Review Inflation: Video Gaming's Next Big Screw-Up?

is it just me, or has the standard for gaming excellence gone down because of the poweful new systems? for example, in only the past 6 months, Gamespot has given out two perfect scores to games that, while very good and worthy of a 9.3 or 9.4, have been overhyped for small reasons. Yes, yes, GTA4 and MGS4 were awesome titles and some of the best this year, but I highly doubt that they were worthy of the same legendary score that The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time and the original Soul Caliber recieved. And if you look at IGN, you find more problems. For instance, on IGN, every game in the Ratchet and Clank series with the exception of Secret agent Clank recieved 9 and above. Yes, all of them were solid action platformers, but they did not deserve those high hype scores and those editor's choice awards. I beleieve that lately, video game reviewers have been blinded by new, improved audio visuals which, while part of the score, is far from all of it. In fact, I still find it more fun to play in the classic Tick Tock Clock world of the aging Super Mario 64 than to play infection multiplayer on the beautiful to watch Halo. SMB3 still appeals to me more than the average high tech, 3D game, and yet 2D reviews pale in comparison to the ones many 3D games like Gears of War and COTD4 recieve. Please post your opinion.

is it just me, or has the standard for gaming excellence gone down because of the poweful new systems? for example, in only the past 6 months, Gamespot has given out two perfect scores to games that, while very good and worthy of a 9.3 or 9.4, have been overhyped for small reasons. Yes, yes, GTA4 and MGS4 were awesome titles and some of the best this year, but I highly doubt that they were worthy of the same legendary score that The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time and the original Soul Caliber recieved. And if you look at IGN, you find more problems. For instance, on IGN, every game in the Ratchet and Clank series with the exception of Secret agent Clank recieved 9 and above. Yes, all of them were solid action platformers, but they did not deserve those high hype scores and those editor's choice awards. I beleieve that lately, video game reviewers have been blinded by new, improved audio visuals which, while part of the score, is far from all of it. In fact, I still find it more fun to play in the classic Tick Tock Clock world of the aging Super Mario 64 than to play infection multiplayer on the beautiful to watch Halo. SMB3 still appeals to me more than the average high tech, 3D game, and yet 2D reviews pale in comparison to the ones many 3D games like Gears of War and COTD4 recieve. Please post your opinion.

lsesrekmsa66

Quite funny you should use that word actually...

First off you probably based this opinion of yours on a demo you probably played at a local gamestop.

And Reviews dont mean a thing, if they like a game fine, if they dont thats fine too. Many people love games tht get low press reviews and vice versa.

well when they review these games they are not sitting there saying this game is not a ten because it not as epic as zelda ect. they review these games of what is avaible games this gen ect. these games like mgs 4 are impressive so they rate them to the systems that is on not was on a 10 year old console or even older.

mgs 4 been so epic to me any ways. it is fun ect. and that is what i game for not for review scores ect.

if i did listen to reviews i would have never played lair and that game is fun to me i like the differant controls it had. it made it feel differant from the rest of the games i have played.

OUCH! you hit me in the eye with you're opinion.....

I think there is always a "nostalgia effect". For example, I think TIE Fighter, Secret of Monkey Island, River City Ransom, and Doom are the best games ever...but I know you can't compare them to todays games apples-to apples. It would be sad if I hadn't had similar fun with any game since the mid-90s, but I just differentiate "classics" from"current great games", and treat them the same.

I think that giving numeric scores to games is really what is getting reviewers and fanboys in trouble. They should use a scoring system that most other entertainment media use: stars. When I see a 5 star review from Gamespy, I know it's an excellent game, but when you see 10/10, people immediately think "perfect". And what is the difference or value between 9.1 and 9.3, given that reviews are subjective? How does that help the consumer make an informed opinion whether one is worth the purchase over the other?

I think reviewers have allowed technical aspects of games to become the most important factor. Take the DS review of Guitar Hero, here on GS. It's a crap game, but the point is still relevant; the reviewer says at one point, that the graphical quality isn't that great, "but the frame rate is solid, which is the most important thing."

Since when? :? Since when was the freakin' frame rate the most important aspect of a game's presentation? What happened to the art style, the direction, the production? When was frame rate ever mentioned in past years, except for when it was notably bad?

How many games have you played whereby the reviews have spoke of poor frame rates, or frame rate stutters, only to find that you cant notice anything of the sort. Mass Effect supposedly has a terrible frame rate, according to reviews. I can honestly say that it never once troubled me.

Then you have games like Ninja Gaiden, with damn-near perfect action combat gameplay, marked down accross the board for looking "great... but not THAT great" and for having supposed frame rate stutters despite running at 60fps 90% of the time.

Reviewers - and gamespot in particular - really need to take a step back and start appreciating games for what they are.

Yes, because it's impossible for a game to actually deserve a 10. :roll: Give me a break.bleehum

Neither GTA nor MGS4 deserve 10s.

[QUOTE="bleehum"] Yes, because it's impossible for a game to actually deserve a 10. :roll: Give me a break.Ninja-Hippo

Neither GTA nor MGS4 deserve 10s.

10 doesn't mean perfect, but they're definitely valid when games are as good as GTAIV (well, this one is arguable) or MGS4.

To much opinion in that post.

is it just me, or has the standard for gaming excellence gone down because of the poweful new systems? for example, in only the past 6 months, Gamespot has given out two perfect scores to games that, while very good and worthy of a 9.3 or 9.4, have been overhyped for small reasons. Yes, yes, GTA4 and MGS4 were awesome titles and some of the best this year, but I highly doubt that they were worthy of the same legendary score that The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time and the original Soul Caliber recieved. And if you look at IGN, you find more problems. For instance, on IGN, every game in the Ratchet and Clank series with the exception of Secret agent Clank recieved 9 and above. Yes, all of them were solid action platformers, but they did not deserve those high hype scores and those editor's choice awards. I beleieve that lately, video game reviewers have been blinded by new, improved audio visuals which, while part of the score, is far from all of it. In fact, I still find it more fun to play in the classic Tick Tock Clock world of the aging Super Mario 64 than to play infection multiplayer on the beautiful to watch Halo. SMB3 still appeals to me more than the average high tech, 3D game, and yet 2D reviews pale in comparison to the ones many 3D games like Gears of War and COTD4 recieve. Please post your opinion.

lsesrekmsa66

I think one major probelm with reviews is their scoring system. When all you can choose is a 9.0 or 9.5 or 10. It is very limiting becuase a game can be near perfection, but not quite a 10. In my mind a 9.5 does not represent near perfection, and that is why they had to give GTA4 and MGS4 10's. However the even worse ratings system are the 5 star system or the thumbs up and/or down system.

[QUOTE="bleehum"] Yes, because it's impossible for a game to actually deserve a 10. :roll: Give me a break.Ninja-Hippo

Neither GTA nor MGS4 deserve 10s.

You're right. MGS4 deserves 11.

:P

[QUOTE="bleehum"] Yes, because it's impossible for a game to actually deserve a 10. :roll: Give me a break.Ninja-Hippo

Neither GTA nor MGS4 deserve 10s.

is it just me, or has the standard for gaming excellence gone down because of the poweful new systems? for example, in only the past 6 months, Gamespot has given out two perfect scores to games that, while very good and worthy of a 9.3 or 9.4, have been overhyped for small reasons. Yes, yes, GTA4 and MGS4 were awesome titles and some of the best this year, but I highly doubt that they were worthy of the same legendary score that The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time and the original Soul Caliber recieved. And if you look at IGN, you find more problems. For instance, on IGN, every game in the Ratchet and Clank series with the exception of Secret agent Clank recieved 9 and above. Yes, all of them were solid action platformers, but they did not deserve those high hype scores and those editor's choice awards. I beleieve that lately, video game reviewers have been blinded by new, improved audio visuals which, while part of the score, is far from all of it. In fact, I still find it more fun to play in the classic Tick Tock Clock world of the aging Super Mario 64 than to play infection multiplayer on the beautiful to watch Halo. SMB3 still appeals to me more than the average high tech, 3D game, and yet 2D reviews pale in comparison to the ones many 3D games like Gears of War and COTD4 recieve. Please post your opinion.

lsesrekmsa66

Is it just me, or is it ridiculous that people are wasting so much time whining about how 9.6 is fair but .4 higher is totally crazy.

Geta grip people. If the majority of people who call themselves gamers weren't so ignorant, the numerical score wouldn't even be an issue. People would actually read the damn reviews, learn the pros and cons of the games, and then make their mind on whether or not that is a game they will enjoy.

INstead the industry is dominated by ignorant posers who make up their mind first, or based only on hype and graphics, and then they whine and argue over whether it deserved a 9.6 or 9.4.

[QUOTE="bleehum"] Yes, because it's impossible for a game to actually deserve a 10. :roll: Give me a break.Ninja-Hippo

Neither GTA nor MGS4 deserve 10s.

GTA4 may not, but if any game deserves a 10 this gen, it's definitely MGS4.

For instance, on IGN, every game in the Ratchet and Clank series with the exception of Secret agent Clank recieved 9 and above. Yes, all of them were solid action platformers, but they did not deserve those high hype scores and those editor's choice awards.

lsesrekmsa66

What?! :shock: IGN Ratchet and Clank Size Matters ps2 score 6...That's 3 points away from a 9...

I think there is always a "nostalgia effect". For example, I think TIE Fighter, Secret of Monkey Island, River City Ransom, and Doom are the best games ever...but I know you can't compare them to todays games apples-to apples. It would be sad if I hadn't had similar fun with any game since the mid-90s, but I just differentiate "classics" from"current great games", and treat them the same.

I think that giving numeric scores to games is really what is getting reviewers and fanboys in trouble. They should use a scoring system that most other entertainment media use: stars. When I see a 5 star review from Gamespy, I know it's an excellent game, but when you see 10/10, people immediately think "perfect". And what is the difference or value between 9.1 and 9.3, given that reviews are subjective? How does that help the consumer make an informed opinion whether one is worth the purchase over the other?

phatrawk

It would be unfair to compare old DOS games to new stuff. Comparing ANYTHING to the secret of monkey island is like comparing Golden Apples to moldy apples from gas stations.

I do not think stars would work any better though. All that would do is group every good game into 5 stars, every decent game 4, and most everything else 3. 2 and 1 would probably rarely be used (except for hyped PS3 exclusives:P). In the end, the stars would be meaningless, as halo 4 would get five stars, Mario would get 5 stars, etc. There would be massive debates about what games are super five stars, over-rated five stars, etc. In the past, there has always been that subtle but major difference between a 9.0 and a 9.7. Just not sure it would really work.

Personally, I think they should trash the number completely. Just let the publisher put a quote on the box. This would force everyone to read the review and let the reviewer rate the game more accurately.

Clearly the 10s really aren't deserved and clearly there has been inflation. But the way to fix it is to use the system like xplay does. This way there will be plenty of 5s and 4s (which both are buys). With 3s being a possible buy.

There's no way everyone will agree that a game deserves a 10, but a lot more will understand if you give GTAiv and MGS4 a 5 out of 5. Making the scale less precise is the way to go as it leaves some wiggle room. saying 10 out of 10 (or the older 100 out of 100 is trying to add way too much precision to a subjective review).

Clearly the 10s really aren't deserved and clearly there has been inflation. But the way to fix it is to use the system like xplay does. This way there will be plenty of 5s and 4s (which both are buys). With 3s being a possible buy.

There's no way everyone will agree that a game deserves a 10, but a lot more will understand if you give GTAiv and MGS4 a 5 out of 5. Making the scale less precise is the way to go as it leaves some wiggle room. saying 10 out of 10 (or the older 100 out of 100 is trying to add way too much precision to a subjective review).

stiltzsy

Someone brought up a good point. Make a dual score review score. One score would be a score assigned on technical merits. I.E it plays well, things function, etc. The second score would be an enjoyment meter. Purely how fun you had playing it.

It could help some of the issues with the single score system.

I also greatly enjoy EGMs letter grades.

NEXT big screw up? How about CURRENT big screw up?

[QUOTE="stiltzsy"]

Clearly the 10s really aren't deserved and clearly there has been inflation. But the way to fix it is to use the system like xplay does. This way there will be plenty of 5s and 4s (which both are buys). With 3s being a possible buy.

There's no way everyone will agree that a game deserves a 10, but a lot more will understand if you give GTAiv and MGS4 a 5 out of 5. Making the scale less precise is the way to go as it leaves some wiggle room. saying 10 out of 10 (or the older 100 out of 100 is trying to add way too much precision to a subjective review).

SpruceCaboose

Someone brought up a good point. Make a dual score review score. One score would be a score assigned on technical merits. I.E it plays well, things function, etc. The second score would be an enjoyment meter. Purely how fun you had playing it.

It could help some of the issues with the single score system.

I also greatly enjoy EGMs letter grades.

That's how GameSpot used to do it, except they would then average the scores out.

I like Ars Technica's review of Halo 3. They scored the singleplayer and multiplayer separately.

[QUOTE="stiltzsy"]

Clearly the 10s really aren't deserved and clearly there has been inflation. But the way to fix it is to use the system like xplay does. This way there will be plenty of 5s and 4s (which both are buys). With 3s being a possible buy.

There's no way everyone will agree that a game deserves a 10, but a lot more will understand if you give GTAiv and MGS4 a 5 out of 5. Making the scale less precise is the way to go as it leaves some wiggle room. saying 10 out of 10 (or the older 100 out of 100 is trying to add way too much precision to a subjective review).

SpruceCaboose

Someone brought up a good point. Make a dual score review score. One score would be a score assigned on technical merits. I.E it plays well, things function, etc. The second score would be an enjoyment meter. Purely how fun you had playing it.

It could help some of the issues with the single score system.

I also greatly enjoy EGMs letter grades.

Isn't "Tilt" supposed to indicate the inclination of the reviewer as to how fun the game is?

But I think that if the range of scores is 10, then it should be possible to get a 0 or a 10. What's the point is the highest score cannot be achieved? We should all know that "9.3" is the best possible score? I think that Gamespot may be inflating the scores, not out of some conspiracy, but to give a full range of scores. Every reviewer has a bit of bias, let's say +/- 0.3, which is possibly why Gamespot streamlined their scores. In effect, they've made it a "star"-type system, only they've doubled the granularity and count the stars for you.