egm review scores - september 2007 (lair, blue dragon, mario strikers: charged, etc.)
- Thread starter beelzebozo
- Start date
- Status
i think most media outlets have problems with consistant scoring. i can't even think of a shining example of consistancy. it's difficult to do.Karma Kramer said:
there's a lot of politics that go into scores too. there are things they'll be reluctant to do because of how it may effect their relationship with the developer/publisher.
in general, scores can annoy me because of the effect they'll have on forums etc. when i'm actually wanting to know what the game will be like, i'll either play it myself, or go to the closing comments of the review and after reading that, decide if i'll read the entire review.
fortified_concept
Banned
cjelly said:
Xbots switching to 1up defense mode.... again.
HEY LOOK I CAN GENERALIZE TOO! I'M SO COOL!
Karma Kramer
Banned
dfyb said:
So basically all reviews = shit to you? Not just EGM?
Before you made it sound like EGM was just completely worthless compared to other sites.
Andronicus
Banned
i could give 2 shits about what egm gave it. Garnett didnt like warhawk because of an issue he had with the NAME!(you know what i'm talking about). lol
I'm still excited to play lair, for better or worse we'll have to experience it for ourselves. However, most of the previews I've seen people enjoyed the game. So we'll have to see how far or differences of opinions go
I'm still excited to play lair, for better or worse we'll have to experience it for ourselves. However, most of the previews I've seen people enjoyed the game. So we'll have to see how far or differences of opinions go
EGM stands out to me because i watch the 1up show and listen to 1up yours/gfw (and sometimes their other podcasts too). so i actually see their personal preferences. i know some lean one way. i know what sort of games they like.Karma Kramer said:
i don't know the reviewers of other media outlets like that so i can't make the same sort of judgements. it's pretty safe to assume they're all like that though.
PC gamer is the one publication that generally has consistant review scores, but i can still point out several blunders.
DSWii60 said:
yeah i've heard good things about EDGE here but didn't really know much about them before gaf, so i can't make any claims. i've considered subscribing, but i get enough news anyway.
Karma Kramer
Banned
dfyb said:
Personally I think the fact that we know the editors at EGM/1up so well makes their reviews more valuable because we can relate and understand their play style and compare it to our own.
CrunchinJelly
formerly cjelly
I prefer to think of myself as a zealot.fortified_concept said:
Green Shinobi
Banned
Well, EGM gave Ocarina of Time straight 10's across the board, so they're obviously teh biased.Oblivion said:
But seriously, Play has given out 9's to some games that definitely aren't 9's. Overlord, Lair and I believe Sonic 360 come to mind.
Randy Lanzarote
Member
Green Shinobi said:Well, EGM gave Ocarina of Time straight 10's across the board, so they're obviously teh biased.
But seriously, Play has given out 9's to some games that definitely aren't 9's. Overlord, Lair and I believe Sonic 360 come to mind.
They seem to be very generous with their marking I must say. Tenchu Z got 85 and Spiderman 3 got 80.
God, Tenchu Z was crap...
Green Shinobi
Banned
Exactly. I loved EDF 2017, but it got really mixed reviews.urk said:
I trust reader reviews more than anything though, especially if I know the people posting. Reading an impressions thread for the first few days after a game comes out is a good way to gauge it.
Factor 5 should just be engine creators. Their newer games (well, since the Turrican series I guess) have been all eye candy but crap controls or camera work. Even their Star Wars games had problems (which I got over because i'm such an original trilogy nut, but still)
Lair sure is pretty, though!
Lair sure is pretty, though!
Green Shinobi
Banned
The first Rogue Squadron didn't have many problems aside from being absurdly difficult. Rogue Leader had really mixed mission quality though. Some, like Cloud City, are amazing, and some just aren't that great.GDGF said:
FormulaOne
Member
NinSoX said:
The mere fact that you had those images locked and loaded is disturbing.
Nuclear Muffin said:
Yes!
I can only speak about this game, because I've not played BD or Lair, but anything less than 8 is just wrong, whatever the reason.
It may be thin on game modes, but it's perfectly balanced and polished out of the box, while retaining a considerable variety of characters and special moves.
A quality like this can only be found in the best arcade games (I'm thinking about some SEGA sport games).
This wasn't directed at me but the problem I have is that AAA games that don't meet expectations receive lower scores than they would if they didn't have hype. Like dyfb said reviewer play politics with high profile games. They are too self aware of the impact of their scores. That's what I dislike about reviewers these days.nightside said:
segarr said:
Well, that, or some of them don't have the backbone to give a really hype game low score because they're afraid of the fans backlash.
I give props to the guy who gave Twilight Princess an 8.7, at least he was able to defend himself.
I mean, God of War 2 was fun and all, but looking back, maybe it didn't deserve the high score that it did receive.
I mean, what if a really hyped game, GT4, Halo 3, for some reason, didn't bite with the reviewer, but they're so afraid of the fan backlash that they just give it a high score just because.
Hopefully my above scenario never proves true.
DCharlie
And even i am moderately surprised
what if it REALLY IS a bad game though?
I personally will wait until i`ve played it - but you can`t cry about PS3 haters when you have a large section of the PS3 community bending over backwards in this thread to discredit EGM`s review , discredit Eurogamer elsewhere, and LOL then defend PLAY when YOU TOO haven`t played it.
Seriously boys, you`re all way too drunk on hype juice right now and some of you are acting a bit crazy.
Just calm down - you`re all looking like confidence sapped loons right now.
Green Shinobi
Banned
You would really give Twilight Princess below a 9?Oblivion said:
I thought that during the Arbiter's Grounds (Forest Temple rip-off), but after Snowpeak, the game redeems itself in a big way.
rebel^pudding
Banned
wasnt it obvious lair was going to flop. And as for blue dragon time has not been good to it. I bet it would have got at least one point higher with each reviewer if it came out earlier in the 360s life
segarr said:
well, you're right. but particle reality was clearly complaining about lair bombing instead of a f'n non game.
i mean, we saw dozens of hyped games bombing, and thousands of shitty games. now, with the "nongames plague" menacing the Videogame itself(.lol) an "aaa" game just have to be good no matter what? nah.
Green Shinobi
Banned
There's no excuse for Microsoft taking eight f*cking months to localize it, especially when the system is starved for RPGs. Localization should never take more than 2 months at the most.rebel^pudding said:
Green Shinobi said:
Well, his review for the GC one anyway, was 8.9. Which I guess it's okay, and the only reason I would be so hard on it is the fact that although I enjoyed the temples immensely, there was a lot of sloppy work that shouldn't have been there.
Bizarro Sun Yat-sen
Banned
how can an art style be "dated"? do the characters all have mullets or bellbottoms or something?
captain wow
Member
Tobor said:
No i think zombies is accurate. (Chewing on the barebones of this thread.)
oh i almost forgot about the mario strikers scores. it's the scores i really wanted to talk about specifically.
i've only played the GCN game. basically, the game is awesome. if it's messier and more arcadey than the GCN game, then cool, because that's what it excells at. the GCN game wasn't a soccer sim either and it was already a soccer-themed hockey game.
it didn't attempt to create a sim soccer game, so i have no idea why you should knock down points for it not being a sim.
the talk about it on 1upyours etc made me think they'd give it good scores. my only concern with the game was that it was not enough of an upgrade to the GCN game because i already own that game, but they kept saying it was actually a true sequel with lots of content.
the game set out to improve upon an already great arcade game. it's the best arcade soccer game i can think of (what else is there?). assuming they didn't **** anything up from the GCN experience (which it doens't sound like they did) the game should be rated high 8 or low 9 IMHO. if they offered 4v4 online play, it would have definitely gotten a mid 9 in my book, because that was my main complaint.
i think in this case, the reviewers made a bad choice in assuming their readers would be looking for a sim soccer game. the game reached it's own goals (best arcade soccer game) and that deserves high ratings in my book. the review should let people know it's not a sim soccer game, but it shouldn't take away points for it.
while writing this post, i came to another area they may have knocked it down for. as a singleplayer game, it is lacking. but again, i would not mark it down for this because it is intended to be a multiplayer experience. if the game title is "mario" followed by a sport, i don't plan on playing it alone ever -- i buy it to play with friends (which is why mario baseball dissapointed -- toy field is bullshit and you can't play a regular 4 player game of baseball :tard:.
mention that the singleplayer is lacking and that it's not a sim soccer game, but don't knock points for it. there are singleplayer focused games and there are multiplayer focused games, and they both have a right to potential high scores.
i've only played the GCN game. basically, the game is awesome. if it's messier and more arcadey than the GCN game, then cool, because that's what it excells at. the GCN game wasn't a soccer sim either and it was already a soccer-themed hockey game.
it didn't attempt to create a sim soccer game, so i have no idea why you should knock down points for it not being a sim.
the talk about it on 1upyours etc made me think they'd give it good scores. my only concern with the game was that it was not enough of an upgrade to the GCN game because i already own that game, but they kept saying it was actually a true sequel with lots of content.
the game set out to improve upon an already great arcade game. it's the best arcade soccer game i can think of (what else is there?). assuming they didn't **** anything up from the GCN experience (which it doens't sound like they did) the game should be rated high 8 or low 9 IMHO. if they offered 4v4 online play, it would have definitely gotten a mid 9 in my book, because that was my main complaint.
i think in this case, the reviewers made a bad choice in assuming their readers would be looking for a sim soccer game. the game reached it's own goals (best arcade soccer game) and that deserves high ratings in my book. the review should let people know it's not a sim soccer game, but it shouldn't take away points for it.
while writing this post, i came to another area they may have knocked it down for. as a singleplayer game, it is lacking. but again, i would not mark it down for this because it is intended to be a multiplayer experience. if the game title is "mario" followed by a sport, i don't plan on playing it alone ever -- i buy it to play with friends (which is why mario baseball dissapointed -- toy field is bullshit and you can't play a regular 4 player game of baseball :tard:.
mention that the singleplayer is lacking and that it's not a sim soccer game, but don't knock points for it. there are singleplayer focused games and there are multiplayer focused games, and they both have a right to potential high scores.
Reviewers are going to be seen as playing politics with high profile games no matter what they do. That's probably what a bunch of reviewers dislike about reviewing these days. When two genuinely AAA console exclusives get reviews in the same issue of a magazine, GAF will launch into full-blown "OOoh, cage-match: Only one can leave alive" mode, and assume that the magazine's staff are thinking the same way. That is to say, that reviews and threads on GAF have similar goals (draw blood, hide ignorance) and audiences in mind.
I don't think nearly as many reviewers are nearly as "afraid" of fanboy backlashes as is suggested. For one thing, there's one fanboy apocalypse over something or other every 5 seconds. Familiarity alone would surely dull the terror.
I don't think nearly as many reviewers are nearly as "afraid" of fanboy backlashes as is suggested. For one thing, there's one fanboy apocalypse over something or other every 5 seconds. Familiarity alone would surely dull the terror.
Norse
Member
Lair will still sell a ton....ps3 gamers are starvin pretty much...I can see the blue dragon stuff..I was hyped for the game but the demo felt empty to me. I think heavenly sword is going to be my first retail purchase for ps3...so far only Super Stardust HD has gotten my PS3 money.
AltogetherAndrews
Banned
Salazar said:
I hope you're not talking about US mags and sites here, because those sure as hell do more than their due part in pushing the "cagematch" bullshit. Hell, Garnett even threw in a ****ing "Halo killer" comment in his review of Resistance. I don't know if they actually think this way or if they are just fueling this shit to appease the readers, nor does it really matter why they do it. Let's not pretend that these magazines and sites are somehow above this shit.
Dr. Strangelove
I'M COOCOO FOR COCO CRISP!
I don't give a **** about Lair or Blue Dragon getting so-so reviews... Persona 3 GOTM WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
- Status