KillZone2 dev speaks...and i agree wholeheartedly!!!

this was a post on the playstation.blog forum

"Yeah, it is getting a bit silly at the moment. There is no such thing as a 'perfect game'. Whenever I see the 100/100s I want to take the reviewer, sit him down and start questioning him a bit. "That textures sucks, is the game still perfect?" "There is a collision bug here, still perfect?" "What about this interface? Oh you can forgive that because the rest of the game is so awesome?" and so on.

I think reviewers have just gotten themselves into a bit of a corner by having to give better and better reviews because Bob at game.com gave it a 90, so I have to give it a 91. Or maybe they reviewed a game, thought it was the best thing ever, gave it a 95 and the next week a game comes in and suddenly that is the best thing ever, and they feel compelled to give it a higher score. I don't know to be honest.
I do know that there is a great big hole between 10 percent and 75 percent that is considered "crap-game zone" and that mentality should change. 50% should be a average, no brain-game that the player can have some fun with. 75% should be a decent game that is worth downloading a Demo for or looking at closer.Anything above that should then be hallowed ground where the great games lie.

As to how to solve it... tough one. Maybe an industry wide scoring and reviewing system. Something a little more scientific than just slapping an arbitrary number on something.There is some good, unbiasedreviewers out there, but finding them is difficult.
The next point might be more contentious. Should marketing departments from publishers stop sending out press-kits, or have lavish extravagant press-events where the potential reviewers are pampared and given free stuff. This is where it goes into difficult territory as this could lead to calling the reviewers subjectivity into question. Was he bought? Did the game get a 9/10 because h went skydiving and got drunk with some hot women in mini-skirts? Maybe if we sent out less freebies and cut out the perks on this side, we would maybe get a more accountable and serious reviewer base that judges the games for what they are. I don't know, I am just thinking out loud, but fact is, the system is broken. Maybe the solution is as simple as just moving away from 100 percent scores.Maybe the governing bodies should take an interestin this and bring the industry and the media together to figure this out."

in light of the IGN Mass Effect review (i agree its a great game, but the score doesnt reflect the end result) have we gotten to the point that reviewers are to lose to dev's and publishers??? is it possible better scores are being handed out for reasons not related to the game? do we need to rethink the way games are scored?

for instance look at how close 1up is to the bungie team...not saying theye doen anything wrong, but should any game reviewer be that close or tied to any publisher or dev house????

please discuss w/o the usual system war trype...

The system is very similar to the United States Congress. Everyone believes it's being run one way, when everyone in the actual system knows it's run a completely different way. The naive person thinks Congress is being run by the Congressmen (imagine that!) and that policy is developed by calm discussion among Senators and Representatives, all gathered together to determine the best course of action to best preserve the state of the US. In reality, almost all policy is decided by Congressmen bought and paid for by special interest groups and lobbyists, and almost none of the bills coming out of the Senate or House are ever really in the best interests of anyone but those with the largest number of suits bought off.

Frankly, I take every reviewer's score with a hefty dose of salt, because I know that any system that can affect the profits of a firm is going to cause that firm to do everything in its power to influence the result. This "patronage" system is as old as the written word, it existed even during the time of the ancient Greeks. So, at least it isn't anything new. Is it right, neccessarily? Probably not. But it's expected and it's here to stay. But knowing is half the battle. Since we know, at least somewhat, how the system works, we also know how to "read" these scores.

i think all sites should adopt this model....no numerical score!

just five categories

graphics
gameplay/story
sound
innovation/design
replayability/value

but no numerical score. this would force people to actually read the review....

no more "hey i saw a number thats either AA or AAA and thats all i need to know..."

My respect for these guys just doubled. (not really that great of an achievement)

I couldn't agree more with it. Games industry is way crazy in the review department. How many movies have over 90 on metacritic? Very few. Yet there is hundreds of games which get scores like that.

I find it amusing that he talks about reforming the review systems so 5=average yet seems to think a 10 should be completely unobtainable.PBSnipes

i dont know man i kinda agree...i they are going to o with a numerical system, each digit has to count.

but the real issue is, for instance....when did an 8 become a flop? i mean i know that fanboys consider that a flop...but thats just for competition purposes. but have we become so jaded that we will only accept a 9.4-9.5 just to play a game? seems a bit snobbish just for the sake o snobbery

what if you let scores just escalate, so that when the gen changes you will see it in the scores?

You give a great game a 9.9, then a better one comes and you give it a 10.1. Next gen, maybe the games will reach 50+ point scores and so on. Mind you, just give it some time and scores can get very, very high, but what's really wrong with that? It would mean no perfect games since there is no roof for scores.

I think the reason some people are disappointed with 8.0 scores is that they feel the game that recieved it deserved higher because it was "better than" some other game that got a higher score. For instance, an RPG fan (I won't deny it, I am one of those) might feel that Mass Effect was the best thing since sliced bread, and that it was a better game (in their opinion anyway) than, say, Halo 3. And so they're unhappy because they feel the game got jipped in the score department because it got a lower score than an "inferior" game.

All scoring is subjective to whoever's doing the scoring though, so I think that the real solution should be comparing apples to apples, and not to oranges. So instead of a single score across all genres, a game should only get a score relative to its own genre. That way, you'll be able to tell if Mass Effect is the best RPG since Oblivion, which is a fair comparison since they are in the same genre, rather than saying, "well, it's 8.0 vs 9.5", when it's not a fair comparison since Halo 3 is a shooter.

[QUOTE="PBSnipes"]I find it amusing that he talks about reforming the review systems so 5=average yet seems to think a 10 should be completely unobtainable.Escobahr

i dont know man i kinda agree...i they are going to o with a numerical system, each digit has to count.

but the real issue is, for instance....when did an 8 become a flop? i mean i know that fanboys consider that a flop...but thats just for competition purposes. but have we become so jaded that we will only accept a 9.4-9.5 just to play a game? seems a bit snobbish just for the sake o snobbery

Also the developer fails to take notice of all the trash and shovelware that routinely score in the 5's. Compared to games that scored in the 5's like Shellshocked: Nam '67, crackdown is a fantastic game, but definitely leaves something to be desired.

It sounds like the Killzone devs are already in damage control lol...

But seriously: I don't see how you could have a standard review board that's industry wide like he's saying. The closest it wiill ever get is Gamerankings, metacritic, places like that and quite frankly all these games boil down to taste. Some people love Mario Party and would probably camp out to get each new version if they had to while other people will only play hardcore TB strategy games or super real flight sims.

this was a post on the playstation.blog forum

"Yeah, it is getting a bit silly at the moment. There is no such thing as a 'perfect game'. Whenever I see the 100/100s I want to take the reviewer, sit him down and start questioning him a bit. "That textures sucks, is the game still perfect?" "There is a collision bug here, still perfect?" "What about this interface? Oh you can forgive that because the rest of the game is so awesome?" and so on.

I think reviewers have just gotten themselves into a bit of a corner by having to give better and better reviews because Bob at game.com gave it a 90, so I have to give it a 91. Or maybe they reviewed a game, thought it was the best thing ever, gave it a 95 and the next week a game comes in and suddenly that is the best thing ever, and they feel compelled to give it a higher score. I don't know to be honest.
I do know that there is a great big hole between 10 percent and 75 percent that is considered "crap-game zone" and that mentality should change. 50% should be a average, no brain-game that the player can have some fun with. 75% should be a decent game that is worth downloading a Demo for or looking at closer.Anything above that should then be hallowed ground where the great games lie.

As to how to solve it... tough one. Maybe an industry wide scoring and reviewing system. Something a little more scientific than just slapping an arbitrary number on something.There is some good, unbiasedreviewers out there, but finding them is difficult.
The next point might be more contentious. Should marketing departments from publishers stop sending out press-kits, or have lavish extravagant press-events where the potential reviewers are pampared and given free stuff. This is where it goes into difficult territory as this could lead to calling the reviewers subjectivity into question. Was he bought? Did the game get a 9/10 because h went skydiving and got drunk with some hot women in mini-skirts? Maybe if we sent out less freebies and cut out the perks on this side, we would maybe get a more accountable and serious reviewer base that judges the games for what they are. I don't know, I am just thinking out loud, but fact is, the system is broken. Maybe the solution is as simple as just moving away from 100 percent scores.Maybe the governing bodies should take an interestin this and bring the industry and the media together to figure this out."

in light of the IGN Mass Effect review (i agree its a great game, but the score doesnt reflect the end result) have we gotten to the point that reviewers are to lose to dev's and publishers??? is it possible better scores are being handed out for reasons not related to the game? do we need to rethink the way games are scored?

for instance look at how close 1up is to the bungie team...not saying theye doen anything wrong, but should any game reviewer be that close or tied to any publisher or dev house????

please discuss w/o the usual system war trype...

Escobahr

this really sounds like an excuse for a low killzone score even before it comes out.

He has a good point. Sometimes, I get so frustrated over these numerical scores, I think maybe we'd be better off with the RottenTomatoes system: it's either GOOD, or it's BAD. That's a little far, but this whole business of quantifying gameplay experiences into discreet numbers, which are not precise anyway, makes people lose sight of good games that happened to not "hit the mark".Mordred19

What I find interesting about the Rotten Tomatoe system is how a movie that can score around 50% is almost definitely worth watching (if you are a movie buff with a wide range of taste) but if you transferred that score to a game everyone would consider it a screaming failure.

this is why i say dump the numerical scoring alltogether and just summarize the five categories.

and once again either add the discussion liek an adult or please dont post here...

quit the fanboy crap about the dev doing spin control. hes being very candid, and using it against him just shows another problem that equates in the scoring system. relentless fanboys

I find it amusing that he talks about reforming the review systems so 5=average yet seems to think a 10 should be completely unobtainable.PBSnipes

A 10SHOULD be unatainable. once whatever a 10 is, is established, nobody has to get creative anymore.

And my respect for him just went down the floor. It's amazing the amount of nonsense spewn out of that comment. Sounds to me like the usual self-righteous ramblings of the delusionally ignorant.

1.- I don't think any respectable reviewer considers a 100% a "perfect" game in the absolute sense of the word - if it were, no game would ever get over 10-20%. It's usually considered "perfect considering current circumstances", or "prime" as gamespot calls it.

2.- The average should NEVER EVER be taken into consideration when devising a ratings scale. Basically, you create an ever-evolving system where scores lose meaning, you encourage collective mediocrity, and make a scale that eventually will have little meaning.

3.- His "proposed" system is the system most places already take into account, with everything over 7 being good, stuff over 5 being mediocre but might be enjoyable, and stuff under 5 being plainly poor.

4.- I don't believe the rather ridiculous scenario of score oneupsmanship he depics is either common or even existant.

Frankly, this is one of the dumbest comments I've read from someone who I would hope would know a bit about... well, anything.

I find it amusing that he talks about reforming the review systems so 5=average yet seems to think a 10 should be completely unobtainable.PBSnipes

Why should a perfect score be obtainable? Theres no such thing as the perfect game, theres alway something you have to forgive and if you need to forgive something then it wouldn't be perfect would it?

AT the moment poeple have it in their heads average is 8, guilty fun is 6.5, boring is 5 or below. With the way it is now a star rating like film crits use would be more useful than overall scores.

And my respect for him just went down the floor. It's amazing the amount of nonsense spewn out of that comment. Sounds to me like the usual self-righteous ramblings of the delusionally ignorant.

1.- I don't think any respectable reviewer considers a 100% a "perfect" game in the absolute sense of the word - if it were, no game would ever get over 10-20%. It's usually considered "perfect considering current circumstances", or "prime" as gamespot calls it.

2.- The average should NEVER EVER be taken into consideration when devising a ratings scale. Basically, you create an ever-evolving system where scores lose meaning, you encourage collective mediocrity, and make a scale that eventually will have little meaning.

3.- His "proposed" system is the system most places already take into account, with everything over 7 being good, stuff over 5 being mediocre but might be enjoyable, and stuff under 5 being plainly poor.

4.- I don't believe the rather ridiculous scenario of score oneupsmanship he depics is either common or even existant.

Frankly, this is one of the dumbest comments I've read from someone who I would hope would know a bit about... well, anything.

Grive

he only said "maybe". :|He was thinking out loud. It's not like he decided on that position for sureand is a staunch supporter of it.

And my respect for him just went down the floor. It's amazing the amount of nonsense spewn out of that comment. Sounds to me like the usual self-righteous ramblings of the delusionally ignorant.

or someone who like many of us....are sick of gaming being boiled down to either 9.5 or 10

1.- I don't think any respectable reviewer considers a 100% a "perfect" game in the absolute sense of the word - if it were, no game would ever get over 10-20%. It's usually considered "perfect considering current circumstances", or "prime" as gamespot calls it.

dood im sorry but this makes no sense. "perfect considering current circumstances"?? do you really think any reviewer even closely entertains this? what does that even mean in terms of a review? and yes 100% is perfect...by definition.

2.- The average should NEVER EVER be taken into consideration when devising a ratings scale. Basically, you create an ever-evolving system where scores lose meaning, you encourage collective mediocrity, and make a scale that eventually will have little meaning.

once again i dont think your being clear here.

3.- His "proposed" system is the system most places already take into account, with everything over 7 being good, stuff over 5 being mediocre but might be enjoyable, and stuff under 5 being plainly poor.

well i think the issue isnt totally what the reviewer means by a 7, but how that translates to the internets/webz. knowing that the definition of value has changed on the current system...why not adapt to something more communicative of the actual game?

4.- I don't believe the rather ridiculous scenario of score oneupsmanship he depics is either common or even existant.

hey people didnt believe radio dj's would take cash to only play some studios releases in the fifties....stuff like that happens. there are two factors here....games need good reviews to sell, and games need to sell to make money....you would be surprised what companies will do to make money. its simple really.

Frankly, this is one of the dumbest comments I've read from someone who I would hope would know a bit about... well, anything.

well seeing as how hes in the industry he prolly has a better vantage point than you (who not in the industry at all), mabye you should calm down and think about what hes saying.

Grive

he only said "maybe". :|He was thinking out loud. It's not like he decided on that position for sureand is a staunch supporter of it.

Mordred19

I'm sorry, I have no respect for those who decide to externalize idiocy, for it happens to make it obvious that such idiocy was in their heads in the first place. Something like the adage of it being better to remain silent and be thought of as an idiot instead of talking and removing all doubt.

In any case, it wasn't any "maybe". He only put a maybe in the least important part of this comment, and he expresses doubt in what's basically the only reasonable argument he puts forth - that reviewers might paint themselves into a corner by giving a high score without knowing what's in the future.

I'm sorry, I have no respect for those who decide to externalize idiocy, for it happens to make it obvious that such idiocy was in their heads in the first place. Something like the adage of it being better to remain silent and be thought of as an idiot instead of talking and removing all doubt.

In any case, it wasn't any "maybe". He only put a maybe in the least important part of this comment, and he expresses doubt in what's basically the only reasonable argument he puts forth - that reviewers might paint themselves into a corner by giving a high score without knowing what's in the future. ---grive

Well the issue here is that people are treating end scores as a sum of its parts - i.e. graphics, sound, etc - which is shouldn't be as we're not applying scientific measures to evaluate the game experince.

More importantly, an end score is trying to (objectively as possible) consider the more intangible things which ultimately centres around how enjoyable an experiencea game is. Some of the greatest bands in the world have got where they are not on technical merit and not without flaws. Like games, the end products they have released are far greater than the sum oftheir individual technical abilities.

or someone who like many of us....are sick of gaming being boiled down to either 9.5 or 10Escobahr

Erm, but it's not being "boiled to either 9.5 or 10". Only the most irrational fanboys do so. Which might be a comment on your perspective here, but hey, if it' fits...

dood im sorry but this makes no sense. "perfect considering current circumstances"?? do you really think any reviewer even closely entertains this? what does that even mean in terms of a review? and yes 100% is perfect...by definition.Escobahr

Erm, GAMESPOT, for starters, calls a 10 a PRIME, not perfect. I'm sure everyone else would agree with this amongst the professional reviewers. However, let's entertain your twisted little thought process and accept 100% as "absolutely" perfect.

No game can get over 2-3%, you know? The human eye can note over 100 fps. Few games achieve this on the average configuration. Shadowing performance is not perfect yet. Aliasing exists. Textures do not have infinite resolution. AI is not absolutely lifelike. There are repeated animations, although no human would ever repeat exactly the same thing. Character models are way too crude and simple, and clothing is frankly ways off. Levels are not expansive enough. Nothing is even close to the visage of perfection.

once again i dont think your being clear here.Escobahr

Once again? Interesting. First time you accuse me of being unclear. Still, I know why I made my comment, and I have good reasons to back it up. Do you have any? Do you have an understanding of the implications of making a scale dynamic based on the average? Not to mention, doing so still leaves the 0 and 10 barriers in very, very murky waters, which is the main complaint of the dev.

well i think the issue isnt totally what the reviewer means by a 7, but how that translates to the internets/webz. knowing that the definition of value has changed on the current system...why not adapt to something more communicative of the actual game?Escobahr

But it's not the "internets/webz". It's just the vocal morons out there. There's nothing you can do about this, except plaster "good" on all 7+ reviews... which is already done. If you shift the scale it won't make a difference, as the same escalation of conflict between fanboys which caused this "problem" in the first place would happen again - you're not dealing with the root of it, just continually adjusting a scale, making it less and less meaningful with each passing iteration in order to appease a group of morons who cannot be appeased.

hey people didnt believe radio dj's would take cash to only play some studios releases in the fifties....stuff like that happens. there are two factors here....games need good reviews to sell, and games need to sell to make money....you would be surprised what companies will do to make money. its simple really.Escobahr

Erm... I fail to see how this analogy is even remotely close to dealing with the issue I put forth, basically, his ridiculous comment about oneupsmanship.

well seeing as how hes in the industry he prolly has a better vantage point than you (who not in the industry at all), mabye you should calm down and think about what hes saying.Escobahr

Appeal to authority, and a poor one at that. The fact that he "works in game development" is quickly supressed by the fact that his comments are both ridiculous and factually incorrect.

So what I would suggest is that you "calm down" and think, analyze, what both he and I are saying.

well had you read his whole point youd see he was speaking to the pressure reviewers are under to return certain scores.....wheter from publishers/marketing or other reviewers...Escobahr

I read his whole point, analyzed it, thought about it, and came to the conclusion it's idiotic. If what you mention was his whole point, then I apologize: His comment is idiotic mainly because he doesn't know how to make a valid point without enveloping it in rambling nonsense, apart from the inherent idiocy in his rambling nonsense.

Still, I would like to know how will the KZ2 press kit develop, and what his thoughts regarding the Killzone hype machine were.

He's right.

Only lems disagree, I wonder why....

[QUOTE="Mordred19"]

he only said "maybe". :|He was thinking out loud. It's not like he decided on that position for sureand is a staunch supporter of it.

Grive

I'm sorry, I have no respect for those who decide to externalize idiocy, for it happens to make it obvious that such idiocy was in their heads in the first place. Something like the adage of it being better to remain silent and be thought of as an idiot instead of talking and removing all doubt.

In any case, it wasn't any "maybe". He only put a maybe in the least important part of this comment, and he expresses doubt in what's basically the only reasonable argument he puts forth - that reviewers might paint themselves into a corner by giving a high score without knowing what's in the future. Just because you happen to disagree with his thoughts, doesn't make his thoughtsidiocy. He makes a good point, and I think you seem to be missing the point. He just thinks that there should be one standards by which games are reviewed. That way we can better measure how reviewers' opinions measure up against one another. The scale on which these reviews are to be done can be any of the many being used today.

Reviews will always be subjective in their interpretation - you just need to latch on to a reviewer whom you agree with and use his/her viewpoint as a point of reference.

It's not the gaming industry, it's commercial business.

Grive, you say the oneupmanship is nonexistant, but I think it is at least a possible scenario. Not a widespread epidemic, but in some cases it could be a problem.Mordred19

Is it "possible"? completely. I never argued against it. Does it happen? Most of the times, the exact opposite happens, but that's expectable under completely reasonable and absolutely different reasons other than "oneupsmanship".

Just because you happen to disagree with his thoughts, doesn't make his thoughtsidiocy. He makes a good point, and I think you seem to be missing the point. He just thinks that there should be one standards by which games are reviewed. That way we can better measure how reviewers' opinions measure up against one another. The scale on which these reviews are to be done can be any of the many being used today.

Exeed_Orbit

I called his comments idiocy based on what I believe are rational arguments. Maybe it's too loaded a word, and I apologize for that. Still, the gist of it is still there: his comments are completely erroneous, and not because "I disagree", but because of rather basic statistical facts, and even some common sense.

Still, going by the "main point" you mention (which is interestingly the second "main point" I apparently have missed). I didn't miss it - I simply didnt' care about it once he set the nonsensical precendent. My other post would apply here, then: The comment is "idiotic" (in keeping my rather brutish tone :P) because of his wrapping a perfectly valid point in rambling nonsense.

Ok lets start by re-reveiwing killzone. 30% sounds about right.htekemerald

Ahh, the joys of system wars.:)

why are you mad

This is pre-damage control lol.BlueBarad

lol that was funny.

Grive, you say the oneupmanship is nonexistant, but I think it is at least a possible scenario. Not a widespread epidemic, but in some cases it could be a problem.Mordred19

I would think a dev would have a better perspective on this matter than someone on a forum...

As said before, they should do away with the number system and have the person actually read the review for a couple reasons, one being recently the scores given to the games has not matched what was said in the reviews.

To be honest no game should ever get a 10 or 100 or whatever the max of the rating system is because no game is perfect.finalfantasy94

The dub for the original Hellsing anime was great.

To be honest no game should ever get a 10 or 100 or whatever the max of the rating system is because no game is perfect.finalfantasy94

no game will ever be perfect, so if a game fufilles exactly whats its supposed to do, and does it in a way that adds to or significantly changes the standard in its genre, it chould be considered for a 10 score

[QUOTE="PBSnipes"]I find it amusing that he talks about reforming the review systems so 5=average yet seems to think a 10 should be completely unobtainable.jigglebilly1983

A 10SHOULD be unatainable. once whatever a 10 is, is established, nobody has to get creative anymore.