Support NeoGAF

[SomedayTheFire]

But hypothetically speaking what if you are asked to review a genre you don't like? You can't give the latest sports game a 1/10 because you hate football.

But yes you are probably right about scores - I like how Edge does it in theory, though find myself strongly disagreeing with them regularly when I don't feel the score correlates to either my experience of the game or their own scoring system.

But that's taking into account outside influences. If I'm reviewing a game I'm reviewing the game and not the fringes of it. I loathe WWI as a setting but think BF1 is good for example. If I hated football and absolutely hated the latest fifa and felt it was a complete waste of time to play I would give it a 1/10 cause that's the scale I'd use. I wouldn't fee comfortable giving a game I hate a better score than I think it deserves because other people would like it.

NBA 2K17 is a good example. I hate that game find it horribly boring and don't really like basketball. It's a well made game but for me I'd go as low as 4/10 because I find it below average and not very fun. I don't particularly think my opinion is of any less worth than someone that does like basketball reviewing it cause at the end of the day it's a subjective review of my experiences playing the game.

Spoiler

for a 1 or 2 out of 10 game, i'd give that to a game like Shadow of Mordor because i hate every single thing about that game

I think that's the main issue here. You have completely different people with completely different scales on an aggregate site like metacritic. What sense does it make to have an aggregate score with different scales? Also, people want objective (believe it's been said here before and other threads several times) out of a subjective review.

Maybe it just makes the sense to have two scores of a game. First review: personal opinion. Second review: As objective as possible (obviously can't review a game with no personal opinion). And, that there should be some consistent scale that metacritic sends out and says "hey if you want to be a part of this aggregate score, use this scale".

Will any of this ever happen? No, not likely. So why bother? Because it's early and I have some time to burn before work

I completely agree with that assessment. I think metacritic is the biggest problem with regards to review scores. like a 4*/5* is an 80 in metacritic's scale and I find that really dumb. generally if I watch reviews it's to find out how the game is to play, how people are enjoying it, what redeeming qualities there are and what is sub par. for performance issues, I go by gaf actually but yeah, a subjective and objective review system could work, but it's still hamstrung by metacritic. do you score one and not the other? which gets picked up by MC?

like if you subjectively give Zelda a 10/10 for gameplay and objectively give it a 5/10 for performance and MC picks up the second score, what happens? logical conclusion is to mix the two, but performance issues that kill a game for me could be wildly different than you. I think the easiest way to sidestep is a subjective review with an objective sidebar detailing performance and technical failings. the new mass effect for example is a game I find thoroughly average, but I wouldn't lower the score because of the animations, despite them being bad to the point of broken at times because they didn't affect my time with the game

 

[Ms.Galaxy]

But hypothetically speaking what if you are asked to review a genre you don't like? You can't give the latest sports game a 1/10 because you hate football.

But yes you are probably right about scores - I like how Edge does it in theory, though find myself strongly disagreeing with them regularly when I don't feel the score correlates to either my experience of the game or their own scoring system.

I would, I hate sports games. Yet... Even though I hate sports games, Mario Strikers gave me an experience that was actually enjoyable and would rate it a 7/10. See, it's not just about the genre alone, it's about the experience I felt playing it regardless of the genre. I can hate a genre and admit a game in the genre is good if my experience with it was enjoyable. So while I'm sure someone like FIFA or whatever, I'd likely give it a score of a 3, maybe 4 out of 10 because I find it boring and not interesting in the slightest.

 

[ClivePwned]

just got an email for backers of the game. they are working on patches

 

[Synth]

I would, I hate sports games. Yet... Even though I hate sports games, Mario Strikers gave me an experience that was actually enjoyable and would rate it a 7/10.

Exactly, the consistency of scoring something you dislike low gives meaningful context when something surprises you with its quality and overcomes your typical disinterest. If you've been bumping all your FIFA scores to a 7/10, simply because that's what you feel all the other publications are likely to review it as... then what do you score such a game that actually did rate as a 7/10 for you?

Plus, whilst you're busy bumping your scores for games you hate because you're under the strange notion that it's only fair... are you expecting everyone that finds themselves enjoyed it "a bit too much" to be knocking their scores down also?

Wouldn't it make sense to just post your low scores, and then it'll just get countered by all the equally honest high scores that everyone else would be posting anyway. What's even the point in aggregating an average, if every score is expected to be that average in the first place?

 

[maxcriden]

After hearing about the Xbox and PS4 versions in the reviews, I hope Playtonic is handling the Switch version themselves.

From what I've heard Team 17 did.

From what I remember Playtonic was handling the Wii U version and all other (console at least, unsure about PC) versions were being done out of house, so with the Wii U version cancelled hopefully they are doing the Switch version in-house.

 

[JonnyKong]

just got an email for backers of the game. they are working on patches

Me too, and some other news in that email which would lighten up my day if it turns out true!

 

[Maintenance]

Why? Just because of one game?Didn't the same happened with no mans sky?

No Man's Sky wasn't from Nintendo, so it didn't matter if he dog piled on it.

 

[kitchenmotors]

No Man's Sky wasn't from Nintendo, so it didn't matter if he dog piled on it.

That's some bullshit.

There is a huge difference in the quality of game with No Man's Sky compared to Breath of the Wild. But keep trying to play up this narrative.

 

[faridmon]

No Man's Sky wasn't from Nintendo, so it didn't matter if he dog piled on it.

WTF?

 

[Maintenance]

That's some bullshit.

There is a huge difference in the quality of game with No Man's Sky compared to Breath of the Wild. But keep trying to play up this narrative.

I'm not comparing game quality, I'm comparing reactions. And if you really think that's false, go to any recent Jimquisition thread. I can find Nintendo fans / people with Nintendo avatars shitting on him on practically every single one of them.

 

[groansey]

Exactly, the consistency of scoring something you dislike low gives meaningful context when something surprises you with its quality and overcomes your typical disinterest. If you've been bumping all your FIFA scores to a 7/10, simply because that's what you feel all the other publications are likely to review it as... then what do you score such a game that actually did rate as a 7/10 for you?

It's not a case of bumping your score to match other publications, it's a case of setting aside your own biases and factoring in competency and target audience into your review.

 

[styl3s]

But hypothetically speaking what if you are asked to review a genre you don't like? You can't give the latest sports game a 1/10 because you hate football.

But yes you are probably right about scores - I like how Edge does it in theory, though find myself strongly disagreeing with them regularly when I don't feel the score correlates to either my experience of the game or their own scoring system.

I either wouldn't review it or give it my honest opinion.

Giving games a higher score because "X group" likes it is a shitty way of reviewing games i could never consciously fluff something because i know other people will enjoy it because that's disingenuous as fuck. There are plenty of films that people consider a 5/5 that i personally consider a 1-2/5 but i can also respect what the film maker/writer was doing even though i didn't like it but i would never give it a 3/5 because the general public likes it because again that's not being honest. There's a reason i take 0 stock in any reviews and it's comments like this because there are people who do this and i think it's as disgusting and taking away from your score because you are a fan of something and Huber from EZA touched on this about his Ratchet review. To him it would of been a higher score but he toned it down because of that and IMO that's not honest, it's not honest to him, his readers or anyone and that's why when i look for opinions on games i look at people who are playing it and giving their honest opinions that aren't tied to a job or opinions that aren't somehow tied to what X or Y group thinks.

People need to stop giving a shit about a number, read the review and either accept it or move on. Jim's review should have 0 effect on if you enjoy something and it boggles my mind people continue to give a shit about it. It's his personal opinion on it and as much as i don't agree with a lot of his reviews i at least respect him not having your kind of attitude of "well i don't like this but other people do so i should probably give it better score".

 

[Ms.Galaxy]

It's not a case of bumping your score to match other publications, it's a case of setting aside your own biases and factoring in competency and target audience into your review.

See, the problem with that is that my game tastes and reviews are what makes my target audience, which means they want to hear my take and views on a game. There's a reason why reviewers have their names out there, so you know exactly what their tastes are and if they match yours.

You don't know your audience, and your audience doesn't know the game yet. It's pointless trying to predict whether they'll like it or not, beyond whether or not you did. State what you thought of the game, and state why. If your views are incompatible with theirs, the reasons you gave will inform them of that. No need to alter the score you feel best represents your experience with it.

This too.

 

[croten]

It's not a case of bumping your score to match other publications, it's a case of setting aside your own biases and factoring in competency and target audience into your review.

A review score is just a numerical representation of a persons enjoyment with the game. You can't realistically expect anything else

 

[Seik]

No Man's Sky wasn't from Nintendo, so it didn't matter if he dog piled on it.

Nintendo Attack Force going strong today.

 

[UserDoesNotExist]

Exactly, the consistency of scoring something you dislike low gives meaningful context when something surprises you with its quality and overcomes your typical disinterest. If you've been bumping all your FIFA scores to a 7/10, simply because that's what you feel all the other publications are likely to review it as... then what do you score such a game that actually did rate as a 7/10 for you?

Plus, whilst you're busy bumping your scores for games you hate because you're under the strange notion that it's only fair... are you expecting everyone that finds themselves enjoyed it "a bit too much" to be knocking their scores down also?

Wouldn't it make sense to just post your low scores, and then it'll just get countered by all the equally honest high scores that everyone else would be posting anyway. What's even the point in aggregating an average, if every score is expected to be that average in the first place?

To be honest, what makes sense is to not review games in genres you hate in the first place. You're wasting everyone's time (including your own) by doing this.

Conversely, and I know I'm in the minority on this one, but I don't think serious critics should review games in series of which they're fanboys. Bias is a powerful thing.

 

[Synth]

It's not a case of bumping your score to match other publications, it's a case of setting aside your own biases and factoring in competency and target audience into your review.

You don't know your audience, and your audience doesn't know the game yet. It's pointless trying to predict whether they'll like it or not, beyond whether or not you did. State what you thought of the game, and state why. If your views are incompatible with theirs, the reasons you gave will inform them of that. No need to alter the score you feel best represents your experience with it.

To be honest, what makes sense is to not review games in genres you hate in the first place. You're wasting everyone's time (including your own) by doing this.

Conversely, and I know I'm in the minority on this one, but I don't think serious critics should review games in series of which they're fanboys. Bias is a powerful thing.

You don't know that you'll hate a game prior to playing it. Look how many people post on GAF that they typically don't like racing games, but found that they loved Forza Horizon 3. Review from the perspective of someone that doesn't like racers can be extremely useful in highlighting games that may appeal to more than the genre's standard audience.

And if you only review a game because you're predisposed to liking it then the reviews will likely just end up being collections of all the game's positive, without detailing aspects that would likely turn out people less invested in the genre. If I review both Virtua Fighter 5 and Dead or Alive 4.. my review is of far more use to someone that's been playing fighters competitively for a long time, than it is to someone with a far more casual interest in the genre. I'll tell you that Virtua Fighter is a waaaaay better fighter, and give you all sort of mechanical reasons as to why. In my experience with many random gamers though, they'd have enjoyed Dead or Alive 4 more, which I would have reviewed as being comparatively a bit rubbish... and I wouldn't have predicted that before they played it.

 

[styl3s]

It's not a case of bumping your score to match other publications, it's a case of setting aside your own biases and factoring in competency and target audience into your review.

How can you expect reviewers to take their biases out when people can't take their own biases out when reading and responding to the review? This thread and the Zelda one are prime examples of why reviewers should review their own experience and not fluff or take away because they like or don't like a genre or series.

You will never get a truly 100% bias free review.

 

[Skyzard]

Any reports about the PC version and how it runs?

dark10x said 1440p locked 60fps with a 980ti.

btw, kickstarter backers are getting free dlc and they're working on patches now.

 

[Conor_Fool]

dark10x said 1440p 60fps with a 980ti.

btw, kickstarter backers are getting free dlc and they're working on patches now.

Oh helllllllll yes

 

[JamesJoyce1882]

LMAO at all the people defending Jim Sterling again. I like his Jimquisition stuff, but as a reviewer he is best ignored, as he has proven again and again.

It somehow seems to offend the political correctness sensibilities of some if one defends the notion of the possibility of objectivity in the appreciation of art. Yet such a thing absolutely exists. To evoke Godwin's law: Van Gogh was a much better painter than Hitler. People can almost universally agree upon this. Of course individuals are entitled to the opposing opinion, but then I am entitled to ignore them.

 

[Cyanity]

Yooka 👏 Laylee 👏 is 👏 not 👏 a 👏 2

Just watch ACG's review. Completely unbiased and objective analysis of the game's strengths and faults.

 

[JaseC]

Any reports about the PC version and how it runs?

From Cubed3's review:

From a technical performance standpoint, Yooka-Laylee held a very stable 60 frames per second across the entire adventure, with no noticeable dips in performance or any stuttering. There was a slight graphical glitch issue with water, but this seems to be something that will be patched by launch. On the whole, it seems that the PC version, at least for the moment, is the definitive way to play Yooka-Laylee. It looks absolutely gorgeous, with a simple yet elegant art design that echoes the old graphical style very suitably.

While the game was reviewed on a high-end gaming PC, since it was created with Unity, it certainly stands to reason it'll run with no problems on any reasonably current machine.

From PC Gamer's review:

On the performance side, Yooka-Laylee ran at a solid 60 fps on my GTX 970 while at max settings. The options you can adjust are very limited, but thankfully I ran into essentially no performance issues while I played.

And there's also this video from 4 Player Network (PC-specific impressions begin at about the three-minute mark):

I'm not running a very modern PC at all; in fact, my build's about six years old. I've upgraded the graphics card one time, but I'm running a GTX 760, I've got an i7 2600K, and I know those components are holding up pretty well, but this [system] is by no means top-of-the-line and [the game] runs perfectly. I'm capturing footage with OBS running in the background... a lot of modern games would be chugging like crazy on my PC, but this game's running great.

The PC version seems to be the way to go if your system is mid-range or better.

 

[Diprosalic]

7/10 is a decent game, not mediocre. Mediocre is a 5/10 average.

on opencritic 71.5% is the average of all rated games.
this sits at 72%.

a 7/10 is very much average.

(Parappa has 63% and is in the bottom 23.6% of games scored on OpenCritic)

 

[Hoo-doo]

7/10 is a decent game, not mediocre. Mediocre is a 5/10 average.

This simply doesn't work in the world of game reviews.

An Opencritic score of 72 puts it in the top 47.8% of games scored. It's decidedly average and almost the very definition of 'mediocre'.

 

[thenexus6]

If games are rated they should be from 1-5 not 1-10 because anything below 5-10 doesn't even exist so its meaningless.

 

[thatJohann]

Any gameplay footage of Switch version?

 

[Kinsei]

This simply doesn't work in the world of game reviews.

An Opencritic score of 72 puts it in the top 47.8% of games scored. It's decidedly average and almost the very definition of 'mediocre'.

It really doesn't. Most truly bad games don't get reviews from major outlets and that skews the average of sites like Metacritic and Opencritic upwards.

 

[Synth]

If games are rated they should be from 1-5 not 1-10 because anything below 5-10 doesn't even exist so its meaningless.

Yea, but then the same people would try to outlaw using a 1 or 2 on a 5 point scale unless the game kills your family. So we'd end up in the same situation regardless.

 

[Ms.Galaxy]

LMAO at all the people defending Jim Sterling again. I like his Jimquisition stuff, but as a reviewer he is best ignored, as he has proven again and again.

It somehow seems to offend the political correctness sensibilities of some if one defends the notion of the possibility of objectivity in the appreciation of art. Yet such a thing absolutely exists. To evoke Godwin's law: Van Gogh was a much better painter than Hitler. People can almost universally agree upon this. Of course individuals are entitled to the opposing opinion, but then I am entitled to ignore them.

In your opinion, of course. As in artist myself, and someone who went to school to study the arts, I deny objectivity completely in art, it is limiting and there is no facts in art. When some of the most famous works of art in history like this:

are compared equally in praise and in favor to this:

Your objectivity is out the window and has no place in the art world.

 

[KORNdoggy]

You don't know that you'll hate a game prior to playing it. Look how many people post on GAF that they typically don't like racing games, but found that they loved Forza Horizon 3. Review from the perspective of someone that doesn't like racers can be extremely useful in highlighting games that may appeal to more than the genre's standard audience.

bingo!

and this is precisely why i stand by the idea that the best review system would be one written by 2 (or more) people of purposely opposing tastes and with no score system. basically let people read the views of someone not typically into that genre/series and read the views of someone who loves that genre/series. that way your getting a full idea of the games appeal. and in instances were the non-fan ends up loving something, you can get a pretty good idea that it has genuine mass appeal, and similarly, if the fanboy ends up hating something, you can get a pretty good idea that it's a legitimate turd.

 

[tuxfool]

In your opinion, of course. As in artist myself, and someone who went to school to study the arts, I deny objectivity completely in art, it is limiting and there is no facts in art. When some of the most famous works of art in history like this:



are compared equally in praise and in favor to this:



Your objectivity is out the window and has no place in the art world.

I can objectively state that the former covers the canvas better than the latter. Therefore the former is better

 

[DieNgamers]

This simply doesn't work in the world of game reviews.

An Opencritic score of 72 puts it in the top 47.8% of games scored. It's decidedly average and almost the very definition of 'mediocre'.

The overall score is, yes. This number doesn't tell you anything of worth about the game, though. Same with Zelda and its perfect 10s. I still can't believe people are knocking the game for not being perfect when that's something numbers could never communicate.

There used to be times when in German gaming magazines a score of 80% for a game meant it's average or even a disappointment. Numbers often destroy reviews for me. Or at least they don't add anything tangible.

 

[Pineconn]

In your opinion, of course. As in artist myself, and someone who went to school to study the arts, I deny objectivity completely in art, it is limiting and there is no facts in art. When some of the most famous works of art in history like this:



are compared equally in praise and in favor to this:



Your objectivity is out the window and has no place in the art world.

I'd review both pieces a 1/10 because I can't play them.

 

[KORNdoggy]

I can objectively state that the former covers the canvas better than the latter. Therefore the former is better

so better art is simply based on the coverage of the canvas? lol

 

[Hoo-doo]

The overall score is, yes. This number doesn't tell you anything of worth about the game, though. Same with Zelda and its perfect 10s. I still can't believe people are knocking the game for not being perfect when that's something numbers could never communicate.

There used to be times when in German gaming magazines a score of 80% for a game meant it's average or even a disappointment. Numbers mostly often destroy reviews for me. Or at least they don't add anything tangible.

I'm just saying that a 7/10 on Opencritic is decidedly average. Which it is.

It might have various confounders and it might not align with what you feel the game deserves, but that does not take away that the score itself is squarely in the territory of mediocrity.

 

[Ms.Galaxy]

I can objectively state that the former covers the canvas better than the latter. Therefore the former is better

I'd review both pieces a 1/10 because I can't play them.

An both are valid opinions. 8.8/10 for you all.

 

[JaseC]

so better art is simply based on the coverage of the canvas? lol

I think he's jokingly making the artistic equivalent of the "Longer games are inherently better" argument.

 

[Skyzard]

A splatter painter equally revered as Van Gogh. Hard for me to buy that, especially when you use summertime too.

Art is subjective, sure.

 

[DieNgamers]

I'd review both pieces a 1/10 because I can't play them.

Idk, a game (maybe) achieving what it sets out to do should always play into reviews. Personal enjoyment needs to be a factor, too...Of course. It isn't one or the other. If it was, games like Papers Please, GTA V or Witcher III would get either 2-5/10 or 10/10 from me.

 

[Gravy Boat]

Even then he's just wrong. He is terrible at reviewing.
You can't criticise a game for what it isn't.
This game is a spiritual successor to Banjo Kazooie. An N64 Rare style platformer.

If you don't get this you shouldn't write a review. Jim did get it but refused to accept the style of the game. His whole Review is similar to a port begging neogaf thread ..."why is this game like this, why is it not like that blah blah blah"

I still can't believe people trying to defend what he does. Maybe this game is a 5 or 6 for someone but a fucking 2 is a pretty broken game. One of the worst games ever. The metascore shows that Jim is completely wrong....again.
He does this on purpose.

But that's the last time I'm commenting on his reviews. I'm just surprised many people are defending him. And no, this has nothing to do with opinions.

Would you take any reviewer seriously that says Citizen Kane is a 2/10? I'm not comparing this game to Citizen Kane btw, it's just an example.
Of course you wouldn't. And you wouldn't say "Hey, it's your opinion". No it's just a wrong opinion. Maybe the reviewer didn't like the movie but that doesn't mean it's a 2/10. If you're know what you're doing (reviewing movies or games) you'd know this. You can appreciate what a game/movie is achieving even if you don't like it.

How do you not feel deep shame and embarassment when posting? Not just this post specifcially, but almost everything I've seen you post in relation to Jim Sterling and review scores is just incredibly hard to read. I get genuine second-hand embarassment from your posts.

"Maybe the reviewer didn't like the movie but that doesn't mean it's a 2/10."
But it is a 2/10, to the reviewier. In their opinion. There is no objectivity in criticism.

 

[zoukka]

A splatter painter equally revered as Van Gogh. Hard for me to buy that, especially when you use summertime too.

Art is subjective, sure.

Van Gogh was thought to be a complete failure of an artist during his time.

 

[Camjo-Z]

In regards to the worlds, am I right in thinking they're,

Spoiler

1) Aztec temple world
2) crystal ice type place
3) Halloween world
4) casino
5) pirate theme?

Spoiler

The third one is also a swamp and the fifth one has a space theme to it as well but yeah that seems generally correct

 

[Ms.Galaxy]

A splatter painter equally revered as Van Gogh. Hard for me to buy that, especially when you use summertime too.

Art is subjective, sure.

How about Andy Worhal's "Campbells Soup Can", then

Which is literally a painting of a can of Campbell's soup. He was a leading figure in pop art.

 

[The perfect Dark]

How do you not feel deep shame and embarassment when posting? Not just this post specifcially, but almost everything I've seen you post in relation to Jim Sterling and review scores is just incredibly hard to read. I get genuine second-hand embarassment from your posts.

"Maybe the reviewer didn't like the movie but that doesn't mean it's a 2/10."
But it is a 2/10, to the reviewier. In their opinion. There is no objectivity in criticism.

Thank you. You have no idea what you're talking about. Embarrassing.

 

[Grassy]

I'll grab it in a Steam sale, which probably won't be too far away.

 

[PtM]

From what I remember Playtonic was handling the Wii U version and all other (console at least, unsure about PC) versions were being done out of house, so with the Wii U version cancelled hopefully they are doing the Switch version in-house.

Both PC and WiiU. Figures that PC runs best.


Listen to DieNgamers. 👇

 

[DieNgamers]

Say what you will about the guy but I wouldn't really knock Jim Sterling for rating the (or any) game this low.

If you don't usually agree with him on games or what makes games enjoyable and what not you don't even need to care about his opinion. There's absolutely no reason to be offended.

A two is harsh as fuck but I know that it's not a score that many would give it. So what. His review isn't even badly written...I get his critique form his point of view because obviously he has drasticly different tastes than me. Stop hating so much, guys. He maybe doesn't get what Y-K sets out to do or if he does, he certainly doesn't appreciate it.

 

[JaseC]

I'll grab it in a Steam sale, which probably won't be too far away.

The Summer Sale will kick off in June/July. It'll likely get its first discount then.

 

[Gravy Boat]

Thank you. You have no idea what you're talking about. Embarrassing.

Unless your review is a list of features and a frame rate analysis, it's entirely subjective.

But I've read your posts over the past few weeks, I know there's no point in discussing this with you. I just hope that one day you can grow up and realise how silly you're being.