Skyward Sword review thread [Newest Reviews - Cubed3 10/10, GC: A, AusGamers: 7/10]
- Thread starter EatChildren
- Start date
Posting the median would be very useful as well.
Biggest-Geek-Ever
Member
We need dem bull curves.
ShockingAlberto
Member
Don't worry, Telltale and Bioware will balance out the mean.
Or people being mean, I mean.
SecretMoblin
Member
Or at the very least they could make their weighting transparent. I want to know exactly what Metacritic considers "top-tier" reviewers and how much sway it gives them when computing the mean.
Or they could do away with numbers altogether and simply aggregate reviews, but that would be a silly fantasy to have.
Anasui Kishibe
Banned
Metacritic, the trololol invention of the decade. I'd be much better without it
and Gamespot
and Gamespot
InvincibleAgent
Member
I wonder if I could get that as my title?
And we all know that the ideal review tells what is good AND bad about a game. The best reviews have good and bad comments to make.
walking fiend
Member
Metacritic is overemphasized, really. I think its viewers are like 20% of trollspot, Alexa says so at least... and not all of that is for games section anyway
i agree but if a game is getting general praise then you would expect or hope that someone who didnt would make a point through a well written negative review rather then a review that contains factual errors and unfair standards
SecretMoblin
Member
It's not the size of the viewership that matters, it's the impact. It's actually quite difficult to overstate the influence of Metacritic for publishers and developers. Many companies hire consultants whose sole job it is to make sure the game will end up with a high Metacritic score; this is one of the jobs of former journalist N'Gai Croal, for example. It gets even more disheartening when Metacritic starts publishing articles like this one, tallying up the mean of every score a publisher's games received in 2010 and "ranking" the publishers.
It's a terrible way to conceptualize games, but it's reality and Metacritic isn't going away anytime soon. If we have to live under a pile of numbers, I would at least like to know the method by which those numbers are obtained. The problem is that people will be obsessed anyway; we're all desperate for numbers and rankings and it ends up fueling the Metacritic machine.
So reviewing with an irrational prejudice is fine, as long as the readers understand that they should only heed it if they have the same irrational prejudice?
Isn't an irrational prejudice something that is, like, really, really bad? And something that we need to stamp out if we ever want to raise the level of debate of the industry?
SecretMoblin
Member
I'm not against the idea of scores per se, but I'm certainly against the way they're parsed and hyper-analyzed to the point of obsession. When people start saying things like "That's crazy! Game X deserved at least .5 points higher because of Nonsensical Reason Y!", it's just nuts to me.
I think the problem with them is that they encourage direct comparisons between games - because, after all, that's the whole point of a scale - but the scores clearly aren't consistent internally and encourage some chalk-and-cheese comparisons.
So we shouldn't use it to compare, yet it's a device intended to compare. So what's the *point*?
Yes, that's exactly my beef with the scoring system. I'm pretty sure not even the publications have a good idea what's the purpose of the scores (other than to generate hits, of course).
Boo this man!
Trickster
Member
Sorry for budging in, but I'm curious what are some of the stuff in the review that's considered "irrational prejudice"?
walking fiend
Member
Motion controls were supposed to suck and be broken.
Wow, all sorts of drama over review scores. It's okay guys, everyone has an opinion. Just like everyone has an asshole. Some stink more than others but its the same shit.
I think the more interesting question to ask is how many people won't buy the game because of negative/less than impressive reviews.
I think the more interesting question to ask is how many people won't buy the game because of negative/less than impressive reviews.
walking fiend
Member
Some people have fallen from the other edge of the cliff.. Who says that reviews are only opinions and do not have objective observations and evaluations in them?
Also, you should ask who would buy the game because of positive reviews?
Yeah. Now I know why I've avoided looking at this thread till now. Guek is especially in meltdown mode. Personal name calling never goes well.
I won't. Because that review from Exxy is everything I feared. He basically summed up my exact opinions towards TP and then gave me zero reasons to think things have changed dramatically. Buying and playing would just make me rage.
It's still an opinion. It may be a more refined opinion but its still just that. None of these reviews can be taken as factual or absolute. Objectivity implies a spectrum of differentiation that can range in perspective.
As for who would buy it via positive reviews, well hell. I'll take both answers really, just for shits and giggles. It's all good as far as I am concerned.
walking fiend
Member
The point is in my claim of 'objectively' evaluating something, whether I say it is an opinion or not; it isn't the same as preference, and so my opinion may be objectively rebutted or verified, that is why it is most accurate to say that it isn't an opinion from the beginning
Trickster
Member
I don't really see whats irrational about that, plenty of people dislike motion controls. And there's been a couple of reviews saying that the controls can be inacurate from time to time hasn't there?
walking fiend
Member
There are like 5 games made around M+, and all of them I have played work great (SS, RS2, Sports Resort), I actually see some irrationality if reviewers not want to accept it when it works really fine. Not liking them in general is merely a matter of personal taste.
Also, being inaccurate from time to time is miles away from being broken
Yes, but other reviews and impressions, even from Gaffers, have said that the controls work perfectly. There must be something wrong for the few that had issues. Either they're playing wrong or there's interference.
Trickster
Member
Exactly, it's a matter of personal taste, it's not anything irrational. If someone actually mentions in a review that they don't like motion controls, then the solution to dealing with the review is very simple, ignore it, it's not relevant for people that like motion controls. No need to be up in arms about it.
And yes, being inaccuate from time to time isn't really broken, but it's still annoying, and needs to be mentioned in a review if it's there.
That may be so. but do you really want the reviewers to overlook problems they're having with the game/controls, simply because there's a potential that it could be intereference? I'd be surprised if it's because they're playing it wrong though, I assume the controls are made to be intuitive and easy to do.
eastside49er
Member
Good to see reviewers like Giantbomb and Gamespot have the balls to give this game what it probably deserves.
There's got to be a bronze medal round here somewhere...
I'm playing it on dolphin without a sensor bar, so I have to basically reinitialize the calibration every 5-10 minutes and goddamn it's annoying at times, but even I must admit the controls are near perfect.
Holy Order Sol
Member
That Singer Guy...
Member
If you haven't played it and don't plan on playing it...
STFU!!!!
How do you know what it probably deserves?
Cow Mengde
Banned
GiantBomb probably couldn't get past the first dungeon. Just watching them play OOT was embarrassing.
Anasui Kishibe
Banned
walking fiend
Member
The problem is when reviewers say the controls don't work.
See, a matter of preference would be that I don't like to move my hands for my sword to slash; a matter of objective evaluation would be that quite often the sword won't replicate my move the way I intended, e.g. I want a right to left slash but it registers as up to down, or it has a considerably amount of lag, or it doesn't work when I slash fast, etc
Reviews like GS, are implying the second, which we have seen that is a totally false claim, and is not something which you may merely ignore as being a personal preference. I like motion controls, and even I would really reconsider buying even SS if it had such broken controls.
Also inaccuracies definitely are not something which you welcome, but when it comes to a very reliable control like in SS , it'll be like saying that a game with locked 60fps is broken graphically, because every hour or so it may drop below 30fps for a brief amount of time. It's worth mentioning for sure, but it's irrational to bash the game for this
See? That's exactly what he wanted, and you gave it to him.
walking fiend
Member
Are you admitting that you purposefully trolled, to provoke responses that you may enjoy afterward?
edit: lol at it being multiplied by three... sigh
eastside49er
Member
Actually what I posted was the truth, unless Giantbomb or GS changed their initial reviews? Not my fault some Zelda fanboy blew a gasket over it. All I can do is sit back and laugh about the reaction. The internet after all is very serious business.
walking fiend
Member
GS actually did, oh, wait...
Anyhow, you are actually admitting that you are trolling to provoke Nintendo fans for laughs?
Did I say they were? The problem is when they're saying that the controls are broken and the refuse to acknowledge that there's potentially an issue on their end despite a bunch of reviews from other sites having none of the same problems.
And some may have been doing it wrong, thinking that they could get away with wrist-flicking or really subtle movements like they did in TP. Some also assumed that the IR is used for aiming, which resulted it them having an extremely hard time with projectiles. GameSpot apparently wasn't aware that it only uses Motion+ for aiming until the review was published.
BlazingDarkness
Member
Zelda isn't an untouchable franchise any more, I figured people would have understood that after the last few entries got mixed reception from players. There's no reason why SS would have been different, pre-release hype aside.
eastside49er
Member
I didn't provoke anything. If anything GS and Giantbomb are the ones provoking. Don't shoot the messenger.
And they didn't just bash the controls. They pretty said, with out actually saying it, how SS was pretty much like every Zelda game before it since 1998 and they wanted to see some growth. I don't blame them. TP was boring to me and SS looks even worse.
Cerebral Assassin
Member
eastside49er
Member
If you need to know what I'm doing, I'm watching a movie, working on a project and shooting the crap on NeoGAF (what a great multitasker I am).
Nice to see you TRY and throw a personal jab at me though. Signs of me really getting under your skin which is funny to say the least.
GameSpot outright said it...
Cerebral Assassin
Member
No personal jab, just an honest question. I just don't understand why someone would be so interested in a series that they find boring(also did you read the GB review? It doesn't seem like you understood it)