*reads UK bias shitposts*
*grinds teeth*
Yep. I might just paste this every time it happens.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=30519535&postcount=154
*reads UK bias shitposts*
*grinds teeth*
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=28467354&postcount=152
edit: it's also worth noting that they have admitted to being less harsh in recent years. I don't know why, but it's not worth comparing newer scores to older for this reason. A shame really, the old way felt better to me, I don't really need my purchases to be 9/10.
I don't have a dog in the fight, or care one way or another. It's just funny to me how sentiment about something can be completely different when a game actually comes out and is reviewed compared to before it came out. So yeah, it's not only shocking and entertaining when MGS 3DS gets an 8 somewhere, but does well compared to competitor games. People were comparing the game to how the original looked on PSONE. Apparently they fixed it, or someone just likes the game itself to ignore any graphical flaws. It's no different than reacting to a sales thread or whatever else.
edit: it's also worth noting that they have admitted to being less harsh in recent years. I don't know why, but it's not worth comparing newer scores to older for this reason. A shame really, the old way felt better to me, I don't really need my purchases to be 9/10.
Writers only need to be consistent with themselves. Believing there needs to be a consistency throughout a publication's run with many writers is stupid.
Writers only need to be consistent with themselves. Believing there needs to be a consistency throughout a publication's run with many writers is stupid.
I agree about the consistency BTW - it's just funny when someone brings up one type of game compared to another type of game, it's pick and choose when history should count.
I don't think it's even that. The text is, as always, far more important, but my opinion is that scores are a zeitgeist thing, they're only relevant for the generation they're in at the most, and maybe less than that, given how knowledge of systems improve over time.
The problem with Edge is that it doesn't print the names of the writers at the end of the reviews, instead preferring to hide behind the whole "collective entity" bullshit.Writers only need to be consistent with themselves. Believing there needs to be a consistency throughout a publication's run with many writers is stupid.
WipEout 2048 – 8
Can anyone recall the last game that Edge rated 20% higher than the Metacritic average? Or is Neverdead the first?
The problem with Edge is that it doesn't print the names of the writers at the end of the reviews, instead preferring to hide behind the whole "collective entity" bullshit.
The problem with Edge is that it doesn't print the names of the writers at the end of the reviews, instead preferring to hide behind the whole "collective entity" bullshit.
Why is it bullshit? Do you think a publications GotY is bullshit because you don't see the voting procedure?
Writers only need to be consistent with themselves. Believing there needs to be a consistency throughout a publication's run with many writers is stupid.
I like to know who is writing the reviews I'm reading. If they come out with a nonsense review I don't agree with then I'll know to avoid them in future.Why is it bullshit? Do you think a publications GotY is bullshit because you don't see the voting procedure?
It's the best written magazine in the industry. This and retrogamer are both fantastic magazines. whether you agree with the scores or not.This is why I think Edge is a shitty magazine.
I think they are bullshit long before this becomes an issue.
I like to know who is writing the reviews I'm reading. If they come out with a nonsense review I don't agree with then I'll know to avoid them in future.
Sorry, but comparing it to GOTY voting is just stupid. One person scoring a game, and many people voting for a choice of games are completely different processes.
Can anyone recall the last game that Edge rated 20% higher than the Metacritic average? Or is Neverdead the first?
Yeah I know that, this isn't my first visit to an EDGE thread on Gaf (something to do with fighting -game reviews, right?).
One person scoring a game
Wow, that's even worse.That's not how Edge works anyway, one principle reviewer will play the game fully and propose the text and score, and discuss it with his peers and (obviously) his editor as well. It's why they generally say 'we' in reference to most subjects.
Edge are very well known for using the entire scale
Closest I could find of a summary of their wrpg scores is from Nirolak last year
So yeah, not their favorite genre. They also gave ME2 a 10 to further prove my point
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=28465561&postcount=51
I'm talking about GotY procedures for publications. Go look at Giant Bomb's for example. They are unrealistic, silly concepts to begin with, but made worse if they are not broken down so comparisons can even be logical.
I always find Edge threads so fascinating to read. The amount of complaining I see about the 8-10 scale would have anyone believe some of you guys actually wanted game journos to use the full 1-10. Edge are very well known for using the entire scale, 5 does't mean "total shit, avoid at all costs" it means "okay, probably only for fans". I feel weird for even explaining that. I don't see anything in the OP that's terribly shocking if you consider it on a true 1-10 scale, except for maybe Amalur.
SWTOR got an 8 in this issue. Or are we only talking about single player RPGs? I don't really think of that as a genre in itself.
That wasn't my point, why is it ok to have a GotY decided by committee, but not a review score?
I'm not sure I understand. You can absolutely define a genre of games composed of games with similar premises and gameplay conceits that is also singleplayer. I'm just not sure what it would be called -- it'd probably have 'western' and 'RPG/CRPG' in the name.
So.. MGS2 scored an 8, MGS3 scored an 8, MGS4 scored an 8, Peace Walker scored a 9 and MGS3 3D scores an 8.
I don't think Edge's scores for MGS games are really something someone can trust.
Cover, Back and Tease:
I'm going with a feature on the TF2 store and item creationaw shit tf2012 is comin
Cover, Back and Tease:
If you give Skyward Sword a 10, you can't be trusted period.
Shock horror but not everybody has the same view on SS that you do.
Won't post it all, but the last paragraph is:What's the Snake Eater review say?
Packed with detail, both in terms of it's environments and mechanics, this is a game that pays back investment in spades. MGS3 is a moden classic - the tighest, smartest and most emotional journey in the series - and even the HD update doesn't look as good as this portable treatment 8/10
Won't post it all, but the last paragraph is:
I can't think of a corollary: "Single player FPS" isn't considered a genre, to my knowledge; "Single Player Platformer" is not considered a genre; "Single player puzzle game" isn't either, and so forth.
That does not mean that one cannot exist, of course. Just that I can't think of one that does. What would be the functional distinction between single player and multiplayer to warrant the division?
Yes, this makes a lot of sense.
Also, you forgot the 8 Wipeout 2048 got.
There are genuine, honest-to-goodness, objectively terrible design decisions in that game, though. It's an alarming amount for Nintendo too.
I guess the low-res textures don't look so bad on a small screen, and the 3D might be well implemented. I would like to read the whole review, but I might be putting in a preorder now...It looks better than the HD version?
GAF imploding in 3, 2, 1...
Maybe we're running into a taxonomy problem. For puzzle games, I could think immediately of Tetris (as well as many other games). You can narrow it down and say 'block-dropping puzzle game' or even further and say (unique to Tetris' case): 'Tetris game'. Which of these specifically is the genre, which is a subgenre, and which is a super-genre? If we can't even agree on the meaning of 'genre' then maybe we should table the discussion altogether, as we're unprepared.
Now this is easier to single out, and it's worth noting that multiplayer itself can be broken down into meaningful specifiers. Co-op or competitive multiplayer (a huge difference between the two, at that)? I imagine that we're distinguishing between co-op multiplayer vs. singleplayer games, as the differences between competitive and the other two are pretty great. Also, I'll focus on games that have some sort of campaign, as opposed to cooperative/singleplayer arenas.
First of all, I'd argue that the presence of players, by itself, creates a large functional distinction. Second, and this is especially important for RPGs, the interaction with the story. The Baldur Gate games could be played online, in co-op. The story didn't support this, though, since there could be only one protagonist. Neverwinter Nights, on the other hand, did allow it, and as a result the story was written with a lot of indefinite articles.