@Tribesmaster Posted Feb 3, 2012 10:56 pm CET "If a game gets a 6.0 I'm definitely less likely to go out and buy it. Alone in the dark got a 6.5, and I purchased that for 4 dollars, and I still felt ripped off. I can only imagine how terrible I would feel if I had bought it full price." So basically you're saying that GameSpot just rated it wrong. Because with a 6.5 GameSpot's not saying it's not good or unplayable, you say it is something like that, as you felt "ripped off", so you simply don't agree with the 6.5. Although you're acting as if a 6.5 IS bad, just because you found the game bad while GameSpot gave it a 6.5. But that's not what it means...
@calvinsora I beg to disagree. I mean, the number, the score, is basically the conclusion. GameSpot also did the smart thing to add a "name" to the rating, such as "great", or "fair" and other things, to kind of indicate what the rating represents. Actually, it's quite sad they had to add that to make people understand. Because, as said, people see a 6 as "terrible" rather than "fair", and somehow they choose to ignore that. Anyway, people shouldn't rely on a number, but another thing is that GameSpot also shows the average of other professional critics, and more importantly, the average of the user-ratings. Which I personally all take in consideration. However, it annoys and saddens me to see that many ratings are just inaccurate. How do I know? Well, if a certain games has a bunch of 10s, a bunch one 1s and some others in the middle, it's clear that those first two aren't a fair rating where they put thought into and the latter ones probably are at least a bit thought out. If people would just give a thought-out and honest rating more, the average would be clearer and it would also make a better indication of what is generally thought of a game. Beats reading every single review...
*continued* Also, people do not see a rating or a value clearly. As pointed out in this article, once a game is like a 7 or lower, it's generally thought it's something terrible to stay away from. Personally, I'm really not letting these ratings decide for me to stay away from it or not. I'll look through the reviews and see what's actually wrong with it, and I'll see if I'm OK with that or not and I'll just go try the game or not. To me, once a game's rating hits a 5 or lower, I'm REALLY starting to worry about the quality of a game. Oh, and I've said it before and I'll say it again: GTAIV is NOT a 10... GREAT game, NOT a 10. I dare to say that even the people at GameSpot just seem to be biased because of a popular franchise and developer. And besides that, it's probably also the idea of this whole concept of sandbox and freedom that is so great. But the game definitely has many flaws. There are even sóme flaws pointed out in the review here, yet it gets a 10. It's contradictory, so it makes no sense at all. So, when you rate, rate appropriately and not famboyismy...
I'm glad this is pointed out. Because I despise how shallow many people think about these things. I've literally seen posts about these "big" games, as in one of those of hugely popular franchises, and some people would say "Really?! This only got an 8/9?!?!". This might because of different reasons. Which could be that they're either insulted and try to defend their favorite game(s), or that they just want it to be all perfect, or whatever reason like that. The way these people also tend to "rate" things is either push the meter to 10 or dump it to a 1. This probably the same reason why YouTube changed their rating-system from stars to thumbs. Because most people used the stars the same way the thumbs-system is used now. They don't sit and analyze a video like "Hm, the story was alright, but the execution isn't that great, so about 3-4 stars.". No, it's more like "Nope, don't like it! *clicks the first star* ". The same thing happens here and on IMDb, a lot of tens and ones and the minority really applies a proper rating.
*Post below continued...*: Not everybody is as lighthearted or casual about games or "gaming" as, maybe yourself, and surely many other people. Although, I agree that it almost SHOULD happen, for people to kind of move on and go outside or something. And people could find an appreciation for other things in life, or even other media, such as good and important films and music. (Meaning no 'Transformers'-films and no MTV.) I just mean, at the same times games and this entertainment DOES have grasp on many people.
@AFiercePancake Hm, I must disagree that thát would be the response of people/consumers. You seem to underestimate the amount of enthusiasts and even addicts out there. Myself, I'm kind of in between, because although I love games, having grown up with them for over half my life, I'm definitely not obsessed with them. I love them like I love watching movies, just getting an experience or a story, whatever. And when it's done it's done and I go and do other stuff. But people will always crave for this media, there are many people with a passion for these games and will always try to get what they want. Yes, there's nothing we can do about it if the developers/publishers make the wrong decisions and they destroy the market. But there will always BE a market, and that's the people who want the games. They won't just be like "Oh well, it was a nice run of about, what, 40 years? (Using 'Pong' as one of the first games to hit homes.) But it's time to move on now.". No, the majority will be demanding more of this entertainment. It is only still the beginning and this electronic entertainment is growing and probably, or obviously rather, about to go through big changes.
*Post below continued...*: For example, look at the in-game store of 'Team Fortress 2', you have all these in-game items, like hats, weapons and even sounds. Now, these sounds specifically, they have an AMOUNT OF USES! Say 5 times for the use of a sound in a virtual world, which costs about 1,50 to 2,50 Euros, I'm not sure. But do you think I'm going to pay ANYTHING for the limited playback of a sound inside a game? They must be crazy. Sure, they might think people will just be dumb enough to fall for any lower priced "item", but I'm not spending money on such a thing, probably not even if the usage of it was unlimited. The same counts for a full game, if the usage of it is limited, the value drops significantly. Because then this isn't an item of entertainment you invest in anymore, so that you can buy it and always use it as long as your platform will be able to (such as with a homevideo-containter), but it rather becomes an item that you basically use up.
Basically, what you buy today is a partial right of usage of a game. Recently there was also this program which let you actually run a game from a server, rendering included and you could just play it on your own computer. This was for Demos, but it MIGHT just be the future of gaming. That you buy a right to play a game that is installed and rendered on some server-computer, only it appears on your screen. Kind of like renting movies digitally... But anyway, apart from that, it's not like I don't have control of my purchase of a game or how much support or acceptance I show. I've always been in a passive protest against the high prices on games (and other media). Which caused me to never ever have bought a game at launch-date or at it's first new/full price. Besides that, not only is the price I'm willing to give for it valued by the game itself, it's also valued by how much usage I can get out of it.
Now that WiiU thing, apart from the ridiculous expansion on a ridiculous name, is coming with this touch/tablet-thing, it's only making it more laughable than the Wii already is. Sure, for the first while the motion-controller was this whole unique "oohhh ahhh neat-o" thing, but quickly turned into a thing for kiddies and even THEY don't want to play it anymore and it's collecting dust in many households now. Besides, another console-developer took the idea and instantly made it a lot better, it's called the Move. And the Kinect... well, that's just an improved version of the EyeToy. Don't want to sound like a fanboy, as my main platform is the PC anyway, but the PlayStation is simply the console done right. And Microsoft simply created the Xbox to have a share in the console-market, and to me it's basically a PC-console copied after the PlayStation, so I don't need or want it. That's not saying it's bad, that's saying what sort of use I see in it, that's all.
DamageIncM's comments