and game Y recieves the higher score? How is that fair judgement for game X?
brennan7777
If Y game gets a higher score, perhaps X game is not better in every way. Perhaps there's something about Y game that makes it more appealing.
Of course similar games are going to be taken into consideration when games are reviewed, but reviewers are not going to draw the direct comparisons that you seek. It would simply create biases that shouldn't be present. The only time a game should be directly compared is if it is a carbon copy.
What if from now on R&C games were given medicore scores due to SMG2's perfect 10. Would that be fair to what R&C does very well in its own right? Should R&C games be judged according to the fact that they probably won't be able to match SMG2's genre-defining standards? Or should it just be judged on its own merits?
And thats why i would like an explanation as to what made Y game more appealing.A game can be recognized for its own merits, but there has to be comparisons for a review system to work. Lets say Mario Kart wii is the only kart racing game ever invented. How can you know its doing something good or bad if its the only one there? There can be better ways to do things that nobody is aware of. Comparing, whether subconcious or not is necessary for a review system or else the numbers being thrown out are just random.
Why do you need an explanation why a certain game got a better score than another? Why does that matter? All a review needs to tell someone is how good a game is.
I did say that there is a sub-conscious comparison at work. That much is undeniable as games establish standards and games reviews operate on a set on standards. However, aub-conscious comparisons are a much different animal than direct comparisons. Honestly, if reviews featured in-depth direct comparisons, they would be a total mess.
[QUOTE="brennan7777"]And thats why i would like an explanation as to what made Y game more appealing.[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]
If Y game gets a higher score, perhaps X game is not better in every way. Perhaps there's something about Y game that makes it more appealing.
Of course similar games are going to be taken into consideration when games are reviewed, but reviewers are not going to draw the direct comparisons that you seek. It would simply create biases that shouldn't be present. The only time a game should be directly compared is if it is a carbon copy.
What if from now on R&C games were given medicore scores due to SMG2's perfect 10. Would that be fair to what R&C does very well in its own right? Should R&C games be judged according to the fact that they probably won't be able to match SMG2's genre-defining standards? Or should it just be judged on its own merits?
jg4xchamp
A game can be recognized for its own merits, but there has to be comparisons for a review system to work. Lets say Mario Kart wii is the only kart racing game ever invented. How can you know its doing something good or bad if its the only one there? There can be better ways to do things that nobody is aware of. Comparing, whether subconcious or not is necessary for a review system or else the numbers being thrown out are just random.
Name dropping in a review is the worst way to review a game. If you keep comparing games to other games you're going to get some comparrisons that will just be match up differences because of how the two work. It would be like comparing Bayonetta and God of War and then punishing God of War for it's massively inferior combat(which it is). When for all intents and purposes the games have such a different way of doing business that it becomes incomparable. God of War is more tightly paced with it's other elements, Bayonetta aims for more relentless romp of pure hack n slash bliss. Two games in a similar genre, but two different ways of doing business(although yes I would argue Bayonetta does so many things better than GoW, but I'll spare myself that arguement) you can compare GTA 4 to red dead, but is that even all that fair at times? You can't compare a western aesthetic to the crime drama feel GTA 4 was going for. You can't compare a western frontier to the busy, bustling city that was Liberty City. Spaghetti Western vs Satire. Gameplay wise sure RDR does things better. Multiplayer wise both games are incomparable in every way outside of both being arguably bad it. Subconciously the comparrisons are always made anyway, but going delibrate comparrison is over doing it. You can argue that it's not upto the genres best in certain aaspects, but anything more detailed than that is being unfair to the game unless it's significant enough to honestly go in detail. I dont think the content of the review should mention comparisons, it should soley talk about the game being reviewed, but I think the score a game recieves should be comparable between games, otherwise it just makes the review source look inconsistant.You can say that RDR and GTA are not comparable, but there is still a reason why one got a 9.5 while the other got a 10. I just want to know the reasoning because I have played both, and most people i have talked to who have played both all feel that RDR is the overall better game.
seems like most people agree that there is something wrong with their scores.
To the guy nagging me.... my reasoning is all based on my opinion, and IMO SMG 2 was not better then SMG and did SMG get a 10? no it did not. Also IMO Modnation Racers is the best cart racer ever made, but at the same time my favorite FPS this gen were Borderlands and Far Cry 2 and those games got less than preferable reviews and scores. So maybe I just got a certain taste that isn't cohesive with the main stream ideals.
seems to me GS gives decent reviews, but they do scores based on hype and mediation between other scores.Lantern-Cusp
See, this is why these "does GS review games the right way" threads are all weak. They always hinge on people saying, "Well, I thought this game was great and I thought this game wasn't so great, so therefore there is something wrong with GS." It's ridiculous.
Name dropping in a review is the worst way to review a game. If you keep comparing games to other games you're going to get some comparrisons that will just be match up differences because of how the two work. It would be like comparing Bayonetta and God of War and then punishing God of War for it's massively inferior combat(which it is). When for all intents and purposes the games have such a different way of doing business that it becomes incomparable. God of War is more tightly paced with it's other elements, Bayonetta aims for more relentless romp of pure hack n slash bliss. Two games in a similar genre, but two different ways of doing business(although yes I would argue Bayonetta does so many things better than GoW, but I'll spare myself that arguement) you can compare GTA 4 to red dead, but is that even all that fair at times? You can't compare a western aesthetic to the crime drama feel GTA 4 was going for. You can't compare a western frontier to the busy, bustling city that was Liberty City. Spaghetti Western vs Satire. Gameplay wise sure RDR does things better. Multiplayer wise both games are incomparable in every way outside of both being arguably bad it. Subconciously the comparrisons are always made anyway, but going delibrate comparrison is over doing it. You can argue that it's not upto the genres best in certain aaspects, but anything more detailed than that is being unfair to the game unless it's significant enough to honestly go in detail. I dont think the content of the review should mention comparisons, it should soley talk about the game being reviewed, but I think the score a game recieves should be comparable between games, otherwise it just makes the review source look inconsistant.[QUOTE="jg4xchamp"][QUOTE="brennan7777"] And thats why i would like an explanation as to what made Y game more appealing.
A game can be recognized for its own merits, but there has to be comparisons for a review system to work. Lets say Mario Kart wii is the only kart racing game ever invented. How can you know its doing something good or bad if its the only one there? There can be better ways to do things that nobody is aware of. Comparing, whether subconcious or not is necessary for a review system or else the numbers being thrown out are just random.
brennan7777
You can say that RDR and GTA are not comparable, but there is still a reason why one got a 9.5 while the other got a 10. I just want to know the reasoning because I have played both, and most people i have talked to who have played both all feel that RDR is the overall better game.
I bet RDR is the better game in many ways. That doesn't mean that it made the same impact.
And thats why i would like an explanation as to what made Y game more appealing.[QUOTE="brennan7777"]
[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]
If Y game gets a higher score, perhaps X game is not better in every way. Perhaps there's something about Y game that makes it more appealing.
Of course similar games are going to be taken into consideration when games are reviewed, but reviewers are not going to draw the direct comparisons that you seek. It would simply create biases that shouldn't be present. The only time a game should be directly compared is if it is a carbon copy.
What if from now on R&C games were given medicore scores due to SMG2's perfect 10. Would that be fair to what R&C does very well in its own right? Should R&C games be judged according to the fact that they probably won't be able to match SMG2's genre-defining standards? Or should it just be judged on its own merits?
GreySeal9
A game can be recognized for its own merits, but there has to be comparisons for a review system to work. Lets say Mario Kart wii is the only kart racing game ever invented. How can you know its doing something good or bad if its the only one there? There can be better ways to do things that nobody is aware of. Comparing, whether subconcious or not is necessary for a review system or else the numbers being thrown out are just random.
Why do you need an explanation why a certain game got a better score than another? Why does that matter? All a review needs to tell someone is how good a game is.
I did say that there is a sub-conscious comparison at work. That much is undeniable as games establish standards and games reviews operate on a set on standards. However, aub-conscious comparisons are a much different animal than direct comparisons. Honestly, if reviews featured in-depth direct comparisons, they would be a total mess.
Well I wouldnt NEED an explanation if I felt they reviewed games consistantly. Really it doesnt matter since i usually read the text of the review, but i'm too often left confused with numerical scores, and this being system wars they rely very heavily on the score.Name dropping in a review is the worst way to review a game. If you keep comparing games to other games you're going to get some comparrisons that will just be match up differences because of how the two work. It would be like comparing Bayonetta and God of War and then punishing God of War for it's massively inferior combat(which it is). When for all intents and purposes the games have such a different way of doing business that it becomes incomparable. God of War is more tightly paced with it's other elements, Bayonetta aims for more relentless romp of pure hack n slash bliss. Two games in a similar genre, but two different ways of doing business(although yes I would argue Bayonetta does so many things better than GoW, but I'll spare myself that arguement) you can compare GTA 4 to red dead, but is that even all that fair at times? You can't compare a western aesthetic to the crime drama feel GTA 4 was going for. You can't compare a western frontier to the busy, bustling city that was Liberty City. Spaghetti Western vs Satire. Gameplay wise sure RDR does things better. Multiplayer wise both games are incomparable in every way outside of both being arguably bad it. Subconciously the comparrisons are always made anyway, but going delibrate comparrison is over doing it. You can argue that it's not upto the genres best in certain aaspects, but anything more detailed than that is being unfair to the game unless it's significant enough to honestly go in detail. I dont think the content of the review should mention comparisons, it should soley talk about the game being reviewed, but I think the score a game recieves should be comparable between games, otherwise it just makes the review source look inconsistant.[QUOTE="jg4xchamp"][QUOTE="brennan7777"] And thats why i would like an explanation as to what made Y game more appealing.
A game can be recognized for its own merits, but there has to be comparisons for a review system to work. Lets say Mario Kart wii is the only kart racing game ever invented. How can you know its doing something good or bad if its the only one there? There can be better ways to do things that nobody is aware of. Comparing, whether subconcious or not is necessary for a review system or else the numbers being thrown out are just random.
brennan7777
You can say that RDR and GTA are not comparable, but there is still a reason why one got a 9.5 while the other got a 10. I just want to know the reasoning because I have played both, and most people i have talked to who have played both all feel that RDR is the overall better game.
2008 vs 2010. Different year, different standard, different expectations, different aesthetic. A lower score doesn't necessarily mean inferior. I mean Chaos Theory scored less than Pandorra tomorrow and it goes without saying Chaos Theory is superior. NGblack scored the same as NG1 and well NGB was superior. Metroid Prime 2 and God of War 2 were stronger games than there prequel and they also didn't score as high. It's just the nature of the beast. Scores in general are broken. if they honestly meant anything more than a reasonable variable that represents the reviewers assessment of the game than the highest reviewed games would win GOTY But they don't , because scores don't take into how a person will feel later. In retrospect Heavy Rain loses its luster. In Retrospect you realise GTA 4 is more one and done, in Retrospect you realise that replaying Half Life 2 means suffering the trash that is those vehicle sections, the poor gunplay, and the heavily scripted design, in retrospect things change. Reviews can never capture that to full effect. They can only capture initial impressions. Inittially that COD 4 campaign was intense and highly memorable. Replay at again? man that thing is scripted. One and done experience. Most reviews aren't going to be able to capture that. Let alone really be fair enough and proper enough to match scoring that is comparable between games. NO review source is that consistant or that flawless. For the most part gamespot does a better job than 99% of the sources that review console games. PC wise they could be better I guess.I dont think the content of the review should mention comparisons, it should soley talk about the game being reviewed, but I think the score a game recieves should be comparable between games, otherwise it just makes the review source look inconsistant.[QUOTE="brennan7777"]
[QUOTE="jg4xchamp"] Name dropping in a review is the worst way to review a game. If you keep comparing games to other games you're going to get some comparrisons that will just be match up differences because of how the two work. It would be like comparing Bayonetta and God of War and then punishing God of War for it's massively inferior combat(which it is). When for all intents and purposes the games have such a different way of doing business that it becomes incomparable. God of War is more tightly paced with it's other elements, Bayonetta aims for more relentless romp of pure hack n slash bliss. Two games in a similar genre, but two different ways of doing business(although yes I would argue Bayonetta does so many things better than GoW, but I'll spare myself that arguement) you can compare GTA 4 to red dead, but is that even all that fair at times? You can't compare a western aesthetic to the crime drama feel GTA 4 was going for. You can't compare a western frontier to the busy, bustling city that was Liberty City. Spaghetti Western vs Satire. Gameplay wise sure RDR does things better. Multiplayer wise both games are incomparable in every way outside of both being arguably bad it. Subconciously the comparrisons are always made anyway, but going delibrate comparrison is over doing it. You can argue that it's not upto the genres best in certain aaspects, but anything more detailed than that is being unfair to the game unless it's significant enough to honestly go in detail. GreySeal9
You can say that RDR and GTA are not comparable, but there is still a reason why one got a 9.5 while the other got a 10. I just want to know the reasoning because I have played both, and most people i have talked to who have played both all feel that RDR is the overall better game.
I bet RDR is the better game in many ways. That doesn't mean that it made the same impact.
What do you mean exactly?RDR is giving life to an almost dead genre. Its innovating western games by including things never before seen in the genre.
GTA really didnt do much that the GTA games before it hadnt done. In fact many people, myself included,still think that GTA4 is a step down from San Andreas.
[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]
[QUOTE="brennan7777"] And thats why i would like an explanation as to what made Y game more appealing.
A game can be recognized for its own merits, but there has to be comparisons for a review system to work. Lets say Mario Kart wii is the only kart racing game ever invented. How can you know its doing something good or bad if its the only one there? There can be better ways to do things that nobody is aware of. Comparing, whether subconcious or not is necessary for a review system or else the numbers being thrown out are just random.
brennan7777
Why do you need an explanation why a certain game got a better score than another? Why does that matter? All a review needs to tell someone is how good a game is.
I did say that there is a sub-conscious comparison at work. That much is undeniable as games establish standards and games reviews operate on a set on standards. However, aub-conscious comparisons are a much different animal than direct comparisons. Honestly, if reviews featured in-depth direct comparisons, they would be a total mess.
Well I wouldnt NEED an explanation if I felt they reviewed games consistantly. Really it doesnt matter since i usually read the text of the review, but i'm too often left confused with numerical scores, and this being system wars they rely very heavily on the score.First of all, given the different reviewers and the fact that they are human and the fact that reviews are written at different times, you're never going to get the consistency that you are looking for.
Second of all, I think you would be a lot less confused about score if you mostly did away with the "comparisons" mindset.
[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]
[QUOTE="brennan7777"] I dont think the content of the review should mention comparisons, it should soley talk about the game being reviewed, but I think the score a game recieves should be comparable between games, otherwise it just makes the review source look inconsistant.
You can say that RDR and GTA are not comparable, but there is still a reason why one got a 9.5 while the other got a 10. I just want to know the reasoning because I have played both, and most people i have talked to who have played both all feel that RDR is the overall better game.
brennan7777
I bet RDR is the better game in many ways. That doesn't mean that it made the same impact.
What do you mean exactly?RDR is giving life to an almost dead genre. Its innovating western games by including things never before seen in the genre.
GTA really didnt do much that the GTA games before it hadnt done. In fact many people, myself included,still think that GTA4 is a step down from San Andreas.
western isn't a genre though in games if anything it's just a setting/aestheitc. As a game it's a sandbox game. As a game it is entirely 100% built from the core of GTA 4. Improved upon? sure, but innovative? **** No
I voted No cause a Review is just a Review and nothing of it. If you view a 8 as "HORRIBLE! IT'S SHOVELWARE! NOT WORTH ANYONE'S TIME!" then there's something wrong with you....
You should actually go for the 8s and 9s and maybe the 7s and definantly the 10s but you should be wary of the 6s and 5s and avoid the 4s -1s.
and if you don't like the Numerical Score a Game got....Welcome to the Club, I feel like there's a lot of Wii Games that got gimped purely because it wasn't in HD.
[QUOTE="brennan7777"]I dont think the content of the review should mention comparisons, it should soley talk about the game being reviewed, but I think the score a game recieves should be comparable between games, otherwise it just makes the review source look inconsistant.[QUOTE="jg4xchamp"] Name dropping in a review is the worst way to review a game. If you keep comparing games to other games you're going to get some comparrisons that will just be match up differences because of how the two work. It would be like comparing Bayonetta and God of War and then punishing God of War for it's massively inferior combat(which it is). When for all intents and purposes the games have such a different way of doing business that it becomes incomparable. God of War is more tightly paced with it's other elements, Bayonetta aims for more relentless romp of pure hack n slash bliss. Two games in a similar genre, but two different ways of doing business(although yes I would argue Bayonetta does so many things better than GoW, but I'll spare myself that arguement) you can compare GTA 4 to red dead, but is that even all that fair at times? You can't compare a western aesthetic to the crime drama feel GTA 4 was going for. You can't compare a western frontier to the busy, bustling city that was Liberty City. Spaghetti Western vs Satire. Gameplay wise sure RDR does things better. Multiplayer wise both games are incomparable in every way outside of both being arguably bad it. Subconciously the comparrisons are always made anyway, but going delibrate comparrison is over doing it. You can argue that it's not upto the genres best in certain aaspects, but anything more detailed than that is being unfair to the game unless it's significant enough to honestly go in detail. jg4xchamp
You can say that RDR and GTA are not comparable, but there is still a reason why one got a 9.5 while the other got a 10. I just want to know the reasoning because I have played both, and most people i have talked to who have played both all feel that RDR is the overall better game.
2008 vs 2010. Different year, different standard, different expectations, different aesthetic. A lower score doesn't necessarily mean inferior. I mean Chaos Theory scored less than Pandorra tomorrow and it goes without saying Chaos Theory is superior. NGblack scored the same as NG1 and well NGB was superior. Metroid Prime 2 and God of War 2 were stronger games than there prequel and they also didn't score as high. It's just the nature of the beast. Scores in general are broken. if they honestly meant anything more than a reasonable variable that represents the reviewers assessment of the game than the highest reviewed games would win GOTY But they don't , because scores don't take into how a person will feel later. In retrospect Heavy Rain loses its luster. In Retrospect you realise GTA 4 is more one and done, in Retrospect you realise that replaying Half Life 2 means suffering the trash that is those vehicle sections, the poor gunplay, and the heavily scripted design, in retrospect things change. Reviews can never capture that to full effect. They can only capture initial impressions. Inittially that COD 4 campaign was intense and highly memorable. Replay at again? man that thing is scripted. One and done experience. Most reviews aren't going to be able to capture that. Let alone really be fair enough and proper enough to match scoring that is comparable between games. NO review source is that consistant or that flawless. For the most part gamespot does a better job than 99% of the sources that review console games. PC wise they could be better I guess. Well thats what I'm saying. It may have just sounded like i was singling out gamespot, when i was targeting the entire reviewing industry.Scores kill the industry. You'll have a guy deciding between Mario Kart wii and Modnation, so they'll look at the scores and pick Mario Kart when it isnt necessarily better.Here in system wars Gamespot sets up rulesthat say scores dictate the quality of a game or a console. I feel like if they are going to set up these rules, their scores should either give a better explanation, or should reflect the reality of games in comparison to one another.
[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]
[QUOTE="brennan7777"] I dont think the content of the review should mention comparisons, it should soley talk about the game being reviewed, but I think the score a game recieves should be comparable between games, otherwise it just makes the review source look inconsistant.
You can say that RDR and GTA are not comparable, but there is still a reason why one got a 9.5 while the other got a 10. I just want to know the reasoning because I have played both, and most people i have talked to who have played both all feel that RDR is the overall better game.
brennan7777
I bet RDR is the better game in many ways. That doesn't mean that it made the same impact.
What do you mean exactly?RDR is giving life to an almost dead genre. Its innovating western games by including things never before seen in the genre.
GTA really didnt do much that the GTA games before it hadnt done. In fact many people, myself included,still think that GTA4 is a step down from San Andreas.
Reviewers seemed to feel that the things tossed out from San Andreas were superficial. I'd agree with that, but that's beside the point...
Reviewers felt that the living breathing city of GTAIV was unprecedented and they felt the narrative transcended both the franchise and videogame stories in general. You should read some of the reviews of GTAIV. It'll explain to you why reviewers felt that it was such a landmark title.
With all due respect, I think you're finding the explanation of reviews inadequate because you can't leg go of your own opinions when reading reviews. To understand where reviewers are going coming, it is important to let go of your opinion for a second, which I understand is sometimes a hard thing to do,
2008 vs 2010. Different year, different standard, different expectations, different aesthetic. A lower score doesn't necessarily mean inferior. I mean Chaos Theory scored less than Pandorra tomorrow and it goes without saying Chaos Theory is superior. NGblack scored the same as NG1 and well NGB was superior. Metroid Prime 2 and God of War 2 were stronger games than there prequel and they also didn't score as high. It's just the nature of the beast. Scores in general are broken. if they honestly meant anything more than a reasonable variable that represents the reviewers assessment of the game than the highest reviewed games would win GOTY But they don't , because scores don't take into how a person will feel later. In retrospect Heavy Rain loses its luster. In Retrospect you realise GTA 4 is more one and done, in Retrospect you realise that replaying Half Life 2 means suffering the trash that is those vehicle sections, the poor gunplay, and the heavily scripted design, in retrospect things change. Reviews can never capture that to full effect. They can only capture initial impressions. Inittially that COD 4 campaign was intense and highly memorable. Replay at again? man that thing is scripted. One and done experience. Most reviews aren't going to be able to capture that. Let alone really be fair enough and proper enough to match scoring that is comparable between games. NO review source is that consistant or that flawless. For the most part gamespot does a better job than 99% of the sources that review console games. PC wise they could be better I guess. Well thats what I'm saying. It may have just sounded like i was singling out gamespot, when i was targeting the entire reviewing industry.Scores kill the industry. You'll have a guy deciding between Mario Kart wii and Modnation, so they'll look at the scores and pick Mario Kart when it isnt necessarily better.[QUOTE="jg4xchamp"][QUOTE="brennan7777"] I dont think the content of the review should mention comparisons, it should soley talk about the game being reviewed, but I think the score a game recieves should be comparable between games, otherwise it just makes the review source look inconsistant.
You can say that RDR and GTA are not comparable, but there is still a reason why one got a 9.5 while the other got a 10. I just want to know the reasoning because I have played both, and most people i have talked to who have played both all feel that RDR is the overall better game.
brennan7777
Here in system wars Gamespot sets up rulesthat say scores dictate the quality of a game or a console. I feel like if they are going to set up these rules, their scores should either give a better explanation, or should reflect the reality of games in comparison to one another.
I learned quickly(ok thats a lie, sometimes we all go through a stupid phase ok) that you take SW with a grain of salt. You can't change the monster that is SW. It is what it is and it doesn't want to change :P Scores since the dawn of there creation have and will forever be broken, and are only rarely going to be correct. They just can't do it. The way I see it if the wording seems right, and the score is atleast in the range of my thought I don't need to disagree that much. Are GTA 4 or MGS 4 games that deserve a 10? nah I would argue a 9 at best, but eh whatever they are still great and I clearly liked them. I'll complain if it's a game I hate though :lol:Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment