I think Kevin VanOrd is testing us once again with his KoA review...

He's a first class troll. Knows how to get people.aaronmullan

7.5 is still a good score. Don't know what the fuss is all about?harshv82

You will when Diablo 3 gets it.

[QUOTE="harshv82"]7.5 is still a good score. Don't know what the fuss is all about?waltefmoney

You will when Diablo 3 gets it.

[QUOTE="waltefmoney"]

[QUOTE="harshv82"]7.5 is still a good score. Don't know what the fuss is all about?harshv82

You will when Diablo 3 gets it.

[QUOTE="harshv82"][QUOTE="waltefmoney"]

You will when Diablo 3 gets it.

the-obiwan

Find me a post where I've vented frustration about score (for any game). You talk like you know me better than I do.

[QUOTE="the-obiwan"][QUOTE="harshv82"] Like I care what score it gets.harshv82

Find me a post where I've vented frustration about score (for any game). You talk like you know me better than I do.

Just play whatever you like.

Opinions differ.

Lol, This is the same site that gave Dark Souls a 9.5 and GTA4 a perfect 10. I still don't understand how you people take gamespot reviews so seriously. These reviews like any other review should be taken with a grain of salt. If you're going to lean on any review, it should be reviews of multiple people who actually brought the game.I'v eread plennty of negative reviews that had the opposite effect and made me want to play a certain game if anything.

KOA seems like way more fun than what I've played with Skyrim imo. But someone else may feel Skyrim is the king of rpg's and KOA is complete crap. Trolling or not, it's ok and it doesn't bother or upset me. WHY??? Because it's someone else's opinion and I really don't give a s*** about how the next person feels about something I enjoy.

No, it was not. You had no combos, no reason to change or develop combat tactics, no depth in weapons and no skill needed get through it. It's horribly lacking in combat. There are way better example of better action combat system. The standard prime example of a good action rpg sword play should be Kingdom hearts.Nier is no where near that. And Yes, I played itdreman999

Just picked up my copy gonna give it a run in a bit.

Dat Spin. :cool:

Life is so much easier when you stop caring about reviews. I learned a while ago but after Skyward Sword I'm just done with reviews. But from my experience IGN and Gamespot are some of the absolute worst. But IGN is fairly consistent in their garbage, GS is so random that they probably give out lower scores because they happened to stub their toe that particular day.

[QUOTE="Bread_or_Decide"][QUOTE="BibiMaghoo"]

I Think its down to such a big divide in what a person expects from a review. It seems most simply want anothers opinion, regardless of who they are and what they do. Personally, I read reviews for profesional opinions of a product, not a persons view on art as has been suggested.

I expect more than someones opinion of fun when reading a profesional review of a game. By the very definition of the word, a review is an evaluation of a product. Levels of 'fun' cannot be evaluated by one person in regards to everyone. The merits and flaws of a product can be.

BibiMaghoo

To seperate completely yes, I agree. But this should be the last factor used in judging a games worth, not the first.

If a game is 'fun' is far less relevant to any reader than if a game has poor frame rate for example. I can judge if the mechanics of a game are flawed or good, and relate that to the reader. I cannot relate how good something is based on my personal level of fun, because it simply doesnt carry to everyone. What I consider fun doesnt match what others do, so assigning a score based on my fun, makes it worthless.

To assign a score based on levels of polish, workable mechanics and depth of a game etc, can be translated universally to all. Reviews must be done this way, or they mean nothing at all. I may aswell pop into a game store in town and ask them what they think of a game. I would get an answer based on how much they enjoyed it, not what the game does or doesnt do well.

It seems you take reviewers too seriously especially since you consider them to be "professional." Reviews are for entertaintment purposes for the most part. If bad reviews hurt any game or movie then certain films and games wouldn't sell as much as they do.

Also a recommendation from a gamer is as good or better than any reviewer.

A year ago system wars was this retarded collection of people telling outright lies and half truths... TC you are so ... special... you've made me nostalgic for those days.

Reviews are for entertaintment purposes for the most part.

Bread_or_Decide

Its funny how people think a 7.5 or 83% average on metacritic is a bad score and bad game?

And thread starter I agree, let me say though that I LOVE Kevins reviews. Even if I dissagree with his score alot, he still writes very well writter reviews and gets his opinion across very well. With that said, hes given some of my fav games low scores, such as Alpha Protocol a 6 and Neir a 5. To me those are games that are 8/10 atleast for my preferences and tastes. Still even those times I dissagree completely with Kevin, I still have a good time reading his reviews.

4-5 hours with Reckoning and I agree with his score so far, its a solid 8 or 7.5/10, very good combat and controls (music and loot to), but the UI is not that good, uneven voice work and the graphics are not as good as they should be on PC. still I am having alot more fun with this then I did the demo.

I think he's mad that McShea is getting more recognition than he is nowadays. Desperate times and all that.

[QUOTE="BibiMaghoo"]

[QUOTE="Bread_or_Decide"] You realize it's impossible to separate the two unless you want robots reviewing your video games. Bread_or_Decide

To seperate completely yes, I agree. But this should be the last factor used in judging a games worth, not the first.

If a game is 'fun' is far less relevant to any reader than if a game has poor frame rate for example. I can judge if the mechanics of a game are flawed or good, and relate that to the reader. I cannot relate how good something is based on my personal level of fun, because it simply doesnt carry to everyone. What I consider fun doesnt match what others do, so assigning a score based on my fun, makes it worthless.

To assign a score based on levels of polish, workable mechanics and depth of a game etc, can be translated universally to all. Reviews must be done this way, or they mean nothing at all. I may aswell pop into a game store in town and ask them what they think of a game. I would get an answer based on how much they enjoyed it, not what the game does or doesnt do well.

It seems you take reviewers too seriously especially since you consider them to be "professional." Reviews are for entertaintment purposes for the most part. If bad reviews hurt any game or movie then certain films and games wouldn't sell as much as they do.

Also a recommendation from a gamer is as good or better than any reviewer.

You're only further proving his point.

I think he's mad that McShea is getting more recognition than he is nowadays. Desperate times and all that.

DarkLink77

If Kevin wanted to outdo McShea he should have just flopped Skyrim. That alone would have sparked World War 3 :lol:

It's pretty much what I expected. I still want to check it out though.

It's pretty much what I expected. I still want to check it out though.

heretrix

Sounds like KoA simply didn't create the kind of interesting lore that really hooks a player into the world. For a game that's focus is to establish a franchise (with a sequel and MMO already in development) I'd say that's a fairly big complaint...

Still, the review was fairly positive. I'm not sure I have the time to invest in a game this size, but this review does nothing to dissuade me from a purchase if I change my mind. After all, I found DA:O to have a very generic world and lore, and I still enjoyed it. Of course, KVO gave THAT a 9.5 :shock:

[QUOTE="heretrix"]

It's pretty much what I expected. I still want to check it out though.

Animal-Mother

Sounds like KoA simply didn't create the kind of interesting lore that really hooks a player into the world. For a game that's focus is to establish a franchise (with a sequel and MMO already in development) I'd say that's a fairly big complaint...

Still, the review was fairly positive. I'm not sure I have the time to invest in a game this size, but this review does nothing to dissuade me from a purchase if I change my mind. After all, I found DA:O to have a very generic world and lore, and I still enjoyed it. Of course, KVO gave THAT a 9.5 :shock:

santoron

Kevin never really touched upon the quality of the lore or story, atleast I don't recall. He just said it was generic. So like you point out in your last paragraph it could still be enjoyable and deep regardless of being generic.

[QUOTE="santoron"]

Sounds like KoA simply didn't create the kind of interesting lore that really hooks a player into the world. For a game that's focus is to establish a franchise (with a sequel and MMO already in development) I'd say that's a fairly big complaint...

Still, the review was fairly positive. I'm not sure I have the time to invest in a game this size, but this review does nothing to dissuade me from a purchase if I change my mind. After all, I found DA:O to have a very generic world and lore, and I still enjoyed it. Of course, KVO gave THAT a 9.5 :shock:

Master_ShakeXXX

Kevin never really touched upon the quality of the lore or story, atleast I don't recall. He just said it was generic. So like you point out in your last paragraph it could still be enjoyable and deep regardless of being generic.

Well...

In The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim, you stumble upon a coven of cannibals and have telepathic conversations with a dog. In Mass Effect 2, you explore the painful past of a troubled young woman and witness the ultimate conflict between mother and daughter. In Kingdoms of Amalur, you kill stuff and listen to a bunch of nondescript characters spout line after line of unexceptional fantasy lore.KVO

I'd say that touches on the quality of the lore. :P

Nier getting a 5.0 was a crime, as was the general critical reception. That game is amazing. It has kept me far more engaged than most of the 8.0-9.0 scoring games I've played this gen.

As for the topic at hand, for anyone who pays attention this shouldn't come as a surprise. 7.5 isn't "the new 8.5", it's just what 7.5 should have been all along. There was a time when Gamespot handed out 8.5-8.9 scores to even the greatest of games, and 9 or higher was relegated to those few genre shaping masterpieces that might release once or twice a gen. Kevin VanOrd already sort of hinted at the fact that they were trying to get back to basics and make sure that scores have a meaning again beyond "8-10 great, anything lower don't play it."

Then there was the "In Defense of the 6.0" article (or whatever it was called) that also goes to support this. Anyway, this is a great thing if they can stick with it. Video game scores have always been inflated compared to scores for other media. And before anyone comes in here talking about how they need to be held to a better standard due to price, that's BS and a logical fallacy. Some say they only buy 9.0 or above because money is tight and they can only afford the best of the best in an expensive hobby like this, but if only one or two games every gen for each console broke that barrier, those tunes would change very abruptly.

I think he just has a different taste in video games to you or I.

toast_burner

Indeed, I hated Nier.

[QUOTE="Master_ShakeXXX"]

[QUOTE="santoron"]

Sounds like KoA simply didn't create the kind of interesting lore that really hooks a player into the world. For a game that's focus is to establish a franchise (with a sequel and MMO already in development) I'd say that's a fairly big complaint...

Still, the review was fairly positive. I'm not sure I have the time to invest in a game this size, but this review does nothing to dissuade me from a purchase if I change my mind. After all, I found DA:O to have a very generic world and lore, and I still enjoyed it. Of course, KVO gave THAT a 9.5 :shock:

santoron

Kevin never really touched upon the quality of the lore or story, atleast I don't recall. He just said it was generic. So like you point out in your last paragraph it could still be enjoyable and deep regardless of being generic.

Well...

In The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim, you stumble upon a coven of cannibals and have telepathic conversations with a dog. In Mass Effect 2, you explore the painful past of a troubled young woman and witness the ultimate conflict between mother and daughter. In Kingdoms of Amalur, you kill stuff and listen to a bunch of nondescript characters spout line after line of unexceptional fantasy lore.KVO

I'd say that touches on the quality of the lore. :P

Ha, well I only watched the video review so I guess that would explain it. Ohwell, I'm lookin forward to killin me some fools in cool ways!

Pretty good score. I'm still willing to check it out

[QUOTE="BibiMaghoo"]

[QUOTE="Bread_or_Decide"] You realize it's impossible to separate the two unless you want robots reviewing your video games. Bread_or_Decide

To seperate completely yes, I agree. But this should be the last factor used in judging a games worth, not the first.

If a game is 'fun' is far less relevant to any reader than if a game has poor frame rate for example. I can judge if the mechanics of a game are flawed or good, and relate that to the reader. I cannot relate how good something is based on my personal level of fun, because it simply doesnt carry to everyone. What I consider fun doesnt match what others do, so assigning a score based on my fun, makes it worthless.

To assign a score based on levels of polish, workable mechanics and depth of a game etc, can be translated universally to all. Reviews must be done this way, or they mean nothing at all. I may aswell pop into a game store in town and ask them what they think of a game. I would get an answer based on how much they enjoyed it, not what the game does or doesnt do well.

It seems you take reviewers too seriously especially since you consider them to be "professional." Reviews are for entertaintment purposes for the most part. If bad reviews hurt any game or movie then certain films and games wouldn't sell as much as they do.

Also a recommendation from a gamer is as good or better than any reviewer.

I respectfully disagree with you view of reviewers. These are people that are paid, as in earn a living, for the quality of writing they produce. That is a profesional writer. They are not for 'entertaintment purposes' although they often contain a few gags to keep the reader interested. A review, by its definition, is an evaluation of a product. Many people look to them for a genuine breakdown of how a game plays, whats it does well and what it does not.

I expect someone that is paid to do a job, to do it well. So do you most likely. You dont go to a shop and happily wait for 20 minutes while the lady at the till does her nails do you? no, you expect them to do the job they are paid to do, so that you can benefit from it and get on with your day.

This is no different. A reviewer is paid to provide a quality piece of writing, one that accuratly evaluates the product in hand. Basing such things on the fun you personally had without looking at the whole means its not a review, its simply some dudes opinion.

As I posted earlier in the thread, I think different people expect different things from reviews. Many simply see them as some dudes opinion, but that isnt really a review at all. I expect people paid to do a job to do a good job.

Perhaps I expect to much, but this is how I would (and sometimes do) review a game. It requires breaking down the game into all its components, judging what is done well and what is not. My personal enjoyment comes after all these things.

Ha, well I only watched the video review so I guess that would explain it. Ohwell, I'm lookin forward to killin me some fools in cool ways!

Master_ShakeXXX

Yeah, he makes the combat, leveling, and customization sound great. The more I think about it, the more I wish KVO would peek in here, because I'd really like to hear how he'd compare this gaame to DA:O, which for my money is about as textbook generic as you can get, lore-wise, and never felt nearly as polished in the areas he enjoyed with KoA. I mean, heck, he gave DA2 an 8. :| A comparison would go a long way to helping explain how the new standards around here compare to what we have been reading over the past few years.

[QUOTE="Animal-Mother"]

[QUOTE="heretrix"]

It's pretty much what I expected. I still want to check it out though.

heretrix

It's pretty ****

Back in 2010 Kevin reviewed what would eventually become the greatest game of the generation, Nier

Master_ShakeXXX

[QUOTE="Master_ShakeXXX"]

Ha, well I only watched the video review so I guess that would explain it. Ohwell, I'm lookin forward to killin me some fools in cool ways!

santoron

Yeah, he makes the combat, leveling, and customization sound great. The more I think about it, the more I wish KVO would peek in here, because I'd really like to hear how he'd compare this gaame to DA:O, which for my money is about as textbook generic as you can get, lore-wise, and never felt nearly as polished in the areas he enjoyed with KoA. I mean, heck, he gave DA2 an 8. :| A comparison would go a long way to helping explain how the new standards around here compare to what we have been reading over the past few years.

You could try asking that in the comment section of the video review. The reviewer will usually respond to questions (as long as they're respectful ones). It's rare they come here unless there's a huge backlash towards the score. I'm interested in seeing how he would answer your question as well.

[QUOTE="santoron"]

[QUOTE="Master_ShakeXXX"]

Ha, well I only watched the video review so I guess that would explain it. Ohwell, I'm lookin forward to killin me some fools in cool ways!

Master_ShakeXXX

Yeah, he makes the combat, leveling, and customization sound great. The more I think about it, the more I wish KVO would peek in here, because I'd really like to hear how he'd compare this gaame to DA:O, which for my money is about as textbook generic as you can get, lore-wise, and never felt nearly as polished in the areas he enjoyed with KoA. I mean, heck, he gave DA2 an 8. :| A comparison would go a long way to helping explain how the new standards around here compare to what we have been reading over the past few years.

You could try asking that in the comment section of the video review. The reviewer will usually respond to questions (as long as they're respectful ones). It's rare they come here unless there's a huge backlash towards the score. I'm interested in seeing how he would answer your question as well.

Excellent suggestion.

It got a really good score. No complaints here.

You think too much of KoA, all focus on combat and no word of the story, I should have known.

kevin vanord is dope u haters can go blow the pope.

[QUOTE="santoron"]

Sounds like KoA simply didn't create the kind of interesting lore that really hooks a player into the world. For a game that's focus is to establish a franchise (with a sequel and MMO already in development) I'd say that's a fairly big complaint...

Still, the review was fairly positive. I'm not sure I have the time to invest in a game this size, but this review does nothing to dissuade me from a purchase if I change my mind. After all, I found DA:O to have a very generic world and lore, and I still enjoyed it. Of course, KVO gave THAT a 9.5 :shock:

Master_ShakeXXX

Kevin never really touched upon the quality of the lore or story, atleast I don't recall. He just said it was generic. So like you point out in your last paragraph it could still be enjoyable and deep regardless of being generic.

He said it was bland, generic, 'humdrum'....

[QUOTE="harshv82"]7.5 is still a good score. Don't know what the fuss is all about?waltefmoney

You will when Diablo 3 gets it.

I'm predicting an 8.0-8.5. I'm tempted to give it a 6 for the idea of reinforcing a F2P system for a hack & slash game you have to buy first.

Another day, another Shake thread.

Time to play Skyim folks. ;D

NiER is an awful game, and Amalur is pretty mediocre. I know 7.5 means its "good", but I've played and seen enough to think it's pretty darn mediocre.

[QUOTE="Bread_or_Decide"]

Reviews are for entertaintment purposes for the most part.

skrat_01

I don't know why people say that about Skyrim. The story can be pretty thin, but not terrible. There's a difference. The Elder Scrolls has some pretty well thought out lore, so I'm confident that Bethesda can be somewhat capable in that department also.