OrbitalBeard
Member
Unless Mario Odyssey all of a sudden has a story like Witcher 3, it can't score a 10/10...I'm not sure if any game can. And that's a problem.
Guys.
Tell me this is a meme? A joke? Sarcasm?
Please?
Unless Mario Odyssey all of a sudden has a story like Witcher 3, it can't score a 10/10...I'm not sure if any game can. And that's a problem.
The irony is palpable.I mean, perfect, unless you're talking about God, is sort of a nebulous term. It's up for interpretation of the reviewer.
I am brainstorming how to revise our methodology because if we just scored with one overall score, this rubric would be perfect.
Unless Mario Odyssey all of a sudden has a story like Witcher 3, it can't score a 10/10...I'm not sure if any game can. And that's a problem.
I hope it is because the whole "my subjective opinion is objectively the only right one" is dumb :-/Guys.
Tell me this is a meme? A joke? Sarcasm?
Please?
10/10 is I cannot find even one thing wrong, and thus, cannot imagine how this could be better. Perfection. GOAT status.
10 is not perfect.
I wasn't aware a story was a requirement for a game to be 10/10.
The review thread is gonna be nuts.
Guys.
Tell me this is a meme? A joke? Sarcasm?
Please?
If you read his post, he is talking about his review system, and how Super Mario Odyssey, which doesn't focus on story, exposes fundamental issues with his review system (basically, a game alleged as good as SMO cannot get a high score because it cannot be scored for story). So, it's not sarcasm or anything, it's a discussion on how difficult it is to create a decent review system.
If you read his post, he is talking about his review system, and how Super Mario Odyssey, which doesn't focus on story, exposes fundamental issues with his review system (basically, a game alleged as good as SMO cannot get a high score because it cannot be scored for story). So, it's not sarcasm or anything, it's a discussion on how difficult it is to create a decent review system.
I don't know about anyone else, but 10 to me just means "fucking hell folks, you HAVE to play this". All a score is is just the reviewer's emotional reaction to a game, balanced against any annoying parts there may have been, and then considered against how likely this reaction is to be shared en masse (though that last part is probably not even that important).
It's an enormously positive feeling during and after a game that isn't deflated by deficits. It's simple.
6+Pi/10 is the most i can give to a game.
Which is why review score systems are pointless. If a game comes out that makes you adjust your scale, then your scale was bunk to begin with. I think review scores are a net negative and they hurt more than they help, but if you must use one, making it attempt to be a rating of the games inherent quality is fundamentally flawed. Instead, make it about you measure of recommendation for a game. In which case a 10/10 doesnt mean a game is flawless it means you may not like this, but I loved it and you should drop everything youre doing and at least try this NOW.If you read his post, he is talking about his review system, and how Super Mario Odyssey, which doesn't focus on story, exposes fundamental issues with his review system (basically, a game alleged as good as SMO cannot get a high score because it cannot be scored for story). So, it's not sarcasm or anything, it's a discussion on how difficult it is to create a decent review system.
I know. I was saying for those who think that way, they need to adjust their thinking. If they're unwilling to consider 10 as "among the best games at the time," then apparently they need to pretend games are scored on a different point scale.
If you have a grading point scale and it's impossible for anything to achieve the maximum possible points, then something is wrong with your scale.
If you read his post, he is talking about his review system, and how Super Mario Odyssey, which doesn't focus on story, exposes fundamental issues with his review system (basically, a game alleged as good as SMO cannot get a high score because it cannot be scored for story). So, it's not sarcasm or anything, it's a discussion on how difficult it is to create a decent review system.
I think the idea that you have to score a game for every separate aspect is erroneous. As some here jokingly refer to, many of the best and most popular games don't have story at all (chess and Minecraft are examples of that). so using story as a necessary part of a review is a bad idea I think. The different forms that video games can take make a movie-like review impossible: video games do not need a story per se, while a movie does. Creating a review system that takes story as a requirement for video games is therefore bound to unfairly treat certain games. That's why imo it is best not to let your review system go up to the score denoting perfection, because at that point things get very nebulous and question like "why doesn't this thing that is otherwise 'perfect' not have a story? Can it then be perfect?" A review system that goes up to "uniquely high quality" allows for an interpretation of a game without story as being so great in the gameplay department as to still warrant a 10 even without a story.I mean, perfect, unless you're talking about God, is sort of a nebulous term. It's up for interpretation of the reviewer.
In the rubric I developed for my team (abridged):
I am brainstorming how to revise our methodology because if we just scored with one overall score, this rubric would be perfect. But we assign individual scores based upon three categories, and they are averaged into an overall: story, gameplay, and presentation (graphics/music/sound).
Unless Mario Odyssey all of a sudden has a story like Witcher 3, it can't score a 10/10...I'm not sure if any game can. And that's a problem.
Just use your gut. Boom, 'review system' solved.
I think this post highlights the issue with the review system you have lined out: your review system focuses on certain set features a game allegedly should have, instead of determining the score based on the quality of the actual package itself.If you focus on the scoring rather than the actual quality of the review and what you have you have to say, [redacted for unnecessary offence]
Damn. Another high score in the Super Mario franchise. Even though i find it too high (no game deserves a 10 in my opinion), I understand the enthousiasm.
That shots fired line about dead trees is just great. "Have those people not figured out how to monetize blogs yet!?"
Yeah this looks a good bit better graphically than anything we've seen so far can't exactly place what it is making look better, wonder if it's just the lighting or the wizards at Nintendo actually managed a last second resolution bump to 1080pNew long gameplay from the final build of the game. Looks beautiful.
https://youtu.be/zIXfgyDMy1E
You can tell the lighting has improved a lot.
10 out of 10 millimeterMy official score: I liked the game thiiiiiiiiis much.
Don't @ me.
So the review scale goes from 6 to 9 now? Good to know.
That's daft.
What about the games worth 7+(e^2/2), huh?
Unless Mario Odyssey all of a sudden has a story like Witcher 3, it can't score a 10/10...I'm not sure if any game can. And that's a problem.
Unless Mario Odyssey all of a sudden has a story like Witcher 3, it can't score a 10/10...I'm not sure if any game can. And that's a problem.
I mean, perfect, unless you're talking about God, is sort of a nebulous term. It's up for interpretation of the reviewer.
Unless Mario Odyssey all of a sudden has a story like Witcher 3, it can't score a 10/10...I'm not sure if any game can. And that's a problem.
Alright. Is there any other game developer who stirs more ire from its games getting reviewed so highly?
The said part is that this all stems from A SINGLE REVIEW. For all we know the rest of the industry could hate it. I see one of two scenarios:
1) Industry rates the game simiarly to Edge: the industry is bias towards Nintendo
2) Industry rates the games lower than Edge: I knew Edge was bias
Its a total damned if you do and damned if you dont scenario and Im not sure this happens with any other developer.
For whats it worth, Edge and Eurogamer are the two outlets whose opinions I truly seek out.
Biased*
Sorry, pet peeve.
I'm probably the biggest Mario fan on the board, but I have to say, I think Edge is letting the hype get to them. I'm sure the game will be good, but I think everyone needs to ease their expectations.
Alright. Is there any other game developer who stirs more ire from its games getting reviewed so highly?
The said part is that this all stems from A SINGLE REVIEW. For all we know the rest of the industry could hate it. I see one of two scenarios:
1) Industry rates the game simiarly to Edge: the industry is bias towards Nintendo
2) Industry rates the games lower than Edge: I knew Edge was bias
Its a total damned if you do and damned if you dont scenario and Im not sure this happens with any other developer.
For whats it worth, Edge and Eurogamer are the two outlets whose opinions I truly seek out.
Oh, I think it simply comes for the loud passionate fanbase that draws the ire of others. Anecdotally, Nintendo fans really seem to be hung up on "best games of the generation" (Ie BotW, or Mario...or whatever). As in BotW is the best game ever made, or some sheet like that.Alright. Is there any other game developer who stirs more ire from its games getting reviewed so highly?
The said part is that this all stems from A SINGLE REVIEW. For all we know the rest of the industry could hate it. I see one of two scenarios:
1) Industry rates the game simiarly to Edge: the industry is bias towards Nintendo
2) Industry rates the games lower than Edge: I knew Edge was bias
Its a total damned if you do and damned if you dont scenario and Im not sure this happens with any other developer.
For whats it worth, Edge and Eurogamer are the two outlets whose opinions I truly seek out.
It's not an exclusive, and is not a Switch+Nintendo game... Welcome to Neogaf.Man, I sure hope all the "no game deserves a 10!" people make that argument in every review thread for a game and not just Nintendo ones.
I couldn't find a single person complaining about Witcher 3 getting a perfect score in its 90+ page review thread. I wonder what the difference could be there?????
Oh, I think it simply comes for the loud passionate fanbase that draws the ire of others. Anecdotally, Nintendo fans really seem to be hung up on "best games of the generation" (Ie BotW, or Mario...or whatever). As in BotW is the best game ever made, or some sheet like that.
So the review scale goes from 6 to 9 now? Good to know.
The bundle also contains a carrying case for the Switch, which explains the price difference. You won't a price reduction (at most a dollar or two), but you're not paying more (if you actually want the carrying case, that is).Nintendo Switch = 400 CAD $
Super Mario Odyssey = 80 CAD $
Nintendo Switch Pro Controller = 90 CAD $
Total = 655 CAD $
Or
Nintendo Switch Console - Super Mario Odyssey Edition = 500 CAD $
Nintendo Switch Pro Controller = 90 CAD $
Total = 678 CAD $
The Bundle is pricier... NICE !
Guess I'll wait, that's way too much money... For a Nintendo Console with 1 Mario game.
50+ pages on a single review? I love it. Review thread is gonna be nuts!
Oh, I think it simply comes for the loud passionate fanbase that draws the ire of others. Anecdotally, Nintendo fans really seem to be hung up on "best games of the generation" (Ie BotW, or Mario...or whatever). As in BotW is the best game ever made, or some sheet like that.
This is 2017's ultimate game. None will surpass it.