Support NeoGAF

[wonderkins]

Abolish scores.

We can't do that. Even though they are subject to so many qualifications (reviewer tastes, genre considerations, etc.) we must keep them because we have always had them.

Ya know, it's not whether the game is fun or not, or kinda fun; no, it's whether we can assign an ordinal score.

Of course, never compare that score against any other game 'cause remember, different genres, different reviewers, etc.

Pointless. There's only three ratings worth speaking of: good, ok, and not good. Concerning price, I'll determine whether the fun-factor (or lack, thereof) is worth it.

Given the recalcitrance of editors and reviewers to move away from the point based system even with its myriad caveats...there must be something I'm missing. I'd rate myself a 4.6 based on this, with a variance of + or - 8.8.

 

[RyuHayate]

I've seriously given this some more thought...

I no longer think that price actually matters.

If you really look at it, how is it fair to the developers that worked so hard on a stellar piece of software to have their product knocked down a point or two on a publication's review because it costs more than they think it should?

It's not really up to the developer to make the decision as to how the game is priced. Sure, they communicate with the publisher often to discuss various matters (pricing included) but at the end of the day, the publisher is the one making sure the game gets on store shelves and raising public awareness of it.

Therefore, it's only fair for the publisher to decide the price of the title.

Not only that, but consider this:

You pay $60 for, say, God of War 3. A year or two later, the value of the game gets bumped down $30 with its addition to the Great Hits line.

You're discussing the game with a friend and you both love the game immensely and participated in the same exact fun filled experience . Neither one of you mentions exactly how much you paid for it.

Who in their right mind is going to say, "Yeah, it was a lot of fun! But, you know, I did pay a whole hell of a lot for it so that diminishes my enjoyment of it somewhat."

How ridiculous and senseless does that sound?

 

[MMaRsu]

Ok, everybody needs to turn on their rational thinking:

If crap games like Hour of Victory had 100 (crappy) maps and 50 (crappy) game modes and came bundled with a Porsche, would you rate it higher?

Of course not.

Would you rate Hour of Victory higher if it costed $20 less? Would that make the game better?

Remember, reviews reflect the quality of the game. The quality is a constant (of course it will get "lower" with better games out), the price is a variable.

Well if it came bundled with a Porsche for $60 I'd get it

 

[Metalmurphy]

First the amount of features is not a benchmark, it is how the features are done.

I don't think the BF2 comparison is completely valid, BF2 had the name, player base and it is in a totally different setting. And I love BF2... but BF2 is also 2 years old. So you are saying Warhawk is better then a two year old game?

You keep making a fool of yourself. You should stop.

 

[captive]

+ Wonderful selection of maps.
+ Fantastic atmosphere that really adds the to thrill of zipping around in a futuristic aircraft helping your buddies on the ground below.
+ Dedicated servers 24/7 with clan support and stat tracking without the hassle of an annual fee.
+ Open-ended gameplay that pays an homage to the PC series Battlefield will certainly make this game a instant classic for PS3 owners.

Score - 9.0

- I was expecting this game to be $30 over PSN. I knew it was going to be $60 for a disc version with extras including a Bluetooth headset that normally sells for approximately $20. You would think I would draw the conclusion that this game is worth $40, but I pegged my hopes on a $30 pricetag. Due to this artificial limitation I put on my expectations for this game, I have no choice but to deduct one whole point because I can't accept that my expectations as a powerful and influential reviewer for the leading video game magazine have been so thoughtlessly ignored.

-1.0

Final Score - 8.0


Lame.

I think you're giving 1up too much credit there, their review will probably be half as long as that.

 

[itsgreen]

Your problem is you're comparing "a PSN game" by Xbox Live Arcade standards.

Yup. I am. And I'm totally with you if you say that PSN games can be more complex then XBLA games and Warhawk is that. But that was my whole point, without price it is unknown what sort of game it is. All about value.

 

[dralla]

First the amount of features is not a benchmark, it is how the features are done.

I don't think the BF2 comparison is completely valid, BF2 had the name, player base and it is in a totally different setting. And I love BF2... but BF2 is also 2 years old. So you are saying Warhawk is better then a two year old game?

It has nothing to do with player base and name recognition, It's a completely valid comparison. and I <3 BF2

 

[NeXuSDK]

Because different price points should be judged different. Like Ghaleon said, a XBLA arcade game is not a full priced game. They are just a different level of game. A XBLA game has less scope then a boxed game.

And like I said, maybe the problem is that Warhawk is a 'bastard' game. A PSN with personality issues. You tend to judge it like a PSN game, but if it is more expensive then that, it is in another tier of games.

It is just like how you can compare the graphics from a PSP game with a PS3 game. You look at its own merits and what is possible on that console and acknowlidge the limitations. Other wise every PSP game would get a 1/10 in terms of graphics, just like every last gen game.

Now you're talking about not comparing games to other games in it's category. That's not what I'm talking about.

To review a game, you need to compare it to the existing games somehow. This is part of evaluating the QUALITY of the game.

The price is NOT a part of that evaluation.

Would you honestly say that Hour of Victory is a better QUALITY game, if it was priced less? Or is it merely a better price-level for this quality game?

Reviewing is to determine the quality of the game and I cannot stress this enough. If a game is really lacking content, being too short or without replay-value, it should be bashed for that no matter the price. Even small games like Pacman CE can have great replay value and there are several XBLA games that I have enjoyed far more and played for a longer time than regular games. I will not rate them better just because of the cheaper price though.

A good game is a good game no matter the price.

 

[NeXuSDK]

Well if it came bundled with a Porsche for $60 I'd get it

Again, I'm not talking about buying. No doubt it's a good offer.

But honestly: is the game better?

 

[RyuHayate]

Again, I'm not talking about buying. No doubt it's a good offer.

But honestly: is the game better?

Nope.

 

[Kintaro]

As the guy who brought this whole thing up in the Warhawk thread, this thread makes me smile.

Price has no place in game/movies/entertainment reviews (tech product reviews, sure. Different market entirely). It will end up corrupting the review entirely and doing a disservice to the product. For example, I personally feel Castlevania: SoTN for $10 over PSN is too much. Should I hold this fact against the game? Should I give this game a thumbs down knowing full well the game is outstanding and a classic because I don't want to pay $10 for it? No. People will decide that on their own after reading the review on the product itself.

What about God of War? I finished the game in one day and paid $50 for it. That's not much value there is it? I should give it a 7 tops because it only lasted me one day, two at max. Would doing so give an accurate view of the game? No.

What if I personally don't feel ANY game is worth $60 for PS3/360, $50 for PS2/Wii, $40 for PSP or $30-40 for DS? How screwed up would those reviews turn out?

"Zelda: Phantom Hourglass is a wonderful game, but I just don't feel it's worth the asking price. If it was $10 cheaper, it would be at just the right spot. 7/10."

In this market (movies/books/games), I don't like it. People will determine how much it's worth on their own. Don't insult them by pandering your value standards to them.

 

[itsgreen]

Now you're talking about not comparing games to other games in it's category. That's not what I'm talking about.

To review a game, you need to compare it to the existing games somehow. This is part of evaluating the QUALITY of the game.

The price is NOT a part of that evaluation.

Would you honestly say that Hour of Victory is a better QUALITY game, if it was priced less? Or is it merely a better price-level for this quality game?

Reviewing is to determine the quality of the game and I cannot stress this enough. If a game is really lacking content, being too short or without replay-value, it should be bashed for that no matter the price. Even small games like Pacman CE can have great replay value and there are several XBLA games that I have enjoyed far more and played for a longer time than regular games. I will not rate them better just because of the cheaper price though.

A good game is a good game no matter the price.

Maybe the problem is that I expect a value proposition in a review. I expect to know if a game is worth it. Not just if it is a proper game.

Atleast it should be clear what you will get from the game. And what the price is.

 

[theBishop]

Yup. I am. And I'm totally with you if you say that PSN games can be more complex then XBLA games and Warhawk is that. But that was my whole point, without price it is unknown what sort of game it is. All about value.

Sorry, your statement doesn't reflect that.

maybe the problem is that Warhawk is a 'bastard' game. A PSN with personality issues. You tend to judge it like a PSN game, but if it is more expensive then that, it is in another tier of games.

When PSN is getting full-featured products like LittleBigPlanet, GT5: Prologue, Socom Confrontation, Wipeout HD, I don't see how WarHawk is a sore thumb or a 'bastard game'.

You need to reevaluate your view of what it means to be a downloadable game. Hell, Half-Life 2 was a downloadable game.

 

[AstroLad]

The price is NOT a part of that evaluation.

To you it isn't, but as evidenced by this thread some people want games to be judged based on relative value as well (and not just XBOT$). I'm with you; afaic within current price ranges (almost) literally all I care about is whether a game is good or not, but I don't see why you're so puzzled at people who have a different mindset than you regarding what they're looking for in reviews and what they want the scope of reviews to be.

This thread just continues to mostly be "I want/don't want value to be a part of reviews, and that perspective is objectively and universally the superior one. It's like watching two brick walls debate each other.

 

[Metalmurphy]

To you it isn't, but as evidenced by this thread some people want games to be judged based on relative value as well (and not just XBOT$). I'm with you; afaic within current price ranges (almost) literally all I care about is whether a game is good or not, but I don't see why you're so puzzled at people who have a different mindset than you regarding what they're looking for in reviews and what they want the scope of reviews to be.

In that case the headset should be a factor too. Which it isn't.

 

[GhaleonEB]

If an organization like 1up/EGM says that price is an important factor in their scoring of a game, then that's exactly what they should do. The problem is consistency, more than anything else.

Agreed. It's an interesting dilemma and could force review sites with a policy on the issue, like 1up apparently has, to either re-think it or more clearly articulate it. Either way, I think the way Warhawk is unintentionally forcing this issue will ultimately be a good thing.

 

[wonderkins]

And it's a sad state of affairs if someone like Ghaleon believes he must tread lightly in certain threads.

Deepblue and whatever Sony fan had the common hemroid flareup today, yeah they can suck the back-end of a baby with the runs.

But reasonable people on either side should not fear console-specific threads. Sorry; I'm off the soapbox now. Sorry.

 

[Firewire]

Yup. I am. And I'm totally with you if you say that PSN games can be more complex then XBLA games and Warhawk is that. But that was my whole point, without price it is unknown what sort of game it is. All about value.

WTF! Thats what the damn review is for! You know were there supposed to talk about the game, its features & game play. Price doesn't need to be mentioned at all.

 

[Effulgence]

that would be stupid, I was in the beta and that game doesn't deserve to be docked points even if it was full price, it was one of the best online games I have ever played.

pretty much agree with this.

 

[itsgreen]

Sorry, your statement doesn't reflect that.



When PSN is getting full-featured products like LittleBigPlanet, GT5: Prologue, Socom Confrontation, Wipeout HD, I don't see how WarHawk is a sore thumb or a 'bastard game'.

You need to reevaluate your view of what it means to be a downloadable game. Hell, Half-Life 2 was a downloadable game.

LBP and GT5 are full products in my opinion, I can't help thinking of Socom and Wipeout as lesser games. Maybe it is just because Sony is yelling to hard they are full games, 'but now on PSN'. And the games don't really show it.

But I haven't played any of those games yet, so I don't know. All I know is that I want price taken into account in a review. I want to know if a game is worth it.

 

[Darji]

Sorry, your statement doesn't reflect that.



When PSN is getting full-featured products like LittleBigPlanet, GT5: Prologue, Socom Confrontation, Wipeout HD, I don't see how WarHawk is a sore thumb or a 'bastard game'.

You need to reevaluate your view of what it means to be a downloadable game. Hell, Half-Life 2 was a downloadable game.

Word! This ist not a stupid small PSN game. Its a full price worth multiplayer shooter like battlefield.

 

[B-Ri]

Warhawk is a full featured online game, PSN downloadable for at or LESS then $35.

Warhawk is a full featured online game, Retail priced wiht a bluetooth headset at $60.

if people dont want to get the retail one, they can just download it. "But what if they cant?" then they shouldnt be playing the game cause its online only.

Should it be docked in review? if it was $60 yes, but when its less then most Wii games, absolutely not.

 

[NeXuSDK]

Maybe the problem is that I expect a value proposition in a review. I expect to know if a game is worth it. Not just if it is a proper game.

Atleast it should be clear what you will get from the game. And what the price is.

It should be clear what you get from the game no doubt, and if the reviewer has an actual problem with lack of content in releation to lasting appeal, it should detract. But remember quantity doesn't equal quality and some games are played for hours upon hours without that much content.

But game reviews could indeed contain a Value score, but I think it should be a seperate score then. Simply because a game doesn't get better or worse in itself by the price. As Kintaro pointed out, that could even mean that all games would get reduced scores if the reviewer didn't like the current price point.

 

[Ploid 3.0]

And like I said, maybe the problem is that Warhawk is a 'bastard' game. A PSN with personality issues. You tend to judge it like a PSN game, but if it is more expensive then that, it is in another tier of games.

PSN isn't xbla or virtual console. PSN is used to deliver games of all kinds not just 500mb or less. PS2/dvd sized games may start appearing on psn. Should they be judged as arcade/small games?

So what, warhawks single player campaign was abandonded and the multiplayer aspect was beefed up and got major attention. That must have allowed it to fit in a downloadable size compaired to other PS3 games I'm guessing (700mb for beta not sure how many skins were available to be unlockable). The game looks beautiful, locked framerate, nice effects/physics, it's a full current gen package. Why not shoot to have it on PSN? They don't have to spend money to put them in store shelves, shipping, and they never run out of supply. They can sell it on PSN forever. What's bad about that?

 

[DyTonic]

They are reviewing a game not the price, it's simple -_-.

 

[itsgreen]

They are reviewing a game not the price, it's simple -_-.

I would like to think they are reviewing the total package.

 

[Apharmd Battler]

Oh goodness...this argument again. Now everyone is up in arms because they actually like this game?! [j/k]

 

[AstroLad]

In that case the headset should be a factor too. Which it isn't.

As I've said before, I'm discussing the principle of including a value component in reviews not this particular instance of it. I'll leave the conspiracy theory talk and highly detailed analysis of this particular review to the dozens of people that seem to enjoy discussing it far more than I do.

 

[Woo-Fu]

A reviewer can't tell me if a game is worth it based upon price.

That reviewer doesn't know how much disposable income I have.
That reviewer doesn't know what other entertainment options I have.
That reviewer doesn't know what those other options cost where I live.

The review can provide the information about the game that I need to decide if game X is worth amount Y, but it can't make that decision for me.

The price of the game should not be a factor in the score, it is pretty much ridiculous.

If I was broke, would that suddenly mean I have to give every game a rating of zero since I can't afford to play them?

 

[Firewire]

Damn the real question we should be asking is this...

If Warhawk was a 360 game exactly the same, offered in the exact same manner, and 1up couldn't get MS to reveal the price, would 1up even mention any of this? Would we be talking about this? Don't think so!

 

[Jon_Danger]

I thought this was interesting

"Joe Rybicki actually placed a note in his review to EGM Reviews Editor Greg Ford that his score should be dropped a whole point if the price was announced above $30"

http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3161677

For comparative purposes, Shadow run scored an 8.0 (http://www.1up.com/do/reviewPage?cId=3160101). Shadowrun had 9 maps and 2 modes, it retailed for $60. As opposed to Warhawk which has 25 maps and 5 modes, retails for $60 with blue tooth headset, PSN price TBA.

Should games be knocked down because of price?

Completely, games should be knocked down points for price

If the content isn't worth the pricetag, that is bad

 

[antiloop]

Damn the real question we should be asking is this...

If Warhawk was a 360 game exactly the same, offered in the exact same manner, and 1up couldn't get MS to reveal the price, would 1up even mention any of this? Would we be talking about this? Don't think so!

Exactly. This wouldn't even be mentioned.

 

[Effulgence]

I don't see whats wrong with reviewing the game then putting a note in the conclusion about if they think it is worth it for the price.

It's like when PS3 came out and half the reviews you read said "THIS IS NOT WORTH PAYING $600 FOR A CONSOLE". What the **** does that have to do with the game?

 

[itsgreen]

Damn the real question we should be asking is this...

If Warhawk was a 360 game exactly the same, offered in the exact same manner, and 1up couldn't get MS to reveal the price, would 1up had even mentioned any of this? Would we be talking about this? Don't think so!

rofl. conspiracy ftw.

I like to think it would. I am pretty sure MS got flak for the horse armor update, and lesser Arcade games with 800-1200 pt price.

Or atleast I give them flak when they come up with Sensible Soccer for 800 pts. Great game, just not worth it, I think.

 

[Patrick Klepek]

The best part about this whole situation: people are talking about how reviews should be handled, just as we've been debating within the office as Warhawk rolled in. In the end, that's what it's about, that's why I published the story. Conspiracy theorists may continue on their merry way.

 

[tribal24]

Damn the real question we should be asking is this...

If Warhawk was a 360 game exactly the same, offered in the exact same manner, and 1up couldn't get MS to reveal the price, would 1up even mention any of this? Would we be talking about this? Don't think so!

sounds about right:lol

 

[Oni Jazar]

The game has more features than Battlefield 2 which was $50

Whoa there cowboy. Battlefield 1 maybe but BF2 (For PC at least I didn't play the console version) had a lot of features Warhawk doesn't. Squads, commanders, more vehicles, maps, etc.

 

[Jon_Danger]

Damn the real question we should be asking is this...

If Warhawk was a 360 game exactly the same, offered in the exact same manner, and 1up couldn't get MS to reveal the price, would 1up even mention any of this? Would we be talking about this? Don't think so!

It definitely would, shadowrun got so much flak for the pricing.

 

[AltogetherAndrews]

The best part about this whole situation: people are talking about how reviews should be handled, just as we've been debating within the office as Warhawk rolled in. In the end, that's what it's about, that's why I published the story. Conspiracy theorists may continue on their merry way.

Write great reviews and the whole price vs value deal would be a non-issue. It's that simple.

 

[itsgreen]

Whoa there cowboy. Battlefield 1 maybe but BF2 (For PC at least I didn't play the console version) had a lot of features Warhawk doesn't. Squads, commanders, more vehicles, maps, etc.

Console game was Modern Warfare or something, and was not talking about that also.

 

[kaching]

Damn the real question we should be asking is this...

If Warhawk was a 360 game exactly the same, offered in the exact same manner, and 1up couldn't get MS to reveal the price, would 1up even mention any of this? Would we be talking about this? Don't think so!

Let's drop that angle, please. 1up isn't the only organization that factors price into review score, whether that's institutionalized as policy or not. 1up decided to put the issue on the table in a more explicit way than it's been addressed in the past.

 

[Solar]

Warhawk is a full featured online game, PSN downloadable for at or LESS then $35.

Warhawk is a full featured online game, Retail priced wiht a bluetooth headset at $60.

if people dont want to get the retail one, they can just download it. "But what if they cant?" then they shouldnt be playing the game cause its online only.

Should it be docked in review? if it was $60 yes, but when it costs less then most Wii games, absolutely not.

fixd
Now we are getting somewhere,
Warhawk with more value than tictactoe carrot chopper repeat 40x time mini game collection confirmed.

I agree

 

[I AM JOHN!]

I can't believe some of the stupidity that's going on in this thread.

PRICE = VALUE, AND THIS IS UN-****ING-DEBATABLE

Wanna know how I know this? Because value is subjective, and determined by many factors, such as how much bang you get for your buck. Obviously, Joe Rybicki thinks that the game is fun, but doesn't provide as much value at $40 than it would at $30. It's as simple as that. Much like Nick Sutter (the guy who reviewed Shadowrun for 1UP) thought that said game provided enough value for his $60, while the other EGM reviewers (Shoe and someone else) thought it wasn't. Reviews are subjective; value is subjective. Simple.

It's unreal how the lot of you think that gaming should take place in a goddamn vaccum; that the only thing that should be considered about a game is how fun it is. Let's look at Katamari Damacy - it's a great game, sure, but would you have paid full price for it? I sure wouldn't have. And do you really think that it would've been so well-regarded had it not been $20? No chance in hell, as the majority of reviews mentioned that it's a great deal at that price. Simply put, price, like many things, is part of value, and trying to say that you think the game shouldn't be scored down for it because you think that the game is enough of a value is absolutely ridiculous.

Thanks again for raising my blood pressure through the roof, GAF.

 

[svenuce]

I wonder if they would deduct points from Guitar Hero for price?

Guitars and bluetooth headsets have value too.

You effectively got the game for $30 with a headset you paid $30 for.

 

[AstroLad]

Now we are getting somewhere,
Warhawk with more value than tictactoe carrot chopper repeat 40x time mini game collection confirmed.

I agree

We're definitely getting somewhere.

 

[Patrick Klepek]

Let's drop that angle, please. 1up isn't the only organization that factors price into review score, whether that's institutionalized as policy or not. 1up decided to put the issue on the table in a more explicit way than it's been addressed in the past.

It mostly brings into question how you go about doing these reviews. GameSpot started reviewing Virtual Console titles and people weren't exactly happy with that. 1UP decided on a "thumbs up, thumbs down" approach, which people seem to have liked. With a game like Warhawk, which is technically a retail product but more of a bundle, reviewers were left wondering what approach to take. What is the middle road?

 

[dionysus]

The best part about this whole situation: people are talking about how reviews should be handled, just as we've been debating within the office as Warhawk rolled in. In the end, that's what it's about, that's why I published the story. Conspiracy theorists may continue on their merry way.

So some on the 1up staff feel that price shouldn't factor in the score? If so, who?, cause they are now my favorite reviewers. I hope its Mangod.

 

[The S-Word]

I don't think points should be docked but i definitely think it should be mentioned in the review if the person thinks it's worth the money. If a game cost $60 and had no more content than an NES game i'd think it's worth mentioning. I love Shadowrun but i always make it a point to tell people that it's really not worth paying the full price for... but it's a great game.

 

[itsgreen]

I can't believe some of the stupidity that's going on in this thread.

PRICE = VALUE, AND THIS IS UN-****ING-DEBATABLE

Wanna know how I know this? Because value is subjective, and determined by many factors, such as how much bang you get for your buck. Obviously, Joe Rybicki doesn't think that the game is fun, but doesn't provide as much value at $40 than it would at $30. It's as simple as that. Much like Nick Sutter (the guy who reviewed Shadowrun for 1UP) thought that said game provided enough value for his $60, while the other EGM reviewers (Shoe and someone else) thought it wasn't. Reviews are subjective; value is subjective. Simple.

It's unreal how the lot of you think that gaming should take place in a goddamn vaccum; that the only thing that should be considered about a game is how fun it is. Let's look at Katamari Damacy - it's a great game, sure, but would you have paid full price for it? I sure wouldn't have. And do you really think that it would've been so well-regarded had it not been $20? No chance in hell, as the majority of reviews mentioned that it's a great deal at that price. Simply put, price, like many things, is part of value, and trying to say that you think the game shouldn't be scored down for it because you think that the game is enough of a value is absolutely ridiculous.

Thanks again for raising my blood pressure through the roof, GAF.

word.

 

[Oni Jazar]

The best part about this whole situation: people are talking about how reviews should be handled, just as we've been debating within the office as Warhawk rolled in. In the end, that's what it's about, that's why I published the story. Conspiracy theorists may continue on their merry way.

Forget the conspiracy nuts, I think the people in this thread, whether they feel that price should be a factor in a review or not, think that Joe Rybicki's commets about droping the score if the game costs more then some arbitrary amount is dumb.