Support NeoGAF

[ChoklitCow]

Was nearing my 78 prediction. C'mon reviewers bring me home the three-star gold.

To be fair, I have been overly critical of this game since beta and I'm starting to enjoy it more. If they continue to cycle in content mmo-style it will keep me coming back.

 

[kitsuneyo]

Expecting a good in depth review from Kotaku. They're waiting as long as they can I reckon. Don't always love the site but I like their game reviews.

 

[flkraven]

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

I am Canadian, but went to University in the States. This is exactly correct.

 

[Synth]

God this thread is great. There's something new to discuss every time I get back from work.

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.

If >50% of the country is scoring 88% in a test, then the test probably needs to re-examined tbh. Even if it isn't, scoring 88% would mean you turned in an average performance.

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

That's not how the sites claim they are reviewing the games, but it kinda is how it works. People can make up whatever scale they want. It doesn't matter if we're using the Edge scale, or the IGN scale, or even the Famitsu scale. If your game receives a score in line with the average score amongst all games being released, then you're average. The word already has a meaning, and videogames don't get to redefine it.

Take all the games reviewed and add their scores together, then divide that total by the number of games. You know what number you won't get? 5.

Claiming a 5 is an average game makes Sonic 2k6 only a hair below average (46) and Duke Nukem Forever slightly above average (54). It's nonsense.

 

[Norns]

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

This is correct.

Not sure what that other dude is going on about.

 

[Gestault]

If >50% of the country is scoring 88% in a test, then the test probably needs to re-examined tbh. Even if it isn't, scoring 88% would mean you turned in an average performance.

(Totally agree about the weird/cool side conversations here)

Assessing competence isn't the same as testing for high-end differentiation. If a group of students is mostly scoring in the B+ range on a test, that in itself isn't a bad thing.

 

[PerezDeCorcho]

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

It's like none of you have been to high school.

 

[Steel]

This is correct.

Not sure what that other dude is going on about.

Nah, he's not wrong. In college classes, courses with high drop out rates generally change the scale to meet their needs, or curve like crazy. One or the other.

Not to mention the grading scale in the U.S wasn't always 10 point.

 

[Synth]

(Totally agree about the weird/cool side conversations here)

Assessing competence isn't the same as testing for high-end differentiation. If a group of students is mostly scoring in the B+ range on a test, that in itself isn't a bad thing.

True, but if 88% of people scored a B+. Then would you say someone scoring a C or D was above average in comparison to the other students?

 

[KingJolly]

If its 70 or above it ''passed''

 

[Asd202]

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

I think it's like that in every university/college.

 

[Gestault]

True, but if 88% of people scored a B+. Then would you say someone scoring a C or D was above average in comparison to the other students?

Average doesn't have much meaning in that context; Half of any range of data will be above the average, and half will be below.

 

[Steel]

I think it's like that in every university/college.

Varies from class to class within universities. So not really.

 

[SZips]

The title of your Destiny review is hilarious.

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

Haha, thanks! That came about while writing the review when a friend at least wanted to know he didn't just buy Brink 2.0. I assured him that he didn't.

 

[opticalmace]

Average doesn't have much meaning in that context; Half of any range of data will be above the average, and half will be below.

That's the median actually.

 

[Euron]

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

The academic grading scale should not be used at all for games since pretty much everything below a 6 is essentially the same rating and anything below an 8 would be designated as mediocre.

1-10 has always been perfect for me and here's how I designate each:

10-Incredible (not perfect but close)
9-Awesome
8-Great
7-Good
6-Ok (usually a rent but buy if you like the genre/series)
5-Mediocre/Average
4-Poor
3-Bad
2-Terrible
1-WTF

 

[Nyx]

When I went to school, a '5.5' meant you just passed the test.

If your overall grade for a course was a '5.5' you would get a '6' on your diploma.

 

[Impala26]

Average doesn't have much meaning in that context; Half of any range of data will be above the average, and half will be below.

That's the median actually.

Ho HOHHH!!!
Statistics debate up in dis piece!!!

He's about to drop some standard deviations and variance on yo ass!!!
XD

 

[Morrigan Stark]

Why are we talking about school grades again?

 

[Impala26]

Why are we talking about school grades again?

It's the Destiny Review Thread... what HASN'T been brought up like five different times already!?

EDIT: Forgot to congratulate GAF on reaching 200 pages in less than a week on this thread! XD

 

[baconcow]

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



And IGN's:

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


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

Regardless of what IGN or Destructoid has written, they do not follow it, at all. Not only that, read a review IGN has a 5 or 6 for, they do not intend people to buy or event rent the game unless the person is hardcore. They write those descriptions to satisfy those who ask, however, their average game score sits much much higher then 5. People expect 8+ on a good game. This is how it is with most of the gaming reviewers. This will not change as long as users push their big money games to be rated 10/10 everywhere. Proper game ratings were killed long ago. At this point, the best we have is to use then as a comparison. As the game scores rise, so does the average.

 

[RoadHazard]

The academic grading scale should not be used at all for games since pretty much everything below a 6 is essentially the same rating and anything below an 8 would be designated as mediocre.

1-10 has always been perfect for me and here's how I designate each:

10-Incredible (not perfect but close)
9-Awesome
8-Great
7-Good
6-Ok (usually a rent but buy if you like the genre/series)
5-Mediocre/Average
4-Poor
3-Bad
2-Terrible
1-WTF

It should really be 0-10, because with 1-10 you have five "good" grades but only four "bad" ones. With 5/10 being right in the middle - completely average, neither good nor bad - there should be an equal amount of steps above and below it. 0/10 should basically be "broken and unplayable".

 

[Gestault]

That's the median actually.

Both would apply here, unless I'm making a mental misstep?

Edit, nope, you're right about what I said being wrong (though it does fit into the previous comment about being bad for flat assessments of student performance).

 

[Euron]

It should really be 0-10, because with 1-10 you have five "good" grades but only four "bad" ones. With 5/10 being right in the middle, completely average, neither good nor bad, there should be an equal amount of steps above and below it. 0/10 should basically be "broken and unplayable".

True. 0/10 would be saved for stuff like War Z and Big Rigs.

 

[Anoregon]

This thread reached critical mass and imploded.

 

[Impala26]

Both would apply here, unless I'm making a mental misstep?

Edit, nope, you're right about what I said being wrong (though it does fit into the previous comment about being bad for flat assessments of student performance).

You're most certainly correct about the latter. Medians more accurately exclude outliers. Best examples being: a very difficult exam that one genius aces or a fairly easy exam that someone bombs or fails to take at all. In both of these examples, the "average" (mean) ends up being skewed by the outliers or "break the curve". A median score in these cases end up being more indicative of a "typcial" test score.

Now the mean/median usage debate as it pertains to video game review scores? Yeah I have no idea of the applicability of that.

 

[Synth]

Average doesn't have much meaning in that context; Half of any range of data will be above the average, and half will be below.

That's pretty much the point though. You have to shift the score significantly higher than 5 to find the point which half of all games fall below. To claim that an average game scores a 5, you'd have to assume that roughly half of all games are considered to be worse than Sonic 2006. I'd hate to live in that world.

Why are we talking about school grades again?

Because why not?

Regardless of what IGN or Destructoid has written, they do not follow it, at all. Not only that, read a review IGN has a 5 or 6 for, they do not intend people to buy or event rent the game unless the person is hardcore. They write those descriptions to satisfy those who ask, however, their average game score sits much much higher then 5. People expect 8+ on a good game. This is how it is with most of the gaming reviewers. This will not change as long as users push their big money games to be rated 10/10 everywhere. Proper game ratings were killed long ago. At this point, the best we have is to use then as a comparison. As the game scores rise, so does the average.

Pretty much.

In a few gens we'll probably be at the point where a game can score an 80, and nobody would go anywhere near it lol.

 

[Anoregon]

In a few gens we'll probably be at the point where a game can score an 80, and nobody would go anywhere near it lol.

If ya aint first, yer last

 

[Bold One]

This thread reached critical mass and imploded.

I see what you did there

 

[Synth]

True. 0/10 would be saved for stuff like War Z and Big Rigs.

Actually.. overall it is a 0/10 range even though not all sites use it. Big Rigs' metascore is 8 based on 5 reviews. 3 of those reviews scored it 0. If these sites were all equally weighted, then it would have a score of 4, which would round equate to a 0/10 rather than a 1/10.

 

[Psoelberg]

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

I was just thinking that - it's amazing

Reading about the reception of Destiny has been more fun than playing the game.

 

[a916]

Thats quite the ass-pull as it is inconceivable that anyone could possibly enjoy the game, right?

These are just opinions after all



and a 77 is not a C

On IGN's scale, a 77 is a really good, but not great game.

 

[uncledonnie]

Ugh, watching these raid streams I have a hard time seeing how this would improve the scores.

 

[commish]

Ugh, watching these raid streams I have a hard time seeing how this would improve the scores.

Well, to be fair, it's doing something that's never been done before in a FPS. That's something.

In other news, this The Hateful Truth review is not very good. He seems hung up on the MMO part, and I'm not sure the game is marketed as such.

 

[patapuf]

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.

If destiny is below the average of all game scored it's below the average regardless of how sites label their scores.

I don't really get how it's of much importance whether destiny's metacritic score is decent or not. Many beloved games have mediocre or even worse Metacritic ratings. That the tastes of critics and the audience doesn't always match up is not unusual in any media - and considering the numerous complaints players have brought up the current average doesn't come out of nowhere.

 

[foxuzamaki]

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

.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

So let me get this straight, the raids have:
- a level requirement that can only be reached through massive grinding;
- requires 6 players but there's no matchmaking;
- feature even more bullet spongey bosses;

So they locked their so-called "best part" of the game behind requirements that the average player is unlikely to meet. And somehow that should turn all those 6s into 9s or something? smh

 

[TheCanisDirus]

So let me get this straight, the raids have:
- a level requirement that can only be reached through massive grinding;
- requires 6 players but there's no matchmaking;
- feature even more bullet spongey bosses;

So they locked their so-called "best part" of the game behind requirements that the average player is unlikely to meet. And somehow that should turn all those 6s into 9s or something? smh

Yes. Utterly ridiculous, right?! Bungie, what happened to you?

 

[GhaleonEB]

So let me get this straight, the raids have:
- a level requirement that can only be reached through massive grinding;
- requires 6 players but there's no matchmaking;
- feature even more bullet spongey bosses;

So they locked their so-called "best part" of the game behind requirements that the average player is unlikely to meet. And somehow that should turn all those 6s into 9s or something? smh

They designed the hardcore end game content for the hardcore, at the end of the game.

 

[User 479360]

Here in Canada, it's:

80-100% = A
70-79% = B
60-69% = C
50-59% = D

To me, it makes more sense, since 50 is still half. So, when I review, a 2.5/5 isn't a fail. 2/5 and below is.

 

[TheCanisDirus]

They designed the hardcore end game content for the hardcore, at the end of the game.

Yet they say we should judge the game only after experiencing the true strikes and raids... and that the true meat of the game is end game post 20+ content, right?

That's then in fact saying that the game is really for the hardcore. Leaving a crap catering of 4, small, repetitive areas, horrid story, and sub-par multiplayer for the majority of us. (all my opinions here)

 

[TheCanisDirus]

Here in Canada, it's:

80-100% = A
70-79% = B
60-69% = C
50-59% = D

To me, it makes more sense, since 50 is still half. So, when I review, a 2.5/5 isn't a fail. 2/5 and below is.

Shit. I would have always had straight A's as a kid/college student in Canada lol. That's crazy.

 

[lyrick]

Here in Canada, it's:

80-100% = A
70-79% = B
60-69% = C
50-59% = D

To me, it makes more sense, since 50 is still half. So, when I review, a 2.5/5 isn't a fail. 2/5 and below is.

Whoa... so you can get up to 20% of the material completely wrong and still get an A?

 

[GhaleonEB]

Yet they say they pretty much say judge the game only after experiencing the true strikes and raids... and that the true meat of the game is end game post 20+ content, right?

That's then in fact saying that the game is really for the hardcore. Leaving a crap catering of 4, small, repetitive areas, horrid story, and sub-par multiplayer for the majority of us. (all my opinions here)

I think the general sentiment is, review the full game. Destiny was designed with an endgame loot grind, climaxing with the Raid. A critique of the endgame content could be that it's too inaccessible, or too hardcore, or badly designed, or whatever. But requesting that reviewers take into account the full scope of the game strikes me as reasonable. (Though Bungie did themselves no favors in that department by locking it off for a week.)

 

[frequency]

They designed the hardcore end game content for the hardcore, at the end of the game.

Then it shouldn't affect review scores any more than New Game+ or post game challenge modes do in other games. But reviews waited an extra week for it. Why is Destiny afforded this extra benefit of the doubt where others are not?

A review score should not be affected significantly by content meant to be experienced by such a small subset of players.

 

[Beowulf28]

Anybody else think it's funny that this years Call of Duty game is going to be a better shooter than a new IP from Bungie?

 

[User 479360]

Whoa... so you can get up to 20% of the material completely wrong and still get an A?

Really, letter scores are deemed archaic here. I've been out of school for a while and even I never really got As or Bs or anything in high school. It was all just percentage-based.

However, that was the scale I was introduced to.

 

[Sullichin]

Anybody else think it's funny that this years Call of Duty game is going to be a better shooter than a new IP from Bungie?

It is?

 

[User 479360]

I think the general sentiment is, review the full game. Destiny was designed with an endgame loot grind, climaxing with the Raid. A critique of the endgame content could be that it's too inaccessible, or too hardcore, or badly designed, or whatever. But requesting that reviewers take into account the full scope of the game strikes me as reasonable. (Though Bungie did themselves no favors in that department by locking it off for a week.)

I beat the core campaign, played a lot of Crucible and did some strikes plus patrols, before I reviewed it. I gave it a week and a good amount of time. However, I wrote the review before the raids.

I decided to just mention the raids, because:

a) On the platform I was given, I have next to no friends to play it with. At least reliable ones.

b) I beat it

c) It'd take forever to get to level 26

d) They weren't available yet

e) It's an MMO like game, so they'll always be adding something.

 

[Beowulf28]

It is?

Or at the very least it'll have a more competent story.