Support NeoGAF

[Eddie Griffin]

Aaaaand there goes the Metacritic score again

Honestly, for me, it's more of a 7 game, but I see why people might rate it lower.

At this point one reviewer won't do much to metacritic.

 

[Scrabble]

Vague marketing and insane hype that fails to deliver deserves every ounce of criticism it receives.

Also, last I checked 77 was a C, and I rarely heard people at school claim that a C was 'Good'. Remain idealistic all you want, but that 'wreck reviewing curve' is the reality of how games are graded at most institutions.

With the marketing, hype, and money thrown at this game, there is no scenario where this game gets a 0-4 / 10, even if it's deserved. So we are given no choice but to curve the reviewer's scores.

No it shouldn't, the game should be judged by the content of the game. Not how much hype there was, how much marketing there was, the budget, whether a dude on the dev team is an asshole,....

I know it's hard and I'm not going to say I'm immune to hype, expectations, and so on; but a critic has to rise above that and look at the game on its own.

 

[ArkkAngel007]

How so? A 5 is a failure of a game just like a 50 is for your grade

This isn't grade school. Each site has their own scale where THEY dictate what the score represents.

5 on most sites is supposed to represent a mediocre title (actually mediocre, not GAF slang for game they don't like). So a 5 serves the same purpose as a C, but truthfully it's hardly ever used.

 

[Bold One]

Hype =/= overhype. Two different things. Destiny had the latter.

How does one measure that?

when does Hype cross the line?

I am curious because I have through 200 pages of people playing fast and loose with the term

 

[Interficium]

How so? A 5 is a failure of a game just like a 50 is for your grade

Embarassing post.

 

[Bold One]

No it shouldn't, the game should be judged by the content of the game. Not how much hype there was, how much marketing there was, the budget, whether a dude on the dev team is an asshole,....

I know it's hard and I'm not going to say I'm immune to hype, expectations, and so on; but a critic has to rise above that and look at the game on its own.

Logic-


Immune

Immune

Immune

Immune

 

[ffejeromdiks]

You know, double the number of strikes, add some variety in patrol missions, and add 3-4 more raids of this caliber and I think they have a winner (oh and change the horrible loot drop algorithm).

None of those things seem undoable and all of them could be added in 2-3 expansion packs. Destiny complete edition holiday 2015 could be pretty great.

I'd be willing to bet that we'll be getting content like you mentioned outside of Expansions, in two weeks we're getting a new strike/vehicle focused PVP. I would assume Bungie has new content to release every month.

Expansions will probably be new planets/level cap increase. Mercury is already in the game as a multiplayer map, and when you go to orbit afterwards it even has Mercury's planet fully rendered in the background, so that is most likely coming in an expansion.

 

[spootime]

No it shouldn't, the game should be judged by the content of the game. Not how much hype there was, how much marketing there was, the budget, whether a dude on the dev team is an asshole,....

I know it's hard and I'm not going to say I'm immune to hype, expectations, and so on; but a critic has to rise above that and look at the game on its own.

I don't really think thats true. If destiny was made by a small studio without the resources of Bungie, the lack of content in the game would be more justified. When you take into account the blank check and half a decade of dev time, the large lack of story and content really becomes much less excusable.

Embarassing post.

Not really. If you think that a five truly represents average in the game review industry then you are delusional.

 

[Poodlestrike]

How does one measure that?

when does Hype cross the line?

I am curious because I have through 200 pages of people playing fast and loose with the term

I'd say that the point where gross exaggeration or outright falsehoods come into play, that's overhype. People being disappointed is a totally fair reaction to that, especially when it's the devs themselves pushing the narrative.

 

[KooopaKid]

No it shouldn't, the game should be judged by the content of the game. Not how much hype there was, how much marketing there was, the budget, whether a dude on the dev team is an asshole,....

I know it's hard and I'm not going to say I'm immune to hype, expectations, and so on; but a critic has to rise above that and look at the game on its own.

I disagree, when promises are made by the developer and not kept, the backlash is deserved. But even without that, the game doesn't deserve more than a 7 for the repetition and lack of variety alone.

 

[Abounder]

This isn't grade school. Each site has their own scale where THEY dictate what the score represents.

Embarassing post.

Feel free to enlighten, how is an equivalent 5/10 rating not considered to be a fail? That's a score in the red

 

[braves01]

Have any sites reviewed after-20-hours Destiny?

 

[commish]

Vague marketing and insane hype that fails to deliver deserves every ounce of criticism it receives.

Also, last I checked 77 was a C, and I rarely heard people at school claim that a C was 'Good'. Remain idealistic all you want, but that 'wreck reviewing curve' is the reality of how games are graded at most institutions.

With the marketing, hype, and money thrown at this game, there is no scenario where this game gets a 0-4 / 10, even if it's deserved. So we are given no choice but to curve the reviewer's scores.

Did you just compare review scores to grades in school? This thread keeps delivering the ridiculousness.

 

[rac]

I've been listening for hours while I work and I'm not sure if the guys are actually making progress or if they just don't know how to kill the guy. Is that the case? Is it just a battle of attrition with the guys chipping away at the boss' health?

I think 50% is the closest they've gotten to killing it, but the interesting part isn't shooting the boss. It gets interesting when some of your team gets teleported and you have to get them back while they have to deal with oracles and cleansing themselves with a shield.

 

[Freedom = $1.05]

Huh, most of my college courses went like this:

A:90-100
B:80-89
C:70-79
D:60-69
F:<60

I dunno, it's looking like a strong C, maybe even a C+ to me. Could be a B- depending on the scale used, but i've seen places that consider a C+ and a B- to be interchangeable.

Spoiler

hah. also. X/5 scale for reviews is the best numerical scale everrrrrr

 

[Scrabble]

I don't really think thats true. If destiny was made by a small studio without the resources of Bungie, the lack of content in the game would be more justified. When you take into account the blank check and half a decade of dev time, the large lack of story and content really becomes much less excusable.

It would be justified, but it shouldn't change the evaluation of the game.

 

[baconcow]

77 is not a C according to the rating system used by most sites. 5 would be average, or the traditional school definition of a C.

C is a 60-65 (or close) by most Universities in Canada. Of you get 55 or 60 and lower, you usually fail the class. 77 is a B+ at Ottawa U and considered a decent mark. For game reviews, it is mediocre and average. 80+ is the better. 79.9999 and lower is slightly below great and ends up average. That is how people mainly view things, evident by user review scores all over the web.

 

[HTupolev]

77 is not a C according to the rating system used by most sites. 5 would be average

What the hell?

What reviewers are you talking about?

Very few games get cumulative scores of 5's and below; they usually have to be catastrophically bad and/or totally broken for reviewer consensus to peg them in that region. 5 is not average at all, it's FFXIV1.0 territory. It's where failures go to die.

 

[Kagoshima_Luke]

Feel free to enlighten, how is an equivalent 5/10 rating not considered to be a fail? That's a score in the red

Huh, most of my college courses went like this:

A:90-100
B:80-89
C:70-79
D:60-69
F:<60

I dunno, it's looking like a strong C, maybe even a C+ to me. Could be a B- depending on the scale used, but i've seen places that consider a C+ and a B- to be interchangeable.

Spoiler

hah. also. X/5 scale for reviews is the best numerical scale everrrrrr

C is a 60-65 (or close) by most Universities in Canada. Of you get 55 or 60 and lower, you usually fail the class. 77 is a B+ at Ottawa U and considered a decent mark. For game reviews, it is mediocre and average. 80+ is the better. 79.9999 and lower is slightly below great and ends up average. That is how people mainly view things, evident by user review scores all over the web.

Go to any major game review website. Here's Destructoid's reating scale, for example:

http://www.destructoid.com/the-official-destructoid-review-guide-2011-203909.phtml

10 -- Flawless Victory (10s aren't perfect, since nothing is, but they come as close as you could get in a given genre. The new game to beat in its sector, we're talking pure videogame ecstasy here.)

9 -- Superb (9s are a hallmark of excellence. There may be flaws, but they are negligible and won't cause massive damage to what is a supreme title.)

8 -- Great (8s are impressive efforts with a few noticeable problems holding them back. Won't astound everyone, but is worth your time and cash.)

7 -- Good (7s are solid games that definitely have an audience. Might lack replay value, could be too short or there are some hard-to-ignore faults, but the experience is fun.)

6 -- Alright (6s may be slightly above average or simply inoffensive. Fans of the genre should enjoy them a bit, but a fair few will be left unfulfilled.)

5 -- Mediocre (5s are an exercise in apathy, neither Solid nor Liquid. Not exactly bad, but not very good either. Just a bit "meh," really.)

4 -- Below Average (4s have some high points, but they soon give way to glaring faults. Not the worst games, but are difficult to recommend.)

3 -- Poor (3s went wrong somewhere along the line. The original idea might have promise, but in practice the game has failed. Threatens to be interesting sometimes, but rarely.)

2 -- Bad (2s are a disaster. Any good they might have had are quickly swallowed up by glitches, poor design choices or a plethora of other issues. The desperate or the gullible may find a glimmer of fun hidden somewhere in the pit.)

1 -- Complete Failure (1s are the lowest of the low. There is no potential, no skill, no depth and no talent. These games have nothing to offer the world, and will die lonely and forgotten.)

And IGN's:

http://www.ign.com/wikis/ign/Game_Reviews

10.0 - MASTERPIECE

Simply put: this is our highest recommendation. There&#8217;s no such thing as a truly perfect game, but those that earn a Masterpiece label from IGN come as close as we could reasonably hope for. These are classics in the making that we hope and expect will influence game design for years to come, as other developers learn from their shining examples.

Examples: The Last of Us, The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, Grand Theft Auto IV

9.0-9.9 - AMAZING

We enthusiastically recommend that you add these games to your to-play list. If we call a game Amazing, that means something about it seriously impressed us, whether it&#8217;s an inspired new idea or an exceptional take on an old one. We expect to look back at it as one of the highlights of its time and genre.

Example: BioShock Infinite, The Walking Dead, Sid Meier's Civilization V: Brave New World

8.0-8.9 - GREAT

These games leave us with something outstanding to remember them by, usually novel gameplay ideas for single-player or multiplayer, clever characters and writing, noteworthy graphics and sound, or some combination thereof. If we have major complaints, there are more than enough excellent qualities to cancel them out.

Example: Rock Band 3, State of Decay, NHL 13

7.0-7.9 - GOOD

Playing a Good game is time well spent. Could it be better? Absolutely. Maybe it lacks ambition, is too repetitive, has a few technical bumps in the road, or is too repetitive, but we came away from it happy nonetheless. We think you will, too.

Example: Resident Evil 6, Call of Juarez: Gunslinger, God of War: Ascension

6.0-6.9 - OKAY

These recommendations come with a boatload of &#8220;ifs.&#8221; There&#8217;s a good game in here somewhere, but in order to find it you&#8217;ll have to know where to look, and perhaps turn a blind eye to some significant drawbacks.

Example: Tom Clancy's HAWX 2, Wonderbook: Book of Spells, Disney Epic Mickey 2: The Power of Two

5.0-5.9 - MEDIOCRE

This is the kind of bland, unremarkable game we&#8217;ve mostly forgotten about a day after we finish playing. A mediocre game isn&#8217;t something you should spend your time or money on if you consider either to be precious, but they&#8217;ll pass the time if you have nothing better to do.

Example: Dust 514, Time & Eternity, Game & Wario

4.0-4.9 - BAD

For one reason or another, these games made us wish we&#8217;d never played them. Even if there&#8217;s a good idea or two in there somewhere, they&#8217;re buried under so many bad ones and poor execution we simply can&#8217;t recommend you waste your time on it.

Example: Aliens: Colonial Marines, Medal of Honor: Warfighter, Dark

3.0-3.9 - AWFUL

You&#8217;re welcome. We just saved you from making a terrible mistake by buying this collection of poorly executed, bad, or unoriginal ideas &#8211; or even playing it for free. While even a Bad game generally has some bright spots, an Awful one is consistently unenjoyable.

Example: Samurai Warriors 3, Let&#8217;s Fish! Hooked On, Legends of Dawn

2.0-2.9 - PAINFUL

Let&#8217;s face it: anything worse than Bad is a trainwreck. Worse than Awful? That&#8217;s kind of impressive. Not only are these games not fun, but they&#8217;re outright infuriating or insulting.

Example: Quantum Theory, Fast & Furious: Showdown

1.0-1.9 - UNBEARABLE

The silver lining of these dark clouds is that they&#8217;re often so poorly made that they crap out after a certain point (if they ever worked at all), so we were spared from any permanent effects that playing a game this terrible might have on our brains.

Example: The Simpsons Wrestling, London Taxi Rush Hour, Elf Bowling 1 & 2

0-0.9 - DISASTER

One of the worst games ever made. Games that score this low are rare, because it&#8217;s reserved for those that simply don&#8217;t work or are outright frauds &#8211; they&#8217;ve really got to work for it. This is also probably where we&#8217;d put a game about how awesome Nazis are.

Example: Extreme PaintBrawl

School grading has nothing to do with the rating scale of most game websites.

 

[Abounder]

Huh, most of my college courses went like this:

A:90-100
B:80-89
C:70-79
D:60-69
F:<60

I dunno, it's looking like a strong C, maybe even a C+ to me. Could be a B- depending on the scale used, but i've seen places that consider a C+ and a B- to be interchangeable.

Spoiler

hah. also. X/5 scale for reviews is the best numerical scale everrrrrr

Yea that's the review scale for games and reviews in general. Personally I like the 4-star system from films, and Destiny would be at 3 stars so far. 2.5 stars for 6/10 scores

 

[Anton Sugar]

Why are we equating college grading systems with video game grading systems?

EDIT: Beaten. They're different. Use one or the other but just because a rating system is based on a 100 point scale, it doesn't mean it's the same as school grading.

 

[Kagoshima_Luke]

Yea that's the review scale for games and reviews in general. Personally I like the 4-star system from films, and Destiny would be at 3 stars so far. 2.5 stars for 6/10 scores

 

[HTupolev]

Go to any major game review website. Here's Destroid's reating scale, for example:

According to Metacritic, the average rating destructoid gives games is a 71.

And IGNs:

According to Metacritic, the average rating that IGN gives games is an 83.

Edit: Whoops, I was looking at IGN UK. IGN main has mean scores on the high end of their "okay" bracket, though it's still much higher than 5/10.

School grading has nothing to do with the rating scale of most game websites.

No, it really does. Stop looking at what they claim their scale is, start looking at how games actually get rated.

 

[Freedom = $1.05]

What the hell?

What reviewers are you talking about?

Very few games get cumulative scores of 5's and below; they usually have to be catastrophically bad and/or totally broken for reviewer consensus to peg them in that region. 5 is not average at all, it's FFXIV1.0 territory. It's where garbage goes to die.

5 SHOULD be the score for an average game, though. The problem with the 10 point scale is that when average games score 7 on the regular, it makes everything below them seem below average. The gaming public has a very skewed perception of how the 10 scale works.

that's why the 5 point scale (with no decimals, of course) works best. 1 is garbage, 2 is below average, 3 is average to above average, 4 is pretty good but flawed, and 5 is an all round great gaming experience that has few in the way of problems.

but people like the warped 10 point scale for whatever reason. weirdos.

Go to any major game review website. Here's Destructoid's reating scale, for example:

School grading has nothing to do with the rating scale of most game websites.

never said they were comparable. More that i was debating what a C grade meant to me, really. Like i stated, im a X/5 score guy because the 10 point scale does funny things to people.

 

[Ur_momshere]

Haven't really followed DSPGaming in a long time (grew tired of watching him for some reason). But he just reviewed Destiny so I thought I'd just put it here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8NJeTmroMY

Needless to say, he REALLY didn't like the game. Basically slams Bungie and Destiny at the end.

4.5/10

One of the best reviews I've seen. This guy is sincere and reviews the game's content, not like GameTrailers' review, telling gamers what's inside the box for 11 minutes and trying to justify why the game doesn't suck.

He nailed it!

 

[commish]

No, it really does. Stop looking at what they claim their scale is, start looking at how games actually get rated.

Then make an argument that it does instead of just saying "well you're wrong, because."

 

[FunkyPajamas]

I think 50% is the closest they've gotten to killing it, but the interesting part isn't shooting the boss. It gets interesting when some of your team gets teleported and you have to get them back while they have to deal with oracles and cleansing themselves with a shield.

Ah, got it, thanks.

 

[Doctor Loomis]

Joystiq gave Destiny 4 stars out of 5.

link: http://www.joystiq.com/2014/09/16/destiny-review-loot-loops/

For science.

 

[Abounder]

Go to any major game review website. Here's Destructoid's reating scale, for example:

School grading has nothing to do with the rating scale of most game websites.

On metacritic they do though. Those explanations are interesting but seem like a polite way to say it's bad. 7/10 is a better indicator of "average" quality than a 5

 

[Kagoshima_Luke]

According to Metacritic, the average rating destructoid gives games is a 71.


According to Metacritic, the average rating that IGN gives games is an 83.


No, it really does. Stop looking at what they claim their scale is, start looking at how games actually get rated.

What does that have to do with anything?! That's like saying if most people score an 88% in English 101, 88% is a C.

The scale is a set in stone thing that each site decides independently. It's true that most sites label 5 is mediocre, but are afraid to use it. That's a problem with the site and its reviewers.

 

[Birgitte2004]

Go to any major game review website. Here's Destructoid's reating scale, for example:

<snip>

And IGN's:

<snip>

School grading has nothing to do with the rating scale of most game websites.

They can write up a description that this is what things mean, but that's not how they score games.

Mediocre, by definition, means average. If 5/10 is mediocre, half of all games should be below a 5/10 score. That's not at all how they actually fall, and that's why their "what does a score mean" is misleading at best.

 

[HTupolev]

5 SHOULD be the score for an average game, though.

I don't disagree. I'm just commenting on what actually happens. Reviewers rate on a curve that's very similar to school grades. Of course, school grades are how they are because it's a curve that often lines up very appropriately with student answer correctness ratios, which is moderately silly to apply when scores don't have any reason to be based on that sort of metric. But it is what it is.

Then make an argument that it does instead of just saying "well you're wrong, because."

I did. I pointed to numbers that showed that Destructoid's average score is higher than what Destructoid claims "average" is, and IGN's average score is in the territory that they claim means "great."* Obviously medians would be a better metric to go off of, but still, something is amiss.

*Correction, I was looking at IGN UK. IGN main is actually much harsher, and their scores aren't actually that much higher than what they claim their scale looks like, (though it's still well above 5/10 averages).

The scale is a set in stone thing that each site decides independently. It's true that most sites label 5 is mediocre, but are afraid to use it. That's a problem with the site and its reviewers.

Yes, it is. I agree. It's a problem with almost all sites and reviewers.

 

[Gestault]

These are just opinions after all and a 77 is not a C

Wait, honest retort here: Yes, I think it is?

 

[commish]

I did. I pointed to numbers that showed that Destructoid's average score is higher than what Destructoid claims "average" is, and IGN's average score is in the territory that they claim means "great." Obviously medians would be a better metric to go off of, but still, something is amiss.

Uh... that's.... not how it works, you know... not sure if you're serious.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

I really can't get over how dull and boring this game is solo. I want to like it so much, but there's just fucking nothing going on.

This is all made worse by missions not having matchmaking for some reason, and there's literally no way to make friends in this game other than random Fireteam invites.

 

[Poodlestrike]

Wait, honest retort here: Yes, I think it is?

Depends on the grading scale. I've had classes where 77 is a solid B, and apparently some countries shift the whole thing around.

 

[HTupolev]

Uh... that's.... not how it works, you know... not sure if you're serious.

I am. Again, it would be nice to have median scores to look at, but if average scores are higher than what the reviewers claim "average" is (and certainly higher than Kagoshima_Luke's 5/10 comment), how am I wrong in claiming that the scales are curved above what reviewers claim the scales are?

 

[Anton Sugar]

I really can't get over how dull and boring this game is solo. I want to like it so much, but there's just fucking nothing going on.

This is all made worse by missions not having matchmaking for some reason, and there's literally no way to make friends in this game other than random Fireteam invites.

Yeah, I tried playing it solo for a bit and was just bored out of my mind. However, I don't play many SP games nowadays, so that could be coloring my experience.

It can be a blast with friends, even if the AI can be laughable.

 

[SZips]

that's why the 5 point scale (with no decimals, of course) works best. 1 is garbage, 2 is below average, 3 is average to above average, 4 is pretty good but flawed, and 5 is an all round great gaming experience that has few in the way of problems.

but people like the warped 10 point scale for whatever reason. weirdos.

Reading this post actually gave me a small sense of relief. I have actually just changed my site's review score system from a 10 point scale (whole numbers and .5 scores only) to a 5 point scale (whole numbers only). In fact, the first review I used it on was for Destiny.

I've been trying to figure out if it was the right decision. However, looking at things like this reply and others like it show me that I made the right choice and will stick with the 5 point system for the foreseeable future.

 

[Gestault]

Depends on the grading scale. I've had classes where 77 is a solid B, and apparently some countries shift the whole thing around.

That would be an exception. The standard scale is 90s as As, 80s as Bs, 70s as Cs. It's very likely you were in a class with a sliding scale, meaning the bell-curve of your classes' performance can influence your final letter grade.

 

[opticalmace]

Reading this post actually gave me a small sense of relief. I have actually just changed my site's review score system from a 10 point scale (whole numbers and .5 scores only) to a 5 point scale (whole numbers only). In fact, the first review I used it on was for Destiny.

I've been trying to figure out if it was the right decision. However, looking at things like this reply and others like it show me that I made the right choice and will stick with the 5 point system for the foreseeable future.

The title of your Destiny review is hilarious.

"Destiny – It's better than Brink." :lol

 

[Impala26]

5 SHOULD be the score for an average game, though. The problem with the 10 point scale is that when average games score 7 on the regular, it makes everything below them seem below average. The gaming public has a very skewed perception of how the 10 scale works.

that's why the 5 point scale (with no decimals, of course) works best. 1 is garbage, 2 is below average, 3 is average to above average, 4 is pretty good but flawed, and 5 is an all round great gaming experience that has few in the way of problems.

but people like the warped 10 point scale for whatever reason. weirdos.



never said they were comparable. More that i was debating what a C grade meant to me, really. Like i stated, im a X/5 score guy because the 10 point scale does funny things to people.

I didn't always feel this way, but I'm coming around to the 5 point rating system--no muss, no fuss. You get gaming sites that use the 10 point system and then use 0.5 or even 0.25 increments. Hell, doesn't IGN straight up rate with 0.1 increments?

Those are WAY too specific numbers to be used for an "objective" review. This isn't a science project here! The other issue I have with the 10 point system is that like you and others in this thread have said, games don't have any consistency or regularity of being rated between 0 and 5. I can almost guarantee that if you check out a review site that uses the 10 point system, you'll find 75%+ of the games on a particular platform rated as a 5 or above.

Point of the story: 5/10 should be "average/mediocre" not "dismal failure".

 

[Poodlestrike]

That would be an exception. The standard scale is 90s as As, 80s as Bs, 70s as Cs. It's very likely you were in a class with a sliding scale, meaning the bell-curve of your classes' performance can influence your final letter grade.

Nah. A lot of super technical courses just start with the scale shifted downward, since the expectation is that nobody is going to get 100. I think it was Multivariable Calculus.

And, again, some countries use the scale differently.

 

[Steel]

The reason why Destiny gets judged so harshly in multiple areas, is because doing combat better than Random MMO X, doesn't mean as much when it's worse than Random FPS Y. Doing social interaction better than Random FPS X doesn't mean as much when it's so much worse than Random MMO Y. Destiny claims it isn't an MMO, so it doesn't really get a direct MMO comparison... it gets judged pretty much entirely on what it offers, and in most aspects that isn't much. It's just spread too thin, rather than being amazing in a few key areas. If you're a fan of Halo, you'll probably be disappointed. If you're a fan of Phantasy Star Online, you'll probably be disappointed. If you're a fan of both (me) the disappointment could possibly kill you.

The worst part about this comparison is that Destiny has worse social interaction than the vast majority of FPS due to lack of voice chat, and matchmaking for a lot of modes.

Nah. A lot of super technical courses just start with the scale shifted downward, since the expectation is that nobody is going to get 100. I think it was Multivariable Calculus.

And, again, some countries use the scale differently.

I've had calc/upper level physics classes do both. They'd have the 90-100 A scale, but curve most tests, then others shift the grading scale.

 

[Magnus]

That would be an exception. The standard scale is 90s as As, 80s as Bs, 70s as Cs. It's very likely you were in a class with a sliding scale, meaning the bell-curve of your classes' performance can influence your final letter grade.

This isn't how it is in Canada or the way it was in the States when I lived there. 90+ was an A+, 80s were an A, 70s a B, 60s a C, 50s a D and sub 50 was a fail.

 

[Impala26]

I just gotta say though...

I absolutely LOVE how this thread reads like the late-night drunk ramblings of two or three grad students at a bar. The way the conversation just sort of slides from one topic or facet of "gaming culture" to the next.

The best part? No barkeep to tell us it's "closing time"...
Keep it up GAF!!! :-D

 

[Timmay]

After a momentary jump to 77 at MC, it's now back to 76. Must have been destructoid, but I have no idea how much weight MC gives to specific sites.

 

[Gestault]

This isn't how it is in Canada or the way it was in the States when I lived there. 90+ was an A+, 80s were an A, 70s a B, 60s a C, 50s a D and sub 50 was a fail.

I stand corrected, though my experience in the US is different (outside of sliding standards).

 

[Timmay]

This isn't how it is in Canada or the way it was in the States when I lived there. 90+ was an A+, 80s were an A, 70s a B, 60s a C, 50s a D and sub 50 was a fail.

Lived in the States my whole life and the scale has always been:

90+ A
80-89 B
70-79 C
60-69 D
F

 

[zenosparadox]

This isn't how it is in Canada or the way it was in the States when I lived there. 90+ was an A+, 80s were an A, 70s a B, 60s a C, 50s a D and sub 50 was a fail.

I cannot speak for Canada, but this is entirely incorrect for the US. Timmay's post is accurate.