LOL, this thread is hilarious :lol: I also think rock_steady is a fakeboy :POdreci think he's the_core_gamer I guess. I think he's funny in the annoying kind of way :)
I Vote Kevin Van Ord as the court interpretive judge on SW
This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="Jandurin"] i think he's the_core_gameralextherussianCould be Jake trying on a new persona.... i heard those guys were legends around here.
There's a story behind that Mass Effect thing. For the record, the disputed sentence was meant to communicate that even when you can move the targeting reticle up or down, the Mako may not be able to hit the target. You can target an enemy when you're at a higher elevation but not hit it, because the Mako's turret may not allow it, though the placement of your reticle implies that you can.
It was pretty obvious what you meant once the game was played. I dont remember having any problems aiming but whatevaaa. Either way, Im sure this isnt what made the game an 8.5 in his eyes. BioWare should invest more money and time into shoe shine!I vote no. I mean, the guy gave Assassin's Creed a higher score than Mass Effect for crying out loud.
They say the first step to Recovery is admitting you have a problem. I'm just saying. . . dont worry kevV mythrol is a known lemming. Fellow COWS: i want to see Kevin Van Ord getting special attention around here lets make him feel comfortable.
The little stuff adds up.
I remember when I was playing ME for the first time, and I would discuss the game with Bethany back when she was here. Half the time we talked I spent b***hing about dumb interface issues and Mako issues. How the same architect apparently designed every building on ever planet, and how every planet had the same exact gravity. How easy it was to get party members stuck on things. How annoying the texture pop-in was, how I couldn't believe Bioware didn't program the thresher maws to spawn a certain distance away from the player. Those things aren't necessarily bad on their own, but they work in tandem. They contribute to a sense that the little loose ends weren't tied up. And Mass Effect, as great as it is, didn't tie up enough loose ends to make it superb in my eyes.
The PC version brilliantly fixed enough issues to reach that pinnacle. The question is always there, no matter what the game: How much do the little things matter? There's no right or wrong answer--it all depends on how much it affects the experience. But when I told Bethany I was wavering between an 8.5 and a 9, she was shocked: I'd spent so much time complaining!
And really--aren't the little things the things that separate the good games from the great ones? Polish this thing up over here, tweak something over here, adjust a sound effect, and so on? And if I just hand out 9s like candy, what happens when something comes and blows that game away. Case in point: What if we'd given a 9 to NFS: Shift? What happens, then, when a far superior game like Forza 3 comes along? What happens if I give Risen a 9, and then something outclasses in it every sense, like Dragon Age? We've left no room to distinguish between a good game and a superb one. That's why I need to be constantly aware of what standards are by playing as many games as I can. If I give Mass Effect a 9, I'm essentially saying, hey, this game is on the level of KOTOR, or Neverwinter Nights. And I didn't feel that was the case. But I still felt--and feel--that Mass Effect was really great. But when something extraordinary comes, like Demon's Souls or Dragon Age PC, I have a way of distinguishing these games by saying, hey, this rises above what came before, and sets a standard.
The little stuff adds up.
I remember when I was playing ME for the first time, and I would discuss the game with Bethany back when she was here. Half the time we talked I spent b***hing about dumb interface issues and Mako issues. How the same architect apparently designed every building on ever planet, and how every planet had the same exact gravity. How easy it was to get party members stuck on things. How annoying the texture pop-in was, how I couldn't believe Bioware didn't program the thresher maws to spawn a certain distance away from the player. Those things aren't necessarily bad on their own, but they work in tandem. They contribute to a sense that the little loose ends weren't tied up. And Mass Effect, as great as it is, didn't tie up enough loose ends to make it superb in my eyes.
The PC version brilliantly fixed enough issues to reach that pinnacle. The question is always there, no matter what the game: How much do the little things matter? There's no right or wrong answer--it all depends on how much it affects the experience. But when I told Bethany I was wavering between an 8.5 and a 9, she was shocked: I'd spent so much time complaining!
And really--aren't the little things the things that separate the good games from the great ones? Polish this thing up over here, tweak something over here, adjust a sound effect, and so on? And if I just hand out 9s like candy, what happens when something comes and blows that game away. Case in point: What if we'd given a 9 to NFS: Shift? What happens, then, when a far superior game like Forza 3 comes along? What happens if I give Risen a 9, and then something outclasses in it every sense, like Dragon Age? We've left no room to distinguish between a good game and a superb one. That's why I need to be constantly aware of what standards are by playing as many games as I can. If I give Mass Effect a 9, I'm essentially saying, hey, this game is on the level of KOTOR, or Neverwinter Nights. And I didn't feel that was the case. But I still felt--and feel--that Mass Effect was really great. But when something extraordinary comes, like Demon's Souls or Dragon Age PC, I have a way of distinguishing these games by saying, hey, this rises above what came before, and sets a standard.
BOOM There you have it folks! DEMONS SOULS > MASS EFFECT.I vote no. I mean, the guy gave Assassin's Creed a higher score than Mass Effect for crying out loud.
They say the first step to Recovery is admitting you have a problem. I'm just saying. . . dont worry kevV mythrol is a known lemming. Fellow COWS: i want to see Kevin Van Ord getting special attention around here lets make him feel comfortable. Known lemming, or admitted lemming? I've went into my reasons multiple times and won't do so again here, however I'm confused as to how a level 1 would know this, unless your ban dodging??? I've always been manticore when it comes to actual games. Anyway. I take no offense to his Dragon Age review. I will thoroughly enjoy my 8.5 game. I also really liked Sacred 2 and that only got a 7.0. Blue Dragon, that got a 6.0. The only question I've ever asked is how much of a difference did saving the game to HDD help as far as the loading goes? If the only difference between the two games is like graphical differences and 2 seconds of extra pause time during auto save. . .well, you know, that won't really bother me.
The little stuff adds up.
I remember when I was playing ME for the first time, and I would discuss the game with Bethany back when she was here. Half the time we talked I spent b***hing about dumb interface issues and Mako issues. How the same architect apparently designed every building on ever planet, and how every planet had the same exact gravity. How easy it was to get party members stuck on things. How annoying the texture pop-in was, how I couldn't believe Bioware didn't program the thresher maws to spawn a certain distance away from the player. Those things aren't necessarily bad on their own, but they work in tandem. They contribute to a sense that the little loose ends weren't tied up. And Mass Effect, as great as it is, didn't tie up enough loose ends to make it superb in my eyes.
The PC version brilliantly fixed enough issues to reach that pinnacle. The question is always there, no matter what the game: How much do the little things matter? There's no right or wrong answer--it all depends on how much it affects the experience. But when I told Bethany I was wavering between an 8.5 and a 9, she was shocked: I'd spent so much time complaining!
And really--aren't the little things the things that separate the good games from the great ones? Polish this thing up over here, tweak something over here, adjust a sound effect, and so on? And if I just hand out 9s like candy, what happens when something comes and blows that game away. Case in point: What if we'd given a 9 to NFS: Shift? What happens, then, when a far superior game like Forza 3 comes along? What happens if I give Risen a 9, and then something outclasses in it every sense, like Dragon Age? We've left no room to distinguish between a good game and a superb one. That's why I need to be constantly aware of what standards are by playing as many games as I can. If I give Mass Effect a 9, I'm essentially saying, hey, this game is on the level of KOTOR, or Neverwinter Nights. And I didn't feel that was the case. But I still felt--and feel--that Mass Effect was really great. But when something extraordinary comes, like Demon's Souls or Dragon Age PC, I have a way of distinguishing these games by saying, hey, this rises above what came before, and sets a standard.
Kevin-V
I'd say your score for Mass Effect 360 was pretty just, despite what some Mass Effect fans say. Playing it over the summer, although it's currently my favorite game on the 360 it did have a lot of glitches and copy-and-paste side missions.
Nein. Non. No.SparkyProtocolNao.
No doubt. Most of them seem scared of System Wars, but with the KingTy :P, Kevin-V, and System Wars mentioned on October 22nd On the Spot, maybe that will change?I never seen a reviewer post this much in a forum before none the less system wars, I hope more reviewers does the same its kinda cool.
Santesyu
we can only Thank God we have a best reviewer from GS to post in the community and be part of it. it really keeps mods like caseywegner in check.I never seen a reviewer post this much in a forum before none the less system wars, I hope more reviewers does the same its kinda cool.
Santesyu
[QUOTE="Santesyu"]we can only Thank God we have a best reviewer from GS to post in the community and be part of it. it really keeps mods like caseywegner in check. I assume this definitely means your ban dodging. lol Anyway, I will give Kevin-V some credit, this is the second time I've seen him spend a good amount of time in SW after posting a review.I never seen a reviewer post this much in a forum before none the less system wars, I hope more reviewers does the same its kinda cool.
rock_steady_bla
[QUOTE="Kevin-V"]
The little stuff adds up.
I remember when I was playing ME for the first time, and I would discuss the game with Bethany back when she was here. Half the time we talked I spent b***hing about dumb interface issues and Mako issues. How the same architect apparently designed every building on ever planet, and how every planet had the same exact gravity. How easy it was to get party members stuck on things. How annoying the texture pop-in was, how I couldn't believe Bioware didn't program the thresher maws to spawn a certain distance away from the player. Those things aren't necessarily bad on their own, but they work in tandem. They contribute to a sense that the little loose ends weren't tied up. And Mass Effect, as great as it is, didn't tie up enough loose ends to make it superb in my eyes.
The PC version brilliantly fixed enough issues to reach that pinnacle. The question is always there, no matter what the game: How much do the little things matter? There's no right or wrong answer--it all depends on how much it affects the experience. But when I told Bethany I was wavering between an 8.5 and a 9, she was shocked: I'd spent so much time complaining!
And really--aren't the little things the things that separate the good games from the great ones? Polish this thing up over here, tweak something over here, adjust a sound effect, and so on? And if I just hand out 9s like candy, what happens when something comes and blows that game away. Case in point: What if we'd given a 9 to NFS: Shift? What happens, then, when a far superior game like Forza 3 comes along? What happens if I give Risen a 9, and then something outclasses in it every sense, like Dragon Age? We've left no room to distinguish between a good game and a superb one. That's why I need to be constantly aware of what standards are by playing as many games as I can. If I give Mass Effect a 9, I'm essentially saying, hey, this game is on the level of KOTOR, or Neverwinter Nights. And I didn't feel that was the case. But I still felt--and feel--that Mass Effect was really great. But when something extraordinary comes, like Demon's Souls or Dragon Age PC, I have a way of distinguishing these games by saying, hey, this rises above what came before, and sets a standard.
I'd say your score for Mass Effect 360 was pretty just, despite what some Mass Effect fans say. Playing it over the summer, although it's currently my favorite game on the 360 it did have a lot of glitches and copy-and-paste side missions.
Ever since the original NWN, BioWare games have always been glitchy. For some reason I overlook them due to how incredible the rest of their games are. Like I said in a previous post, if they just spent more time polishing their games, they would truly be THE elite developer, and probably the best. It boggles my mind how some of these glitches find their way into their games. I think part of it has to do with the size and depth of some of their games, and some glitches are just lost. I dont feel this was an excuse for Mass Effect though, as that game wasnt nearly as long as DAO.[QUOTE="Kevin-V"]BOOM There you have it folks! DEMONS SOULS > MASS EFFECT.The little stuff adds up.
I remember when I was playing ME for the first time, and I would discuss the game with Bethany back when she was here. Half the time we talked I spent b***hing about dumb interface issues and Mako issues. How the same architect apparently designed every building on ever planet, and how every planet had the same exact gravity. How easy it was to get party members stuck on things. How annoying the texture pop-in was, how I couldn't believe Bioware didn't program the thresher maws to spawn a certain distance away from the player. Those things aren't necessarily bad on their own, but they work in tandem. They contribute to a sense that the little loose ends weren't tied up. And Mass Effect, as great as it is, didn't tie up enough loose ends to make it superb in my eyes.
The PC version brilliantly fixed enough issues to reach that pinnacle. The question is always there, no matter what the game: How much do the little things matter? There's no right or wrong answer--it all depends on how much it affects the experience. But when I told Bethany I was wavering between an 8.5 and a 9, she was shocked: I'd spent so much time complaining!
And really--aren't the little things the things that separate the good games from the great ones? Polish this thing up over here, tweak something over here, adjust a sound effect, and so on? And if I just hand out 9s like candy, what happens when something comes and blows that game away. Case in point: What if we'd given a 9 to NFS: Shift? What happens, then, when a far superior game like Forza 3 comes along? What happens if I give Risen a 9, and then something outclasses in it every sense, like Dragon Age? We've left no room to distinguish between a good game and a superb one. That's why I need to be constantly aware of what standards are by playing as many games as I can. If I give Mass Effect a 9, I'm essentially saying, hey, this game is on the level of KOTOR, or Neverwinter Nights. And I didn't feel that was the case. But I still felt--and feel--that Mass Effect was really great. But when something extraordinary comes, like Demon's Souls or Dragon Age PC, I have a way of distinguishing these games by saying, hey, this rises above what came before, and sets a standard.
rock_steady_bla
Being concise now amiright? :P
But yeah, so now review scores have future standards to consider right? Or have they always been like that?
I honestly don't know, but from what I see in your post Kevin-V, are you saying you intentionally left room for the racing category, which explains why Forza 3 got a 9.5? :):):)
BOOM There you have it folks! DEMONS SOULS > MASS EFFECT.[QUOTE="rock_steady_bla"][QUOTE="Kevin-V"]
The little stuff adds up.
I remember when I was playing ME for the first time, and I would discuss the game with Bethany back when she was here. Half the time we talked I spent b***hing about dumb interface issues and Mako issues. How the same architect apparently designed every building on ever planet, and how every planet had the same exact gravity. How easy it was to get party members stuck on things. How annoying the texture pop-in was, how I couldn't believe Bioware didn't program the thresher maws to spawn a certain distance away from the player. Those things aren't necessarily bad on their own, but they work in tandem. They contribute to a sense that the little loose ends weren't tied up. And Mass Effect, as great as it is, didn't tie up enough loose ends to make it superb in my eyes.
The PC version brilliantly fixed enough issues to reach that pinnacle. The question is always there, no matter what the game: How much do the little things matter? There's no right or wrong answer--it all depends on how much it affects the experience. But when I told Bethany I was wavering between an 8.5 and a 9, she was shocked: I'd spent so much time complaining!
And really--aren't the little things the things that separate the good games from the great ones? Polish this thing up over here, tweak something over here, adjust a sound effect, and so on? And if I just hand out 9s like candy, what happens when something comes and blows that game away. Case in point: What if we'd given a 9 to NFS: Shift? What happens, then, when a far superior game like Forza 3 comes along? What happens if I give Risen a 9, and then something outclasses in it every sense, like Dragon Age? We've left no room to distinguish between a good game and a superb one. That's why I need to be constantly aware of what standards are by playing as many games as I can. If I give Mass Effect a 9, I'm essentially saying, hey, this game is on the level of KOTOR, or Neverwinter Nights. And I didn't feel that was the case. But I still felt--and feel--that Mass Effect was really great. But when something extraordinary comes, like Demon's Souls or Dragon Age PC, I have a way of distinguishing these games by saying, hey, this rises above what came before, and sets a standard.
PSdual_wielder
Being concise now amiright? :P
But yeah, so now review scores have future standards to consider right? Or have they always been like that?
I honestly don't know, but from what I see in your post Kevin-V, are you saying you intentionally left room for the racing category, which explains why Forza 3 got a 9.5? :):):)
But then GT5 can only improve .5 when in reality it will be 10 or 15 points better :cry:. I hope they can make an exception and give GT5 a 20.Kind of why I wish GS had never moved away from the ten point decimal system Kevin. I mean a 9.3 and a 9.7 might not seem like that big of difference but to me they was quite a distinction in the "greatness' of that game if you know what I'm saying and it gave the reviewers a bit more leeway. Oh well just a minor thing.blue_hazy_basicI whole heartly disagree. Even a 10 point system is too much. The ONLY people who care about such exact numbers are people in SW. Do you think someone who is interested in a game and reading a review is going to notice a difference between 9.3 and 9.7? G4TV and GiantBomb have it right with the 5 point scale, or 1up with their letter grades. . . What makes a game a 9.8 but not a 9.6? What makes a game a 9.1 but not a 9.4? You know what is clear though? 5 = Everyone should play, 4 = Most should play it, 3 = You might like it if your a fan of the genre, 2 = There are serious flaws, 1 = Stay away.
Kind of why I wish GS had never moved away from the ten point decimal system Kevin. I mean a 9.3 and a 9.7 might not seem like that big of difference but to me they was quite a distinction in the "greatness' of that game if you know what I'm saying and it gave the reviewers a bit more leeway. Oh well just a minor thing.blue_hazy_basicIronically, they changed because "you can't distinguish between 9.4 and 9.6 for e.g." But now, to distinguish the quality between PC, PS3, and 360 versions of DA they needed to use big 0.5 chunks.
[QUOTE="blue_hazy_basic"]Kind of why I wish GS had never moved away from the ten point decimal system Kevin. I mean a 9.3 and a 9.7 might not seem like that big of difference but to me they was quite a distinction in the "greatness' of that game if you know what I'm saying and it gave the reviewers a bit more leeway. Oh well just a minor thing.Next-Gen-TecIronically, they changed because "you can't distinguish between 9.4 and 9.6 for e.g." But now, to distinguish the quality between PC, PS3, and 360 versions of DA they needed to use big 0.5 chunks. mmm so salty and fresh. where were you when fallout 3 was reviewed. justice is served.
[QUOTE="PSdual_wielder"][QUOTE="rock_steady_bla"] BOOM There you have it folks! DEMONS SOULS > MASS EFFECT.Odrec
Being concise now amiright? :P
But yeah, so now review scores have future standards to consider right? Or have they always been like that?
I honestly don't know, but from what I see in your post Kevin-V, are you saying you intentionally left room for the racing category, which explains why Forza 3 got a 9.5? :):):)
But then GT5 can only improve .5 when in reality it will be 10 or 15 points better :cry:. I hope they can make an exception and give GT5 a 20.You silly cow.
Kind of why I wish GS had never moved away from the ten point decimal system Kevin. I mean a 9.3 and a 9.7 might not seem like that big of difference but to me they was quite a distinction in the "greatness' of that game if you know what I'm saying and it gave the reviewers a bit more leeway. Oh well just a minor thing.blue_hazy_basicLook at the flipside: If we still gave component scores, games with lower production values like Dragon Age might get lower scores, because no matter how I felt, that graphics score would still hold the same amount of weight every time. Tilt only takes you so far. This way, games that rise above their presentation can be honored appropriately. Interesting fact: I wrote the last review to use the old system (Band of Bugs) and the first review in the new system (FFI Anniversary on the PSP). Go figure. As for the question regarding Shift: No, we didn't purposefully leave room for Forza; Shift was reviewed on its own terms. But we have to be mindful of standards. We can't review in a vacuum; if we did, every game we think is fun would get a 10. If a game doesn't set a standard, it has no business getting a 9, in my view.
The PC version brilliantly fixed enough issues to reach that pinnacle. The question is always there, no matter what the game: How much do the little things matter? There's no right or wrong answer--it all depends on how much it affects the experience. But when I told Bethany I was wavering between an 8.5 and a 9, she was shocked: I'd spent so much time complaining!
And really--aren't the little things the things that separate the good games from the great ones? Polish this thing up over here, tweak something over here, adjust a sound effect, and so on?
Kevin-V
Here's the thing Kevin, when you get down to the little things, everyone can nitpick at even the best games. No game out there is perfectly polished, or even perfect in any regard regardless of what some reviewers out there tout. I could sure as hell write plenty of things about, for example, Grand Theft Auto IV that detract from the experience that definitely did not make it worthy for the "prime" score, or even close to that darn score.
I have to ask you in regards to Dragon Age: Origins, how does longer loading times, and quick-saving times not to mention lower quality textures and what not really detract from the direct user experience? Are those few minor occurances really big enough to make a game no longer worthy of that "editor's choice" when the overall picture still points to a superb experience? So, to reiterate, is the user directly effected by those said issues? How much shorter is the loading times? A few seconds, or a multitude of seconds ranging frm 10 to 20 seconds?
I didn't see that addressed in the review, and such ambuguity puts questions into my mind. You also stated in the DA:O sticky that you played most of your time with the game installed on the HDD itself, why not mention that in the review? It's one of those "little things" to improve the loading and what-not, right? Why not give mention to it, if every little bit helps, why not help the gamer out there by letting him know?
[QUOTE="blue_hazy_basic"]Kind of why I wish GS had never moved away from the ten point decimal system Kevin. I mean a 9.3 and a 9.7 might not seem like that big of difference but to me they was quite a distinction in the "greatness' of that game if you know what I'm saying and it gave the reviewers a bit more leeway. Oh well just a minor thing.mythrolI whole heartly disagree. Even a 10 point system is too much. The ONLY people who care about such exact numbers are people in SW. Do you think someone who is interested in a game and reading a review is going to notice a difference between 9.3 and 9.7? G4TV and GiantBomb have it right with the 5 point scale, or 1up with their letter grades. . . What makes a game a 9.8 but not a 9.6? What makes a game a 9.1 but not a 9.4? You know what is clear though? 5 = Everyone should play, 4 = Most should play it, 3 = You might like it if your a fan of the genre, 2 = There are serious flaws, 1 = Stay away. Couldn't care less about SW in terms of that after all they were all lumped into AA, AAA etc But you could distinguish between different versions of games, or if you felt 2 games were similar in standard but one is slightly better the score can reflect that. You're right in that its not a very important thing. Any game scoring a 9+ (hell 8+) is going to worth buying. I do think that a 1-5 is far too limited though.
[QUOTE="mythrol"][QUOTE="blue_hazy_basic"]Kind of why I wish GS had never moved away from the ten point decimal system Kevin. I mean a 9.3 and a 9.7 might not seem like that big of difference but to me they was quite a distinction in the "greatness' of that game if you know what I'm saying and it gave the reviewers a bit more leeway. Oh well just a minor thing.blue_hazy_basicI whole heartly disagree. Even a 10 point system is too much. The ONLY people who care about such exact numbers are people in SW. Do you think someone who is interested in a game and reading a review is going to notice a difference between 9.3 and 9.7? G4TV and GiantBomb have it right with the 5 point scale, or 1up with their letter grades. . . What makes a game a 9.8 but not a 9.6? What makes a game a 9.1 but not a 9.4? You know what is clear though? 5 = Everyone should play, 4 = Most should play it, 3 = You might like it if your a fan of the genre, 2 = There are serious flaws, 1 = Stay away. Couldn't care less about SW in terms of that after all they were all lumped into AA, AAA etc But you could distinguish between different versions of games, or if you felt 2 games were similar in standard but one is slightly better the score can reflect that. You're right in that its not a very important thing. Any game scoring a 9+ (hell 8+) is going to worth buying. I do think that a 1-5 is far too limited though. The review is the most important thing. It gives a much better feel than the score itself. SW would be a lot better a place without 'it got a 9.5 omgz'.
[QUOTE="blue_hazy_basic"]Kind of why I wish GS had never moved away from the ten point decimal system Kevin. I mean a 9.3 and a 9.7 might not seem like that big of difference but to me they was quite a distinction in the "greatness' of that game if you know what I'm saying and it gave the reviewers a bit more leeway. Oh well just a minor thing.Next-Gen-TecIronically, they changed because "you can't distinguish between 9.4 and 9.6 for e.g." But now, to distinguish the quality between PC, PS3, and 360 versions of DA they needed to use big 0.5 chunks. I've reviewed many games with slight differences between platforms that have received exactly the same score. If I felt that the variations were small or inconsequential, they'd have all scored the same. But that isn't my view. The PC version in particular deserves that kind of recognition. Its level of challenge, its tactical gameplay, its superb interface, its creation tools--these elements make it stand apart from the console versions. The visual differences between the 360 and PS3 are striking. In my view, the PS3 version scrapes the 9. The 360 version just doesn't quite get there, but I don't have an 8.9 at my disposal. The scores, as some would say, a result of the .5 system.
[QUOTE="blue_hazy_basic"]Kind of why I wish GS had never moved away from the ten point decimal system Kevin. I mean a 9.3 and a 9.7 might not seem like that big of difference but to me they was quite a distinction in the "greatness' of that game if you know what I'm saying and it gave the reviewers a bit more leeway. Oh well just a minor thing.Kevin-VLook at the flipside: If we still gave component scores, games with lower production values like Dragon Age might get lower scores, because no matter how I felt, that graphics score would still hold the same amount of weight every time. Tilt only takes you so far. This way, games that rise above their presentation can be honored appropriately. Interesting fact: I wrote the last review to use the old system (Band of Bugs) and the first review in the new system (FFI Anniversary on the PSP). Go figure. As for the question regarding Shift: No, we didn't purposefully leave room for Forza; Shift was reviewed on its own terms. But we have to be mindful of standards. We can't review in a vacuum; if we did, every game we think is fun would get a 10. If a game doesn't set a standard, it has no business getting a 9, in my view.
Bar-raiser = 9.0 or up and non-bar-raiser = no deal? Fair enough, I could agree to that. :)
Years of gaming experience does lead to one thing, if a game gets a 9.0 and you play it through for the first time, its very obvious why it got that score. I think thats one of the most consistent trends gamespot has accomplished for the entire decade or so of its existence.
So I guess good job for that :), and keep it up.
[QUOTE="blue_hazy_basic"]Kind of why I wish GS had never moved away from the ten point decimal system Kevin. I mean a 9.3 and a 9.7 might not seem like that big of difference but to me they was quite a distinction in the "greatness' of that game if you know what I'm saying and it gave the reviewers a bit more leeway. Oh well just a minor thing.Kevin-VLook at the flipside: If we still gave component scores, games with lower production values like Dragon Age might get lower scores, because no matter how I felt, that graphics score would still hold the same amount of weight every time. Tilt only takes you so far. This way, games that rise above their presentation can be honored appropriately. Interesting fact: I wrote the last review to use the old system (Band of Bugs) and the first review in the new system (FFI Anniversary on the PSP). Go figure. As for the question regarding Shift: No, we didn't purposefully leave room for Forza; Shift was reviewed on its own terms. But we have to be mindful of standards. We can't review in a vacuum; if we did, every game we think is fun would get a 10. If a game doesn't set a standard, it has no business getting a 9, in my view. True, although I wasn't talking about an average of the parts of the game as a score. As for standards I couldn't agree more. There are other sites out there that hand out great scores all the time, and while I might disagree with GS on whether a game should have had a point here or there I rarely disagree too much. Better to be hard that easy I say. Except for your Bloodbowl review you should have been hung drawn and quartered for that! (I jest :D )
[QUOTE="mythrol"][QUOTE="blue_hazy_basic"]Kind of why I wish GS had never moved away from the ten point decimal system Kevin. I mean a 9.3 and a 9.7 might not seem like that big of difference but to me they was quite a distinction in the "greatness' of that game if you know what I'm saying and it gave the reviewers a bit more leeway. Oh well just a minor thing.blue_hazy_basicI whole heartly disagree. Even a 10 point system is too much. The ONLY people who care about such exact numbers are people in SW. Do you think someone who is interested in a game and reading a review is going to notice a difference between 9.3 and 9.7? G4TV and GiantBomb have it right with the 5 point scale, or 1up with their letter grades. . . What makes a game a 9.8 but not a 9.6? What makes a game a 9.1 but not a 9.4? You know what is clear though? 5 = Everyone should play, 4 = Most should play it, 3 = You might like it if your a fan of the genre, 2 = There are serious flaws, 1 = Stay away. Couldn't care less about SW in terms of that after all they were all lumped into AA, AAA etc But you could distinguish between different versions of games, or if you felt 2 games were similar in standard but one is slightly better the score can reflect that. You're right in that its not a very important thing. Any game scoring a 9+ (hell 8+) is going to worth buying. I do think that a 1-5 is far too limited though. Isn't that what Editor's Choice ORIGINALLY was suppose to be about? For those games that might score the same, the editor could give his stamp of approval on certain games. Or simply make an editor's note to show which system each respective game plays best on? It's not like we have to protect the sanctity of the "10" anymore. That's been burned this gen anyway. If anything GS should move to a more casual review system where people can quickly look at a number 1 - 5 and tell whether or not the game will be worth it.
Sure why not?
He is possibly one of the best and most credible reviewers on gamespot.
[QUOTE="Kevin-V"]
The PC version brilliantly fixed enough issues to reach that pinnacle. The question is always there, no matter what the game: How much do the little things matter? There's no right or wrong answer--it all depends on how much it affects the experience. But when I told Bethany I was wavering between an 8.5 and a 9, she was shocked: I'd spent so much time complaining!
And really--aren't the little things the things that separate the good games from the great ones? Polish this thing up over here, tweak something over here, adjust a sound effect, and so on?
Stevo_the_gamer
Here's the thing Kevin, when you get down to the little things, everyone can nitpick at even the best games. No game out there is perfectly polished, or even perfect in any regard regardless of what some reviewers out there tout. I could sure as hell write plenty of things about, for example, Grand Theft Auto IV that detract from the experience that definitely did not make it worthy for the "prime" score, or even close to that darn score.
I have to ask you in regards to Dragon Age: Origins, how does longer loading times, and quick-saving times not to mention lower quality textures and what not really detract from the direct user experience? Are those few minor occurances really big enough to make a game no longer worthy of that "editor's choice" when the overall picture still points to a superb experience? So, to reiterate, is the user directly effected by those said issues? How much shorter is the loading times? A few seconds, or a multitude of seconds ranging frm 10 to 20 seconds?
I didn't see that addressed in the review, and such ambuguity puts questions into my mind. You also stated in the DA:O sticky that you played most of your time with the game installed on the HDD itself, why not mention that in the review? It's one of those "little things" to improve the loading and what-not, right? Why not give mention to it, if every little bit helps, why not help the gamer out there by letting him know?
Wow what a paradox. Did you complain when Borderlands got on 8.5 on the 360 version for nothing? Because that one is worth complaining for. Kevin already explained in the Dragon age sticky why he did it.
Here's the thing Kevin, when you get down to the little things, everyone can nitpick at even the best games. No game out there is perfectly polished, or even perfect in any regard regardless of what some reviewers out there tout. I could sure as hell write plenty of things about, for example, Grand Theft Auto IV that detract from the experience that definitely did not make it worthy for the "prime" score, or even close to that darn score.OK, last post before returning to virtual Venice.I have to ask you in regards to Dragon Age: Origins, how does longer loading times, and quick-saving times not to mention lower quality textures and what not really detract from the direct user experience? Are those few minor occurances really big enough to make a game no longer worthy of that "editor's choice" when the overall picture still points to a superb experience? So, to reiterate, is the user directly effected by those said issues? How much shorter is the loading times? A few seconds, or a multitude of seconds ranging frm 10 to 20 seconds?
I didn't see that addressed in the review, and such ambuguity puts questions into my mind. You also stated in the DA:O sticky that you played most of your time with the game installed on the HDD itself, why not mention that in the review? It's one of those "little things" to improve the loading and what-not, right? Why not give mention to it, if every little bit helps, why not help the gamer out there by letting him know?
Stevo_the_gamer
If Dragon Age on the Xbox 360 had inappropriate loading times or a terrible frame rate--let's say, like The Last Remnant--I may have indicated that the problems were alleviated by an installation. But the experience is not significantly improved in the case of Dragon Age. You could make the same request of any 360 review, but reviews aren't checklists; I am not going to install every game to test it for review, and set aside X paragraph and X sentence for a mention. I think it can be inferred for almost every game that you can improve load times and frame rate by installing it. And even when the game is installed, the load times are longer than on the PS3 (which of course features a required installation). And I also need to look at general standards outside of version comparisons. Dragon Age looks mediocre on the Xbox 360 when sized up against similar games on the platform. Perhaps it isn't important to you, but if you went in expecting the game to be in the same ballpark as Mass Effect or Fallout 3, there is a rude surprise awaiting you.
I know that much of this comes down to the age-old question of how important graphics are, but I think few of us could dispute that better visuals enhance the user experience. The low-res visuals on the Xbox 360 were frequently distracting enough to bother me and others playing in the office. Justin expressed to me that the load times were killing the game for him. Frankly, it's easier to get lost in the PS3 version because the game isn't constantly reminding you of its shortcomings. Example: Facial textures are much better on the PS3. In a game when you spend so much time talking to people, it makes a big difference. The immersion factor is all-important in a story-driven game, and the PS3 makes it easier to get invested. In a 2-page review, it makes little sense to spend three paragraphs outlining every detail regarding platform differences; I think the review does a good job of pointing out what's most important.
What I mentioned above is just one example in how these particular factors can make a difference. A nitpick would be, for example, the comparisons I see drawn between Ghostbusters PS3 and X360. The differences here are immediately noticeable and blatantly obvious.
We're putting together a Dragon Age graphics comparison, so if you are on the fence, hopefully that will help clarify how important the differences are to you.
I have to ask you in regards to Dragon Age: Origins, how does longer loading times, and quick-saving times not to mention lower quality textures and what not really detract from the direct user experience? Are those few minor occurances really big enough to make a game no longer worthy of that "editor's choice" when the overall picture still points to a superb experience? So, to reiterate, is the user directly effected by those said issues? How much shorter is the loading times? A few seconds, or a multitude of seconds ranging frm 10 to 20 seconds?
I didn't see that addressed in the review, and such ambuguity puts questions into my mind. You also stated in the DA:O sticky that you played most of your time with the game installed on the HDD itself, why not mention that in the review? It's one of those "little things" to improve the loading and what-not, right? Why not give mention to it, if every little bit helps, why not help the gamer out there by letting him know?
OK, last post before returning to virtual Venice. If Dragon Age on the Xbox 360 had inappropriate loading times or a terrible frame rate--let's say, like The Last Remnant--I may have indicated that the problems were alleviated by an installation. But the experience is not significantly improved in the case of Dragon Age. You could make the same request of any 360 review, but reviews aren't checklists; I am not going to install every game to test it for review, and set aside X paragraph and X sentence for a mention. I think it can be inferred for almost every game that you can improve load times and frame rate by installing it. And even when the game is installed, the load times are longer than on the PS3 (which of course features a required installation). And I also need to look at general standards outside of version comparisons. Dragon Age looks mediocre on the Xbox 360 when sized up against similar games on the platform. Perhaps it isn't important to you, but if you went in expecting the game to be in the same ballpark as Mass Effect or Fallout 3, there is a ruse surprise awaiting you. I know that much of this comes down to the age-old question of how important graphics are, but I think few of us could dispute that better visuals enhance the user experience. The low-res visuals on the Xbox 360 were frequently distracting enough to bother me and others playing in the office. Justin expressed to me that the load times were killing the game for him. Frankly, it's easier to get lost in the PS3 version because the game isn't constantly reminding you of its shortcomings. Example: Facial textures are much better on the PS3. In a game when you spend so much time talking to people, it makes a big difference. The immersion factor is all-important in a story-driven game, and the PS3 makes it easier to get invested. In a 2-page review, it makes little sense to spend three paragraphs outlining every detail regarding platform differences; I think the review does a good job of pointing out what's most important. What I mentioned above is just one example in how these particular factors can make a difference. A nitpick would be, for example, the comparisons I see drawn between Ghostbusters PS3 and X360. The differences here are immediately noticeable and blatantly obvious. We're putting together a Dragon Age graphics comparison, so if you are on the fence, hopefully that will help clarify how important the differences are to you. what about my question about mlb the show :(. dont be afraid to speak out with the truth. now i must read what you just posted.[QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"]
[QUOTE="Kevin-V"]
The PC version brilliantly fixed enough issues to reach that pinnacle. The question is always there, no matter what the game: How much do the little things matter? There's no right or wrong answer--it all depends on how much it affects the experience. But when I told Bethany I was wavering between an 8.5 and a 9, she was shocked: I'd spent so much time complaining!
And really--aren't the little things the things that separate the good games from the great ones? Polish this thing up over here, tweak something over here, adjust a sound effect, and so on?
RadecSupreme
Here's the thing Kevin, when you get down to the little things, everyone can nitpick at even the best games. No game out there is perfectly polished, or even perfect in any regard regardless of what some reviewers out there tout. I could sure as hell write plenty of things about, for example, Grand Theft Auto IV that detract from the experience that definitely did not make it worthy for the "prime" score, or even close to that darn score.
I have to ask you in regards to Dragon Age: Origins, how does longer loading times, and quick-saving times not to mention lower quality textures and what not really detract from the direct user experience? Are those few minor occurances really big enough to make a game no longer worthy of that "editor's choice" when the overall picture still points to a superb experience? So, to reiterate, is the user directly effected by those said issues? How much shorter is the loading times? A few seconds, or a multitude of seconds ranging frm 10 to 20 seconds?
I didn't see that addressed in the review, and such ambuguity puts questions into my mind. You also stated in the DA:O sticky that you played most of your time with the game installed on the HDD itself, why not mention that in the review? It's one of those "little things" to improve the loading and what-not, right? Why not give mention to it, if every little bit helps, why not help the gamer out there by letting him know?
Wow what a paradox. Did you complain when Borderlands got on 8.5 on the 360 version for nothing? Because that one is worth complaining for. Kevin already explained in the Dragon age sticky why he did it.
I don't get it, what's Stevo upset about?
Thanks for you time, Kevin.
Wuah? Who said I was upset?I don't get it, what's Stevo upset about?
Alpha-Male22
Wuah? Who said I was upset?Thanks for you time, Kevin.
[QUOTE="Alpha-Male22"]
I don't get it, what's Stevo upset about?
Stevo_the_gamer
Sorry, poor choice of words. Was thinking of editing that to: What did I miss/What's all the commotion?
Sorry, poor choice of words. Was thinking of editing that to: What did I miss/What's all the commotion?No worries, mate -- merely curiosity on my part on Kevin's reasoning.Alpha-Male22
[QUOTE="rock_steady_bla"] what about my question about mlb the show :(. dont be afraid to speak out with the truth. now i must read what you just posted.Kevin-VI honestly don't know the answer. Sports games are WAY outside of my realm of expertise. would you mind asking someone around the office if the sports topic comes up :D:D we would appreciate it!!
Kevin, i still can't forgive you about the Assassin's Creed review. even at its time, God of War 2 (also released in 2007) was a far better experience than AC1. i was thinking it was a 5.0-6.0. but i'm pumped for AC2 and i might give it an 8.5-9.0. just my opinion.
as for Dragon Age, well, it's Bioware and the spiritual successor of Baldur's Gate. what else do we need? it's one of those things that sets Bioware apart from toher devs, just like how we distinguish Naughty Dog from others. and IMO, Bioware>>>>Bethesda. what's with all the FPS-RPG this gen?
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment