You're assuming game reviewers use the same broken scale that schools use. A movie with 60 percent positive scores on Rottentomatoes is a very good-to-great movie. At IGN, 6.0-6.9 is listed as "OK". I'd equate that to Average.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
The Order 1886 Review Thread
- Thread starter The Sarcastic Dude
- Start date
- Status
You're assuming game reviewers use the same broken scale that schools use. A movie with 60 percent positive scores on Rottentomatoes is a very good-to-great movie. At IGN, 6.0-6.9 is listed as "OK". I'd equate that to Average.
Welfare
Member
Seeing as Metacritic uses a 100 point scale, 50/100 would be average. This isn't school.
MrNyarlathotep
Banned
The world where many review sites explicitly define 5 / 10 as average and games don't go to grade school
WordsintheWater
Member
I never pay attention to those review scores on PSN, they seem so out of whack for me. And of course fanboys go on there and give it 10's especially when it comes to first party games. If you go and look at metacritic user reviews for the Order there are a bunch of 10's and 0's both of which are a joke, the game doesn't deserve a 10 and doesn't deserve a 0, that's why I think overall they're a joke.
Seeing the world through an US v Them prism makes conversation impossible. No wonder you refuse to find common ground with word.
With fanboys so prevalent, that's why a score of 4 or less on PSN itself is so telling to me.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
There's nothing to trust. It's a big wad of people's opinions and that's all.
i was thinking about making a thread about the SSM tweet just for the juice of it, but he deleted it. it's one thing to stand by your indefensible opinion, it's another to just blurt out something stupid, retract it a couple of minutes later but still end up having your name tarred by it for eternity.
i'd keep my head down if i was him though. he's one opportunistic poster away from becoming infamous.
i'd keep my head down if i was him though. he's one opportunistic poster away from becoming infamous.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
Well, a very large number of them do.
A lot nonsense to obfuscate one simple fact: the illusive standard which you debate distinguish professional reviewers from a forumner.
What standard do you speak of? Aren't reviews plagued by selective criticism - or, "inconsistencies"? In instances showcase bias? In instances showcase non-adherance to their own "guidelines"? Aren't these guidelines different from outlet to outlet? Scoring systems different from outlet to outlet? Aren't these guidelines changed on a whim because of "flaws"? Aren't scoring system criticized by "reviewers" themselves because of lack of inclusiveness? Aren't reviews subjective opinions in practice despite the allusiveness of objective analysis?
Can a forumner not adhere to guidelines? Can a forumner not be well spoken, or have good writing skills and post coherent "reviews" aka final impressions on a product? Can a forumner not have a degree?
Ultimately, can a forumner not have a voice because of a difference in platforms? Is the quality diminished by the platform? NO.
How about we stop pretending x platform = good, y platform = bad and judge the content of words by their own merit? I mean people do this all the time with review sites themselves? IGN>Polygon, Gametrailers>Gamespot bla bla bla..... my favorite is x, y is a joke.
Lets look at GAF: I trust final impressions from poster x on GAF, distrust impressions from poster Y on GAF because of X, Y, Z.
Luther King Jr. would be proud.
What substantive difference in practice is there other than platform?
The only case you have here is claiming that you're more likely to pay more attention to reviews from x site because they generally hire(pay) individuals with x characteristic and their output in your opinion showcases "objectivity" and "non-bias" that you deem OK/LIKE. So its easier for you to find information and purchasing advice at X site than at X number of forums. And this case is based on your opinion, subjective. In other words, it's harder to find a review of quality from a forumner than from a "review" site. Then again a lot of forumners here prefer GAF impressions rather than "reviews" from professional sites themselves. Are they wrong in that preference? NO. So are reviewers indispensable? NO.
As for the Youtube vs. X SITE:
I don't think I need to explain myself on what's arguably at best bad reading comprehension from your part and at worst twisting my words for the sake of being argumentative. Read it again and see if my words actually imply anything about "quality".
When it comes to marketing, a company is free to spend its money where it sees fit. Youtube celebrities are a growing marketing platform - more money and attention should be placed on them when other means aren't simply as strong. Just that simple. The idea that publishers SHOULD baby up review sites with FREE GAMES or ad-space money because it's necessary evil and its good for the industry is outdated rationale.
WordsintheWater
Member
You guys take this shit too seriously, he said something stupid, agreed, but the hate you guys exhibit for him and what he said is freaking sad.
You should make that thread. More people deserve to lose their jobs over shit on the internet.
they shouldn't
Air Zombie Meat
Member
An Ubisoft dev saying that would have been unanimously hung out to dry.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
Oh, come on. It was a really stupid thing to say. It could easily be interpreted as "if these press sneak fucks aren't going to give us the high praise we demand, maybe it's time we stop paying them."
I know his feelings are more nuanced than that, but if he's going to be running his mouth on Twitter, he needs to be more aware of what the Internet is.
myself said:
Game is still going to be extensively play tested, but it's aiming for a slightly different sort of player. The final mix will be interesting to see as I have no idea who their are aiming this towards. I'm kinda hoping it is the MonHun crowd in Japan.
I played DeS, and 1/2 of DaS1. Loved DeS, didn't really care for DaS, I guess because I felt I had been there, done that. Maybe that is part of my problem. I'm not a fan of an industry that relies on sequels to the extent that our big publishers do.
Doesn't it just.
Agree, but the cat is out of the bag.hopefully it does not get reported on by a major gaming website.
The dude should have known better, vent verbally at the office lol
Wow man, please expand on what exactly the internet is please.
thisisgoonabegood.gif
Holy shit there are more of you on this whole twitter is serious business kick. AMAZING
Or anonymously on msg boards, lol.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
It's all sorts of people. It also happens to have a lot of people like you, who are salivating at the chance to jump on someone's statement and tear it apart as you demonstrated in the post I'm quoting.
Twitter is serious business in that things posted on it frequently have real life consequences for lots of people. You're broadcasting to the entire world in a format that can go viral and spread like wildfire in an instant.
not saying that this guy's tweet should be put on blast but he's also responsible for his own actions. he should have known better than to put that garbage out in public on twitter.
You know what average is right? It doesn't necessarily have to be 5/10. Most likely the average of games on metacritic is closer to 6/10 or 7/10.
If you only get half your questions right on a test, you clearly did poorly and deserve an F. If you go to a job and you only do half the things you're told, you're completely unreliable and get fired. Whether you completed half of them or 10% of them doesn't matter - either way you still failed and need to gtfo.
Games don't work on the school system, because they are entertainment. By definition, they are a pleasure. A pleasure which succeeds and fails in an equal number of areas is still inherently a pleasure, which is why a 5/10 is not necessarily a failure.
Games don't work on the school system, because they are entertainment. By definition, they are a pleasure. A pleasure which succeeds and fails in an equal number of areas is still inherently a pleasure, which is why a 5/10 is not necessarily a failure.
jim-jam bongs
Member
I don't think it's serious business at all actually, it's just a spectacularly dumb thing to say.
The fact that you need more than half of a 100 point scale to represent one grade alone is a huge failure in and of itself.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
But that's not what Metacritic is aggregating with video games.
It's aggregating the scores of sites on a scale of 100.
Rotten Tomatoes is aggregating the number of "positive" and "negative" opinions and displaying a percentage for the "positive" side.
If Metacritic for video games behaved in the same way and treated 0-49 as "negative" and "50-100" as "positive," then almost every video game would probably show as a 90% or above. Maybe that's what some people want... I don't know.
Is it? It's in the context of learning material in order to advance on to more difficult subject matter that typically requires the previous knowledge. In that context, you absolutely should require that people score around an 80% in order to be considered "good." Knowing just half of the material, for example, should not be sufficient to move on.
That doesn't make any sense. Physically speaking, I have the ability to do 10% or 50%. Both of them are unacceptable. Are you saying that math itself is a failure?
cheezcake
Member
I don't think you understand how averages work
Always-honest
Banned
Sure, and to say they have to lose their jobs is ridiculous. But i actually think that most people who have played the game really think a 2 out of 10 or a 1 out of 5 is just wrong.
Unless they have a really weird scale i don't know about..
But when i think of what i had to do in school to get a 2.. well..
There is plenty wrong with the game and depending on how much you value extra content, lenght, etc, or desprise QTE and cutscenes i can understand this game getting scores below 6. But a 2 out of 10 is saying: "you guys don't belong here. You don't take making games seriosuly. To play this game is insulting to me. This game is an unplayable mess." Or something along those lines.
I know what i'm saying doesn't make much sense, and in general reviews are just opinions, yes. But i'd like you to play it one day and see for yourself.
Anywayy, as long as we all have fun. No need to go to war over reviewscores, i agree.
jhmtehgamr20xx
Banned
Because you're worrying over nothing. You're putting way more worth into User Score than even Metacritic does, and they barely put any emphasis on it. The User Score is just there, existing. Dev pay bonuses aren't riding on scores from users and fans.
Crossing Eden
Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
All sequels, but compare MGSV to MGS4, compare the world of Witcher 3 to Witcher 2 etc, it's not just copying and pasting code with a new world.
I'm definitely saying your analogy is a huge failure. Game rating scales are said to be a failure because they only use the top end of the scale, which is true. Why have a scale if you're only going to use the top end of it? Schools in the past traditionally did the same stupid thing, using only the top 40 percent of the scale. It's dumb.
So dramatic. When did I ever say one platform is necessarily good and another is automatically bad? You are making straw man arguments. I was simply pointing out that there is a distinction and that the existence of organized gaming websites has its merit because of said distinction. Not because their output is automatically better. Speaking of forum reviews, I wrote one for this game too. And I've always encouraged others to do the same. But guess what, my review is probably lost in the thousands of post in this thread. And that's the issue with using forums as a platform for reviews.
That is literally the only case I'm making. It is subjective, indeed. But a place to go to for an organized set of opinions from people whose tastes you can relate to is just as important as other platforms.
I was being facetious. Relax. We can keep debates civil without judging each other. I was trying to elicit a better example from you that would represent quality in addition to being a marketing platform.
I don't think youtube doesn't have its place. What I do think is that both platforms have a role to play and it's not one or the other.
WordsintheWater
Member
I'm not worrying about it at all, I just responded to someone that used the user review scores as a good indication of a games worth and called the user review scores a joke, then I got called out on it. And what you said about them not putting emphasis on them I agree.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
You're talking to a guy that felt like Dark Souls was just more of the same after Demon's Souls. I doubt he'll be agreeing with your argument in regards to MGSV and The Witcher 3.
Embearded
Member
I don't know if it's already been posted but i will leave it here....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FV-u5tvQC34
so funny.... xD
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FV-u5tvQC34
so funny.... xD
So consumers should have no information at all about the quality of the final product on the day it releases?
As if the "noon on launch day" embargo on AC: Unity wasn't bad enough, now gamers wouldn't get reviews until a day or two after it goes on store shelves.
They can ride to the bank with Adam Sandler and give each other high fives.
You don't need to read some random person's post about sales to judge how it's doing. Just watch Amazon. It's clearly sold well enough to stay in the top 20 for about a week, but the huge drop in trade-in value from Friday until today (down from 39 dollars to 26) is very telling of what consumers think of the long term replay value of the game. And it means within the next week or two, Amazon.com's used section for this game is going to be awash in copies, which is going to hurt the sales prospects of the New copies.
Welfare
Member
In a 100 point system, how exactly would you determine "the average score"? Going by school, everything under 70 should be "below average"?
Scores are stupid anyway, but having an actual description of the score needs background for it. You know, like:
1 = Broken
2 = Terrible
3 = Bad
4 = Below Average
5 = Average
6 = Above Average
7 = Good
8 = Great
9 = Amazing
10 = Masterpiece
Not
1-3 = Bad
4-6 = Below Average
7 = Average
8 = Great
9 = Amazing
10 = Masterpiece
The 7-10 grade scale that plagues the game reviewer industry is bull shit.
A 5/10 video game is not average on almost any reviewer scale, similar to how a 5/10 is not average in school. And that's why it's called an analogy.
Stating how the ideal scoring system would be versus what we have is irrelevant when criticizing someone's reactions to, what the system defines as, a low review score.
And to answer your question, I think you'd find that the majority of people find a game that reviews in the 70s to be average. If you want the true average, take every game ever reviewed and calculate the arithmetic average from that.
Why the fuck are people still debating school and grade scales and shit?
You understand that a system where 0-60% of a 100% scale mean the same thing is inherantly flawed right? In a school setup it works because your grade on any given thing actually matters, the delineation between 20% and 60% is tangible because of the aggregation of those scores to form your actual grade. In a video game where you give every game one single grade and there's no average being thrown into the mix, the scale is just the scale. Just like Rotten Tomatoes where a 40% movie can actually be fine for what it is, and a 40% game is just as awful as a 60% game.
People need to get over this stuff. If you like the game that's fine, you don't need to defend your opinion to everyone else for validation. If you play like 10 games a year your perspective is going to be vastly different than a paid reviewer who plays closer to the triple digits wortho f games every year though, and it's highly possible that a game you see as the messiah of third person shooters is actually just completely average and you haven't played many.
You understand that a system where 0-60% of a 100% scale mean the same thing is inherantly flawed right? In a school setup it works because your grade on any given thing actually matters, the delineation between 20% and 60% is tangible because of the aggregation of those scores to form your actual grade. In a video game where you give every game one single grade and there's no average being thrown into the mix, the scale is just the scale. Just like Rotten Tomatoes where a 40% movie can actually be fine for what it is, and a 40% game is just as awful as a 60% game.
People need to get over this stuff. If you like the game that's fine, you don't need to defend your opinion to everyone else for validation. If you play like 10 games a year your perspective is going to be vastly different than a paid reviewer who plays closer to the triple digits wortho f games every year though, and it's highly possible that a game you see as the messiah of third person shooters is actually just completely average and you haven't played many.
ModBot
Not a mod, just a bot.
I think we're done, folks.
- Status