Support NeoGAF

[C- Warrior]

I was just going to post this on the IGN reviews RE:.Deadly Silence review thread (considering how a few posters were shocked that IGN gave it the lowest score out of all the main-press so far etc.,) well, on the INSIDER boards several of the editors made note that since the 360 launch, IGN has changed their review scale and have 'toughened' up (in their words).

Consider that to be reason why the highest scoring 360 titles as of yet is at a 9.0, typically --with the IGN gaf has come to know--, 9.0 equates to 7's from most other sites.

But that is no longer the case. It's been said by the editor themselves, but I'm sure you can also see it through their reviews. The hyped 360 games maxing out at a 9.0 at IGN when typically IGN should be giving the peak scores etc.

Just saying, when MGS3:S gets a 9.2 or whatever, don't let the mass suicides start. They've changed their scale and the "IGN gave it a 9.1, that's it!! :lol [insert several more laugh icons] will get annoying since this isn't the same IGN as before...or so they say.

Thank you for reading this alert message by C-Warrior, you can now continue to drool over Jane at 1up or whatever you fuckers do.

 

[GitarooMan]

I think it's a smart decision, let's see if they follow through. It got a little out of hand on IGN Xbox especially this gen.

 

[Blame!]

they strengthened it already by getting rid of ivan suluc.

 

[AdmiralViscen]

Their strengthening is still pretty week.

A 5 should be average.

 

[Geek]

Ha! They could have saved me some money if they'd done this when dreamcast.ign.com reviewers were still active.

 

[gjb-sensei]

Ha! They could have saved me some money if they'd done this when dreamcast.ign.com reviewers were still active.

Seriously... IGN Dreamcast editors were completely guilty as charged when it came to this.

 

[Juice]

Yeah, that's still a pretty modest adjustment.

Surely they chose to just tweak it a bit rather than overhaul it when they recognized there was a problem. What's funny is that the modest adjustment will probably cause more confusion than a major fix would have.

They really should have said "Every game gets a five. For everything in it that's really a cut above the rest, it goes up. For everything wrong with it, it goes down."

IGN could have set the tone for 10-scale reviews right there.

Of course, next week EA or someone would see to it that Peer Schneider be found dead in his bath tub after suffering a mysterious aneurysm if they did anything that righteous.

 

[Kai Dracon]

I long for the faraway time when a 7.0 would be viewed as a great rating for a "must buy" title. An 8.0 would be a game that exceeded all expectations within its genre and rose above all comers. And a 9.0 would only be given to a genre-busting superstar that hit gaming as a whole like a ton of bricks. The SM64's, the Half-Life's, etc.

 

[gjb-sensei]

.

 

[MrSardonic]

[/damage control on X360 launch line-up]

 

[Sabaku Ika]

I long for the faraway time when a 7.0 would be viewed as a great rating for a "must buy" title. An 8.0 would be a game that exceeded all expectations within its genre and rose above all comers. And a 9.0 would only be given to a genre-busting superstar that hit gaming as a whole like a ton of bricks. The SM64's, the Half-Life's, etc.

Did this time exist in this world?

 

[C- Warrior]

[/damage control on X360 launch line-up]

hahahaha...hahahahaha...haha...ah...haha...h....no.

 

[Bebpo]

Ha! They could have saved me some money if they'd done this when dreamcast.ign.com reviewers were still active.

Holy shit! :lol

 

[Patrick Klepek]

That list makes me want to play Bangai-O right now.

 

[NotMSRP]

Higher scores => more blowjobs & money from publishers & other sponsers
ads & Insider & positive reviews & sales click-thru/referrals = $ revenues $

 

[Virgin Wii]

I don't mean to plug my site or anything, but that's sort of how my review scale is at tamashiisensei.com for my game reviews. I mean, only if the game is truly great and genre-defining does it get above an 8.

Originally posted at tamashiisensei.com:

[Review] Metal Gear Solid: The Twin Snakes

Even if you have completed the original Metal Gear Solid so many times that you're sick of it, I strongly urge you to get this game if you have a GameCube. If you don't have a GameCube, but are a big stealth and Metal Gear fan, get a GameCube and a copy of Metal Gear Solid: The Twin Snakes. You simply will not be disappointed.

FINAL SCORE: 9/10

.

 

[Kseutron]

Yes, IGN review scores are getting much better lately

can't say the same about Gamespot though......... Exact opposite.

 

[Ranger X]

If you score the games too high, nobody comes in your office trying to buy you into cranking up the scores. It's wise from IGN, more chances to collect money hats!

 

[joshschw]

but that's sort of how my review scale is at tamashiisensei.com for my game reviews. I mean, only if the game is truly great and genre-defining does it get above an 8.

I couldn't even find ONE review less than an 8....

 

[Geek]

That list makes me want to play Bangai-O right now.

Don't. Ooga Booga was 0.4 better.

 

[Kon Tiki]

The only way to 'stregthen' it is to remove the number based system all together.

 

[Juice]

hahahaha...hahahahaha...haha...ah...haha...h....no.

hahhaha...ha... and to think that some people (like me) still think IGN gave the 360 launch line-up got too high of scroes.

 

[Falch]

Way to much importance is put on review scores. Just read the review, and see if the positives/negatives that influence the score apply to you. Also, if you really care about scores, atleast check gamerankings.com to get an average over many reviews.

 

[Juice]

Way to much importance is put on review scores. Just read the review, and see if the positives/negatives that influence the score apply to you. Also, if you really care about scores, atleast check gamerankings.com to get an average over many reviews.

Which would be a valuable method of figuring out whether a game was good if half the "game journalists" knew how to effectively communicate their impressions in writing.

 

[shoplifter]

The only way to 'stregthen' it is to remove the number based system all together.

But how would we randomly assign a value to our possessions then!!!

THE HUMANITY

 

[Alcibiades]

It always seemed to me that most of IGN's inflated scores came from the XBox section.

 

[Falch]

Which would be a valuable method of figuring out whether a game was good if half the "game journalists" knew how to effectively communicate their impressions in writing.

Yeah, but that's a different discussion altogether.

 

[NotMSRP]

Hardly call the 1up REDS a review being four paragraphs of rubbish.

 

[dyls]

It's really enough with the 100-point grading scales. Are there really 10 degrees of difference between 7.5 and 8.5? As (hopefully) technology becomes less important and artistic elements are more valued, it would make sense to change the scale entirely.

The four-star system with half-intervals is the best, imo.

**** is a game that is a landmark, or a truly exceptional game with universal appeal, one that is expected to stand the test of time.

***1/2 is a excellent game with a few nagging flaws, or a truly great game with less universal appeal.

*** is a strong example of its genre, a game that is more polished, stylized, or just solid than most of its ilk

**1/2 is fun and playable, above average, or an ambitious game that went awry somewhere.

** is average. Forgettable, probably quite flawed, but maybe worth checking out.

*1/2 is a poor game, undercooked and deficient compared to others in the genre.

* is shit.

 

[Jiggy]

Which would be a valuable method of figuring out whether a game was good if half the "game journalists" knew how to effectively communicate their impressions in writing.

Owned.

 

[Unison]

NEVER FORGET!

 

[Fallofmart]

Did this time exist in this world?

It wasn't really that long ago.

Too many games get 8.5's and above nowadays.

 

[railGUN]

You know, I rarely read reviews anymore, and I only check scores against other scores, just to see descrepencies and differences of opinion. In fact, one of my favorite things to do now, is wait for a game that has legions of fanboys get a bad score, then check all the message boards around the net that cator to said fanboys and their game, just to get a laugh. I'm not saying that reviews and/or reviewers suck, I just rely on places like GAF to find out what's good and what's not.

 

[Solid]

well, on the INSIDER boards several of the editors made note that since the 360 launch, IGN has changed their review scale and have 'toughened' up (in their words).

Really? I just thought that was a lame excuse from the hardcore Xbox fans

They should drop the .6 score. Just 1-10 is better. Less bitching.

 

[C- Warrior]

I don't know why more sites opt for the Ebert/Roeper set up, -- via the thumb system. It works well for them.

 

[Bigfoot]

I remember some site that didn't do numbers, but instead gave out "Avoid", "Rent", "Own if fan of genre", and "Must own" tags. I can't remember exactly what site did this, and the exact wording they used, but I thought it was a great idea.

 

[vitaflo]

I don't know why more sites opt for the Ebert/Roeper set up, -- via the thumb system. It works well for them.

Even they have a thumbs in the middle. I think a 5 star rating is fine (forget the half stars, it's a cop out). Next Generation's old rating system was great in this regard. It lets people focus on the review itself and less on the rating.

The rating should only tell you approximately how good a game is. You don't need a 100 point scale (which ratings like an 8.6 effectivley are) to get that point across. The only thing a 100 point scale does is feed people's need to compare every game to every other game numerically, and totally gloss over the actual review.

If you want people to actually read and pay attention more to your copy than argue over the scores you gave, don't do it on skewed 100 point scales.

 

[AdmiralViscen]

I remember some site that didn't do numbers, but instead gave out "Avoid", "Rent", "Own if fan of genre", and "Must own" tags. I can't remember exactly what site did this, and the exact wording they used, but I thought it was a great idea.

This is a good one. This is how they should be.

 

[Wollan]

NEVER FORGET!

I never will. Joke review of the century. Screams moneyhats and/or severe bias.

 

[Guy LeDouche]

I remember some site that didn't do numbers, but instead gave out "Avoid", "Rent", "Own if fan of genre", and "Must own" tags. I can't remember exactly what site did this, and the exact wording they used, but I thought it was a great idea.

Daily Radar did this. Bomb, (something), Hit, Direct Hit. It followed the same thing you describe.

 

[TimmehTims]

NEVER FORGET!

This game is so mediocre it's not even funny. I'd give it an 8.0 at best.

 

[C- Warrior]

Funny thing about the review is that Hilary even comes in as a 2nd opinion on the review and says "if anything, the 9.9 is underating Jade Empire."

... :lol

 

[GitarooMan]

Funny thing about the review is that Hilary even comes in as a 2nd opinion on the review and says "if anything, the 9.9 is underating Jade Empire."

... :lol

Yeah, I remember thinking the actual review wasn't that bad, but then I went and read it again later (and the 2nd opinion), it's as bad as you can imagine. It's funny because I think that review has ironically hurt the game's status (in more serious gaming circles).

I swear if it had gotten 8.8 or something, people would be like, yeah, Jade Empire was pretty solid (which I would say it is). Instead whenever the game comes up, it is often associated with this review and immediately the overrated chants start.

 

[Shard]

Ha! They could have saved me some money if they'd done this when dreamcast.ign.com reviewers were still active.

I remember when one review ON THEIR OWN SITE once comaplianing about IGN DC overrating many of the games they play. He had a good point but picked a poor place to air this greivence, his review of Grandia II for the PS2.

 

[Cheebs]

Sonic Adventure 2 got 9.4? I forgot about that! :lol :lol

 

[B E N K E]

I remember some site that didn't do numbers, but instead gave out "Avoid", "Rent", "Own if fan of genre", and "Must own" tags. I can't remember exactly what site did this, and the exact wording they used, but I thought it was a great idea.

I really dislike "Own if fan of genre". When using a sentence it is good to put a "not" in it to see if it makes sense that way. Why would I want to own a game if I dislike the genre? And why would I overlook flaws if I like the genre (I tend to be more critical on games in genres I really like and obsess with one or two games). But this line has snuck into almost everyone magazine or site's review scale somehow... Maybe I'm just obsessing :lol

In all honesty I would like to rid myself of all scores, but you have to weigh that against the fact that most readers would like to see a scale of 1-100 or 1-1000... 1-10 is the compromise I like the most as the scale is easy enough to use and understand (5 - slightly below average and 6 - slightly above average).

 

[mollipen]

I absolutely HATED the 100-point scale when I was at GameFan, because 3/4ths of the scale was never used unless we wanted to totally trash a game. I had to sit there and try to figure out, "Okay, is this game an 83 or an 85? I gave that one game an 84, and this is better than that game, but I gave that other game an 82, and it's better than both of these!" Unless you have a secondary set of scores adding up to that final score, you end up just pulling a number at random sometimes. And with the utter inconsistency of the scores, I'd have to imagine readers after a while had no idea what to make of the grades in comparison to other games.

I think it is useless to use large scales for reviewing, because they turn to nonsense after a while. I'm also not a fan of half points, because they're only there to inflate the scoring system and allow you to cop out on making a decision. I think even the 10-point scale offers too much possibility.

For a little side project I'm a part of, we use the 5-point scale, with each clearly labeled "Bad, Poor, Average, Good, Great." I think labels are a good thing, because then it helps lock each grade into what exactly it is supposed to stand for. Also, that way you can avoid score creep where the middle grade stops being the average. I also thought for a while of doing ratings that were simply text, no numbers, like, "Buy it, rent it, play it, ignore it," but I ended up not liking the idea, and wanted to cover stuff beyond games.

I think the thumbs up/thumbs down is probably the best way to go about it. Is it worth my time, or not? That's mostly what you need to know, I think. Of course, I do think it is a bit easier to do that with movies than with games.

 

[aronnov]

IGN's scores for the 360 launch were way to high. they judged them as if they were on the xbox.

 

[My Arms Your Hearse]

I really can't decide which is worse... the Jade Empire review, the Fable 59487509385730985743985 page "greatest preview of all time," or the fact the actually gave Fable a 9.0+ just to save face after the most ridiculous preview of all time.

And it isn't as if these two are the only examples. There were some truly horrendous reviews. To a lesser extent, the same was true for gamecube. PS2 IGN was by far the most balanced. There are ~2-3x as many 9.0+ games on PS2 than either GC or Xbox, yet both of the latter systems have MANY MANY more 9.6+ rated games.

This is one of the problem I had with the Xbox's game catalogue, other than the extremely limited variety - no other systems games receive so much undeserved hype, and then fail so spectacularly to deliver. IGN was by far the guiltiest party when it came to this. Pretty much any story surrounding the next "big" title basically read "The Second Coming...? We think so!" The only big name games on Xbox that didn't disappoint me due to all the hype/fapping were Ninja Gaiden and Halo: CE.

 

[dirtmonkey37]

they strengthened it already by getting rid of ivan suluc.

They got rid of Ivan?!?!?