i bought rockband last night. what a great game.

only issue im having is that the strummer on my guitar only works when you strumm upwards. is anyone else having this issue?

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

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

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

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

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..."

a for sure way to kill threads suh as

PS3 has no AAA's this season
PS3 doesnt have any AAA's
no AAA's PS3 fails
RRRod why the 360 fails
mario sucks 360 wins GOTY
360 has all of the AAA's
the wii is too kiddy

blah blah etc etc

the answer? charge gamestop forum posters a dollar a thread. would this curtail useless threads???

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...

[QUOTE="kankthetank"][QUOTE="Escobahr"]

well if uncharted had issues with:

framreate
glitches
freezing
buttons not working
clipping
getting stuck in objects

then yes that should effect the games score.

what is it you people dont get? why are you so quick to just look past major issues.

does it ruin the game as a whole? no.

but when the average gamer who goes to IGN and sees that score w/o reading indepth...94 ... do you honestly believe a 94 ranked game should include all these issues?

i think the real fanboys are the ones willing to forgive any and all problems a game has , just so they can recieve a coveted score to go into system wars with... and thats pathetic.

and to all thos claiming im a fanboy, i own a 360,PS3,Wii with over 40 games a piece for both the ps3 and the 360...can you say the same?

Puckhog04

Ofcourse these issues affected ME's score. For example, it got a 9 in graphics despite being one of the best looking games today. The fact is, while these issues exist, they're not really a big annoyance to bring down the game's score a lot. This is basically the case with every other ME review out there. In the end, it's all opinion and one person's 8 is another's 10.

Well, even from the video review at IGN there was no slowdown whatsoever in the footage used in their video review. Makes me think the slowdown is widely exaggerated or that it's just not apparent unless you're really looking for it (kind of how Assassins Creed is). To the TC: There was zero mention of Freezes or anything getting stuck in objects in the IGN review. Way to make up something. Their primary gripes were the framerate dropped sometimes and that there weresome glitches here and there.

Once again though, the TC only focuses on the negative comments. How about you look at the positive ones? Open world is very well done. Tons of sidequests to be done. Amazing story and the dialogue/voice acting/choices in the game are superb. Combat is very well done. RPG elements to it are perfectly done and very very strong.

Ignorance is strong with the TC.

Like the previous guy said, apparently the small flaws don't deter from the experience and the strong points outweigh the weakpoints by a long shot to afford a 9.4. Also, reviews will be different.

dood read the review please, and dont call me a liar again or i will report you to the mods.

"Shepard has a displeasing tendency to get stuck in objects, sometimes in the midst of battle. It happens to NPCs as well -- it isn't nearly as frustrating but it does kill your sense of immersion when an enemy "phases" through a wall. " IGN's ME review

well if uncharted had issues with:

framreate
glitches
freezing
buttons not working
clipping
getting stuck in objects

then yes that should effect the games score.

what is it you people dont get? why are you so quick to just look past major issues.

does it ruin the game as a whole? no.

but when the average gamer who goes to IGN and sees that score w/o reading indepth...94 ... do you honestly believe a 94 ranked game should include all these issues?

i think the real fanboys are the ones willing to forgive any and all problems a game has , just so they can recieve a coveted score to go into system wars with... and thats pathetic.

and to all thos claiming im a fanboy, i own a 360,PS3,Wii with over 40 games a piece for both the ps3 and the 360...can you say the same?